precise statement as to items and original cost. It was used a year before it was seized, and we can not tell, therefore, how much it deteriorated or what the value of the renewals, if any, was, or anything about it, except in the opinion of sev eral of the witnesses it was worth $20,000. It was worked under the protection of the Philadelphia contract for a year or more at least. That is the inference we draw from the provisions of the contract before cited.

"It is true that there is a conflict of testimony as to the actual date when the islands were taken possession of by the Venezuelan authorities. According to some of the witnesses this took place in July 1855, but Mr. Gowen himself says that it was on the 1st of December following. If this is to be accepted as the date, it would seem that the plant, machinery, etc., were in the possession of these authorities at the time the Philadelphia contract was consummated, and it is reasonable to infer were surrendered shortly afterward to the owners to be worked in accordance with the provisions of that contract. The papers in the case are silent upon this point, and we are left altogether to inference. The seizure, in our opinion, was unjustifiable, and the subsequent detention, for whatever length of time, contributed to the injury. Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that the transfer of the plant to the Philadelphia company was in the nature of a forced sale, which under the circumstances was a substantial appropriation of the property, we are not inclined to hold the claimants to the strictest proof of its value.

"We will allow on this account the sum of $20,000.

"The claim for false freights can not be allowed. According to Mr. Gowen's own deposition, the vessels on whose account this claim was made were chartered long after he received notice from the consul of Venezuela at Philadelphia that the Monks Islands belonged to Venezuela and that she would prevent anyone trespassing upon her possessions. This notice. had such an effect upon him that he ordered the schooner Adrian, then at the port of Baltimore, and about to discharge a valuable cargo, to sail for Liverpool and discharge her cargo there, although the Liverpool market was not a good one for this commodity, and in point of fact the sale at that port resulted in a loss of several thousands of dollars to the claimants. This, it seems, happened not only in the case of the Adrian, but of several other vessels chartered by the claimants, all of which, for fear of condemnation on proceedings to be taken in this country, were ordered to some foreign port. If, notwithstanding this notice, the claimants undertook to charter vessels which were forced to return empty, we can not see that they have just cause for complaint.

"If Venezuela had, in the first instance, warned them against landing upon the islands under a claim of jurisdiction, and they had, notwithstanding the warning, proceeded to land and to erect their plant and take out guano, we hardly think that

this element of their claim which we have already allowed would have been entitled to favorable consideration. The act of the United States of the 18th of August 1856, providing for the acquisition of islands of this kind by its citizens, makes the fact of the nonexercise of jurisdiction by any other power one of the conditions of acquisition. Notice, then, by Venezuela that she claimed jurisdiction, followed up by the requisite proceedings to enforce the claim, would have put the claimants in the wrong had they attempted to take possession of the islands, notwithstanding this claim. It is just, because there was no claim made by anyone to vacant sterile rocks, lying far out to sea, and by their very situation and appearance suggesting that they were no man's land, that we think the claimants have an equity to be reimbursed for their outlay in taking possession of what was apparently derelict and abandoned property. But the same line of reasoning must necessarily exclude the claim for false freights.

"On the whole, we think justice will be done by allowing $20,000, gold coin of the United States of America. We make no allowance for interest, owing to the imperfection and obscurity of the proof with reference to the value of the plant."

John E. Gowen and Franklin Copeland v. Venezuela, No. 16, United States and Venezuela Claims Commission, convention of December 5, 1885.

CHAPTER LXI.

REVENUE CASES.

The second article of the treaty of comImportation of Cot- merce of July 3, 1815, between the United tons: Question un- States and Great Britain, provides that "no der Law and Treaty. higher or other duties shall be imposed on the importation into the United States of any articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of His Britannick Majesty's territories in Europe, * * than are or shall be payable on the like articles being the growth, produce, or manufacture of any other foreign country." By the tariff act of August 30, 1842, the duties on cotton goods imported into the United States were nearly doubled; but it was provided that the act should not apply to goods shipped in vessels, bound to any port of the United States, which actually left their last port of lading "eastward of the Cape of Good Hope, or beyond Cape Horn, prior to the 1st of September 1842."

Between August 1842, and May 13, 1843, Messrs. Godfrey, Pattison & Co., merchants of Glasgow, imported at New York and Boston a quantity of cotton goods, on which duties were paid under the act of August 30, 1842. These duties were, however, paid under protest on the ground that as shipments made from Liverpool and other British ports were, by the treaty of 1815, entitled to be imported into the United States on the payment of "no higher or other duties" than were exacted on articles the growth, produce, or manufacture of any other foreign country, the cottons in question were entitled to be imported under the old law until May 13, 1842, up to which time it was alleged that vessels with cottons continued to arrive from ports eastward of the Cape of Good Hope.

Claims against the United States for the refund of the alleged excess of duties, together with interest, were submitted to the commission under the convention between the United

States and Great Britain of February 8, 1853. It was argued before the commission that an "importation" of goods should be considered as covering the whole period of transit, commencing with the time of leaving the foreign country. This argument the commission refused to admit, holding that goods could not be said to be imported until the transit was complete and the goods had actually arrived at their destination. On the other hand, the commissioners said:

"We are of opinion that as long as. goods were received from the East Indies at the reduced rate of duty prescribed in the prior statute, they were entitled to be received from Great Britain charged at the same rate of duty. This is the only interpretation which it seems to us conforms to the just intent of the treaty.

"A construction, at least as favorable as that adopted by us, was given to this clause of the treaty by the British Government on a claim in behalf of American citizens for repayment of the duty charged on rough rice. That claim was for a long time under consideration, and was settled by directing the excess of duties exacted to be repaid, as long as African rough rice had been allowed by law to be imported into England at a lower duty than was charged on American rice.

"The commissioners are of opinion that the precedent established in that case was based on sound principle, and they direct that the excess of duties exacted on cotton goods imported by the claimants prior to May 13, 1843, shall be refunded.

"A question of payment of interest has also been raised. It appears that at the time the duties were demanded the claimants formally protested to the collectors of New York and Boston against the rate of duty assessed, as contrary to treaty stipulations. They also claimed protection from Mr. Fox, Her Majesty's minister at Washington. The United States Government was, therefore, from the first, informed that the payment of the duty would be resisted.

"The act itself, also, of the 30th of August 1842 should have placed them on their guard, as it expressly provides 'that nothing contained in it shall be construed or permitted to operate so as to interfere with subsisting treaties with foreign countries.'

"Under these circumstances, we are of opinion interest should be allowed on the claim from the time of payment."

Upham, commissioner, delivering the opinion of the commission, convention between the United States and Great Britain of February 8, 1853. (S. Ex. Doc. 103, 34 Cong. 1 sess. 304.)

The same provision of the treaty of 1815 as was involved in the preceding case was invoked by claimants in another class of cases. By the act of Congress of May 22, 1824, in relation