William Scott, applies, "that those who through their own fault remain ignorant of the publication of the truce are bound to repair any damage they may have caused contrary to its tenor."

The party injured is in the same situation as a neutral whose vessel has been seized and destroyed as the property of a hostile power, where it is holden the neutral can only be justified by a full restitution in value.-(1 Wildman, vol. 2. p. 175.)

There is no other measure of damage that justly meets the requirements of the case. The treaty provides not only that "all vessels," but also "their effects," which may be taken, after a certain specified number of days, within certain described limits, shall be restored on either side. But if the effects of a vessel, consisting of provisions or other articles, are taken and consumed, or are otherwise disposed of, so they cannot be restored specifically, it will hardly be contended that no remuneration is to be made.

If this be so, the rule would equally follow in relation to the vessel. Restoration and restitution are synonymous. One meaning of the word "restore," as laid down by Webster is, "to make restitution or satisfaction for a thing taken, by returning something else, or something of different value," and this is the meaning which should be rightfulty attached to the word in the treaty.

I do not understand that this is, in reality, denied; but the position is taken by Great Britain in this case, that she is relieved from restoring the vessel, for the reason that it was subsequently cast away and lost by the act of God, and no one is accountable.

If the case can be brought within this principle the excuse might avail, but there are circumstances connected with it that preclude such defence. No one can plead the destruction of property as the act of God, who is wrongfully in the use and control of such property. He is a wrong doer from the outset; he has converted the property from the instant of possession, and the subsequent calamity which may happen, however inevitable it may be, is no excuse for its loss.

The John was in the rightful pursuit of a lawful voyage, at a time and place when peace existed by the express stipulations of the parties, after taking such period for notice as they held that the case required.

She had pursued her course northwardly some four or five hundred miles out from harbor, on her way to her destined port. She was

there seized, placed under the charge of new men, and her course was directly reversed, until she was taken back to the West Indies, and through mismanagement, or misadventure, was run on shore and lost.

It may have been the ordinary accident of the seas, or may not; but, in any event, she was taken there without right, and subjected to risks to which she was not legally and justly liable. The plea that she was lost by the act of God is not, under such circumstances, admissible. The vessel itself cannot be restored, but such compensation and restitution should be made as the nature of the case admits of.

In the argument, considerable stress has been laid on a quotation in Kent and Wheaton, said to be founded on Grotius, that where collisions arise, after peace exists, the governments "are not amenable in damages, but it is their duty to restore what has been captured, but not destroyed." The citation from Grotius is, however, erroneous. He merely says, in the section referred to, that if any acts be done, in violation of the truce, before notice can be given, "the government will not be liable to punishment, but the contracting parties will be bound to make good the damage."-(Whewell's Grotius, liber 3, chap. 21, sec. 5.)

What shall be the precise effect, as a matter of notice, where different periods of time are stipulated in which peace shall take place, does not seem to have been fully considered and settled. If it shall be held as an acknowledgment of notice, then every subsequent act of violation of it is the act of a wrong-doer, and full compensation follows of necessity.

I can see no possible mode of avoiding the justness or soundness of the construction at which we have arrived, but think it should prevail on every ground of public policy and right interpretation of international compacts of this character.

I am happy to say that my colleague, though he hesitates somewhat as to the views presented, waives his objection to the allowance of the claim, except on the score of interest, and this question is to be submitted to the umpire.

Interest was allowed.

CHARLES UHDE AND COMPANY.

British merchants who continued residents in Mexico, engaged in trade, after war had broken out between that country and the United States, held as alien enemies, and not entitled to recovery under this convention, as already holden in Laurents' case.

Where, after the capture of a Mexican port, it was opened to trade of residents and others, subject to the payment of certain duties, held, under such license, the character of alien enemies ceased, and where the United States had taken cognizance of the claims of such residents, as of British subjects, prior to the convention, these claims might be rightfully embraced within it.

License to a vessel to enter and discharge a cargo does not free her from the claim of payment of duties.

Where order was issued for payment of duties as a discharge from seizure, but, through misfortune or misunderstanding, was not carried into effect, held that compensation be made.

Charles Uhde & Co. were British subjects who had been resident merchants in Matamoras, in Mexico, since the year 1842, and continued to reside there after the commencement of the war between that government and the United States, in 1846. In June of that year, Matamoras was captured by the United States troops, and a circular was issued, opening the port to American vessels free of duty, or other vessels freighted with American goods or produce, or with foreign goods that had paid an import duty in the United States.

The Messrs. Uhde chartered the American schooner Star, at New Orleans, for a voyage to Havana, designing to import from there a a cargo of merchandise for Matamoras. The Star arrived, on the 6th of November, at Brazos, at the mouth of the Rio Grande; and the master of the vessel went on shore, and inquired of a Mr. Cook, who claimed to be a deputy collector, if his vessel might enter. He gave him a permit to enter, as follows:

BRAZOS ST. IAGO, November, 1846.

The master of the schooner Star is authorized to discharge her

cargo at Barita or Matamoras.

CHARLES UHDE & Co.

Cook charged $7 50 for his fees.

G. S. COOK, Deputy Collector.

The vessel passed up the river and landed her goods at Matamoras, and the claimants placed them in their own storehouses. Two days afterwards the goods were seized by Colonel Clark, the commanding military officer of the station. Appeal was made to Washington, and a full hearing had, on the examination of the parties, before Mr. Walker, the Secretary of the Treasury, who decided that the seizure was lawful, but issued an order that the goods might be returned by paying the duty according to the tariff of 1842, with charges for warehouse rent and interest from the time of the seizure.

These terms were not complied with, and the goods were taken to Galveston, in Texas, and condemned and sold, in a damaged state, at much loss.

The claimants say that no person came to Matamoras to carry that order into effect. The officers of the government were there, however, claiming control of the property, and there is no evidence showing any tender of payment, or offer of compliance with the order.

Mr. HANNEN, agent and counsel for Great Britain, contended that after the capture of Matamoras, and the opening of the port, the exception taken to the jurisdiction would not hold good as to commerce subsequently allowed.

It had been expressly waived also by the United States government prior to the convention, and could not now be urged.

He contended that, under the license of entry, no duties should have been demanded, and that after the claim of duties was insisted on, sale was made without fault of the claimant, and compensation should be allowed.