were driven by necessity to enter the port of another nation the local law could not operate so as to affect existing rights of property as between persons on board, or their personal obligations or relations under the law of the country to which the vessel belonged. In the case of the Creole this argument was emphasized by the fact that the vessel was brought into British jurisdiction by means of a crime against the law of the flag. The case gave rise to animated discussions in the British Parliament as well as in the Congress of the United States, and came near breaking up the negotiations between Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton in 1842. The decision of the umpire sustained the position of the United States.

British Claims.

Of the 75 British claims against the United States, 19 were allowed, 52 dismissed, and 4 withdrawn. On the claims that were allowed, 9 awards were made by the commissioners and 10 by the umpire. Of the claims that were dismissed, 43 were disallowed by the commissioners and 9 by the umpire. The total amount of the awards against the United States was $277,102.88, or £57,252 13s. 4d.

In most of the British cases in which the commissioners concurred, the grounds of their decisions, in allowing or rejecting claims, were not disclosed; but where the umpire was required to decide, his opinions were almost always formally stated. Some of these opinions, just as in the case of the American claims, related to important cases and important questions. Among these may be mentioned the Florida and Texas bonds cases, the case of Alexander McLeod, whose arrest and trial in New York in connection with the destruction of the steamer Caroline had created serious complications, and the case of the Messrs. Laurent, involving the question of domicil as affecting the right to governmental intervention. It has been seen that no claim "arising out Comprehensiveness of any transaction of a date prior to December of the Settlement. 24, 1814," was admissible under the convention. Beginning with this date as a starting point, the high contracting parties by Article V. of the convention engaged

1 Curtis's Life of Webster, II. 54, 99, 104, 119, 120-122; Benton's Thirty Years' View, II. 409; Phillimore, International Law, IV. 14; Webster's Works, VI. 303; Opinion of Legaré, At. Gen., 4 Op. 98; Br. and For. State Papers (1841-42), XXX. 181; Wheaton, Revue Française et Étrangère, IX. 345; Calvo, Droit Int., 3d ed. II. 269; Abdy's Kent (1878), 149.

2 Curtis's Life of Webster, II. 53, 61, 62, 64, 69, 85.

to consider the result of the commission "as a full, perfect and final settlement of every claim upon either government arising out of any transaction of a date prior to the exchange of the ratifications of the present convention;" and further engaged "that every such claim, whether or not the same may have been presented to the notice of, made, preferred, or laid before the said commission, shall, from and after the conclusion of the proceedings of the said commission, be considered and treated as finally settled, barred, and thenceforth inadmissible." The result of these stipulations was that every claim against either government, whether presented to the commission or no, arising out of any transaction between December 24, 1814, and July 26, 1853, was either settled and determined or rendered inadmissible as a subject of future international action.

Case of the Schooner "Lord Nelson."

Among the claims submitted to the commission was one of the Hon. James Crooks, owner of the schooner Lord Nelson. It appeared that the Lord Nelson was on June 5, 1812, thirteen days before the declaration of war by the United States against Great Britain, seized on Lake Ontario by the United States brig Oneida for an alleged breach of the embargo laws and taken to Sacketts Harbor, where after war was declared she was condemned and sold as a prize and the proceeds paid into court. After peace, Mr. Crooks claimed his property as having been captured in time of peace, and the court in 1818 ordered the proceeds to be paid over to him, when it was found that the clerk in whose custody the money was had absconded, leaving no assets. The claimant sought to bring his demand within the period covered by the convention by founding it, not on the original seizure of the vessel, but on the failure of the United States to make effective the judicial decree of 1818. The umpire held that the claim was not within the jurisdiction of the commission, the transaction in which it originated having taken place at a time not covered by the convention.1

The commission had jurisdiction of all claims Presentation of Claim which may have been presented to either by one Government to the Other Unnec-government for its interposition with the other" between December 24, 1815, and the expiration of the period prescribed by the convention for the presentation of claims to the commissioners; and by one of the standing rules of the commission it was declared that

essary.

1 MSS. Dept. of State.

claims "presented to the commissioners by the agents of either government will be regarded as presented by their respective governments, in accordance with the provisions of the convention." Under these provisions the commission exercised jurisdiction without regard to the fact that the claim had or had not been presented by one government to the other. In the Texas bond cases the agent of the United States argued that the claim was legally against the State of Texas, and as such was not intended by the two governments to come within the jurisdiction of the commission; and as moral evidence in support of this contention he adverted to the fact, as also did the American commissioner, that the claim had not been brought to the notice of either government, or made a matter of correspondence between them, or included in any list of unsettled claims at the date of the convention, but was presented by the claimants to the foreign office in London after the commission met, and was transmitted by the foreign office to the British agent. The cases were ultimately referred to the umpire, the commissioners having differed on the various questions involved. In the printed report of the proceedings the awards of the umpire in these cases are not given; but it is stated that he dismissed the claims on the ground "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." Had this language been used by the umpire it could hardly have been construed, in direct opposition to the explicit provisions of the convention, to mean that a claim must have been presented by one government to the other in order to bring it within the jurisdiction of the commission. But the printed report of the umpire's decision in these cases is inaccurate. His formal awards are on file, and in the one case, that of the Executors of James Holford, No. 14, British docket, he held that the claim could not be entertained, "it being for transactions with the Independent Republic of Texas, prior to its admission as a State of the United States;" while in the other, No. 15, British docket, he held that the claimants, the Messrs. Dawson, of Baltimore, had "no right to claim before this commission, being according to the law of nations citizens

IS. Ex. Doc. 103, 34 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 396, 426.

H

of the United States and not British subjects," and that, "were they British subjects, the claim being for transactions with the Independent Republic of Texas, before it became a State of the United States, the claim cannot be entertained by this commission."i Jurisdiction was therefore exercised by the commission in dismissing both cases on the merits.

In the case of William Crooks and others against Great Britain, in which the claim first assumed an international aspect when it was presented through the American agent to the commission, it never having been the subject of diplomatic action, it was held that though the case was, in respect of the manner of its presentation, within the commission's cognizance, it was, as a matter improper for international adjustment, outside of their jurisdiction, no instance having been found "of the interference of government with the question of ordinary heirship and succession of estates in other jurisdictions." In other words, it was held that though a claim might, in respect of the date of its origination and the time and manner of its presentation, be clearly within the jurisdiction of the commission, it might in its nature be an improper subject for diplomatic action and therefore unfit for the consideration of an international tribunal.

In the Florida bond cases, in which the claim was first made against the United States when it was presented by the British agent to the commission, the claim was decided on its merits and dismissed.3

sion's Expenses.

The total expenses of the commission, includPayment of Commis- ing the salariers of the commissioners during the time of actual session, were £2,588 16s. 6d. The umpire refusing to receive any compensation, the commissioners left it to the two governments to say when their salaries should commence and terminate, and what traveling expenses, if any, should be allowed. By the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill of March 3, 1855, Congress granted to the American commissioner and agent each the sum of $12,000 for their services and expenses.*

MSS. Dept. of State.

S. Ex. Doc. 103, 34 Cong. 1 sess. 169.

3 S. Ex. Doc. 103, 34 Cong. 1 sess. 165.

1S. Ex. Doc. 103, 34 Cong. 1 sess. 80-81.

List of Claims Before the Commission.

The following is a list of claims before the commission, showing the subject and the final disposition of each one:

American claims on Great Britain.

1. U. L. Rogers & Brothers, for return of customs duties assessed in the Bay of Islands, New Zealand, in 1840 and 1841. Presented October 21, 1853; heard November 28; further affidavits filed February 23, 1854; further heard February 27, and submitted. On November 4 the commissioners disagreed as to the amount to be allowed; on December 7 the umpire awarded $7,676.96.

2. Schooner Fidelity, Thomas Tyson owner, for seizure of the vessel at Sierra Leone on a charge of smuggling. Presented January 24, 1854; heard March 23 and submitted. On October 11, it appearing that the vessel was discharged after a brief detention and that there was probable cause for the seizure, the claim was disallowed.

3. Bark Jones, P. J. Farnham & Co. owners, for seizure at St. Helena on a charge of being concerned in the African slave trade and for assessment of costs on the vessel at Sierra Leone and sale of vessel and cargo. Presented October 31, 1853; further papers presented November 28; heard March 17 and 18, 1854; further affidavits filed April 11 and May 15. April 22 the commissioners, being unable to agree, severally delivered their opinions, which were placed on file, and the case was committed to the decision of the umpire. On November 29 the umpire awarded to the owners of the Jones the sum of $96,720, and to sundry persons for ventures of goods therein as follows, viz: to James Gilbert, the master, $1,863; to Ebenezer Symonds, the mate, $842; to F. Sexton, the supercargo, $1,200; amounting in all to the sum of $100,625.

4. Brig Cyrus, Peter C. Dumas owner, for seizure and detention of the vessel by the brig of war Alert, on a charge of being concerned in the slave trade. Presented March 14, 1854; heard August 2 and submitted; November 25, disallowed.

5. Schooner John, Reuben Shapely owner, for capture of the vessel by the British ship of war Talbot, March 5, 1815, after the close of the war, when peace existed by the terms of the Treaty of Ghent in the latitude where she was seized. Presented March 14, 1854; heard May 10, and submitted. November 4 the commissioners disagreed on the amount of damages, and it was referred to the umpire. November 29 the umpire awarded the sum of $13,608.22.

This vessel was sold by

6. Schooner Levin Lank, James Sullivan owner. her master and lessee to foreign persons on the coast of Africa. She was afterward seized and condemned at St. Helena for being concerned in the slave trade. Claim was made for her before the commission by her original owner. Presented March 14, 1854; heard August 16 and submitted; November 25, disallowed.

7. Brigantine Volusia, John W. Disney and John Graham owners, for her seizure in 1850, by the British steamer Rattler, while on a voyage from Rio de Janeiro, ou a charge of being concerned in the slave trade, and for her condemnation for having false papers. Presented March 14, 1854; heard July 5 and submitted; further papers filed by leave July 8. November 25