letters from insurgents, and as a violation of the law had been committed, the Spanish authorities had a right to proceed against him, but with due regard to the reservations provided in the treaty of 1795 in favor of American citizens. The Spanish authorities declared after his release that the proceedings would be continued, and that the charge was the bringing of political correspondence from members of the Cuban Junta in New York, in which it was said that the claimant had the writer's confidence, and that he could be spoken freely with, but after some conferences with the Americau consul-general they gave the claimant the choice either to depart within a certain time, which he found prudent to do, or to remain in Cuba and take his trial on the above charge.

"The principal evidence produced by Spain as proof of this charge is a letter from a young gentleman to his father in Cuba, expressing great enthusiasm for the cause of Cuba, and his hope to serve her in the diplomatic line. He gives incidentally an account of some plans of the New York Junta to establish diplomatic relations with foreign powers. He says he has some hope to be employed as secretary of one of the missions, and asks his father to send him in a covert way his opinion whether he ought to accept. This letter is, in the opinion of the umpire, no sufficient justification of the charge, by which the claimant was frightened away, and he is entitled to some indemnity.

"There is no evidence that any property belonging to the claimant was ever seized by administrative embargo. Some goods in a store were seized in August 1869, and it is contended that this seizure was illegal; but the claimant's own testimony tends to prove the contrary, because he says that the American consul-general, Mr. Plumb, to whom he complained, refused to interfere, and because it is not credible that Mr Plumb would have omitted to interfere and to report the case to the Department of State if this had been a case of administrative embargo. The goods in the store were finally appraised at $4,000, and sold in 1871 for the benefit of creditors. It is prob able that they were seized by judicial process already in August 1869.

"The umpire decides that an indemity of $5,000, with interest at 6 per cent a year from the 16th of October 1869 to this day, be paid on account of this claim."

Count Lewenhaupt, umpire, December 28, 1880, John A. Machado v. Spain, No. 84, Spanish Claims Commission, agreement between the United States and Spain of February 11-12, 1871.

Powers's Case.

On April 3, 1870, John E. Powers, a citizen of the United States, who was in charge of a trainload of troops in Cuba as engine-driver, was arrested on suspicion of having voluntarily thrown the train from the track in order to prevent the troops from

joining another body of soldiers who were engaged in a skirmish with insurgents. He was confined in prison by the military authorities till May 18, a period of forty-five days, and for a week after his trial and acquittal (on May 11) by a military court. His innocence was in fact well established by a preliminary inquiry held on the 8th of April. He claimed $12,000 damages for illegal arrest, ill treatment in prison, and the robbery of a watch and some money while he was in custody.

The arbitrator for the United States, Mr. Stewart, held that the arrest and imprisonment of the claimant by the military authorities was a violation of the guaranties of the treaty of 1795, and for this, as well as for the ill treatment and robbery, and the loss of wages during a period of enforced idleness resulting from the arrest, be awarded the sum of $6,487, with interest at 6 per cent.

Mr. Brunetti, the arbitrator for Spain, thought that the claimant's arrest was legal; that while all persons in districts in a state of siege where the usual civil rights were, as in the present case, suspended, were subject to military authority, the claimant was clearly so subject, being at the time of his arrest engaged in the transportation of troops and under military command; that the alleged ill treatment and robbery were not sufficiently proved, but that the claimant's detention was unnecessarily long and exceeded the requirements of the case; that he should have been promptly tried, say within two weeks; that damages should be allowed him to the amount of $500 for loss of wages during his unnecessary imprisonment, but that nothing should be allowed for the loss of his employment, both because that loss would have occurred if he had been imprisoned for only two weeks, and because he did not profit by an offer made to him during his arrest of release on bail.

The umpire held that under the circumstances there was sufficient ground for the claimant's arrest, and that the charges of ill treatment and robbery, which rested solely on the claimant's statements, were not sufficiently proved; but he also held that the claimant's innocence should have been considered as clearly established by the preliminary inquiry of the 8th of April, and that he should be allowed $4,000, without interest, for being illegally imprisoned for forty days.

Count Lewenhaupt, umpire, February 24, 1881, John E. Powers v. Spain, No. 106, Spanish Commission, agreement of February 11-12, 1871.

By the protocol signed at Madrid on JanuCase of De Luna. ary 12, 1877, by the minister plenipotentiary of the United States and the minister of state of Spain, for the purpose of terminating amicably "all controversy as to the effect of existing treaties in certain matters of judicial procedure," it was declared by the minister of state that no citizen of the United States residing in the Spanish dominions, charged with sedition, treason, or conspiracy, or any other crime whatsoever, should be "subject to trial by any exceptional tribunal, but exclusively by the ordinary jurisdiction, except in the case of being captured with arms in hand."

On or about March 24, 1880, Antonio Bellido de Luna, a citizen of the United States, was arrested by the military authorities in Cuba for alleged complicity in an insurrectionary plot. He gave notice of his American citizenship when he was arrested, but did not furnish the proofs of it required by Spanish law till April 24, 1880. He was kept in strict military arrest, without the privilege of communicating with anyone, till the 17th of the following June, when he was turned over to the civil authorities on an old charge of forgery. On the 18th of June he was ordered to be released on this charge on giving $1,000 bail, which he was unable to furnish; and he remained in prison till October 12, 1880, when he died. A claim was made by his administrator for damages for his alleged wrongful imprisonment.

The American arbitrator, Mr. Lowndes, held that the imprisonment prior to April 24, 1880, when proper proof of citizenship was produced, and after June 17, when the prisoner was turned over to the civil authorities on the charge of forgery, was lawful, but that his imprisonment by the military authorities between those dates was in violation of the protocol of January 12, 1877. For this Mr. Lowndes allowed the sum of $5,000, and in so doing he referred to the fact that the deceased left no wife or child or other person dependent upon him, his brother being his distributee. The Spanish arbitrator thought that the claimant was entitled to an award of $540.

The umpire, Count Lewenhaupt, awarded $3,000 without interest.

De Luna, administrator, v. Spain, No. 138, November 16, 1882, Spanish Claims Commission, agreement of February 11-12, 1871.

The claimant, a naturalized citizen of the

Casanova's Case. United States, was arrested near Havana by the Spanish authorities on the night of March 30, 1869. In reply to a request of the vice-consul-general of the United States, to be informed of the reason for the claimant's arrest, the political secretary said that it was done at the instance of the fiscal or prosecuting officer, but assigned no cause. It was subsequently ascertained that his arrest was connected with an affair then under investigation. After an imprisonment of twenty days he was released, and through the intervention of the vice-consul-general of the United States, a passport was given him to leave the island. The arbitrators. were of opinion that the claimant's arrest and imprisonment constituted, under the circumstance narrated, an injury for which he was entitled to damages. Moreover, during the month of April his property was embargoed for from twenty to thirty days. This the arbitrators also held to be a wrong, for which the claimant was entitled to damages, though the evidence did not enable them to allow more than nominal damages. They awarded him in all $6,000 in gold.

Ynocencio Casanova v. Spain, No. 25, December 26, 1882, Spanish Commission, agreement of February 11-12, 1871. See also S. Ex. Doc. 108, 41 Cong. 2 ses. 187.

Montejo's Case.

The claimant, for refusing to pay a certain sum of money that was demanded of him as rent for an embargoed house, was arrested on a charge of disloyalty and was tried for that offense before a court-martial. After his arrest the authorities at first refused to admit him to bail. He was imprisoned, in all, thirty-nine days. He claimed damages for his imprisonment and trial in violation of the treaty of 1795, as well as for the losses resulting from his being prevented from fulfilling certain agreements in relation to the improvement of his sugar estate. He also made a further claim for damages because of the breaking up, as a result of his imprisonment, of a real estate speculation in the city of New York. His claim amounted in all to $542,500. The umpire decided that, "as indemnity for illegal arrest and imprisonment during thirty-nine days, the sum of $3,900, without interest, be paid on account of this claim."

Count Lewenhaupt, umpire, February 22, 1883, Manuel Antonio Montejo v. Spain, No. 115, Spanish Claims Commission, agreement between the United States and Spain of February 11-12, 1871.

"These claims were one hundred in number, Cases before the and the total amount of damages claimed, in American and all, was nearly $10,000,000, exclusive of interest; or, adding interest at the rate allowed by the commission, say $16,000,000.

British Claims

Commission.

"In thirty-four of the cases awards were made in favor of the claimants against the United States, in all amounting to $167,911. In sixty-four cases these claims were disallowed; one case was dismissed without prejudice for impertinent and scandalous language used in the memorial, and one was withdrawn by Her Majesty's agent by leave of the commission.

"The question early arose before the comCases of McHugh, mission whether in case of death prior to the Sherman, and Brain. presentation of the claim of the party against whose person the wrongful acts were alleged to have been committed, the claim for such injuries was to be considered as surviving to the personal representatives. This question was raised by demurrer interposed on behalf of the United States, in the cases of Edward McHugh, No. 357; Elizabeth Sherman, No. 359, and Elizabeth Brain, No. 447.

"In the case of Mrs. Sherman, No. 359, all connection between the injuries alleged and the death of the intestate was disclaimed by the memorial.

"In the cases of Mrs. Brain, No. 447, and of McHugh, No. 357, there were allegations that the injuries complained of caused or contributed to cause the death of the intestate; but there was no allegation of any local statute allowing damages in favor of personal representatives for a wrongful injury causing death.

"On the part of the United States it was claimed that, as by the common law both of Great Britain and of the United States, claims for injuries to the person did not survive to the personal representatives, such claims were not to be considered as within the submission by article 12. That the claims which by that article were submitted could not be taken to comprehend claims of a character not recognized by the municipal laws of either of the countries parties to the treaty.

"Her Majesty's counsel contended that the municipal laws of the two countries were not to be taken as controlling the rights of claimants in this regard; that claims for injuries to