"Eneas claimed $720,000, besides interest, and was awarded $1,540, all the commissioners joining.

"Binney claimed $100,000, besides interest, and was awarded $5,390, all the commissioners joining.

"In each of the cases I am advised that the decision turned upon questions of fact, all the commissioners agreeing that the proofs, though sufficient to warrant the arrest in each case, did not leave the truth of the charges free from doubt; and that the detention of the prisoners without trial was unnecessarily protracted.1

Stovin's Case.

"In the case of John Carville Stovin, No. 23, claimant was arrested at Cumberland, Maryland, in October 1861 on the charge of disloy alty, in attending secession meetings in Cumberland, and being the means of transmitting information to the enemy. He was taken to Fort McHenry, there detained for about five weeks, and discharged without trial. He alleged that his business as a manufacturer at Cumberland was stopped, and in effect destroyed by his arrest, and claimed damages $380,794.27, besides interest; including, however, some firewood, hay, corn, and oats, alleged to have been taken and appropriated by the United States soldiers. He alleged, also, ill treatment while in confinement. Proofs were taken on both sides on the question of his disloyal conduct, and it was contended on the part of the United States that the facts of the case justified his arrest as a disloyal person, openly giving aid and comfort to the rebellion by his language and expressions of sympathy, in a village situated upon the frontiers of the enemy's country, and where such conduct involved danger to the military operations of the United States.

"On the part of the claimant the charges of disloyal conduct and language were denied, and proof was adduced to show him a law-abiding and peaceable inhabitant.

"The commission gave an award to the claimant of $8,300, all the commissioners joining.

"In the case of Frank Russell Reading, No. Reading's Case. 43, the claimant was arrested in the city of Washington on the 6th July 1864, that city then being threatened by the rebel forces under General

Mr. Frazer read an opinion, discussing the facts. He held that the only ground of claim established by the claimant was that "he was detained too long." (Hale's Report, 241.)

5627-VOL. 4- -4

Early; was brought to trial before a military commission in Washington on the charge of uttering disloyal and treasonable language in the District of Columbia when threatened by the enemy, such language being calculated to give aid, comfort, and assistance to the enemy. He was found guilty by the commission, and sentenced to imprisonment for five years, with hard labor, at the Dry Tortugas, or such other military prison as the Secretary of War might select. Under this sentence he was imprisoned at Fort Delaware from the 30th August 1864 till 1st June 1865.

"On the part of the United States it was contended that the military commission was a lawful tribunal, competent for the trial and punishment of military offenses, and having full jurisdiction of the case of the claimant, both as to subjectmatter and person; that at the time of his arrest and trial Washington was a city in military occupation, environed by forts of the United States, occupied and defended by their armies, the headquarters of the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and, as the capital of the country, always a vital point of attack for the rebel forces, and at this specific time the actual objective point of a vigorous and determined attack by the enemy, who actually reached, as their advanced post, on the 12th July, Fort Stevens, within the limits of the District of Columbia and within four or five miles of the Capitol.

"That the offense charged against Reading was a purely military offense, of which the civil tribunals had not cognizance, and so was not within the principle held by the Supreme Court in the case of Milligan (4 Wall. 2).

"That Reading having appeared in person and by counsel before the military tribunal, and having pleaded in chief, without raising any question to the jurisdiction, could not be heard to question the jurisdiction of the tribunal as to his person merely; and that the commission having by law jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the charge, the failure to object to jurisdiction as to the person obviated all question as to their complete jurisdiction. The counsel for the United States cited the case of Vallandigham (1 Wall. 243).

"On the part of the claimant it was contended that the military tribunal had no jurisdiction whatever, and that the imprisonment of the claimant under it was wholly without authority of law.

"The commission gave a unanimous award in favor of the claimant for $15,400.

Shaver's Case.

"In the case of John I. Shaver, No. 51, the memorial alleged that the claimant, being at the time domiciled in Canada, but traveling in the United States on the business of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, a Canadian corporation, of which he was an agent, was arrested at Detroit on the 15th October 1861, by direction of Mr. Seward, the Secretary of State of the United States; that he was taken thence to Fort Lafayette, in New York Harbor, and confined there, and subsequently at Fort Warren, in Boston Harbor, until the 6th January 1862. He alleged that by his arrest he was thrown out of lucrative employment as agent of the railway company named; that by it he lost the confidence of his employers and was unable to regain his position after his release; and that he suffered large pecuniary losses in consequence. He claimed damages $100,000.

"The arrest was made upon information communicated to Mr. Seward that the claimant was engaged in conveying communications between the rebels in Canada and those within the insurrectionary States. The proofs failed to sustain the charge, and it appeared that Mr. Kennedy, chief of police of the city of New York, immediately after the arrest of the claimant, reported to the State Department that he found no proofs to warrant his detention, or to implicate him in any improper communication with the enemy.

"The commission awarded the claimant $30,204, Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting on the question of amount only.

Levy's Case.

"In the case of Samuel G. Levy, No. 61, it appeared that the claimant, a resident of Canada, on landing in Boston from a British steamship from Liverpool in May 1864, was taken thence to New York, and there detained for about eight days, on a charge of being engaged in blockade running. At the end of that time he was discharged upon giving bail for his appearance within six months, if required. He alleged large consequential damages by interference with his due attention to his business, and by the enforced breaking of an engagement of marriage in consequence of his arrest, and claimed as damages £20,000.

"The commission unanimously gave him an award of $930.

Stott's Case.

"In the case of James Stott, No. 271, it appeared that the claimant, domiciled in the State of Maine, was arrested at Dexter, Maine, September 2, 1863, on the charge of being a deserter from a cavalry regiment in the United States service; was sent thence to the regiment from which he was alleged to have deserted, at Warrenton, Virginia, where it plainly appeared that the charge was unfounded, it being a case of mistaken identity. He was detained until the 9th of November 1863, and for the purpose of making him some compensation as to loss of time, and of giving him transportation back to his home, was mustered into the United States service and discharged with the pay of a private soldier for the time he had been detained, and with transportation back to his home.

"An award was made for $775 in favor of the claimant, in which all the commissioners joined.

Crawford's Case.

"John I. Crawford, No. 79, was arrested in the city of New York on the 10th of May 1864; sent to Fort Lafayette and there detained until the 27th of July 1864, when he was brought to trial before a military commission in the city of New York, on the charge of violation of the laws of war in passing through the military. lines of the enemy, first, from South Carolina, by way of Richmond to New York; second, from New York again, by way of Nassau and Wilmington, through the blockade, to South Carolina; and again from South Carolina, by way of Richmond, to New York; and also by purchasing goods in New York, and sending them thence through the lines to Richmond, Virginia. He was convicted on all the specifications except that relating to the purchasing and sending of goods, and was sentenced to give bonds in such sum and with such sureties as should be satifactory to the general in command of the department that he would not visit, traffic, or correspond with the States in rebellion, nor give aid, comfort, or information to the enemy during the war, in default of giving such bonds to be confined at hard labor during the war. The bond was immediately given and Crawford was discharged. The proofs before the commission fully sustained the findings of the military tribunal.

"On the part of the claimant it was contended that the military tribunal was without jurisdiction, and that the claimant's imprisonment and detention were unlawful.

"The memorial claimed $500,000 as damages, and the commission unanimously disallowed the claim.

"In the case of John Carmody, No. 85, it

Carmody's Case. appeared that the claimant, domiciled in New Orleans, was in March 1865 conscripted into the military service of the United States. The notice of his conscription requiring him to report for military service was addressed to him by the name of John Kemdy, and on receiving it he procured from the British consul at New Orleans a certificate of his British nationality, which he alleged that he presented to the officer in charge of the office at which he was required to report, but two days after was arrested by a squad of United States soldiers and was detained in a military prison for some five or six weeks. The arrest and detention evidently arose from mistake growing out of the confusion of names. The memorial claimed $100,000 damages, besides interest, and the commission unanimously awarded the claimant $500.

Patrick's Case.

"In the case of William Patrick, No. 97, it appeared that the claimant, a British merchant, domiciled in New York, was on the 28th of August 1861 arrested and committed to Fort Lafayette, where he was detained till the 13th September following, when he was discharged. His arrest was based on the charge that the firm in New York of which he was a member, and which had a branch house also at Mobile, Alabama, was a channel for carrying on correspondence between rebels in Europe and those in the insurrectionary States. Representations by highly respectable citizens of New York of Mr. Patrick's loyalty were made to the Secretary of State, and the British minister also intervened in his behalf. Investigation showed that the charge against Mr. Patrick was without foundation, and he was discharged after a confinement of seventeen days. The proofs established Mr. Patrick to have been a gentleman of high social and business standing, and also to have been in conduct marked by loyalty and good faith toward the government dur ing the rebellion, and to have furnished liberal contributions in its aid. His arrest was undoubtedly caused by false or erroneous information.

"On behalf of the claimant punitory damages were claimed. On the part of the United States it was insisted that no such damages could be allowed; that Mr. Patrick, domiciled within the United States, was exposed in the same degree with citizens of those States to arrest on false charges or erroneous information, and that, having been discharged within a rea sonable time for inquiry to be made, he was not entitled to