and that aliens had no right to complain if they were treated in the same manner as United States' citizens."

4. That this opinion was sent by the United States' Secretary of State to Her Majesty's Minister on the 7th of June, 1866.

Her Majesty's Counsel argued :

1. That the United States, through their officers, had admitted the correctness of the claim.

2. That the Sovereign power of the country had recognized the obligation of such claims, and had provided a remedy by the Southern Claims Commission, so far as loyal citizens of the United States were concerned, and that the Treaty of Washington had given the Commissioners of the Mixed Commission jurisdiction in similar claims brought by British subjects.

3. That aliens were not allowed to plead before the Southern Claims Commission.

The defence contended:

1. That the claimant and his farm were within the enemy's country, and in the track of the invading army. 2. That no allegations of wanton injury were made or sustained.

3. That the destruction of the claimant's property was the ordinary and inevitable destruction consequent upon the march of an invading army.

4. That Congress had never recognized the obligation of such claims, and that the Southern Claims Commission, created under the Act of March 3rd, 1871, had no jurisdiction in claims for "property destroyed," but only in those "for stores and supplies taken or furnished during the rebellion for the use of the army of the United States." Also, that said Commission had no power to award any money, but were solely organized to take proofs and report as to claims of a certain nature.

The briefs of the respective Counsel will be found in the Appendix, Papers Nos. 20, 21, and 22.

The following is the decision of the Commissioners in the above case:

Washington, D. C., February 13, 1872.

"No. 12.-Thomas Sterling v. The United States.

"The acts done upon which this claim is based seem to have been the ordinary results incident to the march

of an invading army in a hostile territory, with possibly some unauthorized acts of destruction and pillage by the soldiery, with no proof of appropriation by the United States. Under such circumstances, there is no ground for a valid claim against the United States. "The claim is, therefore, disallowed.

(Signed)

"L. CORTI.

"RUSSELL GURNEY. "J. S. FRAZER.

"Commissioners."

Property seized for the use of the United States' Army, with proof of appropriation, but no receipts given.

No. 31.-Jonathan Braithwaite v. The United States. Claimant alleged and filed evidence to prove

1. That he was a native of England, and a resident of the State of Kentucky, United States, during the whole war.

2. That on the 6th of August, 1864, a company of United States' soldiers, under the command of a lieutenant, forcibly took possession of, and pressed into the service of the United States, a horse belonging to him, of the value of 150 dollars, without offering him any compensation.

3. That it being the cropping season, he lost at least 50 dollars more by the seizure of his horse.

The United States' Agent, in his brief, stated:

1. That the claimant being domiciled in the State of Kentucky, which State had never been declared in rebellion, stood upon the same footing as native citizens of the United States, and that the taking of the horse was a seizure from which clearly an obligation to make compensation accrued on the part of the United States.

2. That at the time of the seizure of his property he could have presented his claim to the QuartermasterGeneral of the army for payment, and that having failed to do so, and through said failure not having. exhausted the ordinary remedies given him by the municipal laws. and regulations of the United States, he had no standing before this International Tribunal.

The three Commissioners signed an award of 225 dollars gold in favour of the above claimant.

Property seized for the use of the United States' Army, and receipts given, but payment refused by United States' authorities.

No. 28.-John Wilkinson v. The United States.

This was a claim of a British subject residing on Matagorda Island, Calhoun county, State of Texas, for 10,500 lbs. of fresh beef taken from him for the use of the United States' army in the latter part of 1863 and the beginning of 1864.

He claims the sum of 525 dollars currency.

As evidence of his claim he filed three vouchers given to him for said beef. These vouchers are all in the same form, and purport on their face to have been given under the order of the United States' Department of War. Two of them are signed by United States' Lieutenant S. Wright, Acting Assistant-Commissary of Subsistence; the third by United States' First Lieutenant Artemus Adams, Acting Commissary of Subsistence in charge of Depôt. On each of them there is an endorsement which is as follows:

66

Pay to the order of George McColloch Wilkinson, the within amount."

Each voucher is accompanied by an affidavit of the claimant to the effect that he is the original owner of said vouchers.

There is another endorsement on these vouchers by A. B. Eaton, Commissary-General of Subsistence, dated April 25th, 1866, which is as follows:

"This account having arisen prior to the surrender of the rebel forces in Texas, a State in insurrection, under the decisions and orders governing this office, it is without authority to order its payment until Congress shall, by appropriate legislation, provide for the same by law."

The defence held :

1. That G. McColloch Wilkinson was evidently the real owner of the vouchers, and that the claimant could not prosecute a claim originally his, but which he had transferred to another party.

2. That the claimant being domiciled in the enemy's

country, was entitled to no further relief than loyal United States' citizens found resident in the same territory, and that the decisions of the Southern Claims Commission does not bind Congress to pay claims of this nature.

3. That Congress would no doubt reverse the decision of the Southern Claims Commission, admitting only claims of United States' citizens, and allow aliens to plead before said Commission.

4. That the claimant not having claimed interest, it should not be included in any award made in his favour, as the United States' Government never paid interest on similar claims brought by their own citizens.

Her Majesty's Counsel held

1. That the claimant had presented his claim to the proper authorities and had been refused payment, not because the claim was incorrect or fraudulent, but on account of the existing regulations of the United States' War Department.

2. That the United States' Government had provided their own citizens with a remedy through the Southern Claims Commission for claims of this nature, excluding aliens.

3. That the Treaty of Washington had provided this Mixed Commission for the settlement of claims of like nature brought by British subjects.

4. That the claimant was entitled to the whole amount he claimed, with interest from the date of seizure.

The three Commissioners signed an Award of 782 dollars gold in favour of the claimant.

The briefs of the respective counsel will be found in the Appendix, Papers Nos. 23 and 24.

As to the jurisdiction of the United States' Court of Claims in a claim. arising out of the seizure and occupation of real estate by the United States' military or naval authorities.

No. 4.-James Crutchett v. The United States.

The claimant, a native born subject of Her Britannic Majesty, had resided in the United States since the year

[230]

D

1812. Prior to April, 1861, he was the owner of certain lots of ground in the city of Washington, on which was erected a large building fitted up as a factory, and furnished with material manufactured and unmanufactured.

In July, 1861, the factory with all its appurtenances was taken possession of by the United States, and afterwards the dwelling-house near by, with all the furniture therein. The real estate was held by the United States during the whole of the civil war, indeed until the 31st of July, 1866, and the machinery, &c., either destroyed or carried away.

The United States' Counsel Counsel demurred to the memorial on two grounds:

1. That the claimant, having been domiciled at the time of the injuries complained of, and for a long time previous, in the United States, had no standing as a British subject within the XIIth Article of the Treaty.

2. That the acts set forth in the memorial were acts for which redress could be fully had under the municipal law and authority of the United States, and did not come within the provisions of the Treaty.

On the first ground, the arguments on both sides were substantially the same as those on the demurrer in the claim of A. Barclay (No. 5) v. The United States. the Report on said case.)

(See

On the second ground the United States contended that the Court of Claims had jurisdiction of Crutchett's case, and that he therefore had no standing before the Commission, which was not intended to oust the ordinary courts of law of their jurisdiction.

The claimant's Counsel urged, on the other hand, that:

1. The Act of February 24th, 1855, gave the Court of Claims jurisdiction over those claims only which were founded upon any law of Congress, or upon any regulation of an Executive Department, or upon any contract, express or implied, with the Government of the United States. It had no final jurisdiction, strictly speaking, and no judicial character until the Act of March 17th, 1866.

2. Before the date of the last-mentioned Act, Congress, by the Act of July 4th, 1864, denied to the said Court jurisdiction of any claims growing out of the