BATES, umpire:

The umpire, appointed agreeably to the provisions of the convention entered into between Great Britain and the United States, on the 8th of February, 1853, for the adjustment of claims by a mixed commission, having been duly notified by the commissioners under the said convention that they had been unable to agree upon the decision to be given with reference to the claim of the owners of the barque "Jones," so far as regards the amount of compensation to be paid by the government of Great Britain; and having carefully examined and considered the papers and evidence produced on the hearing of the said claim; and having conferred with the said commissioners thereon, hereby reports and awards that there is due from the government of Great Britain to the owners of the barque "Jones," or their legal representatives, the sum of ninety-six thousand seven hundred and twenty dollars; to the supercargo, Sexton, the sum of twelve hundred dollars; to James Gilbert, the master, the sum of eighteen hundred and sixtythree dollars; to Ebenezer Symonds, the mate, the sum of eight hundred and forty-two dollars-together one hundred thousand six hundred and twenty-five dollars; or, at the exchange of $4 85 per pound sterling, twenty thousand seven hundred and forty-seven pounds eight shillings and five pence. The British government retaining the proceeds of the sales of the brig and cargo at Sierra Leone, and the silver coin now in the possession of the vice-admiralty court at that place.

THE MESSRS. LAURENT.

Where claimants, who were originally British subjects, had become domiciled in Mexico and continued to reside there, engaged in trade, during war between Mexico and the United States, held, that they had so far changed their national character that they could not be considered "British subjects" within the meaning of these terms as used in the convention for the settlement of claims of British subjects upon the government of the United States.

It appears from the memorial of the claimants, filed in this case, that the Messrs. Laurent have been resident merchants, engaged in business in Mexico, from 1829 to the present time, a period of twentyfive years; that, in 1847, a law was passed by the Mexican Congress, authorizing a sale of certain church property, for the purpose of raising the sum of $15,000,000 for the necessities of the government.

The claimants occupied a house belonging to the church, and made proposals to the government to purchase it. These proposals were accepted, and the government ordered the contract to be duly drawn up, and executed by the authorized officer appointed for this purpose. The contract was signed by the Messrs. Laurents, and the purchasemoney was deposited in the hands of a banker, to await the execution. of the instrument by the government officer; but owing to some neglect it was not signed by him, and in the meantime a revolution occurred, and the new president was authorized to annul the law for the sale of the church property, which he did. The claimants remonstrated against the proceeding, and claimed the property under their contract with the government.

While such was the existing state of things in reference to this property, war occurred between the United States and Mexico. The city of Mexico was taken, and the money of the Messrs. Laurents thus deposited was confiscated by the commander of the American army as the property of the Mexican government.

After peace was made between the two countries, the church claimed the house as their property, and instituted suit to obtain possession of it. The Mexican courts sustained the claim of the church, and dispossessed the Messrs. Laurents of the house; and they now seek remuneration against the United States for the money confiscated as British subjects, entitled to prosecute their claim under the provisions of this convention.

The agent of the United States having taken exception to the jurisdiction of the commission, on the ground that the Messrs. Laurent, under the facts disclosed, were not to be regarded as British subjects within the meaning of the convention, the case was fully argued on this point, and submitted.

HANNEN, agent and counsel for Great Britain:

It cannot be disputed that prima facie the Messrs. Laurents are entitled under the terms of the convention-namely, "subjects of her Britannic Majesty"-to have their claim entertained by the commissioners.

I agree, however, that a treaty or convention is to be construed, and particular expressions in it interpreted agreeably to the rules of international law.

I do not know upon what principle of law, or what authority among jurists, a restrictive interpretation could be affixed upon these words of the convention, unless, indeed, (as I understand the American counsel to argue,) they happen to have received such restrictive interpretation from an uniform current of decisions of acknowledged international authority.

I do not see that the authority of any writer on international law is referred to to sustain this position, and the cases which are cited are far from satisfying me that the commission could legally adopt any such exceptional construction of the terms as is contended for. They are taken from the prize courts, from the privy council, from the common law, and from the equity courts.

A misunderstanding of the cases in the prize courts appears to me to lie at the root of the argument contended for.

It is quite true that, flagrante bello, merchants residing in the enemy's country are considered, with reference to the belligerent rights of maritime prize, as subjects of that country, without reference to the country of their origin or allegiance, and without much reference to the length of their residence. Their domicil, for this particular purpose, is said to be sufficient to found the right of the maritime captor; but it would be stretching the principle of those decisions to an extent which was never intended, to say that they were not British subjects in the sense of this convention: for instance, and the example alone is sufficient to answer the whole question, is there any jurist who would say, that an injury offered to a British merchant, residing at Mexico, would not, all other means of redress being exhausted, justify the issue of reprisals on the part of Great Britain?

I contend that the principles of international law do not warrant the restrictive interpretation sought to be put upon the plain words of the convention, and that the Messrs. Laurents are not disentitled to have their claim entertained by the commissioners.

THOMAS, agent and counsel for the United States:

In his opening speech, the counsel for the British government has addressed himself to the question of the jurisdiction of the commission, which I gave him notice I should deny in this case; and I shall in my reply confine myself entirely to this preliminary inquiry.

I deny the jurisdiction of the commission, on the ground that the claimants are not "British subjects," in the sense in which these terms are used in the convention, and, consequently, they have no right to present for the decision of this commission a claim against the United States. I am glad to see the claimants present, and I hope they will listen attentively to the argument, for, besides satisfying the commissioners, I shall be disappointed if, by the reasons I shall advance, and the authorities I shall cite, I do not convince the claimants themselves, that they will have no just ground for dissatisfaction with the decision, to which I feel confident the commissioners must comenamely, that the claimants are not entitled to be heard by this commission as "British subjects," being domiciled citizens of Mexico, and by the law of nations invested with the national character of that country.

In order, however, to a fair understanding of the manner in which this question arises, it may be well to state the facts as they appear from the memorial of the claimants themselves.

This is a claim presented on the part of the British government in favor of the Messrs. Laurent, residents of Mexico, who claim indemnity from the United States for the confiscation as prize of war, of a debt, owing by them to the government of Mexico.

These claimants represent that they are resident merchants and traders in the city of Mexico, and that they had been established there eighteen years in that capacity, previous to 1847. During that year they further state that a law was passed by the Mexican Congress, authorizing the raising of fifteen millions of dollars by the hypothecation or sale of church property. Afterwards, in the same year, the Congress, by law, gave extraordinary powers to the executive authority to raise immediately five millions by the sale of the said property. The house occupied by the claimants belonged to the church, and they being notified that it was to be sold, determined to purchase it. The Mexican government accepted their proposal, and an agreement was drawn up, by which the claimants undertook to pay a specified