Gambar halaman

No. 41.


Washington, D. O., March 3, 1884. DEAR SIR: In reply to your personal letter of the 28th instant, I have the honor to inclose a schedule which contains a list of the cases for the withdrawal of which from the jusisdiction of the Commission demands have been made by the agents or counsel of the respective Gov. ernments. I have also added a statement of the action had thereon. Very respectfully,


Agent and Counsel for the United States. Hon. JOHN DAVIS,

Assistant Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

[blocks in formation]

Decision of prize Withdrawn by United States tribunal.


Seo correspondence.

1 Isaac Taylor

7,900 barrels petroleum seized on $83, 191 55

the bigh seas by French war ves.
sel D'Etaing and condemned as

7 Humphrey E. Wood. Seizure of Milo by French war ves- 55, 701 86

sel Magellan ini 1863.

Refused on the ground that

prize proceeding only con.
cerned part of cargo and not
the subject matter of this

Postponed to settlement as to

Le More, No. 211.

61, 535 00


13 The Arizona Mining 100 kega blasting-powder seized on

the Richardson by French war
vessel Diamant in 1864, off La Paz,

16 George Goodwin Seizure of Richardson as above
17 Willustun & Dutton


6, 250 00
3, 750 00





R. M. A. Perdreau. 1st. 67 bales cotton seized with the $304, 135 16 Decision of prize Item 3d

withdrawn by November 16, 1883, ville. Magnolia in the Gulf of Mex.

court as to items
French agent.

balance of claim
ico by Hatteras and believed
one and three.

to have been condemned as prize;
2d. Damages for detention of
Mexico; 3d. Proceeds of Fred.
erick the II and cargo disposed
of by United States district court;
4th, Cotton lost on account de-
tention of schooner Mary P.

Thomas C. Payan, 250 bales cotton seized on the high 68, 245 14

Withdrawn by French agent.
Pierre A. Giamar- seas on the schooner Baigory,
chi, Jean C. Har. and condemned as prize (2 Wal.

lace, p. 475).
Jules Perrodin
31 bales cotton and 8 hogsheads

16, 062 00

Decision of the So much of claim as relates December 15, 1883, sugar alleged to have been taken

Court of Claimg. to 13 baley cotton included $1,000 and interest by United States authorities and

in case No. 3546 withdrawn at 5 per cent. from included in case No. 3546 Court of

by French agent.

April 1, 1864, Claims.


[blocks in formation]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

79 bales of cotton alleged to have 18, 108 00'

Rofused by French agent on February, 1884, been seized in Saint Landry i

the ground that the Attor. disallowed. Parish, Louisiana, by United

ney-General had himself States authorities included in

moved to set aside said de-
and paid for in Noblom 18. Uui.

cision as fraudulent, &c.
ted States, No. 3497 Court of

830 bales cotton seized by United $350, 726 46 Decision of prize | Refused by French agent on

'Submitted to the Com.
States naval forces on the Oua-1

court. the ground that the judicial

mission by France chita River, Lonisiana, and con

proceedings were had at

against protest of domned as prize. (6 Wallace, 521.)

direction of State Depart.

United States.

ment as preliminary, 253 bales cotton, alleged to have 51, 232 50 Decision of Court Refused on same ground as, January 19, 1884, dis. been seized in Avoyelles and

of Claims. No. 131.

missed for want of
Saint Landry Parishes, Louisiana,

by United States anthorities, and
embraced in case No. 3197 Court

of Claims.
Damages at the hands of a mob in 60, 000 00 Decision of State Refused because Commission March 15, 1883, dis.
San Francisco, Cal., in 1865, for


had already disposed of it. i allowed.
which he had already recovered
some damages before the judicial
district court of the State of Cal.

65 bales cotton seized with schooner 13,162 50 Decision of prize Withdrawn by French agent.
Julia, 50 miles above Fort Liv.

ingston, ly United States anthor.

ities, and condemned as prize.
Use and occupation of certain prop- 35, 675 00

Waived by United States June 26, 1883, award!
erty on Wadlmalaw and Edisto


oť $4,500 ; 5 per islands, South Carolina, and pro.

cent. from April ceeds of sloop Ashley and cargo,

1, 1862. seized by naval anthorities and

condemned as prize 56 bales of cotton alleged to have 11, 200 00 Decision of Court'.

February 9, 1884,
been seizeil in Saint Lanılrs Par.
of Claims.

ish, Louisiana, by United States
authorities, and claimed in case

No. 3392, Court of Claims.
322 bales of cotton, and 1,200 staves 64, 575 00 Decision of prize Withdrawn by French agent.
with schooner Jose

phine, in Gulf of Mexico, July
28, 1862, by the Hatteras, and
condemned by the district court
for the eastern district of Penn-
sylvania, sitting in Philadelphia,
Pa., affirmed by Supreme Court.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

No. 42.

Mr. Boutwell to Mr. Frelinghuysen.




No. 1518 H STREET,

Washington, May 10, 1884. SIR: I have now the bonor to submit a final report of the proceedings of the French and American Claims Commission, which completed its labors the 31st day of March last, as required by the treaty between France and the United States, dated January 15, 1880, and the treaties supplemental thereto.

Until about the 1st day of January, 1884, it was thought not to be possible to complete the work of the Commission by the 1st day of April, as was required by the supplemental treaty of February 8, 1883. In order to accomplish the task the members and officers of the Commission were compelled to devote theinselves assiduously to the work, and the proceedings were completed at the time named. As a consequence, however, it was not practicable for me to make any special preparation for the report of the doings of the Commission at the time specified. Additional delays in the preparation of the report have been caused by the circumstance that the records of the various casesamounting in all to about 60,000 printed pages-were not in a condition to be consulted conveniently,

By the first article of the treaty the Commission was authorized to receive, consider, and dispose of all claims on the part of corporations, companies, or private individuals, citizens of the United States, upon the Government of France, arising out of acts committed against the persons or property of citizens of the United States not in the service of the enemies of France, or voluntarily giving aid and comfort to the same, by the French civil or military authorities, upon the high seas or within the territory of France, its colonies and dependencies, during the late war between France and Mexico, or during the war of 1870–71 between France and Germany, and the subsequent civil disturbances known as the • Insurrection of the Commune.""

The commission was also authorized to receive and pass upon "all claims on the part of corporations, companies, or private individuals, citizens of France, upon the Government of the United States, arising out of acts committed against the persons or property of citizens of France not in the service of the enemies of the United States, or voluntarily giving aid and comfort to the same, by the civil or military authorities of the Government of the United States, upon the high seas or within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, during the period comprised between the 13th day of April, 1861, and the 20th day of August, 1-66."

Under the authority so granted to the commissioners, 19 claims were presented by citizens of the United States against the Government of France, amounting in the aggregate to the sum of $2,427,544.91, excluding interest. On the other hand, 726 claims were presented by or on behalf of citizens of France against the Government of the United States. The claims against the United States amounted to $17,581,000.34, excluding interest.

The claims against the Government of the United States arose out

of transactions that occurred between the years 1861 and 1866. The sufferers, for much the larger part, were residents of the States engaged in the rebellion, and the injuries for which they demanded compensation bad been afflicted by the armies of the United States, sometimes by the orders of officers in command, and in other cases without specific authority. The claimants had knowledge of the events connected with the losses for which they demanded compensation, and they had, also, the means of gathering and using whatever testimony was in existencein support of their demands. Some of these claims were fraudulentin whole, and others were greatly exaggerated. The preparations for the defense by the United States could only be made after the testimony on the part of the claimants had been introduced. In many instances claims were defeated, or the amounts as set forth in the memorials were greatly reduced, by docamentary evidence obtained from the various Departments of the Gov. ernment, and especially from the papers and documents known as the “Rebel Archives.” In a majority of cases, however, the defense consisted in large part of oral testimony, given sometimes by neighbors, sometimes by negroes who were slaves upon the plantations where the events occurred, and sometimes by officers of the Army who had knowl. edge of the transactions to which the claims related. The time that had elapsed, and the defects of memory were serious difficulties, which in some cases, could not be overcome. When the names of officers were obtained who were supposed to have knowledge of the transactions, investigation and inquiry often resulted in information that the officers had died or that their residences were unknown. The examinations and inquiries incident to the defense of these causes led to delay and to the expenditure of considerable sums of money. But, as the combined prin. cipal and interest of the claims against the United States amounted to about $35,000,000 it seemed to me wise to continue the investigation in every important case as long as there was reason to believe that trustworthy information could be obtained which would justify the Commission either in making an award or in disallowing the claim.

in all the cases against the United States the defense was managed by the counsel for the United States, and the briefs and arguments were prepared and made in each case either by the counsel or by some one of his assistants.

In the causes against France, special counsel, who represented the respective claimants, had charge of the several cases, attended to the taking of the testimony, prepared their briefs, and, in the main, sug. gested the mode of conducting the cause before the Commission. In each case, however, the counsel for the United States made an oral argament in behalf of the claim whenever notice was given by the counsel for the French Government that the case would be argued orally by him, or whenever a request for an oral argument was made by the coun. sel for the claimant.

As the memorials were filed an examination was made from time to time of each memorial by the counsel for the United States, or by his assistant, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the memorialist had in all respects complied with the terms of the treaty, or whether the facts as set forth in the memorial justified the intervention of a demurrer on behalf of the United States.


In the memorial of Joseph Napoleon Perché v. The United States, No. 3, the memorialist stated that he was born at Angers, Department

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »