war as the native subject of that neutral country, although our own resident merchants cannot without special permission of the crown." The words of Lord Stowell apply exactly to the case of the Messrs. Laurent. They, as far as in them lay, had expatriated themselves; they had resided twenty years in Mexico carrying on their business, and with every intention of remaining there, as is sufficiently evidenced by their wishing to buy the freehold of the house in which they were living; and, according to Lord Stowell's judgment, ought to be considered Mexican citizens.

In the case of the President, (5 Robinson, 277,) which vessel was captured on a voyage from the Cape of Good Hope to Europe, and claimed for Mr. J. Elmslie, as a citizen of the United States, it appeared that he had been a British-born subject who had gone to the Cape during the last war, and had been employed as American consul at that place. In giving judgment, Sir William Scott said: "This court must, I think, surrender every principle on which it has acted in considering the question of national character if it was to restore this vessel. The claimant is described to have been for many years. settled at the Cape, with an established house of trade, and as a merchant of that place, and must be taken as a subject of the enemy's country." (The Dutch being then at war with England.).

In a recent case, "the Aina," decided in the admiralty court in June last: The claimant was a native of the free Hans Town of Lubec, and consul of his Majesty the King of the Netherlands, at Helsingfors, in Finland; he had lent money, before the war with Russia, on bottomry on the ship, which ship was captured by the British fleet in the Baltic. Doctor Lushington, in giving judgment, is reported to have said: "Two questions have arisen with respect to the present claim; first as to the national character of the claimant, whether he is to be considered an enemy or a neutral. With reference to this question, it is stated that he is a citizen of the free Hans Town of Lubec, and consul of his Majesty the King of the Netherlands, at Helsingfors, in Finland. Upon this I can put but one construction: that he is a resident in Finland, and carrying on business there. I take it to be a point beyond controversy that, where a neutral, after the cozamencement of the war, continues to reside in the enemy's country for the purposes of trade, he is considered as adhering to the enemy, and is disqualified from claiming as a neutral altogether."

I am unable to see why the principle laid down so fully in these cases (and many more might be cited) should not be applied to that of the Messrs. Laurent. They had, as before observed, long been residents in Mexico, they had a fixed home there, with apparently every intention of continuing to reside there, insomuch that they endeavored to buy a portion of the soil of Mexico.

I think, therefore, that for the purposes of this commission they were Mexican citizens and not British subjects, and that the commissioners do not form a tribunal competent to entertain their claims.

GEORGE HOUGHTON.

Where a ship, containing property of an English subject, was seized by a piratical vessel on the high seas, and was subsequently recaptured by a United States cruiser, and the ship and property was sold, and the proceeds went into the United States treasury, subject to certain claims of the captors, as established by law; held that remuneration should be made to the owner, deducting reasonable expenses and salvage.

The claimant is a British merchant, who was on his way from the Canary Islands, in a Spanish vessel, to Madeira, when, on the 23d day of May, 1816, they were seized by a pirate, who put most of the crew to death and robbed the vessel, whereby he lost, as he alleges, £1,500 in gold and silver.

The vessel was soon afterwards taken by a United States cruiser, and the crew was tried for piracy and the vessel sold; the proceeds of which, in part, with half of what was found on board at the time of the seizure, went into the United States treasury.

The memorialist brings his claim against the United States government for such just sum as the commissioners may deem right to award him, after deduction of proper salvage and expenses.

HANNEN, agent and counsel for Great Britain.

THOMAS, agent and counsel for the United States.

Ex. Doc. 103-11

UPHAM, United States Commissioner, delivered the opinion of the commission:

This case has been submitted to us by the claimants and counsel, as one entitled, as far as we can consider it, to our sympathy, and to such relief as may be granted within the powers committed to us.

The prominent facts set forth in the memorial of the claimant are clearly shown. The property of which he was divested, in no manner passed to those who deprived him of it, and its recapture by a government vessel of the United States, did not change the right of ownership, except to the extent of such just claim of salvage as should be allowed on this account.

On every principle of justice and equity, and, as we believe, of sound international law, the claimant is entitled to remuneration to the extent named. It is to be regretted, however, that application was not early made to sustain the claim, by the requisite proof, before the proper tribunals appointed for this purpose, but we do not consider this omission should preclude him from all relief here.

The right to recover in such case is not a mere matter of clemency on our part. The obligation to make compensation, or restoration, where property has been piratically seized on the high seas, has been recognized in the treaties between the two governments, and their aid mutually pledged both to punish such offences and to restore such property.

The 20th article of the treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, concluded between the United States and Great Britain on the 19th of November, 1794, provides that the governments will exert themselves to bring to condign punishment all persons concerned in piratical offences, and that "all ships, with the goods or merchandises taken by them, and brought into the port of either of the said parties, shall be seized, as far as they can be discovered, and shall be restored to the owners, or their factors or agents, duly deputed and authorized in writing by them, (proper evidence being first given in the court of admiralty for proving the property,) even in case such effects should have passed into other hands by sale, if it be proved that the buyers knew, or had good reason to suspect, that they had been piratically taken."-(1 Laws of United States, ed. of 1815, p. 218.)

This provision contemplates seasonable application and proper proof of ownership to be filed in the court of admiralty to secure such claim. The justice of it is, however, acknowledged, and we feel ourselves empowered to go behind the mere form of relief, and grant some compensation for the loss incurred; and we therefore allow the claim, deducting such reasonable expenses and salvage as is established by the laws of the United States.