at Lobos de Afuera, 1 claim, amounting to £4,218. Awarded, Chilean arbitrator dissenting, £1,500. "XVIII. For injury to vessels and delay in consequence of bombardment, 4 claims, amounting to £2,518 19s. 4d. Disallowed, acts complained of being those of legitimate warfare. "XIX. For notification of vessel on high seas of the existence of a blockade which was only a paper blockade, and causing her to proceed to a different port, 1 claim, amounting to £989 1s. 2d. Disallowed for want of evidence." Under Class XIII. Mr. Strobel refers to one of his dispatches for further information as to the refusal of the Chilean arbitrator to sign certain decisions. These decisions related to the bark Chépica and eleven other cases to which the same principles applied. The Chépica, when bound for Tocopilla, a port in the possession of the Congressional party, was detained at Valparaiso and Coquimbo under a decree of President Balmaceda. The Belgian and British arbitrators concurred in a decision that the tribunal had no jurisdiction of the case, (1) because the detention, being the result of an administrative decree, was not an act of the land or sea forces of the republic during the civil war in the sense of the convention, and (2) because a special remedy for the case was provided by the treaty of amity and commerce between Great Britain and Chile of October 4, 1854, a treaty still remaining in force. The Chilean arbitrator concurred as to the first reason, but dissented as to the second. By Article V. of the convention the decisions of the tribunal were required to be signed by all the members, but the Chilean arbitrator refused to sign the decision in question unless his dissenting opinion was embodied in or added to it. The Belgian and British arbitrators declined to permit this on the ground that the dissenting opinion formed no part of the decision; and for the reason that the decision was not signed by all the arbitrators the Chilean agent refused to accept notification of it.' The decision was as follows: “Decision of Belgian and British arbitrators on claim of bark Chépica. "I. Considering that the convention of arbitration of September 26, 1893, only submits to the jurisdiction of this tribunal'claims based upon acts or operations executed by the land and sea forces of the republic during the civil war which began on January 7, 1891, and ended on August 28 of the same year.' "Considering that the refusal on the part of the authorities of the port of Valparaiso to permit the bark Chépica to sail for Tocopilla on March 7, 1891, because the latter port was at that time occupied by revolutionary forces does not partake of the character of an act executed by the land forces of the republic, but an act of the de jure government of the country executed in accordance with law; that article 7 of the act of December 26, 1872, authorized the President of the republic to close temporarily one or more ports to commerce whenever extraordinary circumstances require it; that such a measure, dictated as a measure of urgency when the forces of the Congressional party occupied the ports of the north, was For. Rel. 1896, 37. ratified by supreme decree dated April 1, 1891, which declared the eight first-class ports of the north, from Chanaral to Pisagua, as well as the intermediate harbors, closed to commerce; that the fact that this measure, which from the point of view of an internal public law is entirely legal, had been taken by the de jure government of the country during the civil war, is not sufficient to give it the character of an act executed by the land forces of the republic against the bark Chépica. and "II. Considering that article 17 of the treaty of amity, commerce, navigation, concluded on October 4, 1854, between Chile and Great Britain, stipulates that whenever in case of war, and when the interests of the state are so seriously affected as to necessitate such action, one of the contracting parties shall decree the general embargo or closing of ports, merchant vessels can only claim certain stipulated indemnities if the detention or closing exceeds the period of six days; that by this clause Great Britain recognizes that the Chilean Government has the right to detain vessels and to close ports in case of war, but on condition of granting certain indemnities; that the claim being based upon measures taken in time of war, we must examine whether this tribunal has jurisdiction to apply the provisions of the treaty of October 4, 1854, to the case in question, since, by the very terms of the convention, it must observe the rules of international law, which comprises the general law of nations and the special law of nations established by treaties. (A. Merignhac, Traité Théorique et Pratique de l'Arbitrage International, Paris, 1895, p. 289; Calvo, Le Droit International Théorique et Pratique, Vol. III. p. 1768.) "Considering that the measure taken by the government of President Balmaceda regarding the bark Chépica, destined to a port in the north of Chile, is invested with the character of a ruler's decree (arrêt de prince), which is but one of the forms of embargo, as is admitted by the agent of the Chilean Government (Calvo, Le Droit International, Vol. III. p. 1277; Carlos Testa, Le Droit Public International Maritime, Paris, 1886, p. 128); that if the government has the right in time of war, in the interest of its own defense, to detain neutral vessels in its ports, and refuses them authorization to proceed to certain ports which are declared closed, the exercise of this right not only involves its moral responsibility, but also its real responsibility, whenever the case has been provided for in an international treaty, a circumstance which exists in the present case; that otherwise there would result, at least as regards vessels which are in the ports of the country that are not closed and destined for ports which are closed, the establishment of a paper blockade prohibited by modern international law. "Considering, besides, the decree of April 1, 1891, promulgated by President Balmaceda, and placing upon a regular basis the measures of urgency which had already been taken, declares that the eight first-class ports situated between Chanaral and Pisagua, as well as the intermediate harbors, are closed to commerce; that as this measure, which is applicable to an extended coast, and to all vessels without distinction of nationality which may be anchored in the ports still in possession of the government, may be considered as a general closure of the ports provided for by article 17 of the treaty of 1854; that a belligerent can not without exposing himself to responsibility, especially when the measure is provided for in the treaties concluded by such belligerents, declare one or several ports over which he has lost all control to be closed pending the duration of a war, except on the condition of employing force to prevent access to them, and for imposing in this way an effective blockade. In the case where a revolution or civil war breaks out in a country,' says Lord John Russell, quoted by Hall, the government can not declare ports which are in possession of the insurgents to be closed, and such a measure would be a violation of the laws of blockade.' (W. E. Hall, A Treatise on International Law, Oxford, 1890, p. 37, Note X.; De Holtzendorff, Éléments de Droit International Public, p. 75.) "Considering that if the measure taken by President Balmaceda in reference to the bark Chépica falls under article 17 of the treaty of 1854, which regulates the question of indemnity in case of embargo or general closing of ports, the same article provides for the appointment of special arbitrators whose duty it is, in case of disagreement, to fix the amount of indemnities, and that consequently this tribunal has no jurisdiction to give a decision in this case. "For these reasons the tribunal of arbitration unanimously declares that it has no jurisdiction to decide the present case, the Chilean arbitrator having declared that he does not accept, for reasons stated in his dissenting opinion, the second ground upon which the tribunal declares itself without jurisdiction. "Santiago, December 12, 1895. "CAMILLE JANSSEN. "ALFRED ST. JOHN. "The undersigned, arbitrators of Belgium and Great Britain, declare that, having requested the Chilean arbitrator to sign the preceding award in conformity with article 5 of the convention, he has formally refused to do so. "Santiago, February 8, 1896. "CAMILLE JANSSEN. "ALFRED ST. JOHN. "On February 23, 1896, I notified the British agent. "FREDERICK KERR. "On March 3, 1896, on notifying the agent of Chile, he declared that he did not accept the notification, because, in accordance with paragraph 3, article 5, of the convention of September 26, 1893, he did not consider anything a decision which did not bear the signatures of the three arbitrators. He refused to sign. "DIEGO ARMSTRONG, Secretary." By a convention signed July 6, 1895, between Chile and Sweden and Norway, it was agreed to refer to the Anglo-Chilean tribunal the claims of subjects of Sweden and Norway against Chile. Two such claims were submitted. The tribunal gave judgment on one of them, and declared itself incompetent to recognize the other. There were thus 103 claims submitted to the commission. They amounted to 4,050,354 pesos and 65 centavos, of which 3,307,621 pesos and 60 centavos represented principal, and 742,733 pesos 5 centavos interest. The tribunal awarded as principal 251,179 pesos 95 centavos, and interest 144,119 pesos 10 centavos. The records of the various claims and the awards of the commission were edited by Mr. Martinez and printed by the Chilean Government.' Great Britain and France.-Declaration by which Great Britain and France mutually accept the arbitration of Prussia on the claims of British subjects arising from the measures adopted by France in the years 1834, 1835, on the coast of Portendic: "PARIS, November 14, 1842. "The measures adopted by the French Government in 1834, 1835, on the coast of Portendic, during the war in which it was engaged with the Trarza Moors, gave rise to numerous and pressing claims on the part of the British merchants engaged in the gum trade on that coast. Those claims were from 1836 up to 1840 the subject of much correspondence and discussion between the British and French governments; but no understanding having been come to thereupon, commissioners on both sides were appointed in 1840 to examine into the said claims and to endeavor to put an end to the difference of which they were the cause. These commissioners, however, not having been able to arrive at any agreement, the British Government has proposed that the affair should be submitted to the arbitration of His Majesty the King of Prussia; and the French Government being desirous to give a proof of the sentiments of justice by which it is animated, and placing entire confidence in the wisdom and perfect impartiality of His Majesty the King of Prussia, has agreed to this proposition, declaring, nevertheless, that whatsoever may be the nature or form of the decision pronounced by the arbiter, that decision will not, in its eyes, be regarded as prejudicing in any way, even by induction, the principles which it has invariably professed in the matter of blockades and maritime law, nor as affecting any of the rights belonging to the sovereignty which it has always claimed to hold, in virtue of treaties, over the coast of Portendic. In like manner the British Government declares that the decision of the arbiter, whatever it may be, will not, in its eyes, even by induction, be considered as prejudicing any rights it has claimed or any principle it has asserted. The two governments, therefore, have agreed to submit to the examination of His Majesty the King of Prussia the whole of the claims as to this affair which have been presented by British subjects, and to request His Majesty to be pleased to pronounce as arbiter upon the question as to whether, in consequence of the measures and circumstances which preceded, accompanied, or followed the establishment and the notification of the blockade of the coast of Portendic in 1834, 1835, any real injury was unduly inflicted on such and such British subjects, while they were pursuing on the said coast a regular and lawful trade, and as to whether France is equitably bound to pay to such class of the said claimants any compensation by reason of such injury. If, as the two governments hope, His Majesty the King of Prussia should graciously accept the arbitration which it is their desire to place in his hands, com 1 Reclamaciones presentados at Tribunal Anglo-Chileno (1894-1896), 4 vols. The convention between Chile and Sweden and Norway of July 6, 1895, was sent to the Department of State, with a translation, by Mr. Strobel, in his dispatch No. 42, September 21, 1895. munication shall be made to him of all the dispatches, notes, and other documents which have been exchanged in this affair between the two governments; and His Majesty will also receive all further information which he may require, as well as all that which either government may think it necessary to lay before him. "The two governments, moreover, engage mutually to accept the decision of the King of Prussia and its consequences; and should that decision declare indemnity to be due to such or such class of British claimants, commissioners of liquidation, the one English, the other French, to whom, if necessary, shall be adjoined a Prussian as umpire, shall be charged with the application of the said decision to the individual claims which have been presented by British subjects, and shall determine the sum which ought to be allowed for each claim comprised within the classes of claims to which the arbiter shall have declared an indemnity to be due. "In witness whereof we, ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary of Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, at the court of His Majesty the King of the French; and we, minister and secretary of state for the department of foreign affairs of His Majesty the King of the French, duly authorized by our respective sovereigns, have signed the present declaration and affixed thereto our seals. "Done in duplicate, at Paris, the 14th day of November of the year 1842. "GUIZOT. [L. S.] [L. S.] Award of the King of Prussia, on the claims of British subjects against France, arising out of measures adopted by the French authorities in 1834 and 1835, on the coast of Portendic:. "BERLIN, November 30, 1843. "Nous Frédéric-Guillaume IV, par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de Prusse. "Ayant accepté l'arbitrage que Sa Majesté la Reine du Royaume Uni de la Grande Bretagne et d'Irlande, et Sa Majesté le Roi des Français, en vertu d'une Déclaration signée par leurs plénipotentiaires respectifs, à Paris, le 14 novembre, 1842, ont remis entre nos mains, afin de terminer par ce moyen, le différend qui s'est élevé entre eux au sujet de certaines réclamations formées par des négociants anglais contre le Gouvernement français, en conséquence des mesures adoptées par les autorités Françaises, en 1834 et 1835, sur la côte de Portendic; "Et ayant, aux termes de la dite Déclaration, à nous prononcer, comme Arbitre, sur la question de savoir, si par suite des mesures et des circonstances qui ont précédé, accompagné, ou suivi l'établissement et la notification du blocus de la côte de Portendic en 1834 et 1835, un préjudice réel a été indûment apporté à tels ou tels sujets de Sa Majesté Britannique, exerçant sur la dite côte un trafic régulier et légitime, et si la France est équitablement tenue de payer à telle ou telle classe des dits réclamants des indemnités à raison de ce préjudice; "Ayant, à cet effet, soigneusement examiné et mûrement pesé le contenu des dépêches, notes, et autres pièces que les Envoyés Extraordinaires et Ministres Plénipotentiaires de leurs dites Majestés près notre Cour ont respectivement transmis, sous la date du 19 avril dernier, à notre Ministre des Affaires Etrangères; "Déclarons que: "Quant aux réclamations auxquelles ont donné lieu les procédés du |