instructed to withdraw the claim of Taylor, and that in taking this view of the question, he (Mr. Blaine) was "influenced in no small measure by the earnest desire felt by this Government to give full effect to the spirit no less than to the letter of the II article of the convention, and by thus withholding from the cognizance of that international tribunal any claim which may have already been made the subject of inquiry and determination by the competent authorities of France avoid any occasion for making the competency of such proceedings the subject of question or review. That the French Government, animated by a like disposition, will pursue a similar course with regard to any claims presented for the consideration of the Commission on behalf of the citizens of France against the United States, which shall be found to have already been inquired into and decided either diplomatically, judicially, or otherwise, by the competent authorities of the United States, I do not allow myself to doubt."

On the 21st December, 1881, Mr. Outrey wrote me as follows: "I need not add that on our part we shall strictly observe the case arising, the legal interpretation given, by mutual consent, to Article II of the convention of January 15, 1880."

Pursuant to the agreement thus arrived at, several cases have been withdrawn. But while the case of Le More & Co. was some time since brought to the attention of Mr. Roustan, and while I understood that our views harmonized, and while several conversations have taken place with regard to it, it appears to be still pending before the Commission, and I am now informed that that body purposes to force it to trial, notwithstanding the negotiations which have taken place and the further negotiations which are now pending. The case is clearly one which has been disposed of by a competent tribunal. It has been decided in regular gradation by the inferiour courts of the United States, and by its highest court of final resort. This is not denied; and while it has been contended in conversation that the Supreme Court had not jurisdiction of the case, a conclusive answer to this assertion is found in the fact that the very point was made before the Court, and the Court in terms, and expressly, decided that it had jurisdiction over the case. This decision cannot but be regarded as final, and as, to quote Mr. Outrey's words, "during the negotiation of the Convention of 1880, it was well understood that neither of the contracting parties would consent to any revision of decisions pronounced within its territory by competent authorities in any form whatever," and as the case of Le More has been judicially settled, since it has been passed upon by three bodies invested with judicial powers, I have to request that the agent on behalf of the Republic of France, before the French and American Commission, be instructed to withdraw this claim from the consideration of that body. Be pleased to accept, sir, the renewed assurances of my highest consideration. FRED'K T. FRELINGHUYSEN.

Mr. HORACE DENAUT.

Mr. LEFAIVRE. Permit me to address to you one question. You read to us a letter proceeding from the American Government, addressed to the French chargé d'affaires, uncommunicated to the French Governmeut. Are you positive that no answer was made by the French Government upon that subject-an answer which would close this discussion? Suppose that answer was made. I do not assert anything upon that subject; but suppose that an answer has been made; have we to wait till that answer would be communicated to us by yourself to make a definitive order upon that subject? Suppose an answer has been made, then the negotiations would doubtless be closed. Are you positive now that negotiations are pending, or are you informed that those negotiations are closed? What is now, to your knowledge, the state of the negotiations? Are you positive that no definitive answer was given by the French Government?

Mr. BOUTWELL. I cannot say that I am positive. I can say this, that that is the last official information I have concerning the negotiations. I can say also that I saw the Assistant Secretary of State this morning, and he said that nothing had been received.

Mr. LEFAIVRE. It is a very bad situation for us to await those answers, to await this diplomatic correspondence before making a definitive order.

Mr. BOUTWELL. I do not see that this Commission is embarrassed at all. I beg leave to differ with the honorable commissioner of France as to any embarrassment in this Commission. There may be some embarrassment outside. I understand that very well. I understand its origin, and I understand the steps by which it is developed. This Commission has already before it a large amount of business which has been submitted, and submitted without qualification of any sort. There is other business still pending. Now, here is a question pending between the two Governments. Mr. LEFAIVRE. That is a question.

Mr. BOUTWELL. Which involves the entire proceedings of this Convention. I say it involves the entire proceedings of this Convention, and, therefore, instead of this Commission being embarrassed for want of an opportunity to labor, it has sufficient opportunity to labor with the business before it. If it grasps this matter prematurely, it may end disastrously for all parties.

If I am allowed to give any advice or to express any opinion it is clearly to this effect that the Commission should delay taking action. If, on the 20th day of March, this case is not disposed of, there will then be ten days for action. There is abundance of work from now until the 20th of March independent of this single case, and, therefore, I am very free to say that it is not a wise thing for the Commission to take up a matter which is not pressing on them. There is no pressure except what is made by my friends at the table of the counsel representing the claimants. Nobody else is pressing. The Commission has work enough without this case. Why is there such an earnest effort to grasp this particular case? I will say that I will obey that authority which is supreme as far as I am concerned, an authority which I cannot control even if I wished, and which I certainly would not control if I could. Why is there such an effort to press this case and imperil all the business which this Commission has been constituted to accomplish?

Mr. LEFAIVRE. The question is, is the negotiation between the two Governments ended?

Mr. BOUTWELL. I will say this, that if the negotiations were ended this case would be worse off than it is.

Mr. JANIN. That sounds like a threat, Mr. Boutwell.

Mr. BOUTWELL. Call it what you please.

Mr. DE CHAMBRUN. I will not allow any one to say a word right here. This is a question between me and the counsel for the United States. What did you say, Mr. Boutwell, before you were interrupted by Mr. Janin?

Mr. BOUTWELL. I said that if the negotiations were ended the case would be worse than it is now. The Commission then took the motion under advisement.

No. 84.

Mr. John Davis to Mr. Frelinghuysen.

FRENCH AND AMERICAN CLAIMS COMMISSION,

1518 H STREET, Washington, February 11, 1882.

SIR Referring to my letter of the 25th ultimo, transmitting a list of cases of French claimants on file before this Commission, which it is believed fall within the privileges stated by Mr. Outrey, I now have the honor to add to that list the claim of Jules Perrodin (No. 90) for 31 bales of cotton and 8 hogsheads of sugar, said to have been taken by United States authorities from claimant in Saint Landry Parish, Louisiana, in 1864.

It appears that these claims were submitted to the United States Court of Claims in suit No. 3546, and were not allowed in the judgment rendered in said suit.

1. Jules Perrodin represents that he is a resident of the parish of Saint Landry, in the State of Louisiana; that his post-office address is Opelousas, in the parish and State aforesaid.

2. That he was born on the 25th day of March, A. D. 1820, in the town of Tarcis,

Department of the Jura, France, and that he has resided, between the 13th of April, 1861, and the 20th of August, 1866, in the town of Opelousas, parish of Saint Landry, and State of Louisiana.

3. That he was a native citizen of France when this claim accrued, and has never been naturalized, or taken any steps to be naturalized, in any other country; that he never renounced, surrendered, forfeited, or impaired his allegiance, nor ever sought to impair his allegiance to the Government of France.

4. That this claim has never been presented for consideration to nor disposed of by any tribunal or any diplomatic, judicial, or other authority of either the United States or France, except that the said claim was referred to in the petition filed by the memorialist in the United States Court of Claims August 19, 1868, for cotton, but as no evidence was taken to substantiate said claim for sugar it was not submitted for adjudication in said court.

5. The memorialist states that in the month of March, 1864, that he was the owner and in full possession of the following-described property, when the fourth division of the Thirteenth Army Corps, under command of Major-General Banks, invaded that portion of the country where the memorialist resided, and during the month aforesaid seized, took possession of, and carried off the said property from the plantation of Offutt Brothers, near Washington, in the parish and State aforesaid, and appropriated and converted the same to the use and benefit of the United States.

Item to wit: (1) Eight hogsheads of sugar, averaging 1,200 pounds per hogshead, worth 22 cents per pound, or the sum of $2,112.

6. The memorialist avers, in consideration of the premises, that there is due him from the United States for the said property the principal sum of $2,112 in standard money of the United States, with legal interest from April 1, 1864.

7. The memorialist was not in the service of the enemies of the United States except when he was conscripted by the Confederate enrolling-officer for the parish of Saint Landry, Louisiana, and enrolled in the Twenty-eighth Regiment Louisiana Volunteers, C. S. A., upon which enrollment he took out a writ of habeas corpus before the court of the eighth judicial district of Louisiana, alleging that he was a French subject, and therefore not liable to the operation of the conscript law of the Confederate States; and on hearing, the court ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the memorialist be released and discharged as a conscript in the said Confederate army, on the 27th day of January, A. D. 1864; whereupon he was discharged the service of the Confederate States in pursuance of the said judgment of said district court, June 18, 1864, by command of General E. Kirby Smith, of the Confederate army.

8. The memorialist states that he did not voluntarily give aid or comfort to the said enemies of the United States between the 13th of April, 1861, and the 20th of August, 1866.

9. That no assignment of the claim set forth in this memorial, or any part thereof, or any interest therein, has been made.

10. That for the purposes of prosecuting and recovering this claim the memorialist has appointed and hereby does appoint Theodore H. N. McPherson, of Washington, D. C., to be his attorney in fact and of record, with full power to those ends of prosecution and substitution and recovery; also to receive any draft or warrant that shall be issued to him for aid claim, and in consideration of services rendered and to be rendered, this powe and appointment are declared irrevocable.

PARISH OF SAINT LANDRY,

State of Louisiana :

JULES PERRODIN.

Personally appeared before me, the undersigned, a clerk of the court in and for the parish and State aforesaid, Jules Perrodin, who is personally known to me to be the party who subscribed to the foregoing memorial and power of attorney, and being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the party therein named; that he has read said memorial, and knows the facts therein stated to be true of his own knowledge, except those which are stated on information and belief, and that he believes them to be true; and he acknowledges this the above power of attorney to be his act and deed for the purpose therein named.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 17th day of January, 1881. [SEAL.]

JAMES O. CHACHERE,

Clerk Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Saint Landry, La.

And now the counsel for the United States objects to the sufficiency of the memorial filed herein, in that the memorialist does not state whether the claimant or any other person entitled to the amount claimed, or any part thereof, has ever received any, and, if any, what sum of money for the claim, or any part thereof, and if so, when and from

whom the same was received

As is by the rules of this honorable Commission required.

SIR: Please inform the United States agent that on the 24th day of March, 1880, at 12 o'clock m., before Judge John E. King, special commissioner of this honorable Commission, at his office in Opelousas, Saint Landry Parish, Louisiana, we will proceed to take testimony in the above-entitled case on questions of alienage, neutrality, and ownership and seizure of property of the claimant, and continue the examination of witnesses in this case from day to day until the testimony is complete.

A. LANEN, Agent of French Republic.

Notice accepted

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

AMENDED MEMORIAL.

1. Jules Perrodin represents that he is a resident of the parish of Saint Landry, in the State of Louisiana. That his post-office address is Opelousas, in the parish and State aforesaid.

2. That he was born on the 27th day of March, 1820, in the town of Tarcia, Department of the Jura, France, and that he has resided between the 13th of April, 1861, and the 20th of August, 1866, in the town of Opelousas, parish of Saint Landry, and State of Louisiana.

3. That he was a native citizen of France when this claim accrued, and has never been naturalized, or taken any steps to be naturalized, in any other country. That he never renounced, surrendered, or impaired his allegiance to the Government of France.

4. That this claim has never been presented for consideration to nor disposed of by any tribunal, or any diplomatic, judicial, or other authority of either the United States or France, except that part of it was included in the petition No. 3546, filed by the memorialist in the United States Court of Claims August 19, 1868. But as no evidence was submitted to the said court to establish this claim for sugar and cotton, the said Court of Claims did not include the same in the judgment given in favor of the memorialist against the United States for 336 bales of cotton.

5. The memorialist states that in the month of May, 1863, he was the owner and in possession of the following-described property when Thomas E. Chickering, military governor of the parish of Saint Landry and colonel Forty-first Regiment Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, of the army of General Banks, invaded that portion of the country where the memorialist resided, and during the month of May aforesaid seized, took possession of, and carried off from the plantation of Hypolite A. Guidry, at Plaquemine Brulie, and the plantation of Widow Baptiste Malneaux, in the parish and State aforesaid, and appropriated and converted the same to the use and benefit of the United States, to wit: (1) Seven bales of cotton (3,150 pounds), worth $1 per pound, or the sum of $3,150; (2) one bale of cotton (450 pounds), worth $1 per pound, or the sum of $450.

6. The memorialist further states that in the months of October and November, 1863, he was the owner and in possession of the following-described property, when the Thir-, teenth and Nineteenth Army Corps, under the command of Generals Grover and McGinness, army of Major-General Banks, invaded that portion of the country where the memorialist resided, and during the months of October and November aforesaid seized, took possession of, and carried off from the plantation of Thelismar Guidry, situate on Carrancrow Bayou, in the parish and State aforesaid, and appropriated and converted the same to the use and benefit of the United States, to wit: (3) Twenty-three bales of cotton (10,350 pounds), worth $1 per pound, or the sum of $10,350.

7. The memorialist states that in the month of March, 1864, he was the owner and in full possession of the following-described property, when the fourth division of the Thirteenth Army Corps, under command of Major-General Banks, invaded that portion of the country where the memorialist resided, and during the month of March aforesaid seized, took possession of, and carried off from the plantation of Offutt Brothers, near Washington, in the parish and State aforesaid, and appropriated and converted the same to the use and benefit of the United States, to wit: (4) Eight hogsheads of sugar, averaging 1,200 pounds per hogshead, worth 22 cents per pound, or the sum of $2,112.

8. The memorialist avers in consideration of the premises that there is due him from the United States for the said property the principal sum of $16,062 in standard money of the United States, with legal interest from May 1, 1863, on the sum of $3,600; with legal interest from October 1, 1863, on the sum of $10,350; and with legal interest from April 1, 1864, on the sum of $2,112.

9. The memorialist was not in the service of the enemies of the United States, except when he was conscripted by the Confederate enrolling officer for the parish of Saint Landry, Louisiana, and enrolled in the Twenty-eighth Regiment Louisiana Volunteers, C. S. A., upon which enrollment he took out a writ of habeas corpus before the court of the eighth judicial district of Louisiana, alleging that he was a French subject and therefore not liable to the operation of the conscript law of the Confederate States; and on hearing, the court ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the memorialist be released and discharged as a conscript in the said Confederate army on the 27th day of January, A. D. 1864, whereupon he was discharged the service of the Confederate States in pursuance of the said judgment of said district court, June 18, 1864, by command of General E. Kirby Smith, of the Confederate army.

10. The memorialist states that he did not voluntarily give aid or comfort to the said enemies of the United States between the 13th of April, 1861, and the 20th of August, 1866.

11. That no assignment of the claim set forth in this memorial, or any part thereof or any interest therein, has been made.

12. That neither the memorialist nor any other person has received the amount claimed, or any part thereof.

13. That for the purpose of recovering and prosecuting this claim the memorialist has appointed, and hereby does appoint, Theodore H. N. McPherson, of Washington, D. C., to be his attorney in fact and of record, with full power to those ends of prosecution and substitution and recovery, also to receive any draft or warrant that shall be issued to him for said claim, and in consideration of services rendered and to be rendered this power and appointment are declared irrevocable. JULES PERRODIN.

H. Ex. 235——31