tion of the same were held by the confederate government, to be refunded to the claimants. The memorial further alleged that, "in the month of February, 1865, the United States troops took military possession of Charleston, S. C., and seized the confederate treasury and all confederate property therein, and shortly afterwards seized and took possession of all property, whatsoever or wheresoever, belonging to or in the possession, custody or control of the said Confederate States, including the proceeds of the cargo above referred to." The United States interposed a demurrer to the memorial. On the argument of the demurrer, Her Majesty's counsel, on behalf of the claimant, urged that it was possible for the claimants, under the allegations of the petition, to make out a case of property taken by the United States, "by showing that the proceeds of their sugar were kept separate and distinct from the funds of the confederacy, and marked or noted as theirs, and thus remain. ing in specie were captured." That in such case they might be entitled to recover. On this ground the demurrer was overruled by the commission. Subsequently the claimants having failed to make any proof of such capture of their property in specie, and appropriation of it by the United States, the claim was unanimously disallowed.

The case of Barron, Forbes & Co., No. 314. In this case the claimants alleged that in the year 1845 oue Andres Castillero, a Mexican citizen, became the owner, under the mining laws of Mexico, of a valuable quicksilver mine in California, then a part of the Mexican territory, since known as the New Almaden mine. That on the subsequent acquisition of California by the United States they were notified of Castillero's title. That in 1846 and 1847 the claimants duly succeeded to the title of Castillero. That by the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, between the United States and Mexico, by which treaty Mexico surrendered California to the United States, the faith of the United States was pledged that property of every kind belonging to Mexicans should be "inviolably respected." That in March, 1851, the Congress of the United States passed a law which in effect proceeded on the assumption that all unoccupied land in California was public property, and which allowed proof to be taken by alleged owners of the titles before commissioners appointed for that purpose, with the right of appeal to the United States courts, and finally to the Supreme Court of the United States; thus casting upon the claimants onerous burdens in the establishment of their lawful title. That this act was, in effect, a confiscation in favor of the United States of all landed property in California, subject only to its being averted by such proofs; and was, "in its spirit and effect, a violation of the rights of property, and an infraction of the true intent and meaning of the said treaty." That the claimants filed their claim before the commissioners in California on the 30th September, 1852, and that those commissioners, on the 8th January, 1856, affirmed the claim of the claimants as to a portion of the property, but rejected it as to the remainder, on the ground that their title under the alleged grant, as

to the property in respect of which their claim was rejected, was inchoate and imperfect at the date of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. That the United States appealed from the decision of the commissioners to a tribunal, composed of the circuit and district judges of the United States sitting in California, under the statute; which tribunal, in 1857, issued an injunction restraining the claimants from further working the mine until the further order of the court. That this tribunal finally, on the 18th January, 1861, rendered a decree substantially confirming the decision of the original commissioners, establishing the title of the claimants to a part of the property and rejecting it as to a part. That from this judgment both the claimants and the United States appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States; which court, in the year 1863, rendered a final judgment reversing that part of the decree which established claimants' title to a portion of the property, and dismissing claimants' appeal as to the other portion of the decree, and remanding the cause with direction to dismiss the entire petition. The report of the case, in the Supreme Court, is found in the second volume of Elack's Reports, page 17, under the title of "The United States vs. Castillero."

The memorial disclaimed all imputation of intentional wrong by the Supreme Court of the United States, but alleged that their final judgment was erroneous; and further alleged that, immediately after the decision of the Supreme Court, an order was issued by the President of the United States, to the United States marshal for California, directing that the memorialists be ejected from their property, and that it be placed in the possession of an agent of the United States. That, "while thus under pressure and duress, and threatened with eviction from their property," by the United States, the claimants gave a quitclaim of their interest in the entire property to a Pennsylvania corporation-the Quicksilver Mining Company-receiving for this conveyance the sum of $1,750,000, and that their grantees had since remained in possession of the mine, " undisturbed by any claim of the United States;" and had received, and still continued to enjoy, a revenue of about $1,000,000 per annum from the mine. It also alleged various acts of unfairness and oppression by the attorneys, agents, and officers of the United States during the pendency of the litigation in the lower courts, before the final appeal to the Supreme Court. The claimauts claimed an award for about $16,000,000, besides interest. A demurrer was interposed to the memorial, on behalf of the United States, on the following grounds:

1. The said memorial sets forth no acts committed against the property of the claimants within the time limited by the treaty for which the United States are responsible, or on account of which reclamation lies in favor of the claimants against the United States.

2. The allegations in the memorial of the alleged injuries to the claimants' rights by the passage of the law of 3d March, 1851, as alleged in paragraph 15 of the memorial ; and by the alleged wrongful and oppressive acts of the United States and of their officers and agents in their opposition to the allowance of the claimants before the

commissioners, as set forth in paragraph 20 of the memorial; by the appeal and other alleged unjust and oppressive proceedings set forth in paragraph 21, and by the proceedings set forth in paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32, show all of said transactions to have taken place before the 13th day of April, 1861; and thereby the said transactions are not the subjects of reclamation before this commission.

3. The decision of the Supreme Court of the United States upon the claims of the memorialists in the year 1863, as set forth in paragraphs 33, 34, 35, and 36, of the memorial, and the alleged acts of the President of the United States in execution of the judgment of said court, as set forth in paragraph 37, do not constitute an act or acts against the persons or property of subjects of Her Britannic Majesty within the provisions of the twelfth article of the treaty, by occasion of which reclamation lies against the United States.

4. The only acts alleged in the memorial as occurring within the time limited by the treaty are the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States upon a cause duly and lawfully pending before them, and the proceedings in due course of law for the enforcement of execution upon the said judgment; the memorial distinctly negativing any allegation of fraud or willful injustice in the said court, no reclamation lies on behalf of the claimants before this commission by reason of such judgment, or the lawful proceedings in execution thereof. This commission has no jurisdiction to review the judgments of the regularly-constituted judicial tribunals of the United States or of Great Britain, at least in the absence of allegations of fraud, corruption, or willful or intentional injustice or injury.

5. The memorial shows (paragraph 39) that the claimants or their predecessors, before eviction from their said property under the said judgment, voluntarily sold and conveyed to another party, to wit, the Quicksilver Mining Company, all their rights in and to the premises in question; and that their said grantees have since remained in undisturbed possession of the property in question. The claimants, therefore, appear to have never been disturbed in the possession of their said alleged property; and no injury is shown to them or their rights, on account of which reclamation lies against the United States.

6. No reclamation lies on behalf of the claimants against the United States on account of any alleged infraction by the United States of the provisions of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the provisions of that treaty protecting the rights of property only of Mexicans, citizens of the republic of Mexico, and not of subjects of Her Britannic Majesty.

7. The allegations in the memorial do not show any infraction by the United States of the provisions of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

8. The allegations in the memorial show no infraction by the United States upon any rights of the claimants or their predecessors under the law of nations.

9. The allegations in the memorial show a case simply of adjudication by the regular judicial tribunals of the United States having jurisdiction of the subject-matter, and of the persons of the parties, concerning property lying within the limits of the United States, without fraud, corruption, oppression, or willful injustice. Such adjudication is not reviewable by this commission, and the parties to the same have no standing for reclamation against the United States.

10. The allegations in the memorial fail to show the claimants British subjects, or entitled to a standing as such before this commission.

11. The allegations in the memorial fail to show the present claimants to have succeeded to any alleged title of Andres Castillero in or to the property in question, or to any title of the original firm, so-called, of Barron, Forbes & Co., to the said property. 12. The allegations in the memorial fail to show any title in Andres Castillero, the alleged source of title in the claimants in or to the premises in question.

13. The allegatious in the memorial fail to impeach the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States upon the said case pending before them, or to show said judgment in any respect erroneous.

On the argument it was contended, on the part of the United States: 1. That all the allegations in the memorial touching the unjust action of the United States by its statutes and legal proceedings prior to the 13th April, 1861, were outside the jurisdiction of the commission as established by the treaty; and if the United States or their authorized agents had been guilty of any wrong in these respects, such a wrong was not within the jurisdiction of the commission.

2. That the only act of the United States or any of their officers alleged in the memorial to have been committed within the treaty time, is the adjudication by the Supreme Court of a case regularly pending before it on appeal by both parties from an inferior tribunal. That this decision is in express terms admitted by the memorial to have been honestly rendered without corruption or partiality. That such action of the court is not an act committed against the persons or property of subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, within the meaning of the twelfth article of the treaty.

3. That the claimants were never, within the treaty time, disturbed in their possession of the property which they claim, or evicted therefrom. That at the conclusion of the litigation they voluntarily parted with all their pretended title to the property, and surrendered its possession to their grantees, who have since remained in undisturbed possession.

4. That the claimants have no standing to claim for any alleged infraction by the United States of the provisions of the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. That that treaty provided only for the protection of the rights of property of Mexicans; and that the vindication of the rights of Mexico and her citizens under that treaty does not lie with the British government, and is not a subject submitted to the decision of this commission.

5. That under the rules of international law no ground of reclamation by Great Britain against the United States, on behalf of these her alleged subjects, appears from the memorial. They became parties litigant before the Supreme Court, a judicial tribunal of the United States, in respect of lands lying within the United States, and in a case in which the court had unquestioned jurisdiction. Their rights were, as they themselves admit, honestly and fairly, but, (as they allege,) erroneously adjudicated there. Without awaiting eviction from the premises, they voluntarily parted with their entire claim to the lands, mining privileges, and all enjoyments and profits of the same; that if their grantees had been evicted from possession, the claimants could not be the parties to claim redress, having voluntarily surrendered all their rights; but their grantees had not been evicted; the whole estate with its vast revenues had continued to be enjoyed by the parties to whose enjoyment the claimants voluntarily ceded it.

On the part of the claimants it was insisted by Her Majesty's counsel that the annulling of the title of the claimants by the decree of the

Supreme Court in 1863, and the direction by the President of the United States to the United States marshal in California to expel the claimants from their property, constituted acts against the property of British subjects, bringing them within the jurisdiction of the commission. That the conveyance by the claimants to their grantees was a conveyance under duress of these acts, and did not discharge the liability of the United States, except so far as the amount received by the claimants from their grantees as purchase-money might go to reduce the amount of their loss. That it was within the jurisdiction of the commission to review the judgment of the Supreme Court, and if found erroneous to award compensation to the claimants for their losses by occasion of it. Her Majesty's counsel cited Calvo Derecho Internacional, vol. 1, c. 9, §§ 206, 292, 797, page 391; De Felice Droit de Nature et des Gens, vol. 2, p. 9; Burlamaqui Droit de Nature et des Gens, vol. -, p. 3, c. I; Phillimore, vol. 1, § 168; Rutherforth, vol. 2, book 2, c. 9, §§ 12, 13, 19; Manning's Law of Nations, 383; Lawrence's Wheaton, 673, 674, 679 to 682; Halleck's Int. Law, §§ 15, 16; Story's Conflict of Laws, §§ 591, 592. The commission unanimously disallowed the claim.

George H. and James W. B. Money, No. 324. The memorial in this case alleged, in effect, that the claimants were the owners of certain shares in the Bank of Louisiana, at New Orleans, which shares paid large dividends up to the year 1861; that at the close of that year, "in consequence of the war in America between the Northern and Southern States, and of the occupation of New Orleans and of the bank by General Butler, the bank ceased to pay any dividend or bonus," and the claimants have never since been paid any dividends; that at the time of the cessation of the dividends the shares were worth $31,200, but that since that date they had been substantially valueless. The claimants claimed $33,720, besides interest. On demurrer by the United States, the claim was unanimously disallowed.

William R. Hodges, No. 354. This claimant, by his memorial, stated seven distinct claims against the United States, upon which he claimed awards to the amount of $1,474,155, besides interest.

1. For 200 bales of cotton alleged to have been owned by the claimant in July, 1864, at Fort Adams, Mississippi. This cotton was alleged to have been seized by the United States military forces at Fort Adams, in August, 1864, and 178 bales of it sent to New Orleans; the remaining 22 bales he alleged were carried off by the teamsters who fled fearing that their teams, as well as the cotton, would be seized by the United States officers. The cotton brought to New Orleans was, on its arrival, turned over with other cotton by General Canby to B. F. Flanders, a Treasury agent of the United States. The claimant brought suit against Flanders in a Louisiana court to recover the cotton, which suit was afterwards discontinued with other like suits brought by other claimants of cotton against