those opinions from information furnished by the claimant. Neither did the claimant avail himself of his right to bring an action for damages against the prefect, nor even to report the case to the Mexican Government. It is still more remarkable that neither the claimant nor the United States consul appears to have registered any written protest or to have made any representations to their own government, although the affair is alleged to have involved a loss to the claimant of $250,000. The umpire is of opinion that the Mexican Government can not be called upon to pay compensation in this case."

Thornton, umpire, July 22, 1876, John D. Cramer v. Mexico, No. 950, convention of July 4, 1868, MS. Op. VI. 501.

Jonan's Case.

Claimant was arrested and had his papers taken from him by order of Alvarez, dictator of Guerrero. He was held in prison for long periods in 1853 and 1854, on charges not within the jurisdiction of the courts. The following decision was made:

"It appears to the umpire that the arrest of the claimant in December 1853 was illegal in form; that almost the whole of the accusations against him were not within the jurisdiction of the Mexican courts * * ; that the fact of their trying claimant upon accusations over which they had no jurisdiction prolonged the proceedings most unjustly toward the claimant; that from the beginning to the end of the proceedings the forms of law were infringed to the prejudice of the accused; that the legation of the United States at Mexico called the attention of the Mexican Government to the want of jurisdiction of the tribunals over the questions at issue, and that the Mexican Government having been thus warned, and having abstained from attempting to prevent these illegal acts, which it had full power to do, assumed the responsibility of those acts."

Thornton, umpire, November 20, 1875, Augustus Jonan v. Mexico, No. 70, convention of July 4, 1868, MS. Op. IV. 91, VII. 355. An award was made to the claimant of $35,000 Mexican gold, with interest.

Case of the "Emily
Banning."

The bark Emily Banning, having arrived at Acapulco in distress, was detained and her captain and crew imprisoned on suspicion of being fillibusters. The detention was long and the imprisonment harsh. The umpire held that the whole proceeding was unjustifiable and made an award in favor of claimants.

Thornton, umpire, Nautilus Submarine Pearl Fishing Co., owner of the bark, v. Mexico, No. 136, convention of July 4, 1868, MS. Op. III. 14, 334; Martha E. Thatcher, widow and administratrix of Anthony Thatcher, captain of the bark, No. 137, MS. Op. III. 22, 336.

5627-VOL. 4- -2

Pierce's Case.

Claimant was arbitrarily arrested by an officer of local police in Mexico and kept all night a prisoner in a house. It appeared that

the authorities had proceeded against this official, fined and reprimanded him, and dismissed him from office. It was held that the claimant was not, under the circumstances, entitled to an award against the Mexican Government.

John R. Pierce v. Mexico, No. 806, convention of July 4, 1868, MS. Op. VII. 28.

Brito's Case.

"The arrest of the claimant in the city of Havana having been effected in violation of the stipulations of treaty, and his health hav ing been injured by imprisonment, he has a right to recover damages to the amount of $600, with interest at 6 per cent a year, since the 12th of February 1869, to this day."

M. Bartholdi, umpire, November 14, 1874, José Vicente Brito v. Spain, No. 23, Spanish Claims Commission, agreement between the United States and Spain of February 11-12, 1871.

Griffin's Case.

The claimant demanded $25,000 damages, on the ground that he was without probable cause, and maliciously and oppressively, ar rested and imprisoned. It appeared that on April 4, 1871, he was master of an American brig, then lying at Sagua la Grande in Cuba. On the day when the vessel was ready to sail, a slave belonging to the charterers was discovered secreted in the hold, and was taken out by their agent, who reported the circumstance to the authorities. The authorities ordered the arrest of the claimant on the charge of attempting to aid a slave to escape, and he was imprisoned from the 4th of April till the 13th of the following month, when he was discharged on nominal bail. He claimed damages for costs and charges incurred by reason of his imprisonment, for losses and damages suffered, for damage to vessel and cargo, etc. The commission awarded him $500 in American gold.

Joseph Griffin v. Spain, No. 87, April 10, 1875, Spanish Claims Commission, agreement of February 11-12, 1871.

Moliere's Case.

"In the case of Pedro Moliere v. Spain, No. 4, it is my opinion that the claimant has no right to recover damages from the Spanish Government for the injuries he received in a private quarrel on the 30th of August 1870. But inasmuch as the claimant was subsequently arrested, and though it is not possible to decide

from the testimony brought before the commission if his arrest was or was not ordered upon sufficient ground, as there is no doubt that he was not tried, as he ought to have been, before a competent tribunal, and that after sixteen days of imprisonment, it was only owing to the exertions of the consul-general of the United States that he was released, it is my opinion that the claimant has a right to recover damages to the amount of $3,000, with interest at 6 per cent per annum, from the 1st of September 1870 to the day of payment."

M. Bartholdi, umpire, October 25, 1875, Pedro Moliere v. Spain, No. 4, Spanish Claims Commission, agreement of February 11-12, 1871.

Case of Cabias.

In the brief of the advocate for Spain it was stated that the wrongs of which the claim ant complained were that he was arrested on the 15th of January 1869, conducted to Havana, confined in a dark cell for fifty-five days, tried upon a charge of complicity in a political riot in which two policemen were shot, and condemned, though on appeal he was acquitted; that he was then, March 12, removed from the dark cell and placed in the stocks, and kept there for fifteen days and nights; that he was then, about March 27, taken from the stocks and placed in the gallery of the prison, and there detained until July 21, when he was released and taken by two policemen to a steamer bound for Key West, on which he was forced to sail, being furnished with a passport for that island; that during his imprisonment he was tried upon charges of being a Freemason, of vagrancy, and of insolence and defiance of Spanish authority.

The evidence showed that the claimant was acquitted on the charge of complicity in the insurrection, but when he was expelled the charge of vagrancy was still pending. He claimed damages to the amount of $187,363.25 for imprisonment, loss of health, expenses, etc. The arbitrators awarded him $3,000, with interest at 6 per cent from January 15, 1869, till final payment of the award.

Teodoro Cabias v. Spain, No. 10, March 17, 1877, Spanish Claims Commission, agreement of February 11-12, 1871.

Jones's Case.

The claimant, who was the master of an American brig, was on August 8, 1871, arrested at Santiago de Cuba on the charge of having aided a revenue accountant who had stolen public money and stamps to escape from Cuba, by conveying him i

the brig on a former voyage to the Island of Haiti. His bail was fixed at from $17,000 to $20,000; but after thirty-one days' imprisonment he was, through the intervention of the United States consul, released on $200 bail. After his release the claimant resumed command of his vessel and returned to New York. The judgment of the court on the charge against him was not delivered until September 3, 1874. This judgment declared that there was no proof, though there might have been suspicions, that the claimant knew of the crimes of the revenue accountant when he conveyed him away in his vessel.

The arbitrator for the United States thought that the proceedings against the claimant were irregular, because it was not until two years after his arrest that the prosecution was begun against the fugitive accountant. The arbitrator, treating the latter as principal and the claimant as accessory, contended that no trial of the claimant could regularly have been held until the trial of the principal offender, the fugitive ac

countant.

The Spanish arbitrator held that the fact that the claimant was found to be innocent did not entitle him to damages when the formalities of the law had been observed, and when the authorities were not actuated by malice against him.

It was also maintained by the advocate for Spain that the claim did not come within the jurisdiction of the commission, because it had no connection with the insurrection. In support of this contention he referred to the title of the agreement of February 12, 1871, in which it is described as providing for an arbitration of claims arising "since the commencement of the present insurrection." By the fifth article of the agreement, however, the arbitrators were expressly invested with "jurisdiction of all claims," etc., "for injuries done to citizens of the United States by the authorities of Spain in Cuba since the 1st day of October 1868."

The umpire rendered the following decision: "The umpire is of opinion that the arrest was legal, but that, inasmuch as the amount of bail required was exorbitant, the treaty of 1795 was violated, and that the claimant under the circumstances is entitled to some indemnity; and the umpire hereby decides that an amount of $5,000, without interest, be paid on account of this claim."

Count Lewenhaupt, umpire, December 27, 1880, William A. Jones v. Spain, No. 89, agreement between the United States and Spain of February 11-12, 1871.

Case of Waydell & Co.

The owners of the vessel referred to in the preceding case demanded $35,000 damages for her detention, by reason of the arrest of the master; for sickness which befell the crew in consequence of their detention, involving another month's delay, and for the odium that attached to their house by reason of the arrest of the master of the vessel, which was engaged in a regular trade between New York and Cuba. On this claim the umpire made the following award:

"The umpire is of opinion that if any time was lost between the 8th and 14th of August 1871 by suspension of work, such delay was the result of gross mismanagement, for which Spain is not responsible, but that it is reasonable to suppose that the owners suffered some loss by being illegally deprived of the services of the captain for about a month; and the umpire decides that an amount of $1,000, with 6 per cent interest a year from the 16th of September 1871 to this day, be paid on account of this claim."

Count Lewenhaupt, umpire, December 27, 1880, Waydell & Co. v. Spain, No. 88.

"The memorialist represents that he is a Trumbull's Case. citizen of Chile, at present a member of the Chilean Congress, residing in Santiago; that on February 5, 1891, he was authorized by the vice-president of the Senate of Chile and the president of the Chamber of Deputies, who together represented the authority of the Chilean Congress in its efforts to put down the dictatorship of Balmaceda, to proceed to the United States to purchase the arms and ammunition which were needed; that upon his arrival in New York he consulted some of the leading law. yers in regard to his right to ship arms and ammunition, and was in every case informed that such shipment was not in violation of the laws of the United States; that he accordingly bought from Messrs. Hartley and Graham, of New York, five thousand rifles and two, million cartridges; that he cabled the Chilean Government at Iquique to send one of their steamers to San Diego, California; that he arranged to ship the arms. and ammunition to San Francisco, where they were put on board the American schooner Robert and Minnie, which was towed to the Island of Catalina, where she was to await the arrival of the Chilean steamer Itata; that the Itata was delayed two weeks, and although she had instructions from him. not to enter the port of San Diego but to await outside for