letter of Messrs. Gore and Pinkney the character of the applications to them for imposts and duties was not specified, but were merely represented as incompatible with the exemptions to which they considered themselves entitled by their official character, they said:

"We apprehend Messrs. Gore and Pinkney have no letters of credence to his Majesty, and have not been received by his Majesty with the formalities usually practiced in the reception of foreign public ministers, but are in the character of American citizens, resident in this country, under the protection of the American Minister, tho' invested by the United States with the character of Commissioners for a special purpose, under the stipulations of the late treaty between the two countries, authorizing a Commission of five persons of whom Mr. Gore & Mr. Pinkney are two.

"The act of the 7 Anne 12 for preserving the privileges of ambassadors & other public ministers of foreign princes and states,' applies only to ambassadors or other public ministers of any foreign prince or state authorized, & received as such by his Majesty, and we apprehend that as Mr. Gore & Mr. Pinkney have no letter of credence to his Majesty, and have not been received with the formalities usually practiced in the reception of foreign ministers, they cannot be deemed within the protection of that act, so that any privileges and exemptions which they can claim must we apprehend be founded either on the general law of nations, as recognized by the laws of this country, or by special provisions between the two countries, & due authority acting thereon.

"It seems therefore under all the circumstances highly expedient that the nature & extent of the privileges & exemptions claim'd by Mr. King on behalf of Messrs. Gore & Pinkney, and the grounds on which he claims such privileges & exemptions on their behalf should be clearly and explicitly stated to enable us to form a proper judgment thereon, & under this impression we take the liberty of suggesting to your Lordship the propriety of requesting to have such statement before we venture to give any opinion on a claim which appears to us new in its circumstances and important in its consequence."

There does not appear to have been any further discussion of the subject with the British Government, but in order that they might not seem to have made "a claim entirely unfounded in the law or practice of nations," Messrs. Gore and Pinkney on the 7th of February 1797 addressed to Mr. King an elaborate exposition of their views on the subject. The privileges and immunities to which they thought themselves entitled by their office were, they said, "an exemption from the jurisdiction of the country, and from the payment of those taxes, to

which public ministers are not liable." The reasons on which these exemptions were accorded to public ministers applied equally to those who under the stipulations of a treaty were to hear and decide upon claims against the government within whose territory they resided. Nor could they hold themselves to be under the protection of the American minister. It was the law that gave protection. They bore no relation to the American minister that could insure it. They should be independent of either government. As to what constituted a public minister, it was their opinion that if a person had a letter of credence, a power, or some commission from the sovereign of a country, if he was acknowledged and allowed by the sovereign of the country to which he was sent in the character communicated by his commission, and if his trust was to transact public affairs or business between nation and nation, such person was "a public minister, under whatever name, title, or style he may be authorized and commissioned, altho' he have no letters of credence to the sovereign, or be not received by him, with any particular formalities."1

In a letter to Mr. Pickering of July 29, 1797, Messrs. Gore and Pinkney inclosed copies of the correspondence and of the opinion of the law officers on their claim of privilege, and said: "The opinion of His Majesty's law officers rendered it proper that the grounds on which we found our opinion should appear.

* And thus it remains. We are liable to pay all the taxes that are assessed on British subjects; and we do pay them of course. Whatever opinion we entertain of this procedure, we have not the smallest desire of ever again raising the question. There is a personal delicacy which in our relation to the British Government absolutely forbids any further discussion of it, either by ourselves or others." In conclusion they suggest that in any future arrangements of a similar character it may be advisable to insert a clause expressly communicating the character and privileges of a public minister to the commissioners.

In the United States it has been the practice to extend to persons acting in such a capacity as Messrs. Gore and Pinkney the free entry of articles belonging to them, but this has been

1 In the course of their exposition Messrs. Gore and Pinkney cited Vattel, Book IV. secs. 25, 122; Wiquefort, Book I. chap. 1, p. 2; chap. 5, pp. 30, 40, 41; Martens, 206, 207, 221; 3 Burrows, 1481, 1676; 4 Blackstone's Comm. 70.

done as a matter of courtesy and not as a matter of right. Whether such persons would be accorded all the privileges and immunities of diplomatic agents has never, I believe, been determined, and may be doubted. In many cases the foreign members of claims commissions in the United States have been diplomatic officers; and in at least one case, that of the commission under the treaty with Mexico of 1839, the foreign goverment has specially invested its commissioners with a diplomatic character in order that they might possess the immunities of public ministers.

CHAPTER XI.

DIFFERENCE AS TO THE TREATY OF GHENT: AWARD OF THE EMPEROR OF RUSSIA; MIXED COMMISSIONS; DOMESTIC COMMISSIONS.

1. AWARD OF THE EMPEROR OF RUSSIA.

Possession of Slaves by British Forces.

During the war between the United States and Great Britain of 1812 the British naval forces occupied numerous bays and rivers in the United States, and debarked troops who established posts at various places on the coast, near some of which there was a large slave population. In time these naval and land forces came into possession of a considerable number of slaves, some of whom they received as voluntary fugitives, and others of whom they took in predatory excursions. Others yet were seduced to run away from their masters. On the 2d of April 1814 Admiral Cochrane, commanding His Majesty's forces on the North American station, issued the following proclamation:2

"Whereas it has been represented to me that many persons now resident in the United States have expressed a desire to withdraw therefrom, with a view of entering into his Majesty's service, or of being received as Free Settlers in some of his Majesty's Colonies

"This is therefore to give notice

"That all those who may be disposed to emigrate from the United States will, with their families, be received on board his Majesty's ships or vessels of war, or at the military posts that may be established upon or near the coast of the United States, where they will have their choice of either entering into his majesty's sea or land forces, or of being sent as Free settlers

1

1 Précis de la question, ou exposé abrégé du différend qui est survenu par rapport au premier article du traité de Gand, entre les États-Unis d'Amérique et 'Angleterre, avec des pièces justificatives, à St.-Pétersbourg, 1821.

to the British possessions in North America or the West Indies, where they will meet with all due encouragement.

"Given under my hand at Bermuda this 2nd day of April,

1814.

"ALEXANDER COCHRANE.

"By command of the Vice Admiral

"WILLIAM BALHETCHET."

Though this proclamation was not addressed eo nomine to slaves, yet its meaning and object were manifest. Being widely distributed by the British commanders, it had the effect of attracting a considerable number of slaves, some of whom were transported to the Bahamas or other British possessions, while many remained with His Majesty's sea and land forces at their stations and posts in the United States. This was especially the case in the Chesapeake Bay and at Cumberland Island in Georgia.

erty.

By Article I. of the treaty of peace concluded Restoration of Prop- at Ghent on the 24th of December 1814 it was provided that "All territory, places and possessions whatsoever, taken by either party from the other dur ing the war, or which may be taken after the signing of this treaty, shall be restored without delay, and without causing any destruction or carrying away any of the artillery or other public property originally captured in the said forts or places, and which shall remain therein upon the exchange of the ratifications of this treaty, or any slaves or other private property." It is to be observed that this provision limits the obligation as to the artillery or other public property to such as was originally captured in the fort or place to be restored and still remained therein.

vate Property.

After the exchange of the ratifications of Question as to Pri- the treaty on February 17, 1815, commissioners were appointed on the part of the United States to receive and make the necessary arrangements respecting the public and private property in the possession of the British forces. When they came to execute this commission they encountered on the part of the British commanders an opinion contrary to their own as to the construction of the treaty. When applied to by the American commissioners for the restoration of "all slaves, and other private property, which may now be in possession of the forces of His Britannic Majesty," Captain John Clavelle, who commanded in the Chesapeake, replied: "I understand the first article of the treaty