that the claimants were entitled to the protection of the United States in the conduct of their business as insurers, since it was shown that this business was conducted exclusively in London and within the exclusive jurisdiction of Great Britain. Judgment was therefore entered for the United States.1 The question of protection also arose in the case of certain American claimants for premiums paid for insurance against war risks on goods shipped on British vessels. Objection was made to the allowance of these claims, on the ground (1) that as the shipments were made on neutral ships there was no war risk to be insured against, and (2) that as to such shipments the claimants were not entitled to the protection of the United States in the premises. The court deemed neither of these objections well founded. The court held that it was a matter of interest to the United States, during the civil war, that its commerce should be kept up even in foreign ships; and that American shippers ought not to be denied relief because, when a large part of the American merchant marine had been driven from the seas, they used foreign ships. Harlan, P. J., dissented. The court said: "The more restricted right which an alien may have to demand protection for his person and property of the state where he is temporarily sojourning, does not at all take the place of, or interfere with, this higher claim to the protection of his own government. Behind this special and present protection which, under the recognized law of nations, the flag affords, there is the final right of appeal to the government of his allegiance, which every American citizen has at all times and in all places. And it is this broader and more comprehensive right which we think was contemplated by the framers of the statute." Harlan, P. J., arguing against this view, maintained that the goods in question were at the time under the protection of Great Britain and not of the United States. He placed much emphasis on the position of the United States in respect of claims growing out of the bombardment of Greytown, likening the property of an American citizen on a British ship on the high seas to that of the French subjects in Greytown. When the French Government presented claims for the destruction of their property, the United States replied that they must look for indemnity to the community to whose protection they had committed their persons and property. He also contended that the words "entitled to the protection of the United States in the premises" could only refer, when the subject-matter of the act was examined, to "property sailing on the high seas under the flag of the United States." It was held, following the decision of the first court, that a colorable transfer of a vessel of the United States which had been captured by a Confederate cruiser to the British flag, in order to rescue her from the hands of the captors, did not forfeit the protection of the United States.3 "Confederate Cruiser." Another important question decided by the court What Constituted a was that as to what constituted a Confederate cruiser within the meaning of the act of 1882. This question did not arise before the first court, because the cruisers for whose acts 1 Biscoff et al. v. United States, No. 5693, class 1. 2 The Pacific Mills v. United States, No. 793, class 2. 3 Tyler v. United States, No. 4438, class 1. claims were allowed were specifically designated. The act of 1882, however, included Confederate cruisers generally. The construction to be placed upon this term was first decided by the court in the case of the Roanoke, a merchant steamer plying between New York and Havana. On September 29, 1864, when on her regular voyage to New York and when about sixty miles out from Havana on the high seas, she was forcibly taken possession of by one John C. Braine and certain officers and men under his command, all of whom had gone on board the vessel at Havana in the disguise of passengers. Subsequently the vessel was burned by her captors. Her owners made a claim for her loss on the ground that Braine, who held a commission from the Confederate secretary of the navy, had made his way from Bermuda to Matanzas on a schooner called the Resolution, which, it was contended, was to be considered for the purposes of the case as a Confederate cruiser. The schooner, however, was unarmed, and on her arrival at Matanzas was condemned and sold, and Braine and his men went as passengers to Havana, where they remained until they boarded the Roanoke. The court held that neither the Resolution nor Braine and his men could be considered as "Confederate cruisers;" that the term "Confederate cruisers" in the act of 1882 "was intended by Congress to include only armed vessels, public or private, fitted for hostile operations upon the high seas, and acting under the authority of the Confederate government." The same question was next determined in the case of the Boston, which was one of the vessels excluded from consideration by the Geneva tribunal for want of evidence. The Boston was originally a steam towboat, in the merchant marine service, plying on the Mississippi River between New Orleans and the Gulf of Mexico. She was captured on the night of June 9, 1863, by one James Duke and certain other persons who, armed with short rifles, sabers, and pistols, came on board by means of a barge or rowboat, overpowered the crew, and caused the Boston to be steamed down the river to the Gulf of Mexico, where he formally declared her to be a prize of the Confederate States, put her crew under duress as prisoners of war, and ran up the Confederate flag. On the same night, using the Boston for the purpose, Duke and his men captured and destroyed the bark Lenor near the mouth of the Mississippi River. The court held that the Boston was not a "Confederate cruiser." The Boston was not, said the court, speaking through Judge Harlan, armed or "fitted for hostile operations on the high seas." She was in a condition at the time to be used only as "a transport to carry the assailants to their intended victims and plunder," and differed from the barge used by the same men in her capture only in being propelled by steam, while the barge was propelled by oars. "In the opinion of the court," said Judge Harlan, "the mere presence of armed men on board and in control of a vessel on the high seas is not sufficient to establish the character of the craft as a Confederate cruiser within the meaning of the statute. And if the vessel used in effecting this capture had been of such construction, or so armed and equipped as to be itself an implement of warfare on the high seas, being under the control of an effective force of armed men, it would still have been necessary to prove by competent evidence that the expedition was at the time acting under the authority of the Confederate government to bring it within the requirements of the statute." The claimants endeavored to show that James Duke was an officer in the Confederate navy (1) by the oral testimony of witnesses as to what he said before, at, and after the capture of the Lenox; (2) by a certified copy of the proceedings of an alleged Confederate prize court under whose decree the Boston was seized and sold; and (3) by a copy of the Confederate Naval Register containing, under the head of "deaths, resignations, casualties," the entry: "Duke James, acting master Nov. 20, 1863." The court held that his character as an officer was not satisfactorily proved. "But," said Judge Harlan, "if it had been conclusively proved that said Duke was, at the time of the capture of the Lenox, an officer in the Confederate navy, that fact and his presence in command of a ship on the high seas would not, in the opinion of the court, considered in the light of all the decisions cited on the trial, raise the legal presumption that he was acting under the authority of the Confederate government, unless it were also shown that the ship was a public vessel in commission, or its tender, belonging to the Confederate government. Even if found in command of a private vessel sailing under the authority of a letter of marque, his authority would depend on the letter rather than his commission as a naval officer. In the case at bar it is made clear to the court, from the testimony produced, that the steamer Boston was not a public vessel in commission belonging to the Confederate government. And it is equally clear that it was not sailing under a letter of marque, nor is it claimed that it was. Hence, after a patient review of all the facts brought out in the testimony, and a mature consideration of all the principles of law, so ably and exhaustively presented in the argument, by learned counsel for claimants, as well as by government counsel, the court is compelled to conclude that the bark Lenox was not captured by a Confederate cruiser within the meaning of the act of June 5, 1882." The question as to what constituted a Confederate cruiser was also decided in the case of the steamer Ike Daris, which was seized on the high seas by men professedly in the service of the Confederate government who had gone on board of her at Matamoras as passengers for New Orleans. The court said that the case thus fell within the principle laid down in the case of the Roanoke. It was alleged, however, that the captors of the Ike Davis "ran said steamer into the port of Lavacca, Texas, and subsequently instituted proceedings against said vessel as a prize of war in the Confederate States court at Gonzales, Texas," under which the steamer was condemned and sold; and it was argued for the claimant that the findings of this prize court should have the same effect as if the capture had been made by a duly commissioned cruiser. To this the court replied (1) that there was "nothing in the evidence to show upon what facts the adjudication of this so-called prize court was based;" and (2) that the Alabama claims court could not recognize the Southern confederacy as being competent to establish prize courts.1 The "Confederate cruiser" question was finally discussed and decided in the case of the ship Alleganean, which was seized on the night of Octo 'On this point the court cited The Lilla, 2 Sprague, 177; 2 Clifford, 169; Miller v. U. S., 11 Wallace, 268; Teras v. White, 7 Id. 700; Hickman v. Jones, 9 Id. 197; Knox v. Lee, 12 Id. 437; Huntington v. Texas, 16 Id. 402, 411; National Bank of Washington v. Texas, 20 Id. 72, 83. ber 28, 1862, in the Chesapeake Bay, by eighteen officers and men of the Confederate navy, commanded by Lieutenants John Taylor Wood and S. Smith Lee. These officers were commissioned officers in the Confederate navy, and were at the time acting under the special orders of the Confederate secretary of the navy, and the men who were with them were specially detailed from the James River squadron. They came overland to the Chesapeake Bay from the Patrick Henry, an armed and commissioned Confederate vessel, for the purpose of preying upon United States merchant vessels; and, having secured two or three small vessels of not more than fifteen or twenty tons, had been cruising about for two or three nights when they attacked the Alleganean. The court said: "The meaning of the term 'Confederate cruiser' was defined by this court in the case of the Roanoke (Warren v. United States), French, J., delivering the opinion in these words: We can reach no other conclusion than that the phrase "Confederate cruiser," as found in the act of 1882, was intended by Congress to include only armed vessels, public or private, fitted for hostile operations upon the high seas, and acting under the authority of the Confederate government.' "In the case of the Lenox (Lindsey v. United States), Harlan, J., delivering the opinion of the court, said: 'In the opinion of the court the mere presence of armed men on board and in control of a vessel on the high seas is not sufficient to establish the character of the craft as a Confederate cruiser within the meaning of the statute. And if the vessel used in effecting this capture had been of such construction, or so armed and equipped as to be itself an implement of warfare, on the high seas, being under the control of an effective force of armed men, it would still have been necessary to prove by competent evidence that the expedition was at the time acting under the authority of the Confederate government to bring it within the requirements of the statute.' "Proceeding, the court said: 'But if it had been conclusively proved that said Duke (the commander of the Confederate force) was at the time of the capture of the Lenox an officer in the Confederate navy, that fact, and his presence in command of a ship on the high seas, would not, in the opinion of the court, considered in the light of all the decisions cited on the trial, raise the legal presumption that he was acting under the authority of the Confederate government, unless it were also shown that the ship was a public vessel in commission or its tender, belonging to the Confederate government. Even if found in command of a private vessel sailing under authority of a letter of marque, his authority would depend on the letter rather than his commission as a naval officer.' "From these decisions, in order to constitute a 'Confederate cruiser' there must have been, first, an armed vessel, and second, the vessel must have been a commissioned vessel of the Confederate navy, or she must have carried letters of marque from the Confederate government. Further than this, the fact that the crew were a part of the Confederate naval forces, and were acting under authority of the Confederate government, would not supply the absence of letters of marque. "The vessels employed in the destruction of the Alleganean were not armed, they were not in commission, and they had no letters of marque. The official and authorized character of the men could not do away with the necessity of authority running to the vessels themselves, nor could the fact that the men were armed supply the lack of armament upon the vessels in order to bring them up to the character of 'cruisers.' "The learned counsel for the claimants, with much earnestness and ingenuity, undertakes to meet the difficulty upon the theory that the vessels employed were tenders to the Patrick Henry, a duly commissioned and armed vessel of the Confederate navy, and argues that a cruiser can send her boats and men off to a distance and commit depredations at arm's length, and that the damage in this case was in fact and effect done by the Patrick Henry herself. It is difficult to see how this view or the statement of Wood that the boats were tenders of the cruiser can be sustained in the face of his testimony that 'I went at once to Matthews county, Virginia, near New Point Comfort, and there found a suitable boat, fitted her as a man-of-war launch' (p. 57, Record), and in the face of the testimony of Lee that 'We had two small bo its that we obtained on the bay shore, with sails and a sailing skiff, we captured from two Union men. No boats were brought from Richmond or from any Confederate cruiser' (p. 20 Record). In the opinion of the court, the claim that these boats were tenders attached to the cruiser must fail, and with it the suggestion that the damage was done by the armed vessel through the instrumentality of boats attached to her. "So far as being effective in this matter, the Patrick Henry might as well have been in the Arctic Ocean as over in the James River. Any other body of men to the same number might have done the same work. The force making the capture in this case received no support or assistance from any armed or credentialed war vessel. The damage was done by the men alone, and not by a vessel, when the act contemplates only damages wrought by an authorized vessel fitted for belligerent operations upon the high seas." Meaning of "High # * We have seen that by section 5 of the act of 1882 the court was directed to determine claims for damages done on the "high seas," including vessels and cargoes "attacked on the high seas, although the loss or damage occurred within four miles of the shore." In the case of the Alleganean, which has just been referred to, it was held that the Chesapeake Bay, being within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, was not a part of the "high seas" within the meaning of the act of 1882, which was construed as employing the term in its international sense. The "high-seas" question was also discussed and decided in the case of the ship John H. Jarvis, captured May 16, 1861, by the Confederate cruiser Music, near the mouth of the Mississippi River. It being admitted that the attack and the capture took place within four miles of the shore, counsel for the United States moved to dismiss the claim on the ground that as the attack was not made beyond four miles from the shore the case did not fall within the provisions of the act. On the other hand it was contended by counsel for the claimant that the term "high seas" should be held to mean the waters of the sea from shore to shore, commencing and terminating at low-water mark. The court admitted that in admiralty proceedings the term "high seas” usually meant "the waters of the ocean from shore to shore at low-water mark," but observed that it did not follow that Congress so used the term in the act of 1882. The jurisdiction of a nation was, said the court, generally held to extend over a belt of water a marine league or about four statute miles from the shore, and with reference to this belt the term high seas was used to denote waters at a greater distance from the shore. In which sense did Congress use the term in the statute? The subject of the statute was, said the court, the destruction of merchant ships and cargoes on the high seas by Confederate cruisers. In this relation certain facts and circumstances should be considered. The court then proceeded as follows: "Within the marine league from a neutral shore the property of citizens of the United States was under the protection of the neutral government, and not legally subject to capture by belligerent cruisers, and within the marine league of the shore of the United States and on its interior waters it was under the protection of the guns, shore batteries, harbor defenses, and land forces of the United States, and consequently less liable to capture by belligerent ships of the public enemy; and the entrance of merchant ships for the purpose of trade into the harbors and on the interior |