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 ex pelled 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 in

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."

Spain,

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

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.

Trumbull's Case.

"The memorialist represents that he is a 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 lawyers 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

orders, want of coal obliged her to put into San Diego on May 3, 1891; that the presence of the Robert and Minnie had in the mean time been discovered, and it was suspected that the Itata had come to get the arms and ammunition which composed her cargo; that this suspicion led to the Itata's arrest soon after her arrival in San Diego; that on the 6th of May 1891, without obtaining clearance papers, the Itata weighed anchor and left San Diego; that on the 11th of May 1891 he left San Francisco, California, for New York, but on arrival at Oakland was detained by two detectives on board the ferryboat and taken back to San Francisco like a common criminal; that he was taken to the marshal's office and informed by the United States district attorney that he must go to jail unless he could furnish bond for $15,000; that he protested against his arrest without a warrant and asked by whose orders he was arrested. The district attorney replied that he was arrested by order of the Attorney-General of the United States; that having asked why he was arrested the district attorney informed him that he was arrested for having violated the neutrality laws of the United States in fitting out and arming the schooner Robert and Minnie to cruise and commit hostilities against the Republic of Chile; that he was able to furnish the bond for $15,000 and allowed to go free, but was informed that he could not leave San Francisco, where he must wait the indictment of the grand jury of Los Angeles; that being thus detained he sent a telegram to the Assistant Secretary of State, Wharton, on the 15th of May, which is set out in the memorial; that to this telegram he received no reply; that having been indicted by the grand jury he was obliged to go to Los Angeles to stand his trial, which was postponed until September, and then returned to New York, and the trial having again been postponed to October he was obliged to return to Los Angeles and await the result of his trial, until the 3d of November, when Judge Ross, of the district court of the United States for the southern district of California, delivered his opinion and instructed the jury to find a verdict of not guilty. The memorialist then proceeds to quote the opinions of several of the officials of the United States Government to show that he had the right to purchase arms and munitions of war in the United States and to ship such articles abroad. He represents that he was detained by the civil authorities of the United States from May 11 to November 3, 1891; that by the prose

cution of the civil authorities of the United States he was obliged to suffer great inconvenience; that he was damaged in his reputation and suffered considerable pecuniary losses, for all of which he claims the sum of $32,500.

"The agent of the United States has demurred to the memorial of the claimant as insufficient under the treaty and in law to entitle him to maintain his claim against the United States. We are of opinion that the demurrer should be sustained.

"Section 5283 of the Revised Statutes of the United States provides:

"Every person who, within the limits of the United States, fits out and arms, or attempts to fit out and arm, or procures to be fitted out and armed, or knowingly is concerned in the furnishing, fitting out, or arming of any vessel, with intent that such vessel shall be employed in the service of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people, to cruise or commit hostilities against the subjects, citizens, or property of any foreign prince or state, or of any colony, district, or people with whom the United States are at peace, * * * shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be fined not more than ten thousand dollars and imprisoned not more than three years.'

"The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Carlisle et al. v. The United States, reported in 16 Wallace, p. 147, has decided that

"Aliens domiciled in the United States owe a local and temporary allegiance to the Government of the United States. They are bound to obey all the laws of the country not immediately relating to citizenship during their residence in it, and are equally amenable with citizens for any infraction of those laws.'

"In 1793 Mr. Jefferson, Secretary of State, in a letter to Mr. Genet, held:

"Aliens residing in the United States are as much responsible for breach of neutrality laws as are citizens; aliens, while within our jurisdiction and enjoying the protection of the laws, being bound to obedience to them, and to avoid disturbance of our peace within, or acts which would commit it without, equally as citizens are.' ( (Second Wharton's International Digest, sec. 203, p. 503.)

"Mr. Webster, Secretary of State, December 23, 1851, held: "Every foreigner-born residing in a country owes to that country allegiance and obedience to the laws as long as he remains in it, as a duty imposed upon him by the mere fact of his residence, and the temporary protection which he enjoys,