"But taking other circumstances into consideration, and more particularly that you have identified yourself in the strongest manner with the fortunes of the so-called Confederate States, and that you were, when taken, actually engaged in rendering material assistance to the government of these States, although deriving a commercial profit from so doing, Her Maj esty's government are of opinion that the United States Government are justified in treating you as a de facto belligerent. "The evidence, moreover, shows that although, during a residence of twenty-three years in the Southern States, you paid occasional visits to England, you had no intention of returning to permanent residence in your native country, and that you were practically and de facto a willing citizen of the Confederate States, engaged in equipping their army.

"Her Majesty's government therefore consider, under the circumstances, your release can not be claimed as a matter of right merely because you were born a British subject, but Earl Russell desires that Her Majesty's legation should, nevertheless, endeavor to persuade the United States Government to mitigate or shorten your captivity.

"I accordingly represented to the Secretary of State, on the 10th instant, that it would be a gratification to Her Majesty's government to learn that your captivity had been mitigated or shortened through the clemency of the United States Government, and your case is consequently again under consideration.'

"From that time forth Her Majesty's government uniformly and consistently declined any international interference for the protection of Mr. Vernon, and disclaimed all pretense of right to intervene in his behalf. Sir Frederick Bruce, then Her Majesty's minister at Washington, as late as 24th October 1865, said in a letter to Mr. Vernon, in response to an application from him: My instructions prohibit my interfering in your behalf."

"A labored argument was filed on behalf of the claimant, by which it was contended that the imprisonment of the claimant without trial was utterly unjustifiable; that it was prolonged in a manner never contemplated by the British authorities; that while under restraint his treatment was indefensible, and that the order of banishment from the United States, and the subsequent refusal to revoke it, were outrages against all law and justice. That the decision of Her Majesty's government, justifying the treatment of the claimant by the United States Government as a de facto belligerent, was erroneous; that the condition of the claimant, at the time of his capture, was that of a neutral alien engaged in commercial

transactions only with the Confederate government, and that such transactions were not criminal and did not deprive him of his neutral character. That even if he had previously been an enemy by domicil, he had, when he embarked from Charleston on the Huntress, left the country of his former domicil without the intention of returning, and his native domicil, native allegiance, and native status had thereupon instantly reverted to him, and that the decision of Her Majesty's government, justifying his detention by the United States and refusing to intervene in his behalf, could not be taken as prejudicing the claimant's individual right to reclamation under the rules of international law. The counsel for the claimant cited, in support of these propositions, the following authorities: 4 Blackstone's Com. 76; Halleck's Law of War, c. 29, § 3, p. 695; 2 Kent's Com. 49; Inglis v. The Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99; Vattel, lib. 1, c. 12, § 218; 2 Brown Civ. & Adm. law, c. 7, p. 327; The Venus, 8 Cranch, 278; The cases of Adlam, No. 40; Doyle, No. 46, and Tongue, No. 49, decided by this commission; Calvin's case, 7 Coke; Gardner's Inst. Int. Law, pp. 448, 489; Livingston v. Maryland Ins. Co., 1 Cranch, 542; Wheaton's Elements, part 4, c. 1, pp. 561 to 569; Halleck, c. 21, § 18 p. 503; id. c. 29, § 3, p. 315; 1 Kent's Com. § 5, p. 73; Story's Conflict of Laws, c. 3, § 27, p. 61; Woolsey's Int. Law, p. 100; 1 Duer on Ins. pp. 515, 520; The Frances, 8 Cranch, 280, s. c. 1 Gall. C. C. R. 614; The Dos Hermanos, 2 Wheat. 77; The Friendschaff, 3 id. 14; The United States v. Guillem, 11 How. 60; The Ann Green, 1 Gall. C. C. R. 275; The St. Lawrence, id. 267; Catlin v. Gladding, 4 Mason, 308; The State v. Hallett, 8 Ala. Rep. 159; 3 Phillimore, § 85, p. 129; id., § 4, pp. 404, 604; Twiss, § 43, p. 83; De Bargh, c. 2, p. 36; Westlake, c. 3, § 40, p. 39; 2 Wildman, pp. 15, 43; 1 id. p. 57; The Indian Chief, 3 Rob. 12; The Etrusco, id. 31; The Harmony, 2 id. 322; The Ocean, id. 91; The Virginia, 5 id. 98; Boswell's Lessee v. Otis, 9 How. 336.

"The commission unanimously disallowed the claim.

"In the case of William B. Forwood, No. Forwood's Case. 394, the claimant, a British subject, domiciled in England, in October 1861 landed at New York from the steamer City of Washington from Queenstown. He was arrested immediately on landing from the steamer, on information that he had, both in Liverpool and on board the steamer upon his passage, expressed himself as a warm friend

of the rebellion, and that he was connected with a firm engaged in running the blockade, and upon the suspicion that his visit to New York was for the purpose of promoting correspondence with the enemy. He was detained at the office of the chief of police in New York for some three or four hours, his person and baggage examined, and he was then discharged. claimed, as damages for his arrest, £5,000. The commission disallowed his claim, Mr. Commissioner Gurney dissenting.

He

"In the cases of Stephen Jarman, No. 418; Cases of Jarman, Robert Bowden, No. 419; Samuel Joseph RedBowden, Redgate, gate, No. 420, and John Henry Ellsworth, No.

and Ellsworth.

421, the claimants were respectively the master and passengers on the British steamship Peterhoff, captured as prize of war by the United States steamer Vanderbilt, near the Island of St. Thomas, in February 1863. The case of the Peterhoff will be more fully reported under a subsequent head. Bowden, Redgate, and Ellsworth were respectively in charge of portions of the cargo of the Peterhoff either as owners or consignees, or as agents for owners or consignees. The Peterhoff was taken, on her capture, first to Key West and thence to New York, where she was libeled in the United States district court. Jarman, Bowden, and Redgate were taken with the vessel to New York, and detained till their depositions, in preparatorio, were taken, when they were discharged. Ellsworth was discharged at Key West, without being taken to New York or examined as a witness. He was detained on board the Peterhoff from her capture, 25th February, till the 25th March, eighteen days after her arrival at Key West. Jarman, Bowden, and Redgate were examined as witnesses in New York on the 1st day of April, the fourth day after the arrival of the Peterhoff in New York Harbor, and were respectively discharged immediately after their examination.

"On the part of the claimants, respectively, it was contended that the capture of the Peterhoff was unlawful, and the detention of these claimants, respectively, was likewise unwarranted by prize law.

"On the part of the United States it was contended that the Peterhoff was rightfully captured on justifiable cause, and that the detention of these claimants as witnesses was warranted by the law and practice of the prize courts; and that as to Ellsworth, his release at Key West without examination

as a witness, and without being taken to New York where the vessel was libeled, could not be considered as an aggravation of his imprisonment, nor as giving him any right of reclamation, which he would not have had if taken to New York and examined as a witness, as he lawfully might have been. "The commission unanimously disallowed all the claims.

Dean's Case.

"The case of Philip George Beaumont Dean, No. 465, was of like character with the four last named. The claimant was captured on board the British brig Dashing Wave (whose case will be hereafter reported), off the mouth of the Rio Grande River, in November 1863. He was rated as an able seaman on the brig, though in fact a passenger and a son of one of the owners of the brig. He was taken with the vessel to New Orleans, where the vessel was libeled; was examined as a witness in preparatorio 28th November 1863, six days after the arrival of the vessel at New Orleans, and was then released. His memorial alleged that from that time till the 23d July 1864 he was 'detained on parole by the commissioners of the United States Government' at New Orleans, but his evidence showed no such detention or parole, and it appeared that his stay in New Orleans after his examination was a voluntary one, for the purpose of looking after the interests of the owners of the vessel and cargo.

Cauty's Case.

"His claim was unanimously disallowed by the commission. "In the case of George F. Cauty, No. 443, the claimant was a British subject, for several years domiciled in Central America, but from March to December 1863 temporarily resident in the city of New York, engaged, as he alleged, in commercial enterprises connected with Central America. He was arrested in New York by the United States military authorities on the eve of his departure for Nicaragua by steamer, 24th December 1863; detained in a prison in the city of New York for three days, then transferred to Fort Lafayette, and there confined till the 14th March 1864, when he was discharged without trial and without information of the grounds of his arrest, except the general statement that he had been engaged in aiding the enemies of the United States, or violating the neutrality laws and regulations. It appeared that he was arrested in company with one Dr. Segur, in connection with whom he had been engaged in purchasing arms, as was alleged by them, for the

state of San Salvador, and that the circumstances of the purchase and shipment of these arms were such as to lead to the strong suspicion that they were in fact purchased and shipped for the use of the Confederate government. Shortly after his arrest he was brought before a military commission at New York and interrogated as to his connection with Dr. Segur, and purchase of arms made by him. Most of these questions he refused to answer, on the ground that he had 'been advised not to compromise himself or his friends in any shape or manner.' He was thereupon remanded to prison. The charge that the arms were in any way designed to aid the enemies of the United States was not sustained by the proofs. The claimant alleged large pecuniary losses resulting from his imprisonment. "The commission made an award in his favor for $15,700, Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting on the question of amount. "John Tovell, No. 446, a Baptist clergyman,

Tovell's Case.

was arrested at Nashville, Tennessee, on the 9th of November 1862, on the charge of disloyalty to the United States, and of having in the course of a funeral oration delivered at Nashville used language strongly denunciatory of the military authorities in charge of Nashville, and tending to incite disaffection and rebellion. Nashville was a town within the insurrectionary States, captured by the United States in the spring of 1862, and held by them as a military post and under military government at the time of the claimant's arrest. He was detained in prison till the 8th June 1863, and then banished into the Confederate lines.

"The commission awarded him $830, Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting.

"Henry R. Smith, No. 461, a physician, H. R. Smith's Case. domiciled at Louisville, Kentucky, within a State not in rebellion, was arrested at that place by the military authorities of the United States in July 1864 on a charge of circulating treasonable documents, the documents in question being copies of a handsomely printed placard highly laudatory of the Confederate General Robert E. Lee as a patriot, Christian, and hero of unfaltering devotion to duty, etc. Louisville and the State in which it was situated contained a large proportion of sympathizers with the rebellion, and it was contended on the part of the United States that the circulation of this document by Dr. Smith was made with the direct purpose and intent of giving aid to the