tain of clusive d in all cerned espect. rtions, -overn (1805.) 628,) lly be (1864.) da of f the Euted Pub. the statute, and the account is examined and adjusted, make t case one of arbitrament and award, in the technical sense of the words, so as to bind either party as by submission to awar Hence a subsequent act, repealing the one making the referen (the claim not being yet paid,) impairs no right, and is valid. Gordon vs. United States, 7 Wallace, 18 8. Where the Court of Claims was directed to make an examination in a claim against Mexico, and ascertain whether it was embrac within the terms of the treaty of 1848 (Pub. Trs. 492) and w authorized to fix and determine the amount which should be pai and did so: Held that the matter referred to the Court of Clair was the ascertainment of a particular fact, to guide the Gover ment in the execution of treaty stipulations, and that the det mination of the court cannot be reviewed in the Supreme Cou Ex parte Atocha, 17 Wallace, 4 9. Where a special mode is provided for obtaining compensation, su as by statute or by treaty, or where the power of assessing deciding on the questions is given to a special tribunal, the re edies specially provided can alone be pursued, and no action the premises can be maintained in the Court of Claims. Meade's case, 2 C. Cls., 228; affirmed, 9 Wallace, 6 2. 1 BELLIGERENTS. See Civil War. International law. Neutrality. Neutral Territory, Belligerent ships of war, privateers, and the prizes of either, a entitled, on the score of humanity, to temporary refuge in neut waters from casualties of the sea and land. Case of The President, 7 Op., 123, Cushing, (185 enjoy asylum in neutral ports for the purpose of obtaini 3. Where the neutral state has not signified its determination to the privilege of asylum to belligerent ships of war, private their prizes, either belligerent has a right to assume its exi and enter upon its enjoyment, subject to such regulation limitations as the neutral state may please to prescribe own security. 4. The United States have not, by treaty with any of the present b erents, bound themselves to accord asylum to either; but ne have the United States given notice that they will not; a course our ports are open, for lawful purposes, to the shi war of either Great Britain, France, Russia, Turkey, or Sard So that when a British vessel of war had brought a prize int harbor of San Francisco, and on a petition presented by pers alleging that they were unlawfully detained on the prize-vess habeas corpus was issued from a State court in California, wi was duly served. Held, the court had no jurisdiction, and officer was not bound to obey the writ. 5. Neutral muniments, however regular and formal, if colorable or do not affect belligerent rights. The Rugen, 1 Wheaton, 6. The United States not having acknowledged the existence of a Me can republic or state at war with Spain, the Supreme Court do not recognize as legal any acts done under the flag and comm sion of such republic or state. The Nueva Anna and Liebre, 6 Wheaton, 19 7. California, or the port of San Francisco, had been conquered by th arms of the United States as early as 1846. Shortly afterwar the United States had military possession of all of Upper Cal fornia. Early in 1847, the President, as constitutional commander in-chief of the Army and Navy, authorized the military and nava commander of our forces in California to exercise the belligeren rights of a conqueror, to form a civil government for the con quered country, and to impose duties cu imports and tonnage as retion of the ely, or gran her circu be strict wers. on to refus the army which had the conquest in possession. * It cannot be doubted that these orders of the President, and action of our Army and Navy commander in California, in formity with them, was according to the law of arms and right of conquest, or that they were operative until the rati tion and exchange of a treaty of peace. Such would be the c upon general principles in respect to war and peace betw nations. Cross vs. Harrison, 16 Howard, 8. The United States, in the enforcement of their constitutional rig against armed insurrection, have all the powers, not only sovereign, but also of the most favored belligerent. Lamar vs. Browne, 92 U. S. R., S. C., BILLS OF EXCHANGE. 1. Bills of exchange may be indorsed by an attorney-in-fact, hav competent authority derived from a power. Indorsement of bills, 1 Op., 188, Rush, (1 2. When the United States, by their authorized officers, become a pa to negotiable paper, they incur all the responsibilities of indi uals who are parties to such instruments. (See United States Bank of the Metropolis, 15 Peters, 377.) Concerning liability of Departments, 4 Op., 90, Legaré, (1 3. Where a minister is authorized to draw upon foreign bankers for salary, and his draft brings a premium, he is chargeable such premium, and holds it in trust for the Government. Case of James Semple, chargé to New Granada, 4 Op., 295, Nelson, (1 4. The Government, being bound to pay a minister a stipulated sal must make that amount available to him at the place of his eign residence, but is entitled to whatever the minister rece more than his salary, in the fiscal arrangements for makin available, 5. The Government is liable for costs and damages upon a draft dr by its direction upon a banker abroad by a minister for his ary and protested for non-payment. Having devised the met of making salaries available to ministers and agents abroad, having instructed them to draw upon a particular banking-ho the Government is bound to make reparation for any dam ment of the drafts. 6. In the case of Mr. Semple, chargé d'affaires to New Granad had drawn a draft for his salary, which was dishonored banking-house in London, and the holder subjected to thereby, and the drawer to payment of interest: Decided the Government is liable for such interest; and that Mr. Sen liable to account to the Government for interest on the a over and above his salary realized by him on the negotiat such draft from the time he was notified of the mistake. Ib.. 7. Whether the Government is liable for the costs and damages sioned by the non-acceptance of a draft drawn by the ch d'affaires of the United States at Lima, depends upon whethe was authorized to draw it, and whether its non-acceptance the mistake or fault of the Government. If he were author to draw, and the Government were at fault, the Departm should make good the damages and costs to which he bec liable on the return of his bill. Larned's case, 2 Op., 504, Taney, (18 8. It is the duty of the Government to provide a way to make the sal and expenses of a minister abroad good to him at the capital of residence. Case of Mr. Wise, minister at Rio, 4 Op., 506, Mason, (18 9. If a minister be directed to draw on London for his salary and penses, and there shall be a loss on the sale of his bills, it is t duty of the Government to make such loss good to him. 10. Where a draft was legally drawn by a purser in California on t Navy Department, and indorsed to the order of B, who presente it for payment on April 5, 1850, but it was not paid until 9t August following: Held, that B, having accepted payment an surrendered the bill, has no claim for interest and twenty pe cent. damages. Beers's case, 5 Op., 444, Crittenden, (1851. 11. Such bill is to be considered as a foreign bill of exchange, and a pro test was necessary before even the drawer or indorser could be holden for damages. Ib. 12. The question whether the United States will pay according to their original tenor drafts drawn by the Mexican government, under quent request of that government, is matter of political, 1 13. Where the Mexican government while administered by Pres 14. As a general rule, when the Government, by its authorized a becomes a party to negotiable paper, it has all the rights incurs all the responsibilities, of other parties to such instrum But exceptions to this rule may become established in the tice of different departments of the Government. Whitman's case, 8 Op., 1, Cushing, 15. Wherever the Government of the United States, through its fully-authorized agents, becomes the holder of a bill of exch it is bound to use the same diligence, in order to charg indorser, as in a transaction between private individuals. United States vs. Barker, 12 Wheat 16. If the United States, through their authorized officer, accept of exchange, they are bound for its payment to a bona-fide for value, whatever may have been the equities as between and the drawer. United States vs. Bank of the Metropolis, 15 Pete 17. An instrument, though in the form of a bill of exchange drav one government on another, is not governed by the law mer and therefore is not subject to protest and consequential ages. United States vs. Bank of the United States, 5 Howar 18. The Government of the United States has a right to use b exchange in conducting its fiscal operations, as it has the to use any other appropriate means for accomplishing its mate purposes. The Floyd acceptances, 7 Walla 19. When the Government becomes a party to such a bill, it is by the same rules in determining its rights and liabilit individuals are. |