1. A vessel seized on a charge of being in British waters, without having ship's papers
on board, and for being engaged in, and equipped for, the slave trade, was, on trial
acquitted, the court finding such charges "to be without foundation, and destitute
of any probable cause to sustain them." The vessel was, however, assessed in costs,
for which she was sold, held, that the judgment imposing costs was without legal
ground to sustain it, and should be annulled, and damages in full be allowed for the
seizure.-Barque Jones.....
2. Courts have no discretionary power to tax costs in a case against the respondent,
where no probable cause for seizure existed.....
1. Where debenture bonds had been given on importation of coal, and by act of
March 3, 1853, the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to cancel such bonds
given prior to July 1, 1850, held that it entitled the owners to a drawback for the
duty on coal.-Great Western Steamship Company......
1. Where claimants, who were originally British subjects, had become domiciled in
Mexico and continued to reside there, engaged in trade, during war between Mexico
and the United States, held that they had so far changed their national character
that they could not be considered "British subjects" within the meaning of these
terms as used in the convention for the settlement of claims of British subjects
upon the government of the United States.-Laurents' case.......
2. A domiciled merchant of the United States or Great Britain, resident in the coun-
try of the other, has no right to the action of this commission in matters of current
business embraced within the ordinary jurisdiction of the courts of the country
where he resides. By treaty of July 3, 1815, such persons "are entitled to protec-
tion and security, but are to be subject, always to the laws and statutes of the two
countries respectively."-Kenworthy's case.......
3. 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.-Uhde's case..
1. The act of March 2, 1799, regulating the collection of duties on imports and ton-
nage so as to entitle the owners to a drawback for duties paid by them on exporta-
tion, held not to allow drawback on coal imported, and subsequently used on the
voyage, by outward bound steamers.-Great Western Steamship Company . . . .. . • • • •
2. The act of March 3, 1853, which authorized the cancelling of debenture bonds,
given prior to July 1, 1850, on coal imported, which was afterwards consumed at
sea, held to entitle parties to a drawback on the coal for which the bonds were given.
1. Evidence that fears were entertained lest other suits might be instituted, or seizures
might be made unless a suit was adjusted, or a general prejudice to business might
arise from controversy with the government, does not constitute such evidence of
duress as to avoid a settlement.-Kenworthy's case......
1. Shipment of coal for consumption at sea on outward bound steamers, is not an ex-
portation within the meaning of the statute, entitling the party to drawback under
the act of March 2, 1799.-Great Western Steamship Company..
1. Construction of treaty of 1818 relative to fisheries.-Schooner Washington........
2. The clause in said treaty in which the United States renounced the liberty "to
take, dry, and cure fish, on certain coasts, bays, harbors, and creeks of his Britan-
nic Majesty's dominions of North America," held not to include the Bay of Fundy.
3. The Bay of Fundy held to be an open arm of the sea, so as not to be subject to the
exclusive right of Great Britain as to fisheries....
See TERRITORIAL GOVERNMENTS, 1, 2, 3, 4.
1. Assumption of the acts of a citizen by his government as its own acts, does not
necessarily bar proceedings against such person by a foreign government.-Alexander
McLeod.
2. Where a citizen of another government was arrested in this country for a criminal
offence, and claimed his discharge on the ground that the acts complained of were
done under the authority of his government, time must be had for the action of the
proper tribunals on such plea, and the ultimate decision of a court in the last resort,
where the same becomes necessary.—Claim for damage against...
3. Neither does any claim for damage arise against such foreign government, where
the means provided by law for the adjustment of such questions are less speedy than
would be desirable, and may require amendment. Or error has arisen, in courts of
subordinate jurisdiction, from which appeal might have been taken, or correction
had...
1. Where duties on goods were paid under protest, on the ground that a higher rate
of duty was demanded than was authorized by the treaty of commerce between the
United States and Great Britain, the act itself having expressly provided "that
nothing contained in it should conflict with that treaty ;" and immediate demand
of repayment having been made through the minister of Great Britain, at Wash-
ington, held that interest should be allowed on the amount wrongfully collected from
the time of payment.-Godfrey Pattison & Co........
2. Where it appeared that the duty was paid without complaint many years since, and
that the claim was not brought to the notice of the government, and no demand was
made for repayment until quite recently; held that, under such circumstances,
interest should not be allowed.-Duty on Cotton Goods-C. Wirgman, agent........
3. Where drawback for duties was allowed, but was refused, under a controversy as to
the construction of a statute, interest was allowed from the time of the demand.-
Great Western Steamship Company...
1. Where a claim was presented by American citizens as next of kin and heir of a
deceased intestate in England, whose property had gone into custody of the crown
for want of heirs; held that it did not come within the jurisdiction of the convention,
it not being within the class of cases designed for the adjudication of the commission.
-Cook &als.
![[ocr errors]](https://books.google.am/books/content?id=uYQFAAAAQAAJ&hl=hy&output=html_text&pg=RA3-PA467&img=1&zoom=3&q=%22the+government+of+the+United+States,+and+all+claims+on+the+part+of%22&cds=1&sig=ACfU3U0H1RB2RyEW0HhEGXiG_FYYZF3Rhw&edge=0&edge=stretch&ci=408,562,10,9)
2. The fact that a case is brought within the letter of the convention, is not conclusive
as to the question of jurisdiction. The commissioners may go behind this to inquire
whether it is within the class of cases that have been recognized as matters of inter-
national controversy.......
3. Debts due on loans made by citizens to a foreign country are not the subject ordi-
narily of international cognizance, but the parties are left to their own remedies.-
Holford's case, Texas bonds....
4. Where claims for indebtedness against Texas had never been presented or recog-
nized by the British government as a subject of national interposition, prior to the
convention of February 8, 1853, and provision had been previously made, and acts
were then pending, relative to adjustment of the same, between Texas and the
United States; held that such claims were not included in the unsettled claims
referred to the commissioners, and that they had no jurisdiction over them......
5. Where a ship containing property of an English subject was seized by a piratical
vessel on the high seas, and was subsequently recaptured by a United States cruiser,
and the ship and property was sold, and the proceeds, subject to certain claims of
the captors, went into the United States treasury; held that remuneration should
be made to the owner, deducting reasonable expenses and salvage.-Houghton's
6. Prior to the extension of a territorial government over the Oregon country, settlers
had gone in and formed themselves into a temporary government. While in this
condition, war occurred with the Indians, and various settlers were killed, and sixty-
four persons taken into captivity by them. Application was made to the Hudson's
Bay Company for assistance, which was rendered, and through their agency the
captives were released. Held that compensation for such assistance was a just
claim against the United States, and was allowed by the commission.-Hudson's Bay
Company
7. Held, also, that a similar claim for expenditures incurred in procuring, by request
of American officers on the coast, the release of American mariners, who had been
shipwrecked, and were detained as captives by the Indians, should be allowed......
1. International law is paramount to local or municipal law. The act of 3 and 4,
William IV, chap. 73, abolishing slavery in Great Britain and her dominions, could
not overrule the rights of nations who have not abolished such institution. Such
nations retain the right to hold slaves in their vessels on the high seas, or any rights
necessarily incident to the navigation of such seas, the same as within their own
jurisdiction.-Brig Enterprise...........
INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS.
EFFECT, WHEN MADE, ON INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS.
1. Where a citizen of Canada was arrested in the State of New York, for a criminal
offence against the laws of the State, arising from his being engaged in the destruc-
tion of the steamer Caroline, in New York, with a party from Canada, during an
insurrection in that province, and Great Britain demanded his release, on the ground
that the acts complained of were done by the orders of that government, and that the
nation was responsible and not the individual-and where the difficulties arising from
these causes were afterwards adjusted between the two governments-held that such
adjustment barred all claims of citizens of either country against the other for indi-
vidual damage sustained; and that such cases were not within the provisions for
the settlement "of outstanding claims," under the convention of February 8, 1853.—
Alexander McLeod.....
EFFECT ON INDEBTEDNESS OF THE STATES UNITED.
1. The united government is clearly liable for the separate debts of the several govern-
ments combined, as a general rule of international law.-Holford's ease, Texas
Bonds.....
2. A pledge of the revenues of the government is in the nature of a lien to the creditor,
and is binding on its transfer to another nation; but quere, whether, in certain
cases, such lien can justly extend to an amount clearly beyond the value of any such
revenues, so as to operate as a bar to international union.....
3. Quere, also, where a nation is not fully merged in union with another, but retains
independent powers and jurisdictions, whether an equitable apportionment of its
liabilities may not be made between the two governments, as a preliminary to such
union, without a just ground of complaint on the part of creditors...
1. A removal of a vessel, seized within limits of a court of competent jurisdiction, to a
remote district, for trial and adjudication, is a violation of the rights of the parties
interested, and entitles them to full compensation for all damage incurred.—Barque
Jones......
See INTERNATIONAL CLAIMS, 1, 2.
See INTERNATIONAL SETTLEMENTS, 1.
LICENSE TO TRADE IN TIME OF WAR.
1. During the war between the United States and Mexico, application was made to
proceed with goods across the United States to Mexico, for trade with that country,
with a right of drawback on the duties paid. License was granted; held that it was
|