named, and the seizure of the property alleged, and as to the assignment of the claims of other owners to the claimant. Upon the question of due diligence by the Canadian authorities, the claim was rested on both sides substantially on the evidence taken in the Saint Albans cases, and the arguments of the respective counsel upon this question were substantially those urged in the Saint Albans cases, with the additional point, urged on behalf of the defence, that the Canadian government had promptly given notice to the Government of the United States of the information received by them as to the contemplated raid, thereby putting the United States Government fully upon its guard. The claim was unanimously disallowed. The Calcutta saltpetre cases. Frederick T. Bush and others vs. Great Britain, No. 11. These claims were all of substantially the same character, arising on the same state of facts, and were heard on the same proofs and arguments. The claimants in No. 11 were the owners of the American ship Daring; those in No. 12, of the American ship Templar; those in No. 16, of the American bark Patmos, and those in No. 18, of a portion of the cargo of the Daring, consisting of linseed, saltpetre, jute, and gunnybags. The three vessels above named were, on the 27th December, 1861, in the port of Calcutta, in British India. The Daring had at that date taken on board a quantity of saltpetre, as part of her cargo, obtained a clearance therefor, and had paid the export duty thereon. After that date she completed the taking in of the remainder of her cargo, consisting of linseed, jute, &c., but including no saltpetre, and was completely laden on the 3d January, 1862. The Templar had her cargo all on board, including a quantity of saltpetre, on the 27th December. The Patmos also was fully laden, including 2,000 bags of saltpetre, on the 27th December. On the 30th November, 1861, the following proclamation was issued by Her Britannic Majesty: BY THE QUEEN-A PROCLAMATION. VICTORIA R. Whereas in and by a certain statute made and passed in the Parliament held in the sixteenth and seventeenth years of our reign, and intituled "The Customs Consolidation Act, 1853," it is, amongst other things, declared and enacted as follows; that is to say: "The following goods may, by proclamation or order in council, be prohibited either to be exported or carried coast wise: Arms, ammunition, and gunpowder, military and naval stores, and any articles which Her Majesty shall judge capable of being converted into or made useful in increasing the quantity of military or naval stores, provisions, or any sort of victual which may be used as food by man; and if any goods so prohibited shall be exported from the United Kingdom or carried coast wise, or be waterborne to be so exported or carried, they shall be forfeited." And whereas we have thought fit, by and with the advice of our privy council, to prohibit either to be exported or carried coast wise the articles hereinafter mentioned, (being articles which we judge capable of being converted into or made useful in increasing the quantity of military or naval stores,) we, therefore, by and with the advice of our privy council, and by this our royal proclamation, do order and direct that, from and after the date hereof, all gunpowder, saltpetre, nitrate of soda, and brimstone, shall be, and the same are hereby, prohibited either to be exported from the United Kingdom or carried coastwise. Given at our court, at Windsor, this thirtieth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and in the twenty-fifth year of our reign. God save the Queen. On the 27th December, 1861, the following ordinance was promulgated by the governor-general of India: LEGISLATIVE. The following ordinance, passed by the governor-general of India on this date, is hereby promulgated for general information : ORDINANCE. AN ORDINANCE to prohibit the exportation of saltpetre, except in British vessels bound to the ports of London or Liverpool, passed by the governor-general of India, under the provisions of 24 and 25 Vic., cap. 67, on the 27th December, 1861. Whereas information has reached the governor-general by public telegraph that the exportation of saltpetre from the United Kingdom has been interdicted by royal proclamation, and it is, therefore, expedient that the exportation of saltpetre from India, except in British vessels bound to the port of London or to the port of Liverpool, should be prohibited: It is ordered as follows: I. Until the governor-general, in council, shall otherwise order, it shall not be lawful for any person to export saltpetre from any port of Her Majesty's territories in India, except in a British vessel bound either to the port of London or to the port of Liverpool. II. If any person shall attempt to export saltpetre, contrary to the provisions of this ordinance, the same shall be seized and confiscated. III. No collector or other officer of the customs shall after this date grant a pass or permit for the exportation, or shipment for exportation, of saltpetre from any port of the said territories, except in a British vessel bound for the port of London or for the port of Liverpool. IV. Nothing in this ordinance shall extend to any saltpetre shipped prior to this date, or to any saltpetre for the exportation or shipment whereof a permit or pass has been granted on or before this date. W. GREY, Secretary to Governor of India. On the 3d January, 1862, the following notification was issued and additional ordinance was promulgated by the governor-general of India: NOTIFICATION. FORT WILLIAM, January 3, 1862. Whereas it is declared by the ordinance passed by the governor-general of India, on the 27th December, 1861, that until the governor-general, in council, shall otherwise order, it shall not be lawful for any person to export saltpetre from any part of Her Majesty's territories in India, except in British vessels bound either to the port of London or to the port of Liverpool; and whereas it appears from instruction since received from Her Majesty's government that the prohibition to export saltpetre from India, so far as regards British vessels is to apply only to such vessels when bound to ports not within the United Kingdom, the governor-general, in council, is pleased to order, accordingly, that it shall be lawful to export saltpetre on British vessels bound to any port of the United Kingdom, anything in the said ordinance notwithstanding. By order of the governor-general, in council. W. GREY, Secretary to the Government of India. LEGLISLATIVE. JANUARY 3, 1862. The following ordinance, passed by the governor-general of India, on this date, is promulgated for general information: AN ORDINANCE to prohibit the exportation of saltpetre, except in British vessels bound to the United Kingdom, passed by the governor-general of India, under the provisions of 24 and 25 Vic., c. 67, on the third of January, 1862. Whereas in a dispatch from the secretary of state for India, dated the third December, 1861, the instructions of Her Majesty's government have been received by the governor-general, in council, to take immediate measures for preventing the exportation of saltpet re from India, except in British vessels bound for the ports in the United Kingdom, and to cause any saltpetre which, previously to the receipt, and contrary to the conditions of the said instructions, may have been placed on board vessels still in port, to be re-landed; and whereas, in consequence of the said instructions, the governor-general, in council, has this day ordered that it shall be lawful to export saltpetre on British vessels bound to any port of the United Kingdom, anything in the ordinance of the governor-general the 27th December, 1861, notwithstanding; and whereas it is expedient to make further provision for giving effect to the instructions now received from Her Majesty's government: It is, therefore, ordered as follows: I. Until the governor-general, in council, shall otherwise order, it shall not be lawful to export saltpetre from any part of Her Majesty's territories, except in a British vessel bound to a port of the United Kingdom. II. All saltpetre which previously to the promulgation of this ordinance may have been placed for exportation on any vessel still being within a port of Her Majesty's territories in India, and not being a British vessel bound for a port of the United Kingdom, shall be re-landed. III. No collector of customs or other officer shall grant a port-clearance to any vessel having on board saltpetre, other than a British vessel bound for the United Kingdom. IV. If any person shall attempt to export saltpetre contrary to the provisions of this ordinance, the same shall be seized and confiscated. V. Any custom-house officer may without warrant seize saltpetre liable to confiscation under this ordinance. W. GREY, Secretary to the Government of India. The vessels in question having their cargoes on board, and their mas ters believing that the prohibition would be but temporary, it was not deemed expedient to unload the saltpetre which lay, in each case, at the bottom of the hol, thus requiring the unlading of the entire cargo; and the vessels accordingly remained in port at Calcutta until 28th February, 1862, on which ay the several ordinances prohibiting the export ation of saltpetre were revoked. They were respectively ready to sail with their cargoes, but for the prohibition, on the 3d, 8th, and 20th days of January, respectively; and the claim in each case was for demurrage from the time the vessels were respectively ready to sail until permitted to sail by the revocation of the ordinances, it being averred in each case that the demurrage thus claimed was less than the expense of unlading the cargo would have been. The masters of the respective vessels duly protested before the United States consul-general at Calcutta against the prohibition of exportation. of saltpetre, and against the detention of their vessels by occasion thereof, claiming their damages for the demurrage. The claims were, during the year 1862, made the subject of diplomatic correspondence between the two governments, the United States claiming compensation on behalf of the parties aggrieved, and the British government vindicating the legality of the ordinances and of the prevention of the sailing of the vessels with the saltpetre on board during the continuance of such ordinances. The provisions of the statute of 16th and 17th Victoria, under which the royal proclamation was issued, and upon which the ordinances of the governor-general were founded, are recited in the royal proclamation above given. The convention between the United States and Great Britain of July 3, 1815, continued by the conventions of 20th October, 1818, and of 6th August, 1827, and in force at the time of the acts in question, are as follows: ARTICLE III. His Britannic Majesty agrees that the vessels of the United States of America shall be admitted and hospitably received at the principal settlements of the British dominions in the East Indies, videlicet: Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, and Prince of Wales' Island; and that the citizens of the said United States may freely carry on trade between the said principal settlements and the said United States, in all articles of which the importation and exportation, respectively, to and from the said territories, shall not be entirely prohibited; provided only, that it shall not be lawful for them, in any time of war between the British government and any state or power whatever, to export from the said territories, without the special permission of the British government, any military stores or naval stores, or rice. The citizens of the United States shall pay for their vessels, when admitted, no higher or other duty or charge than shall be payable on the vessels of the most favored European nations, and they shall pay no higher or other duties or charges on the importation or exportation of the cargoes of the said vessels than shall be payable on the same articles when imported or exported in the vessels of the most favored European nations. But it is expressly agreed that the vessels of the United States shall not carry any articles from the said principal settlements to any port or place, except to some port or place in the United States of America, where the same shall be unladen. It is also understood that the permission granted by this article is not to extend to allow the vessels of the United States to carry on any part of the coasting trade of the said British territories; but the vessels of the United States having, in the first instance, proceeded to one of the said principal settlements of the British dominions in the East Indies, and then going with their original cargoes, or part thereof, from one of the said principal settlements to another, shall not be considered as carrying on the coasting trade. The vessels of the United States may also touch for refreshment, but not for commerce, in the course of their voyage to or from the British territories in India, or to or from the dominions of the Emperor of China, at the Cape of Good Hope, the island of St. Helena, or such other places as may be in the possession of Great Britain in the African or Indian seas; it being well understood that in all that regards this article the citizens of the United States shall be subject, in all respects, to the laws and regulations of the British government from time to time established. The proclamation and ordinances in question were promulgated by occasion, and in view of the arrest on the high seas of the British mailsteamer Trent, and the taking from that vessel of Messrs. Mason and Slidell, agents and emissaries of the confederate government, by a vessel of war of the United States, and in the apprehension of probable hostilities between the United States and Great Britian on account of such arrest and seizure. On the part of the claimants it was contended that, irrespective of treaty stipulations between the United States and Great Britain, the proclamation and ordinances were in effect an embargo on saltpetreladen vessels bound for non-British ports, at least during the time it would take to unlade the saltpetre; that it was a civil, as distinguished from a hostile, embargo, not directed against vessels of the United States exclusively, but as a husbanding of resources merely, though in anticipation of probable hostilities, and thereby having some features of a hostile embargo; that even in the case of a hostile embargo, if war does not ensue, innocent sufferers have a just claim for indemnity, recognized by international law and practice; that a fortiori there is always a just claim for indemnity by sufferers in the case of a civil embargo; that the fact that the embargo was justified by the municipal law of Great Britain did not relieve that government from liability under international law; that the action of the American commander in the arrest of the Trent, and the seizure and removal of the two passengers named, were not justified by his instructions, and were subsequently disavowed by his government, and therefore no international wrong was ever committed by the United States; and that, therefore, such action afforded no justification of measures by the British government in anticipation of war, even if the measures in question would have been justified by the emergency, if the acts of the officer had been avowed by his government; that if the royal proclamation and the ordinances were not to be considered as constituting an embargo, but only a matter of domestic and police regulation, they certainly constituted a violation of the rights of friendly foreigners, and involved liability for compensation; and that, in the case of the Daring, the ordinance of the 27th December having clearly given her the right to sail with the cargo already loaded, this permission, with the subse |