to agree upon the decision to be given with reference to the claim of Mr. Duncan Gibb, of Liverpool, owner of the ship Baron Renfrew, against the American Government; and having carefully examined and considered the papers and evidence produced on the hearing of the said claim, and having conferred with the said commissioners thereon, hereby reports that this vessel was seized at San Francisco on a charge of smuggling, and was libeled in the district court of the United States. At the time it was shown that the merchandise smuggled (59 or 99 Bags of Rice) had been entered in the manifest of the ship as stores, and according to the laws of the United States the smuggling of stores does not involve the forfeiture of the ship. She was accordingly cleared and restored to the claimants by decree of the court. The district attorney held a different opinion and appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The rice was condemned as forfeited, and the captain of the ship incurred the penalty of three times the value (the rice sold for $2,200), which being unable to pay, he was imprisoned. At Washington the judgment of the district court was confirmed and the ship finally delivered up. The ship had been valued for bonding at $23,000, but for some reason the claimant's agent did not see fit to give bond.

"The vessel was seized August 6th, 1852.

"The libel was dismissed September 21st, 1852.

"In custody of the marshal four months and twenty-seven days, deducting the time from the 6th of August to the 21st September, for which no reasonable claim for detention can be made, there appears to have been a detention of three months and a half for which, and for a portion of legal expenses, I award to Duncan Gibb, esquire, and owners of the ship Baron Renfrew, or their legal representatives, the sum of $6,000 on the 15th January 1855."

Bates, umpire, December 23, 1854, convention between the United States and Great Britain of February 8, 1853. (MSS. Dept. of State.)

Son."

Mr. Bates, umpire of the mixed commission Case of the "Only under the convention between the United States and Great Britain of February 8, 1853, awarded $1,000 to the owners of the schooner Only Son for the wrongful action of the collector of customs at Halifax, Nova Scotia, in compelling the master of the schooner, whose intention was merely to report for a market and to proceed

elsewhere if circumstances rendered it desirable, to enter his vessel and pay a duty of 5 shillings a barrel on 825 barrels of flour, composing the cargo, which the master, having been compelled to enter and pay duty on it, there disposed of. It was doubtful how much loss was sustained by the sale. But according to the master's protest, made at Halifax, he intended to proceed to a port in the United States, instead of paying duty and selling the cargo at Halifax, and the umpire under the circumstances made the award above stated, which was about the amount of the duties. The claim was the subject of much diplomatic correspondence, beginning in 1829, and the British Government agreed to pay any loss sustained by reason of the act of the collector, but on examining the particulars refused to pay anything, on the ground that no loss was suffered.

"On the 12th day of September 1855 the Case of the "Wilwhale ship William Lee, of 310 tons, was lying liam Lee." in the port of Tumbez [Peru] and ready to proceed on a whaling cruise. The captain of the ship, Lorenzo Gruninger, having obtained the papers necessary from the custom-house and from the governor, proceeded to the office of the captain of the port for the purpose of procuring his clearance. That officer, Don Cristobal Colona, refused to clear the ship, on the ground that the captain of the same owed a sum of money to two sailors and to a person from Ecuador, whose names were not given. Captain Gruninger proved that he had paid all just demands against him, but of fered security in $10,000 that he would satisfy all lawful claims against him.

"Notwithstanding this, the captain of the port persisted in refusing the clearance, nor would he give to Captain Gruninger a passport to go to Lima. It was not until the 22d of December of the same year that the captain of the port gave the proper clearance of the ship.

"The William Lee suffered great damage in its hull and masts and rigging during the three months it was forced to remain in Tumbez, and as experts declared that the necessary repairs could not be made at sea, the captain was compelled to take his ship to Paita for repairs, where he expended $4,000 in making the same.

"The whaling season being over, and it also being found impossible to procure a suitable crew in Paita, Captain Gruninger departed with his ship for the United States. The

owners of the William Lee made a claim upon the Peruvian Government through the Government of the United States for $67,514.29 as damages in consequence of the detention of the ship.

“Upon examining the claim, the United States Government reduced it to $32,424.54, and on the 22nd March 1858 instructed its minister in Lima, the Hon. J. Randolph Clay, to present to the Peruvian Government a claim for that amount.

"The Peruvian Government replied on the 19th January 1860 stating that the owners of the William Lee and its cargo were entitled to damages, but could not agree to the amount claimed by the United States. The case continued in this state till the negotiation and ratification of the convention of 12th January 1863, between the two governments for the settlement of claims, when two commissioners were appointed by each government to adjust the claims between the citizens of the two governments.

"That commission in session in Lima, having given audience to the agents of the two governments for the presentation of arguments in the case, came to the following determination:

"That there is no positive proof furnished in support of any of the items presented with this claim. The principal element of damage is based upon the loss of the whaling season during the detention of the ship, but this item is sustained only by presumptive evidence, namely, the declaration of the ten shipmasters in the whaling service, as to the probable catch of such a ship as the William Lee at that season on the 'off shore ground.' This is stated at 800 to 1,200 barrels. But, on the other hand, it is evident from the papers presented in evidence on behalf of the claimant in support of a different point, namely, the illegality of his detention, that during the eighteen months of the cruise actually preceding the detention of the William Lee, as well as during the anterior period she had been at sea, her catch was only 730 barrels of oil. The commissioners think this a much more reasonable and equitable as well as a much more tangible measure of damage than the opinion of the shipmasters. There is no proof found in respect to the whole sum of $2,671.11 for notarial, consular, and other fees and expenses alleged to have been incurred in consequence of the detention of the ship. The Government of Peru has already admitted in their correspondence with Mr. Clay, their liability for the sum of $4,000 incurred in repairing the ship at

Paita, according to the report of the board of survey. In cluding, then, in the determination of damages the loss of the whaling season to the William Lee, the $4,000 for repairs, $1,500 for all expenses during detention, and interest on all losses from the release of the ship in December 1855, at the rate of 6 per cent per annum, the commissioners award to the owners of the whale ship William Lee twenty-two thousand dollars ($22,000) in the current money of Peru, or its equivalent in the current money of the United States."

Opinion of the commission under the convention between the United States and Peru of January 12, 1863.