Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

with regard to any claims of French citizens against the United States, which may have already been presented or may hereafter be presented for the consideration of the convention, and which may be found to have been diplomatically, judicially, or otherwise, by competent author. ity of the United States, beretofore disposed of. And in regard to all cases of this character, it will be proper for you as the agent and coun. sel of this Government to request the ageut on the part of France to withdraw them from the Commission; and in case such request on your part shall not meet with prompt compliance you will be expected to report any such instance of refusal to the Department with a view to such further steps as the Government may deem it necessary and proper to take. If, in your opinion, the two claims referred to in your letter of tbe 8th instaut (Nos. 18 and 28), come within the category named, these will form proper subjects for such requests for withdrawal. I am, &c.,

JAMES G. BLAINE.

No. 80.
Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis to Mr. Boutwell.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, December 27, 1881. SIR: Referring to Mr. Blaine's letter to you of the 17th instant, I have now to inclose a copy of a note from Mr. Outrey, in reply to the one from Mr. Blaine thereiu referred to.

I call your particular attention to the last paragraph, and will thank you, at your convenience, to make out, addressed to the Department, a complete list of the cases which fall under it.

It is understood at the Department that the counsel, by Mr. Taylor, will ask for a reversal of Mr. Blaine's decision. Should this be granted no steps will be necessary on our side for the dismissal of cases. But should it be refused it may be deemed proper to interpose diplomat. ically to secure the retirement of cases on the French side affected by the principle.

I am, &c.,

J. C. BANCROFT DAVIS,

Acting Secretary.

No. 81.

Mr. John Davis to Mr. Frelinghuysen.

WASHINGTON, January 25, 1882. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the letter of Mr. Davis to Mr. Boutwell, dated the 27th ultimo, relating to the case of Isaac Taylor v. The Republic of France, now pending before this Commission, in which he refers to Mr. Blaine's letter to Mr. Boutwell, dated the 17th of December, and inclosing a copy of a note from Mr. Outrey, dated December 21.

Mr. Davis alle attention to the last paragraph of Mr. Outrey's note, in which he my own reed not add that on our part we shall strictly ob

wu,

serve, the case arising, the legal interpretation given by mutual consent to Article II of the convention of January 15, 1880.” Mr. Davis requests that a complete list be made of the cases which fall under this interpretation.

I have, therefore, caused the memorial to be examined in every case where compensation is claimed from the United States, and I inclose a list of those cases which, in my opinion, appear on the face of the memorials to fall within the principle.

I cannot, however, assure you that this list is absolutely complete, nor that among the seven hundred and twenty-six cases now pending here on the part of alleged citizens of France there may not be others properly belonging to that class, and which may bereafter be shown by the testimony to be identical in principle with the Taylor case. I believe, however, that the list is as complete as it is possible to make it without that careful examination of each case which will be made when it is prepared for trial.

In this connection it may be of interest to you to see the correspondence between the agent and counsel on the part of the United States and the agent on the part of the Republic of France in relation to the case of T. 0. Payan v. The United States, No. 431, and I therefore have the honor to inclose a copy of a letter from Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Gri. maud de Caux, dated January 5, 1882, and the translation of a letter from Mr. Grimaud de Caux to Mr. Boutwell, dated January 18, 1882, in reference thereto. I have, &c.,

JOHN DAVIS,
Assistant Counsel on the part of the United States.

.

[ocr errors]

LIST OF CASES OF FRENCH CLAIMANTS ON FILE BEFORE THE FRENCH

AND AMERICAN CLAIMS COMMISSION, WHICH IT IS BELIEVED FALL WITHIN THE PRINCIPLE STATED BY MR. OUTREY.

WASHINGTON, January 25, 1882. RENÉ MARIE ALPHONSE DE PERDUEANVILLE

No. 18. THE UNITED STATES. The first item of this claim is for 67 bales of cotton shipped on board the schooner Magnolia at Morgan City Parish, La., in April, 1862.

The schooner and cargo were captured in thú Gulf of Mexico by the United States gunboat Hatteras, and are believed to have been condemned as a prize.

The second item is a claim for damages, owing to delay of steamer Mexico.

The third item is a claim for the proceeds of schooner Frederick II and cargo, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $16,933.98.

This item was disposed of by the United States district court of New Orleans, La., then sitting as a prize court, in the month of May, 1864. (See suit No. 7883, The United States v. Schooner Frederick II.)

The fourth item is a claim for cotton lost on account of the illegal detention of the schooper Mary P. Burton.

Items 1 and 3 are already within the article.

THOMAS C. PAYAN, PIERRE A. GRAMARCHI,
JEAN CHARLES HARISPE

No, 28. v. THE UNITED STATES. This is a claim for 250 bales of cotton seized by the United States anthorities on the high seas, about 100 miles from Havana, while on board the British registered schooner Baijorry on her voyage from Calcasieu, La., to Havana. Amount claimed, $68,245.

The schooner and cargo were taken into Key West, Fla., where both cargo and schooner were libeled as prize of war.

The court at Key West condemned both vessel and cargo as enemy property. The present claimants were represented.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States and the decision below sustained. (See 2 Wallace Řeports, pages 475, &c.)

BLAZE MOTTE > t'.

No, 131. THE UNITED STATES.

This claim was allowel and paid to Bellocq, Noblom & Co. by the Court of Claims

G. A. LE MORE & Co.

No. 211. THE UNITED STATES.

This is a claim for 830 bales of cotton seized by the United States Daval authorities on the Ouachita River, Lonisiana, in 1864. The cotton was taken to the sonthern district of Illinois and libeled as prize of war.

Claimants submitted their claim to the United States district court for the southern district of Illinois, in which the cotton had been libeled.

The decree of the court was adverse to their claim.

They appealed from the decree of the district court of the United States for the southern district of Illinois to the Supreme Court of the United States, which at its December term of 1867, rendered its decision affirming the decree of the inferior conrt.

[subsumed][ocr errors][merged small]

This claim was allowed and paid to Bellocq, Noblom & Co. by the Court of Claims.

ETIENNE DERBEC t'.

No. 339. THE UNITED STATES.

This is a claim for wrongs and injuries received by claimants at the hands of a mob at San Francisco, Cal., in 1865.

On the 27th day of March, 1868, an act was passed by the legislature of the State of California entitled "An act to provide for compensating parties whose property may be destroyed in consequence of nobs or riots.'

Claimant availed himself of the benefits of said act, and on the 10th day of June, 1868, bronght suit against the city of San Francisco in the district court of the fourth judicial district of the State of California, in which suit he claimed damages for the destruction of bis establishment and the stoppage of his newspapers, &c.

Claimant obtained a verdict in the sum of $7,500, with interest.
Judgment was rendered by the court for that amount and paid to claimant.
He now claims additional compensation.

BAZILE LAPLACE

No. 365. TaE UNITED STATES.

This is a claim for 65 bales of ginned cotton seized by United States authorities, whilst on board the schooner Julia, about 50 miles above Fort Livingston, and taken to Key West, Fla., and sold by order of the prize court of the United States at that place.

ROBERT DE LA STEYERIE AND
Marie de la Steyerie,

No. 655. THE UNITED STATES. This is a claim for the use and occupation by United States authorities of certain lands and lots situate on Wallmalan and Edisto Islande, South Carolina, and also for the proceeds of a sloop known as the Ashley and her cargo.

The agent of the claimant chartered the sloop Ashley in December, 1861, to proceed to Wallmalan Island to bring to the market of the city of Charleston a lot of cotton and provisions which belonged to claimant.

The sloop with her cargo of cotton, &o., was seized by the United States naval authorities, and condemned as a prize.

[blocks in formation]

This is a claim for 322 bales of cotton and 1,200 staves, valued at $64,575.

This property was on a certain vessel called the schooner Josephine, which vessel with her cargo was seized and captured in the Gulf of Mexico on the 28th day of July, 1862, by the United States steamer Hatteras, and was taken with her cargo, in charge of a prize crew, to the port of Philadelphia, where said schooner and cargo were, on the 21st day of April, A. D. 1863, by the decree of the district court of the United States, in and for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, condenined as prize of war, for breach of the blockade.

Ao appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States and the decision of the said prize court was there affirmed.

A

WASHINGTON, January 5, 1882. THOMAS C. PAYAN,

No 431. THE UNITED STATES.

Sir: Messrs. Shellabarger & Wilson, who appear as special counsel in the abovenamed case, have made a verbal request to me to permit the use of the testimony taken by the order of the Court of Claims of the United States, in No. 2758, being the petition of Payan and Carhart for compensation for 76 bales of cotton.

I lind upon inquiry, that Payan and Carhart filed a petition in the Court of Claims for compensation for 76 bales of cotton which appear to be the same as that described in the memorial of Thomas C. Payan vs. the United States, No. 431, now pending before this Commission.

I find also upon an examination of the records of the Court of Claims in No. 2758, that the case was heard and an award mare in favor of the claimant for a small portion of the sum claimed; that afterwards the petitioner nioved for a new trial and that the motion was granted; that the claimants failed to prosecute the case, and that after the expiration of six months, and after notice given to the petitioners that & motion has been made by the Attorney-General that the case be dismissed, under the rules of the Court of Claims the case was dismissed.

I have to inform you that upon this state of facts I shall maintain before this Commission that the claim has been disposed of judicially, aud that the French and American Claims Commission has no jurisdiction over it.

In this view of the case, I suggest, in case the judgment of the Commission (pou this point is desired, that before either party is at the expense of taking testimony so much of the record of the Court of Claims as may be necessary to show the nature of the proceeding before that tribunal be had by the certificate of the clerk or by stipulation between the counsel for the Government of France and the counsel for the United States, and that thereon the judgment of the Commission be taken upon the question of jurisdiction.

I may perhaps add properly that, should the case be tried upon its merits, the counsel for the United States ought to have the opportunity to examine and cross-examine the witness, specially with reference to the case before this tribunal, and that it would therefore be inadvisable for me to assent to the use of the testimony taken under the direction of the Court of Claims. I have, &c.,

GEO. S. BOUTWELL, Agent and Counsel for the United States.

[Translation.)

Agent of the Government of the Republic of France before tho Claims Commission.

WASHINGTON, January 18, 1882. Mr. AGENT : In the letter which you did me the honor to write to me upon the 5th of this month you informed me that in the discussion of the claim of Thomas C. Payan 2. The United States, No. 431, it is your intention to contend before the Commission that it is without jurisdiction from the fact that the claim have already been judicially disposed of. You learn from the information which has been furnished you by Messrs. Shellabarger & Wilson, special counsel for the claimant, that this claim has already been entered upon the docket of the Conrt of Claims under No. 2758, in the name of Payan and Carhart, and that you have been subsequently assured that this claim and the one bronght before this Commission under the No. 4:31 are the same. You have also learned that the Court of Claims after having given indgment for a part of the claim in favor of the petitioners granted them upon their reqnest leave to review the decision, and that after notice given to the petitioners that the Attorney. General moved to dismiss the case, the Court of Claims did in fact dismiss it.

All these facts were until now entirely unknown to me. The agent of the Govern. ment of the Republic of France before the Mixed Commission has scrupulonsly endeavored on every occasion to prevent the presentation of claims which apon the allegations in the memorial presented by the claimjants appeared to him a manifest contravention to the stipulations of the convention of January 15, 1-80. The memorial, No. 431, alleges that peither the claimant nor any one on his bebalf bas received the whole or any part of the sum claimrd; that although it was presented to the Court of Claims of the United States or the 20th of June, 1867, it was afterwards withdrawn, and that this suit led to no result before that court.

It was then natural that my predecessor should submit the claim for the decision of the cominissioners.

As a general principle, if facts are disclosed showing that the allegations contained in the memorial are erroneous, and that therefore there is ground to immediately apply the terms of the conyention, I am certain that yon will agree with me, Mr. Agent, in declaring that the letter as well as the spirit of the treaty make it our luty to withdraw such claio at the moment when an application of the provisions of the treaty becomes manifest.

I shall, therefore, be obliged to you if you will furnish me the necessary means of proof to establish the fact that the allegations of memorial No. 431 are contrary to the truth, and that this claim falls under the provisious of Article II of the conven. tion. I am, &c.,

GRIMAUD DE CAUX.

No. 82.

Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Frelinghuysen.

WASHINGTON, February 4, 1882. SIR: In the list of cases furnished by Mr. Davis, and inclosed in bis letter to you of the 25th of January, which contained the names of claimants who have filed claims before this Commission for compensation for alleged losses arising from the decrees of prize courts of the United States, will be found that of G. A. Le More & Co., No.211 on the docket.

A stipulation was entered into between the counsel for the respective Governments in the above case and filed November 19, 1881, in the fol. lowing form:

It is agreed that the time for filing brief in answer in this case is hereby extended until further understanding.

This morning I have received the following communication :

FRENCH AND AMERICAN CLAIMS COMMISSION.

}

G. A, LE MORE & CO.

No. 211.
THE UNITED STATES.
Hon. G. S. BOUTWELL:

Sir: I have the honor to state that I decline to be bound any longer by the stipn. lation sigued by me in the above entitled case and wbich bears date November 19, 1881. Very respectfully,

CHARLES ADOLPHE DE CHAMBRUN,

Counsel for French Republic. WASHINGTON, D. C., February 3, 1881.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »