sidered as coming within their original character as British subjects. The Secretary of the Treasury, in considering their case, took no exceptions on this ground, and it is a case which, under these circumstances, may well be holden as within the jurisdiction of this commission.

The claim for damages has been placed on two grounds: 1. It has been contended that the permission to enter the river for a discharge of goods at Barita, or Matamoras, was an allowance to enter free of duty. It seems to me, that this is a wholly groundless pretence. The purport of the permit indicates nothing to this effect on its face, and, moreover, it is in every respect manifestly an unjust evasion of the whole spirit and tenor of the orders, the design of which was to place imports on the same basis as those into the United States.

It was argued that an offer of payment of duties was made to the commandant before application was forwarded to Washington for relief. I am not satisfied from the testimony before us, that any such offer was made. A full and elaborate hearing was, at the time, had before the Secretary of the Treasury, and the witnesses of the claimants were examined under interrogatories in writing. I have seen no reason to doubt the justness of his award, and if it be just, it shows a wrongful attempt at evasion of duty in a clear case, and renders it incumbent on him, after such judgment, to show a tender of readiness and willingness on his part to comply with the decision made.

The claimants have offered no evidence of any measures having been taken by them to meet such decision, by demand of the goods from the commandant of the place, and a tender of the duties and expenses required, or of any other effort on their part to reclaim their property, subject to the lien of the government.

This was clearly imperative on them. There seems to have been no design to comply with the order of the government, and we can account for it only from carelessness or inability, or indisposition to conform to it. They should, at least, exonorate themselves from any such charge. They have not done this, or attempted to do it. The goods remained for a long time undisposed of, and were finally libelled and sold. This result was inevitable, unless prevented by the action of the claimants, and I can see no just ground in such case for the allowance of any remuneration on account of the sale.

Ex. Doc. 103-29

HORNBY, Commissioner of Great Britain:

Held to the views entertained by him in the Laurent case, that the Messrs. Unde & Company were British subjects, within the meaning and intent of the present convention, and that the case was fully within the jurisdiction of the commissioners.

He also was further of opinion, that subsequent to the capture of Matamoras, and the opening of the trade of that port to residents and other persons, any objection arising from the position of the claimants as alien enemies was done away, and that from that time they were to be regarded as clearly entitled to the protection of British subjects. They had been so treated by the United States, prior to this convention, and the position then taken could not now be changed.

He viewed the right of entry given to the vessel as sustaining the claim, and that the government could not go behind it, and the seizure should have been holden illegal; also, that the claimants did all that was incumbent upon them, after the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury, for the reclaiming their property.

BATES, Umpire:

Messrs. Uhde and Company were merchants of Matamoras, where they had resided from the year 1842, carrying on trade there, having a house of business and a home in that city. They continued to reside there after the declaration of war by the United States against Mexico in 1846, and until 1851. According to the interpretation of the law of nations, by the highest courts in Great Britain, it is a point settled, "beyond controversy, that where a neutral, after the commencement of hostilities, continues to reside in the enemy's country for the purposes of trade he is considered as adhering to the enemy, and as disqualified from claiming as a neutral altogether."-(See Doctor Lushington's judgment in the case of the "Aina," reported in the Jurist of July, 1855.) However good the claim of Messrs. Uhde and Company, as conquered Mexicans, against the United States, by the interpretation of the law of nations as given by the decisions of the courts of Great Britain may be, the claim ought to be excluded from this commission. The government of the United States have, however, entertained the claim in the correspondence between the diplomatic agents of the two countries, and for this reason we hold it should be considered aud settled without further delay.

I shall proceed, therefore, to examine and decide the case on its merits. The case is as follows: On war being declared by the United States against Mexico in 1846, the ports of Mexico were declared in a state of blockade; but several ports (amongst them the port of Matamoras, on the Rio Grande,) having fallen into the possession of the United States forces, the government, on the 30th of June of that year, issued a circular, addressed to the collectors and other officers of the customs in the United States in regard to Matamoras, to the following effect, viz:

"In case of application of vessels for clearances for the port of Matamoras, you will issue them under the following circumstances: 1st. To American vessels only.

"2d. To such vessels carrying only articles of the growth, produce, or manufacture of the United States, or of imports from foreign countries to our own, upon which duties have been fully paid. Upon all such goods, whether of our own or of foreign countries, no duties will be chargeable at Matamoras, so long as it is in the possession of the

United States forces. Foreign imports, which may be re-exported in our vessels to Matamoras, will not be entitled to any drawback of duty; for if this were permitted, they would be carried from that port to the United States, and thus avoid payment of all duties."

Of this circular, which was published in the newspapers at the time, Messrs. Uhde & Co. must have been aware. They, however, sent to New Orleans and chartered the American schooner "Star," for a voyage to Havana, to load a cargo of merchandise for Matamoras, if open, and if not open, she was to proceed to New Orleans to discharge. The circular indicates that no foreign goods could be shipped from the United States to that port until the duties had been fully paid. Messrs. Uhde & Co. could not, therefore, when chartering the "Star," have supposed that a cargo of foreign goods, from a foreign port, could enter without paying duty, when foreign goods from the United States were chargeable with full duty in the United States in order to their admission free at Matamoras.

It is stated that it was known at Havana, when the "Star" sailed, that the port of Matamoras was blockaded; but it is very extraordinary that a vessel should proceed to a port known to be blockaded to inquire whether it is so or not. The "Star" arrived at Brazos the 6th November, 1846., which is on the Texan bank of the Rio Grande. The captain went on shore to inquire if he might enter his vessel, and Mr. G. S. Cook, who was or assumed to be deputy collector, informed him that he might, and charged him $7 50 for fees. Captain Merrill, of the "Star," exhibited his manifest, &c., and received a permit to discharge his cargo in the following words:

"The master of the schooner 'Star,' from Havana, is authorized to discharge her cargo at Barita or at Matamoras.

G. S. COOK,

Deputy Collector, Brazos St. Jago, November 7, 1846.”

The schooner was then brought into the river, and the goods were landed in open day by Messrs. Uhde & Co., and placed in their own warehouses, and were, two days afterwards, seized by the military commander of the place on the charge of being fraudulently introduced.

The whole defence of Messrs. Uhde for their landing the goods rests on the value and force they attach to the permit given to Captain Merrell to discharge his cargo. It is very well known to every one

conversant with foreign trade, that it is the duty of every shipmaster, on arrival at a foreign port, to proceed to the custom-house, enter his vessel, and pay light and port dues; until he has done so, he is not allowed to commence discharging his cargo. But this is very different from a consignee's permit to land the goods which are entered and bonded, or the duties paid by the consignees when a permit is granted to land the same. The seizure was, therefore, justifiable, as no inquiry was made by Messrs. Uhde & Co. if any duties were payable.

After the seizure, it is stated that the claimants offered to pay the duties of the American tariff which was to go into operation on the 1st December next. This was refused by Colonel Clark, the commanding military officer, who seemed determined to wait orders from a higher quarter.

The claimants then made application to the British minister at Washington, who applied to the then Secretary of State, the Hon. James Buchanan, the case was referred to the Secretary of the Treasury, the Hon. R. J. Walker, who examined the master of the Star, brought to Washington by the claimants, and other evidence, and a final decision was come to that the seizure was sustained; but an order was made, directed to the collector of the customs at Galveston, that the claimants might have their goods on payment of duty according to the tariff of 1842, and charges and expense of warehouse rent, and interest on the duties from the date of the seizure until paid. From some cause the settlement was never carried into effect. The claimants allege that no person ever came to Matamoras as directed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and that the goods were taken to Galveston, condemned, and sold in a damaged state for about $8,800.

My belief is that, had the arrangement made by the Secretary of the United States Treasury been carried into effect, the result would have been that the claimants would have realized near the cost value of their goods. I therefore award to Messrs. Charles Uhde & Co., or their legal representatives, in full of said claim, the sum of twentyfive thousand dollars, this 15th January, 1855.