is completed, and they have actually arrived at their destination; and 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 re-payment 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.

DUTY ON WOOLEN GOODS-C. BARRY, AGENT.

KING AND GRACIE.

This was a claim for a return of the excess of duty charged by Great Britain against citizens of the United States, on woolen goods exported to that country, over and above those charged on the same description of goods exported to other countries.

This excess of duty was alleged to be in violation of reciprocal provisions entered into between the two countries, by the treaty of commerce of July 3, 1815, by which the exports and imports to and from either country to the other were placed on the basis of those of the most favored countries.

The particular grounds of this description of claims, and the various proceedings had in reference to them, are fully set forth in the opinion of the commissioners, with the reasons of the delay of their adjustment to the present time.

This claim is presented with a view to some general decision and order in reference to the large class of cases of the same character pending before the commission.

THOMAS, agent and counsel for the United States.

HANNEN, agent and counsel for Great Britain.

Ex. Doc. 103-20

The opinion of the commission was delivered by

UPHAM, United States Commissioner:

By the treaty of commerce entered into between the United States and Great Britain, on the third day of July, 1815, it is provided, in article second, that "no other or higher duties shall be imposed on the exportation of any articles from the one country to the territory or dominions of the other than such as are, or may be, payable upon the exportation of the like articles to any other foreign country.”

A similar provision is made as to importations: "That no higher duty on importations shall be imposed on articles being the growth, produce, or manufacture of either country than is imposed on like articles from any other foreign country." It is further provided that there shall be no prohibition of the importation of any article from either of the governments into the other which shall not equally extend to all other nations.-(Laws of the United States, vol. 8, p. 228, Peters's ed.)

These provisions are essentially the same as those introduced into the treaty of amity and commerce between the two countries on the 19th of November, 1794, at least, as regards importations. The treaty of 1815 was to continue but four years. It has been, however, renewed from time to time, and is still continued as the existing treaty of commerce between the two countries. Similar stipulations are now uniformly introduced by the United States into her treaties with all governments, and the principle thus adopted has become a settled usage and common law among nations.

Treaties containing similar provisions were subsequently made by Great Britain with the united provinces of Rio de la Plata and with Columbia and Mexico.

It would naturally be supposed that articles of such importance, and dictated by such just grounds of intercourse between nations, would have been scrupulously maintained. They have been violated, however, in some instances, through inadvertence, by careless and hasty legislation, and, at other times, seemingly from ignorance of the existence of such provisions.

The first case that attracted attention, as a ground of complaint under these treaties, arose from an unequal assessment of duties on the exportation of British manufactured woolens to foreign countries.

On the exportation of these goods to the United States, and some other countries, an ad valorem duty of ten shillings per cent. was assessed, extending back to the date of the treaty, and was continued to May 6, 1830; while, during a large portion of that time, the same description of goods were exported free of such duty to China, Java, Manilla, Valparaiso, Lima, California, &c.

American ships had commenced loading for these countries with cargoes consisting principally of woolen goods; and, finding they were allowed to be shipped free of duty, on the 27th of December, 1825, application was made to the board of customs to permit the shipment of woolen goods to the United States with the same exemption. This privilege was refused.

Afterwards, on the 20th of January, 1826, it was ordered by the commissioners of customs that the shipment of woolens should be made to the United States upon a deposit equal to the amount of duty claimed, until such time as the decision of the British government upon the subject could be had. Exceptions were at this time taken by British merchants engaged in trade with the provinces of Rio de la Plata and Columbia, on account of a similar inequality of duties on goods shipped to those countries, and the excess of duties charged was directed to be refunded, by orders issued from the treasury in April and May, 1826.

No measures having been taken in reference to the shipment of woolen goods to the United States, the attention of the privy council for trade was again called to the subject, and claim was made that such sums as had been levied on these goods contrary to the stipulations of the treaty should be refunded.

On the 20th of August following, an order of the committee of the privy council was issued in reply to the memorials stating the opinion "that, as the duty in question was not payable upon woolens exported to foreign places within the limits of the East India company's charter, the parties were entitled, under the terms of the treaty with the United States, to a like exemption, and requesting the commissioners of his Majesty's customs to discontinue levying that duty on woolens exported to the United States, and to other countries with which treaties containing a similar right of exemption had been concluded; and that on due application from the parties, by whom such export duty had been paid, the same should be returned to them."

The board of commissioners, notwithstanding the order, refused to refund the amount of duties paid, and procured an act of limitation, passed after the memorialist's application, that duties thus assessed should not be refunded for a time extending back beyond a term of

three years.

In the application for repayment of duties on woolens shipped to South America, an attempt had been made to apply the statute of limitations in bar of a portion of the claims. It was, however, settled by the legal advisers of the crown that it was not the practice to apply the statute of limitations to claims under treaties with foreign States.

The memorialists at length succeeded, through various orders issued in 1830, 1831, and 1832, in obtaining a return of duties for about fourteen months-from March, 1829, to May, 1830.

Owing to the various difficulties interposed against the allowance of this claim, and in regard to the proper vouchers to be filed to sustain it, application was made to the American government in 1843; and in September of that year, Mr. Everett, then American minister at London, addressed a letter to the British government, urging payment of the claim, and some modifications as to the requirements that had been made of the evidence to sustain it. The grounds on which the payment of the claim was demanded were admitted to be unanswerable. No action was had, however, in reference to the payment of the claim until December 3, 1845, when a further order was issued from the commissioners, requiring a repayment to the shippers of the duties assessed on woolens, running back to a period of three years prior to the 26th of January, 1826, at which time the practice had commenced of making payment of duties under protest or deposit.

Within such period, the ordinary evidence, as practiced in previous cases, was to be admitted. The claims were to be allowed and paid in the name of the shippers; but beyond that period it was ordered that return was to be made only to the actual owner or proprietor of the goods at the time of shipment, or to the shipper, or consignee of the goods, on behalf of the owner or proprietor abroad, on production of a power of attorney, or other legal authority from such owner or proprietor, accompanied by affidavit that he had authorized the shippers to apply for the return of the money.

Under this order, the duties illegally assessed were ultimately refunded, extending back to January 26, 1823. The claim for excess