sidered simply as an "inducement" to the creditor to do his duty. I cannot suppose that Congress withheld five millions on such pretext, because, if I did, I must necessarily consider that Congress, in enacting that proviso, intended to act dishonestly as regards Texas.

Certainly the "inducement" was not likely to have this effect; for it is not probable that Texas, on the assumption that she needed such inducement, would pay twelve millions of dollars, (the amount of her debts for which her imports were mortgaged,) in order to receive five millions from the United States.

It is clear to me, however, looking merely at the language of the proviso, and remembering the occasion of it, that Congress designed to save the United States harmless from ultimate liability, as also to protect the creditors from loss, and that this anxiety sprang from a settled conviction that the United States, having appropriated the security of the creditors, was liable to them in respect of it; and that, being so liable, Congress was justified in providing means to indemnify the United States from loss. So far, then, from thinking that the commissioners have nothing to do with this act, I consider it is incumbent upon us to consider it carefully. To my mind, it furnishes authoritative evidence, of the most conclusive description, of the very proper mode in which the Congress of the United States have considered the position of the creditors of Texas, not only with respect to the specific pledge to them of the duties on imports, but also of their position and their rights as against the United States, consequent on and subsequent to the appropriation of those duties to themselves by the United States. It follows, therefore, in my judgment, that this fifth, as also all the preceding assertions of the United States agent, ought not to be sustained, and that this commission have full jurisdiction over the claim.

Looking also at the fact that the moneys advanced by Mr. Holford for the purposes mentioned in the agreement of October 24, 1848, were secured by the terms of the law of May 16, 1838, by a pledge of all the revenues of Texas; that the bonds so given, as a further security for the performance by Texas of that agreement, were also secured by the solemn pledge of all the revenues and public faith of Texas; that this solemn pledge of all the revenues has always been interpreted to mean, and necessarily does include, a specific pledge of the revenues derivable from imports; that this branch of revenue has passed into

the possession of the United States in consequence of the admission of Texas into the Union, and is still in law and equity subject to the obligation antecedently imposed on it, notwithstanding the terms of any agreement entered into by Texas with the United States with reference to the debts of the former, I have no hesitation in saying that my opinion is in perfect accordance with that uniformly expressed by the Executive and legislature of the United States, to the effect that the United States, having become possessed of the public revenues of Texas, pledged for the payment of the debt due to Mr. Holford under the agreement of October 24, 1838, and secured by the bonds of July 1, 1849, are properly responsible for the discharge of those obligations.

In conclusion, I must say that this claim appears to me entirely unanswered and unanswerable; and I am, therefore, of opinion that the United States government is responsible for the payment of the bonds of Texas now held by the executors of Mr. Holford, and the arrears of interest now due thereon.

BATES, Umpire:

Held that cases of this description were not included among the unsettled claims that had received the cognizance of the governments, or were designed to be embraced within the provisions of the convention, and were, therefore, not within the jurisdiction of the commission.

SCHOONER JOHN.

In a treaty of peace, where it was stipulated that, within certain limita, peace should take effect in twelve days, and in others at different periods, ranging from thirty to forty, sixty, and ninety days, held that such an agreement was to be construed as an acknowledgment by the parties that, with due diligence, notice might be given, in those limits, within the times named, and the parties bound themselves thereby to accept such term as constructive notice of such peace.

Where it was provided that vessels and their effects taken within such limits, after the time stipulated when peace should exist, "should be restored," held it was no excuse if such vessel was afterwards cast away and lost, and therefore could not be returned to the owners, but that compensation must be made.

The party in such case must be held as a wrong doer from the outset, and bound to make full restitution.

In the early part of the year 1815, the American schooner "John" sailed from the port of Matanzas, in the island of Cuba, with a cargo of molasses, coffee, &c., for the port of Portsmouth, in the State of New Hampshire.

On the 5th day of March, in the same year, when in latitude 31° 40′ north, and longitude 78° 10' west from the meridian of Greenwich, she fell in with the British ship-of-war "Talbot," Lieutenant Maudesley, acting commander, and was captured and taken possession of as a prize of war.

She was then put in charge of a prize master and crew from the Talbot," and taken in tow by that vessel for Jamaica. On the 11th of March, while the two vessels were yet in company, they made land, which the officers commanding erroneously supposed to be "Atwood's Key." On the 12th, they made what they supposed to be the "French Keys," and subsequently, what they took to be the place called the "Hogsties," and shaped and continued their course as if these suppositions were correct, although assured of their mistake by Beck, the deposed master of the "John."

In a few hours the schooner was ashore at a place called "Point Mulas," in the island of Cuba, and the "Talbot" was saved from the same fate only by hastily putting about, and standing out to sea. The next day the crew were taken from the wreck, which was abandoned, and totally lost.

On arriving at Jamaica, the master and crew were detained as prisoners of war. On the 29th of March, news of the ratification of the treaty of peace having been received, they were released. Captain Beck, the master, thereupon addressed a letter to Lieutenant Maudesley, demanding his papers, and was by that officer referred to the vice admiralty court at Kingston; but, upon application there, he was informed that neither the log-book nor the papers of the "John" had been lodged there. Whereupon he, with others of the crew, made protest, at Kingston, upon the foregoing state of facts.

On returning to the United States a more specific and detailed protest was made, and subsequently the owners of the schooner commenced a suit in admiralty against Lieutenant Maudesley for the value of the vessel and cargo, which was finally decided against them by Sir William Scott, on December 18, 1818, on the ground that the commander of a vessel of war, when notice has not reached him of the conclusion of peace, is not personally liable for such a capture.

The owners had incurred heavy expenses in the prosecution of this suit, and, owing to this circumstance and various adverse events personal to them, delayed for many years making application to the United States government, as they should originally have done. Application was at length made, and the claim was earnestly urged on the attention of the British government by Mr. Lawrence, while minister at London.

It is as yet unsettled; and is now presented for the consideration and final action of this commission.