Oaxaca, and other places, at all of which it was pronounced to be French, and the decree of the district court was affirmed in March 1826; but an appeal was taken by the subcommissioner of customs at Alvarado to the supreme court of Mexico. Finally he withdrew his appeal, and the proceeds of the brandy, which had been sold by order of court, were ordered to be paid over, less the duties on the brandy, to the original owner. Part of the proceeds, however, was not found in the public treasury, and the full amount of the remainder was not returned.

Indemnity for the losses suffered by the owner of the brandy in consequence of the transaction was awarded.

Reuben M. Whitney and Charles Cailaghan, Assignees of John Colter, v. Mexico: Commission under the convention between the United States and Mexico of April 11, 1839.

Marie's Case.

The American commissioners awarded the sum of $1,093.123, with interest at 6 per cent from August 30, 1824, as indemnity for the confiscation pronounced by a court of justice of Alvarado, Mexico, on a charge of violation of revenue laws, of fifty barrels of beef and thirty sacks of coffee. The umpire, February 25, 1842, rejected the claim.

Leontine Marie v. Mexico: Commission under the convention between the United States and Mexico of April 11, 1839.

Case of the "Robert
Wilson."

The Union Insurance Company of New York demanded of the Mexican Government the sum paid by the company to the proprietors of the brig Robert Wilson, in consequence of its seizure and confiscation by the Mexican authorities. The American commissioners contended (1) that the Mexican authorities had, by their refusal to communicate to the official named by the superior court of New York, a copy of certain proofs in the process against the brig, deprived the company of the means of showing that the confiscation had been pronounced because the commerce in which she was engaged was prohibited, and had thus brought about the condemnation of the company to pay the insurance; and (2) that the confiscation of the vessel was not justified. The Mexican commissioners, on the other hand, contended (1) that the Mexican tribunals were not bound to communicate evidence except to parties to the pleadings before them; and (2) that the confiscation was pronounced according to Mexican law.

The umpire rejected the claim. The violation of the law of Mexico was proved, though the master of the vessel disclaimed knowledge of it. It appeared that certain boxes which were entered on the manifest of the brig as containing tin plate, in fact contained counterfeits of Mexican copper coin.

Commission under the convention between the United States and Mexico of April 11, 1839.

William Massicott, master of the American Massicott's Case. brig Aspasia, sailed from Baltimore to Gibraltar, and from the latter port to Vera Cruz, having on board some specie for the payment of the crew and other expenses. On arriving at Vera Cruz he paid duty on a part of the specie ($1,500), and obtaining a permit for its exportation, placed it in a chest with the other part, which amounted to $1,528. After sailing from Vera Cruz he decided to call for further cargo at Sisal. At the latter place the authorities found the $1,528, and ordered its seizure. The $1,500, as to which the master had a certificate of the customhouse at Vera Cruz, the authorities released. The $1,528, as to which he had no certificate, they confiscated. The umpire, December 3, 1841, rejected the claim.

Commission under the convention between the United States and Mexico of April 11, 1839.

An indemnity was claimed on account of Case of Joseph Smith. the seizure by the Mexican authorities at Saltillo of a quantity of merchandise imported by claimant in 1832. When the goods were seized they were not properly protected, and were left exposed to depredations. The judicial proceedings resulted in the dissipation of the charge on which the seizure was made, and the goods were ordered to be restored. But a considerable portion of them had been made away with, and it was for the value of this portion, with a reasonable mercantile profit thereon, that an award was made. The umpire, February 23, 1842, awarded $18,762.63.

Joseph Smith v. Mexico: Commission under the convention between the United States and Mexico of April 11, 1839.

In 1837 the claimant, a merchant of PhilaCase of the "Mary." delphia, sent the brig Mary from Havana to Tampico, laden with merchandise. A part of the cargo was seized and condemned as prohibited, but as to this no claim was made.

On March 29, 1837, the brig left Tampico for Tabasco without any cargo, except a few hides and a small amount of specie, together with thirteen passengers. On her way to Tabasco she touched at Vera Cruz for provisions, and all her passengers but one went ashore. She passed on to Tabasco and arrived at that port on the 10th of April. The collector of the port refused to permit her to enter and ordered her forthwith to proceed to sea, on the ground that the voyage from Tampico to Tabasco was a coastwise trading voyage, and as such prohibited by the revenue laws of Mexico. The brig then sailed from Tampico to Campeachy, and after some difficulty was admitted at the latter port. After her arrival, judicial proceedings were instituted for the purpose of determining whether the voyage from Tampico to another port in Mexico was in violation of the laws of that country. The decision of the court was pronounced in favor of the legality of the voyage and of the right of the vessel to enter at Tabasco, where her object was to take on a load of logwood. It was alleged that the refusal to permit her at once to enter that port defeated the object of the voyage and resulted in a loss of $4,822, which was the first item of the claim in the case.

The brig was freighted with part of a cargo of logwood at Campeachy, and then returned to Havana. On July 15, 1837, under the command of the same master, she sailed again from Havana to Tampico, where she arrived on the 24th of the same month. The manifest and other documents were presented to and received by the authorities, but when on the 21st of Au gust the brig was ready to depart, the authorities refused to clear her on the ground that the manifest of the inward voyage had not been certified by the collector of customs at the port of Havana in conformity with a Mexican customs regulation of October 4, 1836. On this ground the vessel was libeled for the recovery of a fine of $500, though it was alleged that she had incurred the penalty of forfeiture. The penalty of forfeiture, however, was not insisted upon, but a second fine of $500 was exacted for the absence of a proper certification of the manifest on the first voyage from Havana to Tampico. For the payment of these two fines of $500 each the brig was sold. A claim of damages was made by the owners for the loss of the brig and for the loss of freight which she might have earned if she had not been seized.

The American commissioners argued (1) that the refusal of the captain of the port of Tabasco to permit the Mary to enter

was an illegal act, for which the claimant was entitled to the resulting damages; (2) that the regulation under which the proceedings against the vessel were taken did not emanate from the lawmaking power of Mexico, and that, being a mere executive order, it was, so far as it assumed to impose penalties, void; (3) that, as the Mexican Government had neglected to place at Havana a consular officer to give the required certificates, the fault, if any, of not complying with the regulation (assuming it to be legal) was attributable to that government; (4) that the regulation of the 4th of October 1836 was void or inoperative as to citizens of the United States, since it was not consonant with the treaty stipulations then existing between the two governments; (5) that, even assuming that the master was liable to the penalties exacted of him, the Mexican authorities had no right to detain the vessel, and (6) that the neglect to enforce the law on the first voyage or then to give the captain notice of the law or of his having violated it in effect released him from the penalty, if any, incurred on that voyage, and constituted a defense against exacting the penalty on the second voyage.

On the other hand, the Mexican commissioners argued against any allowance on the ground (1) that when the brig on March 12, 1837, first arrived at Tampico from Havana she had on board certain contraband or prohibited articles, including two boxes which were invoiced as cologne water, but which were found to contain 20,000 cigars and a barrel of brandy; (2) that when her cargo was landed the master asked to be cleared for Havana, and on March 29 sailed in ballast for that port with thirteen passengers; (3) that when the brig had been at sea five days she put into Vera Cruz without having a passport for that place on the pretext of taking in water; that the passengers were made to land there, though bound to another place, and that a bill of health was obtained for Havana; (4) that instead of sailing for Havana the brig proceeded to Tabasco, but being forbidden to enter there went to Campeachy, where the master, the captain of the port opposing her entry, obtained from the judge of the district, though the law forbade it, permission to enter and load with logwood, notwithstanding that three dozen hides, the product of the country, were found on board without a permit; (5) that the brig did not, either on her first or her second entry at Tampico, comply with the provisions of the regulations of October 4, 1836, and

that a fine of $500 was properly exacted of the master for each omission; (6) that the master refused to pay the fines, abandoned his vessel, and departed the country, leaving a written protest before the consul of his nation, in which he estimated the value of what he had abandoned at $15,000, without availing himself of the provisions of law in regard to the appraisal of vessels.

The commissioners differing in opinion as to the allowance of the claim, the umpire on October 27, 1841, dismissed it.

William Richardson v. Mexico: Commission under the convention between the United States and Mexico of April 11, 1839.

In an analysis of the awards of the commission made by Mr. Brackenridge, one of the American commissioners, there is, with reference to the foregoing case, the following note:

"Brig Mary. Seizure and sale of vessel for the payment of pretended fines, amounting to $1,000, in the year 1836. Proceeds of the sale of the vessel above the amount retained by Mexican authorities. This, together with some other items for damages, etc., constitutes the claim. The award of the umpire was affirmed by the board, but it was afterward suggested that the balance of the claim, not having been expressly referred to him, remained undecided; in consequence, it was moved by the American commissioners to take the subject into consideration, but overruled by their colleagues. It is therefore still a question whether this case has been finally decided. The claimant contends that all the proceedings in the case are void on account of irregularity, and that the whole claim stands open the same as if there had been no action upon it by the board or the umpire."

The claim for damages for the loss of the vessel and for loss of unearned freight was laid before the commissioners, Messrs. Evans, Smith, and Paine, under the act of March 3, 1849. The commissioners dismissed it, on the ground that it had been disallowed by the umpire under the convention of 1839, whose decision was, by Article X. of that convention, final and conclusive.

Another claim, growing out of the sale of the vessel to pay the fines, was, however, allowed by the commissioners under the act of 1849. This claim they described as follows:

"In the progress of the cause before the mixed commission the Mexican commissioners, though totally denying the justice of the claim then under consideration, admitted that the claimant was entitled to the amount for which the brig was sold, less the fines to pay which the court rendered the decree of