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 corre spondence 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

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

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." 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."2 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

Payment of Commission's Expenses.

The total expenses of the commission, including 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.+

1 MSS. Dept. of State.

2S. Ex. Doc. 103, 31 Cong. 1 sess. 169.

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

*S. 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, $812; 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.

6. Schooner Levin Lank, James Sullivan owner.

This vessel was sold by

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, on 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

the commissioners disagreed on the allowance of the claim, and it was referred to the umpire, who heard it November 27, and on December 1 disallowed it.

8. The Only Son, Fuller & Delano owners, for compelling the vessel to be entered at Halifax and to pay duties in 1822, when she had put in on her way to a market merely, whereby she was compelled to dispose of her cargo there at a loss. Presented March 14, 1854. November 13 the commissioners disagreed on the allowance of the claim, and it was referred to the umpire, who on December 14 awarded the sum of $1,000.

9. Ship Amelia, Robert Roberts owner, for capture by a British cruiser while on her way from Puerto Rico to Guadaloupe, on the 11th of February 1815, and for her subsequent condemnation. Presented June 1, 1854; heard June 3, and submitted. October 11, it appearing that the date of the capture of the vessel was prior to the ratification of the Treaty of Ghent, the claim was disallowed.

10. John McClure and others. Presented March 14, 1854; heard on question of jurisdiction August 17, and submitted. Claim for slaves alleged to be owned by citizens of the United States in Florida while that Territory belonged to Spain, and which escaped from Florida to Cumberland Island, and were taken away by the British authorities at the close of the war of 1815. September 26, disallowed on the ground of want of jurisdiction, and of an adjustment under the convention of 1822.

11. James Young. Presented by leave June 3, 1854; heard and submitted. Claim for slaves captured on the high seas during the war of 1812, taken to the West Indies, and there disposed of by the British authorities. October 11, disallowed.

12. Brig Creole, Edward Lockett and others owners of slaves on board. Presented March 14, 1854; further papers filed May 23; heard June 3, and submitted; further claims to property on board presented by leave June 10 and 14, 1854. Claim for liberating slaves on board the vessel at the Bahama Islands. September 26, the commissioners disagreed as to the allowance of the claim, and it was referred to the umpire. January 9 the umpire awarded the sum of $110,330.

13. Bark John A. Robb, for the removal of a sailor from the vessel by a British cruiser on the coast of Africa. The right to enter the vessel for such purpose was disavowed; but it appearing on the evidence submitted that the sailor, who had had some controversy with his captain, left the vessel ultimately with the master's consent, the claim was disallowed. Presented March 14, 1854; heard July 15 and submitted; October 11, disallowed.

14. Maria Dolores, William Taggart and others owners, for proceeds of the vessel and cargo captured by a Bolivian privateer and brought into the Barbados, where the vessel and cargo were sold by the British colonial authorities. Presented March 14, 1854; heard August 9 and September 25 and submitted. Held not to be within the jurisdiction of the commissioners. 15. Brig Douglas, Amos Frazar owner, for seizure and detention of the vessel on a charge of being engaged in the slave trade. Presented April 22, 1854; further papers filed May 13; heard July 21 and submitted; November 25 the commissioners awarded $600.

16. Schooner Caroline Knight, George W. Knight and others owners, for capture and sale of the vessel at Prince Edward Island in 1852. Presented

5627-27

February 2, 1854; heard July 12 and submitted; October 10 the commissioners awarded $1,887.60.

17. The vessels Tigris and Seamew, Messrs. Brookhouse & Hunt owners, for damages for seizure of the vessels in 1840 by the British cruiser Water Witch on the coast of Africa, and sending them to America for trial for violation of the laws of the United States. Presented March 14, 1854; submitted on the papers. October 28 the commissioners disagreed on the amount of damages to be allowed, and the case was referred to the umpire, who December 14 awarded $24,006.40.

18. Schooner Pallas, Edward Haskell and others owners, for illegal seizure of the vessel off Chittican Bay and its detention during the fishing Presented March 14, 1854; heard July 15 and August 1 and submitted. October 28 the claim was referred to the umpire; January 15, 1855, it was disallowed for want of evidence.

season.

19. Schooner Argus, Doughty, master, for seizure of the vessel on St. Ann's bank by the British revenue cruiser Sylph and her removal to Sydney, Cape Breton, where she was subsequently sold. Presented March 14, 1854; heard July 15 and August 1 and submitted; heard before the umpire October 11 and submitted. December 23 the umpire awarded $2,000.

20. The Julius and Edward, Charles Tyng owner. Vessel seized by a British cruiser and taken to Bremen. No evidence submitted; claim dismissed.

21. Schooner Hero, James B. McConnel. For seizure and detention of the vessel by Her Majesty's brig Lynx off the coast of Africa. Presented March 14, 1854; submitted on the papers; November 25 disallowed.

22. Brig Charlotte, Hart, Sands, and others owners. For seizure of the vessel under legal process by a British claimant on the coast of Ireland and her subsequent release by the court of admiralty without costs for her detention. Presented March 14, 1854; heard July 21 and submitted. Claim disallowed on the ground of its being a controversy between private individuals, settled by a competent court within whose jurisdiction the property was.

23. Henry H. Schieffelin. In this case an American vessel was seized prior to the war of 1812, but though restitution was ordered she was, during the war, confiscated. Claim was made for failure to obtam judicial redress after peace. Presented by leave June 10; heard August 17 and October 4; disallowed for want of jurisdiction.

24. Schooner Washington. For capture and condemnation of the vessel at Halifax by the British authorities in 1818. Presented March 14, 1854; disallowed January 13, 1855, for want of evidence.

25. The Joseph Cowperthwait, William J. Smith and others owners. For search and detention of the vessel by the governor of Cape Coast Castle. Presented March 14, 1854; heard July 21. No evidence submitted; dismissed.

26. Schooner Washington. For the capture and condemnation of the vessel at Halifax in 1843 by the colonial authorities for taking fish in the Bay of Fundy when more than three miles from the shore. Presented March 14, 1854; heard July 15 and August 1; September 26 the commissioners disagreed as to the construction of the convention of 1818; December 23, the umpire awarded $3,000.

27. Schooner Director. For the capture of the vessel in 1840 by the British