The law of claims against governments, including the mode of adjusting them and the procedure adopted in their investigation

w»

> «3

;>

«■»■■ ,'

:» fc>

>

J» 3

T €>

,;V3 ,

> 3

7> B>>

>

> 5

3,K>

£ ■£> 1

S>3»

> ..,;>

J> j

> ->

".> >£*

>

>> 3

3 E>

;■£>■)

&!) >

■ 333

J

0,) >

»> >

:> »

,*3 '

> j

3

> ■> ;>

T>. ■>

:» 'i

» 3

V> >

.3

5

3

>® ^

» > ©

3 '

i ^ ™S|

~> a

>

* S >

> > g>

3

1 > 3

> -> o

3

y.a ■"

3 3 tfD

3

*<3B z

3 >0

3

i>3>. »

> 5 >

,i> 1

3>

3>

o

T» 3 .31

~>y

,> ?

«> '3 '"»

»

»

X-

i)> :>

3>">2> o o
3 3 ,->3 33

T>» 3

> > "> >

> J 3 ' ,

> •> ^> ,&

i > :>;f

3 > 3 >

3JJ 3 > 3

i >X>> JO
J33 "3 3
-> -^ ^> > 3£-
')3)J 3T>

i 3 ' -~> 33

J 1^ ! ^>3

53 3 >6

3 ) D »

I>3„2> x,^»

3§> 3 I "-*■

3^3 >>3'

' »2> 3Jg

a xi> asp

3> >^S ssf

>3» >T3>. ^>^7>'

■^^'^4

=3> 3>

> > j> ^3 >^— ;

>)33 »J'^_

3? ^> ^> >J 5 3
>^3 >:> >.s> _

>3 > 3 £> 3 X»

3^3 3> >3 3 3_

> »> >.~>3 3 T»

>01.» >3
>A30.3S> 33

3X3 £x> 33 r».

: SS3 ~2» 3^ :
_>to.S«> 3>->f

>>2>aB-3' -
*>■: aa» ^> ■ ■ -

■ J>J.2>i38> > J.- "!

t3i3i» Z^

> 3>>3> l> ; a '

'» - 3>wj> t> ■>

> .-■_> 3> -5*>

'.3®...'

57/if

(JortttU IGaro irljnnl library

Cornell University Library
KF5914.A21875

The law of claims against governments, i

3 1924 019 986 607

Cornell University
Library

The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31 92401 9986607

43d Congress, \ HOUSE OF BEPBESENTATIVES. ( Beport
2d Session. } \ No. 134.

THE

LAW OF CLAIMS AGAINST GOVERNMENTS,

INCLUDING

THE MODE OF ADJUSTING THEI

AND

THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED IN THEIR INVESTIGATION.

PUBLISHED BY ORDER OF THE CONGRESS OF THE
"UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

WASHINGTON;

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.

1875.

The head-lines ou and after page 24 should be "Tub Law of Claims."

OCT
27

1937

PREFACE.

There were two principal objects in preparing the following pages :
first, to show that the whole business of examining claims by com-
mittees of Congress should be abandoned, and appropriate tribunals
created for that purpose, having judicial powers, with all the machinery
now exercised by the commissioners of claims for ascertaining the
truth ; and, second, to state some principles of law which seemed neces-
sary to secure justice for honest^claimants and to protect the Govern-
ment against demands which find no sanction in sound precedent or
public law.

Some of the reasons in favor of withdrawing from Congress the con-
sideration of claims were presented in a speech in the House of Repre-
sentatives June 3, 1874, (Congressional Record, vol. 2, part 5, (vol. 6,) p.
4511,) and still more appear in the following pages. '

Since that time the writer has found a valuable discussion of the sub-
ject at the second session of the Thirtieth Congress, which is well worthy
of attentive perusal. (Globe, vol. 20, pp. [38, 139, 141, 159, 163, 172,
178, 188, 198, 203, 302, 303, 307, 378, 492, 543.)

A report made at the same Congress on the same subject is also very
instructive. (See House Report 441, vol. 2, first session 29th Congress ;
House Report 49S, vol. 3, first session 30th Congress; House Report
937, vol. 4, second session 27th Congress ; House Report 295, vol. 1, first
session 28th Congress ; HouseJReport 442, vol. 2, first session 30th Con-
gress; House Report 10, vol. 1, first session 39th Congress.) *

Some of the earlier debates in Congress are equally deserving atten-
tion. (Annals of Congress, 14thJ|Congress, second session, 181ffc£17, pp.
245, 299, 382, 426, 462, 1028, 1035, 1040, 1051, 1211.) '

Some of the reforms which are believed to be just, salutary, and de-
sirable are indicated in the following pages.

The vast increase of population and business in the United States is
such that it is believed there should be a tribunal of claims, the mem-
bers of which should be selected from the best talent of the country,
and have a tenure of office like that of the judges of the courts, with
power to make awards to be reported to Congress for payment. Their
opinions on questions of law should be subject to revision by the Su-
preme Court. This tribunal should have all the powers now exercised

IV PREFACE.

by the commissioners of claims, aud their conclusions of law and fact
on every claim should be printed.
Their awards, when not taken to the Supreme Court for review, should

be final.

Either this tribunal or a bureau of claims in the Department of Jus-
tice would seem to be necessary to secure the rights of honest claim-
ants and protection to the Government.

The following pages were not designed as a full statement of the law
of claims or the procedure applicable to them. The right to relief and
a mode of procedure to attain it in the many classes of claims which
have hitherto appealed to Congress, because in many, if not most of
them, there was no other tribunal having jurisdiction, should be recog-
nized, and provision made by law for securing justice to every claimant
having a meritorious claim.

The future cannot fail to give rise to claims which will always require
a tribunal such as is suggested.

The Court of Claims has a jurisdiction well defined, and its continued
existence is a necessity.

Its jurisdiction may be properly enlarged.

That portion of the following pages which relates to the law of claims
in the United States is a revision and enlargement of House Eeport No.
262, made by the Committee on War-Claims March 26, 1874. at the first
session of the Forty -third Congress.

That report was reprinted entire in "The Forum Law Eeview " for
April, 1874, pp. 213-291, then published at Baltimore, (now New York,)
and the substance of it in an elementary form was published in the
(Philadelphia) American Law Eegister for May, June, and July, 1874,
and February, 1875, (vols. 13 and 14, N. S.)

The secretary of legation of the Japanese embassy procured copies of
the report and forwarded to the international-law adviser of the Japan-
ese government, who was formerly a citizen of the United States.

Many claims were presented to and urged upon that government,
growing out of a rebellion there. It is believed the revised work now
presented may be found useful as furnishing a reference to authorities
on some questions of international and constitutional law.

There are some references in the following pages to the justice and
necessity of fixing a limitation on thepresentation of claims, not only in
the courts, but in the Departments of Government, and in all tribunals
having jurisdiction of them. (See pp. 13, 18, 238, 242, 318, 324.)

This is more fully discussed in sundry reports made to the House of
Bepresentatives during the Forty-third Congress by the Committee on
War-Claims, to which reference can be had ; and the reports of other
committees in this and preceding Congresses doubtless present the sub-
ject in a more forcible light.

The experience of all time has shown the necessity for applying a lim-

PREFACE. V

itation on the prosecution of actions in courts, The common law raises
a presumption of the payment of claims after a given time. (House
Eep. Com. War-Claims No. 784, 1 sess. 43 Cong., p. 17.)

There is greater necessity for applying a limitation in favor of the
Government in many, if not most cases, than between individual
citizens.

The officers of Government who may be cognizant of facts necessary
to protect it from unjust claims are too frequently changed, and thus go
out of position where duty or interest so strongly requires them to watch
its interests, or where opportunity may exist for doing so. It is even
possible for some, by employment or otherwise, to become adversely in-
terested.

Even officers do not always exercise the same vigilance for the public-
interest that private citizens do for theirs. These and other considera-
tions no less weighty render this subject worthy of consideration. (See
Index, " Fraudulent Claims.")

In the examination of war-claims, there is one important principle of
law which is liable to be overlooked — that which relates to the measure
of damages. War generally furnishes the occasion for demanding exor-
bitant prices for property sold to, or used by, the Government. The
presence of an army often makes such demands for some kinds of prop-
erty, that holders of it take advantage of the situation to extort enor-
mous prices. When the Government takes property in time of war, under
circumstances which require "just compensation" to be made, the meas-
ure of damages is not the fictitious prices so often asked, but only " a fair
price, without regard to the enhanced value resulting from the presence
of" an army. (See post 236 — House Eep. No. 497, 1 sess. 43d Cong., Com.
War-Claims ; House Eep. No. 748, 1 sess. 43d Cong. ; Halleck Int. Law
460, sec. 17.) During the rebellion, on the theater of war, in localities
alternately occupied by the contending armies, property was so insecure
that it could be scarcely said to have any real value.

A practice has grown up, to some extent, which is often injurious to
claimants and prejudicial to the Government. Officers in the Depart-
ments, and even the courts, when rejecting claims upon the ground that
no law authorizes payment, sometimes take occasion to say that a rem-
edy may be sought in Congress. (House Eep. No. 673, part 2, 1 sess. 43d
Cong., Com. War-Claims; 8 Wallace, 275.)

It is no part of the duty of these officers, or courts, to advise claim-
ants as to the means by which they may obtain relief in opposition to
the established law, nor is it within the sphere of their appropriate duties
to make recommendations to Congress. The Constitution devolves on
the President the duty of recommending to Congress such measures as
justice and the public interest require.

Congress can with no more propriety disregard law, settled on cor-
rect principle, than courts, or officers in the Departments. Unauthor-

VI PREFACE.

ized suggestions to appeal to Congress for relief often involve claimants
in expense and disappointment.

The following pages are perhaps the first attempt by a report in Con-
gress to discuss at considerable length some of the subjects therein con-
sidered, and they are submitted in the hope that they may be of some
value.

CONTENTS.

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF WAR-CLAIMS 1-21

THE LAW OF CLAIMS ON FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS 23-201

Hawaiian Islands, 26 ; Belgium, 29-3 L ; Switzerland, 32-69 ; Austria, 69, 70 ;
Turkey, 70-73 ; France, 74-97 ; Ecuador, 98-101 ; Netherlands, 102 ;
United States of Colombia, 102-114; Liberia, 115-117 ; Central America,
118; Venezuela, 119, 120 ; Sweden and Norway, 121-123 ; German Em-
pire, 123,124; Italy, 124-191; Great Britain, 191-193 ; Portugal, 194;
Argentine Republic, 195-198; Denmark, 199-201.

LAW OF CLAIMS IN THE UNITED STATES 203-313

Introductory 204

Chapter I.

Of war — Rebellion — The classes of war-claims — General principles 205-232

Chapter II.

Of property taken, used, damaged, or destroyed in the States proclaimed in

rebellion 232-265

Chapter III.
Of damages done by the enemy 266-274

Chapter IV.

Property destroyed or damaged in battle by the Government forces, or wan-
tonly, or unauthorized by its own troops 274-276

Chapter V.

Temporary occupation of, injuries to, and destruction of property caused by
actual and necessary Government military operations to repel a threat-
ened attack of, or in advancing to meet, an enemy in flagrant war 276-281

Chapter VI.

Property which may be useful to the enemy seized and destroyed or damaged

to prevent it from falling into their hands 281-297

Chapter VII.

Claims in the Departments of tbe Government 297-31 3

Chapter VIII.
The Court of Claims 313-321

Chapter IX.
The Commissioners of Claims 321-355

Chapter X.

Mixed commissions under^ treaties 355-369

Addenda 370-374

Table of cases cited 37

43d Congress, ) HOUSE OF BEPBESENTATIVES. ( Keport
2d Session. ( ) No. 134.

ALIEN CLAIMS.

February 10, 1875. — Ordered to l>e printed and recommitted to the Committee on War-
Claims.

Mr. Lawrence, from the Committee on War-Claims, submitted the fol-
lowing

REPOBT:

[To accompany bill H. K. 3916.]

The Committee on War-Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. B. 3916)
to provide for the adjudication of the claims of aliens, have con-
sidered the same, and report :

The bill, in the form in which the committee have agreed upon the
same, is as follows :

A BILL to provide for the adjudication of the claims of aliens.

Be it enacted by the Senate and Souse of Representative* of the United States of America in
Congress assembled, That the claims of subjects or citizens of a foreign state against the
United States may be referred to the Conrt of Claims by the Secretary of State, with
the concurrence of the foreign government presenting them ; and the Court of Claims
shall then have jurisdiction to hear and determine the same in accordance with the
principles of international law, or in pursuance of any treaty stipulation or agreement
between the United States and sucli foreign state. Claims may be prosecuted in the
name of the claimant by petition, in the nature of a petition of right. All cases shall
proceed according to the rules and practice of the Court of Claims. Either party shall
have the right of appeal from the final judgment of Baid court. Judgments, if against
the United States for damages in money, shall be satisfied in like manner as other
judgments of said court, unless otherwise provided by treaty or other stipulation be-
tween the United States and the government presenting the claim.

The committee have agreed to recommend the passage of this bill in
this form. There are many reasons which might be urged in support of
the bill.

The President, in his annual message of December, 1873, said to Con-
gress :

I recommend legislation to create a special court, to consist of three judges, who
shall be empowered to hear and determine all claims of aliens upon the United States
arisiug out of acts committed against their persons or property during the insurrection.
The recent reference under the treaty of Washington was confined to claims of British
subjects arising during the period named in the treaty ; but it is understood that there
are other Briti-h claims of a similar nature arising after the 9th of April, 1865, and it
is known that other claims of a like nature are advanced by citizens or subjects of
other powers. It is desirable to have these claims also examined and disposed of.

There are many reasons why some court should have jurisdiction of
alien claims. Almost from the foundation of the Government mixed

Z ALIEN CLAIMS.

commissions have been created, by diplomatic arrangements, to make
awards on the claims of onr citizens against other nations, and those
of subjects of other powers against this nation. The result shows a
necessity for a permanent court.

The rapidly increasing population and commerce of the United States,
and the multiplied means of and necessity for intercourse with foreign
nations, must necessarily add to the number and magnitude of claims
and questions arising on international law.

While the awards of these commissions hare been valuable in many
respects, they have not resulted in giving to the world a well defined
and authoritative system or uniform rules of international law. Their
decisions have sometimes been contradictory in principle.

A court regularly clothed with jurisdiction to pass upon questions of
international law and of all claims of aliens would secure a degree of
learning and uniformity scarcely attainable by temporary commissions
composed of different persons selected for an occasion.

Heretofore the awards of these commissions have been final.

If a court shall be given jurisdiction, from whose decision an appeal
may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, the great
learning and ability of that court will aid in securing a settled system
of international law which will not reach it in any other mode. A court
will also be more ec onomical than the plan of a mixed commission. 1

1 Treasury Department, Washington, D. C, February 14, 1874.
Sir : Referring to your letter of the 19th ultimo, I transmit herewith an amended
statement of the expenses of the several commissions held during the last ten years,
showing the total expenditures to the close of the last fiscal year, the detailed items
of Expenditure, the annual expenditure, and the salaries of the principal officers.
I am, very respectfully,

F. A. SAWYER, Assistant Secretary,
Hon. W.m. Lawrence, House of Representatives.

s-.a

Annual expenditures
for the fiscal year
ending —

Salaries.

Salaries and expenses of the United
States and Spanish Claims Com-
mission from July 1, 1871, to June
30, 1873.

Salary of advocate

Salary of secretary, ($5 per diem) . .

Salary of counsel

Salary of arbitrator

Salaries of messenger and porters. -

Copying and translating

Contingent expenses, including
freight, postage, stationery, &c . .

Commission for the settlement of
claims of -the United States against
the United States of Colombia, from
September 18, 1865, to October 10,
1866.

Salary of Thomas Biddle, commis-
sioner

Salary of Charles W. Davis, sec'y . .

Salary of G-. Dean, counsel

Expenses of carrying into effect the
convention with the republic of
Venezuela, from October 26, 1867,
to October 6, 1868.

Salary of J. W. Macado, umpire

Salary of D. M. Talmage, commis-
sioner :

£2, 780 55
3, 860 00
3, 043 50

10, 810 44

1, 300 00

715 25

6, 588 80

June 30, 1872
June 30, 1873

|12, 647 35
16, 451 19

§29, 098 54

2, 50O 00
10, 453 42
1, 000 00

1, 5C0 00

2, 693 42

13, 952 42

June 30, 1865
June 30, 1867

June 30, 1869

29, 098 54

12, 953 42
1, 000 00

13, 953 42

Advocate *$5, 000

Secretary ... f5

Counsel *5, 000

Arbitrator . . *5, 000
Messenger . . *30ft

Commiss'ner. %% 500
Secretary ... ;2, 000

Commiss'ner. :2, 500
Umpire §1, 500

4,193 42

ALIEN CLAIMS.

The whole subject of the necessity and value of giving this jurisdic-
tion to some court has been fully considered by the learned and able

p. a

- e

Annual expenditures
the fiscal year end-

for

Salaries.

Compensation of commissioner, and
contingent expenses of the commis-
sion, to adjust claims of citizens of
United States against New Gran-
ada and Costa Rica, from Novem-
ber 7, 18C5, to January 30, 1867.

Allowance to John Lewis, heir-at-
law of Moses Lewis, killed at
Panama

Allowance by commissioners

Moiety paid by the "United States
as compensation to umpire to
New Granada

Commission on the part of the United
States to carry into effect the treaty,
&c, between the United States and
Hudson Bay and Puget Sound
Agricultural Company.

Salary of counsel from January 1,
1865, to November 30, 1869, and
expenses

Salary of clerk (same date) and ex-
penses

"Witness and other fees

Messengers and porters

Copying:

Contingent expenses

Amount for which no vouchers have
been rendered, and with which
the parties stand charged

Total amount expended .

Salaries and expenses of the Mixed
Commission on American and
Briitsh claims, from April 17, 1871,
to June 30, 187a.

Salary and expenses of E. E. Hoar,
commissioner

Salary and expenses of G. H. Wil-
liams, commissioner

Expenses of Samuel Nelson, com-
missioner —

Salary and expenses of E. S- Hale,
agent and consul

Salary and expenses of James S.
Erazer, commissioner, from July
29, 1871, to June 30, 1873

Salary of T. C. Cox, secretary, from
October 1, 1871, to June 30, 1873 . . .

Contingent expenses, including mes-
sengers, furniture, refreshments,
stationery, clerk-hire, printing,
newspapers, carpets, telegraph-
ing, labor, &c

Legal services, witness fees, and
of stenographer

$5, 406 15
1, 586 66

1, 500 00

June 30, 1866
June 30, 1867

%9, 494 81

19, 178 21

12, 656 00
10, 979 63
3, 247 00
793 40
20, 109 27

66, 963 51
7, 458 36

June 30, 1865

June 30, 1866
June 30, 1867
June 30, 1868
June 30, 1869
June 30, 1870

74,421 87

6, 000 00
6, 000 00
1, 440 00
6, 083 23

20, 117 87
5, 032 61

132, 631 84
4,312 60

June 30, 1871
June 30, 1872
June 30, 1873

Ammii! t for which no vouchers have
been rendered, and with which
the parties stand charged

Total amount expended .

181, 618, 15

92, 054 79
273, 672 94

$5, 406 15
3, 088 66

"Cmpire ^$1,500

8, 494 81

7, 570 00

9, 872 70
20, 333 00
18, 667 18

9, 452 79

8, 526 20

Conimiss'uer *5, 000

Counsel f2, 500

Clerk 12,500

20, 000 00
56,493 13
197, 179 81

2commiss'ers J6, 000
1 commiss'er'sexp's.
Agt.&couns'ltl0,000
lcommiss'r. U0, 000
Secretary... {3,000

-ALIEN CLAIMS.

Secretary of State, whose enlightened labors have added so much luster
to our diplomatic history. His conclusions on this subject are submitted
herewith. 2

Expenses of American and Mexican
Commission, from July 1, 1869, to
June 30, 1873. * 4

Salary of George H. Gaither, secre-
tary

Salary of R Coyle, secretary

Pay of clerks, messengers, and
porters

Contingent expenses, rent, fael,
stationery, &c

Amount for which no vouchers have

; been rendered, and with which

the parties stand charged

Total amount expended

$1, SOI 76
9, 193 74

22, 448 90

19, 938 "69

" 3

«53, 383 09
43, 240 24

Annual expenditures
for the fiscal year
ending —

June 30, 1870
Juue 30, 1871

June 30, 1872
June 30, 1873

1,623 33 96,623 33

£20, 981 03

27, 048 65

28, 381 45
20, 212 20

Salaries.

Commiss'ner {$4, 500

Umpire 13,000

Agent M, 000

Secretary... t2, 500
Asst.toa'gent t3, 000
2 clerks .... ||l,40fl
2 translators || 1,500
1 messenger. t600
1 asa't mess. t300

* Per annuo.. gfPerdieiu. {In full for services. § Moiety paid by United States.
*In_full for services and,expenses. tPevannum. ; Each, for salary and expenses. |) Each, per annum.

1 They are as follows :

Department of State, Washington, February 27, 1874.

Sir: Referring to my previous letters respecting the " bill to establish a court of
alien claims," I have now the houor to inclose a memorandum, showing the several
amendments to the bill (H. K. 1739) which have beeu proposed or suggested bj> such
gentlemen as I have had time to consult upon it ; and the views of this Department in re-
spect of their suggestions.

I also take advantage of this opportunity to present for your consideration sundry
reasons,(l) why it is desirable that Congress should pass an act for disposing of " alien
war-claims;" (2) why the provisions of the bill introduced by you, amended by such
suggestions as are adopted by the Department of State, should be enacted ; (3) why,
should it be enacted, the results will be favorable to the United States ; and (4) why
we may hope that such results will be accepted by other interested powers.

I. — Seasons why a law should be enacted for disposing of alien war-claims.

f During and after the late war many claims were presented by representatives of for-
eign powers, for injuries alleged to have beeu suffered by citizens or subjects of such
powers, arising out of acts committed against their persons or property during the
war. Especially were such claims presented on behalf of citizens or subjects of Great
Britain, Fiance, Germany, and Italy.

No recognition has been made of any possible liability for the claims advanced by
the representatives of France, Germany, or Italy. But by the treaty known as the
treaty of Washington it was agreed that the British claims arising out of such acts
committed between April 13, 1861, and April 9, 1865, should be submitted to arbitration.
The result of this arbitration is thus described in the last annual message of the Presi-
dent:

"It was awarded that the Government of the United States should pay to the gov-
ernment of Her Britannic Majesty, within twelve months from the date of the award,
the sum of $1,929,819 in gold. The commission disallowed all other claims of British
subjects against the United States. The amount of the claims presented by the Brit-
ish government, but disallowed or dismissed, is understood to be about $93,000,000."-

Tbese proceedings practically worked a preference of this class of British claims
^>ver all others It left unrecognized, and without means provided for adjudicating
upon, first the claims of other governments, (as France, Germany, and Italy,) and,
second, British claims later than April 9, 1865.

It cannot be doubted that the United States rightfully exercised acts of war after
the 9th of April, 1865. That was the date of Lee's surrender. A state of war continued
after that time which rendered necessary many or all of the acts which are complained
of, and those acts, when sifted, will probably prove to constitute as little foundation for
claims against the United States as the acts committed withiu the date named in the
treaty of Washington.

The powers whose subjects have had their claims deferred to those of British sub-

ALIEN CLAIMS. 5

It cannot be doubted that such a court would be a great agency for

jects, as well as Great Britain herself, on behalf of British subjects whose claims arose
after April 9, 1865, stand ready to ask us to decide upon the validity of their claims.
What answer can the Department of State make to such a request?

This bill proposes to furnish an answer. If passed, it will enable us to say, " It is
true that British claimants between April, 1861, and April, 1865, had a commission to
establish such claims as might be found valid. The United States had then no court
in which such claims could be examined. Now, we offer to all such claimants a court
of law, and invite them to submit their claims to judicial investigation-. We thus
avoid a number of simultaneous mixed commissions, with possible conflicting decisions,
aud we render substantial justice to all who shall prove substantial injuries."

II. — Reasons for the provisions of the proposed act.

In the intercourse of nations it is an admitted principle of comity that where the
local courts afford a remedy, and where there is no reason to distrust the firmness and
sense of equity of those courts, a claim will not be urged diplomatically until the local
remedies shall be exhausted, unless good and satisfactory reasons can be shown for not
pursuing the remedy to the highest court of appeal.

The proposed bill aims to give such complete remedies to the foreign claimants, that
substantially nothing will be left for diplomatic discussion.

In order to secure such compl-toness, it has been thought essential to confer upon
claimants the right of appeal, to the Supreme Court, from the court of alien claims, in
case of adverse decisions.

This has made it necessary to make the tenure of the judges "during good behavior^
No other court is recognized by the Constitution as entitled to be " vested" with " the
judicial power of the United States," in such a way as to confer upon the Supreme
Court " appellate jurisdiction " from its decisions. In order, therefore, to secure the
light of appeal, the bill proposes to create a permanent court.

It has been suggested that jurisdiction should be couferred upon this court over
claims of citizens of the United States as well as of aliens for torts committed by the
United States. Should the House think best to so widen its jurisdiction, the Depart-
ment of State would not feel disposed to question the wisdom of the act.

It has also been suggested that jurisdiction over this class of cases might be con-
ferred upon existing tribunals.

If the jurisdiction should be conferred upon the United States district or circuit
courts, it would greatly increase the expense to the United States, and would make it
almost impossible for one person to supervise all the proceedings in defense. I need
not say to so intelligent a lawyer as yourself how advantageous, how absolutely
necessary, iu fact, it will be to the United States to put their defense against these
claims under one guidance. This advantage would be lost should claimants be allowed
to sue in circuit or district courts. And, further, the crowded state of the calendars of
those courts in the large towns, where probably most of the suits would be conducted,
would prolong the proceedings beyond what would be desirable.

It has also been suggested that the present Southern Claims Commission should be
empowered to hear and determine upon this class of claims. But this commission is
not a court from which appeals can be taken to the Supreme Court ; and although
greatly respected here, where its members are best known, it could not be expected to
command abroad the weight and confidence which wou Id induce foreign governments
to accept its decisions as final.

The Court of Claims has also been mentioned as a body justly entitled, by its high
character for learning and for patient investigation, to be clothed with the power of
deciding these claims. Although the Court of Claims is not so well known abroad as
at home, and although foreign governments might, therefore, feel more disposed to
question its decisions than would be just, yet this objection might, perhaps, be over-
looked if the state of the calendar of that court promised au early settlement of these
claims. But, unfortunately, such is not the case. I annex a statement of the condi-
tion of the calendar of that court, prepared by the examiner of claims of this Depart-
ment, which shows that the court is already overburdened with business, and would
not be able to perform the great additional labor of deciding these claims.

There seems, therefore, to be uo escape from the necessity of creating a court for the
purpose and endowing it with the necessary powers.

The proposed bill recognizes the fact that this court is to be the creature of a diplo-
matic necessity ; that it is to take the place of diplomatic action ; and that its results
may be set up hereafter, diplomatically, as a bar agaiust claims of foreign governments,
advanced on behalf of their citizens or subjects. It therefore proposes to have the
proceedings conducted with the knowledge of, and iu some respects under, the super-
vision of the Secretary of State.

In order to prevent purely speculative or fictitious claims from being advanced, it
equires claimants to print, at their own expense, all documents and evidence put into
he case by them ; but, lest a bona-fide claimant should suffer from this necessity, it

•6 ALIEN CLAIMS.

good in preserving a'good understanding between nations and in secur-
ing the relations of peace.

will, as amended, authorize such claimant to recover, with an award for his claim, the
expenses he may have been put,to for such printing.

It guards against surprises on either side, by requiring claimants to furnish to the
Government a full statement of the claim, with the names of all the witnesses relied
upon to establish it, and by obliging the Government to set forth in its answer all the
grounds of law and fact upon which it relies for its defense.

It guards against perjury by provisions for the punishment of the perjurer, and for
the disallowance of the claim sought to be maintained by such evidence.

It provides for an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. And, in order
that such appeal may not unreasonably prolong the term of the court below, it pro-
vides that such appeal shall be heard upon the original papers, including the argu-
ments, and fhat final judgment shall be rendered in the Supreme Court without a
remitter ; and, in order that claimants may not be vexed by appeals that ought not to
be taken, it requires the written assent of the Attorney-General to an appeal by the
United States.

It is believed that such a system would work out justice and give satisfaction to all
concerned.

III. — Reasons why a favorable result may be looked for.

It may be assumed that the claims which it is proposed to adjust through the instru-
mentality of the proposed act are similar in all' respects to those which were adjusted
through the instrumentality of the British and American Mixed Claims Commission
under the treaty of Washington.

In view, also, of the intimate commercial and social relatious between Great Britain
and the United States which existed at the outbreak of the war, and of the magnitude
of the British-American commerce as compared with the commerce of any other nation
With the United States, it may be asumed that that commission passed upon a large
majority of the claims of aliens growing out of the war.

It may also be assumed that the rules of proof which it is proposed to adopt will
deter persons from presenting purely speculative claims.

Assuming these facts, let us examine the results of the American-British Mixed Com-
mission. Four hundred and seventy-eight eases against the United States were pre-
sented and tried, and judgment entered within two years from the organization of the
commission ; of these, 259 included claims for property taken by the United States
forces, 181 for property destroyed by the United States forces ; 7 for property destroyed
by the rebels, 100 for alleged unlawful arrests or imprisonments, 76 for unlawful cap-
ture ci ndemnatiou of vessels, 3 for unlawfully warning off vessels, aud 34 for other
matters.

All the expenses of printing in these eases were borne by the two governments
jointly — 5 per cent, retained from the award being applied toward re-imbursing them.
Under the proposed court, this expense will be much reduced, but no percentage is de-
ducted.

The aggregate amount of the claims presented was about $96,000,000. The amount
allowed was a little less than $2,000,000, the exact sum being, as already stated,
$1,929,819.

There is no reason to suppose that, in the cases which remain, there would be a
larger proportion of valid claims.

But whether the proportion would be greater or less, i,t is evident that the opportu-
nities for a judicial examination into the facts and merits in each case would be greater
in a court such as it is proposed to establish thau in a mixed commission, composed of
commissiouers trained under different systems of law, and accustomed to different
modes of investigating facts.

IV. Reasons wliy the judgments of such a court icould probably be accepted by other govern-
ments.

It might be enough under this head to say that there is a probability, amounting
almost to a certainty, that the judgments of the proposed court as revised by the Su-
preme Court will be in entire harmony with the recognized principles of international
law, and will therefore not be questioned. I believe that such would be the case.

The bill proposes to give the right of appeal to all who feel themselves aggrieved by
the decision of the court below.

No claimant who did not exercise that right could properly claim the assistance of
his government in a diplomatic prosecution of his claim. Aud Iain persuaded that
such is the respect in which the Supreme Court is held throughout the civilized world,
that no government would feel disposed to question its decision.

It appears from the report of the Navy Department that the total number of vessels
captured and sent to the courts for adjudication between the dates named in the treaty

ALIEN CLAIMS. 7

It is manifestly just that there should be some tribunal clothed with
the power to hear the claims of aliens against our Government.

The committee have concluded that the Court of Claims can properly
be clothed with the jurisdiction of alien claims arising not only during
the rebellion but at any time hereafter, and the foregoing bill proposes
to give this jurisdiction.

of Washington was eleven hundred and forty-nine ; and that three hundred and fifty-
five vessels were bnrned, sunk, or otherwise injured.

In the proceedings before the late British-American Mixed Commission, seventy-six
memorials were filed, advancing claims against the United States for vessels and cargoes
captured, detained, or warned away from blockaded ports. Awards against the United
States were made in the case of eleven vessels.

The injuries complained of in the cases of the Boyne and the Monmonth were re-
ceived in consequence of being illegally warned off the coast. This was an injury for
which our courts afforded no remedy; consequently the cases were never brought
before our courts.

The injuries in the case of the Tubal Cain and the Labuan were caused by an ille-
gal detention in a port of the United States, for which, also, our laws afforded no
remedy.

The Madeira was a collision case, and was never before the Supreme Court.

The York was burned on the coast of North Carolina, consequently no proceedings
could be taken in rem against the vessel and cargo.

The Circassian, the Hiawatha, the Science, the Sir William Peel, the Springbok, and
the Volant were decided adversely to the United States, in whole or in part, after a
hearing and decision in the Supreme Court.

In the case of the Circassian there was a dissenting opinion by the lateMr. Justice
Nelson. The mixed commission, by a majority vote, sustained the conclusions of the
dissenting justice.

In the case of the Hiawatha., there were dissenting opinions by Chief-Justice Taney
and Justices Nelson, Catron, and Clifford. The mixed commission, by a majority vote,
agreed in' the results reached by, the dissenting justices.

The Science and the Peel were ordered by the Supreme Court to be restored, as not
being subject to capture. The mixed commission, by a majority vote, decided that
there was no probable cause to justify the seizure, and awarded damages in addition
to restitution.

In the cases of the Springbok and the Volant, the commission sustained the decision
of the Supreme Court on all the main issues, but rendered in each a trifling award
against the United States on collateral issues.

' Thus, out of 449 captures sent to the courts for adjudication, the adjudications have
been shaken in but six cases — two of which decisions were rendered by a divided court,
two of which were sustained by the mixed commission in principle, and reversed only
on the question of fact as to the probable cause; and two of which were sustained in
principle, and reversed only on unimportant collateral points.

Such a record fully justifies the language used by the late Lord Palmerston, in the
House of Commons, during the war : " We have no reason to mistrust the equity and
independence of the tribunals of the United States, which have to try questions such
as those now under discussion."

It also authorizes the expression of a confident opinion that foreign powers, whose
subjects or citizens may be claimants before tbe court which your bill proposes to
establish, will acquiesce in the decisions which that court may make.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

HAMILTON FISH.

Hon.WM. Lawrence, Chairman of Committee on War-Claims, Mouse of Representatives.

And see article in the (Boston) American Law Review, July, 1887, vol. 1, pp. 655-
§57.

At the first session of the Forty-third Congress a bill was introduced into the House
by Mr. Lawrencej as follows :

A BILL to establish a Court of Alien and War Claims. -
Be it enacted by the Senate and Souse of Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled, That, for the purpose of providing a tribunal to hear and de-
termine the claims of citizens of the United States and aliens against the United States
for compensation for alleged torts suffered through the acts of persons for whose doings
it may be asserted that the United States should be held responsible, there shall be

a The commissioners of claims have no jurisdiction over alien claims of any kind. The Court of
Claims has no jurisdiction of torts.

8 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Under its provisions there may be an appeal to the Supreme Court of
the United States, whose final decisions will make valuable rules of
international law. The usage heretofore prevailing in this Government
has been to organize special tribunals to pass upon claims of aliens.
These have been found expensive, and the long delay required by diplo-
matic arrangements to secure the organization of such tribunals, fol-

established in the city of Washington a court to he called " The Court of Alien and
War Claims," to consist of three judges, with power to hear and determine all claims
on the part of citizens of the United States, who during the rebellion were not citizens
of any State proclaimed in rebellion, and who remained loyal to the Government of
the United States, or corporations under the authority of and located in any State not
proclaimed in rebellion, or citizens or subjects or corporations of any foreign' power,
upon the United States, arising out of acts committed against the persons or property
of such citizens or subjects during a period of recognized war between the United
States and a belligerent not the sovereign of the claimant or claimants, which may be
brought before it, as hereinafter provided. The said court shall consist of a chief-justice
and of two associate justices, to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice
and consent of the Stnate, and to hold office during good behavior. Any two of the
justices of the court hereby established shall constitute a quorum, and may hold a
court for the transaction of business. The compensation of the members of the said
court shall be as follows : For the chief-justice, for the term during which the court is
occnpied in the transaction of business, including adjournments, at the rate of
thousand dollars a year ; and for the associate justices for such period, at the rate of
thousand dollars a year. The compensation shall cease when such term ceases,
as hereinafter provided, and shall be revived whenever said court shall be again con-
tinued by order of the President, and shall then, and in each case, be convened for
such time as said court may be occupied in determining the matters for which it may
be convened.

Sec. 2. That the first meeting of the said court shall be held on the first Monday of
December next, (which shall be the commencement of the first term,) for the purpose of
hearing and determining all claims which may be brought before it on the part of said
corporations, citizens of the United States, or citizens or subjects of any foreign power,
against the United States, arising out of acts committed against the persons or proper-
ties of such claimants during the period which intervened between the commencement
and the close of the late rebellion, except such claims as are barred by the provisions of
the treaty of the eighth of May, eighteen hundred and seventy-one, between Her
Britannic Majesty and the United States. It shall be lawful to present said claims,
which are to be submitted to the adjudication of said court, up to and including the
thirty-first day of December, which will be in the year eighteen hundred and seventy- .
five, but not later; all claims so presented must be adjudicated and determined by the
said court before the first day of January, which will be in the year eighteen hundred and
seventy-eight, and the close and determination of such adjudications, and the final
adjournment of the court, shall be regarded as the close of the first term. Thereafter
the said court may he again convened at the pleasure of the President, as there may
he occasion for its services. It shall, in term time, have authority to establish rules
and regulations for its government not* inconsistent with the provisions of this act ;
to perform such acts as may be necessary to carry into effect the powers hereby con-
ferred upon it ; to administer oaths ; to punish for contempt in the manner prescribed
by law; to appoint commissioners to take testimony to be used in evidence; to pre-
scribe the fees they shall receive for their services ; to issue commissions for the tak-
ing of such testimony ; and to issue subpoenas for witnesses, either before the court or
before such commissioners, which shall have the same force and effect as if issued
from a circuit or district court of the United States, and compliance therewith shall
be compelled under such rules and orders as the court hereby created may establish.
Said court may have a seal, with such device as it may order. It may on its organi-
zation appoint the following officers, who shall serve during the pleasure of the court,
but not later than its dissolution when the business for which it is organized shall be
completed ; namely, a reporter, with a compensation at the rate of thousand

dollars a year ; one stenographer, with a compensation at the rate of thousand

dollars a year ; a bailiff, with a compensation at the rate of thousand dollars a

year ; and such other officers as Congress may make appropriations for. Said court
may, when again convened by the President, make new appointments to such offices,
for the term for which it may be convened, and with like compensation.

Sec. 3. That upon the organization of said court, and whenever the same shall be
convened by the President as hereinbefore provided, the court shall appoint a clerk of

» Provision is made ibr allowing claims for military supplies by act March 3, 1871, to loval citi-
zens of rebel States, but not in favor of such citizens in loyal States. (See House Ex Doc No "121 1st
Bess. 43d Cong.) Alien claims are not within the jurisdiction of the Commissioners of Claims '

ALIEN CLAIMS. 9

lowed by the further delay necessary to secure a final adjudication, has
not only long postponed but often defeated the ends of justice.

These tribunals have rarely ever given written opinions, at any con-
siderable length, announcing the principles on which their decisions
have been based ; they have, therefore, furnished no settled principles
of international law, and are rarely ever quoted or looked to as author-
said court, who shall receive a compensation at the rate of thousand dollars a
year for the time for which he shall serve, and who shall, for such period, have the
custody of the seal and records of the court, aud shall be authorized to administer
oaths and affidavits. The said clerk shall disburse, under the directions of the court,
the contingent fund which may at any time be appropriated for the use of the court j
but he shall, in each case, first give boDd in such an amount and in such form as may
be approved by the court, and his accounts shall be settled by the proper accounting
officers of the Treasury in the same way as those of clerks of courts of the United States
are or may be settled. An assistant clerk may also be appointed by the court for a
like term, if necessary, with a compensation at the rate of thousand dollars
per annum.

Sec. 4. That, on or before the organization of the said court, an agent for the United
States to represent the Government before the said court, until its business shall be
transacted, shall be appoiated by the President, by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate. And as often as the said court shall be convened by the President, an
agent shall in like manner be appointed. He Bhall receive a compensation at the rate
of thousand dollars a year. With the consent of the Secretary of State, he

may employ an assistant, with a compensation at the rate of thousand dollars

a year. It shall be the duty of the agent to prepare all cases on the part of the Gov-
ernment for hearing before said court, and to argue the same orally or in writing, as
may be ordered by the court; to cause testimony to be taken when necessary in order
to protect the interests of the United States ; to prepare forms, file interrogatories,
and superintend the taking of testimonyin the manner prescribed by said court ; and,

fenerally, to render snch services as may be required of him from time to time in the
ischarge of the duties of his said office. Neither such agent nor such assistant agent
shall receive any fee or compensation for services rendered in said court, except the
salary herein-before provided.

Sec. 5. That, as soon as possible after the passage of this act, it shall be the duty of
the Secretary of State to give notice thereofto all foreign governments who have pre-
sented, or shall hereafter present, on behalf of their corporations, citizens, or subjects,
elaims against the United States arising out of acts committed against their persons or
property dnriDg the late rebellion, and to invite each to appoint an agent to present
snch claims to said court. And whenever and so often as the President shall hereafter
convene the said court, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to give a similar ■
notice and invitation to each government which may, at the tijne of snch notice and
invitation, have diplomatically presented, on behalf of its subjects or citizens, claims,
against the United States of the character for the settlement of which the said court
is created. All claimants whose governments are not represented before said court,,
and who are not themselves represented by an attorney or attorneys qualified to prac-
tice in the Supreme Court of the United States, must, on filing their petitions, notify
the clerk of the court, iu writing, of some address iu the city of Washington where
orders aud notices in the cause may be served upon them.

Sec. 6. No claim which might have been heard and determined in a district or cir-
cuit court of the United States, or in the Court of Claims, shall be heard and deter-
mined by the court hereby created, unless it shall appear that such claim was heard
and determined in such district or circuit court, or in such Court of Claims, iind either
that no appeal lay by law to the Supreme Court, or that on an appeal to the Supreme
Court and hearing therein the claimant avers that there has been a miscarriage of
justice, or that the claimant shall satisfy the court that there was good and sufficient
reason why no appeal was taken to the Supreme Court. And all cases shall be heard
and determined according to the rules and canons of international law, as accepted iu
practice by the civilized powers.

Proceedings by claimants in said courts shall be commenced by a memorial pre-
sented on behalf of the claimant by the agent of the government of which the claimant
is a citizen or subject, or, if there be no agent of such government, presented with the<
assent of the principal diplomatic representative of such government at Washiugton.
The memorial shall set forth a full statement of the claim, with references to dates and
places, with the names and residences of the witnesses who are relied upon to establish
the claim, and with a reference to any action which may have been had on the claim
either in Congress or in any Department. It shall also specify by name each aud every
person interested in the claim, either directly or indirectly, and shall state when, and
upon what consideration, such person became so interested ; and it shall declare.

10 ALIEN CLAIMS.

ity. They may sometimes lack that training in international law and
other experience which could be secured by a court devoted for life to
such inquiries.

Other nations, almost without exception, have given to all aliens, in-
cluding our own citizens, the right to go into their courts, and have an
adjudication of their claims upon such nations. This is shown by the
following extract from a note to the report No. 262, made by this com-
mittee March 26, 1874, to wit :

In Fichera v. U. S., 9 Court Claims E., decided in 1873, Nott, J., said :
"The only question presented by this case is whether, under the Italian law, an
American citizen may maintain an action against the govern ment of Italy. As we have
TDefore found, the perfected justice of the civil law made the government, in matters of
ordinary obligation, subject to the suit of the citizen, in the ordinary tribunals of the
■country. We have found this right to be preserved under modern codes in Prussia,
Hanover, and Bavaria, (Broivn's Case, 5 C. Cls. E., p. 571 ;) in the republic of Switzer-
land, (Lobsiger's Case, id., p. 687 ;) in Holland, the Netherlands, the Hanseatic Prov-

afflrmatively that no other person is interested therein, either directly or indirectly.
N Such memorial shall be verified by the oath or affirmation of the claimant or party in
interest. The memorial, and all other papers offered on behalf of the claimant, shall
be printed by him for the use of the court and the other party, in such form as the
court may by rule require.

Skc. 7. That the United States shall be allowed such time as the court may direct,
not more than six nor less than two months, to answer each petitiau, in which shall
be set up fully and specifically all matters of law and fact which are relied on. The
answer shall not be required to be under oath. The answer, and all other papers
offered by the United States, shall be printed by the Government for the use of the
court and the other party in such form as the court may order ; and the same regula-
tion shall apply to any subsequent pleadings which the court may permit either party
to file.

Sec. 8. That evidence shall be taken at the expense of the party offering it on such
notice by each party to the other, and iu such manner as the court shall direct ; ex-
cept that the court may, if the interests of justice require it, order any witness whose
deposition is offered in evidence to appear personally for examination, and also may,
on the motion of the United States, make an order in any case pending in said court,
directing that the claimant or claimants in such case, or any one or more of them, shall
appear upon reasonable notice, either before the court, or before any commissioner
thereof, and be examined, on oath or affirmation, touching auy or all matters pertain-
ing to said claim. If any claimant, after such order shall have been made, and due
and reasonable notice thereof shall have been served according to the rules of the
court and the requirements of the order, shall, without just excuse, fail to appear, or
shall refuse to testify or answer fully as to all matters within his kuowledge material
to the issue, or if it shall appear that any claimant has corruptly practiced, or at-
tempted to practice, fraud against the United States touching his claim, or any part
thereof, the said court is hereby empowered to find specifically that the claimant has
so failed to appear, or has so refused to testify or answer fully, or has so practiced, or
attempted to practice, fraud, and thereupon the said court shall give judgment in
favor of the United States, and the claimant shall thereupon be forever barred from
prosecuting his claim in said court.

Sec. 9. That no evidence shall be received on either side ou the trial of the main
questions, in any case ponding in said court, which is taken ex parte, without notice to
the other party in such mauner as may be required by the rules of said court. Iu
taking any testimony to be used in support of any claim before said court, opportu-
nity shall be given to the United States to file interrogatories, or by attorney to exam^
ine witnesses, under such regulations as said court shall prescribe, and like opportu-
nity shall be afforded the claimant in cases where testimony is taken on behalf of the
United States under like regulations. If any person shall knowingly or willfully swear
falsely before said court, or in proceedings therein, or before any person or persons
commissioned by them, or authorized by law to administer oaths or take testimony in
a, case pending before said court at the time of taking such oath or affirmation, or
in a case thereafter to be submitted to said court, such person shall be deemed guilty
•of perjury, and on conviclion thereof shall be subjected to the same pains, penalties,
and disabilities which now are, or hereafter shall be, prescribed for willful and corrupt
perjury. All evidence shall be printed at the expense of the party at whose request
it is taken.

Sec. 10. That the said court shall have power to call upon any of the Departments
for any information or papers it may deem necessary, and shall have the use of all re-
corded and printed reports made by committees of each House when deemed to be

ALIEN" CLAIMS. 11

inoes, and the Free City of Hamburg, (Brown's Case, 6 C. Cls. E., p. 193;) in France,
(Dawphinh Case, id., p. 221;) in Spain, (Molina's Case, id., p. 269 ;) and In Belgium,
(De Gives's Case, 7 C. Cls. R., p. 517.)

It was also shown in Brown's Case, (5 C. Cls. R., p. 571,) by a distinguished historical
writer who was examined as a witness, Mr. Frederick Kapp, that this liability of a
government under the civil law is not a device of modern civilization, but has been
deemed inherent in the system, and has been so long established that, to use the phrase
of the common law, the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. Therefore, it is
to be expected that in Italy, the seat and fountain of the civil law, this same liability
of government is to be found existing. The " Civil Code of the Kingdom of Italy " of
186b' recognizes, rather than establishes, the fundamental principle of liability ; but it
expressly provides (article 10) that, " in suits pending before the judicial authority
between private persons and the public administration, the proceedings shall always
take place formally at the regular session."

It is also provided, by the third article of the same code, that " the alien is admitted
to enjoy all the civil rights granted to citizens." These provisions establish the right
of an Italian citizen to maintain his action in this court, within the meaning of the
Act July 27, 1868, (15 Stat., p. 243, § 2,) which prohibits the subject of a foreign gov-

necessary in the prosecution of the duties prescribed by this act ; but the head of no
Departmeut shall be required to answer any call for information or papers if, in his
opinion, it would be injurious to the public interests.

Sice. 11. That, within thirty days after entry of final judgment in any case pending
in said court, either party may appeal therefrom to the Supreme Court of the United
States ; but the agent of the United States shall not in any case give notice of appeal,
except under written instructions from the Attorney-General. It shall be the duty of
the party appealing to cause to be printed, for the use of the justices of the Supreme
Court, all the papers in the ease, including the memorials, the answers, the evidence,
the arguments,, all interlocutory motions and orders, the j udgment, the opinions of the
judges, (if any are given,) and the record or judgment-roll. The appeal shall be
entered at the first term of the Supreme Court held in Washington after the entry of
final judgment in the court below, within ten days after the opening of the term. If
not entered within that time, the judgment of the court below shall stand. If entered
withiu that time, the case shall be heard upon the priuted papers without further
argument, unless the Supreme Court, shall order an argument, and shall give notice
thereof to the Secretary of State. Final judgment may be rendered by the Supreme
Court in all such appealed cases ; and in each case the clerk of that court shall give
notice thereof to the Secretary of State.

Sec. 12. That at the close of their labors at the first term of the court as hereinbe-
fore provided, and at the close of any term for which the court may be hereafter con-
vened, the said judges shall transmit to the Secretary of State, under their hands and
seals, a statement showing in detail the decisions and awards made by them, with the
nationality of each claimant, and the amount awarded to each; also, showing in like
detail, and with like statements, the claims which, were presented for allowance, and
which were not allowed; also, showing, in like detail, and with like statements, the
cases in which appeals may have been taken to the Supreme Court of the United States.
They shall also deposit in the Department of State the origiual records and other pa-
pers of the court (including all original papers on file and the seal of the court)
during the period for which it may have been iti session, which shall thereafter consti-
tute a part of the archives of that Department. And it shall be the duty of the Sec-
retary of State in each case, as soon thereafter as may be, to transmit to Congress a
copy of the said statement, and to notify each government whose citizens or subjects
may have presented claims for adjudication by said court, of the judgments made iu
favor of or against such citizens or subjects. And it shall also be the duty of the Sec-
retary of State to give similar notice to Congress and to foreign governments of judg-
ments rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States on appeals taken from the
judgments of the court established by this act. And the result of the proceedings of
the said courts are to be regarded as a full, perfect, and final settlement of all claims
of aliens which were, or which might have been, presented before the court estab-
lished by this act.

Sec. 13. That whenever and as often as said court may be convened, the Secretary
of State shall provide proper rooms and accommodations for the transaction of its
business.

Sec. 14. Said court shall have jurisdiction of and power to hear and determine
all claims and rights of action against the United States which shall he presented to
the Secretary of State, by petition, in the nature of a petition of right, and which
shall be by him referred to said court, and all claims and rights of action which shall
be referred to said court by the President of the United States or by either House of
Congress. And the provisions of this act shall, so far as applicable, govern the pro-
•eedings on such claims and rights of action.

Sec. 15. That this act shall take effect upon its passage.

12 ALIEN CLAIMS.

eminent from maintaining a suit for captured property, unless " the right to prosecute
claims against such government in its courts is reciprocal, and extends to citizens of
the United States."

In England aliens have a remedy by- " petition of right," regulated by act 23 and 24
Victoria, July 3, i860. (U. S. v. O'Keefe, 11 Wallace, 179; Carlisle v. U. S., 16 Wallace,
148. See Whiting's War-Powers of the President, 51; The Venus, 8 Cranch; The
Hoop, 1 Robinson, 196; The Army Warwick, Sprague, J.)

See Whiting's " War-Claims," affixed to 43d ed. of" War-Powers," p. 333, ed. of 1871 ;
Perrin r. U. S., 4 Court Claims 547.' i

3 In addition to the reasons in favor of a court of alien claims, it may be stated that
it is provided by act of Congress as to the Court of Claims, that —

" The jurisdiction of the said court shall not extend to any claim against the Govern-
ment not pending therein on December oue, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, growing
out of, or dependent on, any treaty stipulation entered into with foreign nations or
with the Indian tribes." -

In Brown vs. The United States, decided in the Court of Claims May 22, 1871, Nott, J.,
said :

"Our popular orators and writers have impressed upon the public mind the belief
that in this republic of ours private rights receive uueqnulled protection from the
Government; and some have actually pointed to the establishment of this court as
a sublime spectacle to be seen nowhere else on earth. The action of a former Congress,
however, in requiring (act 27 July, 1868, 15 Stat. L., p. 243) that aliens should not
maintain certain suits here unless their own governments accorded a corresponding
right to citizens of the United States, has revealed the fact that the legal redress given
to a citizen of the United States against the United Stares is less than he can have
against almost any government. in Christendom. The laws of other nations have been
produced and proved in this court, and the mortifying fact is judicially established that
the Government of the United States holds itself, of nearly all governments, the least
amenable to the law.

" First in this high civilization that protects the individual and assures his rights
stands the great empire of the German states. ' The state,' says a lawyer, also dis- *
tinguished as a writer, who was examined as a witness In this court, ' represented in
its pecuniary capacity as the representative of money and property affairs, is called the
Ascus. For the purpose of maintaining suits against the government, the fiscus stands
in the place of the government ; for the purpose of compelling the payment of demands
against the state, the fiscus is substituted for the state itself. I know of no restriction
of the rights of the subjects of Prussia to maintain any suit against the fiscus ;
foreigners as well as subjects, any man, can sue the fiscus : the power to maintain a
suit against the fiscus is a matter of absolute right. Suits in relation to state property,
in which the fiscus is either plaintiff or defendant, are treated and decided like suits
among private parties, and all the consequences of defaults and executions take place
against the fiscus. The fiscus is brought into court by the service of summons and
complaint upon the fiscal attorney. The fiscal attorney has to answer just like any
other party and briug his proof. Judgment rendered against, the fiscus may be satisfied and
discharged in the usual watj, by execution.' Brown's Case, (5 C. Cls. E., p. 271.)

" In Hanover and Bavaria the redress is substantially the same. Muller's Case, (6 id.,
p. — .) In the republic of Switzerland the 'federal tribunal takes cognizance of suits
between the confederation on the one side and corporations or individuals on the
other when these corporations or private citizens are complainants and the object of
litigation is of the value of at least 3,000 francs.' Law 5th June, 1849 ; (Lobsiger's Case,
5 id., p. 687.) In Holland, the Netherlands, the Hauseatic Provinces, the free city of
Hamburg, and probably in all countries which have inherited the perfected justice of
the civil law, the government is in legal liability thus subject to the citizen. Even in
France, under the late empire, there was a less circumscribed means of redress, a more
certain judicial remedy, a more eifective method of enforcing the judgment recovered,
than has been given to the American citizeu, notwithstanding the pledge of the Con-
stitution. Of all the governments of Europe, it is believed that Russia alone does
not hold the state amenable in matters of property to the law. Of all the coun-
tries whose laws have been examined in this court, Spain only resembles the United
States in fettering the judicial proceedings of her courts by restrictions and leaving
the execution of their decrees dependent upou the legislative will. Yet, even in
Spain, we know historically, back in the time of Ferdinaud aud Isabella, that the son
of Columbus ' did not succeed to his father's dignities till he had obtained a judgment in his
favor against the Crown from the council of the Indias, an act' adds Prescott, ' highly hon-
orable to that tribunal, and shoiving that the independence of the courts of justice, the greatest
bulwark of civil liberty, was well maintained under King Ferdinand.' (Ferd. aud Isabella,
3d vol., p. 245.) The records of this court also show that, within the present ceutury,
an American citizeu recovered a judgment against Spain, iu a Spanish tribunal, to the very
large amount of $373,879.88, aud that he elected to retain Spain as his debtor when*

ALIEN CLAIMS. 13

Much valuable information has been obtained since the last session of
Congress through the State Department at the instance of a member of
the committee from foreign governments in relation to the mode of ad-
judicating claims under their authority. 4

the decree was about to be transferred to, and assumed by. the United States, and that
his choice was judicious, for though thus transferred and assumed, the debt has never
been paid. Meade's Case, (2 C. Cls. R., p. 225)."

The jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is also limited to actions ex contractu.

The j nrisdiction of this and, to some extent, other courts is also limited or regulated
both as to contracts and torts and as to aliens and citizens by act of March 3, 1863, 12
Stat., 755 ; act of May 11, 1866. 14 Stat.; 46 ; act July 4, 1864, chap. 240, 13 Stat., 381 ;
joint resolution June 18, 1866, No. 50, 14 Stat., 360 ; ioint resolution July 28, 1866, No.
99, 14 Stat., 370 ; act February 21, 1867, chap. 57, 14 Stat., 397 ; joint resolution March
2, 1867, No. 50, 14 Stat., 572; act July 27, 1868, 15 Stat., 243,.sec. 2; Planters' Bank vs.
Union Bank, 16 Wallace, 483.

4 The whole subject of claims against the Government is one of great difficulty.
There can be but little difficulty as to the payment of salaries and claims arising on
express written contract. The proper Departments of the Government are authorized
to audit and allow these generally ; and in cases of doubt, as to claims arising on con-
tracts, &c, the Court of Claims has jurisdiction, subject to a six years' statute of lim-
itations.

But there are claims in great numbers and of immense magnitude, as the journals
of Congress show, growing out of the rebellion, out of contracts, and in various forms,
for the consideration of which there is no tribunal but Congress.

The many fraudulent claims presented to Congress, and sometimes paid under special
acts, show that the relief in this form is exceedingly slow and unsatisfactory.

One great danger to the Treasury is, that claims are presented long after they arose,
and when the Government has no means of meeting and refuting the plausible evi-
dence often furnished in support of them, but which might be shown to be false or
susceptible of explanation if earlier presented.

The President, in his annual message of December, 1873, said :

" There is a still more fruitful source of expenditure, which F will point out later in
this message. I refer to the easy method of manufacturing claims for losses incurred
in suppressing the late rebellion. ******

" Your careful attention is invited to the subject of claims against the Government,
and to the facilities afforded by existing laws for their prosecution. Each of the De-
partments of State, Treasury, and War have demands for many millions of dollars
upon their files, and they are rapidly accumulating. To these may be added those
now pending before Congress, the Court of Claims, and the southern claims commis-
sion, (Commissioners of Claims,) making in the aggregate an immense sum. Most of
these grow out of the rebellion, and are intended to indemnify persons on both sides
for their losses during the war ; and not a few of them are fabricated and supported by
false testimony. Projects are on foot, it is believed, to induce Congress to provide for
new classes of claims, aud to revive old ones through the repeal or modification of the
statute of limitations, by which they are now barred. I presume these schemes, if
proposed, will be received with little favor by Congress, and I recommend that per-
sons having claims against the United States cognizable by any tribunal or department
thereof, be required to present them at an early day, and that legislation be directed, as far as
practicable, to the defeat of unfounded and unjust demands upon the Government ; and I would
suggest, as a means of preventing fraud, that witnesses be called upou to appear in
person to testify before those tribunals having said claims before them for adjudication.
Probably the largest saving to the National Treasury can be secured by timely legislation on
these subjects, of any of the economic measures that will be proposed."

This subject has been somewhat discussed elsewhere. (Congressional Record, Forty-
third Congress, first session, June 3, 1874, vol. 6, p. 4514 ; 20th vol. American Law
Register, p. 189 ; note by Judge Redfieid on decision of Court of Claims in Brown's
case.)

Case of Charles J. Davis, administrator of John Davis, a claim for $58,000, passed
twice at different times by both Houses of Congress, then referred to the Court of
Claims, which developed the fact, by decision made January 18, 1875, that the claim
had already been paid. (Davis' speech in Seuate May 13, 1874 ; Cougressional Record,
vol. 5, p. 3832 ; House Report No. 91, Committee on War-Claims, first session Forty-
third Congress, February 9, 1874.)

Among the measures which are believed to be reforms in the matter of claims intro-
duced, recommended, or acted ou during the Forty-third Congress, are the following :

I. A bill relating to the Commissioners of Claims,aud for other purposes. (See Con-
gressional Record, vol. 6, p. 4514, June 3, 1874.) This bill passed the House. If to this
could be added a provision by which the Commissioners of Claims should be converted
into a court, with power to report their conclusions to Congress, it would add to their

14 ALIEN CLAIMS.

It is deemed of so much importance that it is hereto appended and
made a part of this report.

independence, and tend to secure justice. The machinery which these commissioners
have, by which they send agents into the locality where claims arose, enables them to
defeat many unjust claims.

It seems remarkable that for so many years claims have been examined by commit-
tees of Congress and acted on with no counsel to represent the interests of the Govern-
ment, and no officer clothed with the duty to procure evidence. If committees must
examine claims, they should act as* judges, and should never be approached with per-
sonal solicitations, or hear private communications. Whatever is heard or said should be
to the whole committee. Claims often involve great questions of law. Claimants very
generally present able arguments on the law and the facts. Members of committees are
not generally all lawyers ; and if they were, they are often not so well qualified to judge
of facts as other persons. JButif they had thetime and the qualifications to investigate both
law and fact, they shouKL not be required to examine arguments of claimants with a
view to see if they could be answered. This involves the danger of acquiring a habit of
taking sides against claimants. The judge should never become the lawyer on either
side. In courts the State is always represented by counsel. If a similar usage is not
applied before committees, the Government is almost certain to suffer for want of as
full a presentation of the proper view of the law and facts which may exist against as
well as in favor of claims. The Commissioners of Claims should be converted into a
court, with proper counsel for the Government.

The bill above referred to would, it is believed, effect a reform in the mode of inves-
tigating claims.

The following is the bill as it passed the House, with amendments proposed in the'
Senate :

[H. E. 1565, 43d Congress, 2d Session.]

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

June 17, 1874. — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Claims.

January 21, 1875. — Reported with amendments, viz: Strike out the parts within

brackets [] and insert the parts printed in italics.

AN ACT relating to the Commissioners of Claims, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and Souse of Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled, That the time within which petitions for the allowance of claims
may be presented to the Commissioners of Claims be, and hereby is, extended to the
[fourth day of July, eighteen hundred and seventy-five] first day of January, eighteen
hundred and seventy-six; and that all claims within the jurisdiction of the Commission-
ers of Claims which shall not be filed in their office on or before the [fourth day of
July, eighteen hundred and seventy-five] first day of January, eighteen hundred and sev-
enty-six, shall be, and hereby are, forever barred, and the commissioners shall not ex-
amine the same.

Sec. 2. That every petition or memorial, filed after the passage of this act, for the
allowance of a claim, shall contain a statement, by items, of the several amounts
claimed on account of the matters set forth in such petition or memorial ; and all peti-
tions or memorials already filed which do not contain such statement shall, if the commission-
ers so order, be amended to furnish the same within such time and under such rules as shall be
prescribed by the Commissioners; and the aggregate amount so claimed shall not there-
after be increased for any cause. Every such petition or memorial, or the amendment
thereof, shall also contain an explicit statement of any payments already made by or in
behalf of the United States on account of property taken, furnished, or used by the
forces of the United States during the late rebellion, and a declaration that the said
petition or memorial, or the amendment thereof, embraces every just item and cause of
claim against the United States for property so taken, furnished, or used.

Sec. 3. That in [lieu of] addition to the three agents now provided by law, the said
commissioners shall be authorized to employ [five] two agents to investigate and re-
port upon claims ; and all the said agents shall have power to administer oaths and
take depositions[ ; and, in addition to the clerks now authorized by law, the said
commissioners may employ each one clerk, at a salary not exceeding one thousand
eight hundred dollars per annum].

Sec. 4. That whenever the commissioners are satisfied [that a claim is fraudulent in
•whole or in part, or] that the claimant is attempting to procure, by fraud, false evi-
dence, or conclusion, or by the willful concealment of payment or other material fact the
allowance of a claim, in whole or in part, it shall be their duty to disallow the entire
claim.

Sec 5. That every person who knowingly and willfully swears falsely in any oath or
affidavit which is or may be authorized by law, or in any oath taken or affidavit made,
to be used as evidence in any court, " or before either House of Congress, or any com-

ALIEN CLAIMS. 15

This confirms the statement already made, that foreign governments

mittee or officer thereof," or before any officer or person acting under the authority of
the Constitution or law, shall be deemed guilty of perjury, and shall be punished by
iiue not more than two thousand dollars, or imprisoned at hard labor uot more than
five years, or both, in the discretion of the court. And in every case where such oath
or affidavit is subscribed by the person making the same, proof of such faot shall be
sufficient evidence of the official authority of the person before whom the same pur-
ports to be made or taken to administer and certify said oath or affidavit. All offenses
heretofore committed may be prosecuted or punished in the same manner as if this act
had not passed.

Sec. 6. That every person who procures, or endeavors to procure, or counsels or
advises, another to commit perj ury, shall be punishable as if guilty of perjury.

[Sec. 7. That the Commissioners of Claims shall receive, examine, and consider the
justice and validity of such claims, growing out of the late war of the rebellion, as may
be referred to them by either House of Congress ; and said commissioners shall make
report of their proceedings, and of each claim considered by them, with the evidence
in relation thereto, and their conclusions of lawand fact thereon, at the commence-
ment of each session of Congress, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives ,
who shall lay the same before said House. ]

[Sec. 8. That the President of the United States be, and is hereby, authorized to
nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint, in addi-
tion to the Commissioners of Claims now authorized, two Commissioners of Claims,
who shall continue in office until the tenth day of March, eighteen hundred and sev-
enty-seven, with like power and duties and compensation as the Commissioners of
Claims now in office. Any two commissioners, with the approval of the president of
the board of commissioners, shall be competeut to make a report, and the president of
the board shall assign to the commissioners the claims, to be by them examined, con-
sidered, and reported on.]

Sec. [9] 7. That the provisions of an act to prevent and punish frauds upou the
Government of the United States, approved March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-
three, are extended and made applicable to a time of peace, and to persons who shall
make or cause to be made, or presented to the Commissioners of Claims, or to either
House of Congress, any claim upon or against the Government of the United States,
or any Department or officer thereof, or any evidence in support thereof; and if any
person shall fraudulently withdraw or abstract from the files of said commissioners,
or from the files of either House of Cougress, or of any committee thereof, any docu-
ment or evidence, every person so offending shall suffer the penalties aud be liable to
punishment as in said act provided.

Sec. [10 J 8. That every petition presented to either House of Congress for the pay-
ment of claims [may] shall be verified by oath or affidavit.

Passed the House of Eepresentatives June 16, 1874.
^Attest : EDWARD McPHERSON, Clerk.

II. The bill to provide for the adjudication of the claims of aliens.

The Committee on "War-Claims have decided to report this bill to the House, with a
recommendation that it do pass.

III. A bill as follows :

[H. R. 3862. 43d Congress, 2d session.]

" IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

" December 8, 1874.

"Read twice, referred to the Committee on War-Claims, and ordered to be printed.

" Mr. Lawrence, on leave, introduced the following bill :

" A BILL to limit the time for tlie allowance of claims.

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Eepresentatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled, That after the first day of January, eighteen hundred and seventy-
five, no claim against the United States shall be presented to, audited, allowed, or paid,
by any Department or officer of the United States, unless the same shall have been
filed in the proper Department, or with the proper officer, within six years after the
claimant had the legal capacity aud right to so file or present such claim. Nothing
herein shall limit the time for filing any claim where by existing law the time is fixed
for filing such claims."

The Committee on War-Claims have decided to recommend the House to pass this
.l>ill.

.16 ALIEN CLAIMS.

give to our citizens the right to go into their courts to have an adjudi-
cation of their claims against such governments.

IV. A bill which passed the House as follows :

" [H. E. 3478. 43d Congress, 1st session.]

"IN THE HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES.
"May 25, 1874.
"Read twice, referred to the Committee on Revision of the Laws of the United States
and ordered to be printed.
" Mr. Lawrence, on leave, introduced the following bill :
"A BILL in relation to parties in the Court of Claims.
" Be it enacted by the Senate and Souse of Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled, That in all cases pending in the Court of Claims, where a new or
additional party or parties may be necessary to a complete determination of the case,
or necessary to protect the interests of the United States, the court shall have power
to order any such person or corporation to be made a party or parties, and to issue pro-
cess to the marshal of any district or Territory in which such corporation may be lo-
cated, or such person reside, or be found ; and it shall be the duty of such marshal to-
serve and return the same as other process. And if any such person or corporation be a
non-resident of the United States, service may be made by publication of notice in such
manner as the court may order."

V. A joint resolution, as follows :

" [H. Res. 131, 43d Congress, 2d session.]
" In the House of Representatives. — December 21, 1874. — Read twice, referred to the
Committee on War-Claims, and ordered to be printed.
" Mr. Lawrence, on leave, introduced the following joint resolution :
"JOINT RESOLUTION proposing an amendment to' the Constitution.
"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled, (two-thirds of each House concurring therein,) That the following arti-
cle is hereby proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and
•when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States shall be valid to
all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution, to wit :

"Article — . No claim against the United States shall be paid unless presented in
pursuance of law by the claimant within ten years after having the legal right and
capacity to do so, or within such less period as may be prescribed by law. A claim
rejected by any authorized officer, or reported on adversely by a committee of either
House of Congress, shall not be re-examined or paid unless within sis years after such
rejection or adverse report."

The following, explanatory of this subject, is from the Chicago Dailv Tribune, De-
cember 28, 1874 :

LIMITATION OF CLAIMS.

LETTER FROM THE HON. WILLIAM LAWRENCE.

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C, December 25.
To the Editor of the Chicago Tribune :

I notice an article in the Tribune of the 23d instant, on " The limitation of claims,"'
in which you refer to a proposition I submitted in the House to amend the Constitution
so that no claim against the United States shall be paid unless presented by the claim-
ant, in pursuance of law, within ten years after having the legal right and capacity to
do so.

You do me the honor to say, " The proposition is a good one ; " but you say you " fail
to see the necessity for a constitutional amendment," because a law of Congress would
serve the practical end to be attained, and that " Congress itself will be bound
thereby."

You forcibly point out the difficulty of procuring an amendment of the Constitution,,
the delay, and the fact that "it is doubtful whether such an amendment would not be
opposed by the democratic party and the Southern States as an effort to undermine
their pet schemes for the future." This, I believe, would be the case to. a considerable
extent ; and yet if public attention could be aroused to the necessity of an amendment,
I believe it could be secured.

I hope, therefore, you will permit me briefly to call .attention to the necessity of it.

You say the whole object can be accomplished by law.

I have introduced a bill, and have been directed by the Committee on War-Claims to>
report it to the House and recommend its passage, which provides:

" That, after the 1st day of July, 1875, no claim against the United States shall be
presented to, audited, allowed or paid, by any Department or officer of the United!
States, unless the same shall have been filed in the proper Department or with the.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 17"

We cannot hope to preserve the entire good will and respect of for-

propcr officer -within six years after the claimant had the legal capacity and right to
so file or present such claim."

Your theory is, that a limitation in the presentation of claims to Congress can he
provided by law, and that " Congress itself can be bound thereby."

The Constitution, Art. I of amendments, provides that " Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or-
abridging the freedom of speech or of the press ; or the right of the people peaceably to-
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It is now generally conceded that, where there is a right to petition, there is a corre-
sponding duty to hear and act on the petition.

A practice has prevailed, from the foundation of the Government, to petition Con-
gress for the payment of claims. Can the right of the citizen thus to petition, or the
duty of Congress to hear and act on such petition, be prohibited or abridged by law ?"
The language of the Constitution cited would certainly seem to prohibit any such law.

The only theory on which such a law could be passed would be, that the investiga-
tion of claims is a judicial duty — not legislative; that Congress may by law limit the
time within which there may be a judicial investigation in courts ; and that hence the-
right to ask of Congress the performance of a duty not legislative in its character may
be denied and its exercise prohibited by law.

I had the privilege of discussing this question somewhat in a speech in the House,.
June 3, 1874, in which I said :

"The Constitution provides that 'the judicial power shall extend to controversies-
to which the United States shall be a party.'

"At the time this was adopted, the 'petition of right' was a recognized common-law
mode of reaching the courts of England with claims against the Government. It is fair-
to presume the Constitution was designed to give an equivalent remedy.

" It has been urged with much force that the Government is composed of three
co-ordinate branches, the legislative, judiciary, and executive, to each one of which are
delegated certain powers and duties. It is the duty of the legislative department to-
provide the means or remedies by which the right of parties may be determined, but
not to pass upon or determine such rights. This latter power is exclusively vested in
the judiciary. It is therefore not within the power of the legislative body to pass any
act of a judicial nature. Jones vs. Perry, 10 Yerger, 59; Holden vs. Jarvis, 11 Massa-
chusetts, 400 ; Picqnet's Appeal, 5 Pickering, 65 ; Lewis vs. Webb, 3 Greenleaf, 326 ; Ex
parte to Bedford, Jurist and Law Magazine for October, 1833, page 301, 4 New Hamp-
shire, 572; Lane vs. Dorman, 3 Scammon, 235 ; Davenport vs. Wood, 11 Illinois, 551."

But the practice of investigating claims, and ascertaining their amount, by commit-
tees of Congress, has been so long exercised that it may be regarded as too late now to
call it in question. This view was taken in a speech in the House on the 21st instant,
in which it was said :

" There are two classes of powers ; those which are conferred by express provisions
of the Constitution and those which are incidental.. No man doubts but each House of
the British Parliament has power to punish for contempt. It is a power long exer-
cised, declared by all writers on the British constitution, and denied by no one. When
our Constitution confers upon Congress, as it does in the very first section of the first
article, all legislative powers therein granted, there is given to Congress the incidental
power to ascertain every fact necessary to enable it to legislate intelligently on every
subject within its constitutional jurisdiction. Among the powers necessary to accom-
plish this purpose is the power to summon witnesses aud to compel them to testify.
That power has been exercised from the foundation of the Government up to this time,.
and.it has never been doubted or denied."

Congress clearly has the power to appropriate money to pay claims; and whatever
theory might be presented as to the duty of Congress to examine and ascertain their
amount, Congress will continue to do so, especially with the democratic party and the
Southern States, so largely interested in claims, fully represented in Congress.

A law would, therefore, be utterly ineffectual, so far as Congress is concerned.

This may be shown by an example. Congress established a Court of Claims to get
rid of the evils of examining claims in Congress. These evils are numerous.

I quote again from my speech of June 3, 1874, as follows:

" The act of March 3, 1863, amending the act establishing the Court of Claims sought
to avoid all these evils by providing (12 Statutes, 765, sec. 2) as follows :

" ' That all petitions and bills praying or providing for the satisfaction of private
claims against the Government, founded upon any law of Congress, or upon any regu-
lation of an Executive Department, or upon any contract, express or implied, with the-
Government of the United States, shall, unless otherwise ordered by resolution of the
House in which the same are presented or introduced, be transmitted by the Secretary
of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of Representatives, with all the accompanying
documents, to the court aforesaid.'

"But this in practice has failed for two reasons. The jurisdiction only extends to*

18 ALIEN CLAIMS.

«ign nations whose citizens have just claims on our Government, if we

three classes of claims ; and as to this it has been a failure, because the provision * un-
less otherwise ordered' has totally defeated its object. It is always 'ordered' that
-claims when presented shall go to committees."

I respectfully submit, therefore, that your proposition that a sufficient remedy may
be provided by law, and that "Congress itself would be bound thereby," is not correct.
JSach Congress would have the right to repeal any such law.

That there is a great and urgent necessity for some means to protect Ihe Government
against enormous and fraudulent claims, especially those arising in the Southern States,
.and growing out of the war, would seem to be certain. Without this there will be no
end of them. I might illustrate this by many examples. The celebrated " Fisher
claim "is one.

In 1812, the Florida Indians, or our troops, or both, committed some depredations on

Fisher's corn-fields, in that State. He made a claim originally for $8,000. Congress

■ has already paid on it $66,803.33, and yet there is a demand in this Congress for $66,848

more ; and on the 27th of March last the Committee ou Military Affairs in the House

reported in favor of paying $16,848.

There are now pending before the Committee on War-Claims of the House more than
1,300 claims, demanding over $20,000,000, besides other claims in the Senate to an
enormous amount.

Those who were rebels during the war can now prove loyalty that cannot now be
met by proof of the truth. Claims can and will be multiplied indefinitely, and hun-
dreds of millions will not satisfy them, if the democratic party comes into power. The
recent " Sugg Fort claim," which was hurried through the. Commissary Department
.and the Treasury .Department, aDd which is now, on investigation, reported a fraud,
is sufficient to show that claims which have been kept a dozen years and now come
to the front, when the evidence against them is lost or inaccessible, are entitled to but
little favor, if any. One claimant can exert more power and influence than half the
population of a State. The claimant is vigilant, and so are his friends and his lobby.
They can enlist powerful influences, political, personal, social, newspapers, and other-
wise. There are no such influences, or but few, and rarely ever so aetive and vigilant,
on behalf of the Treasury and the people. Now, if the Tribune will give the power of
dts great influence to aid in the good work of doing justice to honest claimants, and of
cutting off those fraudulent claims which dare not come forth while memories are fresh
to defeat them, I believe it will be a public service rightly performed.
Kespectf ully , &c. ,

WM. LAWRENCE.

yi. The Committee on War-Claims adopted the following :

"Room of Committee on War-Claims,
" House of Representatives, Washington, D. C, January 9, 1874.

" The following resolution, adopted by the Committee on War-Claims of the House
•of Representatives of the Forty-third Congress, is published for the information of all
■concerned :

"Resolved, That the claimant in each claim which now is, or may be hereafter, re-
ferred to this committee, other than those from the Commissioners of Claims, shall be
and is required to furnish, with the papers relating to the claim, information on the
following points :

" 1st. Whether the claim, or any part of it, has been presented to any Department
or officer of the Government.

"2d. If so, when, and what Department or officer, and what action has been taken
thereon.

" 3d. Whether the claim, or any part of it, has been presented to either House of
•Congress, or to any committee of either House of Congress.

" 4th. If so, when, and what action has been taken on the same.

-" The above information to be furnished by affidavit of the claimant or his attorney.

" A true copy.

"HENRY H. SMITH, Clerk."

It might be salutary to require all this by law in all cases and in all Departments of the
Government. And as to claims presented more than two years after they arose, or
other fixed period, the claimant should be required, on presenting his claim, to give
notice in a prescribed form of the filing thereof in one or more leading newspapers in
the capital of the State or Territory where he resides, stating the office or tribunal
having jurisdiction to consider it. This would often elicit intormation which would
secure justice. The Commissioners of Claims say the publication of the claims filed
■■before them has in many cases enabled them to procure very valuable evidence.
[From the Washington Chronicle, Monday, Decemher 21, 1874.]
PRIVATE CLAIMS BEFORE CONGRESS.

We call attention to an article printed in the Chronicle this morning from the peu
of an able and experienced member of Congress, ou the subject of the proper disposi-

ALIEN CLAIMS. 19

refuse or delay to make provision for them. Nov indeed can we hope

tion of private claims pending before the two Houses, which is well worth careful peru-
sal on the part of his fellow-members.

It was not our purpose, in the article to which our honorable friend refers, to cen-
sure the members generally for inattention to this branch of their public duty. No
doubt it now receives an equitable share of the time of the hard-working members, of
whom the writer is known to be one of the most indefatigable. It is to be regretted
that all do not, perhaps cannot, work with the same degree of effectiveness. The
capable and industrious ought not, certainly, to be condemned on account of the inca-
pacity or indolence of others of their associates.

And it is a truth, that the most capable Senators and Representatives of experience
will heartily indorse, that a committee of Congress is, in many respects, an unfit and
unsafe place for the adjudication of such causes. Unfit, because the members of com-
mittees will not all attend and give their attention to the business. The whole work,
consequently, devolves on a few persons, who cannot carefully examine all the cases of
this description sent to them for investigation. And the small part which is reported
cannot, as the writer shows, secure the deliberate consideration of the House and
Senate, so that the bulk of the work performed by the committees is not fiually acted
on by the Congress to which it is submitted, and must be abandoned by the claimants,
or continue to be presented from Congress to Congress, constantly accumulating in
magnitude.

It is an unfit place, because an adverse decision does not necessarily terminate the
application of the claimant for redress. He is almost certain to attribute his defeat
to the stupidity or inattention of committeemen, rather than the badness of his cause.
And if not broken down in his finances, he is almost certain to return in person or by
agent, or through the interposition of his Representative or Senator, year after year,
with the hope of better luck. Hence, it has become a sort of axiom at the national
capital that no claim presented to Congress can ever be effectually disposed of except
by its payment ; while an adverse decision by a court, after a full hearing, would end
it forever.

A committee of Congress is an unfit tribunal because the testimony submitted is
nearly always ex parte, and in favor of the applicants for relief, no one being interested
who has facilities for taking testimony in favor of the Government. This, being well
known to Senators and Representatives, has induced a habit with many of systemati-
cally voting against all private claims, however just they may appear on their face
and well supported by evidence, believing that the Government side has not been fully
represented.

It would, therefore, be far better for honest and meritorious claimants, as well as for
the Government, to have them all referred to a court properly constituted, which
appears to the committees of Congress to possess intrinsic merits.

To the Editor of the Washington Chronicle:

In the Chronicle of the 18th instant you discuss with much force and justice the sub-
ject of " private claims before Congress." You allude to the fact that these are very
numerous, often fraudulent in character or amount, or both, and that the general im-
pression that this is so, "no doubt often results in the greatest injustice to honest"
claimants.

You say also, " it is the duty of Senators and Representatives to either take time to
examine them, [claims,] carefully winnowing the chaff from the grain, and provide,
with reasonable promptness, for the payment of those found to be just, or to provide a
judicial tribunal for their adjudication."

I think it fortunate that attention has been called to the subject from a source which
is entitled to and will command respect.

I wish to correct one inference which might, by possibility, be drawn from your arti-
cle ; that is, that members or committees of Congress have been negligent in examining
and disposing of just claims, or have done less than they might.

If this were even so, it is by no means a chief source of the great evil and wrong of
justice, long delayed.

By the rules of the House of Representatives Fridays are " private-bill days ;'' that
is, these days are set apart for the consideration of private bills as the regular business
of those " unfortunate" days.

Experience has shown that the demands upon the time of Congress are so numerous,
pressing, and great, that it is not practicable to devote more time to private bills than
the rules now prescribe. It is often found, indeed, that the general business of Congress
requires that Friday be devoted to that, as was the case last Friday in the House. The
private bills include not only claims for money, but for land, and relief in various
forms, as for pensions, &c.

There are now on the private calendar of the House one hundred and seventy-six
private bills, many of them claims for money, nearly all of which came over from the
last session.

20 ALIEN CLAIMS.

to preserve our own self-respect in case of a denial of justice to any

During the last session of Congress Mr. Speaker Blaine said, from the chair, that the
private calendar had received more attention during that session than during any pre-
ceding session since he had been in Congress.

After the first of January next, there are only seven Fridays during this session,
requiring about twenty-five bills to be disposed of for each day, or one for every
twelve minutes, allowing the sessions to be five hours each, to clear the calendar. It
is not very probable that Congress could dispose of much more than this even if the
committees were to crowd the calendar with a hundred or five hundred more bills.

The committees of Congress can act on and report more private bills than Congress
can act on, and this has always been so. This inability of Congress to act on all claims
and private bills is the real and chief source of the delay, and consequent injustice
done to honest claimants.

And as the country increases in population, wealth, and business, this evil is to become
greater, for the general public business will require still more of the time of Congress.
Even if Congress should continue in session as nearly all the time as might be practi-
cable, (as I believe it should during the whole year,) the private claims and bills could
never receive the requisite time and attention.

This must be apparent from the number and character of the.claims and the amounts
involved. Those before the Committees of Claims, both of the Senate and House, are
very numerous.

There are now before the Committee of War-Claims of the House about thirteen
hundred claims, involving, asestimated by the clerk of the committee, about $20,000,000.
This number does not fully represent the claimants, for one claim, or bill, frequently
includes the claims of numerous persons. The committees have not been negligent in
the work assigned to them.

The Committee of War-Claims at the last session of Congress reported on one hun-
dred and thirteen claims, and, besides, examined many on which reports could have
been made if Congress could have acted on them. Many of the claims were argued at
much length by able counsel, consuming much of the time of the committee. The
reports made have settled principles which, if adhered to, are decisive of the questions
involved in a majority of the claims now pending.

The committee reported seven general bills, one covering appropriations for one
thousand and eighty-six claims, reported allowed by the Commissioners of Claims,
reaching, in the aggregate, $575,000. These claims required a general examination to
an extent sufficient to test their correctness. One of the general bills reported by the
committee required much consideration, as it proposed to confer jurisdiction on the
Commissioners of Claims to examine and report on claims which might be referred to
them by either House of Congress. (See Congressional Record, vol. 2, part 5, [vol. 6,]
p. 4511, June 3, 1874.)

The committee during the last session of Congress performed more labor in relation
to claims than the whole work of any one of the highest State courts in a year in many
of the States. I refer more especially to this committee because I am more familiar
with its work than of any other. But other committees, having other classes of claims
and private bills, did an immense amount of work — all that could be done.

There are grave difficulties in the way of examining and allowing claims by com-
mittees of Congress. There are still graver objections to adopting this mode as the
general plan of passing on claims. But it is not the purpose of this article to discuss
these now. They have been considered somewhat elsewhere. (Congressional Eecord,
vol. 6, p. 4511.)

Your article says it is the duty of Congress either to examine claims, " or to provide
a judicial tribunal for their adjudication." The act of Congress of March 3, 1871, cre-
ated the Commissioners of Claims to examine and report on certain claims for stores
and supplies furnished or taken for Union military forces during the rebellion in the
insurrectionary States.

The bill (H. E. No. 1565) already referred to, reported by the Committee on War-
Claims, giving the Commissioners jurisdiction of claims which might be referred by
either House of Congress, passed the House, and is now before the Committee on Claims
of the Senate.

If this bill should pass, and become a law, it would remedy the whole evil to which
you have so well and so properly called attention. It would require but little labor
to examine claims in Congress sufficiently to see if they had such merit as to require a
full examination by the Commissioners.

These Commissioners are clothed with the best meaus yet devised to thoroughly
ascertain the true merits of claims.

If this bill shall pass it will relieve the whole difficulty.

I would regard it as an improvement that this tribunal should be created into a
court, with all its present powers. The Government will always need such a tribunal.
It would be well if claims before the Departments could be referred to it also.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 21

citizen or alien, however humble. The committee therefore recommend
the passage of the bill.

Now, if you can examine this subject and give the aid of the Chronicle in the direc-
tion of the needed reform, you will contribute much to secure justice for honest claim-
ants, and protect the Government from fraudulent claims.

If this reform is secured there will be a tribunal, accessible at all times, where claim-
ants can be heard, and justice done without denial or delay.

W. L.

VII. The following hill has been introduced in the House of Representatives and is
now pending :

[H. E. 4569. 43d Congress, 2d Session.]

"IN THE HOUSE OF EEPEESENTATIVES.
" February 6 ( 1875.
"Read twice, referred to the Committee on War-Claims, and ordered to be printed.
" Mr. Lawrence, by unanimous consent, introduced the following bill :

"A BILL to prevent abases in the prosecution of claims against the Government.

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Bepresentatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled, That no account or claim against the United States exceeding
one hundred dollars, which shall not have been presented to the proper officer author-
ized to receive, audit, and examine the same, or which, having been so presented, has
not been paid within two years after the same accrued, shall be audited, examined, or
paid until the claimant, his agent, or attorney, shall have given public notice, in a
newspaper in general circulation in the locality where the account or claim accrued,
of the presentation thereof, with the title of the officer authorized to examine the same,
in such form and with such other particulars as may be prescribed by the head of the
Department in which the same may be presented ; and no such account or claim shall
be paid until at least four months after the same has been examined and the
balance duly certified.

" Sec. 2. That no account or claim against the United States shall be received,
audited, or examined by any officer thereof until the claimant, his agent, or attorney,
shall present therewith an affidavit stating that said account or claim is just and is
justly due or owing to the claimant from the United States ; that there is no set-off
against the same, and that no payment has been made thereon except as thereon
credited, and showing whether such account or claim, or any part thereof, has ever
previously been presented to any Department or officer of the Government, or to
either House of Congress, and, if so, when, and what action has been taken thereon ;
and that the same has never been otherwise or at any other time so presented. Said
affidavit shall only be made by the agent or attorney when, for some reason shown by
affidavit satisfactory to the officer charged with the duty to receive, audit, or examine
such account or claim, it is not practicable that it should be made by the claimant
personally.

" Sec. 3. That it shall be unlawful for any Senator, Representative, or Delegate in
Congress, or other officer, clerk, or employe' of the Government, or any clerk or em-
ploys in any Department or Bureau, or in any Office authorized by law, or the clerk of
any committee of either House of Congress, or of any joint committee of the two
Houses, otherwise than in the performance of a duty authorized or required by act of
Congress, either while in office or within four years thereafter, to counsel, advise, advo-
cate, or urge the payment or allowance of any account or claim or other action or pro-
ceeding in favor thereof against the United States, either before or to any member or
committee of either House of Congress, or any joint committee of the two Houses, or
any officer of the Government. But nothing herein shall apply to pension-claims, or
■deny to any such Senator, Eepresentative, officer, or clerk the right to give testimony in
writing as to any account or claim, or to give an opinion in writing on the request of
the head of any Department in which any such account or claim may be pending, or to
any member of any committee in the performance of any duty as such ; nor to any
account or claim held by any such Senator, Representative, Delegate, officer, or clerk
in his own right. Every person who shall offend against or violate any provision of
this section shall be deemed guilty of a crime, and, on conviction thereof, shall be fined
in any sum not exceeding two thousand dollars, or imprisoned at hard labor, for a
term not exceeding five years, or both, at the discretion of the court. And if any officer
authorized by law to receive, examine, or certify the amount of any account or claim
shall so certify or recommend or advise payment thereof, without a careful examina-
tion thereof, and of all evidence filed or presented in support thereof, he shall in like
manner be liable to fine and imprisonment as aforesaid."

THE LAW OF CLAIMS ON FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS.

THE MODE OF ADJUSTING CLAIMS AGAINST FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, AND
THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED IN THEIR INVESTIGATION.

DOCUMENTS TBANSMITTED BY HON. HAMILTON FISH, SEC-
EETAEY OF STATE, TO THE CHAIEMAN OF THE COMMIT-
TEE ON WAE-CLAIMS OF THE HOUSE OF EEPEESENTA-
TIVES IN THE YEAE 1874.

Department of State,
Washington, September 21, 1874.
Sir : Eeferring to your letter of the 5th of June last, requesting that
the diplomatic officers of the United States might be instructed to obtain
certain information in regard to the adjustment of war-claims by the
governments to which they are accredited, I have now the honor to
inclose, herewith, for your information, a copy of a dispatch of the 21st
ultimo, No. 281, and of its accompaniment, upon the subject, from Mr.
Peirce, minister resident of the United States to the Hawaiian Islands.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

JOHN L. CADWALADEE,

Acting Secretary.
Hon. William Lawrence,

Belief ontaine, Ohio.

Inclosure.

Mr. Peirce to Mr. Fish, August 21, 1874, No. 281, with an accompani-
ment.

[Inclosure.]

No. 281.] Legation of the United States of America,

Honolulu. August 21, 1874.

Sir : In reply to the inquiries propounded by the honorable J. C. B.
Davis, Acting Secretary of State, in his circular of date June 23, 1874,
in regard to the course pursued by the Hawaiian government in rela-
tion to the adjustment of claims presented against it, whether held by
its own subjects or by aliens, and as to the mode of procedure adopted
in the investigation of such claims, I have to inform you that the sub-
ject-matter was fully presented by me in a note, addressed to the min-
ister of foreign affairs ad interim, of date July 29, and inclosing a copy
of the schedule of inquiries referred to by Mr. Davis. The minister
requested the Hawaiian attorney-general to reply to the schedule of
inquiries. A copy of his answers the former has this moment sent to
me, and I herewith inclose the same as received, the immediate depart-
ure of the mail for San Francisco not permitting a copy to be taken by
the legation.

With great respect, y*>ur obedient servant,

HENEY A. PEIECE.

Hon. Hamilton Fish,

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

26 ALIEN CLAIMS.

[Inclosure.]

Copy uf His Hawaiian Majesty's attorney-general's reply to Mr. Davis's schedule of inquiries,
dated August 20, 1874; signed It. H. Stanley.

Honolulu, August 20, 1874.

Sir : The schedule of inquiries which I have the honor to receive at your hands has
received careful consideration, and I beg to submit my replies thereto.

First. Claims against the government may be investigated, determined, and, if
allowed, their payment directed and provided for by the legislature. Heretofore such
claims have been instituted in the courts of tho kingdom by the consent of the gov-
ernment.

Second. No mode of procedure is pointed out by the rules of the legislative assem-
bly; but should a claim against the government be presented to the legislature it
would be referred to either the finance or judiciary committee, and evidence would be
procured by the committee sending for persons, books and papers, as authorized by the
rules of the assembly.

Third. No provision is made for the examination and determination of claims by the
executive department. In the enforcement of claims by the executive department,
suit is brought in the courts of the kingdom and evidence procured by subpoana, depo-
sitions, and letters rogatory. There is no mode of procedure established for the inves-
tigation of claims by or before executive officers.

Fourth. The government cannot be sued without its consent, and it is expressly
provided that no suit can be instituted against the government unless by permission
of the king in privy council.

The privilege of maintaining an action against the government, i. e., with its consent,
extends to aliens.

Fifth. The status of aliens before the courts of this kingdom is the same as subjects,
and all aliens can maintain an action in such courts against citizens or subjects.

Sixth. In the adjudication of claims, the same rule applies to the government as to
individuals in regard to evidence, whether in law or equity side of the court ; and the
government has no privilege in relation to evidence in its behalf, and the same means
are used in procuring evidence as noted in third reply.

Seventh. In common-law actions, 'the plaintiff or defendant of record, or the real
plaintiff or defendant in interest, is not allowed to testify in his own behalf.

In bringing an action before the courts of this kingdom by non-resident aliens, it is
necessary that full power be given the attorney, the same to be acknowledged of before
an Hawaiian consul or a notary public ; if before a notary, then to be authenticated by
a consul for Hawaii.

Very respectfully submitted by your excellency's obedieut servant,

R. H. STANLEY,

Attorney-General.

His Excellency William L. Grekx,

His Hawaiian Majesty's Minister of Foreign Affairs ad interim, §~c.

Department of State,

Washington, December 12, 1874.
Sir : Referring to your letter of the 5th of June last, requesting that
the diplomatic representatives of the United States be instructed to
procure information respecting the mode of adjustment, &c, of the
claims of private persons against the governments to which they are
accredited, I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of the instruc-
tions and schedule of inquiries addressed to the several ministers of the
United States, and copies of all correspondence, together with the orig-
inal printed papers and books which have been received from them by
the Department in answer to those instructions, except a dispatch from
Mr. Peirce, the minister of the United States at Honolulu, of the 21st
of August, 1874, (No. 281,) a copy of which was sent to you with the
letter of this Department of the 21st of September last.
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

HAMILTON FISH.
Hon. William Lawrence,

Chairman of the Committee on War-Claims, House of Representatives.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 27

List of accompaniments.

1. Mr. Davis to United States ministers, June 23, 1874.

2. Mr. Jones to Mr. Fish, July 18, 1874, (two inclosures.)

3. Mr. Eublee to Mr. Fish, No. 177, August 1, 1874, (five inclosures.)

4. Mr. Delaplaine to Mr. Fish, No.' 773, August 3, 1874, (six inclos-
ures.)

5. Mr. Bober to Mr. Fish, No. 210, August 11, 1874, (two inclosures.)

6. Mr. Hoffman to Mr. Fish, No. 1018, August 13, 1874, (thirteen
inclosures.)

7. Mr. Wing to Mr. Fish, No. 410, August 13, 1874, (three inclosures.)

8. Mr. Gorham to Mr. Fish, No. 149, August 20, 1874, i(one inclosure.)

9. Mr. Scruggs to Mr. Fish, No. 56, August 27, 1874, (three inclosures.)

10. Mr. Turner to Mr. Fish, No. 147, September 11, 1874, (three in-

11. Mr. Williamson to Mr. Fish, No. 235, September 12, 1874, (one
inclosure.)

12. Mr. Eussell to Mr. Fish, No. 18, September 21, 1874, (three in-
closures.)

13. Mr. Andrews to Mr. Fish, No. 241, September 26, 1874, (four in-
closures.)

14. Mr. Davis to Mr. Fish, No. 18, September 28, 1874, (two inclosures.)

15. Mr. Marsh to Mr. Fish, No. 521, October 7, 1874, (two inclosures.)

16. General Schenck to Mr. Fish, No. 624, October 17, 1874, (four in-
closures.)

Department of State,

Washington, June 23, 1874.

Sir : For the purpose of facilitating the adjustment and determination
of claim s presented against the Govern ment of the United States, whether
held by its own citizens or by the subjects or citizens of foreign govern-
ments, and with a view of establishing, as far as may be practicable, a gen-
eral and uniform system and mode of procedure for the investigation and
determination of these classes of claims, the Department is desirous of
obtaining exact and trustworthy information in regard to the course

pursued by the government of in relation to the adjustment of

claims of a similar character against that government, and the mode of
procedure adopted in the investigation and determination of such
claims.

It is, therefore, desired that you will, at your earliest convenience,,
avail yourself of such opportunities as your position may afford to pro-
cure this information, and that you will also, with as little delay as the
nature of the required service will allow, transmit the result of your
inquires to the Department.

Accompanying this instruction is a list of inquiries, numbered from
1 to 7, inclusive, pointing more directly to the particular information
sought and the specific points upon which it is most desired. While it
is supposed these may aid you in your researches, it is not intended
either to limit your inquiries to these particular questions nor to confine
you to the manner thus indicated in obtaining the desired information.

It is especially desirable that the information be derived from the
most trustworthy and authentic sources, and that when it is based upon

28 ALIEN CLAIMS.

legislative enactments or public and general regulations by the execu-
tive departments, copies of such laws and published regulations should,
as far as practicable, accompany your report.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,

Inclosure.
Schedule of inquiries.

J. 0. B. DAVIS,

Acting Secretary.

[Inclosure.]

SCHEDULE OP INQUIRIES.

1st. Are claims against the government investigated, determined, and, if allowed,
their payment directed and provided for by the legislative branch of the Government ?

2d. If the legislative authority does entertain such claims, what is the mode of pro-
cedure, by committee or otherwise, and what means, if any, are provided for procuring
evidence on behalf of the government ?

3d. What provision, if any, is made for the examination and determination of claims
by the executive department ? What is the mode of procedure in the investigation
of claims by or before executive officers, and what means are provided for procuring
evidence on behalf of the government?

4th. Is there any provision of law allowing a citizen or subject to sue the Govern-
ment in the regularly-established courts, or in any special tribunal, and does the privi-
lege of maintaining an action against the Government (if it exists) extend to aliens ?

5th. What is the status of aliens before the regularly-established courts of the coun-
try ? Can they maintain an action in such courts against a citizen or subject, and, if
so, does the privilege extend to all aliens, or is it confined to resident aliens only ?

6th. If different systems of adjudication exist as regards different classes of claims,
what is the system with reference to each class, and what the mode of procedure, and
the privileges of the Government in relation to evidence in its behalf and the means
of procuring such evidence ?

7th. Add any. other information, general or special, of which you maybe possessed
bearing on the subject.

Mr. Jones to Mr. Fish.

London, July 18, 1874.
Sir : Just as I was leaving Brussels I received yours of the 23d June,
requesting information for the purpose of facilitating the adjustment
and determination of claims, &c. I gave Mr. Jottrand, pere, a memo-
randum of what I required, and he now sends me the inclosed. Mr. J.
is a lawyer of forty years' practice at Brussels ; has a son in congress,
and was himself a member of the first congress. I inclose his note to
me, by which it will be seen that I shall have to pay him 150 francs.

I must apologize for sending the document in its present form, but
am constantly on the go, and have deemed it better to send it now than
to retain it until my return, which I trust will be satisfactory.
Your obedient servant,

J. E. JONES.
Hon. Hamilton Fish,

Secretary of State.

[Inclosure No. 1.1

July 14, 1874.
My dear Mr. Jones : As I intend to start before long, in some journeying to enjoy
my holidays in the next recess of business in the courts of law, and everywhere gene-
rally, I have lost no time in satisfying to your demand. Here is my paper on the in-

ALIEN CLAIMS. 29

quiries wanted by you ; and I hope you will find them satisfactory for the use you
have to make of them. I dare recommend to you the mending of my broken English,
when used for your purpose.

The question of my fees is very difficult to be solved by me. I would not charge you
like an ordinary client ; that is to say, I must take in consideration the kind services
you have obliged me with, and owe to make a compensation for them. If you would
find fault in my charging you with 150 francs for fees, pray tell it me frankly, and I
will settle the matter according to your best judgment, after your and my return to
home in October next.

Faithfully, your friend,

L. JOTTRAND, PERE.

[Inolosnre No. 2.]

First. Are claims against the Belgian government investigated, determined, and, if
allowed, their payment directed and provided for by the legislative branch of the gov-
ernment ?

Claims against the Belgian government must be directed to the king, at Brussels, by
a request on stamped paper, of the size called grand papier in the law ; the cost of each
sheet being 1 franc 20 centimes. The language to be used is commonly the French —
albeit, according to article 23, of the Belgian constitution, both the Dutch (Flemish)
and German may be used also, at will.

The object of the .claim, its cause or origin, the facts and circumstances whereon es-
tablished must be exposed ; and the documents pertaining to the matter annexed, with
an inventory index or succinct description of them at the foot of the request ; the whole
to be deposited at the royal palace or sent thither by post, duly franked, under the plain
subscription, An Eoi a Bruxelles.

On receiving such request, the King taking or not taking knowledge of it, as the
case may be, the chief secretary of the King's cabinet causes a summary examination
of the matter to be made by a clerk, in order to know the ministerial department to
which the matter may be related — foreign'affairs, interior, justice, public works, finances,
or war — the request is sent from the King's cabinet to the competent department
in the six. The claimant is made aware of it by a cabinet dispatch ; and from that
time he must apply for his claim directly to that department under address of the min-
ister, or by calling on him or the chief clerk intrusted with the matter. The depart-
ment investigates the case, determines on it ; and, the claim being found just and al-
lowable, the minister orders the payment on the special chapter of his department's
budget which the matter is related to, and causes a bond for payment to be delivered.
This bond, called a mandat depaiement, is submitted to the Belgian court of public ac-
counts, la cour des comptes, at Brussels, which verities of the chapter of the budget de-
signed is the one properly charged with the expense whereof question ; and, if so found,
puts on the mandat a visa authorizing payment ; and this takes place then at the treas-
ury public (the national bank at Brussels or anywhere at its delegates in the provinces)
on show of the paper.

If no chapter of the said ministerial department's budget, in run for the year, can
be charged with the expense ; or if that chapter is already exhausted by previous pay-
ments, or if the court of public accounts does not agree with the minister on the ques-
tion that such or such chapter is the proper one to be charged with the payment, the
ministerial department would propose, in the next budget, an allocation for the pay-
ment. But the legislative authority may then debate the question, " Is the payment
to be allowed, yea or nay ? " The competent minister would, of course, sustain his
proposition, the claimant at leisure to petition to the legislative power, in the house of
representatives and in the senate, successively, in order to make his rights evident.
The said claimant could get representatives or senators to his party, the public press
being called, too, in the discussion. The matter then publicly debated, in both houses
of representatives and senators, like all matters in the budget, would succeed or not,
in the sense of the claim. If succeeding, the payment would take place in the way as
aforesaid ; if not, the claim would drop and be set aside. But in such case yet, like in
case of rejection of the claim by the minister at the beginning, the claimant would be
admitted to bring the matter in the regular courts of law, by a suit for his rights against
the government ; because he could not be debarred in his claim otherwise than by sen-
tence of regular justice, the legislative authority, no more than the ministerial or gov-
ernmental one, being competent to decide definitely in matters of civil obligations be-
tween particulars and government anymore than between particulars and particulars,
as such. Indeed the Belgian constitution provides, in its article 92, " Contestations
having for their objects civil rights, are exclusively under the comjietence of the
courts of law."
If a claim against the government, on a question of mine or thine, is proved good in

•30 ALIEN CLAIMS.

the couits of law, it must be settled by the public budget of the proper ministerial de-
partment ; and nobody in the legislative nor administrative authorities has power to
the contrary.

Second. If the legislative authority, does entertain such claims, what is the mode of
procedure, by committee or otherwise, and what means, if any, are provided for pro-
curing evidence on behalf of the government ?

From what has been said hereabove, it follows that no claims of particulars in mat-
ter of obligations can be brought directly before the legislature ; and, consequently, no
procedure, by committee or otherwise, can be kept. In case of discussion in the legis-
lature, between the ministers and the houses, about matters to be brought or not in
the budget, and related to particular interests which a minister admits to be claimable
-on his department, and the legislature would not allow, the debate takes place on the
documents only procured by the party interested, and which the minister himself has
admitted as doing sufficiently. The debaters in both the legislative houses do object
•only from these documents. No further evidence is offered ; no investigation by iu-
-quiry before committee or otherwise may happen. If the credit asked by the minister
is allowed, the minister will pay the claim ; if not, the minister will not pay, and the
matter may then be brought by the claimant before the courts of law, with the conse-
quences aforesaid.

3d. What provision, if any, is made for the examination and determination of claims
by the executive department ? What is the mode of procedure in the investigation of
■claims by or before executive officers, and what means are provided tor procuring evi-
dence on behalf of the Government 1

As it has been seen, all debatable matter between a claimant and the government,
like debatable matter between particulars, must be brought before the courts of law,
and settled thither only. Thus, it cannot happen that a discussion whatever takes
place between a claimant and the government to be settled by way of a procedure be-
fore the government itself, and its officers. The claimant must make his claim good,
from the beginning, by documents satisfactory to the government. It may happen
that, in the investigation of the documents, the government would require from the
claimant more documents than those furnished in the beginning, and determine that
such or such documents are wanted, and may, perhaps be procured ; which the claim-
ant is at leasure to do, in a certain time allowed to him therefor. But the government
will at the end settle the matter according to the documents procured. If the claim
is allowed, the payment takes place, as said here above ; if rejected, the matter drops
there ; and the courts of law are the only recourse for the claimant.

4th. Is there any provision of law allowing a citizen or subject to sue the govern-
ment in the regularly-established courts, or in any special tribunal ; and does the
privilege of maintaining an action against the Government, if it exists, extend to
.aliens?

Perfectly. According to article 92 of the Belgian constitution, already quoted, the
regular courts of law are the judges exclusive in all questions of mine or thine between
all kinds of litigants. During the French domination Belgium had what the French
call la jurisdiction administrative, le contentieux administralif, which they yet enjoy. In
suits between the particulars and the government, their conseil d'e"tat is the judge.
The Belgian have no conseil d'etat, no more than the American of the United States.
After the French domination Belgium had the Dutch one, during about fifteen years,
in the beginning of which no contentieux administralif, no jurisdiction administrative
existed. But, at the end of his reign, the king, William First of Orange, endeavored to
establish that detested jurisdiction again, and had a conseil d'etat for judging the con-
tentieux administratis of his own arbitrary reinstallment. This was, in 1830, not the
least of the griefs of the Belgian against William's government ; and caused, for a large
,part, the eversion of that government, by the Belgian revolution of that epoch. Under
the Belgian national institutions before the French and Dutch domination in their
•country, it was a rule that Brabancons, Flemish, Liegeois, etc., could not be governed
•otherwise than par droit et sentences des tribunaux. The rule was re-established by the
Belgian constitution of February, 1831, in article 92 aforesaid. The regularly-estab-
lished courts are the judges in all suits, as well between particulars and government
as between citizen and citizen. No special tribunal does exist ; and the right and by
no means the privilege of maintaining an action against the government in the ordi-
nary courts of law extends to aliens, by force of this other article of the Belgian con-
stitution, article 128, which provides that an alien being on Belgian ground enjoys the
benefit of the Belgian laws, (1.) The Belgian civil code provides further, article 15,
that a Belgian may be sued before a Belgian court of law for obligations contracted in
Belgium, or abroad, with an alien, (2.)

5th. What is the status of aliens before the regularly-established courts of the coun-
try ? Can they maintain an action in such courts against a citizen or subject ; and, it
.•so, does the privilege extend to all aliens, or is it confined to resident aliens only ?

ALIEN CLAIMS. 31

The above quoted articles answer tlie question. An alien not resident in Belgium
■can sue a Belgian before Belgian courts, like an alien resident, who has nevertheless a
peculiar privilege ; that is, to sue a Belgian without procuring the cautio judicature
solvi, whereof question in article 16 of the civil code, as here (3) mentioned.

6th. If different systems of adjudication exist as regards different classes of claims,
what is the system with reference to each class, and what the mode of procedure and
the privilege of the government in relation to evidence on its behalf, and the means of
procuring such evidence ?

The claims may properly be divided in three classes, according to civil rights in mat-
ter of obligations.

A. Eights peculiarly civil, resulting of civil contracts or obligations, as, selling and
buying; borrowing and lending, (in matters non-commercial ; ) leasing, and taking
in lease, houses, lands, furniture, etc. ; wills in matter of succession and heirs, and the
like.

B. Eights related to contracts or obligations in commercial matters ; matters of soci-
eties or partnerships for commercial enterprises ; matters of commercial navigations,
and the like.

C. Damages to be recovered in consequence of crimes, misdemeanors, or delinquen-
cies of all kind in penal law, (droit ptnal.)

In the first class, and in suits for a value above 150 francs, no evidence whatever is
admitted, nor for the claimant, nor for the defendant, which is not by written deeds or
•documents. Verbal testimony is not allowed. Every action must be preceded, (ex-
cepting the cases of great urgency,) by an experience to be made before a magistrate
•called juge de paix, in order to know if the to-be plaintiff and the to-be defendant could
not be conciliated about the matter to sue for. That experience does not take place in
suits where minors, lunatics, partners above two in number, government, and all kind
of public establishment are concerned. An alien suitor must furnish cautio judicatum
solvi, as said before ; and would get no hearing by the court, without the deposit of
cash in the hands of a public officer thereto appointed, for a value to fix by the court,
when thus required by the defendant.

In the second class, all kind of evidence, by verbal testimony, pro and con, can be
admitted ; no preliminary experience for conciliation is wanted ; no cautio judicatum solvi
is required. The procedure is summary ; at less expenses than in the first class ; and
the parties may plead their cases themselves, without attorneys or barristers, who are
indispensable in the first class.

In the third class the damages may be recovered before the court judging the delin-
quent for his detect, and by a summary procedure peculiar to the criminal courts
which it seems useless to explain here.

The government has no privilege in relation to evidence in its behalf; the procedure
■ s quite the same for itself and the private suitor.

7th. Add any other information, general or Bpecial of which you may be possessed,
bearing on the subject.

As a general information, it can be said that the fees of attorneys and barristers are
less than in England and the United States; except in the second and the third classes
aforesaid the suits can be protracted long enough, in civil matters properly sued ;
longer than in France, but not so long, as one is generally told, as in England and
the United States of America.

It is now question to abridge the law-suits by a reform in the laws of procedure ; but
the legislative authority has not yet been seized with the intended prospect of law,
thereabout.

Mr. BuUee to Mr. Fish.

No 177.] Legation of the United States,

Berne, August 1, 1874. (Keceived August 28.)
Sir: Upon receipt of the dispatch, not numbered, of Mr. J. C. B.
Davis, Actiug Secretary of State, dated June 23, 1874, asking me to
■obtain and transmit to the Department of State, exact and trustworthy
information respecting the course pursued by the government of Switz-
«rland relative to the adjustment of claims against that government,
and the mode of procedure adopted in regard to the investigation and
•determination of such claims, I addressed a note to the President of the

32 ALIEN CLAIMS.

confederation, inclosing with it a copy of the series of questions accom-
panying the aforesaid dispatch.

Copies of this note, and of the response of the President thereto, with
copies of the federal constitution of Switzerland, aDd of such laws of
Switzerland as relate to the adjustment of claims against the govern-
ment, are herewith inclosed.

The note of the President with the accompanying documents, will
be found to contain the information desired.
I have, &c,

HOHACE EUBLEE.

["Enclosure 1 in No. 177.]

Mr. Bublee to the President of the Swiss Confederation.

Legation of the United States,

Berne, July 13, 1874.

The undersigned, minister resident of the United States, has been requested by his
Government to obtain as full information as possible in regard to the course pursued
by the government of Switzerland in regard to the adjustment of claims presented
against it, whether held by its own citizens or by the citizens of other states, and
the mode of procedure adopted in the investigation and determination of such claims.

This information is desired in view of the circumstance that the Government of the
United States is contemplating a revision of its regulations regarding such claims,
with the object of establishing a uniform system and mode of procedure.

The undersigned, in order to obtain exact and trustworthy information upon the
subject in question, incloses herewith a series of inquiries, and respectfully asks that
your excellency will be pleased to cause the same to be referred to the appropriate
department, and the answers thereto to be prepared and transmitted to the under-
signed at the earliest convenient period.

The undersigned, &c.

HOEACE EUBLEE.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 177. — Translation.]
Tlie High Federal Council to Mr. Bublee.

Berne, July 29, 1874.

The federal council has received a note of the 13th instant from the minister resident
of the United States, in which he asks, in the name of his Government, information
concerning the modes of procedure of the federal government in cases of claims, either
on the part of its own citizens or of the refugees from other States.

The federal council is obliged to infer from the contents of this note, and the ques-
tions subjoined to it, that the subject is not of collisions of public rights but of ques-
tion of civil rights. It is, then, starting from this point of view, that it has the honor
to reply to the questions propounded to it.

In this instance it will commence by calling to mind that, as was the case under the
regime of the federal constitution of 1848, so the new federal constitution of 29th May,
1874, and the federal law concerning the federal judiciary of 27th June, 1874, have
applied rigorously the principle of the division of power for claims of civil rights
brought up by the confederation, or against it. It follows from this that neither legis-
lative nor executive authority are competent to pronounce on claims of this kind, only
the competent tribunals, which have the prerogative of pronouncing upon the text of
the laws and the principles of right generally obligatory, and that without calling in
question the constitutionality of these laws.

Concerning the question, Which are the competent tribunals? it is necessary to cite
the following cases :

1. Questions of civil right between the confederation (or a special branch of its ad-
ministration) and one or more of the cantons.

All proceedings of this kind, whether the confederation or an administration be
plaintiff or defendant, whether the question is a personal claim or a real suit and
whatever may be the value of the disputed objects, must be brought before the federal
tribunal. (Article 110, No. 1, of the federal constitution, and article 27 of the federal
law on the organization of the federal judiciary, of 27th Juue, 1874.)

2. The civil suit between the confederation or a federal administration and a corpo-
ration or an individual.

Suits of this category appeal also to the federal tribunal, provided always that the

ALIEN CLAIMS. 33

corporation or the individual are the plaintiffs and that the object under litigation is
worth at least 3,000 francs. (Article 110, No. 2, of the federal constitution, and article
27 of the aforementioned federal law.)

On the contrary, in a suit where the confederation or one of its administrations is'
plaintiff, or if the value of the object under litigation is less than 3,000 francs, it is
necessary to observe — a, if the object of litigation concerns a personal claim ; or, i, if
it is of real nature.

Ad. a, A suit of this kind must be brought by the plaintiff (corporation or individ-
ual) according to the tenor of article 59 of the federal constitution, before the proper
tribunal of the canton in which the administration of the confederation sued or held to
account has its legal seat.

In a contrary case, when an administration of the confederation is the plaintiff, the
suit should, according to the tenor of article 59 of the federal constitution, be brought
before the competent tribunal of the canton in which the defendant (corporation or
individual) lives.

Ad. 6. A real suit should, in the two cases mentioned under a, be opened before the
tribunal for the place in which the object of the suit is situated.

The federal council believes thus far to have answered questions I, II, and III.

IV. Concerning the question of knowing if it is admissible for a citizen to bring suit
against the federal constitution, directly or indirectly, by a special branch of admin-
istration, it must reply in the affirmative. This case is also provided for by article 110
of the federal constitution. As regards foreigners, Switzerland has concluded with
several states treaties of settlement which assure to the refugees of these states the
same rights as those due to Swiss citizens, so that they also may be treated upon the same
footing as the latter in the mode of procedure.

Refugees from other states may also plead, before the competent tribunal, their cause
against the confederation, but in that case they are usually obliged to give bail suffi-
cient to indemnify the cost of proceedings.

Generally, it is admitted, in Switzerland as a principle, that a foreigner, as such, can-
not be excluded from the right of pleading, but that he can plead his cause, before the
proper tribunal, toward all individuals living on Swiss territory, and this, whether
the foreigner plaintiff live in the country or no.

VI. It makes no difference in the proceedings (except the contingent fees.) The
federal law of 22d November, 1850, on the course to be followed before the federal tri-
bunal in civil cases makes the rule, and in the cantons it is the special laws on the civil
suit.

The government has no privilege as to means ; it is assimilated to all other parties to
the suit.

VII. To conclude the observations, the federal council has' the honor to transmit,
subjoined, to the minister resident of the United States, the new federal constitution
of the 29th May, 1874, the federal law on the organization of the judiciary, of the
27th June, 1874, and the provisional federal law of the 22d November, 1850, on the
course to be followed before the federal tribunal in civil suits, which went into force
definitely on the 13th July, 1855.

I seize, &c.

In the name of the federal Swiss council. For the president of the confederation.

(Signed) CERESOLE.

The chancellor of the confederation,

(Signed) • SCHISSS.

[Inclosure 3 in No. 177.]
Loi federate provisoire sur la procedure a suivre par devanl le Tribunal federal en matiere civile.

L' ASSEMBLES FEDERALE DE LA CONFEDERATION SUISSE :

En execution de l'art. 107 de la Constitution fe'de'rale

Dans le but de fixer legalement la procedure a suivre par devant le Tribunal fe'de'ral
pour les contestations civiles, 'conformcSment a l'art. 87 de la loi du 5 juin 1849 sur
l'organisation judiciare fe'de'rale (Voir le nouveau Recueil officiel I, page 65) ;

Vu le projet pre'sente' par le Conseil federal, n

DECRETE :

DISPOSITIONS GENERALES.

CHAPITRE PREMIER. — FOSTCTIONS DES JUGES.

Article premier. Les dispositions de la pre'sente loi relatives aux tribunanx eux-
m£ines doivent etre suiviesautant que possible par les presidents des tribunaux et les
juges d'instruction, lorsqu'ils agissent isolement.

H. Eep. 134 3

34 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Art. 2. Le tribunal ne doit pas prendre en consideration les faits qui ne sont pas
mentionnes dans les actes; cependant, lorsqne les exposes ou les ecritures des parties
sont incomplets, vagues ou confus, il peut d'office prendre les mesures ue"cessaires pour
qu'il y soit porte" remede.

Art. 3. Le droit fe"d£ral est applique" d'office par le tribunal.

Les principes de droit autres, cantonanx ou locaux dont les parties veulent faire e"tat
doivent §tre indiques par elles ; au besoiu elles doivent en justifier.

Art. 4. Le tribuual ne doit aecorder a une partie ni plus ui autre chose que ce qu'elle
a demand^, ni moins que ce que sa partie adverse a reconnu devoir.

Chapitre II.— Des parties.
I. — Capacity pour introduire des actions juridlquea.

Art. 5. Tout personne capable d'agir civilement peut faire valoir ses droits devant
le tribunal fe"d6ral soit comme demandeur soit comine deTendeur.

II. — Dibat colleclif.

Art. 6. Les personnes qui onfc en commun un droit ou une obligation ou dont le droit
ou Fobligation depend d'un seul etme'me acte juridique peuvent se porter conjointement
demandeurs ou de"fendeurs.

Art. 7. Chacune des parties peut suivre au proces (§ 147) inde"peridamment des
autres, pourvu qu'elle ne soit pas lie"e par des engagements juridiques particuliers.
Cependant elles doivent agir ensemble pour ce qu'elles ont de commun dans la demande
et dans la defense. (Art. 53.)

Art. 8. Le deTendeur (ou les de"fendeurs) ue peut tirer une fin denon-recevoirde ce
que la demande n'est pas formee au nom de tous ceux qui etaient en droit de la faire,
ou lorsque tous les co-obliges ne sont pas mis en cause ; mais dans ce cas le juge doit,
lors du prononc6 du jugement. ou partager l'objet en litige, ou, si cela n'est pas possi-
ble, ajouter au jngement une reserve en faveur du de'fendeur ou enfin suivant les
circonstances repousser momentanement la demande.

Le demandeur peut dans ces circonstances mettre subseqnemment en cause les
co-oblige"s que lui de'sigue le d^fendeur. S'il en est ainsi ou s'il re"ussit a decider d'autres
personnes, fondees en droit, a s'associer subs6quemment a la demande, la procedure
doit etre irnme"diatement continued, comme si toutes ces personnes avaient e"te" mises
en cause des le commencement du proces.

III. Participation d'un tiers au proces.

A. — D6nonciation d'instance.

Art. 9. Celui qui veut exercer nn recours contre un tiers, en cas de condamnation,
peut lui donner connaissance du proces par 1'entremise du juge en indiquant preable-
ment les motifs du recours en garantie et en laissant le tiers libre de prendre part au
proces pour le soutenir.

Art. 10. Des le moment oil l'instancee a <5te" diSnoncee, le tiers de'nonce" doit etre mis en
e"tat de faire valoir tous ses moyens en faveur du d6noncant pour la demande ou pour
la defense, et recevoir a cet eff'et communication de toutes les deniandes et autres pieces
iuridiques. Cette disposition n'est pas applicable lorsque le tiers de'nonce" a formelle-
ment refuse" de prendre part au proces.

Les frais occasionnes sont supported provisoirement par le de"noncant.

Art. 11. Le denoncant peut, lorsqu'il ne veut pas accepter ou coutinuer le proces, en
donner connaissance au d^nonee" et lui faire fixer par le juge un delai pour declarer s'il
veut egaleinent renoncer au proces ou le poursuivre a ses risques et perils.

Le denonce" ne doit point etre consid^re" comme partie ou comme partie joiute au
diSnoncant, par cela nieme qu'il continue le proces mais seulement comme remplacant
le d(5noncant.

Le jugement est prononce", dans l'affaire principale, nominativement coutre le denon-
cant, et le de'nonce" doit seulement acquitter les amendes disciplinaires auxquelles il a
ete" condamnd ainsi que les frais et d6pens causes par lni.

Art. 12. Le de'nonce" peut d6noncer a son tour, conforine"ment a l'art. 9, une autre
personne qu'il veut appeler en garantie.

Art. 13. Toute personne menaced de la possibilite" d'un recours peut spontane"ment
offrir son intervention a la partie inte"ress6e. Si son offre est accepted elle doit etre
considered, comme la personne a qui le proces a e"te" de'nonce.

Art. 14. L'intervention au proces n'equivaut point a la reconnaissance de Fobliga-
tion d'indemniser soit que cette intervention ait lieu apres (art. 9) ou sans (art. 13) in-
vitation prealable.

Art. 15. Les rapports qui peuvent exister entre le denoncant et le denonce" ne doivent
point faire le sujet de la deliberation ou du jugement, sauf dans le cas ou la partie
adverse du denoncant contesterait au denonce" le droit d'interveuir au proces.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 35

B. — Intervention accessoire.

Art. 16. Un tiers dont le droit ou l'obligation, depend de l'affaire en litige peut en
tout etat de cause s'assooier a la partie que cela concerne. II doit cependant prendre le
proces dans l'etat ou il le trouve. II devient en r^alite" par la partie jointe (art. 7) a
celui qu'il soutient.

C. — Intervention principale.

Art. 17. Un tiers qui oroit avoir sur l'objet litigieux un droit superieur, excluant
totalement ou partiellement les deux parties, ne peut intervenir dans le proces, niais il
est libre d'in tenter egalement une action.

Art. 18. Le tribunal peut, selon qu'il le juge convenable, ordouner que les deux
affaires soient menses s6par6ment jusqn'a la fin de la procedure principale ou simultane"-
ment. En tout cas un seul et meuae jugement doit statner sur les deux demandes.

Art. 19. Les contestations sur la question de savoir siet comment un tiers peut pren-
dre part au proces, soit par une intervention principale, soit par une intervention,
accessoire, sont jugees pendant la procedure pre"paratoire par le juge d'iustruction et
plus tard par le tribunal lui-m§me.

IV. — Droits et devoirs den parties.

Art. 20. Les parties peuveut en tout temps consulter les proces- verbaux et les actes.
Des copies leur sont d^livrees sur leur demande et moyennaut finance.

Tout e"crit pr6sente" au tribunal ainsi que toute ordonance judicaire doit £tre com-
munique' sans delai aux deux parties.

Ces communications ont lieu d'apres le mode prescrit pour la communication des
citations. (Art. 56-58.)

Art. 21. Les parties doivent avoir une e"gale faculte" de prendre part a toutes les de-
liberations.

Art. 22. Les parties doivent observer dans leurs exposed le respect du aux j uges et
manager leur adversaire et les tiers autaut que la defense de leur propre droit le per-
met. Celui qui viole cette prescription ou qui nie ou denature malicieusement la verite,
ou qui attaque son adversaire d'une maniere inconvenante, ou qui traine mechamment
le proces en longueur, est possible d'une peine disciplinaire, a teneur de l'art. 76 de la
loi sur l'organisation judiciaire fe"derale.

Art. 23. Chaque partie doit avancer le montant des frais occasionne"s par ses actes et
toutes deux ensemble la valeur des frais causes par des propositions communes ou par
les actes faits d'office par le tribunal.

Les parties y sont invitees sous peine d'omission de l'acte dont les frais doivent etre
couverts et au detriment de la partie qui devait faire l'avance.

Art. 24. La partie qui succombe est tenue de rembourser a la partie adverse tous lea
frais occasionne's par le proces.

Les frais sont rlpartis proportionnellement lorsque le jugement n'est pas exclusive-
ment en faveur de l'une des parties ou lorsqu'une partie a restreint elle-m§me sa de-
mande primitive.

Art. 25. Chacune des parties, avant le commencement de la procedure definitive
(art. 170 et suiv.) remet au president du tribunal et a sou adversaire une note des frais
aussi detailie que possible avec les pieces a l'appui. La question des frais est traitee
et jugee en merae temps que la question principale.

Art. 26. Le demandeur qui n'a pas de domicile fixe dans la Confederation ou qui est
. dans un etat d'iusolvabilite notoire peut, pendant tout le cours du proces, §tre souime
de donner des suretes, par consignation de la somnie, par gages ou cautions, soit pour
le montant des emoluments du tribunal, soit aussi, sur la demande du defendeur, pour
les frais du proces. L'autorite qui a prononce la sommation, que ce soit le president
du tribunal ou le juge d'iustruction (art. 95), est juge de la validite de ces suretes.

La procedure est suspendue jusqu'a ce que le demandeur ait satisfait a la som-
mation.

Art. 27. Le tribunal peut accorder le benefice du pauvre aux personnes qui pronvent
qu'elles sont trop pauvres pour pouvoir acquitterles frais du proces. Ces personnes
sont liberees de l'obligation de fournir caution (art. 26) et les frais do justice leur sont
remis, en tout on en partie, qu'ils soient dus a la caisse federale, ou a un fonctiounaire
ou employe de la Confederation.

Le tribunal peut refuser le benefice dn pauvre, lorsqu'il ressort de l'expose des faits
joints a la demande que le proces est sans aucun fondement et fait a plaisir.

Les personnes qui out joui du benefice du pauvre sont tenues de rembourser les frais
dont il leur a ete fait remise, lorsqu'elles se trouvent plus tard en etat de le faire.

Chapitrb III. — Des persoknes adjointes aux parties.

Art. 28. Toute personne" capable d'agir civilement peut diriger elle-m^me son procea
ou se faire representer par une personne capable d'agir civilement.

36 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Akt. 29. Le m6me droit appartient aux personnes, telles que tuteurs, conseils, cura-
teurs, qui sont suffisamment autorisees d'apres les lois de leur canton, & demander et k
defendre en justice pour d'autres personnes.

Art. 30. Les personnes charge'es d'un proces au nom d'une autorite d'une corpora-
tion, on d'une societe peuvent egalement se faire repr^senter par un mandataire.

Art. 31. Plusieurs personnes ne peuvent dans un seul et meme debat prendre la
parole au nom d'nne seule et meme partie.

Art. 32. Celui qui veut faire pour autrui des actes juridiques doit justifier de sa
quality par une procuration ecrite.

Art. 33. La procuration doit contenir nne designation suffisante des parties, du man-
dataire, du sujet du proces, du temps et du lieu ou elle est faite, et la signature propre
du mandant. Si celni-ci ne sait pas ecrire, la declaration de sa volonte doit etre con-
statue par un acte authentique.

Art. 34. L'authentieite de la signature doit etre certifiee conformgment aux disposi-
tions des lois de l'endroit. II doit y etre joint, comme attestant 1' execution legale de
cette formality, legalisation de la Cnancellerie d'Etat du canton, ou,lorsque la pro-
curation est faite a Fetranger, la legalisation d'une autorite administrative superieure
du pays. Lorsque le mandant n'est lui-mSme que mandataire d'une per6onne inca-
pable d'agir civileinent, d'une societe, ou d'une personne morale, la legalisation doit
contenir la declaration que le mandant est autorise d'apres les lois du pays a intenter
ou a soutenir le proces pour la partie qui fait ou soutient reelleraent le proces.

Art. 35. Le mandataire d'un canton est accretlite par le gouvernement cantonal, le-
mandataire de la Confederation par le Conseil federal. Les procurations sont expe-
diees sous le sceau de l'autorite respective et signees par le president et le secretaire
d'icelle..

Art. 36. Pendant tout le conrs du proces, la partie adverse peut exiger ou le juge
ordonner d'office la production ou la rectification de la procuration.

Art. 37. Une procuration produite posterieurement doit, dans le doute, etre consi-
deree coiume une approbation des actes deja faits dans l'affaire par le mandataire.

Art. 38. Une procuration generale pour conduire un proces autorise le fonde
de pouvoirs a faire tous les actes qui ont pour but la solution de l'affaire par voie
juridique ; elle ne l'autorise point a signer un aeeommodemeut, a accepter un tribunal
arbitral, a modifier la demande (art. 47) a se desister de la demande ou a recevoir des
paiements.

Art. 39. Le mandataire ne peut transmettre la procuration, a moins que le droit de
substitution ne lui soit formellement accorde.

Art. 40. Les actes et omissions du mandataire obligent le mandant comme s'ils avai-
ent ete faits par le mandant lui-meme.

Les peines disciplinaires enconrues par le mandataire l'atteignent seul.

Chapitre IV. — Pjrincipes generatjx de la procedure.

I. — Interdiction de provocation a former une demande.

Art. 41. Nnl ne peut etre force a faire valoir contre sa volonte ou plutot qu'il ne veut,
le droit reel ou probable qu'il possede.

II. — Cumulation de demandes.

Art. 42. Le demandeur ou le defendeur peut simultanement et dans la meme proce-
dure faire valoir plusieurs demandes contre le memo adversaire, pourvu toutefois que
le tribunal soit competent a regard de chacune d'elles.

Art. 43. Lorsque plusieurs personnes ne sont pas parties a un seul et mSme proces
(art. 6), ces personnes peuvent cependant, par exception et dans le but de diminuer les
frais, se porter ensemble comme demandeurs ou defendeurs an proces, si leurs demandes
ou les demandes adverses se fondent sur le meme fait et que les motifs de droit soient
les memes.

Est reserv6e la disposition de la loi sur les heimathloses (art. 9) qui deroge au present
article.

Art. 44. Dans les deux cas mentionnes aux art. 42 et 43 le tribunal peut pour des
raisons speciales, ordonner en tout etat de cause, d'office ou sur la demande d'une des
parties la disjonction du proces.

III. — Production simultane'e des moyens de la demande et de la defense.

Art. 45. Tous les moyens a l'appui de la demande ou de la defense doivent etre pre-
sentes d'une seule fois. Les moyens qui n'ont pas ete presentes ne peuvent plus etre
produits posterieurement a moins que la loi ne permette une exception.

IV. — Modification de la plainte.

Art. 46. Les parties ne peuvent modifier posterieurement 'au detriment de leur ad-
versaire, le contenu de leurs exposes, quant a ce qui concerne les faits. Elles sont liees

ALIEN CLAIMS. / 37

& la demande telle qu'elle a ete formulae primitivement. Celle-oi peut cependant, en
tout temps etre restreinte ou rectifiee dans leB fautes d'ecriture ou de caloul seulement.

Art. 47. Cbacune des parties pent pendant le cours du proces, et tant que la proce-
dure prinoipale n'a pas ete close declarer une fois la reforme.

Art. 48. La reforme aneantit toute la procedure jusqu'au point indique' par la partie
qui la reclame.

Cependant la reforme laisse intactes les parties suivantes du proces :

a. Les compromis couclus par les parties ;

b. Le serruent d<5fere ou i6f6i6 en tant que la partie adverse s'est d^claree prete a
l'accepter ;

c. Les declarations faites sous sermeut par les parties ;

d. Les depositions des temoins et les rapports d'experts.

Art. 49. Celui qui declare la reforme doit, dans un deiai fix6 par le juge rembourser
a son adversaire les frais de la procedure mise a neant et commencer la nouvelle proce-
dure ; dans le cas contraire la reforme resbe sans effets.

Le juge destruction se fait presenter la note des frais avec les pieces necessaires et
decide des contestations qui pourraient s'61ever a ce sujet, apres avoir enteudu les deux
parties et sous reserve de Faction en reclamation (art. 173j.

V. — De la fixation du temps dans le proces.

Art. 50. Les parties doivent proceder aux actes qui leur incombent a un jour fixe ou
dans un deiai determine.

A. — Jours fixes.

Art. 51. Le juge pronouce d'office ou sur la demande d'une. partie la citation a com-
paraltre a jour fixe.

Les parties presentes a l'audience du tribunal peuvent etre assignees oralement pour
la seance suivante. Le protocole du tribunal fait preuve de cette citation.

Tonte citatfon qui n'est pas faite a l'audience du tribunal doit etre faite par ecrit.

Art. 52. La citation doit indiqner d'une maniere exacte l'autorite judiciaire, les
parties, la procedure a faire, l'epoque et le lieu de la comparution, les consequences
du defaut ; la citation par ecrit doit en outre etre datee et signee par le secretaire de
l'autorite judiciaire dont elle emane.

Art. 53. La citation est adressee a la partie elle-m£me ou a son mandataire.
. Lorsqu'il y a plusieurs personnes en cause, ces personnes doivent designer un man-
dataire commun auquel toutes les citations et communications sont valablement
remises ; toute personne demeurant hors de la Confederation doit designer dans le
m6me but un mandataire residant en Suisse.

Art. 54. Tout chaugement de domicile, soit des parties, soit de leurs mandataires,
pendant le cours du proces, doit etre iinmediatement porte a la connaissance du juge.

Art. 55. Toute violation des deux articles qui precedent est passible d'une amende
disciplinaire (art. 76 de la loi sur l'organisation judiciaire federale) et peut entralner,
suivant les cas, une condamnation en dommages et interets envers la partie adverse ou
envers la caisse federale en reparation du prejudice cause. Cette disposition n'exclut
point les autres consequences auxquelles les contrevenants sont exposes d'apres la
presente loi.

Art. 56. Les citations sont remises en deux doubles a la poste-, qui remet l'un au des-
tinataire et retourne l'autre a l'autorite judiciaire.

Le Conseil federal est autorise a publier, si cela est necessaire, un reglement relatif
aux citations.

Art. 57. Lorsque la citation n'est pas acceptee ou que la siguature du double est refu-
see, le juge invite l'autorite cantonale competente a proceder a la citation conforme-
ment aux lois du lieu.

Ce refus, non-justifie, entralne outre les frais une amende disciplinaire de 20 francs.

Art. 58. Les citations qui, pour un motif quelconque, ne peuvent 6tre transmises a
la personne qu'elles concerneut, doivent etre inseiees dans la Feuille federale, dans la
Eeuille offlcielle dn canton respectif et dans deux autres feuilles publiques designees
par l'autorite judiciaire. Les citations doivent en outre, lorsque cela est possible, 6tre
afficbees dans la commune d'origine du cite et dans la commune ou il a demeure en
dernier lieu.

Art. 59. La citation n'est pas valable si la personne cite n'a pas pour y satisfaire un
deiai de buit jours a dater de la reception, ou d'un mois a dater de la derniere publi-
cation de la citation publique (art. 58). j

Art. 60. Le jour fixe dure depuis le moment fixe par la citation jusqu'a celui oil le
juge leve la seance.

Art. 61. La partie valablement citee qui ne coraparalt pas a l'appel au jour fixe est
passible d'une amende disciplinaire. Elle peut cependant comparaltre posterieurement
tant que la seance n'a pas ete lev6e.

Art. 62. Si les deux parties ne comparaissent pas au jour fixe, le juge doit les con-

38 ^ ALIEN CLAIMS.

damner a des dommages et interets en vers la caisse federate pour le prejudice cause' et
fixer un nouveau jour de comparution, excepts dans le cas ou elles auraient conclu un
acconmiodeinent et qu'elles l'auraient annonce au plus tard au jour fixe. Si l'une des
parties seule est absente, la partie qui couiparatt peut proce'der a tous les actes qui lui
inconibent et faire declarer forfaits, par le juge, tous les actes que sa partie adverse
aurait ete en droit de faire.

B. — Des deiais.

Art. 63. Les deiais sont fixes par la loi ou par le juge (deiais 16gaux ou judiciaireB)..

Art. 64. Dans le calcul des deiais 16gaux, le mois est compte pour trente jours, et le
jour de l'evenement a partir duquel le delai court n'est pas compte.

Au dernier jour du deiai ilpeut etre proce'de' a l'acte dontil s'agit, jusqu'a six heures
du soir.

1 Art. 65. Les deiais legaux ne peuvent etre prolong^ que du commun accord des par-
ties. Celui qui les laisse expirer perd le dibit dont l'exercice etait attache par la loi a
ces deiais menies.

Art. 66. Les deiais judiciaires sont fixes par Vindication du temps auquel ils ex-
pirent. Lorsque le dernier jour et nou l'heure est indique, il y a lieu a appliquer la
disposition de l'art. 64 deuxifeme alinea.

Art. 67. Tant que le deiai judiciaire n'est pas ecouie, le juge peut, pour motifs im-
portants, le prolonger sur la demande de la partie interessee.

Art. 68. Lorsq'une partie laisse expirer le deiai judiciaire, le judge donne cours aux
consequences qu'il avait expressiSment indiquees pour ce cas, dans les lituites de la loi..

C. — Restitution des parties dans le cas d'expiration des jours fixes ou des deiais.

Art. 69. La restitution contre l'expiration des deiais peut toujours avoir lieu du con-
sentement de la partie adverse.

Art. 70. En cas d'opposition de la partie adverse, la restitution n'est admissible que
sous les conditions suivantes :

a. La demande doit etre presentee, par ecrit, au juge dans les dix jours a dater du
moment oil le requerant a ete averti des consequences qu'entralnerait sa negligence-
(art. 62 68 et 23) ;

i. Les actes de procedure neglige's, tels que l'avance des frais (art. 23), Vindication
d'une caution (art. 26), etc., doivent etre executes en in6me temps, on du moins on doit
fournir la preuve qu'ils ont ete executes dans Pinter valle ;

c. Le requerant doit prouver que lui ou son mandataire ont ete empeches par des-
obstacles independants de leur volonte de paraltre au jour fixe ou il'agir dans le deiai
indique. Les moyens de preuve sont joints a la demande, ou lorsque cela n'est pas
possible, ils sont indiqnes prealablement d'une mauiere precise (art. 158, 159).

Art. 71. Si la partie adverse du requerant persiste dans son refus, le juge cite par
devant lui les deux parties et leurs temoins, et apres les avoir ouis, statue immediate-
ment sur cette question incidente. v

Art. 72. II n'y a lieu a restitution contre le deiai de dix jours mentionne a l'article 70~
que dans le cas ou le requerant n'a pu en profiter, par suite d'obstaclea independants de
sa volonte, et s'il prfeenite sa demande dans les dix jours a dater de la cessation de
l'obstacle.

D. — Jours feri6s.

Art. 73. II n'y a pas d'audiences les dimanches et les jours fe>ies.

Si un deiai expire a l'un de ces jours, il pourra encore etre valablement proce'de', le
jour suivant, a l'acte dont il s'agit.

Ne sont considers comme joirrs feries que ceux qui sont reconnus comme tels par la
loi du lieu oil se fait la procedure.

E. — Suspension du proces.

Art. 74. Sur la demande commune des parties, le juge peut suspendre le cours du
proces pour un temps determine". La suspension ne peut exceder six mois.

La demande en suspension peut etre renouvelee apres l'expiration du temps deter-
mine'.

Art. 75. Lorsqu'une partie perd la capacity d'agir civilement, ou lorsque ses droits
passent a autrui par mort ou par insolvabilite, un deiai est accorde aux tuteurs, heri-
tiers, cr^anciers, etc., pour declarer s'ils veulent coutiuuer le proces ou se desister.

VI. — D&isttment.

Art. 76. Le desistement au proces produit les memes effets qn'un jugement de con-
damnation envers celui qui s'est desists. Celui qui se desiste doit payer tous les frais-
et Emoluments judiciaires, si les parties ne conviennent du contraire.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 39

Art. 77. Le desistement sous reserve de pouvoir intenter plus tard le nieine proces
contre ]a ineme persoime no doit etre admis que dans le oas oft le defendeur declare que
la demande n'est pas encore fondle a ce moment, ou bien lorsque le demandeur a fait
spontanement la memo declaration et motive ainsi son desistement conditionnel.
Meme dans ce cas celui qui se desiste doit indemniser son adversaire pour tous les frais
et payer les emoluments judiciaires.

Dans les cas mentionnes aux art. 76 et 77, le jnge d'instruction se fait presenter la
note des frais avec les pieces necessaires a l'appui et statue apres avoir oui les parties
et sous reserve de Taction en reclamation, conformeinent a l'art. 171.
. Art. 78. Les contestations sur des droits dont les parties out la libre disposition peu-
vent etre abandonees par elles momentan^ment ou deflnitivement, au moyen d'une
transaction a leur gre.

La transaction n'est valable* qu'autant qn'elle estfaite parecrit et sign^e par les par-
ties ou par leurs rnandataires munis a cet eifet d'une procuration speciale (art. 38).

TJne transaction valable a force de jugement rendu. L'emolunient judiciaire est
supporte en commun par les deux parties sauf stipulation contraire daus la trans-
action. *

Chapitre X. — De la forme des audiences do Tribunal

Art. 79. La procedure est orale et publique, en tant que la loi n'exige pas ou permet
la remise de pieces ecrites.

Art. 80. Le juge et les parties penvent se servir a leur gr6 des trois langues princi-
pales de la Suisse (article 109 de la Constitution feclerale).

Lorsque cela sera necessaire, la deliberation orale et les pieces ecrites devront etre
traduites par un expert nomine' par le juge.

Art. 81. II est dresse' proces-verbal des deliberations orale. Le proces-verbal est
cent pendant l'audience et en presence des parties.

II contient : la designation du lieu et du temps de l'audience, les noms des personnes
qui y ont pris part d'une maniere quelconque, les assertions de fait importantes, les
demandes de droit des parties, les depositions des temoins et des experts et les ordres
dujuge.

Art. 82. Le proces-verbal est lu aux personnes qui ont ete agissantes a l'audience ;
il doit etre signe par elles. Si quelqu'un refuse de signer, il sera fait mention du refus
et de ses motifs.

Art. 83. Les rectifications de fait presentees a la lecture du proces-verbal doivent
etre inserees textuellement a la suite et suivies de la signature de celui que cela con-
cerne.

Art. 84. S'il s'eieve des doutes lors de la lecture du proces-verbal sur son exactitude
relativement a la deposition d'un temoin ou au preavis d'un expert, ces doutes doivent
6tre leves par une nouvelle audition du temoin ou de l'expert.

Les eclaircissements donnas par une partie relativement a ses propres exposes lors
de la signature du proces-verbal doivent etre inse're's.

Le proces-verbal ne peut etre modifie que par le juge lui-meme pour ce qui concerne
es ordonnances judiciaires.

Une fois le protocole signe, aucune modification n'est admise sans le consentement
des deux parties.

Art. 85. Les pieces ecrites sont signees par les parties ou paries rnandataires et men-
tionnees dans le proces-verbal et dans un registre special.

Les parties recoivent sur leur demande des recepisses pour tout ce qu'elles deposent.

Art. 86. Les actes qui ont e'te perdus doivent autant que possible etre remplaces au
moyen des actes doubles ou des copies qui se trouveraient entre les mains des parties.
Les frais sont supportes par celui qui a perdu l'acte.

Aht. 87. Les actes deposes par les parties ne peuvent leur etre rendus, a elles ou a
leurs rnandataires, qu'apres a fin du proces et contre recu. Pendant le cours du pro-
ces le juge ne peut en ordonner la remise que pour des raisons speciales et en prenant
les measures necessaires pour prevenir tout prejudice.

Art. 88. Les actes qui resteront apres la fiu du processes recus pour les actes rendus
et le proces-verbal seront reuuis en un dossier par ordre de date et deposes daus les
archives federates.

P ARTIE SPECIALE.

Titre I. — Introduction du proces.

Art. 89. La demando est faite par ecrit; elle doit designer en abrege mais iVuns
maniere precise :

a. Les parties ;

b. Les faits qui motivent la demande ou qui sont relatifs a la legitimation des parties,
y compris les principes de droit soit etrangers, soit cantonaux, soit locaux, mentionnes
a l'art. 3;

c. L'objet de la demande ;

40 ALIEN CLAIMS.

d. Lorsque oela est necessaire, la valeur de l'objet litigieux (art. 47, n°. 2 efc 4 de la
loi sur l'organisatiou judioiaire federale) ;

e. La designation exacte et detailiee des nioyens de preuve a l'appui des faits men-
tionn^s.

Les demandes qui se basent sur des comptes doivent etre accompagnees d'un compte
courant detailie.

Art. 90. Dans les contestations entre plusieurs cantons on entre la Confederation et
un cantoD, la demands accouipagne'e des pieces nocessaires est reraise au president du
Tribunal federal par l'intermediaire du Conseil federal. Dans tous les autres cas, la de-
mande est remise directement au president du Tribunal federal (art. 101 de la Const,
fed.). La demande doit etre accompagniSe d'un double qui est remis au defendeur par
le Conseil federal ou respectivement par le president du Tribunal federal.

Art. 91. La remise de la demande au defendeur l'autotise a former une demande re-
eonventionelle, le rend responsable de tout retard, lui enlfeve le droit de disposer libre-
ment de l'objet litigieux et interrompt toute prescription acquisitive ou liberatoire.

Art. 92. Le defendeur a un deiai de trois semaines a dater du jour de la reception de
la demande pour contester aupres de l'autorite qui la lui a transmise la competence du
Tribunal federal.

Art. 93. Dans le cas de divergence sur la question de competence, les actes sont re-
tournes au demandeur, qui est mis en demeure de redamer la decision de l'Assembiee
federale.

Art. 94. Lorsque la valeur de l'objet litigieux estimportante pour la question de com-
petence (art. 47 de la loi sur l'organisation j udiciaire federal) le president du Tribunal
federal peut, sur la demande de l'une des parties, faire expertiser la valeur de l'objet
par des homines de l'art , dont le rapport est soumis a l'Assembiee federale.

Les inter&ts et les frais de proces ne doivent pas etre pris en consideration. La valeur
de la jouissance d'une annee se represente par vingt fois la valeur de la moyenne da
revenu.

Art. 95. Lorsque la competence du Tribunal federal n'est pas niee dans le deiai de
trois semaines (art. 92), ou lorsqu'elle aete regiee par l'Assembiee federale, le president
du Tribunal federal charge l'un des membres de ce corps de diriger la procedure pre-
paratoire et donne communication aux parties de cette nomination.

Art. 96. Le juge d'instruction nomme lui-memeson secretaire.

Titre II. — Procedure Preparatoire.

Art. 97. Le juge d'instruction doit preparer la procedure soit par la fixation des faits
qui se rapportent a la cause, soit par l'audition de la preuve de maniere que l'atfaire soit
en etat d'etre termiuee dans une seule et meme audience du tribunal.

Chapitre premier. — Fixation des faits.

Art 98. Le juge d'instruction indique avant tout au defendeur un jour dans lequel
on jusqu'auquel il devra:

a. Presenter toute demande incidente ;

I. Declarer d'une maniere formelle et complete s'il admet ou s'il n'admet pas la de-
mande principale ou incidente du demandeur, s'il reconnalt ou s 1 il ne reconnalt pas les
faits avances par ce dernier (art. 89, 6.) ;

e. Presenter tous ses moyens de defense et les raisons de fait a Tappui ;

d. Indiquer d'une maniere detailiee et precise les preuves a l'appui de ses moyens ;

e. Former s'il y a lieu une demande reconventionnelle.

Art. 99. L'expiration du jour fixe ou du deiai entralue les consequences suivantes:

a. En cas de retard dans la presentation d'une demande incidente ou dans l'enoucia-
tion d'un moyen de defense, le defendeur peut etre condamne au paiemeut des frais
occasionnes et a une amende disciplinaire ;

Z>. Les assertions de fait avancees par le demandeur et qui n'ont pas ete contestees
pendant le deiai ou au jour fixe, sont considerees comme reconnues ;

o. Les preuves qui n'ont pas ete indiques par les parties ou qui ne l'ont ete que d'une
maniere confuse, doivent etre exclues, sous reserve des dispositions contenues aux art.
164 et 165 ;

d. Aucune demande reconventionnelle ne peut etre formee apres l'expiration du deiai
ou du jour fixe.

Art. 100. Le demandeur est tenu de se prononcer, au jour fixe ou dans un deiai qui
lui sera fixe, sur les faits qui servent de base a la repouse du defendeur ; toutes les as-
sertions qu'il n'aura pas contestees formellemeut, et chacune specialement, doivent etre
considerees comme reconnues.

Art. 101. Lorsque le demandeur chercbe par une replique a affaiblir un moyen pr6-
sente par «le defendeur, mais sans denier le moyen lui-tn6me, le defendeur pourra
s'expliquer de la meme maniere que le demandeur l'a fait a son egard sur les faits qui
servent de base a la replique.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 41

Les dispositions applioables a l'enonciation des moyens aux repliques, etc., sont respeo-
tivement applioables aux dupliques, etc.

Les moyens de preuve a l'appui des repliques, dupliques etc., doivent 6tre presented
en meme temps, comme pour la demande et la r^ponse (art. 89 e, 98 d, 99 c).

Art. 102. La demande reconventionnelle est dans la regie traitSe dans une procedure
speciale, de la meme rnaniere que la demande prinoipale.

Les discussions orales devant le juge d'instruotion et qui sont relatives soit a la
demande prinoipale, soit a la demande reconventionnelle, doivent, autant que possible
avoir lieu le meme jour.

Dans des causes tout a fait simples on peut admettre une seule et meme procedure.

Chapitrk II. — Procedure probatoire.

Art. 103. Des que la distinction est 6tablie entre les faits admis et les faits uon admis,
le juge applique a ces deruiers la procedure probatoire.

Art. 104. Eatregarde' comme reconnu tout fait qui dans le cours du proces est affirme"
par l'uue des parties et n'a pas 6te contests' formellement par l'autre.

Les restrictions et additions faites par une partie a son aveu, no doivent point en etre
se'pare'es, sauf dans le cas oil elles ont le sens d'un moyen de defense.

I. — Moyen de preuve.

A. — L'aveu.

Art. 105. Un aveu constant, quoique extrajudiciaire a les memes effets que s'il avait
eulieu par declaration devant le tribunal^ lorsqii'il a 6t6 fait en termes formels en vue
de la partie adverse ou de son mandataire, et dans le but de mettre un certain fait liors
de doute.

Si l'un de ces caracteres manque, le tribunal apprecie librement la declaration extra-
judiciaire.

B. — Documents.

Art. 106. Les documents faits dans la forme legale par un fonotionuaire jouissant de
la confiance publique, dans les affaires de son ressort et dans les limites de ses pouvoirs,
font preuve complete contre chacun.

Art. 107. Les documents 6manant de particuliers font preuve complete contre leur
auteur.

Les tiers dont les droits sont subordonnes aux actes de 1' auteur ou qui en sont respon-
sables de toute autre maniere, sont lie's par sa signature, a moins qu'on puisse denion-
trer comme probable qu'il y a en entente frauduleuse, au prejudice du tiers, entre l'au-
teur et celui en faveur de qui le document est fait.

Art. 108. Dans la regie, le document qui est aux mains de son propre auteur, ne
prouve rien en faveur de celui-ci.

Par exception a cette disposition, le juge apprecie librement la force probatoire de
livres tenus regulierenient.

Art. 109. Les documents 6manant de tiers me"ritent d'autant plus de confiance que
les auteurs sont plus irreprochables et impartiaux, et qu'ils se sont 'trouve's en (Stat de
connaitre les faits dont il est question.

Cepeudant les declarations par eorit, faites pour le proces par des particuliers qui
■auraient pu etre entendus oralement, ne doivent pas etre prises en consideration.

Art. 110. L'original meme des documents doit etre pr^sente" au juge.

Sont admis comme l'original :

a. La copie reconnue par les parties :

h. L'extrait de livres ou registres publics certine" par le fonctionnaire competent.

Art. 111. La partie qui fait la preuve, et qui ne peut, par une cause independaute
■de sa volont^, presenter le document lui-meme, est admise a le remplacer par une
copie duraent vidimee pourvu que l'authenticite' de la signature ne soit pas contested
ou qu'elle soit specialenient de'ruontre'e.

Art. 112. Tout document doit etre presente" au complet; ou doit yjoindre tous les
autres documents sur lesquels le premier s'appuie.

Art. 113. L'authenticite' d'un document public (art. 106) est e"tablie en cas de con-
testation, par le te"moiguage de l'autorite* compfitente.

Art. 114. Est pre'suine'e ^authenticity d'un document particulier qui se trouve depnis
dix ans au moins dans des archives publiques, ou dont la date et le caractere special
indique qu'il existe vraisemblablement depuis plus de quarante ans.

Les copies vidime"es e"tablissent, sous la meme supposition, lapresomption d'existence
-anterieure d'un document identique ; les copies nou vidim^es peuvent dans les mfimes
suppositions, former tout au moins un indice.

Art. 115. L'authenticite de la signature d'un document particulier motive la pre"-
-somption juridique de l'authenticite' de ce qui precede la signature et la date.

42 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Cependant si des modifications ont et6 apportees a oes dernieres parties du docu-
ment, et que la partie adverse de celui qui fait la preuve ne veuille pas les reconnaltre,
on doit prendre en consideration le texte primitif, et si celui-ci ne peut plus etre etabli
d'une maniere certaine, le document perd sa force probatoire.

Art. 116. L'authenticite d'un document contests est etablie :

1. Par la preuve de la reconnaissance extrajudicial par la partie adverse ;

2. Par la deposition de temoins qui ont assists a la signature du document ;

3. S'il s'agit de documents emanant d'un tiers, par la reconnaissance mome do ce
tiers ;

4. Par la comparaison des ecritures.

Akt. 117. S'il manque d'ecritures vour la comparaison, la personue qui a <5crit la do-
cument contests, sera tenue, sous la menace des peines encouraes, a ecrire quelques
lignes qui lui seront dictees en presence du juge ou d'experts.

Art. 118. Cbaque partie doit, lorsqu'elle en est requise par son adversaire, presenter
les documents qui se rapportent au proces ou attester par sermeut qu'elle ne les pos-
sede pas riSellement, qu'elle n'en a pas transmis la possession a autrui, intentionelle-
ment et au prejudice de le jpartie adverse, et qu'elle ignore oil ils se trouvent dans le
moment.

Art. 119. Les tiers sont tenns, sous peine d'etre traites comme des temoins defaillants
(art. 134) de preter le sermeut ei-dessus, ou de deposer les documents qui sont entre
leurs mains ou d'indiqner le lieu oil ils se trouvent.

Cette obligation est soumise aux inemes restrictions que l'obligation de deposer
comme teinoin (art. 133 et 136).

La partie qui s'appuie sur un document doit en indemniser le possessem sous tous
les rapports et avancer provisoirement les frais de procedure qui pourraient etre n6ces-
saires. ,

Les passages d'un tel document qui, d'apres l'attestation par serment du possesseur,
ou d'apres l'opinion meme du juge, ne se rapportent pas au proces, ne doivent pas etre
ancantis, mais peuvent 6tre passes sjus silence.

Art. 120. Les dispositions relatives aux documents Merits sont aussi applicables,
autant que la nature des cboses le permet, aux monuments d'un autre genre (bornes de
frontiere, pierres et medailles comme'moratives, etc.).

C. — Dob descentes. sur les lieux et expertises.

Art. 121. Le juge peut d'office, ou sur la demande de l'une des parties, se transporter
dans l'endroit ou se trouvent des objets dont il serait important pour le proces de con-
naitre la nature par la vue mtoie, et dont le transport serait difficile.

Art. 122. 11 est dresse' un proces-verbal detailie de cette descente sur les lieux et de
tout ce qui s'y rattache (art. 81) et pour plus grande clarte" il y est joint, si cela est
necessaire, des dessins et des modeles.

Art. 123. Le juge peut, d'office on sur la demande de l'une des parties, appeler des
experts lorsqu'il s'agit d'une descente sur les lieux ou de tous autres faits dont le jnge-
ment ou l'appre'ciation exigent des connaisances speciales. Les experts sont nom-
mes dans la regie au uombre de trois, a moins que les parties ne s'accordent sur un
nombre inferieur..

Art. 124. Le juge nomme les experts. Nul ne doit etre nomine" s'il manque des con-
naissances n^cessaires ou s'il peut etre recuse comme juge. (Organization judiciaire
fed. art. 56 et 57.)

Art. 125. Nul n'est tenu d'accepter les fonctions d'expert, mais celui qui s'eu est une
fois charge, peut etre force par des amendes disciplinaires successives et de plus en plus
elevens, a les remplir dument.

Art. 126. Le mandat des experts leur est confere" par 6crit et d'une maniere precise.
Lorsque les experts ne sont pas deja assermentfo, en raison meSme de leur vocation, il
peut etre exige* d'eux, sur la demande d'une des parties, le serment " de remplir con-
sciencieusemeut le mandat qui leur est confie et de n'agir ni pat haiue, ni par fa>eur
pour personne."

Art. 127. Les experts donnent leur prdavis avec leur motifs, soit par ecrit pour les
actes du proces, soit de vive voix, pour etre insure au proces-verbal.

Le tribunal appr^cie libremeut ce pr^avis.

Art. 128. Si le tribunal ne trouve point dans le rapport les edaircissements suffisants,
il peut ordonner qu'il soit complete par les mSmes experts, ou en nouimer de nouveaux.

D. — Tdmoins.

Art. 129. II n'y a pas lieu a entendre des temoins sur des faits sans importance.

Art. 130. La preuve testimonial n'est pas admise contre le texte formel d'un docu-
ment fait par les interesses, pour une affaire juridique.

II peut Stre fait exception a cette regie :

a. Pour demontrer l'incapacite d'agir, l'absence de consentement, la fraude^et la vio-
lence ;

ALIEN CLAIMS. 43 : -

S. Pour remplacer un document fait posterieurement pour la rnerne affaire et qui a
6t6 perdu ;

c. Pour completer des documents posterieurs qui indiquent que le document primi-
tif a ete moditie.

Art. 131. Le juge apprecie librement les depositions des temoins et le degre de con-
fiance qu'elles ineritent.

Art. 132. Sont incapables de deposer comme temoins et doivent, en consequence,,
etre exclus d'office :

1. Les personnes en etat d'imbecilite ou d'alienation mentale ;

2. Les personues depourvues des organes niScessaires a l'appreciation des faits en
question ou a leur communication ;

3. Les enfauts qui n'ont pas atteint l'age de 14 ans.
Doivent etre exclus sur la demand e de la partie adverse :

1. Les plus proches parents de son adversaire, a savoir : les ascendants, les descen-
dants, et leurs conjoints ; les freres et soeurs, beaux-freres et belles-sceurs ;

2. Les personnes condanjnees pour crime.

Art. 133. Les ecclesiastiques, les nieclecins, et les avocats, procureurs ou avoues, ne
doivent pas etre entendus sur des secrets qui leur ont 6t6 confies en raison de leur fonc-
tion ou de leur vocation.

Art. 134. Le temoin qui, sans excuse, n'obtempere pas a l'assignation qui lui est
faite, doit etre condarnue au paiement d'une amende disciplinaire et au rembourse-
ment des frais causes par son absence. En outre une nou velle citation peut etre lancee-
contre lui.

Art. 135. Celui qui se refuse sans motif legal, a deposer ou a prater serment comme
temoin, doit indeniniser la partie qui fait la preuve pour le dommage que ce refus lui'
cause. Pour calculer le montant de ce dommage, le tribunal partira de la presomption.
que le temoiguage refuse, aurait ete en favour de celui qui fait la preuve.

Art. 136. Ne sont pas obliges de deposer contre une partie et sont, par consequent,,
exceptes des dispositions des articles 134 et 135 :

1. Les plus procbes parents de cette partie, a savoir : les ascendants, les descend-
ants et leurs conjoints ; les freres et soeurs, beaux-freres et belles-soeurs ;

2. Les personnes qui compromettraient leur honneur ou leurs droits par leurs propres
depositions.

Art. 137. Cbaque tenioin recoit d'avance, sur sa demande, l'indemnite a laquelle il a
droit.

Art. 138. Pour l'audition des temoins qui demeurent a l'etranger, une demande est
faite au tribunal stranger competent.

Tous les autres temoins sont entendus soit par le juge d'instruction lui-meme, soit
sur l'ordonnance de ce magistrat, par le tribunal competent (celui du domicile du
teuioin).

Art. 139. L'audition a lieu en general dans le lieu ou se fait la procedure pr^para-
toire ou au siege du tribunal requis.

Les temoins qui pour des motifs graves sont empeche's de comparaltre devant le juge,.
peuvent etre entendus dans leur demeure.

Le meme mode est aussi autorise lorsqn'il est plus avantageux pour l'intelligence
des depositions que les temoins soient interrog^s dans le lieu auquel ont trait leurs
depositions.

Art. 140. Tontes facility doivent etre accordees aux parties, lorsquecela est possible,
pour assister a l'audition des temoins.

Les parties ont le droit d'indiquer d'avance les points sur lesquels elles desirent ob-
tenir des explications des temoins, ainsi que de leur faire adresser des questions sub-
sequentes ; le juge decide si ces derniferes sout admissibles ou non.

Art. 141. Le juge avertit les temoins par lecture de la formnle du serment, qu'ils ont
a affirmer leur dire par serment, puis il proeede a leur audition pour chacun separe-
ment et en l'absence des autres. Nul, sauf le juge ou respectivement le president du
tribunal, ne peut adresser directement des questions aux temoins.

Art. 142. Les depositions des temoins sont consignees an proces-verbal dans leur
teneur substantielle, lues en leur presence et signees par eux. (Art. 81 et suiv.)

Art. 143. Les temoins pretent, sur la demande d'une des parties, le serment suivant,
une fois l'interrogatoire termine :

" J'ai repondu selon la verite aux questions qui m'ont ete posees, et je n'ai rien
cache de ce qui m'etait connu. Je le jure devant Dieu qui sait tout, aussi vrai que je
souhaite que sa grace me soit en aide."

Lorsque d'apres la religion du temoin, l'efficacite du serment est subordonnee a cer-
taiues formes exterieures, ces formes doivent etre observees.

Art. 144. Pour les personnes qui appartiennent a une secte reljgieuse d'apres lea.
croyances de laquelle le serment est dei'endu, il sera remplace par une confirmation
solennelle equivalente au serment d'apres ces memes croyances.

Art. 145. Les employes publics peuvent donner par ecrit leurs depositions, lors-
qn'elles se basent sur leurs proces-verbaux ou actes; ils ne sont pas appeies- a. les.
attestor par serment.

•44 ALIEN CLAIMS.

E. — Du serment d£fer6.

Art. 146. Celui qui fait la preuve peut, lorsqu'il s'agit de faits importauts qui sont
contestes, deferer le serment a sou adversaire, s'il n'a pas d'autre moyeu de preuve.
'Ne'anmoina l'inculpation d'uu crime ou d'un deiit ne peut jamais 6tre l'objet d'uu ser-
ment. Le serment ne peut non plus etre defere a nne personae atteinte de folie, ou
•faible d'esprit, ou muette, ou qui n'a pas encore accompli sa seizieme annee.

Art. 147. Celui qui fait la preuve ne peut deferer le serment a une tierce-personne,
mais seulement a sa partie adverse et celle-ci doit prfeter le serment elle-m6me.

Cependant cette regie subit les exceptions suivantes :

1. Celui qui fait la preuve peut, Hson gre, deferer le serment au tuteur on au pupille,
pourvu que celui-ci ait la capacity requise pour preter serment ;

2. Quand il s'agit de corporations, celui qui fait la preuve designe deux chefs de la
-corporation pour preter serment ;

3. Lorsque plusieurs individus se trouvent impliques dans la raf-rne affaire, chacun
d'eux pr&te serment (art. 7). Cependant le m§me serment d'un seul suffit dans le cas
-oil par sa position il oblige les autres.

Art. 148. La partie a qui le serment est defere, peut, ou le pr£ter ou le rearer a son
adversaire on entreprendre elle-mSme la preuve contraire.

Si elle ne fait ni l'uu ni l'autre, le fait avancdpar son adversaire est considere" comme
etabli.

Art. 149. La partie qui doit preter nn serment (soit de'fe're' soit refere) est entendue
et assermentee de la mSme maniere que les te'moins (art. 138-144). Elle ne peut
mettre en avant aucun pre'texte d'ignoranee pour ce qui se rapporte a ses propres
actions, et si elle pre'texte d'ignoranee pour d'autres faits, elle doit en outre jurer
qu'elle s'est applique"e a rechercher la verity et qu'elle n'a pas connaissance d'autres
faits que ceux qu'elle a indiques.

Art. 150. Les faits sur lesquels, contrairement aux dispositions de l'artiole pr£ce-
dent la partie assermentee s'est prononc^e d'une maniere obscure ou dcStourne'e, doivent
£tre conside're's comme av^rds. Dans tous les autres cas, la deposition faite sous ser-
.ment doit etre admise en droit comme vraie et la preuve contraire est interdite.

F. — De la preuve complexe.

Art. 151. La preuve, faite seulement par des indices, est appre'eie'e librement par le
juge, toutefois dans les limites des presomptions etablies par la loi.

Art. 152. Chaque indice doit etre etabli d'apres les memes regies que les faits sur
lesquels la demande ou la defense se base directement.

G. — Du serment suppietoire et du serment purgatoire.

Art. 153. Lorsqu'un fait important et contests ne peut 6tre etabli d'une maniere con-
vaincant ni par temoins, ni par documents, ni jiar indices, mais qu'il a acquis pour le
tribunal un certain degre" de vraisemblance, le tribunal lui-m&me, mais non pas le
juge destruction, pent, soit d'office, soit snr requgte de l'une des parties, deferer le
serment a celui qui fait preuve ou a son adversaire dans le but de supplier ou d'infir-
mer la preuve conimencee.

Art. 154. Le serment est prgte de la niSme maniere que le serment defere (art. 148).

H. — Dispositions generates.

Art. 155. Les denx parties peuvent egalement utiliser tout moyen de preuve qui n'a
■pas ete seulement indique, mais r6ellement developpe dans les actes.

Art. 156. Lorsqu'un moyen de preuve p6rit par la faute de la partie adverse, la
-preuve offerte est considered comme ayant 6t6 faite. Sont reservees les peualites que
les faits pourraient entralner.

II. — Procedure probqioire.

A. — Introduction de la preuve.

Art. 157. Le juge fixe, avant tout, un jour auqnel ou jusqu'auquel les parties out a
presenter tous les moyens de preuve ii I'appul de leurs propres assertions ou pour com-
-frattre le dire de leur adversaire.

Toute negligence sous ce rapport eutrainera l'exelusion des moyens de pfeuves
■apportes ou enonces trop tard.

Art. 158. Celui qui fait la preuve remet au juge (art. 110 et 111) les pieces ecrites
qui sont en sa possession ; quant aux documents qui se trouvent entre les mains de la
partie adverse ou d'un tiers, il les designe d'une maniere aussi precise que possible et
•demande au judge d'en ordonner la production.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 45-

Le juge obtempere immediatement a cette demande en se r6ferant aux art. 118 et
119 et en indiquant les consequences du refns.

Art. 159. La preuve par temoins commence par la denomination precise des temoins
et par Vindication des faits qui doivent etre etablis.

Art. 160. Celui qui demande une descente sur les lieux ou la nomination d'experts,
doit se reTerer a ce moyeu de preuve et en indiquer l'objet et le but.

Art. 161. Celui qui veut deferer le serment a son adversaire, designo les faits qui
doivent etre etablis par serment aiusi que les personnes qui doivent preter le serment-
(art. 147).

B. — Debat prealable.

Art. 162. Apres l'expiration des deiais fixes pour l'introduction de la preuve, le juge
cite les parties, sous les peines raentionnees aux art. 62 et 166 a comparaltre par devant
lui- a un jour fixe pour ouvrir le debat sur les moyens de preuve produits ou seulement
annonce's.

Lorsqu'il n'a pas ete fixe de deiai, mais bien un jour fixe pour l'introduction de la preuve-
(art. 50 et 51), le debat sur les moyens de preuve produits ou seulemont annonce's peut,
selon les circonstances, avoir lieu le jour meme ou etre renvoye a un autre jour fixe.

Les tiers qui nient la possession d'une piece qui leur est deniandee ou qui refusent de
s'en dessaisir (art. 119) doivent aussi etre cites a cette audience sur la demande de la
partie inte'resse'e.

Art. 163. Au jour fixe chaque partie doit se prononcer sur l'authenticite des docu-
ments produits par son adversaire ; ce dernier est libre de commencer aussitdt la preuve
sur les points contested (art. 113-1 L6) ou de se faire fixer un deiai pour cela.

Art. 164. Les parties doivent aussi s'expliquer contradictoirement au jour fixe sur
les points sur lesquels elles sont en disaccord quant a l'importance des faits pour lesquels.
la preuve est demandee ou quant a l'adrnissibilite des moyens de preuve indiques.

Quant a la personne des temoins, il faut produire non-seulement les motifs de leur
incapacity, mais encore enoncer toutes les circonstances qui peuvent infirmer la confiance
en leur temoignage et si cela est necessaire, en fournir iinmecliatenient la preuve ou du
moins demander un deiai pour la faire.

Celui qui fait la preuve peut renoncer aux temoins reproches et les remplacer par
d'autres, s'il prouve qu'il a ete dans l'impossibilite de les designer plus t6t.

Art. 165. En general, celui qui a perdu un moyen de preuve deja invoque', peut
encore, a ce moment de la procedure, le remplacer par un autre et faire valoir avant la
fin de la procedure preparatoire, les moyens de preuve que, d'apres son assertion con-
firmee par serment, il n'a decouverts qu'apres l'expiration du temps fixe pour l'intro-
duction de la preuve. *

Art. 166. Celui qui ne signale pas en temps opportun, conforme'inent a l'article pre-
cedent, les vices de forme de la preuve produite ou offerte par son adversaire, ne peut
plus faire etat plus tard des dits vices.

C. — Admissiou de la preuve.

Art. 167. Les juge designe, en indiquant ses motifs, les moyens de preuve qu'il estime-
admissibles, ainsi que ceux qu'il croit devoir repousser.

Les moyens de preuve admis sont immediatement consignes au proces-verbal d'apres
les prescriptions des articles 106-150.

Cependant le serment ne peut etre prete par une partie pendant la procedure prepa-
ratoire que dans le cas ou il n'y a de contestation, ni sur legitimite de ce moyen de preuv&
en soi, ni sur la personne de celui a qui le serment est defere".

D. — Preuve a futur.

Art. 168. Le juge d'instruction peut, sur la demande de l'une des parties, faire ap-
peler des temoins ou des experts a tout instant de la procedure ou ordonner une vue de
lieux pour prevenir la perte d'un moyen de preuve. II ne doit pas y avoir de delibera-
tion intermediate sur l'admissibilite de la preuve, ni sur les moyens de preuve invoqu^s.
En revanche, sont reservees les exceptions que celui qui fait la preuve pourrait pre-
senter pour la procedure preparatoire ordinaire. On devra du reste suivre, autant que
possible, dans l'admission de la preuve, les prescriptions contenues dans les articles qui
precedent.

Art. 169. Celui qui veut faire une preuve a futur dans un proces qui n'est pas encore
pendant, ou pour lequel un juge d'instruction n'a pas encore ete designe, doit presenter
une demande a cet eifet a l'autorite judiciaire corcpetente du canton.

Chapitrb III. — Fin de la procedure preparatoire.

Art. 170. Le juge doit declarer la procedure preparatoire close aussit6t que le but de-
cette procedure est atteint et transmettre tous les proces- verbau^ et actes au president
dn tribunal.

•46 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Art. 171. Le Tribunal federal statue surles reclamations relatives aux mesures prises
par le juge d'instruotion. Ces reclamations n'ont pas d'cffet suspensif et doivent, dans
la regie, etre presentees et traitees seulement au commencement de la procedure finale
(art. 172 et suiv.).

Titre III.— Procedure principals.

Art. 172. Les proces-verbaux et les actes dresses par le juge d'instruotion serveut de
ifbase pour la procedure principale.

Art. 173. Une partie est fondle a redamer le complement ou la rectification de ces
actes ;

1. Par de nouveaux moyens de preuve, si elle atteste par serment qu'elle ne les a de"-
couverts qu'apres la cl6ture de la procedure prfiparatoire (art. 165);

2. Par des moyens de preuve dont le juge d'instruction a rejete l'admission sans
motifs suffisauts ;

3. Par la rectification de fautes commises par le juge d'instruction dans l'admission
•de la preuve ;

4. Par l'annulation de preuves inadmissibles au point de vue de la forme et que le
, juge d'instruction avait fait insurer au proces-verbal malgre" une opposition fondle ;

5. Par l'annulation d'ordonnances qui auraient ete rendues dans la procedure pre-
paratoire au prejudice de la partie interessee et sans motifs suffisauts.

Art. 174. Une requete de cette nature doit toe presentee au president du Tribunal
federal dans la quinzaine a dater du jour oii la procedure a ete declare close, et aussi-
t6t que possible, s'il s'agit de presenter des moyens de preuve decouverts posterieure-
ment (art. 173, chiffre 1). Les moyens de preuve dont il s'agit dans ce cas, doivent
£tre joints a la requite, ou si cela n'est pas possible, tout au moins indiques (arts. 158,
d60).

Art. 175. Le president du tribunal communique la requete a la partie adverse, et lui
fixe tin deiai pour faire la preuve contraire, s'il y a lieu.

Art. 176. Lorsque la reclamation d'une partie porte sur le proces-verbal de descente
sur les lieux ou sur ce qn'il n'y a pas eu de descente sur les lieux, le president du tri-
bunal peut deieguer un ou deux autres juges pour operer une descente sur les lieux
(art. 121 et suivants) ou bien, selon les circonstances, ordonner que le debat final ait
lieu sur place, (art. 18, 6, de la loi sur l'organisation judiciaire fed6rale).

Art. 177. II doit toe fait droit, a moins d'obstaeles tout particaliers, a toute requite
tendant a ce que le president du tribunal nomine des experts et les fasse paraltre dans
la procedure finale, ou a ce qu'il cite des temoins qui n'auraient pas ete entendns ou
• qui ne l'auraient ete que d'une manifere defectneuse.

Les temoins qui, pour un motif quelconque, ne peuvent se presenter devant le Tribu-
nal federal, doivent toe interroges par le tribunal du lieu de leur domicile ; cet inter-
:Togatoire est ordonne' provisoireinent par le president du Tribunal federal.

Art. 178. Les demandes et requeues tendant a faire completer ou rectifier la pro-
cedure preparatoire, ainsi que les contestations sur la prestation d'un serment defer6ou
.refere (art. 162) doivent etre eclaircies avant tout daDS la procedure finale et videes
,par un jugement motive, les deux parties entendues.

Art. 179. Les preuves apportees subsequemmeut et que le tribunal declare admissi-
■bles, sont produites de suite, si cela est possible. Dans le cas d'une declaration con-
traire, les temoins ou les experts cites, doivent etre immediatemeut renvoyes.

Art. 180. I! est ensuite proce'de' a la discussion juridique de l'affnire litigieuse, dans
toute son etendue.

Dans ce but la parole est accordee deux fois a cbacnne des parties.

Art. 181. La deliberation ainsi que la votation du tribunal est publique.

Art. 182. Le president invite a leur tour les membres du tribunal a presenter leur
opinion. Le president parle le dernier.

Une fois cette preoonsultation terminee, chaque membre peut demander librement
.la parole.

Le vote a lieu a mains levees ; si les voix sont egales, le president departage.

Art. 183. II est vote separement sur chaque point litigieux.

Les questions doivent etre posees de telle sorte que la premiere presentee soit tou-
. jours celle par laquelle la suivante est eiiminee ou prepare. La question principale
doit aussi etre jugee avant lea points accessoires.

Art. 184. L'arret doit toe rendu sous une forme conditionnelle, si l'issue du proces
depend de la prestation du serment suppietoire ou purgatoire ; l'arret doit determiner
dans ce cas, quelle sera la consequence de la prestation ou de la non-prestation du ser-
ment, taut a l'egard des points principalis qu'a l'egard des points accessoires.

Apres la prestation du serment ou le refus de le pr§ter, le tribuual lui-m&me ou le
juge commis pour recevoir le serment, attestera qu'il a ete ou qu'il n'a pas ete prete, et
prononcera sous une forme absolne le jugement qui n'etait que conditiounel.

Art. 185. L'expedition du jugement doit eoutenir :

1. La designation du tribunal, des juges presents ainsi que des parties

ALIEN CLAIMS. 47

2. Les points de fait les plus essentials, et les demandes des parties d'une nianifere
sommaire ;

3. Les motifs de l'arret ;

4. L'arret lui-meme ;

5. La signature du president et du greffier aveo l'iudication du lieu et du temps ou
l'arret a ete rendu et l'apposition du soeau du tribunal ;

Art. 186. Lejugement estprononce oralement; une expedition ecrite en est remise
aux parties ;

Le jugement acquiert forces de chose jugee des le moment ou il a ete prononce' ;

TlTRE IV. — DK L'EXECUTION.

Art. 187. Le debiteur est poursuivi conform^ment aux lois du canton dans lequel il
habite, lorsque le jugement le condamne a payer une certaine somme ou a fournir une
caution. Si le debiteur B'est refugie a l'etranger, s'il est absent ou inconnu, son patri-
moine devra Stre imm^diatement saisi par le juge du lieu, sur la demande de la partie
int^resse'e, et vendu a l'enchere jusqu' a concurrence de la somme reclaraee. La saisie
devra anssi avoir lieu lorsque le debiteur present ne paie pas apres poursuit ou dis-
simule l'existence de ce patrimoine.

Akt. 188. La partie condamn^e a livrer certainB objets tels que de l'argent ou a faire
certains actes aura un deiai qui ne pourra exce'der nu mois pour executer le jugement ;
ce deiai lui sera fixe, sur la demande de la partie interessee, par le gouvemement oil
elle a son domicile, ou par celui du lieu oil se trouve l'objet litigieux.

Art. 189. La partie coudamuee qui ne se soumettra pas a cette mesure, sera ren-
voyee devant le tribunal de son domicile pour etre puuie pour de'sobe'issance et l'ex.6-
cution du jugement aura lieu a ses frais par le gonvernement cantonal.

Si les objets a livrer ii'existent plus oft si l'execution du jugement ne peut plus avoir
lieu pour d'autres motifs, le patrimoine de la partie condamne'e sera saisi jusque'a con-
currence de la somme necesaaire pour garantir les interets de la partie adverse; les
actes seront remia a cette derniere pour qu'elle puisse demander au Tribunal federal de
convertir en une somme d'argent la prestation ordounee.

Akt. 190. Aucune autorite ne doit entraver l'execution ni prolonger un deiai, si ce
n'est pas ordre du Tribunal federal, ou de son president, ainsi qu'il est dit aux articles
196 et 198, ou bien lorsqu'il ressort evidemment d'une preuve Jcrite, que l'execution a
deja eu lieu.

Art. 191. Les reclamations sur l'execution defectueuse des jugements du Tribunal fe-
deral, sont adressees au Conseil federal qui prend les mesures neeessaires.

Le Conseil federal peut aussi surveiller d'oirice l'execution de ces jugements.

Titrb V. — A.— De la revision.

Art. 192. La revision d'un jugement civil rendu par le Tribunal federal est admissi-
ble dans les caa suivants : /

1. En cas d'annulation. II y a annulation :

a. Lorsque les prescriptions de la loi sur l'orgauisatiou judiciaire federale n'ont pas
.ete suiviea dans la composition du tribnual ;

b. Lorsque les dispositions des articled 2, 4 et 181 de la presente loi sur la procedure
civile n'ont pas ete observees ;

c. Lorsque le tribunal n'a pasapprecie ou n'a apprecie que d'une mauiere erron6e des
faits importauts contenus dans les proces-verbaux ;

d. Lorsqu'il n'a pas ete statue sur certains points de la demande ou de la reconven-
tion.

2. Lorsque le redamaut trouve des moyens de preuves concluants dont la production
lui avait ete impossible dans la procedure precedonte.

3. S'il est prouve par la voie d'uu proceapeual qu'uu juge qui a prispart au jugement
4tait corrompu, ou que la partie adverse de l'appelant, ou un individu agissant en sa
faveu^, a commis un crime ou deiit pour obtenir lejugement en question.

Art. 193. La demande eu revision doit etre presentee devant le tribunal, sous peine
de decbeance, dans un delai d'un mois a dater de la reception de l'expedition ecrite du
jugement pour les cas prevus a Fart. 192, chiifre 1, et pour les autres cas, dans un delai
de trois mois a dater de la decouverte du motif de revisious.

Art. 194. Apr^s un deiai de cinq ans, la revision d'un jugement ue peut plus 6tre
demandee que pour les cas prevus k l'article 192, chiffre 3.

Un debat oral a lieu sur l'admissibilite de la demande en revision devant le tribunal
qui a rendu le jugement. |Si la demande en revision est admiae, le requeraut & un deiai
de trois mois pour introduire sa demande en revision du precedent j ugement et en resti-
tution contre les suites du dit jugeuieut.

Art. 196. La demande en revision ne suspend point l'execution du jugement attaque,
il moins que le tribunal n'en ait ordoaue autrement en admettant la revision.

48 ALIEN CLAIMS.

B. — De l'interpretation du jugement.

Art. 197. Le tribunal doit, sur la demande d'une partie, ordonner ^interpretation on
la rectification du jugement dont leB dispositions seraient jbscures, incompletes, a deux
sens ou contradictoires, ou qui contiendraient des fautes de redaction ou de calcul.
' Art. 198. Une demande semblable doit 6tre communique a la partie adverse et un
delai lui est accorde" pour repondre, a de"faut de quoi elle Isera considered comme con-
sentante.

Ensuite la tribunal statue, dans la regie, sur la ba9e de cette communication de
pieces.

En tout cas, il n'y a pas lieu a un de"bat oral.

Dans ces occasions, le president du tribunal peut, provisoirement, par ecrit, suspendre
l'execution du jugement.

Titre VI.— Mesdres provisionnelles.

Art. 199. Les mesures provisionnelles ont pour but :

a. De proteger une possession menaced ;

b. D'empecher qu'il soit apporte" des changements a l'objet litigeux ;

c. Pour ^carter un dommage difficile a re"parer, qui menace le reque"rant.

Les mesures provisionnelles sont ordonnees par le juge d'instruction pendant la
procedure pr6paratoire, ou par le Tribunal federal avant ou apres la procedure
preparatoire et lorsque le tribunal n'est pas reu'ni, par son president.

Art. 200. Les mesures provisionnelles n'ont pour but que de maintenir l'e'tat des
choses existant et ne doivent pas par consequent aller au-dela de ce qu'exige strictement
ce but.

Le reque"rant doit Stre tenu de fournir des #uretes pour le dommage qui pourrait
re"sulter des mesures provisionnelles, pour celni contre qui elles doivent etre prises. .

Art. 201. Lorsqu'il n'y a pas peril en la demeure, les mesures provisionnelles ne
doivent pas etre ordonnees avant que celui contre qui elles sont dirige"es ait pu se
prononcer a leur 6gard.

Art. 202. Les mesures provisionnelles ne doivent pas avoir d'influence sur la decision
du proces mfime et ne doivent pas modifier la position juridique des parties. Elles
peuvent en tout e"tat de cause etre annulees ou modifiers s'il n'y a plus de danger, ou
si les circonstauces sont differentes.

Les mesures provisoires prises par le juge d'instruction ou par le president du
tribunal, doivent etre soumises a la premiere occasion a l'approbation du tribunal;
cependant le tribunal ne sera pas re'uni extraordinairement dans ce but.

Art. 203. Le Conseil fo'de'ral est charge 1 de l'execution de la presente loi.

l'assemblee FEDERALE SUISSE,

Vu le projet de loi pre'sente' par le Conseil fe*d6ral sur la procedure a suivre par devant
le Tribunal iM6ral pour les contestations de droit civil,

akrete :

Art. 1. Le projet est adopte", pour le moment, dans son entier comme loi provisoire;
Art. 2. Ce projet ne sera adopts d^finitivement qu'apres avoir 6b6 soumis avant deux
ans expires a une discussion dtstaille'e daus les deux Conseils.
Ainsi de'cre'te' par le Conseil national Suisse.
Berne, le 20 novembre 1850.
Le President,

Dr. KEEN.
Le Secretaire,

SCHIESS.
Ainsi de'cre'te' par le Conseil des Etats Suisse.
Berne, le22 novembre 1850.
Le President,

J. EUTTIMANN.
Le Secretaire,

N. von MOOS.

LE CONSEIL FEDERAL SUISSE,

Vu le d^cret pris les 20 et 22 novembre 1850, par PAssemblee fe'de'rale concernant le
projet de loi qui lui a 6t6 presents', sur la procedure a suivre par devant le Tribunal
federal pour les contestations de droit civil, d6cret concu comme suit:

Art. 1. Le projet est adopte", pour le moment, dans son entier comme loi provisoire;

Art. 2. Ce projet ne sera adopts de"finitivement qu'apres avoir 6t6 soumds avant deux
ans expires a une discussion de"taillee dans les deux Conseils;

ALIEN CLAIMS. 49

ARRETE :

La prtiseiite loi sur la procedure a suivre par devant le Tribunal fed6ral pour les
contestations de droit civil sera communique* a tons les gouveruements cantonaux
pour Stre publico par le dep<H qui en sera fait dans les communes, et sera inse"ree dans
la Feuille federale et daus 1h Recueil officiel des lois de la Confederation.

Berne, le 28 novembre 1850.

Au nom du Conseil federal Suisse :

Le President de la Confederation.

H. DKUEY.

Le Chancelier de la Confederation,

SCHIESS.

[Iucloaure 4 n No 177 ]

Loi fe'de'rale sur V organisation judiciaire fidirale {du 27 juin 1874).

l'assemblee federals de la CONFEDERATION SUISSE,

En exe"cutiou des articles 106 ft 114 de la Constitution federale du 29 mai 1874 et en
modification de la loi federale du 5 juin 1849, sur la rnatiere ;
Vu le message du Conseil federal du 23 mai 1874,

arrete :

I.— DISPOSITIONS CENTRALES.

Art. 1". Le Tribunal federal se compose de neuf membres et Wantant de suppliants.

Art. 2. Les membres et les suppliants du Tribunal federal sont Homme's par 1' Assem-
bled federate, qui aura egard a ce que les trtis langues nationales y soient representees
(art. 107 de la Constitution federale).

Art. 3. Peut etre nonime au Tribunal federal tout citoyen Suisse Eligible au Conseil
national.

Les membres de l'Assenibiee federale et du Conseil fe'de'ral et les fonctionnaires nom-
rues par ces autorites ne peuvent en mfiuie temps faire partie du Tribunal fe'de'rale
(art. 108 de la Constitution federale).

Art. 4. Les membres du Tribunal federale ne peuvent, pendant la duree de leurs
fonctions, revetir aucun autre eiuploi, soit au service de la Confederation, soit dans un
Canton, ni suivre d'autre carriere on exercer de profession, (art. 108 de la Constitu-
tion fed6rale).

En consequence ils ne peuvent remplir les fonctions de directeur ou de membre du
conseil d'administration d'nne societe qui a pour but uu benefice.

Art. 5. Les parents ou allies en ligne aBcendante ou descendante a Finfini, ou en
ligne' collaterale jusqu'au degre" de cousin germain inclusivement, ainsi que les maris
de sceurs, ne peuvent Stre ensemble membres ou suppliants du Tribunal federal.

Deux personnes qui se trouvent dans l'un des cas d'incompatibilite prfivus dans le
present article ne peuvent nou plus fonctionner ensemble pres le tribunal federal ou
l'une de ses sections, soit comme juge, soit comme grefner, soit comme juge d'instruc-
tion ou comme officier du ministere public.

Le fonctionnaire judiciaire qui, en contractant mariage, donne lieu &,uu cas d'incom-
patibilite avec un autre fonctionnaire judiciaire, se demet, par cefait, de ses fonctions.

Art. 6. La duree des fonctions des membres et des suppieants du Tribunal federal est
iixee a six ans.

La premiere nomination aura lieu immediatement apres l'entre'e en vigueur de la
presente loi et de l'arrete federal prevu a l'art. 11.

Les membres qui font vacance dans l'intervalle des six ans sont remplaces a la pre-
miere session de l'Assembiee federale pour le res-fce de la duree de leurs fonctions.

Art. 7. Le President et le Vice-President du Tribunal federale sout nomm6s par l'As-
senibiee federale, pour deux ans, parmi les membres du corps.

Lorsque le President et le Vice-President sont empecbes de sieger, ils sont remplaces
par le membre du Tribunal federal premier eiu.

Art. 8. Le Tribunal federal nomme deux greffiers, dont l'un de la Suisse allemande
et l'autre de la Suisse romande. Tous deux doivent savoir l'allemand et le francais.
L'un des deux an moois doit connaltre la langue italienne, les nominations se font aa
scrutin secret, pour la duree de six ans.

Les greffiers tiennent le protocole du Tribunal federal et de ses sections. Le Tribu-
nal federal deaigne d'ailleurs a chacun des greffiers ses attributions. Lorsqu'un greffier
est empeche de fonctionner, le President lui designe un remplagant.

Art. 9. Dans les limites du credit qui lui est assigne pour cela, le Tribunal federal

H. Eep. 134 4

50 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Homme le personnel de chancellerie dont il a besoin efc les huissiers ne"cessaires pour son
service.

Art. 10. Pour proreder a une election, ainsi que pour prendre toute decision dans les
causes de droit civil et de droit public placets dans lo competence du Tribunal federal,
la presence de sept membres au moins est necessaire.

Pour toutes ces decisions, le uombre des membres, y compris le President, doit etre
impair. Le President prend part a la deliberation et a la votation.

Art. 11. Le siige du Tribunal federal et de sa chancellerie sera desigue par un ar-
r&te federal special.

La ville qui aura ete designee pour le siege du Tribunal fournira gratuitement, en
quelque temps que ee soit, meublera et entretiendra les locaux necessaires pour les
audiences du Tribunal federal et de sea sections, pour sa chancellerie et pour ses ar-
chives. Les dispositions qui auront ete prises dans ce but seront soumises a l'approba-
tion du Conseil iedeial.

Art. 12. Les membres du Tribunal federal et les greffiers sont tenus de demeurer au
siege du Tribunal.

Les dispositions de la loi federale du 23 decembre 1851 (III. 33) sur les garanties
politiques et de police (art. 1 et 6), concernant les rapports personnels des membres du
Conseil federal et du chancelier, sont applicables aux membres du Tribunal federal et
aux greffiers.

Art. 13. Les dispositions des art. 3 (alinea 2), 4 et 12 ne sont pas applicables aux
suppieants du Tribunal federal.

Art. 14. Les membres du Tribunal federal recoivent un traitement de fr. 10,000, le
President un traitement de fr. 11,000 et les greffiers un traitement de fr. 6-8,000. Les
suppieants et les autres fonctionnaires judiciaires recevront des jetons de presence
dont le montant sera fixe par un nrrdte special.

Art. 15. Pour autant que les affaires le permettent, le Tribunal federal peut une ou
deux fois par an ordonner des vacances, pendant lesquelles tous ses membres, sauf le
President ou le Vice-President, pourrout quitter le siege du tribunal. La cluree de
ces vacances ne pourra cependant depasscr quatre semaines par a u:6:

En outre, et lorsqu'il existe des motifs snffisants, le Tribunal federal peut aecorder
un ccmgi a Pun de ses membres ou aux greffiers.

Art. 16. II est interdit a un meinbre ou suppieant du Tribunal federal de fonctionner
comvie juge :

1° Dans toute cause oil lui-meme, sa femme, sa fiancee, ses parents ou allies en ligne
directe a l'infini et en ligne collaterale jusqu'an degre de cousin germain inclusivement,
ou le mari de la soeur de sa femme, a un interet direct ou indirect;

2° Dans la cause d'une" personne dont il est le tnteur ou curateur ;

3° Dans les affaires oil il a deja proeede etant dans l'exercice d'antres fonctions, soit
comme membre d'une autorite administrative ou judiciaire de la Confederation ou
d'un Canton, soit comme fonctionnaire judiciaire, soit comme arbitre, soit comme fonde
de pouvoir ou agent d'une parti, soit comme expert ou comme t6moin ;

4° Dans la cause d'une personne morale a laquelle il appartient, dans celle oil sou
Canton d'origine ou sa. commune apparalt comme partie au proces et dans les recours
qui sont formes contre les autorites legislatives ou coutre le Gouvernement de son
Canton.

Si un juge on suppieant du Tribunal federal se tronve dans l'un des cas prevns par
le present article, il doit en avertir en temps utile le President du Tribunal federal ou
de la section competente.

Art. 17. Tout juge on suppieant du Tribunal federal peut Ure recuse", par les parties,
ou peut demander lui-mSme sa recusation:

1° S'il se trouve avec l'une des parties dans un rapport qui donne naissance a une
inimitie ou a nue dependance particuliere ;

2° S'il a exprime, depuis que le proces est pendant devant le Tribunal federal, son
opinion sur le cas soumis au Tribunal.

Les demandes en recusation, qu'elles soient presentees par un juge ou par les par-
ties, doivent 6tre remises en temps utile au President dn Tribunal federal ou a sou
remplacant. Si la demande emane d'une des parties, le President la communique an
membre que cela concerne, ainsi qu'a la partie adverse, en les invitant & y repondre.
Dans les cas contestes, le Tribunal prononce sur la demande en recusation.'

Art. 18. Le. Tribunal federal ne pent 6l.re recuse en corps.

Si, dans un cas special, le nombre des membres et des suppieants dont la recusation
est proposee est tel qu'aucune operation valide ne puisse avoir lieu, le President du
Tribunal federal tirera au sort, parmi les Presidents des Tribunaux supremes des Can-
tons, le nombre necessaire de suppliants extraordinaires pour prononcer sur la demande
en recusation et meme, le cas echeant sur l'affaire au fond.

Art. 19. Avant d'entrer en fonctions, les fonctionnaires judiciaires federaux doivent
preter serment de reuiplir fidelement leur devoir.

Le Tribunal federal est assermente par l'Assemblde federale ; les membres et les sup-

ALIEN CLAIMS. 51

pieants qui ne sont pas presents a cette solennite pretent serment & la premiere au-
dience a laquelle ils assistent.

Les grefflers et leur substitut, lea juges construction et leurs greffiers sont asser-
meutes par le President du Tribunal federal ou par l'un des membres oomrais par lui&,
cet effet. Les officiers du ministere public federal pretent serment entre les mains du.
Couseil federal.

II est cbaque fois dresse proces-verbal de l'assermentation.

Pour les fonctionnaires judiciaires auxquels leurs convictions dependent de preter ce
serment, uue promesse solennelle peut en tenir lieu. ,

Art. 20. Les deliberations et les votations du Tribunal federal et de ses sections sont
publiques.

Cette disposition n'est pas applicable aux deliberations des jures et de la chambre
d'aocusation.

Art. 21. Les Presidents du Tribunal federal et de ses diverses sections recoivent les
pieces adressees a ces autorites et tiennent un protocole de leur entire et des disposi-
tions prises par eux.

Art. 22. Le President organise les audiences du Tribunal suivant que les affaires
l'exigent et prend dans ce but les meeures nficessaires. II dirige les debars et veille au
maintien de la tranquillity et de l'ordre. II peut faire sortir de la salle des stances et,
au besoin, faire detenir pendant 24 heures au plus les personnes qui rfoistent k ses
ordres.

Art. 23. Le President surveille dans l'accoinplissernent de leur devoir les juges d'iu-
struction, les greffiers et les employe's inferieurs.

Art. 24. Cbaque annexe le Tribunal federal adresse a l'assembiee fe'deVale un rapport
circonstaucie sur Unites les branches de l'administration de la justice federale.

Art. 25. Les autorites et les fonctionnaires etablis pour l'administration de la justice
federale accomplissent tons les actes de leur competence dans toute l'erendue de la Con-
federation, Bans avoir besoin du consentemeut prealable des autorites du Canton ou ils
procedent.

Les autorites cantonales doivent, chacune daus leur ressort, faire droit aux requisi-
tions que les fonctionnaires judiciaires federaux leur adressent dans l'iuteret de l'ad-
ministration de la justice.

Art. 26. Le Conseil federal fait les avances necessaires a la caisse du Tribunal. La
cbancellerie du Tribunal tient un compte exact des recettes et des depeuses.

II.— ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE CIVILE.

Art. 27. Le Tribunal federal connait de difKrends de droit civil:

1° entre la Confederation et un ou plusieurs Cantons;

2° entre des corporations ou des partieuliers conirne demandeurs et la Confederation
comme defenderesse, pour autaut que le litige atteint une valeur en capital de 3,000
francs au moins ;

3° entre Cantons;

4° entre des Cantons d'nne part et des corporations ou des partieuliers d'autre part,
quand le litige atteint uue valeur en capital de 3,000 francs au moins, et que l'uue des
parties le requiert.

II connait de plus des difKrends ooncernant le heimathlosat, d'apres la loi du 3 d6-
cembre 1850 (II. 130), aiusi que des contestations qui surgissent entre coinmuues de
differents Cantons, touchant le droit de cit6 (art. 110 de la Constitution federale).

Art. 28. Le Tribunal federal connait en outre de toutes les causes que la legislation
federale place dans la competence du Tribunal federal par des lois speciales (art. 114 de
la Constitution federate).

Le Tribunal federal counnalt notamment, en verfcu des lois federates existantes :
a. Des contestations en matiere d' expropriations pour la construotiou des cbemins de
fer ou d'autres travaux d'utilite publique, auxquels l'Assembiee federale declare que la
loi federale du l cr mai 1850 (I. 319) est applicable, et d'apres les dispositions de cette
loi, ainsi que de celle du 18 juillet 1857 ;

o. Des divorces de manages mixtes, en application de la loi federalo du 3 fevrier 1862
(VII. 129) ; ~ '

c. De toutes les contestations de droit prive entre la Confederation et uue Compagnie
de chemins defer, en execution de l'article 39 de la loi federale du 23 decembre 1872 (XI.
1) sur les chemins de fer, et speeialement des actions en dommages et interests prevuea
aux articles 14, 19, 24 et 33 de la dite loi ;

d. Des actions en dommageset interests des administrations de chemins defer contre des
partieuliers, dans les cas preVus a l'art. 15, alinea 2, de la dite loi ;

e. Des actions en dommages et iuterets des administrations de. chemins defer entre eltes,
dans les cas prevus a Fart. 30, alinea 3, de la dite loi ;

/. De toutes les contestations qui surgissent a l'occasion de la liquidation forcee de
Compagnies de chemins de fer, en execution de la loi federale du 24 juin 1874 sur la ma-
tiere.

52 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Art. 29. Dans les causes oil il s'agira de l'application des lois federates i>ar ]es tribn-
naux cantonanx, et lorsqne l'objeet du litige sera d'une valeur d'au moius fr. 3000, ou
non susceptible d'estimation, chaque partie a le droit de recourir au Tribunal federal
^ponr obtenir la reforme du jugement au fond rendu par la derniere instance judiciaire
cantonale.

La valeur en capital est dfiterminee par la somme en litige devant la derniere instance
cantonale.

Les parties penvent convenir que dans ces causes le jugement au fond d'une premiere
instance cantonale sera soumis directemeut au Tribunal federal sans recourir a la
seconde instance cantonale.

Art. 30. Pour ce recours, il est accorde un deiai peremptoire de 20 jours des la com-
munication du jugement contre lequel il est dirige. La partie qui voudra en faire
usage doit le declarer dans le rueme deiai au siege du tribunal cantonal qui a rendu le
jugement dont est recours. Dans ce cas, le tribunal cantonal en question devra adres-
ser au President du Tribunal federal, dans un deiai. de 14 jours a partir de celui ou
cette declaration est intervenne, le jugement et les actes des parties.

Aprfes avoir recu les actes, le President du Tribunal federal fixe le jour ou l'affaire
sera portee devaut le Tribunal federal eten informe les parties.

Les parties ont le droit de comparaitre au jour fixe devant le Tribunal federal et de
plaider leur cause oralement ou de la faire plaider par des fondes de pouvoirs.

Le Tribunal federal devra baser son jugement sur l'e'tat des faits tel qu'il aura ete
etabli par les tribuuaux cantonaux. Cependant lorsque devaut les instances canto-
nales la preuve de faits contested de nature a exercer une influence preponderate sur
le jugement a rendre n'aurait pas ete admise, le Tribunal federal pourra faire completer
les actes du dossier par l'instance qui a rendu ce jugement et statuer ensuite, defiuitive-
ment, sans une nouvelle audition des parties.

Art. 151. Le Tribunal federal est tenu de iuger, outre les causes preVues aux articles
27a29: J b ' F

1° cellrs que la Constitution ou la legislation d'un Canton placent d'avance dans la
competence du Tribunal federal. De pareilles dispositions ne sont valables que moyen-
nant la ratification de FAssemblee federale ;

2° celles qui sont portes devant lni par convention des parties et dont l'objet atteint
une valeur eu capital de 3000 fraucs au inoins (art. Ill de la Constitution federate).

III.— ADMINISTRATION DE LA JUSTICE PENALE.

Art. 32. Le Tribunal assists du Jury, lequel statue sur les faits, connait en matiere
pe"nale :

1° des cas de haute trakison envers la Confederation, de rivolte ou de violence contre
les autorites federates ;

2° des crimes et des dfSlits contre le droit des gens ;

3° des crimes et des delits politiques qui sont la cause ou la suite de troubles par
le6quels une intervention federale armee est occasioned;

4° des faits releves a la charge cle fonctionn aires nominees par une autorite federale,
quand cette autorite en saisit le Tribunal fe'de'ral (art. 112 de la Constitution federale).

Les dispositions alterieures coneeruant la competence des assises federales sont ren-
fermfes aux articles 73 a 77 du Code penal federal du 4 fevrier, 1853 (III. 335).

Art. 33. Le tribunal federal est oblige de statuer aussi sur d'autres cas que ceux meu-
tionnes a Fart. 32, si la Constitution ou la legislation d'un Canton les fait reatrer dans
la competence de ce Tribunal et si 1 Assembled federate y a consenti.

Art. 34. Pour l'administration de la justice penale, le Tribunal federal se divise : en
Chambred'accusation, en Cbambre criminelle et en Tribunal de cassation. Ces trois
Chambres sont nominees au commencement de chaque aunee pour la duree d'un au.

Aucun juge ne peut conualtie de la meme affaire dans plus d'une section du Tribunal
federal.

Art. 35. La Chambre d'accumtion se compose de trois membres et d'un nombre egal
de suppieants qui sont appelies a sieger en cas d'empechement des premiers. Le
membre premier ein est President.

Art. 36. La Cbambre d'accusatiou a sons sa direction et sa surveillance deux juges
d'instruction, que le Tribunal federal nomme pour six ans. lis designent eux-mfimes
leurs greffiers, sons reserve de la ratification de ces nominations par le President de la
Cbambre d'accusatiou.

En cas d'empechement des juges d'instruction ordinaires, le Tribunal federal ou, s'il
n'est pas reuni, le President peut nommer et appeler des juges d'instruction extraordi-
naires.

Aut. 37. Le Conseil federal nomme dans chaque cas special le Procureur-gen6ral de
la Confederation.

Art. 38. La Chambre criminelle, qui prend part a toutes les sessions des assises federates,
se compose de trois membres et de trois suppieants pour les cas d'empechement. Les

ALIEN CLAIMS. 53

trois langues DatioDales doiveut Stre representees au sein de ce corps. Le President de
la Chambre criminelle est nomm6 par le Tribunal federal pour ehaque sessiou. r

Lorsqu'uD membre on nn suppliant de la Chambre criminelle est empfiche par de?
circonstatices imprevues d'assister k une sessiou des assises, le President de celles-ci
peut nornmer et appeler, pour le remplacer, uu suppliant extraordinaire, qu'il clioisit;
parroi les membres d'uue autorite" judiciaire cantonale.

Art. 39. Les assises federales se composeut de la Chambre criminelle et de iouze jure's,
elus dans les cantons par le penple et tire's au sort dans la liste de l'arrondissement.

Art. 40. Le territoire de la Confederation est divise en cinq arroudissements d'as-
sises.

Le premier comprend les cantons de Geneve, de Vand, de Fribonrg (a l'exception des
communes ou priSdomine la langue allemande), de Neuchatel et les communes des can-
tons de Berne et du Valais, ou la langue francaise est pnSdominaute.

Le second comprend les Cantons de Berne (a l'exceptiou des localites comprises dans
le premier arrondissement), de Soleure, de Bale, de Lucerne, ainsi que les communes
des Cantons de Fribourg et du Valais, oil l'on parle allemand.

Le troisieme comprend les Carton sd'Argovie, de Zurich, de Schaffbouse, de Tuurgo-
vie, de Zoug, de Schwyz, et d'Unterwalden.

Le quatrieme comprend les Cantons d'Uri, de Glaris, d'Appenzell, de Saint-Gall, et
des Grisons (a l'exceptiou des communes ou la langue italienne prfidomine).

Le cinquieme comprend le Canton du Tessin et les communes italieunes du Canton
des Grisons.

Seront nomines et ported sur la liste de l'arroudissement dans les quatre premiers
arrondissements un jure sur 1,000 habitants, et, dans le cinquieme arrondissement, uu
jur6 sur 500 habitants.

Art. 41. Pent etre nommi jure" tout Suisse ayant le droit de voter d'apres l'art. 74 de
la Constitution federale. Sont toutefois exceptes :

1° Les merabres des autorites judiciaires cantonales superieures, tous les presidents
de tribunaux, juges d'instn\ction et officiers du miuistere public, ainsi que tous les
fonctionnaires federaux et cantonaux de l'ordre administratif, non compris les employes
communaiix ;

2° Les ecciesiastiques;

3° Les employes dans les maisons d'arrSt et de detention ;

4° Les employes de police.

Art. 42. -Tout citoyen appeie aux fonctionsde jure est tcnu d'accepter. Sont exceptes :

1° Tous ceux qui ont atteiut l'a-ge de 60 ans revolus ;

2° Ceux dout le nom a ete porte sur la deruiere liste des jures ;

3° Ceux qui sont emp6cbes de remplir les fonctions de jure pour cause de maladie ou
d'infirmite.

Art. 43. Les questions relatives a l'eiigibilite aux fonctions de jure et a l'obligation
de les accepter sont du ressort des Gouoernements cantonaux.

lis transmetteut les listes de jures des Cantons au Tribunal federal, qui eu forme les
listes d'arrondissement et les publie (art. 40j.

Les nous des jures qui, pour une cause quelconque, ont perdu cette qualite, on qui
sont decedes, sont transmis par le Gouvernement cantonal au Tribunal federal pour
qu'ils soient rayes de la liste.

Art. 44. Les listes de jures sont renouveUes tous les six ans. Le Conseil federal pour-
voit a ce que les nouvelles listes soient formees en temps utile.

Art. 45. Avaut l'ouverture de ehaque session des assises, la Chambre criminelle fait
deposer, en seance publique, dans une urne, les noms des jures de l'arroudissement dans
lequel les debats devront avoir lieu ; elle en fait ensuite tirer au sort cinquante-quatre
noms, qui sont lus et enregistres.

Des copies de la liste speciale ainsi formee sont immediatement commuuiquees au Pro-
cureur-Gen6ral designe par le Conseil federal, ainsi qu'a l'accuse ou a son d6fenseur.

Art. 46. Chaque ibis qu'une affaire est renvoyee aux assises, le Proeureur-Geueral de
la Confederation et l'accuse peuvent recuser chacun vingt jures.

Si, daus la m&me affaire, il y a plusieurs accuses, ils peuvent exercer conjointemeut
leurs recusations, ou faire usage de leur droit separemeut. Dans l'un et l'autre cas, ils
ne peuvent, pris ensemble, depasser le nombre de recusations accorde a uu accuse seul.
Si les accuses ne se concertent pas pour exercer conjointemeut leurs recusations, le sort
decide entre eux dans quel ordre chacun exerce see recusations. Les jures qui, de cette
maniere, sont recuses par l'un des accuses, le sont alors pour tous les autres accuses,
jusqu'a ce que le nombre des recusations accordees soit epuise.

Art. 47. Les recusations soDt annonces, verbalement ou par ecrit, au President de la
chambre criminelle, dans les quatorze jours des la reception de la copie meutionee a
l'art. 45. Celui qui ne fait pas usage de son droit dans le deiai prescrit est cense y avoir
reuonce.

Art. 48. Lorsque quarante jures ont ete recuses, les quatorze restants sont convoque's
aux assises.

Si le nombre des recusations ne s'eieve pas a quarante, la Chambre criminelle designe

54 ALIEN CLAIMS.

par le sort, parmi les jnr6s non recuses, lea quartorze qui devront etre appeies aux
assises.

Dans les deux cas, le sort designe pareilleraent les deux jur(5s qui, parmi les quatorze,
doivent 6tre adjoints au jury pour fonctionner en quality de suppliants.

Art. 49. Toutefois, lorsque dans une session des assises il y a uu grand nombre d'ao-
cuse'sa juger, ou pour tont autre motif grave, le President de la Chambre criminelle peut
appeller les cinquante-quatrej tire's portfe sur la liste speciale et ne faire proce"der aux
recusations qu'a Voverture des ddbats.

Art. 50. L'invitation de se rendre aux assises est addressee aux jnres au moins six
jours avant l'ouverture de la session.

Art. 51. La Chambre criminelle designe dans chaque eas le lien oil les assises doivent
Be rduuir.

Dans les cas ordinaires, nn crime ou delit est juge dans l'arrondissement d'assises oil
il a6t6 couimis. Ccpendant dans 1'interSt d'une justice impartiale ou de lasurete" pub-
lique il peut etre fait exception a cette regie.

Art. 52. Pour chaque session des assises federates, le Gouvernement cantonal dn lien
oil elles sont appeldes a sieger met a leur disposition un local convenable. Les frais
cause's par ces arrangements sont supported par la caisse du Tribunal. Les loyers ne
sont cependant pas ported en comptc.

Art. 53. Les gardes, les escortes, et les ge61iers sont fonrhis, sur requisition du Presi-
dent des assises ou du juge destruction, par les autorites cantonales du lieu de la
poursnite de l'affaire. Les frais en sont supported par la caisse dn Tribunal.

Art. 54. Les persottnes mises en Mat d'arrestation sont e'croufies daus les prisons can-
tonales. Leur entretien est bonifie par la caisse du Tribunal d'apres les tarifs du Can-
ton. En ce qui touche la surveillance et le traitement des detenus, le geolier se con-
forme aux ordres du juge d'instruction federal ou, le cas e'che'ant, du President des
assises.

Art. 55. La Cour de cassation connalt soit des recours en cassation, des demandes de
revision et de rehabilitation daus les causes criminelles (articles 135-168, 175-182 du
Corie de procedure p^nale federale, 11.735), soit des recours contre des jugements de
Tribunaux cantonaux qui portent sur des transgressions des lois fiscales federales (art.
18 de la loi federale du 30 juin 1849, 1. 87 V

Le Tribunal de cassation se compose du President du Tribuual federal, qui en est
d'office le president, de quatre juges et de trois suppliants. Pour rendre, des arrets
valables, la Cour de cassation doit tonjours etre au complet, c'est a-dire compos<Se de
cinq juges. Cas e'che'ant, elle ponrra Stre compietee suivant leur tour de r61e au moyen
des autres jnges et suppleants- ayant le droit de voter d'apres l'article 34. Si leur
nombre ne suffit pas il sera prooe'de' coufortne'inent a l'art. 18.

IT.— LES CONTESTATIONS DE DROIT PUBLIC.

Art. 56. Le Tribunal federal connalt des conflits de compMence entre les autorites fe"d6-
rales d'une part et les autorites cantonales d'autre part. (Art. 113, § ] , de la Constitu-
tion federale.)

Lorsqu'une partie pretend qn'une contestation dont le Tribunal federal a ete nanti est
du ressort exclusif de l'autorite cantonale, ou doit etre juge"e par une antorite etraugere
ou nn tribunal arbitral, le Tribunal federal statue lui-m§ine sur sa competence.

L'Assetnbiee federale connalt des contestations entre le Conseil federal et le Tribunal
feMc^'al, sur la question de savoir si un eas est du ressort de l'une ou de l'autre de ces
autorites (art. 85, § 13, de la Constitution federale).

Art. 57. Le Tribunal federal connalt en outre des differends entre Cantons, lorsque ces
diiferends sont du domaine du droit public.

Sont eompris specialement dans cette categorie: les rectifications de frontieres inter-
cantonalts, les questions d'application de traites intercantonaux et les questions de
competence entre les autorites de Cantons differents, lorsque dans ces divers oas c'est
un Gronvernement cantonal lui-meme qui nantit le Tribunal federal de l'atfaire.

Art. 58. Le Tribunal federal statue sur les demandes d'extradition qui sont formuiees
en vertu des traites d'extradition existants, pour autant que l'application du traite en
question est coutestee. Les mesures preiiminaires restent dans la competence du Con-
seil federal.

Art. 59. Le Tribunal federal connalt enfiu des recours prescntes par les particuliers et
les corporations, conceruant:

a. La violation des droits qui leur sont garantis soit par la Constitution, soit
par la legislation federale, soit par la Constitution de lours Cantous ;

6. La violation de conventions et de concordats intercantouaux, ainsi que des
traites avec l'etranger,
lorsque ces recours sont diriges contre des decisions d'autorites cantonales et qu'ils
ont ete deposes dans les soixaute jours des leur communication aux interesses.

Sont reservees, a teneur de l'art. 113, alinea 2 me , de la Constitution federale, les con-
testations adtuinistratives ayant trait aux dispositions suivantes de la Constitution

ALIEN CLAIMS. 55

federale et dont la solution rentre, anx terrnes des art. 85 , chiffre 12, et 102, chiffre 2,
dans la competence soit du Couseil federal, soit de l'Assembiee federale:

1° Art. 18, alin^a 3, coneernant la gratuity de 1'equipement du soldat;

2° Art. 27, alin6as 2 et 3, coneernant les e"coles primaires publiques des Cantons;

3° Art. 31, coneernant la liberty de commerce et d'industrie;

4° Art. 31 et 32, coneernant les droits de consommation et les droits d'entree sur les
vins et les autres boissons spiritueuses eucore reconnus;

5° Art. 43, 45 et 47, coneernant les droits des snisses etablis ;

6° Art. 49, 50 et 51, coneernant la liberty de conscience et de croyance et le libre exer-
cice des cultes, etc. Eestent neanmoins dans la competence du tribunal federal: les
contestations relatives aux impdts (art. 49, alin^a 6) et les contestations de droit prive"
auxquelles doune lieu la creation de comrnunautes religieuses npuvelles ou une scission
de comrnunautes religieuses existantes (art. 50, aline"a 3);

7° Art 53, coneernant l'etat civil et le droit de disposer des lieux de sepulture, dans la
mesure ou la loi deferera au Conseil federal la competence sur ces matieres ;

Sont egalement soumis a la decision soit dn Conseil federal, soit de l'Assembiee
federale:

8° Les reconrs coneernant l'application des lois federales prevues aux art. 25, 33, 34,
39, 40 et 69 de la Constitution federate;

9° Les recours contre la validite d'eiections et votations cantonales ;

10° Les contestations provenant des dispositions des traites avec l'etranger concernaut
le commerce et les p6ages, les patentes, l'etablissement, Faffranchissement de la taxe
militaire et la libre circulation.

Art 60. Le Tribunal federal appliqnera dans tous les cas mentionnes aux art. 56,
57, 58 et 59 les lois votees par l'Assembiee federale et les arrets de cette Assemble qui
ont une portee generale. II se conformera egalement aux traites que l'assembiee fede-
rale aura ratifies (art. 113 de la Constitution federale).

Art. 61. Le Tribunal federal ne prononce dans la reglesur des contestations de droit
public qu'a la suite d'une procedure e'erite.

Les recours sont transmis pour rapport a la partie adverse ou, a son defaut, a l'auto-
rite contre laquelle ils sont diriges. Une fois la reponse recue, le juge d'instruction
peut, s'il le juge convenable, prescrire une replique et une duplique. II ordonne en
meme temps la production des inoyens de preuve necessaires.

Exceptionnellement, sur la demande d'une des parties, et lorsqu'il existe des motifs
particuliers pour le faire, le Tribunal federal peut ordonner des debats oraux.

Art. 62. Dans les proces qui portent sur des contestations de droit public, il ne peut,
dans la regie, ni etre demande d'emoluments, ni etre alloue d'iudemnites aux parties.

Cependant le Tribunal peut faire des exceptions dans les cas ou elles seraient justi-
fies par l'origine ou la cause de la contestation, ou par la maniere dont le proces a et6
instruit par les parties.

Art. 63. Le President du Tribunal peut, sur la demande d'une partie, ordonner les
mesures necessaires pour le maintien de l'etat de fait.

Ces mesures doiyent Stre ratifiees parle Tribunal dans sa premiere audience.

DISPOSITIONS FINALES.

Art. 64. Sont abrogees par la presente loi :

1° La loi federale sur l'orgiuasation judieiaire federale, du 5 juin 1849 (i. 65) ;
2° La loi federale sur les attributions et le traitement du procureur-general, du
20 decembre 1850 (ii. 163) ;

3° La loi federale coneernant une modification a l'art. 30 de l'organisation judi-
cial, du 16 juillet 1862 (vii. 295),
ainsi que toutes les dispositions des autres lois federales qui pourraient se trouver
en contradiction avec celles de la presente loi.

Art. 65. La presente loi entrera en vigueur, sons reserve de l'exercice des droits po-
pulates, conformement a l'art. 89 de la Constitution federale, apres un deiai de quatre-
vingt-dix jours des celui de sa promulgation.
Le Conseil federal est charge de la publication et de l'execution de la presente loi.
Ainsi arrete par le Conseil national.
Berne, le 26 juin 1874.
Le President :

FEEE-HERZOG.
Le Secretaire :

SCHIESS.
Ainsi arrete par le Conseil des Etats.
Berne, le 27 juin 1874.
Le President :

KGECHLIN.
Le Secre'laire :

J.-L. LtJTSCHEK.

56 ALIEN CLAIMS.

LB CONSEIL FEDERAL ARRETE :

La loi fe'de'rale ci-dessus sera publico dans la Feuille fe'de'rale.

Berne, le l er juillet 1874.

Le President de la Confederation : •

SCHENK.
Le Chancelier de la Confederation :

SCHIESS.

ArrUe federal concernant le siege du Tribunal federal. (Du Z6juin 1874.)

J.' ASSEMBLES FEDERAL DE LA CONFEDERATION SUISSE,

En execution des dispositions des articles 106 et 107 de In Constitution fe'de'rale et de
l'art.|ll de la loi fe'de'ral sur l'organisation judiciaire fe'de'rale,

ARRETE :

1. La ville de Lausanne est, sous reserve de l'entre'e en vigueur de la nouvelle loi snr
l'organisation judiciaire federal, designee comine sie"ge du Tribunal fe'de'ral.

2. Les autorit<5s compe'tentes du Canton de Vaud, soit de la ville de Lausanne, de-
vront, dans le d61ai d'un mois a compter dujour ou la loi fMerale sur l'organisation
judiciaire fe'de'rale sera entr6e en viguenr, faire parvenir au conseil federal les engage-
ments, constatant qu'elles sout en mesure de se charger d'une maniere definitive des
obligations qu'impose l'art. 11 de cette loi.

Ainsi arrets par le Conseil national.
Berne, le26juin 1874.
Le President :

Le Secretaire :

Ainsi arrets par le Conseil des Etats.
Berne, le 26 juiu 1874.
Le President :

Le Secretaire :

LE CONSEIL FEDERAL ARRETE :

FEER-HERZOG.
SCHIESS,

KCECHLIN,
J.-L. LUTSCHER,

L'arrete' f<5d6ral ci-dessus sera insert dans la Feuille fe'de'rale.

Berne, le ler juillet 1874.

Le President de la Confe'de'raiion :

SCHENK.
Lu Chancelier de la Confederation :

SCHIESS.

Note. — Par I'arr6t6 ci-dessus il a 6t6 donne' suite au postulat que le conseil a adopts
le 23 et le Conseil des Etats le 25 juin 1874, comme suit :

" La question du siege du Tribunal fe'de'ral devant 6tre tranche^ dans le cours de la
prfeente session, le Conseil federal est invito a communiquer a 1' Assemble f6 erale les
demandes qui lui ont e'te' adressees a ce snjet en les accompagnant de son pr6avis s'il
juge a propos de le donner."

[Incloaare 5 in No. 177.]
Constitution fe'de'rale de la Confederation Suisse du 29 mat 1874.

AU NOM DE DIEU TOUT PUISSANT! LA CONFEDERATION SUISSE,

Voulant affermir 1'alliance des ConftidSnSs, mainteuir et accroltre l'unite", la force, et
l'honneur de la Nation Suisse, a adopts la Constitution fe'de'rale suivante :

Constitution federale de la Confederation Suisse*

CHAPITRE I.

DISPOSITIONS GENERALES.

Article premier. Les peuples des vingt-deux Cantons souverains de la Suisse, unis
par la presente alliance, savoir: Zurich, Bei-ne, Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden (le
Haut et le Bas), Claris, Zoug, Fribourg , Soleure, Bale, (Ville et Campagne), Svhaffhouse,
Appenzell (les deux Rhones), S(. Gall, Grisons, Argovie, Thurgovie, Tessin, Vaud, Valais,
Ueuchdtel et Geneve, forment dans leur ensemble la Confederation Suisse.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 57

Article 2. La Confederation a pour but d'assurer l'independance de la patrie contre
l'etranger, de maintenir la tranquillity et l'ordre a l'interieur, de proteger la liberty et
les droits des Confe'de're's et d'accroitre leur prosperity commune.

Article 3. Les Cantons sont souverains en tant que leur souverainete n'est pas limi-
tee par la Constitution federale, et, conirne tels, ils exercent tous les droits qui ne sont
pas deiegues au pouvoir federal.

Article 4. Tous les Suisses sont egaux devantla loi. II n'y a en Suisse ni sujets, ni
privileges de lieu, de naissanc%, de persounes ou de families.

Article 5. La Confederation garantit aux Cantons leur territoire, leur souverainete
dans les limites fix6es par l'artiole 3, leurs Constitutions, la liberte et les droits du
peuple, les droits constitutionnels des oitoyens, ainsi que les droits et les attributions
que le peuple a confers aux autorites.

Article 6. Les Cantons sont teuus de demander a la Confederation la garantie de leurs
Constitutions.

Cette garantie est accordee, pourvu :

a. Que ces Constitutions ne renferment rien de oontraire aux dispositions de la Con-
stitution i'ed6rale ;

b. Qu'elles assurent Pexercice des droits politiques d'apres des formes republieaines,
representatives ou deiriocratiques ;

e. Qu'elles aient 6te aeeeptees par le peuple et qu'elles puissent etre revisees lorsque
la majorite absolue des oitoyens le demande.

Article 7. Toute alliance particuliere et tout traite d'une nature politique entre
Cantons sont interdits.

En revanche, les Cantons ont le droit de conclure entre eux des conventions sur des
objets de legislation, d'administration on de justice; toutefois, ils doivent les porter a
la connaissance de l'autorite federale, laquelle, si ces conventions renferment qnelque
chose de contraire a la Confederation ou aux droits des autres Cantons, est autorisee a
en empScher l'executiou. Dans le cas contraire, les Cantons contractants sont autori-
ses a reclamer pour l'execution la cooperation des a,utorites federales.

Article 8. La Confederation a seule le droit de declarer la guerre et de conclure 'la
paix, ainsi que de faire avec les Etats etrangers des alliances et des traites, notamment
des traites de peage (douanes) et de commerce.

Article 9. Exceptionnellement, les Cantons couservent le droit de conclure avec les
Etats strangers des traites sur des objets concernant l'economie publique, les rapports
de voisinage et de police ; neanmoins ces traites ne doivent rien contenir de contrairea
la Confederation on aux droits d'autres Cantons.

Article 10. Les rapports officiels entre les Cantons et les Gouvernements etrangers
ou leurs representants out lieu par l'intermediaire du-Conseil federal.

Toutefois, les Cantons peuvent correspondre directement avec les autorites infe-<
rieures et les employes d'un Etat etranger, lorsqn'il s'agit des objets mentiounes a l'arti-
cle precedent.

Article 11. II ne peut 6tre conclu de capitulations militaires.

Article 12. Les membres des autorites federales, les fonctionnaires civils et mili-
taires de la Confederation, et les representants ou les commissaires federaux ne peuvent
recevoir d'un Gouvernement etranger ni pensions ou traitements, ni titres, presents ou
decorations.

S'ils sont deja en possession de pensions, de titres ou de decorations, ils devront re-
noncer a jouir de leurs pensions et a porter leurs titres et leurs decorations pendant la
duree de leurs fonctions.

Toutefois les employes inferieurs peuvent etre autorises par le Conseil federal a rece-
voir leurs pensions.

On ne peut, dans l'armee federale, porter ni decoration ni titre accordes par un gou-
vernement etranger.

II est interdit a tout ofrlcier, sous-officier ou soldat d'accepter des distinctions de ce
genre.

Article 13. La Confederation n'a pas le droit d'entretenir des troupes perma-
nentes.

Nnl Canton ou demi-Canton ne peut avoir plus de 300 hommes de troupes perma-
nentes, sans l'autorisation du pouvoir federal ; la gendarmerie n'est pas comprise dans
ce nombre.

Article 14. Des differends venant a s'eiever entre Cantons, les Etats s'abstiendront
de toute voie de fait et de tout armement. Ils se soumettront a la decision qui sera
prise sur ces differends conforniement aux prescriptions federales.

Article 15. Dans le cas d'un danger subit proveuant du dehors, le Gouvernment du
Canton menace doit requerir le secoursdes Etats confederesetenaviserimmediatement
l'autorite federale, le tout sans prejudice des dispositions qu'elle pourra prendre. Les
Cantons requis sont tenus de preter seoours. Les frais sout supportes par la Confede-
ration.

Article 16, En cas de troubles a l'interieur, ou lorsque le danger provient d'nu autre
Canton, le Gouvernement du Canton menace doit en aviser immediatemcut le Conseil

58 ALIEN CLAIMS.

federal, afin qu'il puisse prendre les mesnres necessaires dans les llmites de sa compe-
tence (Article 102, chiffres 3, 10 et 11) on convoqner l'Assembtee federate. Lorsqu'il y
a urgence, le G-ouvernementest autorise, en avertissant immediatement le Conseil federal,
a reqiterir le secours d'autres Etats confederes, qui sont tenus de le preter.

Lorsque le Gouvernement est hors d'etat d'invoquer le secours, l'autorite federate
competeute peut intervenir sans requisition ; elle est tenue de le faire lorsque les
troubles compromettent la surete de la Suisse.

En cas d'intervention, les antorites federates veillent a'l'observation des dispositions
prescrites a l'article 5.

Les frais sont supported par le Canton qui a requis l'assistance ou occasionne l'inter-
veution, a moins que l'Assembtee federate n'en decide autrement, en consideration de
circoustances particulieres.

Article 17. Dans les cas mentionnes aux deux articles precedents, chaque Canton est
tenu d'accorder libre passage aux troupes. Celles-ci seront imin6diateineut placees
sous le comraandement federal.

Article 18. Tout Suisse est tenu au service miltaire.

Les roilitaires qui, par le fait du service federal, perdent la vie ou voient leur sante
alteree d'une maniere permanente, ont droit a des secours de la Confederation, pour
eux on pour leur famille, s'ils sont dans le besoin.

Chaque soldat regoit gratuitement ses premiers effets d'armement, d'equipement, et
d'habillernent. L'arme reste en mains du soldat aux conditions qui seront flxees par la
legislation federate.

La Confederation edictera des prescriptions uniforraes sur la taxe d'exemption du
service militaire.

Article 19. L'armee federale est composee :

a. Des corps de troupes des Cantons ;

l>. De tous les Suisses qui, n'appartenant pas a ces corps, sont neanmoins astreints au
service militaire.

Le droit de disposer de l'armee, ainsi que du materiel de guerre prevu par la ioi, ap-
partient a la Confederation.

En cas de danger, la Confederation a aussi le droit de disposer exclusivement et
direetementdeshommesnou iucorporesdans l'armee federale et detoutes lesautres res-
sources militaires des Cantous.

Les Cantons disposeut des forces militaires de leur territoire, pour autant que ce
droit n'est pas limite par la Constitution ou les lois federates.

Article 20. Les lois sur 1' organisation de l'armee emanent de la Confederation. L'exe-
cution des lois militaires dans les Cantons a lieu par les authortes cantonales, dans
les limites qui seront fixees par la legislation federate et sous la surveillance de la
Confederation.

L'instruction militaire dans son ensemble appartient a la Confederation ; il en est de
meme de l'armemont.

La fourniture et l'entretien de l'habillement et de l'equipement restent dans la com-
petence cantonale; toutefois, les depeuses qui en resultent sont bonifiees aux Cantons
par la Confederation, d'apres une regie a etablir par la legislation federate.

Article 21. A moins que des considerations militaires ne s'y opposent, les corps doi-
vent etre formes de troupes d'un nterne Canton.

La composition de ces corps de troupes, le soin du maintien de leur effeetif, la nomi-
nation et la promotion des ofHciers de ces corps appartienneut aux Cantous sous re-
serve des prescriptions generates qui leur seront trausmisos par la Confederation.

Article 22. Moyennant une indemnite equitable, la Confederation a le droit de se
servir ou de devenir proprietaire des places d'armes et des batiments ayant une destina-
tion militaire qui existent dans les Cantons, ainsi que de leurs accessoires.

Les conditions de l'indemnite seront regimes par la legislation federate.

Article 23. La Confederation peut ordonuer & ses frais ou eucourager par des subsides
les travaux publics qui iuteressent la Suisse ou une partie considerable du pays.

Dans ce but, elle peut ordonner ^expropriation moyennant une juste indemnite. La
legislation federate statuera les dispositions ulterieures sur cette niatiere.

L'Assembtee federate peut interdire les constructions publiques qui porteraient at-
teiute aux interets militaires de la Confederation.

Article 24. La Confederation a le droit de haute surveillance sur la police des endi-
gnements et des forets dans les regions etevees.

Elle concourra a la correction et a l'endiguement des torrents, ainsi qu'au reboise-
ment des regions ou ils prennent leur source. Elle decretera les mesures necessaires
pour assurer l'entretien de ces ouvrages et la conservation des forets existantes.

Article 25. La Confederation a le droit de statuer des dispositions legislatives pour
regler l'exercice de la pSche et de la chasse, principalenient en vue de la conservation
du gros gibier dans les montagnes, ainsi que pour proteger les oiseaux utiles a l'agri-
culture et a la sylviculture.

Article 26. La legislation sur la construction et l'exploitation des chemins de fer est
du douiaiue de la Confederation.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 59

Article 27. La Confederation a Je droit lie cr6er, outro l'Ecole polytechnique exist-
ante, une University federate et d'autres etablissements d'instruction superieure ou de
subventionner des etablissements de ce genre.

Les Cantons pourvoient a l'instruction priaiaire, qui doit etre saffisante et plao^e
exclusivement sous la direction de l'autorite civile. Elle est obligatoire et, dans les
e"coles publiques, gratuite.

Les Icoles publiques doivent pouvoir etre frequeutees par les adbdreuts de toutes
les confessions, sans qu'ils aient a souffrir d'aucune facon dans leur liberty de con-
science ou de croyance.

La Confederation preudra les mesures necessaires contre les Cantons qui no satis-
feraient pas a ces obligations.

Article 28. Ce qui concerne les peages releve de la confederation. Celle-ci peut per-
cevoir des droits d'entr6e et des droits de sortie.

Article 29. La perception des peages federaux sera regiee conformement aux prin-
cipes snivants:

1. Droits sur l'importation :

a. Les matieres necessaires a l'industrie et a l'agrieultnre du pays seront taxees aussi
bas que possible.

6. II eu sera de meme des objets necessaires a la vie.

c. Les objets de luxe seront soumis aux taxes les plus eievees.

A moins d'obstacles niajeurs, ces principes devront aussi etre observes lors de la con-
clusion de traites de commerce avec l'etranger.

2. Les droits sur l'exportation seront aussi moderes que possible.

3. La legislation des pdages contiendra des dispositious propres a assurer le com-
merce froutiere et sur les marches.

Les dispositions ci-dessus n'empeckent point la Confederation de prendre temporaire-
lueur. des mesures exception nelles dans les circonstances extraordinaires.

Article 30. Lo produit des peages appartient a la Confederatiou.

Les indemnites payees jusqu'a present aux Cautons pour le rachat des peages, des
droits de cbaussee et de pontonage, des droits de douane et d'autres emoluments sem-
blables, sont snpprim6es.

Les Cantons d'Uri, des Grisons, du Tessin et du Valais recoivent, par exception et a
raisou de leurs routes alpestres internationales, une indemnjite annuelle dont, eu tenant
compte de toutes les circonstances, le cbiffre est fixe cornme suit :

Francs.

Uri 80,000

Grisons 200,000

Tessin 200,000

Valais 50,000

Les Cantons d'Uri et du Tessin recevront en outre pour le deblaiement des neiges
sur la route du St.-Gothard, une indemnite annuelle totale de 40,000 francs, aussi long-
temps que cette route ne sera pas remplacee par un ehemin de fer.

Article 31. La liberte de commerce et d'industrie est garantie dans toute l'etendue
de la Confederation.

Sont reservee :

a. La regale du sel et de la poudre de guerre, les peages federaux, les droits d'entree
sur les vins et les autres boissons spirituenses, ainsi que les autres droits de consumma-
tion formellement recouuus par la confederatiou, a teneur de l'article 32 ;

S. Les mesures de police sauitaire contre les epidemics et les epizooties ;

c. Les dispositions tonchaut l'exercice des professions commerciales et iudustrielles,
les impots qui s'y rattachent et la police des routes.

Ces dispositions ne peuvent rieu renfermer de contraire au principe de la liberte de
commerce et d'industrie.

Article 32. Les Cantons sont autorises a percevoir les droits d'entree sur les vins et
les autres boissons spiritueuses prevus a l'article 31, lettre a, toutefois sous les restric-
tions suivantes :

a. La perception de ces droits d'entree ne doit nullement grever le transit ; elle doit
gener le moins possible le commerce, qui ne peut etre frapp6 d'aucune autre taxe.

b. Si les objets importes pour la oonsommatiou sont reexportes du Canton, les droits
payes pour l'entree sont restitues sans qu'il eu resulte d'autres charges.

c. Les produits d'origine Suisse seront moins imposes que ceux de l'etranger.

d. Les droits actuels d'entree sur les vins et les autres boissons spiritueuses d'origine
Suisse ne pourront 6tre hausses par les Cantons oil il en existe. II n'en pourra etre
etabli sur ces produits par les Cantons qui n'en percoi vent "pas actuellement.

e. Les lois et les arretes des Cantons sur la perception des droits d'entree sont, avant
leur mise a execution, soumis a l'approbation de l'autorite federale, afin qu'elle puisse,
au besoin, faire observer les dispositions qui precedent.

Tons les droits d'entree percus actuellement par les Cantons, ainsi que les droits
analogues percus par les communes, doivent disparaltre sans indemnite a Inspiration
de l'annee 1890.

60 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Article 33. Lea Gantons peuvent exiger des preuves de capacite de ceux qui veulent
exercer des professions liberates.

La legislation federale pourvoit a ce que ces derniers puisaent obtenir a cet effet des
aetes de capacite valables dans toute la Confederation.

Abticlk 34. La Confederation a le droit de statuer des prescriptions uniforraes sur le
travail des eufants dans les fabriques, sur la dunSe du travail qui pourra y etre impost
aux adultes, ainsi que sur la protection a accorder aux ouvriers contre l'exercice des
industries insalubres et dangereuses.

Les operations des agences d'emigration et des entreprises d'assurance non instituees
par l'jfitat sont soumises a la surveillance et a la legislation federates.

Article 35. II est interdit d'ouvrir des maisons de jeu. Celles qui existent actuelle-
nient seront fermeea le 31 decembre 1877.

Les concessions qui auraient ete accordees ou renouveiees depuis le commencement
de l'annee 1871, sont dedarees nulles.

La Confederation peut aussi prendre les mesures necessaires concernant les loteries.

Article 36. Dans toute la Suisse, les postes et les teiegraphes sont du domaiue federal.

Le produit des postes et des teiegraphes appartient & la caisse federale.

Les tarifs seront fixes d'apres ]t>s mgrnes principes et aussi equitablement que possi-
ble dans toutes les parties de la Suisse.

L'inviolabilite du secret des lettres et des teiegrammes est guarantie.

Article 37. La Confederation exerce la haute surveillance sur les routes et les ponts
dont le maintain l'interesse.

Les sommes dues aux Cantons designes a l'article 30, a raison de lenrs routes alpes-
tres internationales, seront retenues par l'autorite federale si ces routes ne sont pas
convenablement entrenues par eux.

Article 38. La Confederation exerce tous les droits compris dans la regale des mon-
naies.

Elle a seule le droit de battre monnaie.

Elle fixe lo systeme raonetaire et peut edieter, s'il y a lieu, des prescriptions sur la
tarification de rnonnaies etrangeres.

Article 39. La Confederation a le droit de decreter par voie legislative des prescrip-
tions generales sur remission et le rembouraement des billets de banque.

Elle ne peut cependant creer aucun monopole pour remission des billets de banque,
ni decreter l'aeceptation obligatoire de ces billets.

Article 40. La Confederation determine le systeme des poids et mesures.

Les Cantons executent, sous la surveillance de la Confederation, les lois concernant
cette matiere.

Article 41. La fabrication et la vente de la poudre de guerre dans toute la Suisse
appartiennent exclusivement a la Confederation.

Les compositions minieres impropres au tir ne sont point comprises dans la regale
des poudres.

Article 42. Les depenses de la Confederation sont couvertes :

o. Par le produit de la fortune federale ;

i. Par le produit des peages federaux percus a la frontiere Suisse ;

c. Par le produit des postes et des teiegraphes ;

d. Par le produit de la regale des poudres ;

e. Par la moitie du produit brut dela taxe sur les exemptions militaires percue par
les Cantons ;

/. Par les contributious des Cantons, que reglera la legislation federale, en tenant
compte surtout de leur richesse et de leurs ressources imposables.

Article 43. Tout citoyen d'un Canton est citoyen Suisse.

II peut a ce titre, prendre part, au lieu de son domicile, a toutes les elections et vota-
tions en matiere federale, apres avoir dument Justine de sa qualite d'eiecteur.

Nul ne peut exercer des droits politiques dans plus d'uu Canton.

Le Suisse etabli jouit, au lieu de son domicile, de tous les droits des citoyeus du Can-
ton et, avec ceux-ci, de tous les droits des bourgeois de la commune. La participation
aux biensdes bourgeoisies et des corporations et le droit de vote dans les affaires pure-
ment bourgeoisiales sont exceptes de ces droits, h moius que la legislation cantonale
n'en decide autrement.

En matiere cantonale et communale il devient eiecteur apres un etablissement de
trois iiiois.

Les lois cantonales sur l'etablissement et sur lea droits eiectoraux que possedent en
matiei-e communale les citoyens etablis sont soumises a la sanction du Conseil federal.

Article 44. Aucun Canton ne peutrenvoyer de son territoireun de sea ressortissante,
ni le priver du droit d'origine ou de cite.

La legislation federale determinera les conditions auxquelles les etrangers peuvenlj
6tre naturalises, ainsi que celles auxquelles un Suisse peut renoncer a sa nationalite
poujr obtenir la naturalisation dans un pays etranger.

Article 45. Tout citoyen Suisse a le droit de s'etablir sur un point quelconque du ter-
ritoire Suisse, moyennant la productien d'un acte d'origine ou d'une autre piece ana-
logue.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 61

Exceptiormelleinent, l'etablissement peut etre refusi ou rctiri a ceux qui, par suite
d'uu jugement p6nal, ne jouissent pas de leurs droits civiqnes.

L'etablissement peut etre de plus retort in ceux qui ont ete a reiteres fois punis pour
des deiits graves, comrae aussi a ceux qui tombeut d'une maniere permanente & la
chargede la bienfaisance publiqne at auxquels leur commune, soit leur Canton d'origine,
refuse une assistance suffisante apres avoir ete invitee officiellement a l'accorder.

Dans les Cantons ou existe l'assistance an domicile, l'autorisatiou de s'otablir peut
etre subordonuee, s'il s'agit de ressortissants du Canton, a la condition qu'ils soient en
etat de travailler et qu'ils ne soient pas tornbe's, a leur ancien domicile dans le Canton
d'origine d'une maniere permanente a la charge de la bienfaisance publique.

Tout renvoi pour cause d'indigence doit etre ratiri6 par le gouvernement du Canton
du domicile et communique' preaiablement an Gouvernement du Canton d'origine.

Le Canton dans lequel un Suisse etablit son domicile ne peut exiger de lui un cau-
tionement, ni lui imposer accune charge particuliere pour cet etablissement. De meme
les communes ne peuvent imposer aux Suisses domicile's sur leur territoire d'autres
contributions que celles qu'elles impossent & leurs propres ressortissants.

Une loi f^derale flxera la maximum de l'eiuolument de chancellerie a payer pour
obtenir un permis d'etablissement.

Article. 46. Les pers'mnes etablies en Suisse sont soumises, dans la regie, & la
juridiction et a la legislation du lieu de leur domicile en ce qui concerne les rapports
de droit civil.

La legislation fe'de'rale statuera les dispositions necessaires en vue de l'application
de ce priucipe, et pour empecher qn'un citoyen ne soit impost k double.

Article 47. Une loi fe'de'rale determinera la difference entre l'etablissment et le
sejonr et fixera en meme temps les regies auxquelles serontsoumis les Suisses en sejour
quaut a leurs droits politique* et a leurs droits civils.

Article 48. Une loi federale statuera les dispositions necessaires pour regler ce qui
concerne les frais de maladie et de sepulture des ressortissants pauvres d'un Canton
tombiSs malades ou decade's dans un autre Canton.
Article 49. La liberty de conscience et de croyance est inviolable.
Nul ne peut etre contraint de faire partie d'une association religieuse, de suivre un
enseignement religieux, d'accomplir un acte religienx, ni eucourir des peines, de quel-
que nature qu'elles soient, pour cause d'opinion religieuse.

La persouue qui exerce l'autorite pateruelle ou tnteiaire a le droit de disposer, con-
formemeut aux principes ci-dessus, de l'education religieuse des enfants jusqu'a l'&ge
de lb' ans r<5volus.

L'exercice des droits civils ou politiques ne peut etre restreiut par des prescriptions
ou des conditions de nature ecclesiastique ou religieuse, quelles qn elles soieut.

Nnl ne peut, pour cause d'opinion religieuse, s'affranchir de l'aecomplissement d'un
devoir civique.

Nul n'est teuu de payer des imp6ts dont le produit est sp^cialement affects aux frais
propremeut dits du eulte d'une communaute religieuse a laquelle il n'appartient pas.
L'ex6cution ulte'rieure de ce priucipe reste reserved a la legislation federale.

Article. 50. Le libre exercice des cultes est garanti dans les limites compatibles avec
l'ordre public et les bonnes mcenrs.

Les Cantons et la Confederation peuvent prendre les mesures necessaires pour le
maiutien de l'ordre public et de la paix entre les membres des diverses communautes
religieuses, ainsi que eontre les empietementsdesautorites ecclesiastiques sur les droits
des citoyens et de l'Etat.

Les contestations de droit public ou de droit prive auxqelles doune lien la creation
de comniunautes religieuses ou une scission de commuuautes religieuses existantes,
peuvent etre poitees par voie de recours devantles autorites federales competentes.

II ne peut etre edge d'eveches sur le territoire Suisse sans l'approbation de la con-
federation.

Article 51. L'ordre des jesuites et les societes qui lui sont affilies ne penveut etre
repus dans aueune partie de la Suisse, et toute action dans l'Eglise et dans l'Ecole est
interdire a leurs membres.

Cette iuterdiction peut s'etendre aussi, par voie d'arr6te federal, & d'autres ordres re-
ligieux dout l'actiou est dangereuse pour l'Etat ou trouble la paix entre les confes-
sions.

Article 52. II est interdit de fonder do nouveaux couvents ou ordres religieux et de
retablir ceux qui ont ete supprimes.

Article 53. L'etat civil et, la teuue des registres qui s'y rapportent est du ressort des
autorites civiles. La legislation federale statuera a ce snjet les dispositions ulte"-
rienres.

Le droit de disposer des lieux de sepulture appartient a l'autorite civile. Elle difit
pourvoir a co que toute personne decedee puisseetre entente decemment.
Article 54. Le droit au mariage est place sous la protection de la Confederation.
Aucuu empeuhement au mariage ne peut etre fonde sur des motifs confessionnels, sur
l'iudigence de l'uu ou de l'autre des epoux, sur leur conduite pu sur quelque autre motif
de police que ce soit.

62 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Sera reconnu comme valable dans tonte la Confederation le mariage conclu dans un
Canton ou a l'etranger conformement a la legislation qui y est en vigear.

La femme acqniert par le mariage le droit de cite et de bourgeoisie de son mari.

Les enfants nes avant le mariage sont legitimes par le mariage subsequent de leurs
parents.

II ne peut 6tre percu aucune finance d'admission ni aucune taxesemblable de Fun ou
de l'autre epoux.

Article 55. La liberte de la presse est garantie.

Toutefois lesloiscantonales statuent les mesures necess'aires a la repression des abns ;
ces lois sont soumises a l'approbation du conseil federal.

La Confederation peut aussi statuer des peines pour reprimer les abus diriges contre
elle ou ses antorites.

Article 56. Les citoyens ont le droit de former des associations, pourvu qn'il n'y ait
dans le but de ces associations ou dans les moyens qu'elles emploient rien d'illieite ou
de dangereux pour l'Etat. Les lois cantonales statuent les mesures necessaires a la
repression des abus.

Article 57. Le droit de petition est garanti.

Article 58. Nul ne peut etre distrait de son juge naturel. En consequence, il ne
pourra etre etabli de tribuuaux extraordinaires.

La jurisdiction ecciesiastiqae est abolie.

Article 59. Pour reclamations personnelles, le debiteur solvable ayant domicile en
Suisse doit etre recherche devant le juge de son domicile; ses biens ne peuvent en
consequence etre saisis ou sequestres hors du Canton ou il est dornicilie, en vertu de
reclamations personnelles.

Demeurent reservees, en ce qui concerne les etrangers, les dispositions des traites in-
teniationaux.

La contrainte par corp est abolie.

Article 60. Tousles Cantons sont obliges de traiter les ci toyens des autres fitats con-
■ federes comme ceux de leur Etat en matiere de legislation et pour tout ce qui concerne
les voies juridiques.

Article 61. Les jugements civils definitifs rend us dans un Canton sont execntoires
dans toute la Suisse.

Article 62. La traite foraine est abolie dans Finterieur de la Suisse, ainsi que le droit
de retrait des citoyens d'un Canton contre ceux d'autres Etats eonfederes.

Article 63. La traite foraine a l'egard des pays etrangers est abolie sons reserve de
reciprocite.

Article 64. La legislation :
Sur la capacite,

Sur toutes les matieres du droit se rapportant au commerce, et aux transactioes mo-
bilises (droit des obligations, y compris le droit commercial et le droit de change),
Sur la propriete litteraire et artistique,
Sur la poursuite pour dettes et la faillite,
est du ressort de la Confederation.

L'administration de la justice reste aux Cantons, sous reserve des attributions

du Tribunal federal.

Article 65. La peine de mort'est abolie.

Sout reservees toutefois les dispositions du code penal militaire, en temps de guerre.

Les peines corporelles sont abolies.

Article 66. La legislation tederale fixe les limites dans lesquelles un citoyen Suisse
pent etre prive de ses droits politiques.

Article 67. La legislation federale statue sur l'extradition des accuses d'un Canton a
Fautre ; toutefois l'extradition ne peut etre rendue obligatoire pour les deiits politiques
et ceux de la presse.

Article 68. Les mesures a prendre pour incorporer les gens sans patrie (HeimaMo-
sen) et pour empecher de nouveaux cas de ce genre, sont regiees par la loi federate.

Article 69. La legislation conceruant les mesures de police sanitaire contre les
epidemies et les epizooties qui offrent un danger general, est du domaine de la Confede-
ration.

Article 70. La Confederation a le droit de renvoyer de son territoire les etrangers
qui compromettent la sftrete interieure ou exterieure de la Suisse.

CHAPITRE II.

AUTORITE8 federales.

I. — Assemble ft&irale.

'Article 71. Sous reserve des droits du peuple et des Cantons (articles 89 et 121)
l'autoriie supreme de la Confederation est exercee par FAssembiee federale, qui se com-
pose de denx Sections ou Conseils, savoir :

A. le Conseil national ;

B. le Conseil des Etats.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 63

A. — Conseil national.

Article 72. Le Conseil national ae compose des dispute's du peuple Suisse, eius a
raison d'un membre par 20,000 ames de la population totale. Les fractions en sus de
10 mille finies sont compt<se< pour 20 mille.

Chaque Canton ot, dans les Cantons partages, chaque demi-Canton eiit un depute au
moins.

Article 73. Les Elections pour le Conseil uatioual sont directes. EUes ont lieu dans
des colleges eiectoraux fe'de'raux, qui ne peuvent toutefois etre formes de parties de
differents Cantons.

Article 74. A droit de prendre part aux elections et aux votations tout Suisse age' de
vingt ans revolus et qui n'est du reste point exclu du droit de citoyen actif par la
legislation du Canton dans lequel il a son domicile.

Toutefois, la legislation federale pourra regler d'une maniere uniforme l'exercice de
ce droit.

Article 75. Est eligible comme membre du Conseil national tout citoyen Suisse
la'ique et ayant droit de voter.

Article 76. Le Conseil national est eiu pour trois ans et renouveie integralement
chaqne fois.

Article 77. Les deputes au Conseil des Etats, les membres du Conseil federal et les
fonctionnaires nomnies par ce Conseil ne peuvent etre simultaneaient members du
Conseil national.

Article 78. Le CoDseil national choisit dans son sein, pour chaque session ordinaire
ou extraordianire, un President et un vice-President.

Le membre qui a ete President pendant une session ordinaire ne peut, a la session
ordinaire suivaute, revetir cette charge ni celle de vice-President.

Le meme membre ne peut etre vice-President pendant deux sessions ordinaires
consecutives.

L>rsque les avis sont egalement partages, le President decide; dans les Elections, il
vote comme les autres membres.

Article 79. Les membres du Conseil national sont indemnises par la Caisse federale.

B. — Conseil des Etats.

Article 80. Le Conseil des Etats se compose de quarante-quatre deputes des Can-
tons. Chaque Canton nomme deux deputed ; dans les Cantons partages, chaque demi-
Etat en eiit un.

Article 81. Les membres du Conseil national et ceux du Conseil federal ne peuvent
etre deputes au Conseil des Etats.

Article 82. Le Conseil des Etats choisit dans son sein, pour chaque session ordinaire
ou extraordinaire, un President et un vice-President.

Le President ni le vice-President ne peuvent etre eius parmi les deputes du Canton
dans lequel a ete choisi le President pour la session ordinaire qui a immecliatement
prececle\

Les deputes du meme Canton ne peuvent revetir la charge de vice-President pendant
deux sessions ordinaires consecutives.

Lorsque les avis sont egalement partages. le President decide; dans les elections, il
vote comme les autres membres.

Article 83. Les deputes au Conseil des Etats sont indemnises par les Cantons.

C. — Attributions de l'Asseinblee federale.

Article 84. Le Conseil national et le Conseil des Etats deliberent sur tous les ohjets
que la presente Constitution place dans le ressort de la Confederation et qui ne sont
pas attribues a une autre autorite federale.

Article 85. Les affaires de la competence des deux Conseils sont notamment les
suivantes :

1. Les lois sur l'organisatiou et le mode d'eiection des autorites federates ;

2. Les lois et arrets sur les matieres que la Constitution place dans la competence
federale ;

3. Le traitement et les indemnitee des membres des autorites de la Confederation et
de la Chancellerie federale ; la creation de fonctions federales permanentes et la fixa-^
tion des traitements ;

4. L'eiection du Conseil federal, du Tribunal federal et du Chancelier, ainsi que du
General en chef de l'arinee federale ;

La legislation federale pourra attribuer a l'Assembiee federale d'autres droits d'eiec-
tion ou de confirmation ;

5. Les alliances et les traites avec les Etats etrangers, ainsi que l'approbation des
traites des Cantons entre eux ou avec les Etats etrangers; toutefois les traites des Can-

64 ALIEN CLAIMS.

■ tons ne sont port&s a 1'Assembiee federale que lorsque le Conseil federal ou un autre Can-
ton ei eve ties reclamations ;

6. Les mesnres pour la surety exterieure ainsi que pour le inaintien de l'independance
et de la neutrality de la Suisse; les declarations de guerre et la conclusion do la paix'.

7. La garantie des Constitutions et du territoire des Cantons; l'intervention par
suite de cette garantie ; les mesnres pour la surety interieure de la Suisse, pour le main-
tien de la tranquillity et de l'ordre ; l'amnestie et le droit de grace.

8. Les mesures pour faire respecter la Constitution federale et assurer la garantie des
Constitutions cantonales, aiusi que oelles qui ont pour but d'obtenir Paccomplissement
des devoirs federaux.

9. Le droit de disposer de l'armee federale.

10. L'etablissement du budget annuel, l'approbation des comptes de l'fitat et les
arretes autorisant des emprunts.

11. La haute surveillance de l'administration et de la justice fedeTales.

12. Les reclamations contre les decisions du Conseil federal relatives a des contesta-
tions adininistratives (art. 113.)

13. Les couflits de competence entre autorites federales.

14. La revision de la Constitution federale.

Article 86. Les deux Conseils s'assemblent, chaque annee une fois, en session ordi-
naire, le jour fixe par le reglement.

Ill sont extraordinairement convoques par le Conseil federal, ou sur la demande du
quart des membres du Conseil national ou sur celle de cinq Cantous.

Article 87. Un Conseil ne peut deiiberer qu'autant que les deputes presents forment
la majorite absolu du nornbre total de ses membres.

Article 88. Dans le Conseil national et dans le Conseil des fitats les deliberations
sont prises a la majorite absolue des votants.

Article 89. Les lois federates, les decrets et les arretes federaux ne peuvent etre
rendus'qu'avec l'accord des deux Conseils.

Les lois federales sont soumises a l'adoption ou au rejet du penple, si la demande en
est faite par 30,000 citoyens actifs ou par huit Cantons. II en est de meme des arretes
federaux qui sont d'une portee generale et qui n'ont pas un caraetere d'urgence.

Article 90. La legislation federale determiuera ,les formes et les deiais a observer
pour les votations populaires.

Article 91. Les membres des deux Conseils votent sans instructions.

Article 92. Chaque Conseil deiibere separement. Toutefois, lorsqu'il s'agit des
elections mentionuees a Particle 85, chiffre 4, d'exercer le droit de grace ou de pronon-
cer sur un conflit de competence (article 85, chiffre 13,) les deux Conseils se reunissent
pour deiiberer en commuu sous la direction du President du Conseil national, et c'est
la majorite des membres votants des deux Conseils qui decide.

Article 93. L'initiative appartient a chacun des deux Conseils et a chaeun de leurs
membres.

Les Cantons peuvent exercer le meme droit par correspondance.

Article 94. Dans la regie, les seances des Conseils sont publiques.

II. — Conseil fidiral.

Article 95. L'autorite directoriale et executive superieure de la Confederation est
exercee par un Conseil federal compose de sept membres.

Article 96. Les membres du Conseil federal sont nommiSs pour trois ans, par les
Conseils rdunis, et choisis parmi tous les citoyens suisses eiigibles au Conseil national.
On ne pourra toutefois choisir plus d'un membre du Conseil federal dans le meme Can-
ton.

Le Conseil federal est renouveie integralement apres chaque renouvellemeut du Con-
seil national.

Les membres qui font vacauce dans l'intervalle des trois ans sont remplaces, a la
premiere session tie lAssembiee federale, pour le reste de la duree de leurs fonctions.

Article 97. Les membres du Conseil federal ne peuvent, pendant la duree de leurs
fonctions, rev6tir aucun autre emploi, soit au service de la Confederation, soit dans un
Canton, ni suivre d'autre carrifere ou exercer de profession.

Article 98. Le Couseil federal est preside par le President de la Confederation. II
a un vice-President.

Le President de la Confederation et le vice-President du Conseil federal sont nommes
pour une annee, par 1' Assembles federale, entre les membres du Conseil.

Le President sortaut de charge ne peut etre eiu President ou vice-President pour
l'annee qui suit.

Le meme membre ne peut revetir la charge de vice-President pendant deux annees de
suite.

Article 99. Le President de la Confederation et les autres membres du Conseil fede-
ral recoivent un traitement annuel de la Caisse federale.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 65

Article 100. Le Conseil federal nc peut deiiberer que lorsqu'il y .a an moins qnatre
membres presents.

Article 101. Les membres dn Conseil federal ont voix consultative dans les deux
sections rie l'Assembiee federate, aiusi que le droit d'y faire des propositions sur les ob-
jets en deliberation.

Article 102. Les attributions et les obligations du Conseil federal, dans les limites
de la presente constitution, sont notainmeut les snivantes :

1. II dirige les affaires federates, conform6ment aux lois et arreted de la Confedera-
tion.

2. II veille ii l'observation de la constitution, des lois et des arrets de la Confedera-
tion, ainsi que des prescriptions des concordats foderaux ; il prend, de son cbef on sur
plainte, les mesnres u6cessaires pour les faire observer, lorsque le recours n'est pas dn
norabre de cenx qui doivent etre port6s devant le Tribunal federal a teneur de Fart.
113.

3. II veille a la garantie des constitutions cantonales.

4. II presente des projects de lois on d'arrStes a l'Assembiee federale et donne son
pre.avis sur les propositions qui lui sont adressees par les Couseils ou par les Cantons.

5. II pourvoir :\ i'ex6cution des lois et des arretes de la Confederation et a celles des
jugemeuts du Tribunal federal, ainsi que des transactions ou des sentences arbitrales
sur des difKrends entre cantons.

6. II fait les nominations qui ne sont pas attribuees a l'assemble'e federate ou au tri-
bunal federal ou k une autre autorite.

7. II examine les traites des cantons entre eux on avec l'etranger, et il les approuve,
s'il y a lieu (article 85, chiffre 5).

8. II veille aux interets.de la confederation au debors, notamment h, l'observation de
ses rapports internationaux, et il est, en general, charge des relations exterieures.

9. II veille a la surete exterieure de la Suisse, au maintien de son independance et de
sa neutrality.

10. II veille a la surete interieure de la Confederation, au maintien de la tranquillite
et de l'ordre.

11. En cas d'nrgeuce et lorsque l'Assembiee federale n'est pas re'unie, le Conseil federal
est antorise a lever les troupes necessaires et a en disposer, sous reserve de convoquer
iramediatement les consols, si le nombre des troupes levees depasse deux mille homines
ou si elles restent sur pied au dela de trois semaines.

12. II est charge de co qui a rapport au niilitaire federal, ainsi que de toutes lesautres
branches de l'administration qui appartiennent a la confederation.

13. II examine les lois et les ordonnances des Cantons qui doivent etre sonmises a son
approbation ; il exerce la surveillance sur les branches de l'administration cantonale
qui sont placees sous son contr61e.

14. II admiuistre les finances dela confederation, propose le budget et rend les coinpte
des recettes et des depenses.

15. II surveille la gestion de tous les fonctionnaires et employes de l'administration
federale.

16. II rende compte de sa gestion a l'Assembiee federale, a chaque session ordinaire,
lui presente un rapport sur la situation de la Confederation taut a l'in terieur qu'au dehors,
et recommande a son attention les mesures qu'il croit utiles il l'accroissement de la
prosperi te commune.

II fait aussi des rapports speciaux lorsque l'Assembiee federale ou une de ses Sections
le demande.

Article 103. Les affaires du Conseil federal sont reparties par departements entre ses
membres. Cette repartition a uniquement pour but de faciliter l'examen et l'expedition
des affaires; les decisions emaneut du Conseil federal comme autorite.

Article 104. Le Conseil federal et ses departements sont autorises Jtappelerdes ex-
perts pour des objets speciaux.

III. — Chancellcrie fticMrale.

Article 105. Une cbancellerie federale, ii la tete de laqnelle se trouve le Chancelier
de la Confederation, est chargee du secretariat de l'Assembiee federale et de celui Con-
seil federal.

Le Chancelier est eiu par l'Assembiee federale pour le terine de trois ans, en mfime
temps que le Conseil federal.

La chancellerie est sous la surveillance spedale du Conseil federal.

Une loi federale determine ce qui a rapport a l'organisation de la chancellerie.

IV.— Tribunal fflfral.

Article 106. II y a un Tribunal federal pour l'administration de la justice en ma-
tiere federale.
II y a, de plus, un Jury pour les affaires penales (article 112).

H. Eep. 134 5

66 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Article 107. Lcs membres et les suppieants du Tribunal federal sont noinmes par
l'Assemblee federale, qui aura egard a ce que les trois langues nationales y soient re-
presentees.

La loi determine ^organisation du Tribunal federal et de sea sections, le nombre do
ses meuibres et des suppldants, la dnree de leurs functions et leur traiteinent.

Article 108. Peutetre nommd au Tribunal federal tout citoyen Suisse Eligible au
Conseil national.

Les membres de l'Assemblee federale et du Conseil federal et les fonctionn aires uom-
mds par ces autorites ne peuvent en rneiue temps faire partie du Tribunal federal.

Les membres du Tribunal federal ne peuvent, pendant la duree de leurs fonctions,
revetir aucun autre emploi, soit an service de la Confederation, soit dans un Canton,
ni suivre d'autre carriere ou exercer de profession.

Article 109. Le Tribunal federal organise sa cbancellerie et en nomine le person-
nel.

Article 110. Le Tribunal federal connalt des differends de droit civil:

1. Entre la Confederation et les Cantons ;

2. Entre la Confederation d'une part et des corporations ou des particuliers d'autre
part, quand ces corporations ou ces particuliers sont demandeurs et quaud le litige
atteint le degre d'importance que dotermiuera la legislation federale ;

3. Entre Cantons ;

4. Entre des Cantons d'une partet des corporations ou des particuliers d'autre part,
quand une des parties le requiert et que lo litige atteint le degre d'importance que d6-
terminera la legislation federale.

II connalt de plus des differends conceruant le heirnatlosat, ainsi que des contestations
qui surgissent entre communes de differents Cantons, touchant le droit de cite.

Article 111. Le Tribunal federal est tenu de juger d'autres causes, lorsqne les par-
ties s'accordent a le nantir et que l'objet en litige atteint le degre d'importance que
determinera la legislation f6d6rale.

Article 112. Le Tribunal iederal assiste du Jnry, lequel statue sur les faits, connalt
en matiere pduale :

1. Des cas de haute trahison envers la Confederation, de revolte ou de violence con-
tre les autorites federates ;

2. Des crimes et des dclits contre le droit des gens ; i

3. Des crimes et des debits politiques qui sont la cause ou la suite de troubles par
lesquels une intervention federal arnide est occasionnee ;

4. Des faits relevds a la charge de fonotionnaires nonimds par uue antorite federal,
quand cette autorite en saisit le Tribunal federal.

Article 113. Le Tribunal federal connait, en outre :

1. Des conflits de competence entre les autorites federales, d'uue part, et les autori-
tes oantonales, d'autre part ;

2. Des differends entre Cantons, lorsque ces differends sont du domaine du droit
public.

3. Des reclamations pour violation de droits constitutionnels des eitoyeus ainsi que
des reclamations de particuliers pour violation de concordats ou de traites.

Sont r^servees les contestations administratives, a determiner par la legislation fe-
derale.

Dans tous les cas prementionnes, le Tribunal federal appliquera les lois votees par
l'Assemblee federal et les arretes de cette assemble qui out une portee generate. II se
oonformera egalement aux trait6s que l'Assemblee federale aura ratifies.

Article 114. Outre les cas mentionnes aux articles 110, 112 et 113, la legislation
federale peut places d'autres affaires dans la competence du Tribunal federal ; elle peut,
en particulier, donner a ce tribunal des attributions ayant pour but d'assurer l'applica-
tion uniforme des lois pi-evues a l'article 64.

V. — Disjwsitions clivenes.

Article 115. Tout ce qui concerue lo siege des autorites de la Confederation est l'ob-
jet de la legislation federale.

Article 116. Les trois principals langues pariees en Suisse, l'allemand, le francais
et l'italien, sont langues nationales de la Confederation.

Article 117. Les fonotionnaires de la Confederation sont responsables de leur ges-
tiou. Uue loi federate determine ce qui tient a cette responsabilite.

CHAPITEE III.

REVISION de la constitution federale.

Article 118. La Constitution federale peut dtrerevisee en tout temps.

Auticle lit). La revision a lieu dans les formes statuees pour la legislation federale.

Ai.riCLEl20. Lorsqu'une seotion de I'Assombiee federale decrtte la revisiou de la

ALIEN CLAIMS. 67

Constitution federale et que l'autre section n'y consent pas, on bien lorsque cinquante
raille citoyens suisses ayant droit de voter deraandent la revision, la question de savoir
si la Constitution federale doit 6tre revisee est, daus l'un comme dans l'autre cas, sou-
mise a la votation du peuple suisRe, par oui ou par non.

Si, daus l'uu ou l'autre de ces cas, la majorite des citoyens suisses preuant part a la
votation se prononce pour l'affirmative, los deux couseils serout reuonveies pour tra-
vailler a la revision.

Article 121. La Constitution federale revises entre eu vigueur lorsqu'elle a ete ac-
cepted par la majority des citoyens suisses preuant part k la votation etpar la majority
des etats.

Pour etablir la majority des Etats, le vote d'un demi-Canton est comptd pour une
demi-voix.

Le resultat de la votation populaire daus chaque Canton est consider comme le vote
■de l'Etat.

DISPOSITIONS TRANSITOIRES.

Article premier. Le produit des postes et des peages sera r<5parti sur les bases ac-
tuelles jusqu'a l'epoque ou la Confederation prendra effectivement a sa charge les de'-
jienses milicaires supportees jusqu'a ce jour par les Cantons.

La legislation federale pourvoira en outre & ce que la perte que pourraient entralner
daus leur ensemble les modifications resultant des articles 20, 30, 36, 2 e alinea, et 42 e,
pour le fisc de certains Cantons, ne frappe ceux-ci que graduellement et n'atteigne son
cbiffre total qu'apres une periode transitoire de qnelques anuses.

Les Cantons qui n'auraient pas rernpli, au moment oil Particle 20 de la Constitution
entrera en vigueur, les obligations militaires qui leur sont impos^es par l'anoienne Con-
stitution et les lois fe'de'rales seront tenus de les executor a leurs propres frais.

Article 2. Les dispositions des lois fedcSralos, des concordats et des Constitutions ou
des lois cantonales contraires & la presente Constitution cessent d'etre en vigueur par
le fait de l'adoptjon de celle-ci, ou de la promulgation des lois qu'elle pre>oit.

Article 3. Les nouvelles dispositions conceruant l'organisation et la competence du
Tribunal federal n'entrent en vigueur qu'apres la promulgation des lois feeler ales y
relatives.

Article 4. Un delai de cinq ans est accorde aux Cantons pour introduire la gratuity
de l'enseignement public primaire (article 27).

Article 5. Les personnes qui exercent une profession liberale et qui, avant la pro-
mulgation de la loi federale priSvue a l'article 33, ont obtenu uu certificat de capacity
d'un Canton ou d'une autorite concordataire repr^sentant plusieurs Cantons, peuvent
exercer cette profession sur tout le territoire de la Confederation.

Ainsi arrete par le Conseil national, pour 6tre soumis a la votation du peuple Suisse
et des cantons.

Berne, le 31 Janvier 1874.

Le President :

ZIEGLER.

Le Secretaire :

SCHIESS.

Ainsi arrete par le Conseil des Etats, pour ctre soumis k la votatiou du peuple Suisse
et des Cantons.
Berne, le 31 Janvier 1874. ^ ♦

Le President :

A. KOPP.
Le Secretaire :

J.-L. LtlTSCHER.

AtretS federal eorcernant le resultat dc la votation sur leprojet de Constitution federale revisee
du 31 Janvier 1874 (du 29 mai i874).

l'assemblee federale de la confederation SOISSE,

Vu les procbs-verbaux de la votatiou a laquelle le peuple Suisse a proce"de dans toute
la Confederation le dimancbe 19 avril 1874, sur le projet de Constitution federale revi-
see, du 31 Janvier 1874 ;

Apres avoir pris eonnaissance des declarations des autorites cantonales coropetentes,
toucbant le vote des Etats ;

Vu le message du Conseil federal, du 20 mai 1874, duquel il resulte ce qui suit :

a. lielaiivement au vote du peuple, les operations du 19 avril ont donue les resnltats
suivauts:

68

ALIEN CLAIMS.

Cantons.

Accep-
tavit*.

Rejetants.

61,779

63, 367

11,276

332

1,988

562

522

5,196

1,797

5,568

10,739

6,821

9,236

6, 596

9,858

427

26, 134

10, 624

27, 196

18, 232

6,245

26, 204

3,558

16, 295

9,674

3, 516

18, 225

18, 188

Uri

3,866

9, 298

2,807

2,235

1,643

2,740

21, 368

5,746

Bale-Ville

1,071

1,428

219

2,040

2, 558

St-Gall

19, 939

9, 492

14, 558

3,761

12,507

Vaud

17, 362

19, 368

1,251

2,827

340, 199

198, 013

En consequence, le projet de constitution revisee a 6t6 adopts par 340,199 citoyens et
rejete" par 198,013, de sorte que le nombre des acceptants est de 142,186 supeneur a celui
des refusants.

b. Belativenient au vote des Etats, les Cantons suivants ont formula des votes speciaux :

Uri le 5 rnai 1874.

Unterwalden-le-Bas .' le 6 avril 1874.

Glaris le 12 avril 1874.

Grisons le 1 mai 1874.

Tessin le 5 mars 1 874.

Geneve le 19 avril 1874.

Les Etats de Glaris, des Grisons, du Tessin et de Geneve se sont prononce's pour l'ac-
ceptatiou, et ceux d'Uri et d'Unterwalden-le-Bas pour le rejet.

Tous les autres Etats ont declare qu'ils eonsideraient le resultat du vote populaire
comme e'tant le vote de l'Etat,

II en rfenlte que le projet de Constitution revisee a e'te' adopts par 14J Etats, savoir :
Zurich, Berne, Glaris, Soleure, Bale, Schaffhouse, Appenzell Eh.-E., St-Gall, Grisons,
Argovie, Thui;govie, Tessin, Vaud, Neucbatel et Geneve ; et qu'il a 6t& rejete par 7 J 6tats,
savoir: Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden, Zoug, Fribourg, Appenzell lih.-I., et Valais ;

Declare ce qui suit :

1°. La Constitution fMerale reVisee, telle qu'elle se trouve renfermee dans la loi fecle'-
rale du 31 Janvier 1874, a 6t6 acceptee soit par la majority des citoyens suisses ayaut
pris part a la votation, soit par la ruajoritcS des Cantons ; en consequence, elle est, par
le pr^sent^ arrets, solennellement declaree en vigueur a, dater du 29 mai 1874.

2°. La pressente declaration est transmise au Conseil federal pour qu'il pourvoie a ce
qu'elle recoive la publicity u6cessaire et qu'il prenne les mesures nlterieures d'execution.

Ainsi arrets par le Conseil national,

Berne, le 28 mai 1874.

Le President:

ZIEGLER.

Le Secretaire :

SCHIESS.
Ainsi arrets par le Conseil des Etats,
Berne, le 29 mai 1874.
Le President :

A. KOPP.

Le Secretaire :

J.-L. LtiTSCHER,

ALIEN CLAIMS. 69

US CONSEIL FEDERAL ARRfiTlS :

L'arrctiS federal ci-dessus sera, avec la Constitution fe"d<5rale elle-meine, ins6re au
Recueil officiel des lois de la Confederation et communique aux Gouverneinents canto-
naux pour qu'ils lui donnent la publicite convenable ou le faisant afficher.
Berne, le 30 mai 1874.
Le President de la Confederation :

SCIIENK.
Le Chaneelier de la Confe'de'ration :

SCHIESS.

Mr, Delaplaine to Mr. Fish.

>To. 773.J American Legation,

Vienna, August 3, 1874. .(Received August 18.)
Sir: In compliance with the Department circular-dispatch of the 23d
of June last I have endeavored to obtain reliable and authentic informa-
tion in regard to the course pursued by the government of Austria-
Hungary, in relation to the adjustment of claims presented against it.
I have mainly consulted in this matter with the Count Eevertera, the
chief of the legal section of the imperial and royal ministry for foreign
affairs. The report and general observations with special reference to
the schedule of inquiries forwarded by the Department in the dispatch
alluded to, which I have drawn and herewith append, have been
obligingly revised by him, and have been pronounced correct in every
respect. I shall transmit through Mr. Consul Robinson, via Hamburg,
certain volumes for reference, containing more detailed and copious
information, as well as full statements of the laws and ordinances upon
the subject. The titles of such volumes being as follows :

1. Das allgemeine biirgerliche Gesetzbuch fur das KaiserthuruOester-
reicb.

2. Die Civil- uud Militair-Jurisdictionsuorm. The formula, of civil and
military j urisdiction.

3. Staatsgrundgesetze der osterreichischen Monarchic State funda-
mental laws of the Austrian monarchy.

4. Supplement to same.

5. The universal citizens' law-books for the Austrian empire.

6. Katechismus der osterreichischen Staatsverfassung. Catechism
of the Austrian state constitution.

I have, &c,

* J. F. DELAPLAINE.

Report and general observations upon the subject referred to in Department circular-dispatch

1 of 23(Z June, 1874.

1. It is not within tlie province of eitber legislative brancb of tbe government to
investigate or entertain tbe examination of claims against the government, with the
possibly single exception, that in tbe case of the omission or refusal of any official to
perform administrative acts incumbent upon him under his duty or obligations as
such, then a petition by the party aggrieved may be made to either branch of the reichs-
rath for relief. In such case there is no investigation or trial, but the petition will
be transmitted to the president of the ministry, with the injunction to cause justice
to be done in the matter.

2. The matter is referred to a committee for examination and subsequent report, hut
no special means are afforded for obtaining evidence on behalf of the government,
other than by a simple citation of witnesses to appeal? before the committee.

3. The executive department is in no case, whatever authorized or empowered to
examine or determine claims of auy class; but in matters purely administrative, the
ministry may be called to give decisions under its responsibility in case any party corj^

70 ALIEN CLAIMS.

siders himself aggrieved, as in the case, for instance, of an excessive tax or contribu-
tion being imposed, &c. There exists a draught of law for the establishment of a court
of administration, to be called " Yerwaltnngsgericht," which has, however, not yet
been voted upon in the reichsrath'. This court is intended to correct any erroneous
decision of the ministry, hut only in reference to matters purely administrative.

4. Every citizen having any claim, either pecuniary or for damages, against the gov-
ernment, is entitled to prosecute the same by suit at law, equally as against an individ-
ual, but before the landesgericht, (provincial court,) excepting when the subject of the
claim has reference to the right of the occupation of landed property, or to the rents
or income arising from real estate, in which case the suit must be prosecuted before
the bezlrksgericht, or district court, within the district where such property is situated,
and this privilege extends to aliens alike as to citizens.

5. Aliens, whether resident or non-resident, are entitled to maintain actions in all
the courts of law of the empire, and stand upon the same footing as citizens, with
the single exception of an absence of reciprocity existing on the part of the native
country of such alien being a fact, which might, if proved, exclude him from the privi-
lege.

Further, a non-resident alien can, before prosecuting a suit at law, be required to
furnish security for costs to be paid by him if so adjudged by the court ; but only when
such security in similar cases is required in his country.

6. The two classes of claims may be distinguished as those having reference to po-
litical rights, and those founded upon contract, or private rights. The adjudication
under the former is properly appertaining to the reichs gericht, composed of members
nominated by the Crown and elected by the reichsrath ; but in all cases of private
right, the procedure in complaints against the government consists in the presentation
by the prosecutor of his complaint to the respective court having jurisdiction, which
orders the same to be served upon the finanz procurator, whose duty it is to defend the
government, which possesses no privileges, in regard to evidence in its behalf or in
procuring same, but stands in the same position as an ordinary defendant.

It may be further remarked that the sovereign himself is amenable to the ordinary
courts of justice, as any private person in matters affecting his private domain, per-
sonal property, or rights. In the former case, the customary legal process is served
upon the I. & E. ver waiter, or manager of the domain, otherwise, upon the hofmeis-
terant.

The simple privilege possessed by the state in the matter of bringing actions for real
property, consists in the right of prescript"' on being in its favor for a period of forty
years instead of thirty, in the case of individuals.

Mr. Bolcer to Mr. Fish.

No. 210.] Legation of the United States,

Constantinople, August 11, 1874. (Received September 2.)

Sir: t Lave the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a dispatch, un-
numbered, under date of Jun* 23, 1874, together with a " schedule of
inquiries," the object of which dispatch is to obtain exact information
regarding the practice of the Ottoman government in the adjudication
of claims against that government, in order that the information thus
sought may be used " for the purpose of facilitating the adjustment and
determination of claims presented against the Government of the Uni-
ted States, whether held by its own citizens or by the subjects or citi-
zens of foreigu governments, and with a view of establishing, as far as
may be practicable, a general and uniform system and mode of pro-
cedure for the investigation and determination of these classes of
claims" by the Government of the United States.

The underlying principles, which pervade public affairs in the Uni-
ted States and in the Ottoman Empire, are so antagonistic that, save in
the way of contrast, I doubt whether the governmental practices of
the latter country could be made to serve as a basis for either theory or
action in the former country. As this essential difference in the spirit
and the form of the two governments is well known to the Department,

ALIEN CLAIMS. 71

I, shall proceed, without further preliminary remarks, to reply to the
questions contained in the "schedule of inquiries," adding thereto such
information as the subject may seem to demand.

Question 1. "Are claims against the government investigated, deter-
mined, and, if allowed, their payment directed and provided for by the
legislative branch of the government?"

Question 2. "If the legislative authority does entertain such claims,
what is the mode of procedure, by committee or otherwise, and what
means, if any, are provided for procuring evidence on behalf of the
Government ?"

Both the above questions are answered by saying that the constitu-
tional distinction between the legislative and the executive branches of
the government, which prevails in all civilized countries, does not exist
in the absolute monarchy of Turkey. In that country the legislative
and the executive functions of the government are but one, and their
administration is lodged in the same bands.

Question 3. " What provision, if any, is made for the examination and
determination of claims by the executive department ? "What is the
mode of procedure in the investigation of claims by or before executive
officers; and what means are provided for procuring evidence on behalf
of the government?"

Claims on behalf of or against the Ottoman government are, by the
regulation which defines the constitution and the functions of the coun-
cil of state, submitted for investigation to the appropriate section of
that body, which, sitting as a tribunal, has the same power as any court
of law to summon witnesses and to procure evidence on either side.

The council of state consists of about fifty members, notables of the
empire, who are appointed by the Sultan. This body is divided into
five sections of ten members each, each section having cognizance of a
particular department of the public administration. Section 1 is
charged with the interests of the interior, the war, and the marine de-
partments. Section 2 with the finance and the evcaf departments ; the
latter department being that which regulates the vast and complicated
questions of the vacoufs, or religious establishments of the empire,
which hold, either in fee-simple or by lien, a hand upon a great body of
the real estate of Turkey. Section 3 is charged with the legislative de-
partment in all its branches. Section 4 with the public works, the com-
mercial and the agricultural departments. Section 5 with the depart-
ment of public instruction.

On a claim being made by or presented against the Ottoman govern-
ment, the claim is delivered for investigation to that sectiou of the
council of state to which the question properly belongs. " The section,
after trying the case by the ordinary rules of evidence, reports to the
whole body of the council, which latter in turn submits its views as to
the merits of the affair, in the form of a report, to the grand vizier.
It must be borne in mind that the council of state is an advisory body
merely, having no executive functions whatever. Should the grand
vizier be satisfied with the report of the council of state, its advice is
put in force by his decree, which is final. Should the grand vizier and
the counsel of State differ in opinion, the question is recommitted
to the latter, with instructions from the former to alter its judgment in
accordance with the supreme will ; a means of arriving at absolute
truth and justice which, so far, has never been neglected.

Should a claim, treated as above stated, be one between the govern-
ment and an Ottoman subject, it would be terminated by the execution
of the decree of the grand vizier, from which there is no appeal save

72 ALIEN CLAIMS.

by the rare and difficult means of a petition to the Sultan himself;
a mode of redress which the government takes care to render it next to
impossible to obtain.

The mode of procedure, in the case of claims for or against foreigners,
-differs entirely from that above described, as will hereafter be shown.

Question 4. " Is there any provision of law allowing a citizen or sub-
ject to sue the government in the regularly-established courts, or in
any special tribunal, and does the privilege of maintaining an action
against the government (if it exists) extend to aliens ? "

Claims on the part, of Ottoman subjects against the government
are not triable by the ordinary courts of Turkey, but must be prosecuted
by petition to the grand vizier, who refers such claims to the council of
state, at his discretion. Foreign governments have never recognized
this procedure as applicable to their subjects or citizens, but claim to
bring suits, to which the Ottoman government is a party, before the
tidjaret, or mixed commercial court. This claim, although it has been
and is now disputed by the government, has never been positively de-
nied in practice. The usual way, however, of presenting claims of any
importance against the Ottoman government is by means of direct
diplomatic intervention. The grand vizier then advises with the coun-
cil of state, as before mentioned, and afterward renders bis decision
to the foreign embassy or legation. In the unusual event of a settle-
ment not being arrived at as the result of one of those prolonged nego-
tiations between a foreign representative and the Ottoman government',
I judge that the ambassador would insist either that the government
should agree to an arbitration or answer to a citation before the tidjaret,
and I do not think that the government could avoid submitting to one
of these alternatives, such is the influence of diplomacy in this imper-
fectly-organized and self-distrustful state.

Question 5. " What is the status of aliens before the regularly-estab-
lished courts of the country? Can they maintain an action in such
■courts against a citizen or subject; and if so, does the privilege extend
to all aliens, or is it confined to resident aliens only'?"

The status of aliens before all the Ottoman courts, with the single
exception of the cherH, or real-estate court, is the same as that of Turk-
ish subjects. In the cMrH the testimony of Christian witnesses is not
admitted. Considering how readily and at what low rates oral testi-
mony is purchasable in Turkey, the above provision seems to be a wise
one, although it is but a half measure, lor in order to render the course
of justice as to testimony perfectly pure and unsuspected, Mussulman
witnesses, by an extension of the system, should also be excluded. The
court might then rely, as it generally does at present, upon documentary
evidence; or, lacking the latter, might hear both sides of the cause, and
settle it scientifically, according to what philosophers call the "antece-
dent probabilities."

Nonresident aliens, properly represented by counsel, have the same
privileges before the Ottoman courts as resident aliens.

Here, setting theory aside, it may be well to say something as to the
practice which exists in Turkey regarding suits between foreigners
of different nationalities and between foreigners and Ottoman subjects.
Causes between foreigners of different nationalities are always tried in
the consnlar court of the defendant. Of course, in anticipation of a
law-suit, there is always a struggle on each side to secure the position
of defendant — a supposed necessity for success that sometimes leads to
actions of which I fear rigid moralists would not always approve.

Suits between foreigners and Ottoman subjects are invariably brought

ALIEN CLAIMS. 73

before the tidjaret, or mixed court of commerce, with the exception only of
such suils as relate to real estate, which latter are under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the chert. Trial by jury does not exist in the Ottoman Em-
pire. The tkljaret is a court composed of five judges ; the president and
two members of which are Ottoman subjects, not necessarily Mussul-
mans, and the other two judges are of the nationality of the foreign
party to the suit. The procedure before the tidjaret is the same as that
before any court, composed solely of judges, in our own country. It
should also be' added, injustice to the character of the iidjaret, that its
decisions may sometimes be respected.

The saddest exhibition which a Turkish court presents is the taking
of oral testimony. As I have before said, testimony as to any conceiv-
able state of the so-called facts of a case can easily be purchased, and
is used with the most reckless profusion, even by the parties to a suit
who have justice upon their side. At the doors of all the courts, par-
ticularly, by some irony of Heaven, before the doors of the semi-ecclesi-
astical court of the fc>heik-ul-Islan>, at all hours, of the day, squat men
whose sole business it is to be employed as witnesses in causes about
which they know nothing at the outset. The character of these men
depends upon the intelligence with which they can receive a lie, and
the plausibility with which they can afterward utter it. To hear the
Oriental volubility and vehemence with which these false witnesses will
hurl their opposing lies into one another's teeth, the auditor might
readily mistake the testimony for the argument, and the deponent for
the advocate; so circumstantial is the statement and so fee-zealous
and passionate is the style of its delivery. In consequence of this state
of things, oral testimony goes for little before a Turkish court when op-
posed by documentary proof or the probabilities of common sense, pro-
vided always the court itself be inclined to render justice.

Question 6. "If different systems of adjudication exist as regards
different classes of claims, what is the system with reference to each
class, and what the mode of procedure and the privileges of the Govern-
ment in relation to evidence in its behalf and the means of procuring
such evidence f

The sygtem of adjudicating all classes of claims, for or against the
Ottoman government, is theoretically the same iu all cases. The pro-
cedure before the council of state, and the rules as to testimony and
the means of procuring it, are the same as those before an ordinary
tribunal.

That which has already been written will perhaps render needless
any further expansion of the subject, as suggested in section 7 of the
" schedule of inquiries." I shall inclose with this dispatch a copy of all
that has been so far published of a work entitled Legislation Ottomane,
by his excellency Aristarchi Bey, the present Ottoman minister at Wash-
ington, which work may be of interest to the Department, as it contains
the only codification of Ottoman law in a foreign language that has yet
been attempted, and its successful execution does great honor to its
distinguished author. The volumes which are to follow, I shall forward
to the Department on their completion. The theory of Turkish legal
organization, as set forth in the pages of Legislation Ottomane, cannot
fail to attract attention when read in correlation with the practice which
I have briefly indicated in this dispatch.
I have the honor, &c,

GEO. H. BOKER.

[1 inclosure, " Legislation Ottomane," 2 volumes.]

74 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Mr. Hoffman to Mr. Fish.

No. 1018.] Legation of the United States,

Paris, August 13, 1874. (Received August 28.)

Sir: Referring to your circular letter of June 23, 1874, I have now
the honor to forward to you herewith a copy of a letter received this
morning from the French government, giving the information required
by you as to the mode of prosecuting claims against tbe government in
France, the means of procuring testimony for the government, &c.

Accompanying the letter will be found a number of documents, printed
and written.

There has beeu some delay in commuuicating this information, which
the Duke Decazes regrets. Whether, now that it is communicated, it
will be found to be thorough and comprehensive, and covering the point,
much insisted on in the questions, of the manner of procuring testimony
for the government, you can better judge than I. One thing strikes
me, however, the great prominence given in this dispatch to the liber-
ality of the French government in making provisions for indemnities to
sufferers from civil war, and this without the slightest distinction be-
tween the citizen and the foreigner. A captious spirit might suggest
that this was intended as a hint to us to do likewise.

I shall write to the Duke Decazes to thank him for the trouble he has
taken in the matter.

I have the honor to be. very respectfully, vour obedieut servant,

WICKBAM HOFFMAX.

Hon. Hamilton Fish,

Secretary of State.

Vehsaili.es, August 12, 1374.

Sir: You did me the honor to address me on the 7th ultimo, for tlie purpose of ex-
pressing to me the desire, on bebalf of the Government of the United States, to be in-
formed as to the mode of procedure adopted in France in the case of claims against the
state.

I shouldhave been happyto comply with yourrequest sooner, but just as your letter
reached me the National Assembly was about to enter upon the consideration of an im-
portant measure connected with the same subject, and as the adoption of said measure
seemed probable, I preferred to await tbe vote of the assembly, in order to be able to
send you full information.

The measure proposed by M. Denormandie and his colleagues has now become a law
of the country, having been promulgated ill the official journal of the 7th instant. I
therefore hasten to answer the various questions propounded by you, in the order ob-
served in your communication.

Question 1. " When claims brought against the government have beeu examined
and admitted, does the legislative branch of the government regulate aud provide for
payment of the same ?"

According to the laws of France an action may be brought againBt the state by a
private individual either before the civil or administrative tribunals, according to the
nature of the case. If tbe state is sentenced to pay a sum of money, such sum is taken
from the budget of expenditures, and as it is the duty of the legislative branch to vote
the budget, it follows that the legislative branch really provides for the payment.

Claims against the state brought before the courts constitute what it is customary to
call " actions content tenses;" i. c, actions in which it is presumed that a right, in the judi-
cial sense of the word, is claimed.

In other cases — and your request for information probably refers to claims of this
kind — it happens that individuals whose interests have suffered some detriment bring claims
against the state, either addressing the administration directly or the legislative branch.
If the admission of these claims involves the payment of pecuniary indemnities, it is
the duty of the legislative branch to provide for the payment in case no appropriation
has previously been made to meet these expenditures.

Question 2. " When the legislative branch receives such claims, what is the mode of

ALIEN CLAIMS. 75

procedure ? Are commissions appointed for their settlement "! What means are pro-
vided for the establishment of proof?"

There is no special mode of procedure. Claimants may present petitions, or depu-
ties, either in their own name or in the name of the parties interested, may introduce
measures before the legislative branch ; or the government itself may bring in a bill.

If a petition is presented, the assembly, in case of its admission, refers it to the min-
istry having jurisdiction in the matter to which the petition refers. If a motion is
made or a bill presented, the examination thereof is referred to a commission, which
makes its report, and the assembly passes a vote of approval or rejection. In the
first case the law which is passed regulates the fundamental points of the right to in-
demnity and the details of execution. In general, the legislative branch does not de-
cide as to the admission or rejection of the claims which the parties interested may
have to present in execution of the law ; the legislative branch generally leaves this to
be done by administrative commissions, after it has prescribed the principal rules or
mentioned the general conditions which are to be fulfilled.

The events which have taken place in France since the last war have given rise to
several legislative provisions of this kind. The following is an enumeration of them
according to their respective dates :

Law of Jnne 15, 1871, on requisitions.

Law of September 6, 1871, granting the sum of 106,000,000 to the suiferers by the
war.

Law of April 7, 1873, providing for an additional grant of 260,000,000.

Law of July 28, 1874, (passed ou motion of Denormandie and others,) granting still
another sum of 26,000,000 to a special class of suiferers.

The first of these lavvs (that of June 15, 1871, inclosure No. 1) was designed to re-im-
burse in full such persons as had been obliged to meet requisitions ordered by the French
authorities, civil or military. The measure was not limited to the bearers of regularly-
issued certificates. Persons who had not received regular requisitions were, in spite
of that fact, allowed to present their claims to the proper authorities.

The law of September 6, 1871, (inclosure No. 2,) established the principle of soli-
darity, in accordance with which the legislator designed to cause the whole nation to
aid in making good the material damages of all kinds caused by the war. This law
allowed, provisionally, the sum of 100,000,000 to be distributed among the invaded
departments ; and also, the sum of 6,000,000, which latter was specially appropriated
to the payment of damages caused by the re-instatement of the lawful power in Paris
after the insurrection of the commune. The most liberal spirit presided over the ap-
plication of the principle of indemnification. No distinction was made on account of
the causes of the damages. All persons who had suffered material losses in conse-
quence of the war were allowed to present their claims, whether for war-contributions,
lines, or anything of the kind.

Contributions in money which had been levied as imposts by the German authori-
ties were refunded (article 5 of the law) to the municipalities and individuals who
had paid them.

For the examination of the claims two kinds of commissions were appointed, viz,,
cantonal commissions, which decided in the first place, and departmental commissions,
appointed for the purpose of revising the decisions of the former, (article 2 of thelaw.)i

All the details of the execution of the law were prescribed in decrees published in a
series of circulars from the ministry of the interior, (inclosure No. 3.)

The law of April 7, 1873, (inclosure No. 4,) consists of two parts, having for their
object, the one the repayment to the city of Paris of the amount levied by the Ger-
mans as a war-contribution ; the other the payment of the indemnities remaining due
for the reparation of material war-damages. For the sum of 140,000,000, which was
allowed to it, the city of Paris obligated itself to pay the indemnities for the repara-
tion of the damages caused by the insurrection of the commune and by the return of
the troops to Paris. The details of execution are nearly the same as those prescribed
for the preceding law. (Iuclosures 5 and 8 — there are two inclosures marked 8.)

The law of July 28, 1874, (inclosure No. 9,) requires'a special explanation.

The National Assembly, in passing the two indemnity laws of September 6, 1871, and
April 7, 1873, intended to grant relief to all persons who, having^sutfered from the war,
could not, in strictness, base an appeal for indemnity upon any right thereto. These
measures had thus left certain classes of losses unprovided for, for the reparation of
which it was thought that the parties interested had ground for an action before the
courts. Such especially were the losses occasioned by the preventive measures adopted
in certain localities at Paris, Lyons, Belfort, &c, for the requirements of the national
defense, which had caused the destruction of a considerable amount of property. Ex-
perience having shown, however, that jurisprudence was far from being fixed in this
manner, [matter ?] that on a certain number of points the right was doubtful, and
that consequently respectable interests would suffer, since, if rejected by the courts,
they could receive no part of the indemnities granted by the previous laws, the assem-
bly, wishing to do justice to all, decided to make a further appropriation of 26,000,00ft

76 ALIEN CLAIMS.

designed especially for the relief of persons who, during the war, had suffered material
aod direct losses resulting from the defeusive measures adopted by the French military
authorities.

The law of the 28th of July last closes the series of relief measures which the assem-
bly and the government were led by a spirit of justice and a humane policy to adopt.
After the passage of these three laws, it may be said that there is no kind of damage
resulting from war for which relief has not been granted, if not in full, at least in a
certain measure, and that without respect of persons. Foreigners, Germans as well as
others, were allowed to receive a share of the indemnities granted, whether these had
been appropriated to the reparation of losses resulting from the war, properly so called,
or to that of losses caused by the insurrection of the commune.

France has always taken the most liberal standpoint in granting indemnities after
civil wars. Thus it was that a law of December 13, 1830, supplementary to the law of
the 30th of August preceding, placed the sum of 2,400,000 francs to the credit of the
government for the purpose ot indemnifying the sufferers by the July revolution.
Another law, of December 24, 1851, (inclosure No. 11,) appropriated 5,600,000 francs to
the relief of the persons who had suffered damages to their property in consequence of
the revolution of February, and the revolution of June, 1848. Iu all these cases, for-
eigners, as well as French citizens, were permitted to enjoy the benefits of the meas-
ures of relief which were adopted.

This note would not be complete if mention were not made of a law which, without
comprising the responsibility of the state, nevertheless enters into the same order of
ideas.

The law of the 10th of VeudiSmiaire, year IV, (iuclosure No. 12,) renders the com-
munes responsible for acts of violence committed in their territories by mobs and
armed or unarmed assemblages, as well as for reparation of the damages resulting
therefrom. The benefits of this law may be claimed by foreiguers as well as native
citizens.

Question 3. " What methods are adopted for the examination and settlement of claims
by the executive branch of the government ? What is the mode of procedure for the
examination of claims by or before the agents of the executive, and what are the
means prescribed for the establishment of proof i"

When claims are brought against the government, each department examines such
matters as are within its province, and the claims are acted upon or not, according as
they are deemed well founded or inadmissible. There is no special procedure for this
examination. The minister or his representatives decide with perfect freedom, and if
the claimant is not satisfied with their adverse decision, he may carry his claim, accord-
ing to the natureof the case, either before the ordinary courts or before the administra-
tive jurisdiction.

When the claims are such that the legislative branch of the government is called to
act upon them, as was seen in the case of war damages, the mode of procedure and
the methods of proof are prescribed by the laws referred to under No. 2 of the ques-
tions, and the administrative circulars (see inclosure No. — ) give all information on this
head.

Question 4. "Are there any legal provisions which permit a citizen or a subject to
bring an action against the government in the regularly-established courts of justice, or
in a special court ; and if a privilege is necessary in order to bring suit against the
government, is this privilege extended to foreigners f '

As was seen under No. 1, any citizen may bring an action against the government in
the courts of justice, if he considers that his rights have suffered any detriment.

In principle the ordinary courts are incompetent when the case to be decided de-
pends upon the interpretation of administrative acts. In this case it is proper to ad-
dress the administrative tribunals, (councils of prefecture, councils of state.) For-
merly no action could be brought against public functionaries nnless the authorization
of the council of state had previously been obtained. This provision has been abol-
ished since 1870.

There is no special tribunal in France for foreigners. These have access to the courts
the same as native citizens, except that a foreigner who brings an actiou is obliged to
furnish the security judicatum solri. This is required by way of provision for the
sentence that may be pronounced against him.

Question 5. " What is the status of foreigners before the regularly-established courts
of the country? Can they bring an action before these courts against a citizen or a
subject ; and, if so, is this privilego extended to all foreigners, or is it confined to resi-
dent foreigners 1"

The explanations given for the fourth question are, in a great measure, applicable to
the fifth.

Foreigners may bring suit against a citizen of the country in all courts ; the formality
of security is, however, required. No distinction's made between the resident and the

ALIEN CLAIMS. 77

transient foreigner. Neverthelesss, it is proper to observe that, regularly, in order to
enjoy civil rights in France, a foreigner must have been authorized to fix his domicile
there.

Question 6. " If various systems of admission exist for different classes, what system
is observed in reference to each class ? What is the mode of procedure, and the privilege
of the government in reference to the proof? What arc the means of establishing this
proof?"

By the explanations already given, it is seen that there is, properly speaking, no
special system of admission according to the kind of claims. Either the claims are
within the province of the tribunals, and then they must be brought in the ordinary
form, before the civil courts or before the courts of administrative litigation ; or the
claims are not within the province of the tribunals, and then they are matters for
purely administrative decision. There is no special procedure. The agents of the
executive examine them, forming their conclusions by the aid of all the means in their
power, without being restricted to particular forms.

Finally, if a special law is passed, as in the case of war damages, provision is therein
made for the mode of procedure, and the method of establishing proof.

Such is, sir, recapitulated as succinctly as possible, the information which seems suit-
able in reply to the series of questions in relation to which you have done me the honor
to consult me. Should these explanations, which relate to a subject of so wide a range,
seem to you insufficient, or obsenre on certain points, I shall be most happy to com-
plete them, or to elucidate their meaning.

Accept the assurauces, &c.

DECAZES.

Mr. WASIIIUTIiNE,

Minister nfthe United States.

[Inclosure No. 1.]

A law relative to requisitions made vpon private citizens, since the commencement of the war r
by the civil and military authorities.

(Juue 15, 1871. Published in the Official Journal of June 22, 1671.)

The National Assembly has adopted, the president of the council, chief of the ex-
ecntive power of the French Republic, promulgates, the following law :

Article 1. The bearers of requisition certificates given by the French authorities,
civil or military, since the beginning of the war, shall be obliged, under penalty of for-
feiting all claim upon the treasury, to deposit, within two months, at the office of the
prefect of the department, or at that of the sub-prefect of the district in which such
requisitions were made, the said certificates, with a statement of the amounts claimed'
by them, and the documentary evidence in support of their claims, if the delivery
thereof has not yet been made to the proper authorities.

All persons thinking themselves entitled to indemnity, on account of the furnishing of
articles of any kind, which they may have been compelled to furnish or deliver to the
French troops without having received regular requisitions, must likewise deposit, un-
der penalty of forfeiting their right to indemnity, at the places and within the period
of time above mentioned, a statement of the sums to which they claim that they are
entitled, together with the documentary evidence in their possession.

A receipt shall be given to depositors.

2. The provisions of this law shall be conveyed to the knowledge of the parties in-
terested by means of special handbills, and the fact of the posting of such bills shall
be shown by a report of the mayor.

The period of two months, which is specified in the foregoing article, shall not com-
mence until these bills shall have been posted.

3. Within the three months following the expiration of the term granted for the de-
positing of requisition certificates, the proper authorities shall decide upon all claims
presented by the depositors.

Done in open session at Versailles, May 19 and 17, and June 15, 1871.

The president,

JULES GREVY.

The secretaries :

PAUL BETHMONT,
MIS DE CASTELLANE,
VTE. DE MEAUX,
PAUL DE REMUSAT,
BON DE BARANTE.

The president of the council, chief of the executive power of the French Republic,

A. THIERS.
The keeper of the seals, minister of justice,

J. DUFAURE.

78 ALIEN CLAIMS.

[Inclosiire Xo. 2.]

A law providing that, contributions, requisitions, and material damages of all hinds,
caused by the invasion, shall be paid by the French nation at large.

September 6, 1871.

The National Assembly lias adopted, aud the President of the French Eepublic pro-
mulgates, the following law :

Whereas, in the late war, the portion of the territory invaded by the enemy suffered
numberless burdens and underwent numberless devastations ; and, whereas, the senti-
ments of nationality which are in the hearts of all Frenchmen impose upon the state
the obligation of indemnifying those who have suffered these exceptional losses in the
■common struggle ;

The National Assembly, without intendiug auy violation of the principles laid down
in the law of July 10, 1791, and the decree of August 10, 1853, decrees :

Article I. An indemnity shall be granted to all those upon whom, during the in-
vasion, contributions have been levied or requisitions made, either iu money or iu
goods, or who have paid fines or suffered material damages.

Article II. The amounts of these contributions, requisitions, fines, and damages
shall be verified by the cautonal commissions now acting uuder the directiou of the
minister of the interior.

A departmental commission shall revise the labor of the cautonal commissions, and
shall finally fix the sum of the losses of which evidence may be furnished. This com-
mission shall be composed of the prefect, president, of four councilors-general, desig-
nated by the council-general, aud of four persons representing the minister of the in-
terior and the minister of finance.

Article III. AYhen the extent of the losses sball have been thus verified, a law
shall fix the amount which the. condition of the public treasury shall permit to be
grauted for their payment, and sball provide for its distribution. The sum of one
hundred millions of francs shall be placed immediately at the disposal of the minister
of the interior and of the minister of finance to divide among the departments accord-
ing to the losses suffered by them, in order to be distributed by the prefect, assisted by
a commission to be appointed by the council-general, among the most needy victims of
the war and the commuues which are most involved in debt. This first appropri-
ation shall form a part of the sum total allotted to each department iu order to be dis-
tributed among all those having well-founded claims.

Article IV. The sum of six millions of francs shall likewise be placed at the dis-
posal of the minister of finauce and of the minister of the interior, in order to be
(unless in case some other provision shall be made) distributed among those who have
suffered most from the operations of attack made by the French army for the purpose
of re-entering Paris.

Article V. Independently of the foregoing provisions, contributions iu mouey col-
lected by way of taxes by the German authorities shall be repaid as follows :

Section I. Those communes which have paid sums by way of taxes shall be re-im-
bursed by the treasury.

Sec. II. Tax-payers who shall furnish evidence of the payment of sums in the same
manner, either to the Germans or to the French imiuicipal authorities, shall be per-
mitted to deduct such amount from their taxes for 1870 and 1871. They shall be
obliged to produce, within one month, their documentary evidence.

Sec. III. The above regulation shall comprise —

First. The amount of the direct French tax ;

Second. Double this amount, representing the indirect tax claimed by the Prussians.

All that in these payments shall exceed the double direct tax shall be considered as
a simple war-contributiou, and governed by the principles laid down in the foregoing
articles.

Done in public session at Versailles, July 3, August 8, aud September 6, 1871.

The president,

JULES GREVY.

The secretaries :

PAUL BETHMONT,
VTE. DE MEAUX,
PAUL DE REMUSAT,
BON DE BARANTE,
MIS. DE CASTELLANE,
N. JOHNSTON.

The President of the French Republic,

A. THIERS.

The minister of the interior,

F. LAMBRECHT.

ALIEN CLAIMS. T9

[Inclosure No. 3. J
Occurrences prior to the 3d of March.

It Las been asked whether the law of September 6 was applicable both to damages
caused by the German army and those caused by the French army. No doubt can be
entertained upon this head ; the law is explicit. It appears, in fact, from the discus-
siou which took place in the National Assembly, and especially from the declaration
made by the minister of commerce iu the name of the government, that the law of
September 6 is applied in a general way to all those who have suffered material damages
from the war, without distinguishing whether these damages were caused by the
French army or by the enemy.

A desire has also been expressed to know whether this general expression to all those
was applied without distinction to all persons, whether French or of foreign birth, who
have suffered from the effects of the war. In principle, the doctrine which consists in
allowing foreigners to participatein thomeasures of reparation granted to French citizens
is entirely in accordance with the law of nations and with the spirit of justice of modern
society. This doctrine, moreover, has not only the merit of being liberal ; in a political
point of view it has its advantages also. We often have to claim indemnities in
foreign countries in favor of our citizens who have suffered iu consequence of internal
or external wars. By admitting foreigners in our country to enjoy the benefit of these
indemnities, we give to our own claims in their countries a strength of which our
diplomatic agents can usefully avail themselves, and to which they have already given
their attention since the passage of the law of September 6.

I therefore beg you, Mr. Prefect, to consider the claims of foreigners in the work of
revision which is to be done. Nevertheless, as we have with certain foreign powers
treaties which have created a particular conventional right in favor of our respective
citizens, and as with others the application of the principle of indemnity involves a
fjuestion of reciprocity, it will be your duty to inform me beforehand of each affair
concerning a foreigner, since the regulation which is to concern him must preserve a
provisional character until its final decision by my department and that of foreign
affairs.

[Inclosure No. 4. J

A laic appropriating the sum of 140,000,000 to the city of Paris and the sum of 120,000,000

to the invaded departments.

(April 7, 1873.— Published in the official journal of April 3, 1873.)

The National Assembly has passed, the President of the French Republic promul-
gates, the following law :

Article I. There shall be granted from the funds of the treasury, first, to the city
of Paris the sum of 140,000,000 of francs ; second, to the departments invaded the sum
of 120,000,000 of francs, for the purposes hereinafter specified.

Article II. The sum of 140,000,000 of francs granted to the city of Paris by Article I
shall be paid in twenty-six annuities, in half-yearly payments of 4,840,424 francs 40
centimes each, comprising the amortization and the interest at five per cent.

A first sum of U,680,848 francs 80 centimes is inscribed in the budget of the minister
of the interior for 1873.

In view of this appropriation, the city of Paris shall be responsible :

1st. For the payment of the balance of the indemnities remaining due for the repa-
ration of material damages caused either within Paris or in its environs by the mili-
tary operations of the second siege.

2d. For the reparation of the material damages suffered by property, whether mova-
ble or immovable, in Paris and its environs, and resulting from the insurrection of
March 18,1871.

These two indemnities shall be definitively determined by commissions, presided over
by the prefect of the Seine.

The payment shall take place as follows :

For the first category, in fifteeu equal annuities with interest at five per cent.

For the second category, in fifteen equal annuities without interest, the whole, ac-
cording to the resolution of the municipal council dated July 19, 1872.

Article III. Iu order to facilitate the operations of discount which may be agreed
upon by the city and the parties receiviug indemnities, the city of Paris is authorized
to conclude with loan societies agreements for discount at the minimum rate of six
per cent., not including a commission of two per cent, once paid. It may also com-
mence them, if deemed expedient, with the aid of its funds in the treasury and the re-
sources of its floating debt.

Article IV. The balance which shall remain unexpended in the bauds of the city
after the above payments shall have been made, shall represent the indemnity granted
to it for the surplus of its claims.

Article V. In view of the appropriation granted in Article I, the city of Paris shall

80 ALIEN CLAIMS.

raise no claim against the state, either for re-imbursement of the balance of the war-
contribution of 200,000,000 of francs, orfbr the re-imbursement of its war-expenses and
the loss suffered by it in consequence of the insurrection of March, 1871.

Article VI. It is authorized for the term of fifteen years, on the conditions estab-
lished by the resolution of the municipal council at Paris, dated March 22, 1873, to col-
lect 17 centimes on the principal of the tax on landed, personal, and movable property,
and on doors and windows, and of five centimes on the license-tax.

Article VII. The appropriation of 120,000,000 of francs granted from the funds of
the treasury to the departments invaded, according to Article I of this law, shall be
applied as follows: 8,049,280 francs 65 centimes to the balance of the re-imbursement
of taxes paid to the Germans; 111,950,719 francs 35 centimes to the reparation of all
losses and all damages suffered, in consequence of the invasion, by individuals, cities,
communes, and departments, during the war of 1870-71.

The sum of 8,049,280 francs 65 centimes shall be paid on the same terms as the sums
appropriated by the law of May 27, 1872, and a like sum is placed at the disposal of
the minister of finance during the year 1872.

The sum of 111,950,719 francs 35 centimes shall be paid in twenty-six annuities, io
equal half-yearly payments of 3,870,635 francs 70 centimes each, comprising the amorti-
zation and the interest at 5 per cent.

The sum of 7,741,271 francs 40 centimes is placed at the disposal of the minister of
the interior for this purpose during the year 1873.

The distribution shall be made by the minister of the interior among the invaded
departments, according to the losses verified by the departmental commissions for
revision, account being kept of the sums allotted in the first distribution of one hun-
dred millions of francs.

The sums allotted to the departments, according to the provision of the present
article, shall be divided among the parties interested, namely, departments, com-
munes, or individuals, by a decision of the council-general.

This decision shall be given in accordance with the recommendations of the com-
mission for distribution, to be appointed according to article III of the law of Sep-
tember 6, 1871, and to be presided over by the prefect.

Nevertheless, the decisions of the councils-general shall only be executed after hav-
ing been approved by the minister of the interior.

Article VIII. The sums contributed to the communes shall be paid to them by an-
nuities in the manner specified in the fifth paragraph of Article VII.

The amounts granted, to individuals may be paid to them in cash. The depart-
ments or the communes shall to this effect be authorized to convert into money, by
way of discount, the portion of the annuity corresponding to the private claims. To
this effect, they are authorized to make such financial operations as shall be judged
most expedient. Nevertheless, the discount paid by them shall not exceed 6 per cent,
without including a commission of 2 per cent., once paid.

Article IX. A decree, issued in the form of public regulations, shall determine in
what proportion it may be expedient to deliver to the departments, to the communes,
or to individuals, certificates of liquidation representing the annuities granted by the
present law.

The same decree shall determine the form and the conditions of delivery of titles to
those having well-founded claims.

Done in public session, at Versailles, April 7, 1873.

The President,

L. BUFFET.

The secretaries,

FELIX VOISON.

L. GRIVART.

E. DE CAZENOVE DE PRADINE.

ALBERT DESJARDINS.

The President of the Republic,

A. THIERS.

The minister of the interior,

E. DE GOULARD.

fluclosure No. 5.]

MINISTERS DE L'lNTERIEUR.— DIRECTION DE L'ADMINISTRATION DEPARTEMEXTALE ET
COMMUNALE.— PREMIERE DIVISION. — PREMIER BUREAU. — INDBMN1TES POUR DOM-
MAGES DE GUERRE. (REPARTITION DEFINITIVE.) — CIRCULAIRE.

Versailles, le 15 mai 1873.
Monsieur le prefet, l'artiole 3 de la loi du 6 septembre 1871, relative a la repara-
tion des dommages resultant de l'invasiou, portait :
" Lorsque I'&eudue des pertes aura 6l6 ainsi constatee, une loi fixera la somme que

ALIEN CLAIMS. 81

l'etat du Tresor public perme ttra de consacrer a leur dedorumageiuent et en determinera
la repartition."

Dans sa seance de 7 avril dernier, 1' Assembled nationale a vote le nouveau subside
promis. Je vous envoie ci-joint lo texte de la loi.

L'article l er accorde a la ville de Paris une somme de 140 millions et aux departements
envahis une somme de 120 millions.

Cette allocation compietera l'o3uvre de reparation que l'Assembiee nationale et le
Gonveruement out r<Ssolue de concert.

Les articles 2, 3, 4, 5, et 6 concernent le mode de payement de l'allocation attribute
a la ville de Paris ; je n'ai pas aujourd'hui a m'eu occuper.

Aux termes de l'article 7, il est fait deux parts de la somme de 120 millions accorde'e
aux departments envahis : la premiere, s'eievant a 8,049,280 fr. 65 cent., servira a par-
faire le credit de 53,658,759 francs ouvert par la loi du 27 mai 1872, et destine au rem-
boursement des impOts payes aux Allemauds, eonforme'ment aux dispositions de Parti-
cle 5 de la loi du 6 septembre 1871 ; o'est a M. le Miuistre des finances a en r£gler la re-
partition. La secoude, s'eievant a 111,950,719 fr. 35 cent., sera aft'ectee a la reparation
de toutes les pertes et tous les douimages subis, du fait de l'invasion, par les departe-
tnents, les communes et les particuliers. C'est a mou administration qu'est devolu le
soin d'en assurer le partage. La presente circulaire a pour but de faire connaltre les
regies genSrales auxquelles il sera soumis.

Les payements anront lieu en viugt-six annuities par termes semestriels egaux com-
prenant l'amortissement et 1'inteYet k 5 p. % (art. 7, § 5). Je traiterai cette question a
l'occasion de l'article 9 de la loi daus une circulaire speciale qui suivra le reglement
d'adiuiuistratiou publique dont je me reserve de vous parler tour, a l'beure.

Des maintenant j'appelle votre attention sur les paragraphes 6, 7, 8, 9, et 10 de l'arti-
cle 7.

BASES DE I.A REPARTITION DE L'lNDEMNITlS ENTRE LES DlSPARTEMENTS.

Un ddcret de M. le President de la Republique arretera la distribution de l'allocation
de 111,950,719 fr. 35 cent, entre les d6parteruents envahis, au prorata des pertes con-
statees paroles Commissions, de revision dont l'article 2 de la loi du 6 septembre 1871
avait prescript la formation. Le gouvernement, en y procedaut, tiendra compte des
sommes attribuees dans la repartition du credit primitif de 100 millions (Docret du 27
octobre 1871).

Pour operer sur des bases equitables, mou intention est de rendre autant que possi-
ble uuiforme le travail des Commissions de revision. Or, vous le savez, Monsieur le Pr6-
fet, dans tous les departements elles n'ont pas agl en se placaat au meme point de vne :
quelques-unes out ailinis certains dommages que d'autres ontrejet<5s; des omissions out
eu lieu dans plusieurs ddpaitemeuts ; dans d'autres on a ecarti oomme tardives cer-
taines reclamations, bieu que la loi du 26 septembre 1871 n'ait fixe aucun deiai a peine
de forclusion.

Eniiu des dommages resultant de vols, d'ineendies et de faits d'occupation de troupes
posterieurs au 2 mars 1871, constates cependant paredes proces-verbaux, n'ont pas ete
admis partout, les commissions de revision etaut alors autorisees a croire que le gou-
vernement allemaude en aceepterait le remboursement integral. Or, soit que les de-
mandes n'aient pas ete produites dans le deiai d'un mois accorde, pour cette categorie
de dommages, par l'article 5, § 2, de la loi du 6 septembre 1871, soit qu'elles n'aient pas
ete accueillies par la Chauoellerie allemande, les Commissions de revision le-s \>nt
ecartees ; il ne serait cependant ni juste ni equitable que les interessees fussent prives
aujourd'hue d'une reparation quelcouque.

Les etats, d'ailleurs tres-sommaires, que j'ai sous les yeux, presentent done dans leur
composition des variations nombreuses qui, si elles etaieut maintenues, porteraient at-
teMnte a des droits legitimes et fansseraient la repartition generale.

Charge par la loi de corriger ees inegalites et de restituer au travail deflnitif ce ca-
ractere de justice et ces conditions d'harmonie et de regularite qu'il ne ponvait avoir,
alors que les commissions locales jugeaient isoiement et se deteruiiuaient par des ap-
preciations conscieucieuses sans doute, mais auxquelles manquait an lien general, je
dois aujourd'hui, Monsieur le Prefet, faire appel a votre coucours pour etre mis a meme
de statner^comme l'a voulu le legislateur, en appliquant le meme traiteinent aux situa-
tions similaires et en retablissant, par consequent, entre les etats d'origine diverse, une
uniformite deveuue indispensable.

Voici les dispositions que je vous recommande dans ce but :

ETAT GENERAL DES PERTES.

Vous ferez d'abord examiner par la Commission de revision toutes les demandes
ecartees comme tardives, celles que je vous ai adressees et qui vous parviendront
directetuent. Mais comme il est necessaire de clore au plus tot les etats de perte, vous
previendrez les interessSs, par tous les moyeus de publicite possible, que toutes les

H. Rep. 134 6

82 ALIEN CLAIMS.

deinaudes presentees posterieurement au 8 juin prochain seront considers comme'
nullcs et non avenues.

Sans attendre que la Commission ait aeheve sou travail, vous devrez former uu
dossier special de chaque reclamation et des pieces qui l'aceompagueut.

Ces pieces seront renfermees dans un bordereau sur lequel on indiquera le num&o
d'ordre, les nonis de la commune, du canton, de l'arrondissement et celui du pe'tition-
naire.

Lorsque les dossiers seront ainsi disposes, vous les classerez par commune et suivant
l'ordre alphabetique. Les dossiers de chaque commune formeront une liasse ; ces Masses
seront egaleinent class6es suivant l'ordre alphabetique des communes dans une chemise
comprenant tous les articles du canton; ces chemises seront elles-memes rangees
suivant l'ordre alphabetique des cantons de l'arroudissement.

Enfin les dossiers de chaque arrondissemeut seront a leur tour classes par ordre alpha-
betique.

Ainsi distributes, les reclamations seront analysees dans un tableau dont je vous
envoie les formules avec la presente cireulaire.

Les dommages inscrits au compte personnel du department feront l'objet du premier
article et le dossier portera le num<5ro 1. On ecrira le mot " departement" a la 3 e co-
lonne.

Dans la meme colonne on portera successivement, en descendant d'une ligne :

1° Le nom du premier arrondissement (ordre alphabetique) ;

2° Le nom du premier cantou, et eulin le nom de la premiere commune qui recevra
le Burnero 1 (dans la l re colonne).

Si la commune a eprouve" des dommages, elle formera un article special designe par
le mot " commune." Les noms des particuliers viendront ensuite dans l'ordre du classe-
ment et recevront un numero qui sera porte sur la chemise.

Vous n'eprouverez pas de difficult^ pour remplir la colonne 4 (montant des imp6ts,
contributions et araeudes payes) ; les chiffres ayant ete arretes par les Commissions de
revision, il vous suffra de les inscrire en ayant soin d'arrondir le nombre en francs. Si
le nombre des centimes est inferieur a 50, vous le negligerez; s'il est superieur, vous
augmenterez de 1 franc la partie en Here. Par exemple, si les contributions payees par
une commune ou un particulier s'eievent a 105 fr. 45 cent., vous insciirez 105 francs;
si, au contraire, elles s'eievent a 105 fr. 75 cent., vous iuscrirez 106 francs.

Pour remplir la colonne 5 (montant des sommes payees en execution de l'article 5 de
la loi du 6 septembre, 1871), vous aurez a vous coucerter avec M. le Tresorier-gen6ral,
qui devra mettre a votre disposition tous les renseignements n<5 cessaires. M. le Min-
istre des finances m'a assure tout son concours. Les chiffres de la colonne 6 repr^sent-
eront en nombres ronds les differences entre les chiffres de la colonne 4 et ceux de la
-colorine 5 ; ils devront anssi etre portes en francs, ainsi que je l'ai indique plus haut.
II en sera de meme pour les inscriptions des eolonnes 7 a 24.

Lorsque le tableau aura ainsi ete prepare^ vous me le transmettrez aecompagne de
tous les dossiers ; j'y ferai les additions ou retranchements destines a le mettre en har-
monic avec celui des autres departements, et j'arreterai la repartition dans les termes
pr6vus par le paragraphe 7 de la loi du avril. II serait a desirer qu'elle put avoir lieu
avaut la prochaine session du conseil general.

J'iDsiste done pourque le tableau et les documents annexes que le decret visera me
parvienment au plus tard le 20 juin.

REPAKTITION ENTRE I.ES INTERESSES.

Aux termes des paragraphes 8 et 9 de l'article 7 de la loi, les sommes allouees anx
departements seront distribuees entre les iuteresses (departements, communes ou par-
ticuliers) par une decision du conseil general rendue sur les propositions de la com-
mission instituee sous votre presidence.

Des que je vous notifierai le decret de reartition, vous r6unirt>z la Commission, et
votre premier soin sera delui faire remarquer que le travail actuel n'a pas le meme
caractere que celui de 1872.

Vous le savez, en effet, la premiere allocation etait destinee anx victimes les plus
necessiteuses et aux communes les plus oberees. Cost done avec raisou que la plupart
des commissions locales se sont attachees d'abord a pourvoir aux besoins les plus pres-
sants ; mais toutes n'ont pas suivi la meme regie, et si, au debut, pour des motifs dont
je ne conteste pas la valeur, des personnes dont la situation n'etait pas reellement u6-
cessiteuse ont ete admises a l'indemnite, les memes raisons de les y faire participer
n'existeraient plus, aujourd'hui, qu'il s'agit d'un solde. En regard de ces situations,
les unes definitivement satisfaites, les autres appellees a recevoir un nouveau dedom-
magement, il en est, Monsieur le Prefet, qui n'avaient pas d'abord ete prevues et aux-
quelles l'Assembiee nationale a voulu egalement venir eu aide.

Aipsi, le gouvernement a pris l'engagement a la tribune. d'etendre les secours de
l'fitat, par mesure exceptionelle, a quelques etablissemeuts et communes, heureuse-
rnent en petit nombre, sur qui semblent s'etre plus particulierement abattus les d6-

ALIEN CLAIMS. 83

"sastres de la guerre. II y a la des ruines qui, faute de ressources, n'ont. pas encore ete
relevees. La Commission devra eu teuir grand oompte dans sou travail. Je devanoe
ses sympathies et les v6tres, Monsieur le Prefet, en vous rappelant, a cet egard, le de-
sir de l'Assembiee.

A quelque categorie de droits ou d'infortunes que doivent s'appliquer les propositions
■de la Commission ou meme les decisions du eonseil general, il ne vous echappera pas,
Monsieur le Prefet, que ces Evaluations n'aurout que le caractere d'un travail pr6para-
toire. La repartition ne deviendra definitive qu'apres avoir ete approuvee par le Min-
istre de l'interieur (article 7, § 10).

Vous aurez, en consequence, a me faire parvenir, des la cl6ture de la session d'aout,
le tableau duinent rempli par les soins du eonseil general; je reviserai, s'il y a lieu,
l'operation et je fixerai les droits de chacun.

Le r61e des indemnitaires sera immediatement etabli dans mes bureaux et je vous en
adresserai un exemplaire que vous notifierez par extrait aux iuteresses daus la forme
qu'indiqueront mes instructions ulterieures.

PAYEMENT DES INDEMNITES.

Conform6inent a l'article 8, § l 6r , les sommes attributes aux departements et aux
communes seront payees en vingt-six auuiiites par termes semestriels egaux. L'or-
donnancement aura lieu suivant les regies ordinaires de la comptabilite publique.

Quant aux indeninites dues aux particuliers, la loi pre"voit (art. 8, § 2) que les paye-
ments pourront etre faits comptaut ; elle autorise a cet effet les departements et les
■communes a convertir en argent, par voie d'escompte, la portion de l'indemnite corres-
pondant aux reclamations privies, et a se procurer les ressources au moyen des opera-
tions fiuancieres que seront jnges les meilleures.

Cette substitution des d'partements et des communes aux particuliers est soumise a
une condition essentielle ; l'escompte a supporter par ces deruiers ue devra pas d6passer
6 p. %, non compris uu droit de commission de 2 p. % une lois pay6.

Pour assurer l'execution de cet article de la loi, vous inviterez le eonseil general a se
prononcer sur la question de savoir s'il euteud faire profiter les indemnitaires de la
i'aculte d'un remboursement immediat. Vous joindrez uue copie du proces-verbal de
sa deliberation aux propdsitions de repartition presentees par l'assembiee departemen-
tale. Suivant les resolutions qui seront prises par le couseil, je vous inviterai a de-
mander une deliberation analogue aux conseils muuicipaux des cominuues interess6es.
Mon administration sera ainsi en mesure de preparer le decret qui deterniiuera, con-
formement aux prescriptions de l'article 9, dans quelle proportion il y aura lieu de re-
mettre aux departements, aux communes et aux particuliers les bons de liquidation
representatifs des aunuites, et qui reglera la forme des titres et les conditions de leur
remise aux ayants droit.

Je vous transmettrai, quand le moment sera venu, des instructions au sujet de cette
liquidation.

Quant a present, je me borne a vous recommander l'execution scrupuleuse et prompte
des instructions qui precedent. Le sujet est digue de votre sollicitude, et, en vous de-
mandant de m'aider a realiser les genereuses iuteutions des represeutants du pays, je
suis assure de ne pas faire un vain appel a votre d6vouement et au patriotisme des
■commissions locales et du eonseil general.
; Eecevez, Monsieur le Pret'et, Fassurance de ma consideration tres-distinguEe.

Le Ministre de l'interieur, E. DE GOULARD.

Loi portant allocation a la ville de Paris d'une somme de 140 millions, et aux departements
envahis d'une somme de 120 millions.

L'Assembiee nationale a adopte, le President de la Republique Francaise promulgue
la loi dont la teneur suit :

Article premier. II est accorde sur les fonds du Tresor : 1° a la ville de Paris une
somme de cent quarante millions de francs (140,000,000') ; 2" aux departements envaliis
une somme de cent vingt rnillhons de francs (I20,000,000 r ), pour etre appliquees aux
emplois qui seront ci-apr6s iudiques.

Art. 2. La somme de cent quarante millions de francs (140,000,000 f ) accordee a la
ville de Paris par l'article l cr ci-dessus sera payee en vingt-six anuuites eu deux termes
semestriels de quatre millions buit ceutquaraute m Ue quatre cent viugt-quatre f'raucs
quarante centimes (4,840,4.24'' 4U C ) chacun, coinpreuaut I'atnortisseuieiit et l'interet a 5

V<%-

Une premiere somme de neuf millions six cent quatre- vingts mille huit centquaraute-
huit francs quatre-vingts centimes (9,b'80,848 f 80 c ) est iuscrite au budget du uiiuistere de
l'iuterieur, exercice 187:{.

Moyeanant cette allocation, la ville de Paris suppoitera : 1° lepayement des soldes

84 ALIEN CLAIMS.

des indemnity restanfc dues ponr la reparation des dommages materiels causes a l'inte-
rieur ou a l'entour de Paris par le fait des operations militaires da second siege ;

2° La reparation des dommages niateriels soufferts par les propri^tes mobilieres et
imrnobilieres de Paris et de ses alentours, et resultant de l'insurreetion de 18 mars,
1871.

Ces deux ordres d'indemnite's seront definitivement regie's par des commissions ad-
ministratives pr^sid6es par le Prefet de la Seine.

Le payement aura lieu comme suit :

Pour la premiere categoric, en quinze annuites egales, avec intergt a 5 p. %.

Pour la seconde categorie, en quinze anuuites egales, sans iut(5i'et. Le tout con-
formement a la deliberation du conseil municipal en date du 19 juillet 1872.

Art. 3. Pour faciliter les operations d'escompte qui pourraient 6tre convenues de
gre a gre entre la ville et les indemnitaires, la ville de Paris est autorisee a conclure
a"vec des societes de credit des traites d'escompte au taux maximum de 7 p. %, non
compris un droit de commission de 2 p. % une fois paye.

Elle pouria egalement les commencer, s'il y a lieu, a l'aide de ses fonds de tidsorerie
et des lessources de sa dette rlottante.

Aut. 4. Le solde qui restera libre aux mains de la ville, apresque les payements ci-
dessus auront ete eflectues, repriSsentera le dddommagement qui lui est accorde pour le
surplus de ses reclamations.

Art. 5. Au moyen de l'allocation votee dans l'article l er , la ville de Paris ne pourra
exercer coutre 1'Etat aucune reclamation tant a raison du rembonrsement du solde de
la contributiou de guerre de 200 millions de francs que du remboursement de ses
depenses de guerre et des pertes qu'elle a subies par suite de l'insurrection du 18 mars
1871.

Art. 6. Est antorisse'e pour la dur^e de quinze axis, aux conditions re"gle"es par la
deliberation du conseil municipal de Paris en date du 22 mars 1873, la perception de
dix-sept centimes (0 f 17 c ) sur le principal des contributions fonciere, personnelle et
mobiliere et des portes et fenStres, et de cinq centimes (0 £ 05 c ) sur la contribution des
paten tes.

Art. 7. L'allocation de cent vingt millions de francs (120,000,000'), accorded sur les
fonds du Tre"sor aux d6partements envahis en vertu de l'article l er ci-dessus, s'appli-
quera, savoir :

Pour huit millions quarante-neuf mille deux cent quatre-vingts francs soixante-cinq
centimes (8,049, 280 f (S5 C ) au solde des remboursements pour impotspayesaux Allemands.

Pour cent onze millions ueuf cent cinquante mille sept cent dix-neuf francs treute-
cinq centimes (lll,950,719 f 35 c ) a la reparation de toutes les pertes et de tous les dom-
mages subis, par le fait de l'iuvasion, par les individus, les villes, les communes et les
departenuents, pendaut la guerre de 1870-1871.

La somme de buit millions quarante-neuf mille deux cent quatre-vingts francs soi-
xante-cinq centimes (8,049,280 f 65 c ) sera payee dans les indmes conditions que les sommes
allou^es par la loi du 27 niai 1872, et un credit de pareille somme est ouvert au Ministre
des finances sur l'exercice 1872.

La somme de cent onze millions neuf cent cinquante mille sept cent dix-neuf francs
trente-cinq centimes (lll,950,719 f 35 c ) sera pay6e en vingt-six annuites, par termesse-
mestriels eguux de trois millions huit cent soixaute-dix mille six cent trente-cinq francs
soixante-dix centimes (3,870,635 f 70 c ) chaeun, comprenaut 1'amortissement et 1'iuterSfc
a 5 p. %.

Un credit de sept millions sept cent quarante et un mille deux cent soixante et onze
francs quarante centimes (7,741,271 f 40 c ) est ouvert pour cet objet au Ministre de Tinte"-
rieur. •

La repartition se fera par les soins du Miuistre de riuterieur, eutre les departements
envahis, au proratadespertescoustateespar les commissions departementales de revision,
en tenant compte des sommes attributes dans la premiere repartition de cent millions
de francs (100,000,000').

Les sommes attributes aux departements conformement aux dispositions du present
article seront r^parties entre les interesse"s, h savoir : le departenient, les communes ou
les particuliers, par une decision du conseil g6n6ral.

Cette decision sera prise sur les propositions de la commission de repartition etablie
par l'article 3 de la loi du 6 septembre 1871, pr6sidee )iar le jjrefet.

Toutcfois les decisions des conseils generaux ne seront exe'cutees qu'apres avoir ete
approvees par le Ministre de l'interieur.

"Art. 8. Les sommes attribuees aux coninmnes leur seront regiees par annuites, dans
les conditions indiqueeo au paragiaphe o de l'article 7 ci-dessus.

Les sommes attribuees aux particuliers ponrront etre payees coinptaut. Les depart-
ments on les communes sont a, cet effet, autorises a couvertir en argeut, par voie d'es-
compte, la portion de l'annuite correspond an 1 aux reclamations particiilieres. A cet eifet,
ils sont autonses a faire les operations fiuaucieres qui seront jtgees les meilleures. 4

Toutefois l'escompte par eux supporte ne pourra exceder b' p. %, non compris un
droit de commission de 2 p. % une fois paye.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 85

Art. 9. Un decret rendu dans la forme des regiements d'administration publique de-
termine™ dans quelle proportion il pourra y avoir lieu de remettre aux departemeuts,
aux communes et aux particuliers, les bons de liquidation reprfeentant les annuity
aceordees par la preseute loi.

Le uieme decret reglera la forme et les conditions dela remise des titres aux ayants
droit.
De'libere' en stance publique, a Versailles, le 7 avril 1873.
Le President : L. BUFFET.

Les Secretaires : FELIX VOISFN,

L. GRIVART,

E.DECAZENOVE DE PRADINE,
ALBERT DESJARDINS.
Le President de la Republique: A. THIERS.

Le Miuhtre de TIntereur,
E. DE Goulard.

[iDclosure No. 6.]
Report to the President of the French Republic.

Versailles, August 23, 1874.

Mr. President: The law of April 7, 1873, granted an appropriation of 140 millions
of francs to the city of Paris, on condition that the city should pay, in fifteen years,
the indemnities for the damages caused by the second siege and the insurrection of
March li, 1871. This sum is to be paid in fifty-two semi-annual payments of 4,840,424
francs 40 centimes, comprising the amortization and -the interest at five per cent.

As so long a time is granted for these payments, the city could not procure the funds
which it needed, in order to pay- in fall those persons who, according to article III, de-
sire to realize immediately the indemnities which are due them.

You have desired to remedy this difficulty by submitting to the assembly the bill
•which was passed during its session of July 26, 1873. This law will facilitate the per-
formance of the obligations which are imposed upon the city. To this end, it author-
izes the city to create bonds of liquidation, which the municipal administration will
place in circulation, or which it will deliver directly to the parties entitled to indem-
nity, if the latter prefer.

This combination, which was proposed May 23, 1873, by the prefect of the Seine, and
adopted on the 31st of the same month by the municipal council of Paris, consists in
offering to parties entitled to indemnity, in exchange for the bonds which are payable
in fifteen years, to which the law of April 7 entitles them, bonds of liquidation yielding
5 per cent, interest, payable at par in twenty-six years, by way of semi-annual draw-
ings, and having an approximatively equal value in cash.

Such is the system established by the law of July 26, the enforcement of which will
be provided for by decree, according to Article II.

NUMBER OF TITLES.

We have the honor to propose to you, Mr. President, to limit the issue of bonds to
277,300, representing a capital of 138,650,000 fraucs. This capital is inferior to the ao-
tivedebt {criance) of the city ; but as it has not seemed possible to admit notes smaller
than 500 francs each, although on the one hand a certain number of persons entitled to
indemnity have a claim only to sums inferior to this amount ; on the other, the deliv-
ery ef the bonds could not take place before the expiration of the first half year of the
period of re-imbursement. The department of the interior and the department of
finance have recognized the necessity of ordering the payment for the benefit of the
city of the amouut of the first half annuity, 4,840,424 francs 40 centimes, which will
serve to pay in full the indemnities amounting to less than 500 francs and the differ-
ences of indemnities amounting to more than that sura.

This sum consists of the first half year of the interest of the debt of the state (3,500,-
000 francs) and of the amortization corresponding to that half year, or 1,310,424 francs
40 centimes. It now remains, therefore, only to amortize a principal of 138,659,575
francs 60 centimes, which exceeds the amount of the issue by 9,575 francs.

We will explain, as regards Article VII, why this difference cannot be covered by
bonds.

EXEMPTION FROM DUTIES AND FROM THE INCOME-TAX.

The financial combination authorized by the law will result in favoring the circula-
tion of the new values created by the city. Hence it became necessary to render them
payable at all the pay-offices of the treasury, and this is prescribed by the second arti-

86 ALIEN CLAIMS.

cle. The decree submits them, moreover, to the examination of the central paying-
cashier, and of the central controller of the public treasury; and, in consequence, it
eixempts the bonds from the payment of the duties of transmission and of the income-
tax, but it leaves untouched the obligation to stamp them.

FORM OF THE BONDS.

The third article regulates the form of the bonds. This form shall be similar to the
model appended to the decree.

The bonds shall have but a single series, numbered from 1 to 277,300. They shall
comprise 51 coupons, the value of which shall be 12£ francs each.

DELIVERY OP THE BONDS.

The municipal receiver of the city of Paris shall be instructed to deliver the bonds
to the parties interested on the presentation of, and in exchange for, provisional bonds.

METHODS OF AMORTIZATION AND TIMES OF PAYMENT.

Articles V and VI approve the plan of amortization prepared by the prefect of the
Seine. This plan indicates — 1. The dates of the drawings ; 2. The nurabej;of the series
of 100 bonds to be drawn from the wheels, to be used as the portion of the annuity
■which is left disposable after the payment of the interest ; 3. The principal amortized
at each drawing; 4. The sum necessary for the payment of the half year's interest;
5. The dates of the payments.

By reason of the amount of labor which has to be performed by the central pay-
office during the first days of each quarter of a year, it was necessary to postpone the
payments until the 20th of the months of April and October. In consequence, the-
drawings were to take place at such dates as should render it possible to give the
necessary publicity to the numbers drawn. We propose to fix them at the 20th of
March and the 20th of September.

In order to lighten the expense of the manufacture of the wheels, the drawings
shall take place by series of 100 bonds. This mode of procedure naturally causes
irregularities in the amount of the annuities, consequently the sum to be inscribed in
the budget of the state suffers slight variations; but it will be possible to remedy this
inequality, which is not in accord with the law of April 7, which provides for fixed
annuities by carrying forward credits from one year to the other, and by causing the
annual sum to be inscribed each year in the budget to vary.

SUM LEFT OVER AND ABOVE THE AMORTIZATION.

The plan of amortization not comprising, and not being able to comprise, in conse-
quence of the obligation of making series of 100, more than 277,300 bonds, for a prin-
cipal of 138,650,000, and the half annuity received by the city, amortizing only a capital
of 1,340,424 francs 40 centimes, the amount of which sums is 139,990,420 fraucs 40 cen-
times, there remains, over and above the amortization of the entire sum of 140- millions,
a capital of 9,575 francs 60 centimes.

The service of the interest and of the amortization of this complementary capital
would impose upon the Treasury, accordiug to the law of April 7, the obligation of
payiug to the city of Paris two half annuities of 334 francs 27 centimes during tweuty-
six years. It has seemed to us proper not to allow to remain iu the budgets of the
state, as in those of the city, during twenty-six years au article of so little importance,
and we propose to add the payment of this sum of 9,575 francs 60 centimes and the
interest (239 francs 90 centimes) to that of the first half annuity, which the treasury
has already paid in coin. This mode of regulation is the more acceptable, since the
amount in principal and interest of the 51 half annuities, calculated with an amortiz-
ation by series of 100 bonds, must secure at the end of the period to the treasury, as
compared with the results of the amortization provided by law of April 7, a saving of
33,070 francs 41 centimes.

EXPENSE OF THE OPERATION.

The advantages reaped by the city are of such a nature that it is just to make it
responsible for all the expenses of the operation. In order to settle any subsequent
difficulty, and although on this head the city makes no objections, it has seemed
proper to us to make it an object of special provision, (Article VIII.) If you approve
these suggestions, Mr. President, we sha'l have the honor to beg you to be pleased to-
affix your signature to tlie, following decree.

Be pleased to accept, Mr. President, the assurances of our respect.

The minister of the interior,

The minister of finance,

BEULE.
P. MAGNE.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 87

The President of the French Republic —

On report of the minister of the interior and minister of finance :

In consideration of the law of April 7 and that of July 26, 1873 ;

In consideration of the memorial presented May 23, 1873, by the prefect of the
Seine to the municipal council of Paris ;

In consideration of the resolutions of this council dated May 31 and July 1, 1873 ;

In consideration of the plan of amortization of the bonds of liquidation authorized
by the law of July 26, 1873—

Decuees :

Article I. The number of bonds of liquidation of 500 francs each which the city of
■Paris is authorized to issue according to the law of July 26, 1873, is hereby fixed at
277,300.

Article II. These bonds shall be delivered by the prefect of the Seine, and exam-
ined by the central paying cashier and by the central controller of the public treasury.
They are exempt from the payment of transmission duties and of the income-tax,
but they shall pay a stamp-duty of 1 per 1,000, established for commercial purposes.

Article III. Each bond shall bear a. number, from 1 up to 277,300, and a numbered
series of 51 coupons, value 12 francs 50 centimes each. The form shall be similar to
the model appended to the present decree.

Article IV. The delivery of the bonds to the parties entitled to indemnity shall be
made by the municipal receiver of Paris, on presentation and in exchange for the cer-
tificate of distribution delivered to each person interested.

Article V. On the 20th of the months of March and of September of each year, the
bonds payable at par shall be drawn by round series of 100 each, in accordance with
the plan of amortization appended to the present decree. The first drawing shall take
place on the 20th September, 1873, and the last on the 20th September, 1898.

Article VI. After the 20th of the months of April and. of October, the payment of
the coupons and of the bonds drawn by law shall be made at Paris, at the central pay-
office of the treasury, and in the departments at the pay-offices of the paying treas-
urers-general and of the receivers of finance.

Article VII. The sum of 9,575 francs 60 centimes, exceeding the number which will
be amortized by the issue of 277,300 bonds, shall be repaid to the city of Paris in a
single payment, together with the interest due thereon, viz, 239 francs 39 centimes.
These two sums shall be deducted from the amount inscribed in the budget of the
minister of the interior, viz, 9,680,848 francs 80 centimes, (year 1873, chapter 35.)

Article VIII. The city of Paris shall bear all expenses resulting from the payment
of the coupons and of the bonds, and, in general, expenses caused by the execution
of the present decree.

Done at Versailles, August 23, 1873. •

MARSHAL DE MacMAHON,

Duke of Magenta.

By the President of the Republic :

The minister of the interior,

BEULE.

The minister of finance,

P. MAGNE.

[Incloeure No. 7.]

Ministry of the Interior,

Versailles, September 5, 1873.

An order issued by the minister of the interior, under date of November 29, 1871,
provided for the appointment of a committee, (to be presided over by the prefect of the
Seine,) whose duty it should be to appraise the damage caused by the operations of
attack of the French army on re-entering Paris, and to distribute a first installment of
six millions, appropriated by the national assembly September 6, 1871.

A ministerial decision, rendered in pursuance of article 2, of the law of April 7, 1873,
instructed this commission definitely to settle the amount of the sum to be paid by
the city of Paris in fifteen annual payments, with interest at five per cent. This com-
mission, after having met thirty-two times, has just concluded its labors. It has fixed
the number of persons entitled to indemnity at 8,146, and has caused to be prepared
for delivery to each one of these persons a provisional certificate which furnishes evi-
dence of his rights. The sum total of the damages has been fixed at 29,385,980 francs
14 centimes. The sum of six millions, distributed in the course of the year 1872, to the
amount of 5,974,605 francs 47 centimes, has rendered it possible to give to the needy
claimants from 30 to 35 per cent, or thereabouts, and to all others 17 per cent.

The difference, amounting to about 25,394 francs 53 centimes, was used for the pay-
ment of experts, and for payment of salary of clerks, printing of warrants, titles, &c.

88

ALIEN CLAIMS.

The total amouDt to be paid by the city of Paris is, therefore, 23,411,374 irancs 67
centimes, divided as follows :

SCO

I'aS

g<c: >
S'-SS

■POfcP

IIIsJ

i?« =

o » o x

mil

<j"

c 5 •
" IT-—

Eighth arrondissement

Fourteenth arrondissement..

Fifteenth arrondissement

Sixteenth arrondissement

Seventeenth arrondissement.

CANTON OF COURBEVOJE.

Asnieres

Colombes

Conrbevoie . r .
G-ennevilliers .

Nanterre

Suresnes

Puteaux

CANTON OF NEUILLY.

Boulogne

Clichy-la-Garenne .
Levailois-Perret . . .
Neuilly

CANTON OF SAINT DENIS.

Saint Ou(n.

CANTON OF SCEAUX.

Antony '

Bagneux

Bourg-la-Reine

Chatenay

Chatillon

Clamart «

Fountenay-aux-Rosea .

Issy

Montrouge

Plessia-Piqaet

Soeaux

Vanves

CANTON OF VILLEJUIF.

Arcneil .
Ivry ...
Rungis .
Thiais . .
Titry...

DEPARTMENT OF SEINE-ET-OISE.

Saint Cloud

Bellevue

Mnudon

Sevres

Coinpagnie du Chemin de fer de l'Ouest .

General totals

Amount paid to experts

Amount paid for clerk-hire and printing .
Reserve, August 21, 1873

65

234

300

1, 452

609

580
59

559
62
6
54

274

148

1(14

339

1,654

3

43

6

19

123

3,".3

32

541

107

19

1

332

249, 279. 79

399, 227. 40

450, 701. 20

7, 285, 823. 00

1, 277, 939. 25

1, 734, 641. 00

45, 203. 00

1, 286, 400. 00

40, 521. 00

3, 570. 00

28, 835. 00

274, 273. 00

■ 254, 251. 00

337, 535. 00

396, 062. 00

10, 026, 039. 00

900. 00

120, 7911. 00

10, 042. 00

14, 713. 00

382, 524. 00

535, 289. 50

67, 680. 00

2, 290, 412. 00

45, 339. 00

25, 060. 00

1, 000. 00

522, 030. 00

57, 625. 00

2, 455. 00

3, 650. 00
630. 00
400. 00

111,190.00

32, 000. 00

92, 000. 00

4, 000. 00

985, 700. 00

30, 832. 34
112,334.28

88, 049. 96

1, 568, 496. 55

270, 309. 09

356, 364. 13
13, 440. 30
278, 634. 76
13, 726. 00
813. 20
6, 412. 45
60, 326. 85

50, 268. 26

68, 409. 10

83, 437. 17

2, 063, 188. 92

210. 00

21, 552. 60

1, 320. 00

3, 887. 30

83, 849. 50

14J, 859. 40

14. 275. 75

484. 451. 41

9,611.45

5, 759. 60

140, 130. 10

130. 00

2, 350. 00

218,447.45

286,893.12

362, 651. 24

5,717,326.45

1, 007, 630. 16

1, 378, o-,c. 87

31,762.70

1, 007, 765. 24

26, 795. 00

2, 756 80

22, 422. 55

213, 946. 15

203, 982. 74

259, 125.90

312, 624. S3

7, 962, 850. 08

690. 00

99, 237. 40

8, 722. 00

10, 825. 70

298, 674. 50

393, 430. 10

53, 404. 25

1, 805, 960. 59

35, 727. 55

19, 300. 40

1, 000. 00

381, 899. 90

57, 625. 00

2, 325. 00

3, 650. 00
630. 00
400. 00

108, 840. 00

32, 000. 00

92, 000. 00

4, 000. 00

985, 709. 00

29, 385, 980. 14

5, 974, 605. 47

7, 000. 00

14, 097. 27

4, 297. 26

23, 411, 374. 67

Total .

6, 000, 000. 00

Persons who have not applied for the provisional certificate prepared in their Dame,
may apply to the minister of the interior, rue Cambac6res No. 7, from 2 to 4 o'clock.

The exchange of the provisional certificates for bonds payable to bearer will soou
take place at the palais du Luxembourg. An advertisement in the Journal Offioiel will
announce the day of such exchange.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 89

[Inclosure No. 8.]
Report to the President of the French Republic.

Versailles, November 5, 1873.

Mr. President : The National Assembly has appropriated the sum of 211,950,719
fraues 35 centimes to the reparation of all damages suffered, in consequence of the
invasion, by individuals, cities, communes, and departments during the war of 1870-
1871. This sum is divided into two appropriations, one of 100,000,000, granted Sep-
tember 6, 1871, for the benefit of the most needy victims and the communes most in-
volved in debt; the other of 111,950.719 francs 35 centimes, which, in the view of the
National Assembly, represents a final balance.

I shall have the honor, Mr. President, to make a report to you to-day concerning the
distribution of this second appropriation. But in order to enable you generally to ap-
preciate this work in its entirety, I must go further back and place before your eyes a
summary analysis of the various operations to which it has given rise.

Immediately after the war, when the country was beginning to be reconstructed,
the minister of the interior appointed, in all the departments invaded, cantonal com-
missions, to which was confided the difficult and painful task of examining the dam-
ages suffered, of verifying them, and of preparing a general statement concerning
them. This preparatory examination was speedily accomplished, and if it was not
always irreproachable, I will presently state why.

Toward the close of August, 1871, all the elements thereof were collected. Actuated
by patriotic solicitude for so much misery, which had as yet in no wise been relieved,
the National Assembly adopted a series of measures intended to pay the debt of France
to that portion of the population which had suffered most cruelly.

At the same time that the first appropriation of 100,000,000 was made, the assembly
appointed on the 6th of September, 1871, departmental commissious, whose duty it
was made to distribute and to decide without appeal. To the minister of the interior
was only reserved the care of distributing this payment on account among the thirty-
four departments invaded, according to the damage suffered. The law instructed the
minister of finance to repay to the communes and individuals, to the amount of double
the direct tax for the period of occupation, all taxes collected by the German army.
As to the expenses of lodging, board, and various requisitions made subsequently to
the 2d of March, 1871, when preliminaries of peace were ratified, the management was
to assure the regulation thereof.

In order to be really efficacious, it was necessary for the relief to arrive speedily for
those who awaited it with such legitimate impatience. This consideration induced
the Government to take, as the basis of the first division, the estimates made by the
cantonal commissions. These were, it is true, only provisional allotments which were
subsequently to be corrected. It was the object of the decree of October 27, 1871, the
execution of which, notwithstanding all the activity of the departmental commissions
of the prefects, and of the mayors, was postponed until the last days of the year 1872.
The proposed decree which I have the honor to submit to you to-day is the comple-
ment thereof.

Like my honorable predecessor, M. de Goulard, I should have been very glad, Mr.
President, to be able speedily to carry out the generous intentions of the National As-
sembly. When suffering exists, and when the government has obtained from the
representatives of the country the means of alleviating it, it is its duty not to lose a
day, nor even an hour. The various agents whose assistance I have invoked, have
acted with the most commendable zeal. But considerable obstacles hampered my
•work. While it was important to perform it rapidly, it was not less essential to place
it above all well-fouuded criticism, and it was my duty to devote the more care to that
object since a special provision of the law of April 7, 1873, rendered subordinate the
decisions of the cantonal commissions, of the departmental commissions, and of the
councils-general themselves, to the definitive sanction of the minister of the interior.

The statement which is about to follow will give you'an idea, Mr. President, of these
difficulties, and will point out the course which I adopted in order to reach the best
result.

The cantonal commissious had confounded in their evaluations the occurrences
■which took place prior to the 2d of March, which entitled the sufferers only to a par-
tial indemnity, and the occurrences which took place subsequently to that date, which,
on the contrary, entitled the sufferers to full reparation. This error occurred not only
in the case of material damages. Yielding to the same idea, the communes had estab-
lished no distinction between the taxes whose payment in full could be required, and
the contributions, fines, &c, which could be repaid only in part, and some of them had
thought proper to set aside certain classes of losses which were admitted by others;
their estimates, being based only upon vague data, were generally lacking in exactness
for want of rules and uniform bases. Tfcey had viewed damages of the same nature
in a very different light. Hence there were singular and unjust disparities iu the vari-
ous cantons, which result was the more unfortunate, since the cantons, whose loss had

90 ALIEN CLAIMS.

been the object of the moBt conscientious estimates, were injured for the benefit of
districts whose claims had been subjected to a less severe examination.

Struck by these inequalities, one of my predecessors addressed, December 12, 1871,
precise and detailed instructions to the departmental commissions appointed by the
law. He recommended to examine each claim produced, to verify its legitimacy, and
to reduce it to its just value. He indicated the principal points to be examined, and
made known the method of evaluation and the tariffs to be applied to each class of
claims. From 821,087,980 francs 52 centimes, which was the sum shown by the returns
prepared by the cantonal commissions, the amount of losses was reduced to 659,339,770
francs 42 centimes. The final indemnity of 111,950,719 francs 35 centimes which was
granted April 7, 1873, was calculated according to this latter sum..

As regards the budget, a first result, very important without doubt, was also reached.
But when it became my duty to undertake the revision with which I was charged by
the law of April 7, 1873, it was not long before I discovered that the work of the de-
partmental commissions, like that of the cantonal commissions, still left much to be
desired.

After a first examination I discovered variations and differences such that I no
longer doubted the necessity of reviewing the elements thereof in detail. Moreover,
the payments in liquidation bonds provided by the law rendered indispensable the
preparation of lists of names comprising all persons having a right to participate in
the distribution. The preparation of these lists revealed facts to me which were still
more to be regretted.

Some communes of revision had thought thatthey must take as their standard, for the
want of sufficient elements to base their calculations upon, the evaluations of the can-
tonal commissions which they had reproduced exactly. Now, being pressed by time, the
latter had been obliged to adopt, without examination iu a great number of cases, the
statements of the parties interested and of the municipalities.

It is readily seen that serious errors must have occurred in the work so hastily done,
and which circumstances rendered still more difficult.

Often, moreover, the mayors interpreting improperly the instructions received from
the ministers, or being too much occupied with the interests of their communes, had
prepared a general statement of the war contributions, of the requisitions in money
and in goods, of fines, of thefts, of tires, and of expenses incurred for lodging, board,
&c, without giving the names of the persons who had suffered them, without furnish-
ing any claim of the parties interested, without furnishing evidence of any kind, and
based upon estimates which were almost always exaggerated.

The cantonal commissions, in the first place, the communes of the revision next, had
approved these reports, or had confined themselves, without stating any reasons, to
making gross reductions in the amounts presented by the municipalities, so that the
most just claims were treated in the same manner as were those which had little or no
foundation.

Such "was the situation when I required the production of lists of names. After the
lapse of more than two years, the prefects naturally found serious difficulties in present-
ing such lists. They were furnished to me, however, and I have not regretted the labori-
ous investigations which they caused; for soon afterward I obtained proof that, by the
side of claimants who, although worthy of interest, had had no part in the first divi-
sion, there were persons who had received indemnities superior to their losses, how-
ever great the latter had been. This arose from the fact that the commissions of dis-
tribution, being unable to assign the indemnities individually, had been obliged to
confine themselves to a distribution by communes, leaving to the mayors the care of
proceeding to the subsequent distribution among parties having claims.

I have regretted to find that in place of making a proportionate distribution, and of
assigning to the parties in their jurisdiction having claims, the amounts which prop-
erly belong to them, the members of certain municipalities had retained for their per-
sonal emolument the entire amount appropriated to their commuue, and had thus
indemnified themselves for the whole of their loss, the estimation of which had been
examined by no one. ,

I could not allow such facts in the final distribution to exist, and in order surely to
reach them, I required that by the side of the name of each person should be placed
the amount of the loss and that of the indemnity in the first appropriation of one hun-
dred millions.

Irregularities of another kind were also found.

Most of the communes took it upon themselves to make payment for the requisi-
tions, expenses of boarding the troops, &c. The commissions of revision had justly
permitted them to share the benefits of an indemnity ; but they had failed to strike out
from the claims of the inhabitants the sums which had already been repaid by the
communes. It was the duty of my administration to rectify these mistakes, which
were formerly serious. In a single canton of one of our richest departments, the dif-
ference amounted to nearly three millions.

Some reports included on the one hand the" price of provisions for which requisition

ALIEN CLAIMS. 91

had been made by the Germans and consumed in the interior of the commune, and on
the other an indemnity for board ; the parties interested would thus have received for
the same thing a double indemnity.

It has been necessary to reduce the expenses of lodging invariably to 1 franc 40'
centimes per man, and 2 francs 15 centimes per horse, (lodging and board included.)
Calculated in the lump, and on statements which were always doubtful, these expenses
have sometimes been carried to the personal account of the communes, either because
the inhabitants had raised no claims on this head, or because the municipalities were
unable to furnish lists of names. When presented in this form, these claims have not
seemed to me sufficiently well founded ; and, although in certain cases appropriations
have been granted, I have been obliged to set them aside, in order to prevent the mu-
nicipalities (which has sometimes occurred) from having recourse to fictitious names
in order to secure for the communes sums to which they were not at all entitled.

If in some departments the calculation of the expenses of lodging and board has
given rise to the irregularities to which I have just referred, in others, on the contrary,
the commissions of revision have not thought proper to admit these expenses, although
they were justified. I have rectified this.

You see, Mr. President, control has been extended to all elements and all details.

This revision has been long and laborious ; it has imposed much labor upon the offi-
ces of the prefects and the central administration, but its effect will be to secure a uni-
form treatment and an equitable appropriation to each department and to each person
interested.

I have just succeeded in reducing the total amount of the losses from 659,339,770
francs to 657,256,923 francs.

The difference is more than 2,000,000. But any one would form a very incomplete
idea of the labor who should consider this amount as being all. In order to form a
correct idea of the matter it is necessary to examine the differences which, in consequence
of the rectifications made, exist from one department, from one canton, from one com-
mune, to the other. One department which presented a claim of 24,000,000 saw that
claim reduced to 6,000,000 ; the claim of another, on the other hand, was increased by
2,000,000. In other words, what the National Assembly desired is now realized ; justice
is equal. for all.

The proposed decree, Mr. President, will secure these results. You will observe that ,
while the two appropriations granted by the laws of September 6, 1871, and April 7,
1873, amount to 211,950,719 francs 35 centimes, I confine myself to suggesting to you to
distribute only 200,000,000 now, and to reserve the sum of 10,950,719 francs 35 centimes.
According to the express desire of the National Assembly, a part of this remainder
shall be appropriated to relieve those communes and those public establishments which
have suffered most from pillage and fire. The other part shall serve to make good the
material damages caused to the railroad companies, which damages are estimated at
not less than 8,000,000. It will be, moreover, applied to the correcting of isolated errors,
which may have occurred in fixing the loss and final payment of the administrative
expenses of the operation. These expenses will be relatively considerable ; they com-
prise, in fact, the salaries of persons employed, and payment for the preparation and
for the distribution of the liquidation-bonds. The number of these bonds will exceed
2,000,000. It has been necessary to examine that number of particular situations.

If you approve these suggestions, Mr. President, I beg you to be pleased to affix your-
signature to the accompanying decree.

Be pleased to accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my respect.
The minister of the interior.

BEULfi.

The President of the French Republic —

In consideration of the law of September 6, 1871, and that of April 7, 1873 ;

In consideration of the decree of October 27, 1871,

On the report of the minister of the interior —

Article I. The sum of 2,000,000 of francs shall be distributed among the invaded"
departments, according to the statements appended to the present decree, which sum
represents, with the exception of 1,000,000 authorized by the decree of October 27, 1871,
and the reserve hereinafter mentioned, the appropriations granted by way of indem-
nity of losses resulting from material damages, fines, war contributions, and requisi-
tions in money and goods.

Akticle II. The sum of 10,950,719 francs 35 centimes is reserved to be appropriated :
1st, to the relief of the communes and public establishments which have suffered
most from fire and pillage ; 2d, to the reparation of material damages suffered by rail-
road companies ; 3d, to the correction of errors which may have occurred in fixing the,
amount of losses; 4th, to the payment of the material expenses of the operation.

92

ALIEN CLAIMS.

Article III. The minister of the interior is charged with the execution of the pres
ent decree.
Done at Versailles, October 31, 1873.

MARSHAL DE MacMAHON,

Duke of Magenta.
By the President of the Republic :

The minister of the interior, J .

BEULE.

Repartition d'une somme de 200 millions entre de'partements envahis.
Execution des lois des 6 Septembre, 1871, et 7 Avril, 1873.

Deparfcements.

a

o
o .

•1
•la

S
o

*=§

a <s v

6

h

•~ a

a

Allocation iix6e
par le decret
(hi 27 October
1871.

§ * .

£©

,© — U

S -u
© m p

<Ca> ©
a *- m

t-i

1

804
487
446

78

15
715
605
604
426
212
426
275
339
567
516

50

669

586

2

89
700
288
122
106
583
6
325

71
706
526
685
832
531
432

17, 267, 522
41, 487, 309

6, 741, ::67
674, 164
108, 416

15, 884, 781
5; 945, 659
13, 095, 199
25, 706, 397
4, 485, 296
8, 580, 612
20, 269, 890
38, 808, 128
19,985,830

7, 395, 288
637, 350

28, 737, 124

20, 189, 571

5,617

1, 258, 025

12, 283, 248
3, 539, 525

2, 028, 469
7, 410, 772

15,078,787

31, 370

17, 618, 941

72, 408, 000

13, 708, 977
46, 416, 345

152, 884, 447

23, 509, 753

7, 899, 971

5, 176, 773

5, 254, 400
12, 624, 400

2, 051, 400
205, 100

33, 000
4, 833, 700
1, 809, 200

3, 984, 800

7, 822, 300

1, 364, 800
2,611,000
6, 167, 400

11,809,100

6, 081, 600

2, 250, 300
193, 900

8, 744, 600
6, 143, 600

1,700
382, 800

3, 737, 700

1, 077, 100
617,300

2, 255, 100

4, 588, 400

9,500

5, 361, 400
22, 033, 400

4, 171, 600
14, 124, 300
46, 522, 000
7, 153, 900
2, 403, 900
1. 575, 300

3, 748, 800

4, 883, 000
1,261,300

97, 200
13, 000

1, 461, 800
951, 700

1, 538, 700

3, 381, 800
838, 100

1, 111, 200

2, 528, 800

5, 047, 400

4, 098, 000

1, 330, 700
105, 500

4, 868, 900

4,211,300

700

270, 100

2, 313, 500
604, 400
301, 100
800, 600

2, 058, 300
3,700

2, 928, 800
11, 651, 200

3, 551, 600

6, 646, 400
20, 186, 400

3, 936, 700
1, 144, 100
1, 125, 200

1, 505, 600. 00

7, 741, 400. 00

3

790, 100. 00
107, 900. 00

Cher

20, 000. 00

3, 371, 000. 00

7

857, 500. 00

2, 446, 100. 00

4, 440, 500. 00

526, 700. 00

1, 499, 800. 00

12

3, 638, 600. 00

6, 761, 700. 00

14

1, 983, 600. 00

15

919, 600 00

88, 400. 00

17

Meurthe-et-Moaelle

3, 875, 700. 00
1, 932, 300. 00

19

1, 000. 00

112, 700. 00

1, 424, 200. 00

22

472, 700. 00

23

316, 200. 00

24
25

Belfort, (Territoire de)

1, 454, 500. 00

2, 530, 100. 00

26

5, 800. 00

27

2, 432, 600. 00

28

10, 382, 200. 00

29

620, 000. 00

30

7, 477, 900. 00

^1

26, 335, 600. 00

lo

3, 217, 200. 00

33

1, 259, 800. 00

34

450, 100. 00

13, 924

657, 256, 923

200, 000, 000

99, 000, 000
1, 000, 000

101, 000, 000 00
10, 950, 719 35

100, 000, 000

111, 950, 719 35

Vu pour etre annexe au decret du 31 octobre 1873.
Le ministre de Vinterieur.

BEULfi.

[iDclosure No. 8, bitt.]

The President of the French Republic —

In consideration of the law of September 6, 1871, and that of April 7, 1873 ;

In consideration of the estimates of damages prepared by the departmental commis-
sions of revision :

Iu accordauce with the suggestion of the vice-president of the council, minister of
the interior,

decrees :

Article 1. There shall be distributed among the invaded departments, according to
the table appended to the present decree, the sum of two hundred and eight millions
seven hundred thousand francs, (208,700,000 francs,) representing, with the exception
of the deduction of one million (1,000,000 francs) authorized by the decree of October

ALIEN CLAIMS.

93

27, 1871, and the reserve which will be referred to hereafter, the allowances granted,
by way of indemnity for losses resulting from material damages, from the imposition
of fines, from war contributions, and from requisitions of money and goods.

Art. 2. The sum of two millions two hundred and fifty thousand seven-hundred and
nineteen francs 35 centimes shall be reserved, so as to be appropriated : 1st, to the
payment of the material expenses of the operation ; 2d, to the reparation of the dam-
ages caused by the Germans to the railway lines.
Art. 3. The decree of October 31, 1873, is hereby revoked.

Art. 4. The vice-president of the council, minister of the interior, is instructed to
enforce the execution of the present decree.
Done at Versailles, February 7, 1871.

MARSHAL DE MacMAHON,

Duke of Magenta.
By the President of the Kepublic :
Broglie,

Vice-President of the Council and Minister of the Interior.

Distribution of the sum of 208,700,000 francs among the invaded departments, in pursuance
of the law of September 6, 1871, and that of April 7, 1873.

u
£

Departments.

B
o
o

O CJ

a
P

g J>

^ o
4- w

a
■A

a

.S'3
11

©

- .

Allowance made
by the decree
of' October 27,
1871.

I;- a

1 tig

1

804

487

446
78
15
715
G05
704
426
212
426
275

339

567
516

50

669

586

2

89
700
288
122
106
583
6
325

71
706
526
685
832
531
432

Franks.

22, 640, 847
41,487,309

6, 744, 056
674, 164
108,416

16, 048, 671
5, 945, 659
13, 364, 5D8

25, 720, 571
4, 485, 296
8, 842, 960

20, 273, 690
39, 363, 352

26, 310, 429

7, 547, 787
637, 350

29, 095, 169

27, 486, 587

5,617

1, 258, 025

12, 306, 158
3, 540, 525

2, 028, 469
7, 982, 546

15, 097, 275

31, 370

17,618,941

72, 870, 000

13, 754, 977
46, 481, 799

159, 646, 188

23, 580, 893
7. 910, 921
6| 067, 117

Francs.
6, 878, 400

12, 6114, 000
2, 048, 900
204, 800
32, 900
4, 875, 600
1,806,300
4, 060, 200
7,814,000

1, 362, 700

2, 686, 500

6, 159, 200
11, 958, 700

7, 993, 200

2, 293, 000
193, 600

8, 839, 200
8,. 350, 500

1,700
382, 200

3, 738, 700

1, 075, 600
616,300

2, 425, 100

4, 586, 600

9,500

5, 352, 700
22, 138, 200

4, 178, 800
14,121,300
48, 501, 000
7, 164, 000
2, 403, 400
1, 843, 200

Francs.

3, 748, 800

4, 883, 000
1, 261, 300

97, 200

13, 000

1, 461, 800

951, 700

1, 538, 700

3, 381, 800
838, 100

1,111,200

2, 528, 800

5, 047, 400

4, 098, 000
1,330,700

105, 500

4, 868, 900

4, 211, 300

700

270, 100

2, 313, 500

604, 400

301, 100

800, 600

2, 058, 300

3,700

2, 928, 800
11, 651, 200

3,551,600

6, 646, 400
20, 186, 400

3, 936, 700
1, 144, 100
1, 125, 200

Francs.

3, 129, 600. 00

7, 721 000. 00

9

?

787, 6U0. 00

4

107, 600. 00
19, 900. 00

5

6

Cdte-d'Or

3, 413 800. 00

7

854, 600. 00

8

2, 521, 500. 00

4, 432, 200. 00

524, 600. 09

10

11

1, 575, 300. 00

12

3, 630, 400. 00

V\

6,911,300.00

14

3, 895, 200. 00

1=1

962, 300. 00

If!

88, 100. 00

17
1R

Meurthe-et-Moselle

3, 970, 300. 00
4, 139, 200. 00

Id

1, 000. 00

«n

112, 100. 00

91

1, 425, 200. 00

99

471, 200. 00

W

315, 200. 00

24

Belfort (Territoire de)

1, 624, 500. 00

2, 528, 300. 00

OR

5, 800. 00

°7

2, 423, 900. 00

26

Seine

10, 487, 000. 00
627, 200. 00

30
11

Seine-et-Marne

7, 474, 900. 00
28, 314, 600. 00

39

3, 227, 300. 00

VI

1, 259, 300. 00

S4

718, 000. 00

Totals

13, 924

686, 957, 755

208, 700, 000

99, 000, 000
1, 000, 000

109, 700, 000. 00

KESERVE.

Inhabitants of Alsace and

1, 000, 000. W

1, 250, 719. 35

100, 000, 000

111,950,719.35

The above table is an appendix to the decree of February 7, 1874.
The vice-president of the council, minister of the interior,

BKOGLIE.

94 ALIEN CLAIMS.

The President of the French Republic —

In consideration of the report of the vice-president of the council, minister of the
interior, and of the minister of finance ;

In consideration of the law of April 7, 1873, appropriating the sum of 111,930,719
francs for the benefit of the invaded departments, and especially of article 9, which
is as follows :

"A decree, issued in the form of the regulations of public administration, shall de-
termine in what proportion the liquidation bonds, representing the annuities granted
by the present law, shall be delivered to the departments and communes and to
individuals.

" The same decree shall determine the manner and the conditions of the delivery of
bonds to persons having well-founded claims ;"

In consideration of the decree of February 7, 1874, providing for the distribution of
the sums appropriated by the national assembly ;

The council of state having been heard,

decrees :

Article 1. Liquidation bonds representing a sum equal to the amount of the indem-
nities fixed by the minister of the iuterior in accordance with the suggestion of the
general councils of the departments, shall be delivered to such departments, communes,
and individuals as suffered losses during the war of 1870-1871.

Art. 2. The liquidation bonds shall be of 500 francs each. They shall each yield,
after January 1, 1873, 25 francs per annum as interest, payable semi-annually ; they
shall be redeemed at par by lot, in accordance with the plan of amortization annexed
to the present decree.

The drawing shall take place at Paris, at such time and on such conditions as may
be fixed by the minister of finance.

Art. 3. All fractions less than five hundred francs (500 francs) shall be paid in pro-
visional bonds, bearing interest from January 1, 1873 ; nevertheless, the interest on
these provisional bonds shall not be paid until after their conversion into permanent
bonds of 500 francs each.

The provisional bonds shall be in denominations of 5 francs, 10 francs, 15 francs, 20
francs, 25 francs, 50 francs, 100 francs, 200 francs, 300 francs, and 400 francs.

Art. 4. The final five hundred franc bonds and the provisional bonds shall be paya-
ble to bearer, and negotiable.

Art.. 5. The final liquidation bonds shall be issued by the minister of the interior,
countersigned by the central paying-cashier, and visaed by the central comptroller.

Art. 6. Both the provisional and the final bonds shall conform to the models an-
nexed to the present decree. Each final bond shall bear fifty-two interest coupons,
numbered from 1 to 52.

Art. 7. The amount to which each person is entitled shall be stated in a list which
•shall be prepared by the minister of the interior.

In the said list shall be stated the full name of each party entitled to indemnity, to-
gether with the amount allowed him.

Art. 8. The delivery of the bonds to persons entitled to indemnity shall be per-
formed at Paris, by the central cashier of the public treasury, and in the departments
by the paying treasurers-general, the private receivers of finance, or the collectors, on
the presentation of letters of advice signed by the prefect, and for discharge by the
party receiving.

If a person entitled to indemnity is riuable to write, evidence of the delivery shall
be furnished by the signatures of two witnesses, and by that of the accounting-agent,
whatever may be the amount of the bonds.

Art. 9. The certificates design.- I to establish the identity or the quality of parties
receiving may, at the request of the ;> ti'ties, be delivered on free paper and without
charge, by the justice of the peace, wnose attestation as to the facts therein stated
shall be sufficient to exempt the accouuting-ageut from responsibility.

Art. 10. Liquidation bonds, to be delivered to departments and communes, either
by way of indemnification for their own losses, or of repayment of such indemnities
as the municipal or general councils, according to the law of April 7, 1873, (art. 8) may
have consented to pay to private individuals, shall remain deposited until the time
■when they shall be negotiated, in the central paying-office of the public treasury ;
the central cashier shall deliver to the paying treasurer-general, or to the municipal
receiver, certificates of deposit, stating the numbers of the bonds ; the form of these
certificates shall be determined hereafter by the minister of finance.

Provisionally, aud until the time which shall hereafter be fixed by the minister of
finance, the bonds deliverable to the communes may be deposited at the offices of the
paying treasurers-general, who shall likewise deliver certificates to the municipal
receivers.

Art. 11. After the 15th of January and the 15th of July of each year, the payment
of the half-yearly coupons and the redemption of the bonds drawn by lot shall take

ALIEN CLAIMS. 95

place at Paris, at the central paying-office of the treasury, and in the departments, at
the offices of the paying treasurers-general, and of the private receivers of the
finances.

Nevertheless, payment shall he made for the half years ending July 15, 1873, January
15 and July 15, 1874, at such time as shall be fixed hereafter by a decree of the minister
of finance.

Art. 12. The vice-president of the council and the minister of finance are charged,
each in his own province, wir.h the enforcement of the present decree.
Done at Versailles, March 20, 1874.

MARSHAL DE MacMAHON,

Duke of Magenta.
By the president of the republic :
The vice-president of the council, minister of the interior,

BROGLIE.
The minister of agriculture and commerce, minister of finance ad interim,

DESEILLIGNY.

[Inclosure No. 9.]

A law providing for an indemnity to those who have suffered loss from destruction of property

for the national defense.

The National Assembly has passed the following law :

Article I. In derogation of existing' legislation, and by way of exception, an in-
demnity shall be allowed to all who shall furnish evidence that they have, as propri-
etors or occupants, suffered material and direct damages resulting from the measures
of defense which were taken by the French military authorities during the war of
1870-1871, in fortified towns or elsewhere, either within or without any military zone.

Article II. The following persons shall be excluded from the benefits of this law :

1st, those who shall not renounce any action before the judicial or administrative
tribunals ;

2d, those who shall not have addressed or renewed their claims to the administra-
tion, according to the first paragraph of the fourth article of this law ;

3d, those who have signed au agreement to demolish at the first requisition, or whose
immovable property has been constructed in violation of law.

Article III. A commission, whose duty it shall be to examine all claims, Bhall be
appointed by decree of the president of the republic, issued in accdrdauce with the
suggestion of the minister of war and of the minister of the interior.

Claims already made must be renewed and the new claims must be addressed:

For Paris, to the department of the Seine and the minister of the interior ;

For the departments, to the prefects.

Article IV. These renewals and the presentation of new claims must take place
within two months from the promulgation of this law.

The mere fact of the presentation of a claim, or the renewal of one already made,
shall involve the acceptance of the decision which shall be rendered by the commis-
sion.

Any person who shall not have made or renewed his claim, according to the provis-
ions of thepresent article, within two months, shall forfeit the same.

As regards persons who have not the control of their property, these renewals, or the
presentation of these new claims, shall be exempt from special authorization and from
all judicial formalities.

Article V. The commission shall examine these claims, with the existing docu-
ments, or by the aid of any means which they may think proper to employ.

In case those who have suffered damages coming under the classes provided for and
above referred to shall have enjoyed the benefit of the indemnities granted by the
assembly by the law of September 6, 1871, and that of April 7, 1873, the sums received
by them shall be deducted from the amount which would be granted to them by the
^present law.

The commission shall decide finally and without appeal the amount to which each
claimant shall be entitled.

Article VI. Al Idisputes which may arise from the delivery of the bonds, or the veri-
fication of the identity and the rights of parties interested, either in consequence of
error in the names or for any other cause, shall be similarly judged, without appeal
and without expense, by the justice of the peace of the canton, who shall deliver a
certificate to parties entitled to indemnity, on free paper, establishing their rights.

This certificate shall take the place of the documentary evidence required by the
regulations concerning public accounts.

96 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Article VII. When total or partial liquidations shall have been approved by the
administrative commission, certificates shall be issued in favor of the patties receiving
indemnity, which certificates shall be paid either in liquidation bonds to the bearer,
five per cent, at par, or in specie, or partly in bonds and partly in specie, on the terms
and in the proportions which shall be determined by the minister of finance.

In case of the total or partial payment in specie, a deduction shall be made, at the
expense of those receiving the indemnity, which deduction shall repay the expenses
and the loss in the negotiation of the liquidation bonds, if any such loss shall have
occurred.

Article VIII. The minister of finance is authorized to create and to negotiate, at
the highest price obtainable, 52,000 liquidation bonds, payable to bearer, of 500 francs
each, bearing 25 francs interest, the first payment of interest to be made January 1,
1875, and the bonds to be payable at par in twenty-five years from the latter date.

The amount of these bonds shall be devoted to the payment of indemnities for all
losses, of whatever nature they may be, redress for which has been or might be de-
manded before the civil or administrative tribunals, or which shall form the object of
claims addressed to the commission appointed by the third article of the present law.

The first allotment of thirty per cent, of these bonds may be made immediately by
the commission, for the benefit of persons whose claims it may have admitted.

Article IX. A credit of 1,848,000 francs shall be opened to the minister of finance.
This shall be deducted from the budget for 1875, and shall be devoted to the payment
of the first annuity.

Also a credit of 200,000 francs on account, for the expenses of the operation, which
shall be deducted from the budget for 1874.

Article X. Any action which may be brought before the judicial or admiuistrative
tribunals for damages caused by the military authorities for the purposes of the na-
tional defense, during the war of 1870, must be brought within one year from the pro-
mulgation of the present law.

Done in public session at Versailles, May 22, June 26, and July 28, 1874.

The President,

L. BUFFET.

The Secretaries,

FEANCISQUE RIVE,

E. t)E CAZENOVE DE PRADINE,

LOUIS DE SEGUR,

FELIX VOISIN.

The Presideut of the Republic promulgates the preseut law.

MARSHAL DE MacMAHON,

Duke of Magenta.
The vice-president of the council, minister of war,

General E. DE CISSEY.

[Inolosure No. 10.]
Law of August 30, 1830.

Article 1. Rewards shall be granted to all those who were wounded while defend-
ing the national cause on the glorious days of the 26th, 27th, 28th, and 29th of July
last.

The fathers, mothers, widows, and children of those who fell at that time, or who
have since died in consequence of their wounds, shall receive pensions or assistance.

Art. 2. All persons whose property has been injured in consequence of these events
shall be indemnified at the expense of the state.

Art. 3. A. medal shall be struck in commemoration of these events.

Art. 4. A commission appointed by the King shall make the necessary investigations
for the purpose of establishing the titles of those who have a right according to the
foregoing articles to rewards, pensions, assistance, and iudemnity. The report of the
commission shall be communicated to the chambers in support of the request for the
appropriation which shall be needed. The names of the citizens who have merited
rewards, and a general list of those who have fallen, shall be inserted in the Bulletin
of the Laws, and published in the Monitenr.

Note. — An appropriation of 2,400,000 francs was, in accordance with the provisions
of this law, placed at the disposal of the minister of the interior by a law dated
December 13, 1830.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 97

[Inclosure No. 11.] .

Law of December 24, 1851.

Article 1. The sum of 5,600,000 francs shall he placed at the disposal of the minis-
ter of the interior, to be applied to the payment of the indemnities to he granted to
individuals whose property has suffered material injury in consequence of the events
of February and June, 1848.

Article 2. These indemnities shall be apportioned under the supervision of the min-
ister of the interior, in accordance with the decisions of the commission appointed by
the decree of September 2, 1850.

[Inclosure No. 12.]

Law of the 10th of Vendimiaire, in relation to the internal police of the communes of the

republic.

Title IV.

Of the kinds of offenses for which the communes are civilly responsible.

Art. 1. Each commune shall be responsible for offenses committed by open force or
by violence within its territory, by mobs or assemblages, whether armed or unarmed,
either against persons or property, whether the latter belong to the nation or to individ-
uals. They shall also be responsible for the damages which may be caused by such
mobs or assemblages.

Art. 3. If the mobs or assemblages have been formed by inhabitants of several com-
munes, they shall all be responsible for the offenses which shall have been committed,
and all shall be obliged to contribute both to the payment of the damages and that of

the fine.

* * # * * * *

Art. 6. When any person, whether domiciled or not, in a commune shall have been
robbed, maltreated, or murdered, all the inhabitants shall be held responsible for the
payment of damages to him, or, in case of his death, to his widow and children.

# * # # * * *

Title V.
Of civil damages and redress

Art. 1. When, in consequence of assemblages or mobs, a citizen shall have been forced
to pay ; when he shall have been robbed or plundered within the territory of a com-
mune, all the inhabitants of the commune shall be held to make restitution in hand of
the articles stolen or taken by force, or to tnake payment therefor at the rate of double
their value on the day when the robbery.shall have taken place.

Art. 2. When an offense of the nature of those mentioned in the foregoing articles
shall have been committed in a commune, the municipal officers or the municipal agent
shall be required to obtain proof thereof within twenty-four hours, and to send a report,
within three days at most, to the commissioner of the executive power near the civil
tribunal of the department. Police officers shall, nevertheless, be required to fulull, in
this respect, all the obligations imposed upon them by law.

Art. 3. The commissioner of the executive power near the administration oi the de-
partment in the territory of which injuries have been done by open force and by vio-
lence to the property of the nation, shall prosecute the parties who have committed
such injuries for reparation and damages before the civil tribunal of the department.

Art. 4. The damages which the communes are held to pay by the terms of the pre-
ceding articles shall be fixed by the civil tribunal of the department, after an examina-
tion of the reports and other documents proving the acts of violence, excesses, and
offenses. , . . . , „

Art. 5. The civil tribunal of the department shall fix the amount to be paid tor
reparation and damages within ten days, at furthest, after the sending of the reports.

Art. 6. The amount to be paid as damages shall never be less than the lull value oi
the articles stolen or carried off.

Art. 7. The decision of the civil tribunal fixing the amount to be paid as damages
shall be sent, within twenty-four hours, by the commissioner of tie executive power
to the departmental administration, which shall be required to send it, within tbree
days, to the municipality or the municipal administration of the canton.

H. Kep. 134 7

98 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Mr. Wing to Mr. Fish.

No. 410.1 United, States Legation, Quito, Ecuador,

August 13, 1874. ( Received September 9.)
Sir : Herewith, I have the honor to forward my note to Minister Leon,
(1,) to which were appended the six interrogatories contained in dispatch
of June 23, 1874, of the Department, not numbered. Nos.2 and 3 are copy
and translation of Minister Leon's answer ; Nos. 4 and 5 are copy and
translation of the inclosure referred to in the communication of Minister
Leon.

For any further information in regard to the subject, the codes hith-
erto forwarded to the Department will afford it. Practically speaking,
however, the answer and inclosure cover the whole matter, so far as Ec-
uador is able to do so under existing enactments.
I have, &a,

EUMSEY WING.
List of Inclosures.

No. 1. My note to Minister Leon.
No. 2. Minister Leon's reply thereto.
No. 3. Translation thereof.
No. 4. Inclosure in Minister Leon's note.
No. 5. Translation thereof.

[Inclosure l.J

United States Legation,

Quito, Ecuador, August I, 1874.
Sib : I have the honor to forward to your excellency a schedule of certain inquiries
relative to the course pursued by the government of Ecuador in regard to the adjust-
ment of claims presented against it, whether held by its own citizens or by the sub-
jects and citizens of foreign governaients, and concerning other matters bearing
thereon.

May I beg that your excellency will furnish me with the desired information at your
earliest convenience ; and that, if practicable, your excellency will kindly supply me
with copies of such legislative enactments and public and general regulations of the
executive department as may pertain to the inquiries in question.

With assurance of my very distinguished consideration, I have, &c,

EUMSEY WING.
His Excellency Seiior Francisco Janvier Leon,

Minister for Foreign Affairx, ifc

[Inclosure 2. — Translation. 1

Foreign Office, Quito, August 8, 1874.

I have had the honor to receive the esteemed communication of your excellency of
date 1st of the present month ; and confining myself to the different points contained
therein, I am happy to give your excellency the following answer :

Claims against the government, according to Ecuadorian legislation, may be made
in two ways: some proceeding from contracts made by the executive power per se, or
through its agents with a private party ; and others arise from exactions committed
by bodies of troops, or by damage caused in virtue of an order from the government.

In the first case, the action brought against the government must be initiated in the
supreme court, which will try the cause in the ordinary way as established by the
code of civil suits, and the government, as well as private parties, have the same priv-
ilege to prove their rights.

In the second case, the claim must be presented to the board of finance of the prov-
ince where the exaction was made and the damage received, or to the district judge
of the province, according to the time passed and the nature of the documents which
prove it, as is laid down in the special law of indemnification of September 27, 1852
which your excellency will find published in the annexed copy, No. 78, of El National;
and in neither case does the government enjoy any privilege.

This right the laws concede not only to Ecuadorians, but also to resident or tran-
sient foreigners, who, in this respect, are assimilated to natives, for they are only con-

ALIEN CLAIMS. 99

sidered exempt from certain duties, -which, according to the law of nations, is not im-
posed upon them by an uncertain residence in the republic ; and they can carry. on
their own suits per se, or by an agent empowered in the legal form.

Should the payment or indemnification be decreed by the judicial power in virtues of
the collection as set forth, it is incumbent upon the legislature to authorize the ex-
pense of the sum determined in the sentence, because the executive power is not empow-
ered to order any payment that does not appear in the general estimates of the nation
or some other law.

With assurances, &c,

FRANCISCO JANVIER LEON.

[loclosurG 3. — Translation.]

The National Assembly of Ecuador, considering that it is necessary to establish fixed
rules, so that, according to them, such as may have reclamations against the public
treasury may present their rights for the payment of money, or for forced and volun-
tary loans, or for supplies, or for any damage caused by commissioned authorities, or
by troops, and to prevent in this wise any run upon the national income by illegal
debts,

decrees :

Article 1. When any person or corporation cannot present legal proofs to evidence
forced or voluntary loans that may have been made to the republic, or supplies, or dam-
ages caused by troops, commanders of corps, or civil or military authorities, from the
1st of January, 1830, they will establish them by supplementary evidence in the time
and in the conditions required by law.

Aet. 2. The following will be regarded as legal proofs :

1st. The certificates of the officers of the treasury and commissaries of war, inserting
also the entry in the books where the supplementary evidence may have been made ;

2d. The original contracts, provided that the creditor makes it appear that, on his
part, he has fulfilled the stipulations contained therein ;

3d. The obligations or bSls of credit given to the creditors by public functionaries
and military leaders, which through public notoriety or competent proof appears, or is
assured, that they were authorized to ask or demand the supplies ;

4th. The vouchers of the erogations that those deputed may have given to those
■concerned therein through competent authority to demand them, but not those sigued
afterward, provided that the commission referred to is accredited and carries with it
the signature of the commissioner ; and

5th. The documents that assure the supplies, which, through force by troops, or by
bands of armed men representing a political party, or by foreign troops in case of
invasion, and that may have produced damage to the interests of any person whatso-
ever.

Art. 3. The proofs to accredit the authorization of the commissioners and the
acknowledgment of their signatures will be presented in a jverbal suit before the
judge of finance of the province in which the supplies or loans were made, or the dam-
age was suffered, previously citing the fiscal agent in the provinces where there may
be one ; and where not, the treasurer, or he who is acting in his stead.

Art. 4. When the reclamation is made, with the legal proofs set forth in article 2,
the creditor will repair to the board of finance of the respective province; which,
should they consider the evidence as sufficient, will order it to be sent to the treasury
with this declaration, for the liquidation of the debt ; but should they declare it insuf-
ficient, and- the creditor, not conforming thereto, should insist in his reclamation
through litigation, he will repair to the district judge of finance within the absolute
term of thirty days, counted from the one in which the board of finance returnedthe
proceedings for this effect, and being in the same place, it must be done in the term of
eight days. The said district will try the cause in the primary court, and the matter
will afterward take the ordinary course.

Art. 5. Should the board of finance not certify to any part of the amount that is
asked for, with legal proofs, on account of its bemg insufficiently proved, the creditor
may apply, in this case, to the expressed judge of finance, in the same terms and for
the same effects set forth in the preceding article.

Art. 6. When the reclamation is begun with supplementary evidence, the creditor
must present it to the district judge of finance of the province where the supply was
given, and in lieu thereof, to the judge of the primary court who may be his substitute.

Art. 7. At the time of soliciting the supplementary proof before the district judge of
finance, the creditor must name the amount that he claims if it was in money advanced,
the fixed number if it were in cattle, or the maximum that he estimates that he has a
right to demand in the event of his not being able to make the specification referred
to.

Art. 8. The judge of finance, or his substitute, will receive himself the affidavits

100 ALIEN CLAIMS.

of the witness that the creditor may present, hut when, on account of the distance
from whence it is necessary to bring the evidence, he cannot comply with this matter,
or have the witnesses brought into his presence, he will give the respective order to
the municipal parochial authorities to receive the evidence.

Art. 9. The fiscal agent, or in lieu thereof the treasurer, or the one acting in his
stead, will defend the suit against the national treasury until its definite conclusion ;
and all will be null that is done without summoning him or in his absence.

Art. 10. It is an obligation of the fiscal agent, treasurer, or he who may be acting
in his stead, or for lack and inability of their attending, the lawyer that the district
judge may name, or, in default of a lawyer, an intelligent citizen, to further all the
writs, and counter affidavits conducing to the clearing up the reality of the debt
which is demanded, as also to sanction the appeal that may be desired to the respect-
ive tribunals, provided that without resolution the national treasury may not have
been incumbered.

Art. II. Concluded the brief of the supplementary evidence, the judge will send
them to the fiscal agent or treasurer, or their substitute, to examine them and agree
thereto, but without his advancing anything thereto. The judge will approve them,
should he deem them sufficient, and order the appointment of appraisers as the
representatives of the fiscal agent and the creditor, should it be necessary to value the
things that are claimed. Bug should he decide the evidence insufficient, he will so
assert by writ.

Only section. Should the appraisers spoken of in the preceding article not agree,
the judge will officially name a third party to adjust the matter at issue.

Art. 12. The appraisement finished, the opinion will be presented for both sides, and
appearing just and arranged, the judge will so declare, informing the amount due
according to the merits as set forth by the evidence prodnced, and from his decision
an appeal may be taken to the superior court, or a consultation had therewith, as also
in the principal part of the question.

Art. 13. The following will not be held as sufficient proof, nor the evidence of wit-
nesses as conclusive in these cases :

1st. Should the witnesses not have been present at the supply, or that which was
taken or seized, or had positive information thereof.

2d. Having been present thereat, or haying had positive information thereto, they
are unable to determine the time or date, and the person or persons, or the body of
troops that did it.

Art. 14. If the authorities or commanders are living by whom or by whose order it
is declared that the exactions were make, the commissioners will make them appear ;
and any other persons who are said to have seen the act, the judge will take the steps
essential to an inquiry into the truth, or by affidavits from those who may be author-
ized to give them, or by evidence. To this end, the judge will question the witnesses
on the points expressed, although there may have been no previous indication in re-
gard thereto.

Art. 15. The witnesses will in all cases he questioned, and they must declare or in-
form, under oath, in the following form, if they were authorities :

1st. If they know what the amount or effects which are reclaimed were demanded
as a forced contribution, imposed by a pre-existing law, and distributed by a compe-
tent authority among the inhabitants of a town occupied by troops.

2d. If they know, or not, whether the claimants have been paid in all or part of the
debt which they try to prove.

3d. If the exactions were used for the support of the troops or in other public mat-
ters.

Art. 16. In cases first and second of the former article no claim will be considered
when in the second case it has been entirely paid ; but in the third the wrong inver-
sion of the exactions will not prejudice the right of the creditor as against the national
treasury, provided that they may have been done by competent authority, or by
bodies of troops, or by other bodies, as set forth in the fifth part of article 2, remain-
ing open a fiscal action against the employe" or commissioner who made bad use of the
exaction.

Art. 17. The value of cattle, horses, and other effects that may have been given for
the service of the state will be the same as they were at the time of their delivery,
unless a certain price had been determined on, or that it is known that of the class in
general, computing its valae according to the time and place where the supply was
made.

Art. 18. To the judge of tinauce, before whom the supplementary proofs were ad-
duced, belongs the classification of the debt in litigation.

Only section. This enactment does not take away the duty of the authorities oi
the parishes to return to their respective owners the furnitnre or animals which are
reclaimed, as enacted by an officer in commission or agent of the government, before
the loss of the property is effectuated.

Art. 19. From the sentence pronounced by the district judge of finance in the cases

/^OCT^

07

ALIEN CLAIMS. I V IQI37

under this law there may be an appeal to the respective tribunals, but shounl' M]^<W
cal agent, or his substitute, not appeal, on account of its being apparently arr^jgpdl.lw^''
the tribunal will be consulted, provided that through it the national treasury isae^"""*
clared responsible, and thence the action will follow the same course as the others
against the treasury, according to law.

Art. 20. The creditor who may have maliciously reclaimed any illegal sums, will be
condemned in costs and punished with the penalty of falsification, should he have pro-
duced false documents ; and with that of a public thief, if, in virtue thereof, he may
have obtained the payment of the supposed debt, besides losing what was legitimately
owing him.

Art. 21. Those who give certificates of illegal debts, or the witnesses who swear
falsely in favor of the creditors, will both be responsible for the costs and damages to
the national treasury, but in case of having avoided damage to the national treasury
that might have been occasioned, be what it may, a fine of from fifty to five hundred,
dollars will be imposed, and in lieu thereof, for not being able to pay it, the criminal
will be condemned to an arrest of from three months to one year, without detriment in
both cases to the penalty imposed by law for the crime of falsification.

Art. 22. The district judges of finance, the notaries, the fiscal agents, the treasurers,
or collectors, each one, as it may happen, and the ministers of the courts who may
supervise as is laid down in the present law of these cases of debt, are also responsible
for the damages that occur to the national treasury, through their omission, con-
nivance, or malice, suffering also, each one of them, a fine of from fifty to five hundred
dollars, without prejudice to the penalties established by law to make them responsi-
ble.

Art. 23. The suit finished and judgment rendered, it will be delivered to the creditors,
(leaving an authentic copy,) so that they may apply to the respective treasuries with
the object of obtaining liquidation, all of which will be done according to the present
law.

Art. 24. Every creditor of the republic of which article 1 speaks will present his
claim within one year exactly, counted from the promulgation of the present law, but
those who in future may have claims by actions arising after the publication of this
law, must present them within one year exactly, counted from the time the damage
took place, for any of the mentioned causes, and respectively passing these periods, no
claim can be presented, nor can any claim be admitted in any other time.

Art. 25. No person who directly or indirectly has taken or may take part in the
revolutions or invasions that may occur against the nationality of the republic, or may
have fought, or may fight, will have the right to be indemnified for damages that in
this wise he may have suffered or suffers, provided that his criminality is notorious
or is legally proved.

Art. 26. To the creditors absent in the service of the republic the time designated
in article 24 is prorogued six months.

Let it be communicated to the executive power, for its information and compliance.

Given in the hall of sessions, in Guayaquil, September 24, 1852, eighth year of liberty

The president of the assembly,

PEDEO MONCAYO.

The secretary,

PEDEO FEEMIN CEVALLOS.

The secretary,

PABLO BUSTAMANTE.

Government House of Guayaquil,

September 25, 1852, Eighth Tear of Liberty

Let it be executed.

JOSE MARIA UEBINA.
Intefior secretary ad interim. ,

JANVIEE ESPINOSA.
Copy.

JOSE LETAMENDI,

Chief Cleric.

Mr. Gorham to Mr. Fish.

No. 149.] Legation of the United States,

The Hague, August 20, 1874. (Received September 9.)

Sir: In order to procure through the most reliable source the infor-
mation called for in Acting Secretary Davis's communication of the 23d

102 ALIEN CLAIMS.

of June last, relative to the treatment of claims presented against the
government of the Netherlands, I applied to the minister of foreign
affairs, and have this day received the statement of which the following
is a translation.

I am, &c.

CHAELES T. GOEHAM.

[Inclosure.]

The Hague, August 19, 1874.

His Excellency the Minister : In answer to your letter of the 20th of July last, anil
after having consulted the minister of justice, I have the honor to communicate to you
herewith, in the order of the questions that you have addressed to me, answers as fol-
lows:

1. Suits against the state and the execution of judgments pronounced on account of
them do not come within the sphere of legislative power.

2. As the first question is resolved negatively, there is no occasion to examine the
second.

3. Suits commenced against the state are not under the control of the administra-
tion.

4. Foreigners as well as citizens of the country may bring an action against the
state before the civil tribunals. The real actions, and those that have for object
reclamations in matter of contributions, must be brought before the ordinary tribu-
nals ; all others before the high court of the Netherlands, (court of cassation.)

5. With few exceptions, the civil rights of the kingdom are the same to foreigners,
whether domiciled in the country or not, as to native citizens, both in that which con-
cerns rights material or formal. These exceptions are as follows :

a. Every foreign plaintiff, principal or agent, is bound, if required by the defendant, and
before the latter is obliged to make known his defense, to secure the payment of damage
and interest to which he might be condemned. This obligation is incumbent on a
foreigner, domiciled in the kingdom or not.

0. While in regard to Dutchmen a writ of arrest may only issue in certain cases
determined by law, it may be pronounced against foreigners who have not their
domicile in the kingdom for every debt, without exception, contracted with a Dutch-
man.

c. Foreigners having no domicile in the kingdom, before judgment is pronounced
against them, may be imprisoned by order of the president of the tribunal of the
district for any past-due obligation, if contracted with a Dutchman.

d. An indigent foreigner is only admitted to proceed gratuitously, either as com-
plainant or defendant, when the favor of the Pro Deo has been stipulated by agree-
ment.

1. There are no special or particular dispositions on the mode of proceeding against
the state before the civil tribunals. The common right is equally applicable in matter*
of proof.

Hoping that the preceding information will be satisfactory,
I seize, &c,

L. GERICKE.
Monsieur Gorham, Minister, $-e.

Mr. Scruggs to Mr. Fish.

No. 56.] Legation of the United States,

Bogota, August 27, 1874.

Sir : Your circular of the 23d of June last, inclosing a list of inquiries,
relative to the mode of procedure recognized or provided by the Colom-
bian government for citizens and foreigners preferring claims against
it, has been received.

In answer to the same, I have the honor to state, first, that the Colom-
bian Congress has no constitutional authority for investigating and de-
termining such claims. Only the executive and judicial departments of
the government have cognizance of such cases.

3d and 4th. Aliens and denizens, equally with citizens,, may have

ALIEN CLAIMS. 103

recourse directly to the executive branch of the government for present-
ing claims ou account of loans, forced loans, expropriations, violations
of contracts, and for other acts for which the government may be respon-
sible. Should the executive entertain the claims, he may enter into an
agreement for their settlement. If the reclamation be for a large sum,
or should involve important international or political questions, he must,
in the absence of previous authority of Congress, submit his action to
that body for approval, or, as the case may be, simply ask for an appro-
priation for the payment of the reclamation allowed. In every case
the claimant may avail himself of all the means of proof recognized by
common law.

5th. All aliens or denizens, of whatever class or condition, may,
equally with citizens, enter suit against the government before the local
tribunals. The procedure and rules of evidence in such cases are pre-
scribed in the Codigo Judicial of Colombia of 1872, a copy of which,
with the sections marked therein, has been forwarded to you by this
mail.

6th. The law in force defining the status, rights, privileges, and duties
of foreign residents is that of June 21, 1866, a copy of which, up to this
time, I have been wholly unable to procure. I am, however, under obli-
gations to the minister of foreign affairs for the loan of his office-copy
of the volume containing it. Eeclamations and claims by foreign resi-
dents are divided into tno classes —

1st. Those made by citizens of such foreign powers as, by treaty or
practice, extend reciprocity to Colombia. If citizens of such nations
resident here have not forfeited their neutral character and rights, the
reclamations awarded them must be paid in coin (pesos de ley) of Colom-
bia.

2d. Those made by resident citizens of such foreign powers as do not
grant reciprocity, or by other foreign residents who may be adjudged as
having lost their neutral character and rights, are, when allowed, paid
in the old bills of credit or bonds of the government.

It seems to have been the policy of this government during the past
few years to refer, as far as possible, all indemnity claims, whether
made by citizens or aliens, to the decision of the federal supreme court.
Cases thus adjudicated, especially when foreign residents were inter-
ested, have generally resulted in decisions adversely to the claimants,
so much so, that resident foreigners now go to that tribunal under pro-
test. Instances are not uncommon where this class of claimants, after
voluntarily submitting their cases to the court of last resort, have sought
appeal from adverse decisions to the legations of their respective gov-
ernments. But it has, I believe, been the practice of the English and
French legations here, in the absence of strong mitigating circumstances,
to refuse to take them up.

The practice with the German legation has been less uniform in this
respect. It has made reclamation for indemnity in exceptional cases of
this kind. In one instance it has been successful. That case is briefly
as follows :

Simmons, a resident German citizen, had his goods and effects seized
by, and he also made a loan of money to, the successful party in the
revolution of 1861. When that party became established in possession
of the government, he made a demand for reclamation. With his con-
sent, tacitly or formally given, the case went before the federal su-
preme court. That tribunal awarded indemnity in amount less than
the proven value of the money and articles furnished, and, moreover,
ordered its payment in government securities, then worth less than

104 ALIEN CLAIMS.

forty cents on the dollar. The claimant appealed from the decision to
his diplomatic representatives in Bogota, who took it up. Indemnity
was finally admitted by the executive department, and the Congress of
1873 voted an appropriation for its payment in legal coin of the country.
The money has not yet been paid, but I presume it will be during the
present year.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

WM. L. SCRUGGS.
Hon. Hamilton Fish,

Secretary of State.

[Inclosures.]

Translations, from the Codigo Fiscal of Colombia of 1873, of articles
2166, 2167, and 2168.

Separately by this mail :

One copy of the Codigo Judicial (Judicial Code) of Colombia of 1872,
with the law of May 19, 1873, amending certain sections thereof.

[Inclosurc No. 1. — Translation.]
From the Fiscal Code of Colombia of 1873.

Art. 2166. Imposts, taxes, loans, expropriations, &c, on account of civil war, which
are payable in old bonds, are those recognized against the national treasury by sen-
tence of the supreme federal court in favor of Colombian citizens or foreigners with
whose nations there may not be treaties of reciprocity, or who may have lost their
neutral character by express declaration of the same tribunal.

Art. 2167. In favor of the same [class of] foreigners, dnes maybe recognized admin-
istratively, payable in old bonds, provided there be an adverse decision [of the courts]
in which it is shown and established that they had [previously] lost their neutral
character.

Art. 2168. Other foreigners are paid in money for expropriations, taxes, and loans,
or other claims arising from civil war, when the sentence of the supreme federal court
is in their favor, declaring that they were neutral in the strife, and that they did not
make the loans or permit the supplies voluntarily.

United States Legation,

Bogota, August 27, 1874.
The above is a faithful translation of the original, now in the library of this legation .

WM. L. SCRUGGS,
United Slates Minister Resident.

flnclosure No. 2.1

Chapter 5 of the Judicial Code of the United States of Colombia, adopted by the Congress of

that republic in 1872.

WITNESSES.

Art. 529. Any person, male or female, who gives'testimony in a court of justice in re-
lation to matters which are being examined by such court, is a witness.

Art. 530. In order that a witness may be considered properly qualified, and his tes-
timony receivable, it is necessary that he be not liable to objection on the ground of
lack of knowledge, uprightness, or impartiality.

Art. 531. A lack of knowledge is presumed, 1st, in an insane person, an imbecile,
and an intoxicated person, so long as the state of insanity, imbecility, or intoxication
lasts; 2d, in any one who, for any other cause, is not in possession of his reason at the
time of testifying ; 3d, in a person less than fourteen years of age ; one who has attained
that age, however, may testify in regard to facts which occurred previously, if he states

ALIEN CLAIMS. 105

that he remembers them well. The deposition of a person under fourteen and over
ten years of age may serve as the basis of a conjecture of more or less weight, accord-
ing to the development of the intellectual faculties of the deponent.

Art. 532. The testimony of the following persons cannot be received, qn the ground
of lack of uprightness : 1st, one who has once borne false testimony ; 2d, a forger ;
3d, one who is not known to the judge, or to the party in litigation with the person
presenting him, unless evidence shall be furnished that he is a person of good reputa-
tion.

Art. 533. The following persons cannot give testimony, on the ground of lack of im-
partiality : 1st, a child in favor of a parent, or ancestor, or vice versa, except in matters
of age or relationship; 2d, a wife for a husband, or a husband for a wife, or one brother
or sister for another, so long as both are living under paternal authority ; 3d, oue who
is a party to the suit and his servants ; 4th, a mortal enemy ; 5th, an attorney, de-
fender, or patron for his client or prote'ge'; 6th, a guardian or trustee for his pupil or
ward, or vice versa ; 7th, one who has sold a thing in a suit concerning the same thing,
and in favor of the purchaser ; 8th, a partner or joint owner in a suit concerning the
common property or business.

Art. 534. The voting members of municipal corporations, and tho individuals be-
longing to congregations, colleges, or universities, may give testimony in suits which
only concern their respective corporations or societies.

Art. 535. Witnesses who are disqualified by reason of lack of knowledge cannot be
presented by either of the parties, except minors, who may be presented for the pur-
poses referred to in the second part of article 531.

Art. 536. Witnesses disqualified by lack of uprightuess cannot be presented in court
by either of the parties.

Art. 537. Witnesses disqualified by lack of impartiality may be pigmented by the
party in litigation with that party in whose favor the law presumes that they have
an interest in testifying, and their entire testimony shall be considered admissible
from this fact alone, unless the party who presented such witnesses protested, on doing
so, that only the favorable portion of their testimony was unexceptionable.

Art. 538. Notwithstanding the provisions of the foregoing article, a husband can
never be required to testify against a wife, or vice versa, nor can a child be required to
testify against a parent, or vice versa.

Art. 539. Testimony cannot be required, 1st, of a lawyer or attorney concerning
the confidential disclosures of his clients in regard to a case of which he may have
charge ; 2d, of a confessor concerning revelations made by a penitent ; 3d, of the judge
who is tryiDg a case, when his testimony is unnecessary on account of their being
other proofs of the same fact which are sufficient.

Art. 540. The testimony of one witness cannot of itself furnish satisfactory proof,
hut, when the witness is unexceptionable, it may furnish strong presumptive evidence.
Art. 541. The testimony of two unexceptionable witnesses who agree in their state-
ments concerning the fact, and concerning the circumstances of manner, time, and
place, furnishes satisfactory proof.

Art. 542. The testimony of a witness who deposes with regard to any fact from
hearsay, is valueless, except when the deposition is concerning an occurrence which
took place very long ago, or when it is sought to show what common report has been.
Art. 543. Sworn statements with regard to words never furnish evidence concerning
facts, although they do so concerning words, whenever the witness declares that he
has heard them uttered, aud iu this case the uniformity of tho testimony of the two
witnesses must refer both to the words and the circumstances which may be capable
of altering or modifying its import.

Art 544. The statement of a witness who notably contradicts himself in the same
deposition, as to the manner, place, time, and other circumstauces of the occurrence,
is of no value. The deposition of a witness who testifies under the influence of bribery
or seduction is likewise valueless.

Art. 545. When the testimony of the witnesses presented by the same party or by
both parties is contradictory, credit shall be given to that of the majority whose state-
ments agree.

In case of equality in the number of witnesses, credit shall be given to the state-
ments of those whose uprightuess and intelligence is best known, and. if there shall also
be equality in this respect, credit shall bo given to none of the witnesses.

Art. 546. When there is a discrepancy between the contents of a public document
and the statements of the witnesses who were parties to its preparation, the instru-
ment shall be belioved if it agrees with the protocol or register, and if the notary was
or is a man in good repute ; but if the uotary shall not be or shall not have been in
good repute, and. the instrument shall have been recently drawn up, the witnesses
must be believed, although the instrument agrees with the register.

Art. 547. In order to prove the falsity of a document drawn up before a notary, the
testimony of four unexceptionable witnesses shall be required who depose that the
party was at another place on the day when the instrument was drawn up ; but if

106 ALIEN CLAIMS.

the latter shall be of a private uatare, the concurrent testimony of two witnesses shall
besufficieut.

Art. 548. In order to prove that a debt has been paid, when evidence of its exist-
ence is furnished by a public document, the testimony of five witnesses who declare
that they witnessed the payment shall be necessary.

Art. 549. In order that the testimony of witnesses may be considered as evidence in
ordinary trials, it is necessary that it be received and ratified by the judge having
jurisdiction in the case within the time allowed for the presentation of proof, the other
party to the suit having been previously summoned, save in the cases provided for in
article 553.

Art. 550. When in the course of a trial statements of witnesses are presented which
were made before another judge or in relation to another case, it will be necessary
that, within the time allowed for the presentation of proof, they be ratified, the oppo-
site party being summoned, without which requisite they eauuot be regarded a? evi-
dence when judgment is rendered.

Art. 551. When, after an informal inquiry (information sumaria) has been held, a suit
shall be instituted, in which a certain time is allowed for the presentation of proof, the
witnesses shall ratify their statements, the opposite party having been first summoned,
without which requisite the statements of such witnesses shall not be regarded as
evidence when the final sentence is pronounced.

Art. 552. When by reason of the death of a witness who has made an informal
declaration, such declaration cannot be ratified, the party presenting the statement of
the witness may demand that, the opposite party having been notified, accredited wit-
nesses may declare with regard to the veracity and good faith of the deceased witness,
and that the judge or the clerk of the court in which the declaration was made may
certify whether such declaration was really made by the witness in question. This
having been done, the declaration shall be considered as legally ratified.

Art. 553. The testimony asked for within the time allowed for the presentation of
proof may be received by a deputy judge, when the witness, by reason of advanced
age, sickness, absence, or a distance of more than fifteen kilometers, or any other
serious hinderance, is unable to appear before the judge who is trying the case.

Art. 554. When the cause of examiuing a witness by proxy is his absence, one of
the judges of the place where the witness resides shall be deputed to take his testi-
mony, or, in case of the inability or refusal of the judges, one of their legal substitutes,
the series of questions presented being sent to him, which questions must first be laid
before the opposite party, together with the order for their transmission, so that if the
opposite party shall present any counter-questions, they may be transmitted likewise.

Art. 555. In case of the absence of the witnesses, the judge who is trying the case
may, if he thinks proper, or at the request of either of the parties, summon the wit-
nesses to appear before him to give their testimony at the expense of the party who
has asked for the same in the former case, and of the one who has solicited the appear-
ance in the latter.

The witnesses in such cases must have their traveling-expenses paid as well as their
expenses in the place where they givo their testimony, for such time as may be strictly

Art. 556. When witnesses reside in a foreign country, letters rogatory shall be sent,
through the secretary of foreign relations of the union, to one of the judicial author-
ities of such country, who, by the laws thereof, is empowered to take testimony, in
order that he may receive the required evidence and transmit the same to the secretary
aforesaid, through the diplomatic or consular agent of Colombia, or through a similar
agent residing in that country, representing some friendly nation.

Testimony may also be received, iu the case provided for by this article, by the
diplomatic or consular agent of tbe Colombian Union, if the witnesses shall be willing
to testify before them, and if there shall be any obstacle to their going before the
authorities of the foreign country iu which the witnesses reside.

The expense of procuring testimony in the case provided for by this article shall be
paid by the party soliciting it.

The testimony, when received by foreign authorities, must be authenticated by a
diplomatic or consular agent of the Colombian Union or of a friendly nation.

Art. 557. The judge of first instance shall send the request, in the case provided for
by the foregoing article, to the president or governor of the state in which he resides,
to the end that the latter may transmit it to the secretary of foreign relations of
the union.

Art. 558. The testimony of persons prevented by sickness or any other cause, of ma-
trons or other respectable ladies, shall be taken at their own houses or dwellings by
the judge who is trying the case, or by a deputy. In such cases the parties to the suit
shall be notified of the day and hour when the testimony is to be taken, so that they
may be present if they desire ; but their failure to be present shall be no obstacle to the
tak i n g of the testi mony .

Art. 559. Witnesses or experts whose evidence is needed shall be summoned by a

ALIEN CLAIMS. 107

notice signed by the judge, in which shall be stated the day, hour, and place at which
they are to appear, together with the object of the summons, which shall be for the same
day or for one of the three following, according to distance and urgency.

1 Art. 560. The notice shall be delivered to the witness by the clerk of the court, or
by a messenger employed by the court, and for its delivery the clerk shall be responsi-
ble ; whoever shall deliver the notice shall require the party summoned to sign it, and
in case of his inability to appear, to state the fact.

If he shall be unwilling or unable to sign, the bearer of the summons, if he be a sub-
altern employe' of the court, shall summon a witness, by whose testimony the fact of
the witness's having been summoned may he accredited, and if the clerk of the court
shall have been the bearer of the summons, his testimony alone, in writing, shall fur-
nish sufficient proof of the delivery of the summons!

Art. 561. ADy person summoned in due form as a witness or as a judicial expert
must appear and make the declaration that is required of him. If he shall not do so,
he shall be punished by fines until he does appear, or shall bo placed under arrest for
disobedieuce to the judge's order. Such fines may be as high as ten dollars.

The following persons shall be exempted from this requirement : senators and
representatives, so long as they enjoy immunity; the President of the republic and
the secretaries of state, the judges of the supreme federal court, the attorney-general
of the nation, generals while in service, prelates, and any judge of a higher grade than
the one before whom his testimony is required. All these persons shall testify by
means of a sworn statement, for which purpose the judge or magistrate who is trying
the case shall notify them, transmitting to them copies of the necessary papers, or the
original papers themselves, if there shall be no obstacle thereto and no risk of loss.

Art. 562. Diplomatic agents or ministers whose testimony is required shall be re-
quested, in writing, to testify, a copy of the necessary papers being sent them, and if
the agent or minister so requested shall consent to give his testimony, he shall do so
by means of a written statement.

This provision shall be applicable to persons belonging to the suite and to the mem-
bers of the family of foreign diplomatic agents or ministers.

When the testimony solicited shall be that of a servant or domestic of such diplo-
matic agents, it shall be received in the ordinary form, with the consent of such agent
or minister, which shall be asked by means of a note.

Both in the case provided for in the foregoing paragraph and in the one provided
for in the first paragraph of this article, the note referred to shall be sent through the
secretary of foreign relations of the union.

Art. 563. Witnesses, before testifying, must make oath before the judge and clerk
of the court that they will not fail to tell the truth.

Art. 564. After the witness has been sworn, the articles of the penal law which re-
late to perjury and false witnesses in civil cases shall be read to him.

Art. 565. Persons under twenty-one and over fourteen years of age need no guardian
in order to testify; the judge will take care that they be not annoyed by captious
questions.

Art. 566. Witnesses shall be examined separately, and their depositions shall be
taken down in the same manner ; these must be signed by the judge or the clerk of
the court, and by the deponent, or a witness, in case the deponent shall be unable or
unwilling to sign.

Art. 567. A witness shall not be interrupted while testifying, and his statements
shall be written as he makes them; each statement must be read to him after it is
written, and the entire depositiou must be read to him when finished, which fact shall
be stated in the deposition itself.

Art. 568. Wheu an answer of the witness has been written, the judge shall immedi-
ately put to him the following questions, unless the replies thereto shall be evident
from the answer already made :

How do you know the fact which yon state ? Is it because you were an eye-witness of
the occurrence, or because you have heard an account of it, or how ? On what day,
at what hour, and in what place did the occurrence to which you refer take place ?

Art. 569. A statement made by a witness shall not be regarded as evidence if, when
asked by the judge, or by the party, how the facts came to his knowledge, he shall be
unwilling or unable to give the reasons for his statement, or shall give no reason
except that such is his belief. The statement of a witness is valid, however, although
he may not state the manner in which the fact concerning which he is testifying
came to his knowledge, if he shall not be questioned upon this point, and the judge
shall be responsible for the omission.

Art. 570. The judge shall also require the witness to state, if the latter shall fail to
do so, the day and hour when, and the place where, the occurrence in question took
place.

Art. 571. The ratifications of evidence which has been received extrajudicially
shall not be valid, unless the statements made shall be repeated ; that is to say, if the

108 ALIEN CLAIMS.

witnesses shall confine themselves to stating that they affirm and ratify, without
having anything to add or retract.

Art. 572. If a witness shall say that, in order to answer a question, he needs to call
to mind the facts or to examine documents, and shall ask time to do so, the judge shall
grant his request, if, In his judgment, it shall be necessary.

Art. 573. The reply that "the contents of the question are true" shall not be
admitted, but the contents of the same question shall be taken down for a reply, if
nothing else shall be added.

Art. 574. When witnesses give ambiguous or evasive answers, or refuse to reply to
proper questions, the judge may force them to give proper answers, by means of fines
or arrest, or even by solitary confinement, if the gravity of the case, the maliciousness
of the answers given, or the audacity of the refusal shall require it.

Art. 575. The provisions of the foregoing article shall not prevent a witness from
answering that he does not know or does not recollect the facts concerning which he
is questioned ; or from refusing to reply in cases in which it is not lawful to force him
to reveal the facts which it is desired to elicit.

Art. 576. Statements made by witnesses shall be written out without leaving blanks,
and without abbreviations ; corrections and interlinings shall be avoided, if possible j
but, if it shall be necessary to correct or interline any word or words, the fact shall
always be stated at the end, after which those who are to sign shall do so.

Art. 577. When a deposition is finished, and is read to the witness, he may make
such corrections, explanations, and additions as he may think proper, which shall be
stated with all clearness at the end of the deposition ; but what is already therein writ-
ten shall not be altered.

Art. 578. Witnesses who are unable to write have the right to get a person in whom
they have confidence to sign for them and to read their deposition to them, that they
may be certain that it is an accurate statement of what they have said.

Art. 579. A witness, before leaving the room in which lie has testified, and without
having spoken with another person, may correct or elucidate a deposition which he
has already signed ; and the judge may, at any time, summon a witness to explain any
ambiguous or obscure passage in his deposition.

Art. 580. Either party may object to the witnesses presented by the other, and cross-
exam ine them either in writing or orally ; but no objection can be made to witnesses
save for one or more of the disqualifying causes specified in articles 531 to 533.

Art. 581. When the ground of objection is lack of impartiality, this must be stated
and proved by the party interested, that it may be considered when the evidence is
weighed.

Art. 582. The questions for cross-examination shall remain in possession of the pre-
siding or of the deputy judge, who shall be strictly responsible for their due custody,
until the moment of the examination of the witnesses; the cross-questions shall be
read as soon as they have answered the principal questions, or after each question has
been answered, according to the desire of the party represented.

[Iuclosare No. 3.]
Lei 76 de. 1873 (19 de mayo) adioional i reformatoria del Codigo Judicial de la Union

El Congreso de los Estados Unidos de Colombia

decreta :

Art. 1." Se hacen las siguientes adiciones i reformas al " Codigo Judicial de la
Union " sancionado el 7 de junio de 1872 :

1." Los incisos 7.°, 9.° i 11. del articuclo 18, seccion 1.", quedan reemplazados con los
signieutes :

"Inciso 7. De las causas criminales que por delitos o culpas puramente militares se
siguen en tiempo de paz a los jefes de la fuerza armada ,al servicio de la Union, desde
Sarjento mayor inclusive hasta el mas alto grado de la milicia."

Inciso 9. Se le agrega el siguieute paragrafo :

'■Paragrafo. Para el cumplimiento de esta atribucion se reputarau jefes superiores
de oficinas de Hacienda, ademas de los que la lejislacion fiscal califique como tales, el
Tesorero jeneral de la Union, el Administrador de las salinas de CipaquirS, los Admi-
uistradores de Aduanas, los de Casas de moneda, el Director jeneral de Correos, el
Ajente jeneral de Bienes desamorfcizados i los funcionarios o empleados que hayan de
subrogar a e"stos, cualquiera que sea la denominacion que les &6 la lei."

" Inciso 11.° De las causas i uegocios contenciosos sobre presas maritimas."

2." Los incisos 1. , 2. i 5. de la seccion 2. a del articulo 18 se reemplazan con los que
siguen :

ALIEN CLAIMS. 109

" Inciso 1.° De todos los negocios contenoiosos que se refierau a bienes, rentas o
cnalesquiera otros derechos de la Hacienda de la Union, i los onalea se hayan decidido
en 1." instancia por los Juzgados i Tribunales delos Estados o de los Territories.

" Inciso 2.° Se deroga este inciso.

"Inciso 5. De las apelaciones o consultas de las eentencias definitivas pronunciadas
por los Juecos nacionales en causas criminales por delitos o culpas puramente militares
que se siguen en tiempo de paz contra individuos de la fuerza armada, desde soldado
hasta Capitan inclusive."

Los incisos 8. i 9. de la seccion 3.° del artlculo 18 se reeinplazan asi :

" Inciso 8.° Admitir, en receso del Congreso, las renuncias que le presenten de sus
destinos el Presidente de la Union i los Designados para, ejercer el Poder Ejecntivo de
la misma, i conceder al Encargado de dicho Poder iicencia hasta por sesenta dias en un
aEo, tambien en receso del Congreso."

" Inciso 9.° Llamar, cotiforme a la Constituciou de la Republica, al ciudadano que
deba reemplazar al Encargado del Poder Ejecutivo, en los casos del inciso anterior."

3." El inciso 14 del artlculo 46 queda derogado.

4." Despues del 54 se coloca elsiguiente :

"Artlculo. Son tambien Jueces nacionales deprimera instancia, en los negocios crimi-
nales, los Tribunales o Cortes superiores de justicia de los Estados, para conocer de las
causas por delitos comunes de la competence a de la Union, cometidos por funcionarios
piiblicos que, segun la lejislacion del respectivo Estado, deban ser juzgados en primera
instancia por dichos Tribunales o Cortes."

5." Artlculo 56. Se deroga este artlculo.

6." Artlculo 62. Se deroga el incise 4.°, i se reemplaza el 8.° con el siguiente:

" Inciso 8.o Conocer en primera instancia, en tiempo de paz, de las causas criminales
que por delitos o culpas puramente militares se siguen a los individuos de la fuerza
armada, desde soldado hasta Capitan inclusive."

7." Artlculo 63. Se reemplaza su inciso 10 con el siguiente :

" Inciso 10. Conocer en segunda instancia, cuando haya lugar a ella, de las causas
civiles i criminales de que conocen en primera instancia los Correjidores, segun la lei."

8. a Despues del artlculo 68 se coloca el siguiente capitulo :

" Capi'tdlo V.
" Atribuciones de los Consejos de guerra.

"Artlculo. Todos los delitos que se cometan en tiempo de guerra por los individuos de
la fuerza armada al servicio de la Union, seran juzgados i castigados por los Consejos
de guerra, con arreglo a lo dispuesto en el Tratado 5. de las ' Ordenanzas para el
rejimen, disciplina, subordinacion i servicio de la Guardia colombiana,' en cuanto no se
opongan a la Constitucion i leyes de la Kepiiblica."

9.» Artlculo 115. Se le reemplaza con el siguiente.

"Artlculo 115. El Procurador jeneral de la Nacion tendrd dos jefes de seccion i dos
escribientes, de su libre nombramiento i reraocion."

10. Artlculo 155. Se le reemplaza de este modo :

"Artlculo 155. Al Secretario i al Oficial mayor de la Corte les esta' prohibido patroci-
nar a los particulares i ejercer sus poderes eu asuntos judiciales, sean ej3tos de la com-
petencia de la Union o de la de los Estados."

11. Al artlculo 187 se le agrega este inciso :

" Se esceptuan de lo dispuesto en la primera parte de este artlculo los autos interlo-
cntorios i los de pura sustanciacion, qne podrau ser suscritos con media firma. Los
Jueces nacionales de primera instancia, sus Secretaries i los Ajentes del Ministerio
pfiblico, usaran firma entera en el primer acto en que intervengan, sea cual fuere, en
cada negocio judicial ; i lo mismo se observar£ siempre que ocurra variacion en el per-
sonal de dichos einpleados."

12." El artlculo 287 se adicioua con el siguiente :

"En los juicios sumarios i en todos los demas en que no haya contestacion de la
demanda, el poder termina por la muerte del poderdante antes de la notificacion de la
demauda al demandado."

13.» Se deroga el artlculo 428.

14." El artlculo 484 queda reemplazado con este :

" La disposicion del artlculo anterior no iinpide que las pruebas demoradas se prac-
tiquen apesar de estar trascurrido el termiuo probatorio, i que se agreguen a los autos
en cualquier estado de ellos, con tal que no se haya citado para sentencia."

" Pero para que se agreguen las pruebas, en el caso de este artlculo, es preciso que
recaiga sobre el particular auto espresp del Juez, a peticion de parte, la que ha de
justiiicar que ella no ha sido culpable por la demora. Este incidente se sustanciarii
como las demas articulaciones, i se suspender^ la citacion para sentencia hasta que se
decida e) punto i se agreguen las pruebas en cuestion, si asl se resolviere."

15 Suprimese el inciso 3.„ del artlculo 532.

110 ALIEN CLAIMS.

16. a Articulo 561. Se le reemplaza del modo siguiente :

"Todo el que fuere llamado en la forma legal como testigo o como perito j udicial,
deber^ comparecer a dar la declaraeion que se le pide ; si no lo hiciere asl, ser£ apre-
miado con multas hasta que comparezca, o con arresto por la desobedieneia a la 6rden
del Juez. Dicbas multas podran ser hasta de diez pesos."

" Se eseeptu.au de esta disposioion : los Senadores i Eepresentantes, mi6ntras gozan
de inrannidad, el Presidente de la Republica i los Seeretarios de Estado, los Majistra-
dos de la Corte Suprema federal, el Procurador jeneral de la Nacionj los Gobernadores
o Presidentes de los Estados, los Jenerales en servielo i todo Juez superior respeeto de
aquel ante qnien deba deolarar : todas estas personas declararan por medio de certifioa-
cion jurada, a euyo efeoto el Juez o Majistrado de la causa les pasara' oficio, acompa-
Dando copia de lo neceaario, o bien las dilijencias orijinales, si no hubiere inconveniente
o riesgo de pdrdida."

17. a El articulo 579 se refonua asi :

" El testigo, antes de salir de la pieza donde di6 su declaraeion, i sin haber hablado
con otra persona, puede mejorar o aclarar la declaraeion que ya hubiere firmado ; i el
Juez tiene la facultad de llamar en cualquier tiempo al testigo para que aclare cual-
quier pasaje dudoso u oscuro de su declaraeion, a menos que ya se haya citado para
sentencia."

18. a El articulo 580 qneda reformado asl :

"Cada parte puede tachar a los testigos que la otra haya presentado, i repreguntarlos
por escrito o de palabra; pero los testigos no pueden ser tachados sino por alguna de
las causas que invalidan el testimonio segun este capltulo."

19. a Antes del inciso ultimo del articulo 651 se intercala este :

" Despues de dictada la sentencia de tiltima instancia, la solioitud de devolucion no
podra' hacerse sino ante el Juzgado de primera instancia."

20, a Despues del articulo 755 se agrega el siguiente :

" Las sentencias de la Corte Suprema federal i de los Juzgados nacionales no nece-
sitan do la formalidad de rejistro para producir todos sus efectos."

21." Entre la primera parte i la segunda del articulo 827 se intercala este inciso:

"Del mismo modo proceder^n los Prefectos de los Territorios para admitir o negar
los recursos de hecho que ante ellos se interpongan."

22. a Entre los articulos 859 i 860 se intercala el siguiente :

"Cuando la demanda se conteste por defensor o curador, i en los juicios de divorcio
por el c6nyuje o su representante legal, auuqae fetos convengan en los hechos o no oon-
testendeuna maneraespresa, o de ningun uiodo, no se tendr& por confeso aldemandado,
sino que se abrira' el juicio a prueba como si hubiera contradiccion."

23." El articulo 866 se reemplaza con el siguiente :

" Desde que el actor entable la demanda i desde que el reo la conteste, basta que
concluya la primera mitad del termino probatorio, tienen nno i otro el derecho de de-
nunciar el pleito a quien crean estd en el deber de salir a la defensa de la cosa que se
litiga, por estar obligado al saneamiento por cualquiera razon. En los juicios en que
no haya te'rmino probatorio, la denuncia debe hacerse dentro de los seis dias siguientes
a la notificacion de la demanda o de la providencia dirijida contra la cosa que pueda o
deba ser saneada."

24. a Al articulo 873 se le agrega el siguiente inciso :

" Lo dispuesto en este articulo no comprende a los Ajentes del Ministerio publico que
representen a la Nacion en los negocios judiciales."

25. a El capltulo 2.° , titnlo 9.° del libro 2.° , se adioiona con el siguiente articulo, colo-
cado despu6s del 888 :

" Despues de concluido el termino probatorio, i antes de la citaoion para sentencia,
la Corte Suprema puede dictar autos para mejor proveer en todos los negocios de que
conozca i en cualquier instancia, para el esclareeimiento de los puutos que juzgue du-
dodos ; i las pruebas que en conseeuencia se practiquen se recibiran previa citacion de
las partes."

26." Entre los articulos 830 i 891 se agrega el siguiente :

" Sou comuues a este capltulo las disposiciones de los articulos 873, 874 i 876, en
cuanto se trate de pruebas que hayan de practicarse en pals estranjero o dentro de la
Kepublica a una distaucia mayor de cincueuta miriametros de la residencia de la Corte ;
pero la peticion de tdrmino en csos casos deba hacerse durante la primera mitad del
termino probatorio en segunda instancia."

27. a El articulo 89:3 se reemplaza con e~ste :

" Las demaudas sobre intereses particulares, en que no me'dia el interes de la Nacion,
i de las cuales conocen los Prefectos i los Correjidores de los Territorios nacionales, se
dividen en demandas de mayor i de menor cuantia. Las primeras son aquellas que en
su accion principal pasau de trescicutos pesos ; i las seguudas aquellas que no pasan de
dioha cantidad. Se considerara como accion principal el total de la cantidad liquida
que se demande."

28. a Se deroga el inciso 2.° , articulo 895, i se reemplaza con <5ste :

"En los espresados j uicios eutre particulares no hai lugar a consulta en niufun caso,
ni intervendra' en ellos el Ministerio publico."

ALIEN CLAIMS. Ill

29." El articulo 940 queda reformado en estos terminos :

" Si los bienes manifestados o denunciadoa por el ejecutante o el ejecutado se hallareu
en poder de un tercer poseedor que los reclame como suyos eu el acto en que vayan a
embargarse, se dejaran en su poder embargados, siempre que de" una fianza a satisfaccion
del Juez ejecntor, de entregarlos tales como se hallaban cuando se procedid al embargo,
i con todos sus frutos, si se declarare que no le pertenecen. Lo mismo se hard; si las
dilijencias de embargo i dep6sito no se entienden con el tercer poseedor en persona, i
este hace la reclamacion de que se ha hablado, en cualquier estado del juicio antes del
remate, dentro de tercero dia de notificarsele personalmente la providencia de embargo.
La cuestion de propiedad se ventilarS en juicio de terceria, sin perjuicio de embargarse
otros bienes del ejecutado a solicitud o por denuncio del ejecutante."

30. a Al articulo 930 se le anade este inciso :

" La copia de que trata este articulo se equipara a una escritara ptiblica ; i, por con-
siguiente, no hai necesidad de otorgamiento de esta para la trasmision de la propiedad.
Cuando el remate haya sido de bienes inmuebles, bastard que ese titulo se rejistre en la
oficina respectiva, si la lei exije esa formalidad en los instrumentos piiblicos sobre tras-
mision de esa clase de bienes."

31. a El articulo 1002 se adiciona con este inciso :

" Dichos empleados actuaran en estos casos con alguno de los subalternos de sus
oficinas, i si no tuvieren subalternos, con un Secretario ad hoe, que prestard, juramento
de desempenar fielmente su encargo."

32." El articnlo 1046 se reforma asi :

" Si los bienes manifestados por el concursado o denunciadoa por los acreedores se
hayarenen poder de una tercera persona que los reclame como suyos, al tiempo de em-
bargarse, si se entendieron con ella las dilijencias de embargo i deposito, o dentro de
tres dias de noti6ciIrsele personalmente dicho embargo, siempre que no se haya hecho
el remate cuando tales dilijencias no se entienden con ella ; se dejaran en su poder, con
tal que d6 fianza, a satisfaccion del Juez, de devolverlas tales como se hallaban cuando
se procedi<5 al embargo i con todos sus frutos, siempre que se declare que dichos bienes
pertenecen al deudor concursado.

" Si los bienes de que se trata son funjibles, la fianza seri£ de devolverlos en la misma
cantidad i de la misma calidad que los embargados."

33. a Entre los articnlos 1094 i 1095 se intercalau los dos que siguen:

"Articulo A. Los Tribunales i Juzgados nacionales, en los juicios de concurso de
acreedores cuyo conocimiento les corresponda, graduaran los cre'ditos de los acreedores,
en lo que no tengan relacion con el Fisco, aplicando la lejislacion sustantiva vijente en
el Estado respectivo al tiempo de adquirirse el credito."

"Articulo B. Las formalidades exijidas por la lejislacion de los Estados para la vali-
dez de los documeDtos con que se coraprueben los cre'ditos, se tendran tambienen cuenta
para decidir sobre la existencia de dichos cr^ditos." ,

34. a El articulo 1100 queda reformado asi:

"Si ninguna de las partes pidiere que la causa se reciba a prueba, el Secretario lo
informard, como tambien el hecho de haber espirado el te"rmino probatorio en el caso
del articulo anterior; i el Majistrado sustanciador proveera auto mandando citar a las
partes para senteucia, i seiialaudo uno de los cinco dias signientes para oir a las partes
en los estrados de la Corte, en los cuales pueden aqui511as alegar de palabra o presentar
sus alegatos.escritos."

35. a El articulo 1120 se reforma de este modo :

" Es Juez competente para decretar la apertura i publieaciou de un testameuto, el de
primera instancia del lugar donde tuvo su ultimo domicilio el testador ; sin perjuicio
de usar de las escepciones legales, i salvas siempre las disposiciones espeeiales."

36. a El articulo 1204 se reforma asi:

■' Son comunes a este juicio las disposiciones de los articulos 1183 a 1194."

37. a Antes del articulo 1270 se colocan los dos siguientes :

"Articulo A. Cuando un ciudadano haya de pedir ante la Corte Suprenia federal la
suspension do un acto lejislativo de alguno de los Estados de la Union, dirijira pre-
viamente su memorial al Poder Ejecutivo del Estado, quien ordenarii en el acto que el
funciouario encargado del Ministerio publico de dicho Estado informe dentro de un
t^rmino que no excedera de seis dias."

"Articulo B. Siempre que el Procurador o encargado del Ministerio publico del Estado
apoye su concepto en actos lejislativos del mismo Estado, diferentes de aquel cuya sus-
pension o nulidad se pide, acompanara copia de ellos a su iuforme, a no ser que el peti-
clonario los haya aconipaiiado a su memorial."

38. a El articulo 1315 queda reemplazado con e"ste :

."Los casos de divorcio o de nulidad de matrimonio se calificaran i apreciarau segun
las leyes sustantivas nacionales.

" Sinembargo, todo caso de separacion de los conyujes, por divorcio o nnlidad, se
decidird en los Territorios cedidos o que se cedan a la Nacion con arreglo a las leyes
del Estado a que antes pertenecia el Territorio respectivo, si con arreglo a esas mismas
leyes fue' celebrado el matrimonio de que se trata.

"Los matrimonios celebrados en cualquier Estado que no sea aquel a que antes per-

112 ALIEN CLAIMS.

i

tenecia un Territoyo, pneden ser en fete annlados, i I03 conyujos separados por divoroio,
por las causas que autorizan la disolucion i el divoroio, segun las leyes del Estado donde~
se contrajo el matrimonio.

" La disposition del inoiso anterior es aplicable a los matrimonios contraidos en pais
estraujero i respecto de los cuales se pida la nulidad o el divorcio en alguno de los
Territorios nacionales.

"La existencia de las leyes que deban aplioarse, en los easos de los tres incisos
anteriores, debera^ probarse en el juieio con copia autentica de las disposiciones que se
aleguen, espedida por el Poder Ejecutivo o el Tribunal Superior de la respectiva Na-
cion o Estado, i eertifieacion de los mismos sobre su vijencia a tiempo de celebrarse
el matrimonio."
39." El artieulo 1363 queda' dorogado, i eu su lugar queda el siguiente :
"Cuando un guardador pretenda enajenar o gravar eon hipoteca o servidumbre los
bienes raiees de la persona que est6 a su cargo, o enajenar o empenar los muebles pre-
eiosos o que tengan un valor de afecto, ocurririi por escrito al juez de primera instan-
cia del Territorio donde existan los bienes, solicitando la autorizacion necesaria segun
las leyes sustantivas."
40." Al artieulo 1373 se le agrega este inciso :
" Esta resolucion es apelable en ambos efectos."

41." En el artieulo 1381 se pondr£ " Titulo l.» " en donde dice : " Titulo 2." "
42. a El artieulo 1408 se reforma asi :

" La accion civil i la criminal pueden intentarse a un mismo tiempo, e intentadas asi
deben sustanciarse i decidirse en un mismo jnicio, observando la tramitacion corres-
pondieute al juieio criminal. Si no se ban intentado juntas, la aecion civil no podra
promoverse mientras no haya concluido el juieio criminal con la condonation del
delincuente."
43°. Al artieulo 1414 se le agrega este inciso:

" Los funcionarios de instruccion de los Estados lo seran tambien para todos los
delitos de la competeucia de la Uuion que se cometan en los lugares donde no residan
jueees nacionales de primera instancia."

44". Se adiciona el artieulo 1445 con el inciso siguiente :

" Si en el respectivo establecimiento no hai ocho presos o detenidos, se presentaran
los que hubiere para el reconocimiento, i si no hai mas que el indieiado, solo fete se
presentari a la vista del agraviado o testigo, previas en todo caso las demas formalida-
des prevenidas en este artieulo."
45." El artieulo 1496 queda reformado asi :

" De todos los actos que se practiquen se estenderan dilijencias, que seran firmadas
por el funcionario de instruccion i las demas personas que concurran a ellas por llama-
mien to de la lei ( i autorizadas por el Secretario de dieho funcionario, i ademas se foliar&
cada hoja que se vaya agregando al espediente."

46." El artieulo 1497 se modifica poniendo las palabras " Titulo VII " en lugar de
"Titulo II."
47." El ultimo inciso del artieulo 1513 se reforma de este modo :
" Se entender^ que un acusador deserta del juieio cuando se auseuta o rehusa ad-
mitir las c^taoiones o notificaciones que se trate de hacerle o no forinaliza su acusacion
oportunamente."
48. tt El artieulo 1534 sera' reemplazado con este :

" Luego que el Juez competente haya concluido o recibido las dilijencias corres-
pondientes para comprobar el cuerpo del delito i descubrir lo"s culpables, examiuani si
la averiguacion esta^ perfecta, en cuyo caso darrt vista de ella al Ministerio publico ;
pero si no lo estuvieren, dispondra lo oonveniente a la perfeccion del sumario.

" Si encontrare que hai plena prueba de la existencia del delito, i por lo menos un
testigo iddneo o graves indicios contra alguno o algunos, deolarar^ que hai lugar al se-
guimiento de causa contra fetes, previa audiencia del Miuisterio publico.

"Con escepeion de los juicios de respousabilidad, eu que el cargo contra el procesado
debe dedncirse citando espresamente la disposicion o artieulo infrinjido, en los dem£s
se formularsi el cargo menoionando el delito en terminos jenerales eon la denominacion
que le d6 la lei, como bomicidio, heridas, hurto, &c, sin califlcar desde el auto de
formacion de causa si el bomicidio fu<5 premeditado, involuntario o de otra especie, o
sefialar algnn artieulo especial eu el capitulo o seccion correspondiente de la lei penal
que trate del delito materia del proceso."
49." El artieulo 1593 se modifica asi :

" Cada parte puede tnohar los testigos que la otra haya preseutado, por carecer de las
cualidades de que habla el artieulo 1577, o por alguna de las causas que se espresan en
los articulos 1578, 1585 i 1586. La lista de los testigos con que se pretenda probar las
tacbas, se preseiitaril dentro de las cnarenta i ocho horas de entregada a la parte que
tacha la lista de los testigos a quienos la taeha se refiera."
50. a El artieulo 1616 se adiciona cou estas palabras :

" La no concurreucia de las partes o de oualquiera de ellas no impide la celebracion ■
del juieio, siempre que se les haya uotiflcado en debida forma el auto en que se setial6
dia para dicha celebracion."

ALIEN CLAIMS. lid

!>1." El articnlo 1722 se reforma asi :

" En las apelaciones i consultas de autos interlocntorios proeodeni la Corte Suprema,
del rnismo modo estableoido para osa espeoie de autos eu uegocios civiles."

52." Al artieulo 1783 ae le anade este inciso :

"Tambien debenX procederse de olicio, sea cual fnere la pena que haya de imponerse,
siempre que en el juicio est<5 la Nacion interesada."

f>3. a El capitulo 4.°, titulo 10.", libra 3.°, se adiciona con este articnlo, quo seguini al
1833 :

" El principio establecido en el articnlo 1783 no ob3ta para la aplicacion de las dis-
posicipnes consignadas en este capitulo."

54." El artieulo 1848 qneda modiiicado en estos t<5rminos :

"Cuando el reo o reos fueren aprehendidos, i el valor del contrabando, es decir, del
jenero i efectos confiscables, no pasare de cien pesos, con solo el snmario se procedera a
celebrar el juicio con arreglo al artieulo 1616, en cnyo acto se oira verbalmente al reo,
a su defensor si lo hnbiere nombrado, al respectivo Ajente del Ministerio publico i a
los testigos que presentaren ambas partes, ponifSudose de todo una dilijencia sucinta
pero clara i exacta "

S5." Al capitulo 8.°, titulo 10, libro 3.°, se le agregan los siguientes articulos desputSs
del 1877 :

"Artieulo A. Cuando a las autoridades judiciales de Colombia se les reclame direc-
tamente la enrrega de un reo, por las de igual caracter de un pais estranjero, a virtud
de lo estipnlado en las Con venciones sobre estradicion, examinaran los documentos que
se acompanan a la solicitud, practicarau las dema^ dilijencias prevenidas en dichas
Con venciones, i, previa audiencia del respectivo Ajente del Ministerio publico, decidiran
si debe o no accederse a la estradicion, confbrme a los Tratados.

"Artieulo 13. Si la reclamacion se diiije a algnn Majistrado o Juez que no sea del
orden jeneral, se pasarSi al Juez nacional respectivo, para que decida con arreglo al
articnlo anterior.

"Artieulo C. Cuando la estradicion se pida directamente al Poder Ejecntivo de la
Union por un gobierno estranjero, i, seguu los pactos internacionales vijentes, debau
practicarse dilijencias de caracter judicial, como las de hacer comparecer al presnnto
reo, oir sus descargos i toniar en consideracion las prnebas de su criminalidad, dicha
solicitud se pasara, con los documentos auexos, al Juez nacional de primera instancia
de la j urisdiccion doude resida i se orea que reside la persona reclaniada para los efectos
de los articulos anteriores.

" Si los pactos sobre estradicion no exijen la priictica de las espresadas rti'ijencias,
no se bar^i necesaria la iuterveucion judicial, i el negocio se decidirii aduduistrativa-
mente."

"Articnlo D. Las resoluciones sobre estradicion de reos que dieten los jueces na-
cionales de primera instancia son apelables por el Ministerio publico i por el presunto
reo; i en todocaso se consultarttu con la Corte Suprema federal, la que procedera como
est& dispuesto para los autos iuterlocutorios, i darS aviso de la resolucion iletinitiva al
Poder Ejecutivo de la Union."

56. a El titulo del citado capitulo 8.° se reforma en estos tennhios :

" Modo de proceder en los casos de estradicion de reos."

57." Queda derogada la seccion 2.", capitulo 10.°, titulo 10.", libro 3.°, i sereemplaza
con la siguiente :

"Seccion 2.°

"Proeedimienlo para declarav que se ha perdido o reoabrado el cardcter de colomiiano.

"Artieulo A. Corresponde a la Corte Suprema federal declarar quidnes han perdido el
caracter de colombianos, en los casos de los articulos 32 i 88 de la Constitucion.

"Artieulo B. La Corte procederiJ a virtud de pedimento del Procurador jeneral o de
cualquier ciudadano.

"Artieulo C. El procedimiento para hacer la declaratoria de que se trata serii el
siguiente :

"Dentro de tercero dia despues de darse a la Corte el denuncio, o de presentado el
pedimento del Procurador jeueral o del solicitaute, i de oido este funcionario si 61 no
hubiere hecho el pedimento, se exijira' informe a la persona a quieu el denuncio se reiiera,
njandole un plazo para contestar, que ser£ igual al tiempo que se calcule necesario para
recorrer de ida i regreso la distancia a que se halle de la capital i quince dias mas ; i
recibido el informe en que se reconozca el hecho denunciado, o trascurrido un te'rmino
doble del senalado, sin que dicho informe se reciba, se dictai£ dentro de los quince dias
siguientes la resolucion declaratoria de haber perdido la condieion de colombiano el
individuo objeto del denuncio.

" Si en el informe espresado, oportuiiaraente recibido, se n,egare el hecho denunciado,
la Corte Suprema lo averiguarS por medio de la Secretaria de Relaciones Esteriores, la
que se dirijir^ sobre el asuuto al Ministro de la Repdblica acreditado ante el Gobierno
meucionado en el denuncio, o a alguno de los C<5usules admitidos por el mismo Go-
bierno ; i fallar£ en vista de los iuformes de dichos empleados, dentro de quince dias
despues de recibidos.

H. Eep. 134 8

114 ALIEN CLAIMS.

"Articulo U. El fallo de la Corte Suprema federal sent definitive) : i solo podrS iccon-
siderarse por ella misma en el caso de que se dicte sin haberse reoibido el informe del
individno que haya sido objeto del denuncio, si este u otro en su nombre lo solicita
coraprobando que no llegti a sus rnano el pliego con que se le notifico el auto en que se
ie pidio informe, o que lleg6 con retardo considerable.

"Articulo E. 'lambien podia la Corte reconsiderar suresolucion cuando el mismo indi-
vidno objeto del denuncio, u otro en su nombre, lo solicite acompanando una docurnen-
tacion quo contradiga el becho que se habia declarado cierto. La solicitnd de reconsi-
deracion en este caso, lo mismo que en el del articulo anterior, debera" bacerse dentro de
cuatro rueses contados desde la fecha en que el fallo fuere publicado en el perirtdico ofi-
cial de la Nacion ; i eu ambos casos la Corte Suprema podrd adoptar las medidas con-
ducentes al esclarecimiento de los becbos, i fallara dentro de quince dias despues de
trascurrido el tiempo que senale para la investigacion.

"Articnlo F. En el pedimento del Procnrador se indicarau los datos i los documentos
i demas pruebas en que lo apoye, i los denuncios de los particulares deberan preseutarse
con iguales prnebas o indicaciones, sobre la existencia o realidad de las cuales procu-
rara cerciorarse la Corte Suprema antes de pedir el informe. El espediente se remi-
tirii orijinal, con las seguridades convenientes, al que debe informar, accompanando las
pruebas que se hubieien presentado o adquirido ; i en la Secretaria de la Corte se de-
jara copia de lo conducente para que se pneda fallar en caso de no rendirse el informe
oportunamente.

"Articulo G. Los colombianos que bnbicreu perdido cl cariicter de tales en "virtud de
resolnciou de la Corte Suprema, dictada en cumpliuiiento de esta seccion, lo recobraran
si fijan su residencia en el territorio de la Union, i deelaran ante el Secretario de Rela-
ciones Esteriores, o ante el Poder Ejecutivo del Estado eu que residan, que quieren
volver a ser colombiauos. La mauifestacion del interesado, con un informe del fun-
cionario ante quien la haga, sobre la efectividad de la actual residencia de aquel, se re-
initira a la Corte Suprema para que, con audiencia del Procurador jeneral, declare que
el solicitante ha recobrado la calidad de colombiano.

'Panigrafo. Se esceptiian de esta disposicion los calouibiauos que bayan servido a
ntra Nacion contra la Republics, los cuales jamtis podraa recobrar la nacionalidad per-
didii.

"Articulo H. Cuando, estauclo en receso el Congreso nacional, uu colombiano admita
empleos, condecoraciones, titulos o rentas de gobiernos estranjeros, de una maneia con-
dicional i a reserva de solicitar el permiso de aqnella corporaciou, no se reputard con-
sumada la infraccion del articulo 88 de la Constitution, sino en uno de estos dos casos :
1°. Si el que a>jept(3 con dicha reserva no solicita el permiso eu la sessiones ordinarias
del Congreso inmediatameute posteriores a la aceptation ; 2°. Si pedido el permiso i
rehusado por el CongresoJ el aceptante persiste en los ef ectos de la aceptacion, como si
tal pirmiso le hubiera sido otorgado."

58. a Al articulo 1924 se le agregan estas palabras :

" Hai presuncion legal de que se ha delinquido a sabiendas, cnaudo la suposicion
contraria de ignorancia se refiera a puntos de derGcho, como sucede, por ejemplo, en las
infracciones de lei que cometen los fancionarios piiblicos en el ejercicio de sus atribu-
ciones i que dan orijen a juicios de responsabilidad, tales como los abusos de autoridad,
•el exceso en las atribuciones del empleo, la usurpacion de facultades i otras semejantes."

59. a El articulo 1927 se deroga, i en su lugar queda el siguiente :

"Desde que este C6digo empiece a rejir, quedaran derogadas todas las disposiciones
iiuteriores sobre organizaciou del Poder Judicial nacional, i sobre procedimiento en los
negocios civiles i crimiuales de la competeucia de los Tribuuales i Juzgados de la
Union."

Akt. 2." Al bacer una nueva edicion del " Codigo Judicial," o formar la Kecopilacion
de leyes de la Union, se tendrfin preseutes las variaciones introducidas por esta lei,
para refundirlas en dicbo Codigo, diindoles la colocacion que les correspondai, i haciendo
las enmiendas consiguientes en la numeracion de los artieulos, i las rectificaciones en
las citas de estos que queden alteradas por la nueva numeracion.

Dada en Bogota, a diez i seis de mayo de mil ochooientos setenta i tres.

El I'residenie del Senado de Plenipotentiaries.

El Prcsiicnte de la Ccimara de llepreseniantes,
El Secretario del Senado de Plenipoienicarios,
111 Secretario de la Cdmara de Reyrcseniantcs,

M. PLATA AZUEKO.

J. M. MALDOMADO NEIRA.

JULIO E. PEEEZ.

JOSE MARIA QUIJANO OTERO.

Bogotii, 19 de mayo de 1873.

Publiquese i ejecutese.

El Presidente de la Union,

[is.] M. MURILLO.

1.1 -hrreiario de lo Interior i T el cones Esteriores,

JIL COLUNJE.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 115

Mr. Turner to Mr. Fish,
No. 147.] Monrovia, September 11, 1874.

Sir: I Lave ttie honor, iu compliance with instructions contained in
the Department's unnumbered note, date June 23, 1874, to transmit
herewith information relative to the mode or system employed by the
government of Liberia lor the investigation and adjustment of such
claims as may from time to time be alleged against said government.
It will be observed that in procuring the information desired, I have
confined my inquiries to a correspondence with the Department of State ;
this course was especially necessary on account of the utter absence of
all printed authentic documentary information bearing upon the import-
ant subject with reference to which the inquiries were submitted. It is
true, that at the conclusion of each session of the legislative branch of
the government, a pamphlet, containing the laws enacted at the session,
is printed; it is equally true that the government has never caused a
revision, collection, or compilation, iu durable form, of the laws of this
republic. This omission to preserve in print important historical facts
is not alone confined to the laws enacted by the government, but extends
to all matters of statistics, the publication and preservation of which
would enable the government and people to judge of the benefit or
injury resulting to the nation from the execution of the laws enacted.
There are extant no printed documents or reports of the revenue, of the
census, of finance, of education, of agriculture, &c. ; and I have thus
far been unable to obtain for my permanent possession a printed copy
of the constitution itself. Because it may be of incidental or indirect
relevancy to so much of the subject concerning which information is
desired, as relates to aliens, I have determined to quote for the informa-
tion of the Department sections 12 and 13 of article 5 of the constitution
of Liberia. Those sections of the constitution read as follows :

Section 12. No person shall be entitled to hold real estate in this republic unless he
be a citizen of the same. Nevertheless this article shall not be construed to apply to
colonization, missionary, educational, or other benevolent institutions so long as the
property or estate is applied to its legitimate purposes.

Section 13. The great effect of forming these colonies being to provide a home for
the dispersed and oppressed children of Africa, and to regenerate and enlighten this
benighted contineut, none but persons of color shall be admitted to citizenship iu the
republic.

It will be noticed that while the ll declaration of independence " de-
clares the "courts of justice are open equally to the stranger and the
citizen for the redress of grievances, for the remedy of injuries, and for
the punishment of crime," the exclusiveness of the constitution renders
it practically impossible for the alien to acquire any real substantial
property-claim within the republic; and in the mean time positively de-
bars a very large class of persons from ever attaining to citizenship.
The above exclusive features are repugnant to, and complained of by,
foreigners, and strenuously objected to by a few progressive Liberians ;
but there is no doubt of the popularity of these measures with the
people of this republic. Whatever may have been the incentive to bind
such unprogressive economy upon the organic system of the republic,
it must be conceded that if the tendency of the nature of such laws is
not to segregation, it is, to say the least, in the direction to dissimili-
tude to the liberal spirit of that economy now shaping the statesman-
ship alnd policy of the nations.

I have the honor to be, sir, with highest esteem, &c,

J. MILTON TURNER.

Hon. Hamilton Fish,

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.

116 ALIEN CLAIMS.

[Inclosure 1.]
Mr. Tuvnir to Mr. Moore.

A.

Legation ov the United States,

Monrovia, August 22, 1874.
Sin: The Government of the United States, being desirous of obtaining accurate in-
formation upon the subject of the adjustment and determination of state claims, with
a view of establishing, as far as practicable, a general and uniform system. and mode of
procedure for their investigation, &c, has instructed me to procure and transmit, with
as little delay as possible, such replies as your government can furnish in reference
thereto. I trausmit herewith a copy of a list of inquiries, the purport of which is not
intended to confine you specifically in furnishing information on the subject men-
tioned ; and this legation will feel much obliged by your inserting in the blank space
opposite each question, the information sought, and returningthe same as early as may
be in consonance with your convenience, together with any laws or other enactments
bearing upon the matter in question.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

J. MILTON TDBXER.
Hon. J. E. Moore,

Secretary of Sta'e, Liberia.

[Inclosure 2.]
Mr. Moore to Mr. Turner.

B.

Monrovia, September 11, 1874.
Sir : On the receipt of yonr communication of 22d ultimo, th^ schedule of your in-
quiries therein was submitted to Hon. W. M. Davis, attorney-general, and I now have
the honor to transmit you herewith the replies thereto, prepared by him. I regret that
I am unable to furnish you with a copy of the laws as requested, they being at present
out of print.

1 have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

J. E. MOORE.
His Excellency J. Milton Turner,

United States Minister Resident, <J'C, Monrovia.

[Inclosure 3.]
Schedule of inquiries. Answers.

1st. Are claims against the government 1st. Claims against the republic of Li-
investigated, determined, and, if allowed, beria are sometimes investigated and de-
their payment directed aud provided for termined by the legislative branch of the
by th^e legislative brauch of the govern- government, and if such claims are allowed
nient ? their payment is directed and provided for

by a special act of the legislature, or by
the amount of the claim allowed being in-
cluded in the general appropriation bill,
and paid by the secretary of the treasury
under the warrant of the President drawn
for the amount.
2d. If the legislative authority does en- 2d. When such claims are entertained
tertain such claims, what is the mode of by the legislative authority, the usual
procedure, by committee or otherwise, and mode of procedure is, for that branch of
what means, if any, are provided for pro- the legislature to which the application
curing evidence on behalf of the govern- first eomes to appoint a committee to in-
meut ? vestigate the claim, and to give such com-

mittee full power to compel the attend-
ance of witnesses, and such other evidence
as they may require in behalf of the gov-
ernment. Sometimes a joint committee of
both houses is appointed to investigate
the matter; the report of the committee is
then acted upon by the legislature.

ALIEN CLAIMS.

117

3d. What provisiou, if any, is made for
the examination and determination of
claims by the executive department?
What is the mode of procedure in the in-
vestigation of claims by or before executive
offioes, and what means are provided for
procuring ovidence on behalf of the gov-
ernment ?

4th. Is there auy provision of law allow-
ing a citizen or subject to sue the govern-
ment iu the regularly-established courts,
or in any special tribunal, and does the priv-
ilege of maintaining an action against the
government (if it exists) extend to aliens ?

5th. What is the status of aliens before
the regularly-established courts of the
country ? Can they maintain an action in
such courts against a citizen or subject,
and, if so, does the privilege extend to all
aliens, or is it confined to resident aliens
onlv ?

6th. If different systems of adjudication
exist, as regards different classes of claims,
what is the system with reference to each
class, and what the mode of procedure
and the privileges of the Government in
relation to evidence in its behalf and the
means of procuring such evidence?

7tb. Add any other information general
or special, of which you may be possessed,
bearing on the subject.

3d. There is no constitutional nor legis-
lative provisiou made in our government
for the final determination of claims
against the government to be made by the
executive department. Executive officers
do investigate such claims, and use such
means as may be iu their power and reach
to procure evidence in behalf of the gov-
ernment ; but if the claimant is not satis-
tied with the determination come to by
such executive officer, he raay.resort to the
courts of law, or to the legislature, with his
claim.

4th. By a provision of our laws, citizens
may bring suits against the government
for the breach of auy contract made on be-
half of government by any person whose
duty it was to make such contracts, and
who had the authority to make it ;' and
citizens may also bring suits against the
government for any damage they may sus-
tain by reason of the application of their
property to the use of the government.
Such suits must be brought in the courts
of quarter sessions and common pleas, in
the several counties ; and such suits must
be brought against the republic of Liberia,
as defendant, and the plaintiff must cause
the county attorney to be notified to ap-
pear and defend such suit. Such suits may
also be brought by aliens ; and in all such
suits appeals may be had, by either party,
to the supreme court, either by bill of ex-
ceptions under our statutes, or by writ of
error according to the common law.

5th. Our declaration of independence
declares that " Our courts of justice are
open equally to the stranger and the citi-
zen, for the redress of grievances, for the
remedy of injuries, and for the punish-
ment of crime," and the status of aliens
before our regularly-established courts is,
therefore, the same as that of citizens.
Aliens may maintain actions in our courts
against citizens and against aliens ; and
this privilege extends to all aliens, resi-
dent or non-resident aliens.

6th. We do not have different systems
of adjudicating claims, nor are claims
against the Government classified, but all
kiuds of claims may be investigated by the
legislature and the executive department,
as above stated.

7tb. The judicial power of this republic
is vested iu one supreme court, and such
subordinate courts as the legislature may,
from time to time, establish. The subor-
dinate courts, at present, are the monthly
courts of probate, iu the several counties,
which have also a limited jurisdiction in
some civil and criminal cases ; aud the
courts of quarter sessions and common
pleas, which courts adjudicate cases both
of law and equity, and also have original
jurisdiction in all admiralty aud maritime
cases, and cases of fraud upon our revenue
laws. Appeals may be had in all cases by
either party from court to court up to the
supreme court, which is the court of last
resort.

118 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Mr. Williamson to Mr. Fish.

No. 235. J United States Legation at Central America,

Guatemala, September 12, 1874. (Received Oct. 13.)

Sir: I have the honor to send yon herewith a translated copy of the
answer received from Mr. Brioso, minister of foreign affairs of Salvador,
in reply to the letter addressed him by me, of which a copy was attach-
ed to my No. 209.
No other answer has been received up to this date.
I have, &C,

GEOEGE WILLIAMSON.

[ Lnelosure 1. — Translation.]

San &.\i.v.viJon, September 2, 1874.

Sir: I have been much pleased at receiving your esteemed favor of the 11th of last
August, and influenced by the importance of its object, I hasten to give you the infor-
mation you ask.

We do not have special laws as to the manner of making reclamations against the
government. When these are made by foreigners, after having tried ordinary means,
before the common tribunals, they have recourse to the minister of foreign affairs. In
this office the necessary investigations- are continued without any determined form,
admitting every kind of evidence to obtain a conviction that the claim is good and
just, or the contrary, and according to this result it is admitted or refused.

For natives there are no special laws. In particular cases, general directions are.
given for examining, liquidating, and paying the accouuts against the government 1
caused by extortion, losses and damages caused in wars, and for resulting expenses
for a small assembly that, with short sessions, and the assistance of an attorney who
represents the interests of the nation, decides upon the legality or illegality of the
claim. From this decision there is an appeal to the government, which decrees what
it believes just, only reviewing the proceedings.

The persons, natives or foreigners, who have not been able, to make good their claim
for any reason, have recourse to the legislative body, which acts on it in the manner
established for all business that it considers at the request, of parties, and orders or
refuses the payment of the claim in a resolution that is called an order, and that does
not have the general character of law.

Foreigners in Salvador, resident or absent, have the right to be represented before
the tribunals by attorneys, authorized by the court of justice to exercise these func-
tions, and enjoy all the civil rights the natives possess. They can acquire property of
all kinds and dispose of it by will or in any other legal manner.

I will not weary you with the form of diplomatic reclamations, for the principles of
international law are followed in these negotiations.

This is a compend of what is practiced. I hope I may have satisfied your wishes
with this information, but if there is anything wanting I will take much pleasure in
giving you the data you may be pleased to ask of me.
I am, with much esteem, your obedient servant,

M. BRIOSA.

Seiior Minister Don Geougic Wiu.iamson.

Mr. Russell to Mr. Fish.

No. lS.j United States Legation at Caracas,

September 21, 1874.
Sir : I have the honor to report, respectfully referring to Department
circular of June 23, 1874, inquiring as to the mode of pursuing claims
against'this government:

1. Claims against government are not investigated or determined by
its legislative branch, nor by theexecutive, but solely by the judiciary,
viz, by the high federal court.

2, Citizens and aliens alike are allowed to sue the government in said

ALIEN CLAIMS. 119

court, wbich. is a regularly-constituted tribunal liaviug jurisdiction of
other cases.

3. Aliens and citizens have the same rights, whether as plaintiff's or
as defendants in all the courts of the country, and this is true of suits in
the high federal court against the government.

4. The equal right to sue citizens or the nation not only includes resi-
dent aliens ; it applies as well to aliens non-resident.

5. The same system of adjudication exists in all classes of claims.
The government has a double security as to evidence in its behalf: (1,)
the representative of the treasury must always be notified of the prose-
cution of a claim ; (2,) the judges are authorized to direct the production
of any evidence which they regard as proper, of their own notion.
Thus they are, to a certain extent, guardians of the rights of the public.

I give the law as it exists in theory and on the statute-book. As to
its practical working, it is difficult to obtain trustworthy information.

Of course, the decree of the high federal court does not execute itself.
Legislation is needed to provide funds to satisfy judgment. And it is
well known that Venezuela is deeply indebted and unable to pay her
debts.

My information as to the law is derived in part from Dr. J. M. Blanco,
who was, when he wrote, acting minister of foreign relations, and who
has also been an eminent judge. His letter, A, with a translation, B, is
annexed. I also anuex the constitutional clause, C, with translation, D,
giving to the high federal court jurisdiction of suits against the nation ;
also, the decree or law, E, with translation, P, regulating the prosecution
of claims against the nation. E is a printed copy from an official pub-
lication, being No. 549 of the '' Cuenta," or report of General Guzman
Blanco. Said Cuenta was sent to the Department by General Pile, with
his No. 80, May 7, 1873. Some of its provisions have been discussed by
the two governments.

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

THOMAS BUSSELL.

Hon. Hamilton Fish,

/Secretary of State, Washington, D. G.

[Inclosure 1/
B.

Caracas, September 10, 1874.

Gratifying in part the wisbes expressed by your excellency in your note of August
8 last, I have the honor to stite to your excellency that in the official gazette No. 48,
of which I seDd a copy to the legation which is in yonr worthy charge, with date of
February 22, 1H73, will be found inserted the law of the 14th of said mouth and year,
upon claims of citizens and aliens on the nation. This law, as your excellency will
see, gives to the high federal court the cognizance of the matter, and establishes the
mode of proceeding when such claims are to be commenced.

The high federal court is, moreover, the only tribunal competent in any case, in
which the nation may be sued, io conformity with No. 6, article 89, of the constitution,
and as aliens share in the republic the same civil rights with Venezuelans, the former
and latter with equality of conditions can be actors against the government before the
aforesaid body.

As for lawsuits between private parties they are carried on and decided by the ordi-
nary courts respectively, and in such trials aliens, domiciled or transient, can- be plaint-
iffs or defendants, since, as has been heretofore set forth, they share the same civil
rights with Venezuelans.

Concerning the remaining questions contained in the paper inclosed by your excel 1
lency in the note to which I have replied, I will give the necessary instructions in
order to furnish your excellency with the desired answer.
I take, with pleasure, &c,

JESUS MA. BLANCO.

120 ALIEN CLAIMS.

[Inclcsure 2. — Translation.]

D.

■Clause in the constitution of Venezuela giving jurisdiction of claims to the high federal court.

Art. 89. The subjects of jurisdiction of the high federal court are * * * *
6. To take cognizance of civil suits, when the nation is sued, and the law prescribes it

[Inclosure 3. — Translation.]
F.

Article 1. Those who make claims against the nation, whether citizens or aliens,
because of wrongs, injuries, or spoliation, on account of the aots of officers, national
or of the States, whether in war, civil or national, or in time of peace, shall do so in
the way which this law prescribes.

Art. 2. The claim shall be made by formal demand before the high federal court.

Art. 3. In these suits there shall be cited, besides the representative of the nation .
the officer to whom the acts are imputed and the State to which said officer belongs, if
such shall be the case.

Art. 4. Before trial of the claim the court shall publish in some newspaper, and at
the cost of the plaintiff, an abstract of the claim in which shall be set forth the acts
and other grounds on which the suit is founded, the name, surname, residence, and oc-
cupation of the demandant, and the sum demanded. This abstract shall be subscribed
by the clerk of the court. ■

Art. 5. In these trials testimony aliunde shall not be admitted, except in case of its
being shown that the officer who caused the wrong or spoliation has refused to give
the proper proof in writing, or unless it appears in an evident manner, from the na-
ture and circumstances of the case, that it was wholly impossible to obtain that
proof.

Art. 6. The tribunal may direct that any evidence shall be furnished which it be-
lieves will lead to the discovery of the truth, whether at the request of the parties, or
of any other person whatever, or officially [of its own motion.]

Art. 7. The nation shall have the right of re-iiubursing itself through the responsi-
ble officer or through the State to which said officer belonged at the time of the wrong,
for the sum which the national treasury expends by virtue of the condemnatory sen-
tence.

Art. 8. Whoever appears manifestly to have exaggerated the amount of the injuries
■which ho claims to have suffered, shall lose whatever right he might have had, and shall
incur a line of five hundred to three thousand venezolanos, or imprisonment from three
to twelve months. If it appears that the claim is wholly false, the guilty party shall
incur a fine of one thousand to five thousand venezolanos, or imprisonment from six
to twenty-four months.

Art. 9. In no case shall it be pretended that the nation or the States shall pay for
wrongs, injuries, or spoliations which were not done by the legitimate authorities act-
ing in their public character.

Art. 10. The action to claim wrongs, injuries, or spoliations of which this law speaks
is barred in two years. (

Art. 11. All those who without public character decree contributions or forced
loans, or direct acts of spoliation of whatever nature, as well as the executors, (or
actors,) shall be responsible directly and personally with their estates for the damage.

Art. 12. In these suits the law shall be followed which directs the proceedings of
the high federal court.

Art. 13. The law of March fi, 1854, as to the indemnification of aliens is repealed.

Done at Caracas, February 14, 1873. (Misprinted 1673.)

Mr. Andrews to Mr. Fish.

No. 2-Ll.] Legation of the United States,

Stockholm, September 26, 1874. (Received October 16.)
Sir : In reply to your letter of June 23, relative to the course pursued
iu Swetleu and Norway in the investigation and determination of claims

ALIEN CLAIMS. 121

against the state, whether held by citizens or aliens, I have the honor
to inform you that I made inquiry of the matter through the foreign
office by letter, of which a copy is inclosed, and have received an
answer from the minister of foreign affairs ad interim, inclosing a state-
ment of the law of Sweden and of Norway ; from which it appears that
in each country private parties, whether citizens or aliens, and whether
residing in or out of the country, can sue the government in the regu-
larly-established tribunals, and that the government or state has no
privilege in the courts beyond what is enjoyed by individuals. Also,
that the rule appears to be oue of common law; and, further, that the
legislative department does not occupy itself in determining claims.

I have the honor to inclose a copy of the letter of the minister of for-
eign affairs of the 21st instant, with translation ; also, a copy of each
statement, in Swedish, accompanying his letter, and translations of the
same.

As the matter of execution of a j udgraent against the government was
left to be implied in the statements from the foreign office, I have taken
pains to inform myself from the best source on that point, and I have
to inform you that, after an individual' has obtained judgment in court
against the state, he can, if it is necessary, on -application to the chief
executive officer of the proper county, procure such seizure and sale of
the property of the state as will satisfy the execution. I do not find,
however, that there has been any instance where execution has actually
been taken out and served against the state. When judgment is ob-
tained there is never delay in its satisfaction at the public treasury.

To show how firmly settled the principle and practice are in Sweden
that the state may be brought into court to answer to the complaint of
an individual, it may be stated that three hundred years ago, in the
time of Gustavus I, and later, in the reign of Charles XII, both of which
monarcbs exercised dictatorial power, the crown or government sub-
mitted to the judgments which private individuals obtained against it
in the courts of justice.

Up to within a very recent period a suit against Sweden for a consid-
erable claim, in which the city of Stettin was plaintiff, was pending in
one of the courts of Stockholm. It seems to have been pending about
one hundred years, for what reason I know not, and was lately settled
by the government paying the principal sum without interest.

In conformity with the same principle of liability, the Swedish law of
1S30 made the state's bank liable to be sued by an individual.

There are two limitations to the government's liability to an action
at law by an individual. The first is that any claim is barred unless
action is brought within ten years from the date of its accruing. The
second is that the government cannot be sued to recover back taxes
which have been paid.
I have, &c,

O. C. ANDREWS.

[Enclosure liu No. 241.1

Mr. Andrews to General Bjornstjerna.

Legation of the United States,

Stockholm, July 15, 1874.
Sin : We have iu the United States, as you are probably aware, a national " Court of
Claims," which sits in Washington, and is empowered to adjudicate upon claims agaiust
the United States growing out of contracts between private parties and the Govern-
ment. But in respect to other claims against the Government, parties must have re-

122 ALIEN CLAIMS.

course to Congress by petition — a practice which imposes a great deal of labor on the
legislative department.

My Government now has in view the establishment of a system of procedure for the
investigation and determination not only of claims of its own citizens against itself,
but also the claims which the subjects or citizens of foreign governments may wish to
hring against it ; and has instructed me to obtaiu exact information as to the course
pursued by the governments of Sweden and Norway in the adjustment of claims of a
similar character.

As the subject is important, and as it is but just the Swedish aud Norwegian systems
shall be presented in a proper light, I have felt that your excellency would permit me
to lay before you, as I now have the honor to do, the inclosed two copies of inquiries
which have been communicated to me hy my government, and to request that the
information called for under each may be furnished to me in respect to both Sweden
and Norway ; also, if practicable, that copies of legislative enactments or executive
regulations on which the adjudication of claims of either class is based in each of the
United Kingdoms may accompany such information.

Iu expressing to your excellency the belief that my Government will cheerfully
reciprocate the favor herein desired, I seize the occasion to renew to you, sir, the assur-
ances of my most distinguished consideration.

His Excellency General O. M. ISjornstjerxa,

Minisltr of State ami Foreign Affairs.

C. C. ANDREW^.

[IiK-losure 2 in No. 241. — Translation.]
Mr. C. F. Warn 1o Mr. Andrews.

Stockholm, September 21, 1S74.
Sir: In reply to your note of the 15th July last, I have the honor to transmit here-
with a statement containing the information which you expressed a wish to obtain
concerning the procedure followed in the United Kingdoms in regard to claims insti-
tuted by individuals against the government.
Please accept, sir, the. assurances of my most distinguished consideration.

C. V. WCERN.
Mr. Andrews,

Minister Resident of the United Slates.

[ Inclosnrc .1 in No. 241.— Translation. 1

The lair of Sweden at to adjudication of claims, accompanying Mr.C.F. Idrrn's letter of

September 21, 1874.

SWEDEN.
According to the Swedish law, claims against the royal majesty and crown (the gov-
ernment) are not (as iu the memorandum is required) examined and determined by
the riksdag or legislative power, but are prosecuted aud adjudicated upon under the
same regulations as are provided for suits iu general, namely, before aud by the regu-
larly-established courts of justice. The government enjoys in such case no other rights
or privileges nor has other obligations than its adversary. The legal process and
practice provided in the general laws obtain with equally binding force for both, and
it is open to the inhabitants of the country as well as aliens, according to competency,
by summons to institute aud maintain suits against the government. Likewise, for-
eiguers,,without regard to whether they are or are not residing in Sweden, are as fully
empowered as the country's own inhabitants to solicit the Swedish courts of justice for
the trial of their claims against Swedish citizens.

[IiiL'loauro 4 in No. 241.— Translation.!

Statement of the lair of Xoncay on the adjudication of claims, accompanying Mr. C. F. IVo rn's

letter of September 21, 1874.

NORWAY.

Answer to mem. J, 2. Private claims against the state are neither considered nor
determined by the legislative power, which neither, in the event of their competency
being acknowledged immediately, occupies itself with their satisfaction.

Answer to mem. 3, 4. Such claims are presented before the authorized department of
the government, which, when the matter gives occasion, procures closer information
aud testimony concerning the competency or validity of the claim in question, where-
after it acknowledges the same and does equity in respect thereof. Iu the law, how-

ALIEN CLAIMS. 123

ever, there is no special provision for this investigation. It does not proceed in form
of process. If the claim is not acknowledged, the losing party, whether alien or not, is
free to submit the matter to trial by the ordinary courts of justice, iu which case the
same rules are applicable that iu general are valid for process between individuals.

Answer to mem. 5. Foreigners have equal right with Norwegian citizens to bring
suits in the ordinary courts of justice, and without regard to whether they reside in
the country or not.

Answer to mem. 6. What is stated above applies to all sorts of private claims. The
government has no privilege in regard to testimony or procedure.

Answer to mem. 7. The foregoing is based partly on the determinations of the statute
laws of the state concerning the authorities of the several powers of the state ; partly
on the construction (supposition) of the law ; partly, and fiually, on the fact that noth-
ing to the contrary is prescribed in the law.

Mr. Davis to Mr. Fish.

~So 18.J Legation op the United States,

Berlin, September 28, 1874.
Sir: Beferring to the Department's circular, dated the 23d of June
last, respecting the mode of prosecuting claims against governments,
I have now to inclose a copy of a note from the foreign office with the
answers of this government to the queries of the Department.
I am, &c,

J. 0. B. DAVIS.
Hon. Hamilton Fish,
«£<?., iCc, (fee.

[In closures.]

1. ISTote of Mr. v. Philipsborn to Mr. Davis, September 12, 1874.
(Copy.)

2. Memorial accompanying the above. (Copy.)

3. Translation of iuclosure 1.

4. Translation of iuclosure 2.

I Iuclosure 3. — Translation of inclosuro 1.1

Foreign Office,
Berlin, September 12, 1874.
The undersigned, referring to the note of Mr. Fish, of July 10, of this year, to Mr.,
von Biilow, respecting the mode of procedure with regard to claims of individuals
against the German government, has the honor to transoiit herewith to Mr. Bancroft
Davis, envoy of the United States of America, a memorial indicating the rules which-
obtain iu such cases.

The undersigned also profits by this occasion to renew to Mr. Bancroft Davis the
expression of his most distinguished consideration.

v. r-HILIPSBOEX.
Mr. Bancroft Davis,

<]r., cj-c, fc.

[Inclosure 4. — Translation of inclosnre 2. |
MEMORIAL.

Foreign Office.

I. The legislation of the German Empire, with regard to tho investigation, determi-
nation, and satisfaction of claims against the imperial government, contains no gen-
eral directions uniformly applicable to all claims of this kind. Instructions which
regulate the prosecution, determination, and satisfaction of certain kinds of claims

124 ALIEN CLAIMS.

against the empire are, however, given in a number of special laws, for instance, iu
the law respecting the pensioning of military persons, of June 27, 1871, sections 113-
116, (Imperial statutes, page 301.) In the law respecting postal affairs, of October 28,
1871, section 15, (Imperial Statutes, page 348.) In the law respecting the relations of the
empire with regard to the use of certain articles by a branch of the administration, of
May 25, 1873, section 1, (Imperial Statutes, page 113.) In considering and disposing
of individual claims, presented in pursuance of these laws, the legislative power of
the empire does not, however, act uniformly in all cases.

2. There is, therefore, no particular mode of procedure. In the procedure where
claims against the government come Up before the administrative or judicial tribu-
nals for investigation, and in the procuring of evidence in such procedure, the same
rules obtain, in general, as iu the consideration, determination, and deciding of such
claims wheu presented against other parties. Iu exceptional cases only are directions
to be found prescribing a particular feature of the procedure in the case of a claim
against the empire. For instance, the law concerning the prevention of the spread of
the cattle-plague, of April 7, 1869, section 3, (Union Statutes, page 106,) contains the
provision that when, pursuant to the same, claim is made against the imperial treas-
ury for damages for cattle that have died or been killed on account of the cattle-
plague, the value of the animals is to be determined by impartial appraisers.
, 3. .Other than that noticed under 2, there is nothing of general applicability pre-
scribed as to the procedure in examining and determining claims. The practice of
this tribunal follows substantially the principle of determining, after hearing the par-
ties, the questions of fact and law at issue iu a procedure as simple and unhampered
with formalities as possible.

4. In all cases in which legal proceedings against the empire are admissible, they
are taken in the ordinary courts. The empire has no Bpecial court. A procedure by
way of arbitration, however, sometimes takes place, both parties consenting thereto.
It is immaterial in this connection whether the complainant be a German or an alien.

5. The question as to the conditions uuder which aliens are capable of maintaining
actions before the courts, is to be determined for the entire empire, uniformly, by the
civil-procedure regulation to be submitted to the Diet of the empire at its next session.
The present laws of the German States contain different provisions on this subject.
In the main this question may be thus answered : In case no exception is made on ac-
count of "Bari-vmital," aliens have the same right of complaint before German tribu-
nals as citizens. They are, however, of course required to give security for costs.

6. As regards the system of adjudication there exist no special modes of procedure
for the different classes of claims against the empiro than those above indicated.

Mr. Marsh to Mr. Fish.

No. 52.] Legation of the United States,

Rome, October 7, 1S74.
Sir: On the receipt of your circular, not numbered, of June 23, 1874,
Mr. Wurts, then in charge of legation, applied to the department of
foreign affairs for the information desired in respect to the mode of
adjustment of the claims of private persons against the government of
Italy.

I have the honor to inclose herewith copies and translations of the
reply of the ministry and the memoir therein referred to. The volumes
and pamphlets accompanyiug these papers were inclosed iu a case with
other Italian public documents forwarded yesterday, via Leghorn, to
the United States dispatch-agent at New York, who has been advised
of the consignment.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

GEOEGE P. MAESH.
Hon. Hamilton Fish,

Secretary of State.

[Inclosure 1 in No. 52. — Translation.]

Rome, September 14, 1874.
Mr. Ministkh : In reply to the request contained in the esteemed note from yonr
legatio u, dated on the 14th of July last, I hasten to transmit to your excellency the

ALIEN CLAIMS. 125

subjoined copy of a memoir in which are amply developed the details concerning the-
legislation and the modes of procedure which in Italy determine the claims of private
individuals against, the government ; a memoir to which are annexed the codes and the
various laws cited in it.

I have the honor, in the mean time, to renew to you, Mr. Minister, the assurances of my
high consideration.

For the miuister.

PEIROLERI.

Hon. Georgk P. Marsh,

Minister of the Cnited States of America at Home.

[Inclosure 2 in No. 52. — Translation]

Memoir upon the inquiries proposed by the Government of the United Stales of America re-
specting the legislation and the modes of procedure in Italy for the determination of claims
preferred by pi-irate persons against the Government.

The laws of Italy contain no special provisions for deciding upon claims which citi-
zens may prefer against the Government, nor is any particular mode of procedure
ordained for that purpose.

If the claims (or complaints) relate to ministerial ordinances, or to the discharge of
the appointed functions which public officers are called upon to fulfill in virnne of the
organic or administrative laws, they may be presented in any form, and they are usu-
ally addressed to the immediate supervision of the officers against whom they may be
preferred.

When recourse to administrative authorities has failed, and demands for reparation
can no longer be made through official superiors, and, moreover, when there is a ques-
tion as to the legality of the administrative proceedings against which the complaint
is made, the law has reserved to the claimant an extraordinary remedy, which is an
appeal to the King, according to No. 4, art. 9, of the law concerning the council of state.
In such cases it is necessary to ask the opinion of the council of state, and when the
decision which is asked upon the complaint proves contrary to the judgment of said,
council, it is always made to appear in the royal decree that the council of ministers
has been consulted. In other cases appeals must be laid before the deliberative ad-
ministrative bodies which are appointed bylaw in certain cases to pronounce their
opinion in controversies which have arisen between individuals and public adminis-
trations.

For more special information on this subject reference may be made to the above-
cited law upon the council of state of the 20t,h of March, 1865, No. 2248, annex D, and
that ot 1he court of accounts of the 14th of August, 1862, No. 800, annex JB.

But the complaints upon which the court of accounts and the council of state are
called upon to pronounce, are, as has been said above, not merely of an administrative
nature but they concern more particularly the relation between the government and
public officers, or those who are charged with a fixed duty orfuncrion, and notproperly
private citizens, who have no relations of dependence with the public administration.

If, on the other hand, the complaints refer to any grievance which the private citi-
zen thinks he may urge against the government, and in general the assertion of any
civil or political right which he thinks infringed, (such as appear to be the complaints
referred to in the queries proposed,) they are adjudicated in the same way as are all
questions which may arise between two private persons. The government has no-
privileges of forum, and any citizen can summon it before the ordinary tribunals and
by the ordinary course of procedure, and can obtain against it in any case whatever an
appropriate judgment.

Before the administrative unification accomplished in Italy in 1866, there existed
special tribunals for the decision of legal controversies between the government and
private persons, but since that time the law of the 20th of March, 1865, annex E, has
been in full operation — a law which annuls all distinction of jurisdiction — and the
spirit of which is that the govej-nment shall have no privilege over private individuals,
and that, equally with private citizens, it is bound to respect the laws, and to be sub-
ject to the same tribunals, when contested questions arise, which belong to the com-
petency of the ordinary magistrates.

Having, then, in deference to the principles of civil progress and the solidarity of na-
tions, so settled Italian legislation that the foreigner is admitted to enjoy in Italy the
civil rights belonging to the citizen, it follows as a consequence that the right above
named of summoning the government before the common tribunals may be exercised!
equally by the citizen and the foreigner, without distinction of mode of procedure or lim-
it a on of any sort. (See Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure.) And, finally, claims-
may be presented to the legislative authority iu the form of a petition, and when they

12G ALIEN CLAIMS.

are of a character to come within the competency of the chambers, or as happens in the
case where many private citizeus are concerned, they may be presented to the legisla-
tive authority upon the motion of parliament, or of the government itself, in order that
the pai'liament may make provision for them by suitable legislation.

Cases of this sort have occurred in relation to damage sustained from military opera-
tions by the citizens of the late governments of the peninsula in the war for the inde-
pendence and unity of Italy ; and for such damages a bill of relief, anuex C, was intro-
duced by the minister of finance on the 1st of April, 1871.

For further explanation of the various matters thus far treated of, we subjoin the
principal laws above cited, a* well as the above-mentioned bill of relief of 1871, and
also the civil code of the kingdom of Italy and the national constitution of the 4th
of March, 1 848, annex F, G.

CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES— KINGDOM OF ITALY.

Extract from the report of the committee appointed to consider the hill presented by the minis-
Irr of finance, April 1, 1871, in, relation to claims for damages caused by acts of war.

The ancient law of war made it allowable to kill the enemy, and also his wife and
children, on one's own ground, on the ground of the enemy, on no man's ground, and
at sea.

According to Cicero, victory rendered even sacred things profane. He wrote : " The
graves of our enemies are not respected by us."

It was natural that all the property of an enemy, taken in war and enslaved, should be
acquired by the conqueror or master. Immovable property fell to the conquering state,
movable property to whomsoever got possession of it, either for himself, or to be divided
with his companions.

Civilization has changed the law. As early as 1743, Montesquieu laid down the doc-
trine that the law of nations was founded on this principle : that the various nations
ought to do each other the greatest possible good in peace and the last injury possible
m war. War is not a relation betweeu man and man, but between state and state;
the individuals of two nations engaged in war, says Portalis, are enemies by accident ;
they are not so as men, or even as citizens, but only as soldiers.

To say nothing of the biblical record, or of the pagan law, of the inexorable enforcement
of which by the Romans and the northern barbarians we have historical accounts, we
have advanced, step by step, to the declaration of the principles of the congress of Paris of
March 30, 1856, and to the instructions given to the armies in the field during the war
of secession between the northern and southern sections of the United States. We are,
moreover, constantly advancing, not yet having reached the goal toward which civil-
ization is conveying us; and we are at a greater distance therefrom in uaval warfare
than in that which is conducted by land. Nations armed for the extermination of other
nations have been succeeded by permauent armies against permanent armies, and deso-
lation is now confined to the field of battle.

The Spaniard Ferdinand Vasquez, in his Celebrated Controversies, denies entirely
that there is any obligation on the part of the state to compensate a citizen for dam-
ages suffered by him on acconnt of war, " because the law of war permits such things."
War, however, being a social act, society should make good the losses caused by war,
or, the war being ended, should grant indemnity for its damages by a just equalization
of burdens. The nation, which makes war at its own risk and for its own advantage,
cannot leave the arbitration of the damages suffered to blind chance, but must divide
these damages among all, since all share the benefits. So says Ahrens, in his Philosophy
of Law ; and so says Heffter, in his Law of the Nations of Modern Europe.

Vattel makes a distinction between damages of war occasioned by the state or the
sovereign and those caused by the acts of the enemy. Of the former he says: " Some
are done deliberately and by way of precaution, as wheu a field, a house, or a garden
belonging to a private citizen is taken for the purpose of constructing the bastion of a
-city there, or a work of fortification, or when harvests or store-houses are destroyed
to prevent their falliug into the hands of the enemy. The state should make good
-damages of this kind to the citizen, who is only under «*>ligatious to bear his share of
them. Other damages are caused by inevitable necessity ; such are, for instance, those
caused by artillery in a city which is retaken from the enamy. These are accidents
and misfortunes of chance for the proprietors upon whom they fall. The sovereign
should give them equitable consideration when the condition of his affairs will permit
him to do so, but there is no ground of action against the state for misfortunes of this
nature, for losses which it has caused, not deliberately, but of necessity, by accident, in
the exercise of its rights.

"I say the same," continues Vattel, "of damages caused by the enemy. All the sub-
jects are exposed to them, and woe to those on whom they fall ! This risk may be run in

ALIEN CLAIMS. 127

a community as regards property, siuce it is run in regard to life. If the state were to
indemnify all those who suffer loss in this way, the public treasury would be speedily
exhausted. Each individual would then have to contribute of his substance in a just
proportion, which would be impracticable. Such indemnities, moreover, would open
the door to a thousand abuses and to a frightful amount of detail. Hence it is to be
presumed that this was never contemplated by those who united for the purpose of
living in a community.

"It is, however," says Vattel, in conclusion, "the duty of the state and of the
sovereign, and therefore most equitable and most just, to relieve, so far as this may be
possible, those unfortunate persons who have been ruined by the devastations of war ;
as, for instance, to take care of a family whose head and support has perished in the
service of the state. There are many debts which are considered sacreel by an upright
man, although they may furnish no ground for an action against him."

Vattel does not lay down a doctrine different from that of Ahrens aud Heffter ; he
only desires to have damages caused by war made good, with this difference: For dam-
ages deliberately caused by the authorities for military operations of offense or defense,
Vattel thinks that there is ground for a civil notion, but he denies the existence of any
such ground for fortuitous damages, such as, for instance, those caused by a hostile
invasion. For the latter damages he warmly recommends that indemnity should be
granted, but he thinks it proper that the state of the public finances should be to some
extent consulted.

The following decrees have become celebrated in history, namely, those promulgated
in Franco by the national assembly, Angust 11, 1792, and by toe convention of August
14, 1793, aud the lfith of messidor, of the year 2. The national assembly decreed as
follows: "Indemnities shall be granted to French citizeus who, during the war, shall
have lost their property, either in whole or in part, through the acts of foreign ene-
mies." But if payment was to be made to all persons who had been injured in property
by the enemy, or in the defense of the territory, indemnity was decreed in each par-
ticular case by the convention itself. Nor will we separate the bitter remembrance of
the assignats from this generous record; in their case the result of excessive payments
was that nobody was paid, or that payments wore made in a kind of money that was
valueless.

Count Cavonr, in his celebrated orations to the chamber of deputies, in relation to
the treaty of Zurich, during the Session of May 21, I860, had regard to the distinction
drawn by Vattel.

The courts have enforced the same theory. Where there is deliberation aud freeelom
of design, there is responsibility for the elamage done. Where injuries have been
caused by accident, over which the will had no control, the case was one which could
not be foreseen, and there no responsibility exists.

In 1858 and 1860 the court of appeals of Lucca and the court of cassation at Florence
in the case of Santarnecchi, in 1867 and 1868 the tribunal and the court of appeals of
Milan in the case of Antona Traversi, and in 1866 the court of appeals of Messina and
the court of cassation of Palermo in the case of Tripodo, raised that» distinction of
Vattel to a received maxim of jurisprudence among us.

There has been no difficulty in its enforcement when the point iu question has been
the felling of trees or the destruction of buildings iu the neighborhood of fortresses not
yet attacked by the enemy, or the occupation of ground for temporary fortifications
during an armistice.

A difficulty has arisen with regard to the requisitions mado hy the enemy through
the local authorities. As regards payment for requisitions made within the state by
national troops, no one has ever doubted, and no one doubts. The royal orders of
Angust 9, 1836, are in accord with the French law of April 26 and 29, 1792, in admitting
the principle of payment; the urgency of a case may authorize seizure, but not grant
exemption from the payment of indemnity, even ex post facto.

Count Cavour laid it down as a matter of law that the requisitions made by Austria
in Lombardy constituted a real debt for Italy, but that the requisitions made on this
side of the Ticino were not to be so considered. " In Lombardy, before the war, the
Austrian government was a regular government ; on this side of the Ticino, it was an
enemy in arms." Such are his words. Deputy Cahella said in reply that the enemy, in
occupied provinces, exercises sovereignty de facto, and has the right to live, and, con-
sequently, if he makes requisitions in order to feed his troops, he imposes a debt upon
the state.

It is true that requisitions were made instead of depredations, that they saved the
country lrom rapine, and that they substituted rule and order for military license.

Dalloz calls attention to the law of September 23, 1814, which declared that the
taxes, both direct aud indirect, levied in 1813 and 1814, were to be appropriated to the
payment of requisitions made by the armies; to the law of June 28, 1815, which
authorized the government to secure subsistence and military transportation for its
armies by way of requisitions, for which payment was to he made ; to the ordinance
of August 16, 1815j which, on the ground of urgent necessity, imposed a tax of

128 ALIEN CLAIMS.

100,000,000, and divided it among the various departments in proportion to their
resources, in order to diminish the burden of the requisitions, which weighed only
upon the invaded departments ; to the ordinance of October 5, 1815 ; and to the finance
laws of April 28, 1816. Notwithstanding all this, it is found thatan action was denied
to persons who had suffered damage through requisitions made by the mayor for the
benefit of hostile troops.

Bliintschli, speaking of the contributions which an army has a right to levy in hos-
tile territory, endeavors to restrict them to those which are absolutely indispensable
for the subsistence and movement of the army. He thinks that a hostile army may
demand war-contributions only within the limits established by usage or by the laws
of the country. He thinks it wrong for an enemy, who has ordered a requisition, to
coufine itself to giving a receipt therefor, and to creating the impression that payment
will be made by the local government, which, having received nothing, does not desire
to be held responsible; and, having observed that this subject is rarely mentioned in
treaties of peace, Bliintschli concludes that the rights of communities and individuals
toward a hostile state are tbeu very gravely compromised, and that all that remains
to them is to beg their government to aid them in the name of equity.

Jurisprudence has expressed itself in this sense also among us.

With regard to the requisitions made in 1859 by the Austrians in Lomellina, through
the syndics, there is a learned decision of the court of cassation of Milan, bearing date
of July 18, 1864, and given in the case between the commune of Sannazzaro and Peter
Maggi. The concluding portion thereof is as follows : " The communal authorities
who, during the foreign invasion, remained at their posts, and the citizens who listened
to their voice, and now patiently await an equitable provision, fulfilled a patriotic
duty and deserved well of their couutry; and, certainly, there are sacred debts for
those who know their duty, although such debts may not give ground for judicial
action. Nor is it to be feared that the nation will forget what is rendered advisable
by the superior interests of the future, and, above all, by charity toward numerous
families who have been despoiled, and perhaps seduced to a condition of misery. It is
only denied that judicial action, with principles, methods, and proceedings not adapted
to the case, may be substituted where legislative arbitration alone is competent and
practicable."

Between persons who have suffered injury in war and the government there exists
the relation of creditor and debtor where the damage has been caused by a deliberate
design of the authorities, whereas there is no ground for action if the damage is fortu-
itous, although in the latter case it may be granted. Damage caused by an enemy is
fortuitous ; so likewise are requisitions made by an enemy, although made through the
local magistrates of the country.

The /allotting is the Mil proposed by the min- Bill proposed by the committee,
istry :

Article I. Military or war debts of a

Artici.k I. landed property seized for public nature which, having been formed or

military reasons by previous governments contracted according to former ordinances,

without payment of indemnity, during were left unsettled by the established

the wars which prepared and completed governments of the former Italian states,

our national regeneration, and in those in which were succeeded in 1859,1860,1866,

which, at the commencement of the pres- 18/0, by the government of the kingdom

ent century, the provinces of the then of Italy, shall be paid by the governmeut

Italian Kingdom were desolated, if still of the King in bonds bearing interest at

held by the Italian government, shall be the rate of five per cent, per annum, such

restored by it in the condition in which it bonds to be received at their par value ex-

now is, or it shall be duly appraised and cept the debts provided for in the folio w-

payment therefor shall be made to those ing article.

who, furnishing proper legal evidence of Art. II. Debts of like nature left by the
their ownership of such property, shall provisional governments of 1848, and re-
furnish evidence at the same time of the qnisitions for which due evidence can be
date and of the manner of the seizure, furnished, which were made either by the
and also of the date of the claims for in- national troops in the wars of 1848 and
deinnity presented by them which shall 1849, or by Austria in the wars of 1859 and
have remained unsatisfied. 1866 in Lonnbardy aud in the Venetian

Akt. II. From the obligation of 4,749,000 and Mautuah territory, shall be paid in

nominal florins delivered by the Austro- bouds bearing interest at the rate of three

Hungarian government to the Italian gov- 'per cent, per annum, such bonds to be re-

ernment, in accordance with the terms of ceived at par.

article 2, of convention A, of January 6, Art. III. The government shall appoiut

1871, approved by law March 23, 1871, suitable commissions to investigate and

number 137, (second series,) a quota of settle the claims provided for by the pres-

634,000 florins, also nominal, shall be de- ent law.

ducted, to aid those citizens of the Lom- Persons having claims shall present the

ALIEN CLAIMS. 129

bardo- Venetian provinces whose condition same, with their documentary evidence, to
is now most indigent, and who may not the said commission within six mouths
have been indemnified for the requisitions from the date of the appointment of said
and other damages suffered by them in commission, which shall settle the same
consequence of the wars mentioned in the within one year from their presentation,
foregoing article, and who may be able to Art. IV. The present law shall not take
furnish proof of the damage, and to state effect in the case of those persons who may
the date of their claims presented without be unwilliug to abide by the provisions of
avail. its first aud second articles.

Art. III. Acommission composed of dele-
gates of the, provinces of Lombardy and
Venetia, one for each province, to be ap-
pointed by the provisional council, shall
have charge of the distribution of the sum,
as above provided for.

The commission shall be presided over
by the prefect of the city of Verona, and
shall sit there, and it may appoint one of
its members to execute its ord ers.

Opinion of the Italian council of state in relation to war-damages.

The section of finance, in its session of May 27, 1867, has considered :

That, in accordance with the jurisprudence already adopted by the former couucil of
state of Turin and enforced in various cases also by the kingdom of Italy, war-damages
which are caused by a direct act of war, and which therefore assume the character of
an accidental act performed in obedience to immediate necessity, cannot be considered
as giving a lawful title to claims for indemnity. This view has been accepted by th6
majority of writers on public law, and is founded upon the principle of vis major and of
inability to do otherwise on the part of the state, which has caused the damage only of
necessity and in the performance of its duty of self-defense, and therefore with a view
of benefiting rather than of injuring.

The juridical principle of vis major, which exempts the state from all responsibility,
does not interfere with the propriety of indemnities being granted by the Btate to those
who have suffered injury. This may be done from motives of equity and of political
expediency, but the two questions should not be confounded, and the idea is not to be
entertained that, where citizens are obliged to risk their lives in defense of their coun-
try, proprietors who, for the benefit of the same defense, may have suffered material
damages, can consider themselves as real creditors of the state and have ground to
bring an action for indemnity.

The principle referred to brings with it its own limitation — the damage done delib-
erately by the state, not under the immediate pressure of attack and at the moment of
the meeting of belligerent forces, when it may be said that there is no choice either of
time or place, since the determination of the place and time is a necessary consequence
of the movements of the enemy. All preparations which precede the war, and which
are ordered at a distance from the real field of action and only by way of providing for
the contingencies of war, have not in themselves that character of unavoidable neces-
sity which justifies the exclusion of persons who have suffered damage from all com-
pensation. Therefore, the injuries done by troops on the march, before the actual com-
mencement of the war, the demolition of buildings and the felling of trees around
fortresses not attacked by the enemy, the occupation of grounds and the erection of
temporary fortifications during an armistice, and similar acts, cannot be considered as
consequences of real acts of war ; it will therefore be proper in the§e cases to proceed
more cautiously and not to refuse offers looking to an equitable arrangement.

It is true that in some cases works of fortification and seizures made not under the
urgency of attack by the enemy may, in view of the rapidity and the complication of
strategical operations, assume a character of urgency and of inevitable necessity, but
a sure decision as to the nature of these acts can only be reached by an examination of
each individual case, and the council of state does not deem it possible to lay down an
immutable juridical rule which would be of value in all contingencies of this kind.
Therefore the fundamental principle has been kept in view which authorizes, nay,
obliges, the state to refuse indemnities for real damages of actual war, this principle
being one which contains' in itself the reasons for the exceptions.

The ministry, in all cases in which the presence and the urgency of the act of war is
not evident, which act leaves room neither for choice nor freedom nor responsibility,
and which is to be considered in all respects as similar acts and disasters caused by
nature, will be at liberty previously to collect such demands as may be of service in
estimating the amount of the damage done ; it may examine the intentions of the par-
ties claiming indemnity ; it may consider the uncertainty of the questions of law and
of fact, and before coming to an arraugemeut it will find it prudent to consult its legal

H. Eep. 134 9

130 ALIEN CLAIMS.

advisers or the council of state, winch, examining the act in all its bearings, w.ll be
able to estimate the probabilities of a settlement or of a juridical condemnation, and
to suggest in consequence the most convenient terms of an arrangement.

It is here proper to consider the method of estimating the damages. The ministry
has already wisely provided that, wherever it may be possible, the officers of the engi-
neer corps are to make a previous examination. The possibility of examining the
conditions of the soil or of the buildings previously to their transformation by military
operations, and to form an exact estimate of the nature of the works and the altera-
tions made for military purposes, is in itself an indication that that urgencyand that
instantaneity which transforms an unwarlike act into a case of vis major were wanting.

At the same time, these official verifications furnish the means of freeing the State
,/rom the annoyances of exaggerated demands and fictitious claims.

There is, moreover, another consideration. Injuries done in the excitement of war,
or by temporary works constructed in haste, are almost always of more immediate
importance in appearance than in reality, and in all respects similar to the injuries
done by a chance disaster, which only deprives the proprietor, in the majority of cases,
of the temporary use of bis property.

Very different are the damages done in pursuance of a premeditated design, as, for
example, those which result from the erection of permanent fortifications, which neces-
sarily attract acts of war, and subject the surrouuding territory to a kind of perpetual
servitude. It is true that the law with regard to military service has, in part, made
provision for this, but it is no less true that, when the general provisions of war or the
special provisions of strategy impose upon land-owners whose property is near, mili-
tary sacrifices which are not imposed by the ordinary service, it is proper to pay
greater regard to their claims, their situation being worse than that of the other pro-
prietors of the state. For this reason the council of state of Turin was of the opinion
that the claims of persons who had suffered injury in consequence of the felling of the
trees around the fortresses of Casale and Alessandria might be considered, and, on this
ground, the claims of property-owners, whose property was injured last year in the
neighborhood of the fortress of Piaceuza, might also be considered.

As to damages done by national troops on the march, these should certainly not be
considered as war-damages, and therefore compensation therefor should not be made
by those bodies and those commanders who, by not observing rigorous discipline,
injured the lands or the habitations of the citizens. But on this point the council of
state will speak more decidedly when all the facts shall have been laid before it, be-
cause, if the marches referred to took place when war was imminent, and under the
urgency of extraordinary orders, especially in regard to the time of arriving and the
direction to be taken, which orders were reasonably to be presumed to have been given
in consequence of the attitude of the hostile forces, it might be said that there were
not lacking some elements of vis major and of necessity, which might diminish the
responsibility of those who caused the damages.

SAPPA,
President of the Session.

B.
No. 800.

Lcgije per Vinslituzione della Corte dei conti del Regno d' Italia, 14 agosio 1862.
VITTORIO EMANUELE II,

PER GR/fcIA DI DIO E PER VOLONTA DELLA NAZIOXK RE D'lTALIA,

II Senato e la Camera dei Deputati hanno approvato ;
Noi abbiamo sanzionato e promulghiamo quanto segue:

TITOLO I.

DELL'lNSTITUZIONE E COMPOSIZIONE DELLA CORTE DEI CONTI.

Art. 1. E iustituita la Corte dei conti del Regno d'ltalia.

Art. 2. La Corte ha sede nella citta capitale del Regno ; e divisa in tre Sezioni e
composta di : Uu Presideute, Due President! di Sezione, Dodici Consiglieri, Un Procu-
rator generale, Un Segretario geuerale, Venti Ragionieri. II Procuratore geuerale rap-
presenta presso la Corte il Bubblico Ministero.

Art. 3. II Presidente della Corte, i Presidenti di Sezione e i Consiglieri souo nomi-
nati per Decreto Reale, proposto dal Ministro delle Finanze dopo deliuerazione del
Consiglio dei Ministri.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 131

Art. 4. I Presidenti e Consiglieri della Corte non potranno essere revocati, ne col-
looati d'ufficio in riposo, ne allontanati in qualsiasi altro modo, se non per Deoreto
Reale, col parere conformedi una Commissione composta dei Presidenti e Vice-Presi-
denti del Senato e della Camera dei Deputati.

La Commissione e presieduta dal Presidents del Senato, e conserva il sno ufficio
nell' iutervallo delle sessioni e delle legislature.

II parere della Commissione potra essere provocate dal Presidente della Corte o dal
Governo.

Art. 5. Le nomine, promozioni e rimozioni degli Impiegati della Corte e de'suoi
Ufflci di riBcontro e di revisioue sono fatte con Decreto Reale, a relazione del Miuistro
delle Finanze, sulla proposta della Corte a Sezioni riunite.

Art. 6. I Funzionari indicati nell'artioolo 2 hanno gli stipendi determinati nella
Tabella annessa alia presente Legge.

Per gli altri Impiegati della Corte sono applicate le norme stabilite per lAmminis-
trazione contrale.

Art. 7. La Corte delibera in via ordinaria per Sezioni separate.

Delibera a Sezioni riunite nei casi determinati dalla Legge e dai Regolamonti e
quando il Presidente lo reputa opportuuo.

Art. 8. Per le deliberazioni di ciascuna Sezione e necessario il numero dispari di
votanti non minore di cinque.

Per le deliberazioni della Corte in Sezioni riunite e necessario il numero dispari di
votanti non minore di nove.

La Corte e le Sezioni deliberano a maggiorita assoluta di voti.

Art. 9. I Ragionieri hanno voto deliberative negli affari soltanto dei qnali sono
relatori.

Possouo essere chiamati dal Presidente a supplire ai Consiglieri che sieno assenti od
impediti, e in questo caso hanno pure voto deliberative.

II numero dei Ragionieri non sara maggiore di due nelle singole Sezioni, ne di tre
nelle Sezioni riunite.

TITOLO II.

DELLE ATTRIBUZIONI DELLA. CORTE DEI CONTI.

Art. 10. La Corte, in conformita della Legge e dei Regolamenti :

Fa il riscontro delle spese dello Stato ;

Veglia alia riscossione delle pubbliche entrate ;

Veglia perche la gestione degli Agenti dello Stato in denaro o in materia sia assicurata
don cauzione o col sindacato di speciali Revisori ;

Accerta e confronta i conti dei Ministeri col conto gerierale deHAmministrazione
celle Finanze prima che sieno presentati alle Camere.

Giudica dei conti che debbono rendere tutti coloro che hanno manneggio di denaro
o di altri valori dello Stato e di altre pubbliche Ammiuistrazioni designate dalle Leggi.

Art. 11. La Corte liquida le pensioni competenti per Legge a carico dello Stato, e in
caso di richiamo ne giudica deflnitivamente in Sezioni riunite colle forme prescritte
per la sua giurisdizione contenziosa.

Art. 12. Oltre le attribuzioni couferite dalla presente Legge, la Corte dei conti
esercita tutte quelle altre che le sono conferite da Leggi speciali.

Art. 13. Tutti i Decreti Reali, qualunque sia il Miuistero da cui emanano e qualunque
ne sia l'obbietto, sono presentati alia Corte perche vi si appouga il visto, e ne sia fatta
registrazione.

Art. 14. Ove la Corte riconosca contrario alle Leggi od ai Regolamenti alcuno degli
atti o decreti che le vengono presentati, ricusera il suo visto con deliberazione motivata.
La deliberazione sara trasmessa dal Presidente al Miuistro cui spetta, e, quando questo
persista, sarapresa in esame dal Consiglio dei Ministri.

Se esso risolvera che 1'atto o decreto debba aver corso, la Corte sara chiamata a de-
liberare, e qualora la medesima non riconosca cessata la cagioue del ririuto, ne ordi-
nera la registrazione e vi apporrii il visto con riserva.

Art. 15. La risponsabilita dei Ministri non viene mai meno in qualsiasi caso per ef-
fetto della registrazione e del visto della Corte.

Art. 16. La Corte ha diritto di chiedere ai Ministri, alle Amministrazionl ed agli
Agenti che da esse dipendono, le informazioni e i documenti che si riferiscono alle ris-
cossioni e alle spese, e tutte le notizie e i documenti necessari all'esercizio delle sue
attribuzioni.

Art. 17. La Corte prende nota e da avviso ai Ministri di tutte le infrazioni alle
Leggi ed ai Regolamenti dell'Ammiuistrazione dello Stato che le occorre di rilevare
Del compiere le sue incombenze.

Art. 18. La Corte in genuaio di ogiii anno communica agli Uffici di Presidenza del
Senato e della Camera dei Deputati l'elenco delle registrazioni eseguite an riserva,
accompagnato dalle deliberazioni relative.

132 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Capitolo I.
Del risoontro delle spese.

Abt. 19. Sono preseutati alia Corte dei oonti, perche vi apponga il visto e li faocia
trascrivere nei suoi registri, tutti i Decreti coi quali si approvano contratti o si autoriz-
zano spese, qualunque ne sia la forma e la natura, e tutti gli atti di nomina, promo-
zione o trasferimento d'impiegati, e quelli coi quali si danno stipendi, pensioni od altri
aBsegnanienti a oarico dello Stato.

Sono ecoettuati i decreti e gli atti coi quali si concedono indennita, o retribuzioni
per una sola volta, non eccedenti le lire 2,000.

Art. 20. I mandati e gli ordini di pagamento debbono coi documenti giustificativi
essere sottoposti alia registrazione e al visto debbano precedere il pagamento e i casi
nei quali possano a quello succedere.

Determina il modo col quale la Corte fa il riscontro dello spese direttamente, o per
mezzo di Uffiei da essa dipendenti o da suoi Delegati.

Art. 21. La Corte vigila perche le spese non superino le somme staDziate nei bilan-
cio e queste si applichino alle spese prescritte, perche non si faccia trasporto di somme
non consentito per Legge e perche la liquidazione e il pagamento delle spese eieno con-
formi alle Leggi e ai Eegolamenti.

Capitolo II.
Delia vigilanza sulla riscossione delle entrate e sui valori in denaro o in materie.

Art. 22. I Ministri trasinettono alia Corte, dopo verificati dalle Amministrazioni, i
prospetti delle riscossioni e dei pagamenti eke si fanno dagli Agenti del Governo nei
corso dell'esercizio.

Art. 23. Si trasmettono ancora alia Corte i conti delle Casse delle Stato colla indi-
cazione dei valori e del modo col quale sono rappresentati.

Art. 24. Sono trasmesse alia Corte le relazioni degl'Ispettori o di altri Ufficiali inca-
ricati del sindacato, e quelle colle quali ciascuna Amministrazione, nei rendere il conto
annuale delle sue entrate, ne giustifica il risultamento.

Art. 25. Eguali trasmissioni debbono* farsi alia Corte relativamente alle entrante
ed uscite, alle situazioni ed alle ispezioni dei magazzini ed alia gestione degli Agenti
del Governo che hanno il maneggio di materie o valori dello Stato.

Capitolo III.
Delia vigilanza della Corte in ordine alle cauzioni.

Art. 26. Per l'esercizio della vigilanza commessa alia Corte debbono le varie Ammi-
nistrazioni trasmetterle l'elenco delle cauzioni dovute dagli Agenti dello Stato, come
pure l'elenco degli Ufficiali sindacatori che debbono invigilare gli altri non tenuti a
dare cauzione.

Art. 27. Gli atti coi quali si approvano le cauzioni sono sottoposti al visto della
Corte.

E parimente necessario il visto della Corte per gli atti di riduzione, trasporto o cancel-
lazione delle cauzioni stesse.

Capitolo IV.

Dell'esame dei conti dei Ministri.

Art. 28. II conto che ciascun Ministro deve rendere al termine di ogni esercizio e il
conto .generale dell' Amministrazione delle Finanze, prima che siano presentati all'ap-
provazione delle Camere, sono dal Ministro di Finanza trasmessi alia Corte dei conti.

Art. 29. La Corte verifiea il conto di ciascun Ministro e quello" dell' Amministrazione
generale delle Finanze, e ne confronta i risultamenti tanto per le entrate, quanto per
le spese, ponendoli a riscontro colle Leggi del bilancio.

Verifiea se i risultamenti speciali e generali dei conti corrispondono a quelli dei conti
particolari di ciascuna Amministrazione e di ogni Agente incaricato delle riscossioni e
dei pagamenti.

Verifiea ancora, quando lo reputa necessario, i vari articoli e le partite dei conti, e
domanda i documenti dei quali ha bisogno.

Art. 30. La Corte trasmette al Ministro delle Finanze i conti colla sua deliberazione.

Art. 31. Sara unita alia deliberazione suddetta, e con essa presentata al parlameuto
a corredo del progetto di legge per l'assesto definitivo del Bilancio, una relazione della
Corte, colla quale deve esporre :

Le ragioni per le quali ha apposto con riservo il suo visto a mandati o ad altri atti
o decreti ;

Le sue osservazioni intorno al modo eol quale le varie Amministrazioni si sono con-
formate alle discipline d'ordine amministrativo o finanziario ;

Le Variazioni o le riforme che crede opportune pel perfezionamento delle Leggi e dei
Eegolamenti sull' Amministrazione e sui conti del pubblico denaro.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 133

Art. 32. La verificazioue e l'acoertamento dei conti dei ministri e del conto dell'Am-
ministrazione geuerale delle finanze e la deliberazione per 1'asResto definitivo del bi-
lancio, come pure la relazione dl oui all'artioolo precedente, sono fatte dalla Corte a
sezioni riunite.

CAPITOLO V.

Del giudizio sui coiiii.

Art. 33. La Corte dei conti giudica con ginrisdizione conteuziosa dei conti dei Teso-
rieri, dei Eicevitori, dei Cassieri e degli Agenti incaricati di riscuotere, di pagare, di
conservare e di nianeggiare denaro pubblico, o di tenere in custodia valori e materie di
proprieta dello Stato.

Giudica pure dei conti dei Tesorieri ed Agenti di altre pubbliche Amministrazione,
per quanto le spetti, a termini di Leggi speciali.

Art. 34. La Corte giudica in prima ed ultima istanza dei conti dei Tesorieri, dei Ei-
cevitori, dei Cassieri e degli altri Agenti dell'Amministrazione dello Stato.

Pronunzia in seconda istanza sopra gll appelli dalle deoisioni dei Consigli di Prefet-
tura intorno ai giudizi dei conti di loro competenza.

Art. 35. La presentazione del conto costituisce l'Agente dell'Amministrazione in giu-
dizio.

II giudizio pu6 essere iniziato dietro istanza del pubblico ministero, per decreto della
Corte da notificarsi all'ageute dell'Amministrazione, con la fissazione di un termine a
presentare il conto nei casi :

a) Di cessazione degli Agenti dell'Amministrazione dal loro ufficio ;

6) Di deficienze accertate dall'Amministrazione;

c) Di ritardo a presentare i conti nei termini stabiliti per Legge o per Eegolamento.

Art. 36. Spirato il termine stabilito dalla Corte, questa, citato l'Agente dell'Ammi-
nistrazione, ad istanza del pubblico ministero, potra condannarlo, a ragione della mora,
ad una pena pecuniaria non maggiore della meta degli stipendi, degli aggi e delle in-
dennita al medesimo dovute, e quando esso non goda di stipendi, di aggi e di indem-
nity potra condannarlo al pagamento di una somma non maggiore di L. 2,000. Potra
pur anche, secondo la gravita dei casi, proporne al ministro da cui dipende la sospen-
sione ed anche la destituzione.

Queste disposizioni s'intenderanno applicabili senza pregindizio dei provvedimenti
d'ordine, di vigilanza e di cautela, i quali competano ai Capi delle rispettive Amminis-
trazioni.

Nei caso che l'Agente persista nella sua renitenza a dare il conto, questo, per Decreto
della Corte. ad istanza del Pubblico Ministero, sara fatto compilare a spese dell'Agente.

Art. 37. Le osservazioni della Corte intorno al conto saranno notiflcate all'Agente al
domicilio reale o nei luogo della sua residenza, iu conformita delle Leggi civili vigenti,
per mezzo del Capo dell'Amministrazione da cui dipende.

Egll pub presentare le sue giustificazioni nei modo e nei termini stabiliti nei Eego-
lamento di procedura dei giudizi della Corte.

Art. 38. Se nell'esame del conto la Corte osservi che siano ad alcuno imputabili atti
di concussione, di frode, o di falsificazione, ni referira col mezzo del Procuratore gene-
rale al Ministro di Grazia e Giustizia ed a quello da cui dipende l'Amministrazione o
l'Agente, affinche si proceda, secondo le Leggi, per la punizione del reo.

Art. .39. I giudizi sui conti sono pubblici. Sara senipre sentito il Pubblico Ministero.

Art. 40. Quando la Corte riconosca che i conti furono saldati, o si bilanciano in
fayore dell'Agente dell'Amministrazione, pronuncia il discarico del medesimo e la li-
berazione, ove occorra, della cauzione e la cancellacione delle ipotecke. Nei caso op-
posto, liquida il debito dell'Agente, e pronunzia, ove occorra, la condanna al paga-
mento.

Art. 41. L'Agente pub opporsi alle decisioni della Corte nei termine di trenta giorni
dalla notiiicazioue in persona o al suo domicilio per mezzo dell'Amministrazione da cui
dipende.

Non si ammettono opposizioni allorche la condanna riguardi partite del conto, alle
quah si riferiscono le osservazioni notifieate all'Agente nei modo indicato all'articolo 37.

II giudizio sulle opposizioni non sospendera l'esecuzione della decisione, eccetto i
casi nei quali la sospensione sia ordinata dalla Corte, sentito il Pubblico Ministero,
prima di passare al giudizio del merito.

Art. 42. Le decisioni della Corte potranno essere impuguate soltanto coi rimedi stra-
ordinari :

a) Del ricorso per aunullamento ;

6) Del ricorso per rivocazione.

Essi si possono esperimentare tanto dall'Ageate, quanto dal Pubblico Ministero.

In nessun caso sospendono l'esecuzione delle decisioni impugnate.

Art. 43. II ricorso per annullamento e ammesso soltanto per motivo di eccesso di po-
tere, o d'incompetenza per ragione di materia.

Esso si presenta al Consiglio di Stato nei termine di tre mesi dalla notificazione della
decisione, con le forme stabilite dalla Legge e dai Eegolamenti sui Consiglio di Stato.

134 ALIEN CLAIMS.

La decisione del Consiglio sara presa in Sezioni Tiunite e sara dal suo Presidente
partecipata alia Corte.

Se la decisione della Corte e annullata, questa si uniforroa alle massime di diritto
stabilite dal Consiglio.

Art. 44. L'Agente ha dirilto di ricorrere alia Corte per revooazione nel termine di
tre anni quando:

a) Vi sia stato errore di fatto o di calcolo ;

T>) Per l'esame di altri conti o per altro modo si sia rieonosciuta omissione o doppio
impiego ;

c) Si siano rinvenuti nuovi documenti dopo pronunoiata la decisione ;

d) II giudizio sia stato pronunziato sopra documenti falsi.

II giudizio di rivocazione sara sempre preceduto da deliberazione della Corte sul-
l'ammissione del ricorso, sentito il Pubblico Ministero.

Negli ultimi tre casi, scorsi tre anni, il ricorso in rivocazione dovra presentarsi nel
termine di giorni 30 dal riconoscimento della omissione o doppio impiego, dalla scoperta
di nuovi documenti, o dalla notizia venuta al ricorrente della dichiarazione di falsita
dei documenti, salvi tuttavia gli effetti della prescrizione trentennaria.

Art. 45. Nel caso e nel termine indicati nell'articolo precedente, la rivocazione potra
anche aver luogo d'ufficio, o sulla istanza del Pubblico Ministero, in contraddittorio
dell'Agente contabile.

Art. 46. La rivocazione della decisione non ha effetto che per la parte del conto
dichiarata erronea e per le conseguenti rettificazioni.

Art. 47. Le decisioni della Corte saranno trasmesse a cura del Pubblico Ministero,
per la loro esecuzione, al Ministro dal quale dipende l'Agente.

Art. 48. Per l'esecuzione delle decisioni della Corte saranno applicabili le norme di
competenza, i mezzi e le forme stabilite dalla Legge per la riscossione dei tributi diretti.

Spettera tuttavia alia Corte il giudizio sulle questioni di interpretazione delle sue
decisioni.

TITOLO III.

DISPOSIZIONI GBNERALI E TRANSITORIE.

Art. 49. Con Regio Decreto a proposizione del Ministro delle Finanze, sentita la
Corte dei conti, saranno stabilite :

a) Le forme del procedimento nei giudizi della Corte ;

b) Le norme da seguirsi per la verificazione e per l'accertamento dei conti del-
l'Ammini8trazione.

Art. 50. La Corte dei conti a Sezioni riunite determinera con Eegolamento provvi-
sorio le forme, con le quali essa deve procedere nell'esercizio delle sue attribuzioni non
contenziose fino all'emanazione di una Legge sulla materia.

II Presidente della Corte provvedera con Eegolamento alia disciplina ed al servizio
interno degli Uffici e della Segretaria della Corte, agli Uscieri, alle spese d'ufficio e a
quanto altro sara necessario per l'esecuzione della presente Legge.

Art. 51. Le Corti dei conti, attualmente sedenti in Torino, in Firenze, in Napoli ed in
Palermo sono abolite. Nulla e iunovato in riguardo alle Sezioni del Contenzioso am-
ministrativo in Napoli ed in Palermo, finche non sia proveduto con Legge generale
sulla materia.

Art. 52. Commissioni temporanee nominate con Decreti Eegi, a proposizione del
Ministro delle Finanze, condurranno a teriniue in Torino, in Firenze, in Napoli ed in
Palermo la revisione dei conti ohe riguardano gli anni 1861 e i precedenti.

Sara nello stesso modo provveduto alia liquidazione e revisione dei conti arretrati
che si riferiscono agli esercr/i anteriori a quello del 1860, i" quali erano di competenza
della Camera dei conti sedente in Parma.

Le deliberazioni delle suddette Commissioni saranno depositate negli Archivi della
Corte dei conti.

La trattazione degliaffari jn corso presso la Corte dei conti di Torino sara, senza in-
terruzione e senza che occorrano nuovi atti, ripresa e continuata dalla Corte dei conti
del Eegno, colle forme stabilite dalla presente Legge.

Art. 53. Finche non sia pubblicata una Legge generale sulle pensioni, la Corte dei
conti si atterra per le medesime alle norme tuttora vigenti per le diverse Provincie del
Eegno.

Art. 54. La presente Legge andra in vigore venti giorni dopo la sua promulgazione.

Ordiniamo che la presente, munita del sigillo dello Stato, sia inserta nella raccolta
ufficiale delle Leggi e dei Decreti del Eegno d'ltalia, mandando a cbiunque spetti di
osservarla e di farla osservare come Legge dello Stato.

Dato a Torino addl 14 Agosto 1862.

VITTOEIO EMANUELE.

[Luogo del sigillo.]

V.Il Guardasigilli,
E. Conform.

QUINTINO SELLA.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 135

Tabella degli atipendi.

Presidents Z. 15, 000

President! di Sezlone 12,000

Consiglieri e Procuratore generale 9,000

Segretario generale 8.000

RaD-innifiri 5 di 1" olasse 6,000

Kagiomen | di 2 a cla8se % 5 ; 000

Visto d'ordine di S. M.
II Ministro delle Fitmnze,

QUINTINO SELLA.

No. 99.

Sessione 1871-72, Sucoxda deixa XI Legislatura. — Camera dei Deputati.

Progetto di legge presentato dal Ministro delle finanze (Sella) nella tomato, del 1° aprile 1871
riprodotto nella tornata del 17 aprile 1872.

INDENNITA PER DANNI DI GUERKA. 1

Signori! — Risollevata in una discussions recentela questions dei dannidi guerra, io
prometteva di preseutare su questa materia un progetto di legge, che fosse quale
sarebbe risnltato piti oonveniente dagli studi fatti dall'arnniinistrazione. A tale pro-
messa io confesso di non saper soddisfare in modo migliore, che portando nnovauiente
innanzi a voi il progetto di legge gia presentato nella tornata del 1° aprile 1871.

La quistione pare a me molto ardua e molto grave per le sue conseguenze finanziarie.
Io vi indico una soluzione la quale mentre da un lato soddisfa talune domande per
ogni rispetto incontestabili, e da modo di sopperire ai piil stringent! bisogni di-chi per
danni patiti nelle guerre che prepararono e compirono il nazionale risorgimento,
dall'altro circoscrive l'onere della fianza entro limiti che non possano comprometterne
l'andamento. Resta ora al Parlamento alia cui sagacia ninno degli aspetti del gravis-
sinio problema da risolversi sfuggira, il vedere quale deliberazione sia a prendersi.

PROGETTO DI LEGGE.

Art. 1. I fondi per ragioni militari dai preoedenti Governi espropriati, senza paga-
mento d'indennita, nelle guerre che prepararono e compierono il nostro nazionale
risorgimento, corae in quelle onde furono funestate nell'entrare del secolo le provincie
del primo regno italico, quando sieno tenuti tuttora dal Governo italiano, saranno da
esso restituiti nello stato in cui si trovano attualmente, o ne sara pagato il prezzo di
stima a coloro che, giustificando nei modi legali la proprieta del fondo, dimostreranno
insieme il tempo ed il modo dell'espropriazione, e la data della domanda o delle
domande d'indennita rimaste insoddisfatte.

Art. 2. Dalla obbligazione di 4,749,000 fiorini nominali, rimessa dal Governo austro-
ungarico al Governo italiano ai termini dell'articolo 2 della convenzione A del 6 gen-
naio 1871 approvata con legge del 23 marzo anno medesimo, nnmero 137 (serie seconda),
sara prelevata una quota parte di fiorini 634,000 del pari nominali, per sovvenire ai
cittadini delle provincie lombardo-venete di piu ristretta condizione di fortuna, che
non fossero stati indennizzati delle requisizioni ed altri danni per essi sofferti a causa
delle guerre menzionate nell'articola precedente, e che fossero d'altronde in grado di
fornire la prova del danno e indicare la data dei reclami presentati senza risnltato.

Art. 3. Del reparto della somma come sopra stabilita e incaricata una Commissione
composta di delegati delle provincie della Lombardia e della Venezia, uno per ciasche-
duna provincia, nomiDato dal rispettivo Cousiglio proviuciale.

La Commissione sara presieduta dal prefetto della citta di Verona, dove avra la sua
sede; e potra fra i suoi componenti, nominare na Comitato per la esecuzioue delle
sue deliberazioni.

No. 90.

Sessione 1870-71, prima deixa XI Legislatura. — Camera dei Deputati.

Progetto di Legge presentato dal Ministro delle Finanze (Sella) nella tornata del 1° aprile 1871.

INDENNITA PER DANNI DI GUERRA.

Signoki ! — Le convenzioni fiuanziarie, conclusecoll'impero austro-ungarieo in esecu-
zione del trattato di pace del 3 ottobre 1866, richiamavano l'attenzione vostra all'arduo

■Vedi Sessione 1870-71, Stampati n° 90.

136 ALIEN CLAIMS.

problema : se debba, o possa lo Stato, assnmere 1'onere gravissimo di restaurare ai cit-
tadiDi, agli enti morali, ai comuni e alle provincie, che lo Stato compongono, i danni
per essi sofferti nelle varie vicende militari e politiche che travagliarono il paese nostro,
prima ch'egii potesse, per tale preparazione di calamita e di sacrifizi, conquistare le pre-
senti sue condizioni di unita e d'indipendenza.

II problema rnedesimo, se non nell'attuale integrita sua, pure parzialraente, ora pel
questa, ora per quella provincia. ed ora per una, ora per altra specie di danni, gift pifl
volte fu posto, e piu. volte fu argdlnento di discussione nel Parlamento suba'pino e nel
nostro ; se nou cue mai ad altro fu possibile di prevenire, cbe a soccorere alcuna volta,
a titolo di umanita e di equita, quelli cbe piti avevano sofferto e che piu erano biso-
gnosi di aiuto ; e a dimostrare seiupre come al desiderio vivissimo, manifestato dal Go-
verno e dal Parlameuto, di risarcire a tutti ogni danno, fosse impari la potenza di farjo.

Questo che fu il risultamento costante delle prove anteriori, due cose apertamente fli-
mostra ; la prima che per la massima parte, e quasi per la totalita di quei danni, non
avevano i danneggiati diritto civilraente esperibile verso lo Stato per ottenerne il
risarcimento ; la seconda che siamo in tale materia, nella quale i rapporti che interct-
dono fra i danneggiati e il Governo, invece di essere privati rapporti da creditori a
debitore, sono rapporti di indole pubblica da Governo a governati ; rapporti che tro-
vano la norma loro nei cauoui di giustizia distributiva, come nelle ragioni di convenienza
politica.

I quali due caratteri anche piti manifesti appariscono per la estensione che acquista
oggi il problema. Quando cioe gli obblighi dello Stato debbono considerarsi rispetto
a tutte indistintameute le provincie del regDO ; e non soltanto pei danni cagionati dalle
guerre del 1859 e 1866, ma anehe per quelli che furono conseguenza della guerra e delle
politiche vicende del 1848 e 1849 ; e per quelli piu reinoti ancora che le guerre del primo
impero arrecarono alle provincie della Lombardia e della Venezia, e pei quali in ordine
al trattato del 25 aprile 1818, furono dalla Francia pagati all'Austria 25 milioni di
franchi.

E quando inoltre i medesimi obblighi dello Stato debbono considerarsi anche dal
puuto di vista della successione del Governo italiano all'austriaco, per cui convien de-
finire da quale specie di vincolo obbligatorio possa il Governo italiano essere tennto ;
sia a pagare quelle indennita cbe l'austriaco non pagava, comunque avesse ricevuto un
compenso, dalla Francia per le guerre del primo impero, e dalla Sardegna per quelle
del 1848 e 1849 ; sia a risarcire ad un tempo, per le guerre del 1859 e 1866 ; i danni di-
rettamente inferiti dalle milizie proprie, come quelli inferiti dalle milizie del nemico
che combatteva, ed al quale e dipoi succeduto.

II complessivo amnion tare di quei danni, per le indagini cbe sin qui e stato possibile
di fare, ma che non potrebbero con assoluta certezza dichiararsi esaurite, importerebbe
una somma superiore a 114 milioni di lire ; e se non tutti, una buona parte pero sarebbero
danni accertati e liquidati per opera di Coinmissioni create in tempi diversi, le quali,
per essere sopraffatte dal numero ognora crescente di reclami e di domande, cui parvero
sempre inferiori le condizioni flnanziarie dello Stato, dovettero cessare prima di avere
condotto a termine i loro lavori.

Cio apparisce dal prospetto uuito alia presente relazione con tutti gli allegati di cor-
redo ; che sono appunto i rapporti delle menzionate Commissioni. Unire altri docu-
menti sarebbe impossibile, a meno che non volesse darsi comunicazione della immensa
congerie di carte giacenti in diversi archivi del regno, cbe coutengono le domande colle
aunesse giustificazioni degl'interessati : comunicazione la quale, mentre riuscirebbe
affatto illusoria per la impossibilita dell'esame in cui si troverebbe la Camera, sarebbe
per essa anche inutile, potendo dagl'indicati rapporti raccogliere dati phi che sufficienti
a giudicare, cosi della origine, comrae della indole .dei proposti titoli d'indennita.

Una buona parte della somma dei danni che in quel prospetto figura, consta di quelli
cbe avrebbe dovuto risarcire il Governo austriaco, o per avere gia ottenuto somine a
tale oggetto, o per esserne stato egli stesso l'autore. I titoli di questi danni, o che essi
si riferiscano alle gnerre del primo impero francese, o a quelle del 1848 e 1849, o alle
ultime del 1859 e 1866, sono presso a poco i medesimi : forniture e sommimstrazioni di
viveri, requisizioni militari, espropriazioni di terreui, occupazioni temporanee d'irnmo-
bili, abbattimento di alberi e di fabbricati intorno alle fortificazioni, e danni di guerra
in genere.

Ma quale che sia il titolo di questi danni, due cose principalmente con viene esaminare
per riconoscere quale essere potrebbe il debito odierno del Governo italiano rispetto ai
medesimi ; conviene cioe esaminare che cosa avrebbero potuto attendere i danneggiati
dal Governo austriaco se egli avesse dnrato nelle provincie della Lombardia e della
Venezia ; e di quale indole sia l'obbligazione che il Governo nazionale, come succeduto
nella sovranit& di quelle provincie, potrebbe avere di corrispondere le indennita dal-
l'Austria non soddisfatte.

Al prirno quesito rispoude l'esperienza della lunga dominazione austriaca nelle dette
provincie, che pur lasciava iusoluta molta parte del debito, che per danni di guerra
1' Austria aveva verso le medesime, in ordine alia convenzione del 25 aprile 1818 colla
Francia, e quasi tutto cio che era relativo al primo degli articoli addizionali al trattato

ALIEN CLAIMS. 137

di Milano del 6 agosto 1849 oolla Sardegna. Alia quale maucata soddisfazione concor-
sero le norme giuridiche seguite dal Governo austriaco in tale materia.

Per l'Austria quei trattati, ed il pagamento delle somme nei medesimi convenute,
avevano beusl esonerato la Franeia come la Sardegna da qualunque responsabilita per
titolo di danni di gnerra verso i sudditi suoi delle proviucie lombardo-venete, ma ad
essa stessa nessun obbligo avevano imposto ; mettendola unicamente in grado d'inden-
nizzare i sudditi medesimi nel modo e nella misura clie avesse creduto piu conveniente.
Per essa la materia dei daimi di guerra era di conipetenza esclusivamente politica, ri-
messa in tutto al discrete arbitrio del Governo, non solo pei principii generali di gius
pubblico, ma auche per esplicita disposizione del suo Codice civile, cosl formulata nel-
l'articolo 1044 : " La ripartizione dei danni di guerra viene regolata dalle autorita
politiche dietro norme speciali."

Prevalendosi pertanto il Governo austriaco di nn simile arbitrio nel reparto delle in-
deunita di guerra ai sudditi delle provincie del regno lombardo-veneto, pose a carico
delle provineie stesse, almeno per la guorra degli anni 1848 e 1849, la liquidazione come
il pagamento della corrispondente indennita per le requisizioni di ogni specie fatte
dalle truppe austriaohe ; quanto poi alle altre categorie di danui poco avanti enunciate
detto tali norme, ora con decreti ministeriali, ora con ordinanze, ora con istruzioni am-
ministrative, per le quali molte di quelle categorie rimanevano escluse da qualunque
compenso ; ed anche per le categorie ammesse si faceva distinzione da persona a per-
sona, accoglieudo le domande dei devoti alia dinastia ed al Governo, e respingendo
quelle di coloro che di esser tali non avessero opinione. Da cid provenne, che dell'im-
meuso numero delle domande presentate alle Commissioni istituite dal Governo austri-
aco per la liquidazione delle indennita, la massima parte vennero respinte ; e l'ammis-
sione delle altre, se si eccettuano quelle di coloro che reclamavano per espropriazione
d'immobili, fu piuttosto concessione di favore a persoue benaffette, che recognizione di
un giusto titolo d'indennita. Una parte poi di quelle domande rimase senza esame e
senza liquidazione ; imperocche quelle Commissioni, che gia da molto tempo avevano una
vita piuttosto apparente clie reale, furono disciolte prima che avessero completamente
esaurito il com ito loro.

Pel Governo austriaco la partita dei danni cagionati dalle guerre del 1813 e 1814, e
da quelle del 1848 e 1849, sarebbe stata dunque partita salclata. E dovendo argomentare
dai fatti precedenti e dalle norme giuridiche, ormai stabilite, onde erano informati, nou
vi e ragione alcuna per supporre che nerla ipotesi indicata avrebbe l'Austria tenuto di-
verso sistema rispetto ai danni delle guerre del 1859 e 1866. Quando pertanto si dovesse
partire dal concetto che gli obblighi del Governo austriaco sieno passati per successione
nel Governo nazionale, converrebbe proporre il quesito : se i sudditi delle provincie
lombardo-venete, rivendicati in liberta, possano esigere dal secondo piu di quello che
avrebbero ottenuto dal primo, rimanendo in servitu dell'Austria.

Nel quale argomento, ancorche voglia prescindersi dal compenso che essi avrebbero
trovato nelle mutate condizioni politiche, e facile il concludere che il Governo nazionale,
pur rifiutando la eredita in tutta quella parte che risguarda le norme direttive segnate
dal Governo austriaco al reparto delle indennita, dovrebbe pero accettarla, per neces-
sity logica e giuridica, in quella parte che si riferisce al diritto pubblico vigente nel-
l'impero; per il quale la materia dei danni di guerra era materia di competenza politica,
rimessa all'arbitrio discrezionale delle politiche autorita, per essere regolata secondo i
canoni di giustizia distribntiva, tenuto conto ad un tempo delle ragioni di politica con-
venienza. Talebe la posizione dei reclamanti per danni di guerra, quale era rispetto al
Governo austriaco, tale dovrebbe essere rispetto al Governo italiano che a quello e suc-
ceduto. E come rispetto al primo quei rapporti, inyece di essere rapporti di diritto
civile privato, erano rapporti politicojamministrativi da Governo a governanti, che non
davano ai reclamanti stessi azione civilmente esperibile avanti i tribunali ; tali dovreb-
bero essere rispetto al secondo, quando si consideri come erede degli obblighi che aveva
il Governo austriaco.

L'unica eccezione potrebbe essere per quelli dei reclamanti che ripetessero un fondo,
gia occupato per ragioni militari e tuttora detenuto dal Governo, e che abbandonando
qualunque pretesa che appellasse a danui di guerra, sia per frutti perduti, sia per de-
terioramenti dal fondo sofferti, limitassero la loro domanda alia restifcuzione del fondo
o al pagamento del prezzo di stima; imperocche in questo caso il rapporto di diritto
civile, come l'azione corrispondente per farlo valere, sorgerebbero dal fatto stesso della
detetizione. Ma questa sarebbe oggi una eccezione pel Governo italiano, perche lo era
ugualmente e per la medesima ragione rispetto al Governo austriaco ; il quale da cio
appunto era mosso a dare piu facile accoglienza alle domande di coloro che reclamavano
per espropriazione di immobili.

Se nou che per altro principio di ragione si verrebbe, rispetto al Goveruo italiano, alle
conclusioni medesime: per un principio che sorgerebbe non piu dalla indole speciale
dell'obbligo per successione trasmesso, ma dal fatto stesso della successione del Go-
verno italiano al Governo austriaco; che essendo successione di Stato a Stato, non im-
porta necessariamente, come le succession! dei privati cittadini, la ricognizione di tutti
indistiutami-nte i debiti dello Stato antico. La regola che il nuovo Stato suecede, come

138 ALIEN CLAIMS.

nei diritti, cosi nelle obbligazioni dell'antieo, non e del giure privato, ma 6 una regola
di diritto pubbiico internazionale, subordinata nella sua applicazione alle supreme
ragioni di neeessita e di convenienza politica, delle quali i soli poteri sovrani dello Stato
possono essere i giudici. Da cio proviene ohe le obbligazioni dello Stato antico non di-
vengono pel imovo obbligazioni perfette contro di esso eivilmeute esperibili, finche dal
nuovo Governo non sieno state rioonosoiute, ed i creditori non abbiano acquistato, per
la legge di ricognizione, quel titolo civile che verso il nuovo Stato ad essi mancava.

Questa massima ohe non e solamente di gius pubbiico, ma che e passata ormai nella
giurisprudenza dei tribunali nostri, e confermata inoltre solennemente dalle consuetu-
dini del regno e del Parlamento; non pocbi essendo gli atti governativi come gli atti
legislativi emanati in diverse occassioni per ricouoscere diversi debiti dei precedenti
Governi ; e principale Ira gli altri la legge del 4 agosto 1861 che riconosceva e diehiarava
debiti del regno d'ltalia una parte dei debiti consolidati di quei Governi, riservando a
leggi speciali lo statuire sugli altri che rimanevano, contratti sotto la medesima forma
o sotto forma diveraa.

Cio dimostra come, non solo pei danni di guerra delle provincie lombardo-venete,
ma anche per quelli delle altre provincie d'ltalia, che fignrano nel prospetto unito alia
presente relazione, i rapporti, dei reclamanti verso il Governo abbiano essi pure la
medesima indole politica di rapporti da Govorno a governati, essi pure definibili
secondo le nornie di giustizia distributiva e secondo le ragioni di convenienza politica.

Evidente e un tale carattere per gl'imprestiti forzosi nazionali che figurano per som-
ma ingentissima in quel prospetto e che furono decretati nei rivolgimenti politici del
1821 in Napoli, e in quelli del 1848 e 1849 in Napoli ugualmente, come lo furono del pari
nella Lombardia e nella Venezia dai rispettivi Governi provvisori, e in Ronia dal Go-
verno della repubblica romana. Rispetto ai quali imprestiti conviene inoltre nofare che,
quando pure possibilita vi fosse di riconoscere, anche parzialmente, il debito, forse la
massima parte del sacririzio che per tal modo s'imporrebbe al paese, piuttosto che res-
taurare i danni di coloro che effettivamente li soffersero, potrebbe servire di premio a chi
sui danni e sulla miBeria altrui avesse speculate.

II medesimo carattere e del pari evidente pei reclaim che si riferiscono a confische di
beni sofferte da condaunati politici nelle provincie di Modena e Eeggio durante il Go-
verno del ducca, o a pensioni che sarebbero dovute ad impiegati ugualmente per causa
politica destituiti, o se, non ad essi, ai figli ed alle vedove loro : essendo inoltre evidente
come questa categoria di danni crescerebbe in grandi proporzioni, se il Governo na-
zionale dovesse oggi indennizzare quanti avessero per avventura avuto pregiudizio dai
Governi anteriori.

Quanto al credito di diversi comuni della Toscana pel mantenimento delle truppe
austriache dal 1849 al 1855, ch'esso non dia ai detti comuni azione civilmente esperibile
contro il Governo, e ohe la competenza di statuire e risolvere in proposito appartenga
al potere legislativo anziche al giudiziario, lo ha gia deciso il Consiglio di Stato, pro-
nunziando sul conflitto di attribuzione elevato in occasione delle liti che appunto contro
il Governo alcuni di essi avevano promosso.

Ne diversa e la indole della competenza, coruunque diverse sieno le ragioni che la de-
terminano, pei danni gravissimi sofferti dalle provincie della Lomelliua e di Novara in-
vase dalle truppe austriache nella guerra del 1859; imperocche, per quanto sia stato
scritto e disputato sul tenia dei danni di guerra refettibili per diritto, mai e stato detto
che sieno tali quelli cagionati dal nemico.

Se si eccettua pertanto, fra le categorie dei danni che figurano nel prospetto pin volte
menzionato, quella delle espropriazioni di terreni, fatte per causa di guerra senza cor-
rispondente pagamento d'indennita; rispetto alia quale, se i terreni sieno tnttora tenuti
dal Governo, la ragione di diritto per otteneme la restituzione o conseguirne il paga-
mento del prezzo risultante dalla stima, sorgerebbe dal fatto stesso della detenzioue :
per tutte le altre non siamo in materia di diritto, ma in materia d'interessi piii o meno
gravemente sacrificati ed offesi, a provvedere ai quali, non ragioni di obbligazione civile
potrebbero costringere, ma solo ragioni di umauita e di equita. potvebbero consigliare,
quando cib fosse compatibile collo stato della pubblica finanza.

Ma le presenti condizioni della finanza pubblica sono eliena tali che possano permet-
terci di risarcire tanto numero di danni ? Comunque vivo possa essere il desiderio di
riparare a taute perdite e a tanti sacrifizi di averi, spesso sopportati con virtii e costauza
eroica, quanti ne furono imposti ai cittadini, agli enti morali, ai comuni e alle pro-
vincie d'ltalia, dalle dolorose vicende che prepararano e maturarono il nazionale risor-
gimento, v'fe forse alcuno che abbia serio convincimento della possibility di riuscire a
tanto nelle presenti nostre condizioni finanziarie? E quando pure voglia applicarsi la
regola di giustizia distributiva, per la quale i danni sopportati per comune utility della
nazione sulla intera nazione dovrebbero ripartirsi : non 6 forse l'intera nazione, che
d'una maniera o di un'altra questi danni ha sofferto ? Coll'ammettere le domande d'in-
dennita, che gia per molte migliaia si trovano cumulate negli archivi, potrebbe, e vero,
tentarsi un reparto diverso da quello che lo svolgersi successivo degli avvenimenti ha
gi& operato di fatto ; ma con cib nuovi danni e nuove sofferenze sarebbero procnrate
all'Italia senza estinguere le antiche, seguendo anche noi l'esempio della inferma.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 139

Che non pu6 trovar posa in su le piume,
Ma con dar volta suo dolore scherma.

Se il problema del risarcimento dei danni cagionati dalle guerre d'indipendenza,
come da altri politici eventi al eonseguimento della indipendenza e della unita nazio-
nale preordinati, fu posto altre volte parzialmente per alcuna provincia o per alcuna
specie di dauni, ne ad altro si pervenne che a qualche provvedimento di soccorso, come
in ogni pubblica calamita, ai danneggiati piu poveri ; io credo che unicameute a questo
risultato sia possibile di pervenire oggi che il problema, posto nella sua integrita, ha
dimostrato come non vi sia provincia o comune d'ltalia, che non abbiano a ripetere per
danni sofferti ; e come il peso di risarcirli, che oltremodo gravoso sarebbe in condizioni
floride di flnanza, si affatto insopportabile nelle condizioni presenti, quaudo lo stato
della finanza potrebbe riassumersi nello sforzo constante di raggiungere un pareggio
che sempre sfugge, malgrado i carichi gravissimi imposti al paese ; e quando a crescerne
il numero sopravviene la necessita, da tutti sentita, di provedere al riordinamento
dell'esercito e alia difesa dello Stato per mantenerci in quel grado di nazione, al quale
appunto ci coudnssero i passati sacrifizi di tute quante le provincie d'ltalia.

In questo concetto ho dovuto apparecchiare il progetto di legge, che io gia promet-
teva alia Camera, e che oggi ho l'onore di presentarle. Esso due provvedimenti con-
tiene ; provvede a soddisfare alle ragioni di diritto che hanno coloro, i quali senza in-
dennita fossero stati espropriati di alcun loro fondo per causa di guerra ; e destina a
sovvenzione dei cittadini di piccolo censo dello provincie lombardo-venete, che non fos-
sero stati per anco indennizzati dei danni sofferti per causa di guerra, una quota deter-
minata in fiorini nominali 634,000 della obbligazione rimessa dal Governo austro-un-
garico al Governo italiano, ai termini dell'articulo 2 della conveuzione A, del 6 gennaio
anno corrente, approvatta con legge del 23 del decorso mese di marzo.

II primo provvedimento e abbastanza giustificato dalle cose di sopra discorse ; im-
perocche, se il Governo italiano, che abbia tuttora il materiale possesso di fbndi espro-
priati per causa di guerra dai precedenti Governi senza pagamento d'indennita, pud di
quei Governi rifiutare la eredita per tutto cio che ha rapporto ai f rutti perduti e ai
deperimenti del fondo, che sono danni da essi cagionati, non potrebbe per6 declinare
del pari l'obbligo che gli viene dal fatto stesso della detenzione, di restituire quei fondi
nello stato in cui si trovano attualmente, o di pagarne il prezzo di stima.

II provvedimento secondo da doppia ragione e giustificato ; in primo luogo dalla pro-
porzione molto maggiore dei danni sopportati dalle provincie italiane ; in secundo
luogo dall'essere, come gia ebbi occasione di dichiarare alia Camera in occasione degli
ultimi trattati coll' Austria, cosa loro la somma che verrebbe destinata a sovvenire ai
danneggiati di esse provincie piu bisognosi di soccorso, come quella che nel Bistema
della transazione conclusa coll'Austria rappresentava il fondo di riserva della guardia
mobile lombardo-veneta, che doveva rimaner sempre una propriety del paese per dichiara-
zione formalmente espressa nello statuto col quale quella guardia era stata organizzata.

Io confido che la Camera, appro vando col progetto di legge i proposti provvedimenti,
vorra per tal modo risolvere il problema spinoso e doloroso, ma pur troppo altrimenti
insolubile, dei danni di guerra.

PROGETTO DI LEGGE.

Art. 1. I fondi per ragioni militari dai precedenti Governi espropriati, senza paga-
mento d'indennita, nelle guerre che prepararono e compierono il nostro naziouale ri-
sorgimento, come in quelle onde furono funestate nell'entrare del secolo, le provincie
del primo regno italico quando sieno tenuti tuttora dal Governo italiano, saranno da
esso restituiti nello stato in cui si trovano attualmente, o ne sara pagato il prezzo di
stima, a coloro che, giustificando nei modi legali la proprieta del fondo, dimostreranno
insieme il tempo ed il modo della espropriazione, e la data della domanda o delle do-
mande d'indennita rimaste insoddisfatte.

Art. 2. Dalla obbligazione di 4,749,000 fiorini nominali, rimessa del Governo austro-
ungarico al Governo italiano ai termini dell'articolo 2 della conveuzione A del 6 gen-
naio 1871 approvatacon legge del 23 marzo anno medesimo, numero 137 (serie seconda),
sara prelevata una quota parte di fiorini 634,000 del pari nominali, per sovvenire ai
cittadini delle provincie lombardo-venete di piu ristretta condizione di fortuna, che
non fossero stati indennizzati delle requisizioni ed altri danni per essi sofferti a causa
delle guerre menzionate nell'articolo precedente, e che fossero d'altronde in grado di
fornire la prova del danno e indicare la data dei reclami presentati senza risultato.

Art. 3. Del reparto della somma come sopra stabilita 6 incaricata una Commissione
composta di delegati delle provincie della Lombardia e della Venezia, uno per ciasche-
duna provincia, nominato dal respettivo Consiglio provinciale.

La Commissione sara presieduta dal prefetto- della citta di Verona, dove avra la sua
sede; e potra, fra i suoi componenti, nominare un Comitato per la esecuzioue delle sue
deliberazioni.

140

ALIEN CLAIMS.

Crediti di corpi morali e privati del regno, cagionati dai rivolgimenti politiei e dalle guerre
che hanno avtito luogo a tutlo Vanno 1866.

1

Somme.

Totali.

Presunte.

Accertate.

Lire. Ct

5, 043, 687 33

43, 353, 374 62

22, 216, 239 80

18, 007, 340 21

Lire. Ct.

1,135,024 06

21, 331, 603 41

3, 482, 092 53

Lire. Ct
6, 178, 711 39

Crediti provenienti dai iatti degli anni 1848 e 1849

Crediti provenienti dallo guerre degli anni 1859 e 1860.

64, 684, 978 03
25, 698, 332 33
18, 007, 340 21

88, 620, 641 96

25, 948, 720 00

114, 569, 361 96

Crediti a tutto Vanno 1824.

Provincie.

Cagioni del credito.

Somma.

Presunta. Accertata.

[Oeservaziom.

Lom"bardia.

Yenezia.

Parma e Pia-
cenza.

Provincie na-
politane.

Espropriazioni e som-
ininistrazioni mili-
tari durante il primo
regno ilalico.

Somministrazi oni
fatte all'armata nella
campagna del 1809.

Indebite appropriazi-
oni di stabili fatte
dalla Cassa di am-
mortizzazione del
Governo italico.

Espropriazioni e som-
ministrazioni mili-
tari durante il primo
regno italico.

Sommin istrazioni
fatte all' armata nella
campagna del 1809.

Indebite appropriazi-
oni di staoili fatte
dalla Cassa di am-
moitizzazione del
Governo italico.

Sommin i straz ioni
fatte negli anni 1811,
1812, 1814 e 1815.

Prestito forzoso na-
ziouale del 1821.

Lire. Ct.
56, 506 33

v 200, 584 71
425, 494 45

135, 407 17

3, 562, 454 03
663, 240 64

Lire Ct.

6, 835 68

1, 128, 188 38

5, 043, 687 33

1, 135, 024 06

Le controscritte somme rappre-
sentano il montare di crediti
reclamati da comuni e privati
di Lombardia, che son erano
stati ancora liquidati quando
► fu sciolta la commissione ap-
poslta presso il Monte Lom-
bardo- Veneto, instituita in
esecuzione dell'articola 97 del-
l'atto finale del Congreaao di
Vienna del 9 giugno 1815.

Come sopra.

La controscritta somma e dovuta
all'amministrazione degli opi-
fizi civili di Borgo San Donnino,
per provvista di pagliericci e
panni pei detenuti in quelle
prigioni e per ispesa di man-
temmento dei ricoverati in
quel deposito di mendicanti.

Questo prestito, votato dai Par-
lamento napolitano ed ordinato
con legge del 17 febbraio 1821,
doveva ripartirsi fra i nego-
zianti, i proprietari, e gl'im-
piegati. II montare ftt stabilito
in ducati 3,000,000, pari a lire
12,750,000, diviso in 150,000 ob-
bligazioni di ducati 20, pari a
lire 85 ciascuna. L'interesse
fa stabilito al 9 per cento al-
l'anno, e l'ammortizzazione
doveva esserne fatta in dieci
anni. Con determinazione del
27 marzo 1821 fu sospesa l'ese-
cuzione del prestito, che venne
annullato con decreto del 6
aprile 1821. Dal 17 febbraio al
29 marzo la Tesoreria generale
di Napoli riecosse la somma di
ducati 268,123 59 iu conto del
detto prestito, dalla quale de-
dotti ducati 2,667 50 restituiti
nell821, rimangono arestituire
ducati 265,456 09. pari a lire
1,128,188 38.

6, 178, 711 39

ALIEN CLAIMS.
Crediti provenienti dai fatti del 1848 e del 1849.

141

Provincie.

Cagioni del credito.

Somma.

Presunta. Accertata.

Oaservazioni.

Provincie ex-
pontificie, an-
nesse all Italia
nel 1859 e 1860.

Lombardia

Parma e Pia-
cenza.

Ex-Ducato di

Modena.

Toscana .

Prestazioni e sommi-
nistrazioni alle mili-
zie della repubblica
romana e del Governo
pontificio.

Prestiti fatti dal Go-
verno provvisorio nel
1848.

Somministrazioni e la-
vori fatti da corpi mo-
rali e privati per con-
to del Governo prov-
visorio.

Requisizioni militari e
danni della guerra del
1848. .

Incendio di case nel
auburbio di Milano,
awenuto nei giorni
4 e 5 agosto 1848.

Prestazioni e sommi-
nistrazioni a truppe
austriache.

Prestazioni e sornmin-
istrazioui a truppe
nazionali.

Eequisizioni e sommi-
nistrazioni militari, e
danni di guerra.

Mantenimento delle
trnppe austriache dal
1849 al 1855.

Lire. Ct.

Lire. Ct.
124, 867 97

8, 497, 890 72

1, 235, 763 63

2, 237, 957 54

648, 489 56

8. 150 83

69, 814 38

6. 039, 251 58

La controscritta somma si com-
pone di molte partite, di cui ve
ne hanno di piccolissimo am-
montare. Ease sono quasi in-
teramente liquidate.

In questa somma sono compresi
i prestiti in danaro ordinati dal
Governo provvisorio coi decreti
27 marzo, 1° giugno, e 28 lug-
lio 1848, le ritenute fatte sugli
stipendi e sulle pensioni per
effetto dei decreti del 29 aprile
e 19 maggio 1848, ed il prestito
in oggetti d'oro e di argento,
ordinate col decrete del 1° lu-
glio 1848.

Questa somma si compone di 295
partite liquidate dalia Commis-
sione speciale gia esistente pres-
ao il Ministero della guerra.

Questa somma si compone di.327

Sartite che non furoiio liquidate
alia detta Commissione pep
mancanza dei neceseari docu-
menti.

Questa somma e quella reclamata
dagl'interessati che avevano in-
ataurato giudizio contro il Go-
verno austriaco: si presume
perd che i danni salgano in to-
tale a somma forse quintupla.

Questa Bomma e quasi intiera-
mente dovuta al comune di
Parma in rimborso delle spese
fatte per provvedere di alloggio
e vitto le truppe austriache;

La controscritta somma e quella
stata ammessa dalla Commis-
sione di liquidazione presso il
Ministero della guerra. Le
domande ascendevano a lire
23,039 01.

Di questa somma la Commissione
liquidatrice presso il Ministero
della guerra liquidd sole lire
609 73, respingendo le altre do-
mande, percne non regolar-
mente giustificate.

L'occupazione austriaca in Tos-
cana cominci6 il 5 maggio
1849, e durd fino al 30 aprile
1855. I comuni toscani sosten-
nero la spesa del mantenimen-
to delle truppe austriache, e si
rivolsero poi al Governo per es-
serne rifatti, invocando a loro
favore la convenzione del 22
aprile 1850, stipulata tra la Tos-
cana e 1' Austria. Un'apposita
Commissione, creata nel 1856,
liquidd il credito dei comuni per
questo titolo, diffalcate le som-
mericevutein conto dal Gover-
no, in toscane lire 7,189,585 43,
pari alle controscritte italiane
lire 6,039,251 58. Yivissime is-
tanze sono state fatte sempre
dai detti comuni per ottenere il
pagamento di questa somma, ed
i principali di essi adirono itri-
bunali ; ma, elevato il conflitto
di giurisdizione, il Consiglio di
Stato, con decreto del 17 agosto
1870, ba diohiarato l'incompe-
tenza del potere giudiziario.

142

ALIEN CLAIMS.

Segue Credttl provenienti dai fatii del 1648 e del 1849.

Provincie.

ProviDcie na-
politano.

Sicilia .

Piemonte .

Provinoie vene-
te e di Man-
tova.

Venezia .

Cagioni del crodito.

Prestito forzoso del-
1'auno 1648.

Somministrazioni mili-
tari fatte negli anni
1«47 e 1848.

Requiaizioni militari e
danni di guerra.

Rpquisizioni e danni
di guerra durante la
campagna di marzo
1849.

ruisizioni e danni
lie guerre del 1848
e 1849.

Sequ:
dell.

Prestito ordinato dal
Governo provvisorio
di Venezia con decre-
to del 14 maggio 1848.

Prestito ordinato dal
Governo provvisorio
di Veuezia con decre-
to del 20 giugno 1848.

Prestito in effetti d'oro
e d'argento e ritenuta
sugli stipendi e sulle
pensioni, ordinati coi
decreti del Governo
provvisorio del 19 lu-
glio e del 16 agosto
1848.

Buoni della Banoa di
sconto eniessi dal Go-
verno provvisorio,
giusta il decreto del
25 luglio 1848.

Prestiti ordinati dal
Governo provvisorio
coi decreti del 19 set-
tembre, 14 ottnbre, 15
novembre 1848 e 9
aprile 1849.

Somma.

Presunta. Accertata.

Lire. Ct.

11,150,059 35

3, 888, 900 00

1. 296, 300 00

, 129, 880 00

1, 609, 875 00

2, 659. 834 76

Lire. Ct.
1, 946, 637 74

18, 283 28

1, 652, 392 48

Osservazioni.

II prestito controscritto fn sta-
bilito nella somma di dncati
3,000.000, pari a lire italiane
12,750,000, ma poco dopo veune
annullato. La tesorena gene-
rale di Napoli riscosse :

Ducati 1,135,53143

ne furono restituiti :

Ducati 677,499 02

aiccherimangonoda
restituire . . Ducati . . 458,032 41
cue conispoudouo alle contro-
scrittelire 1,946,637 74.

Le domande fatte per queato tito-
lo ammontano a lire 32,876 28,
ma furono ammesse solo per la
controscritta somma dalla Com-
missiorie di liquidazione gia es-
istente jtresso il Miniatero della
guerra.

Questa somma e il montare dei
reclami che non vennero am-
messi dalla detta Commissione,
perche non debitainente giusti-
ficati.

I controscritti crediti furono li-
quidati da una Commisaione
creata nel 1849, nella somma di
lire 2,152,392 48. Ma, per efl'et-
to della legge del 15 giu^o
1850, furono pagate lire Ei 0,000
a titolo di aussidio a quei dan-
neggiati che erano in ribi/vitta
condizione di fortuna.

La controscritta aomma rappre-
senta il montare complessivo
delle indennita reclamate con
le 3301 iatanze giunte alia Com-
missione istituita col regio de-
creto del 26 maggio 1867.

Questo prestito fu stabilito in 10
milioni di lire auatriache ; ma
le condizioui politicbe fecero si
cbe si potease riscuotere la sola
quotadellaprorincia di Venezia
in austriacne lire 4,500,000, pari
alle controscritte italiane lire
3,888,900.

Questo prestito fu stabilito in aua-
triache lire 1,500,000, che cor-
rispondono ad italiane lire
1,296,300.

Si caleola che il valore degli og-
getti d'oro e d'argento sia ap-
prossimativamente di austria-
che lire 1,200,000, e quello delle
ritenute sugli stipendi e aulle
pensioni di austriacne lire 200.-
000.

Questi Buoni erano garantiti dal
comune di Venezia e dalla
Lombardia.

Questi prestiti montavano in com-
pleaao ad austriache lire 9,000,-
000 ; ma si e fcenuto conto sola-
mente della parte versata in da-
naro erlettivo, che si caleola di
austriach e lire 3,077,800, mentre
il rimanente fu rappresentato
dalla moneta patriot Lica.

ALIEN CLAIMS.

Segne Crediti/provenienti daifatti del 1848 e del 1849.

143

Provincie.

Cagioni del credito.

Somma.

Presunta. Accertata.

Osservazioni.

Segue Venezia. .

Boma.

Moneta patriottica ri-
mastaiu oircolazione
dopo la notificazione
del Governo austriaco
del 2 ottobre 1849.

Lire. Gt.
1, 571, 136 22

Lire. Ct.

Moneta del comune di
Venezie. — Perdita per
la riduzione a meta
del valore della mone-
ta stessa, giusta
convenzione del 22
agOBto 1849.

8, 973, 774 57

Perdita del 35 per cento
eul valore dei Buoiri
emessi dal Governo
della repubblica ro-
mana, giusta i decreti
del 1° e 26 marzo, 5 e
11 aprile e 5 maggio
1849.

Prestito forzoso ordi-
nate dal governo della
repubblica con deere-
to del 2 marzo 1849.

Beq uiaizione degli ar-
genti dei privati, or-
dinatadal governo del-
la repubblica con de-
creto del 2 maggio 1849.

Bequisizione del nume-
rario contro biglietti,
ordinata dal governo
della repubblica con
decreto del 10 maggio
1849.

Danni cagionati dalla
guerra del 1849.

7,791,277 50

1, 298, 932 98

509, 432 20

43, 353, 374 62 21, 331, 603 41

La moneta patriottica. emessa in
occanioue dei detti prestiti, fu

di austriacbe L. 5,922,200

nefuammortizzatadal
Governo provvisorio

per L. 3,333,4122

ne fu ritirata
dopo la capi-
tolazione del
22agogtol849

per L. 769,537

4,103,019

aiccheneriraase in oir-
colazione per austria-
cbe L. 1,819,181

che corrisponrtono alle contro-
acritte italiane lire 1,571,136 22.
La carta emessa dal comune dl
Venezia, giusta i decreti del
Governo provvisorio del 22 no-
vembre 1848, 28 maggio* e 28
giugno 1849 ammontava' ad au-

striache L. 21,165,943 78

da cui, diffalcate le
ammortizza z i o n i
fatte dal comune
per austriacbe. L. 399,652 26

64, 684, 978 03

rimangono austri-

ache X. 20,766,29152

cbe furono ammesse per met&
del valore dal Governo austria-
co. La perdita fu dunque di au-
striacbe lire 10,383,145 76, cbe
corrispondono alle controscritte
italiane lire 8,973,774 57. Questa
somma perd e messa solamente
permemoria ; dappoiche, essen-
do stata la carta del comune dl
Venezia commutata con valuta
austriaca, non sarebbe piu pos-
sibile di rinvenirne i creditori.

Una notificazione del Governo
pontificio del 24 settembre 1849
dichiaracbe iBuoni del Governo
provvisorio e della Bepubblica
trovati in corso, ridotti del 35
per cento, giusta lanotificazione
del 3 agosto dello stesao anno,
ammontavano a 2,692,000 scudi
romani. Da qnesto dato adun-
que si pu6 calcolare cbo i Buoni
ascendevano alia somma di
scudi 4,141,540, e che la perdita
del 35 per cento import6 la som-
mo di 1,449,540 scudi.

II prestito fu stabilito in misurar
progressiva, secondo le rendite
delle varie famiglie. La som-
ma riscossa pel detto prestito
fu di scudi 241,661 95.

II valore degli argenti requisiti
fu di scudi 94,778 08 4.

!Non si banno dati per riconoscere
il montaredel numerario requi-
site

N on si banno dati per riconoscere
il montare dei danni di guerra.

144

ALIEN CLAIMS.
Crediii provenienti dalle guerre degli anni 1859 e 1860.

Provincie.

Cagioni del credito.

Somma.

Presunta. Accertata.

Osservazioni.

Provincie e x -
pontificie an-
nesse all'Italia
nel 1859 e 1860.

Lombardia

Parma e Pia-
cenza.

Modena e Reg
gio.

Somministrazioni e
requisizioni militari
e lbrniture diverse.

Requisizioni e forni-
ture militari, espro-
priazioni e danni
aellaguerra del 1859.

Requisizioni e sommi-
nistrazioni militari
nella guerra del 1859.

Espropriazioni di ter-
reni, taglio di piante,
abbattimento di fab-
bricati e altri danni
cagionati dall'ampli-
amento delle fortifi-
cazioni di Piacenza
fatte dalle truppe
austriache nel 1859.

Somministrazioni fatte
alle truppe austria-
che fino al 1859.

Confische ed arbitrarie
donazioni di beni ap-
partenenti a condan-
nati politici dell'ex-
ducato, e pension!
dovute ad impiegati
licenziati per ragione
politica, ovvero alle
loro vedove e figli.

Lire. Ct.
613, 156 62

12, 241, 279 24

100, 502 39

Lire. Ct.

250, 283 36

494, 994 86

Questa somma .e composta di
niolte partite, non tutte liqui-
date, fra cui vo ne ha di piccolo
montare.

Questa Somma e il montare delle
indennita reclamate dagl'in-
teressati, delle quali non fu
i'atta liquidazione.

La controscritta somma e com-
posta di molte partite non tutte
definitivamente liquidate.

II Governo provvisorio del 1859
ordind die si facesse subito la
perizia dei danni con troscritti ?
affinche venissero indennizzati
i danneggiati. La perizia fa
fatta dall'ingegnere Perotta r
che liqnidd i danni pel mon-
tare complessivo di lire
2,518,257 11; ma il Governo
non aveva mai dato le disposi-
zioni pel pagamento di questa
somma. G-U interessati ricor-
sero allora ai tribunali, i quali.
avuto riguardo all'indole dei
danni, che per la massima parte
consistevano in espropriazioni
eseguite in ordine alia conven-
zione del 1822 stipnlata fra il
Governo parmense e l'austriaco
per l'ampliamento delle forti-
ficazioni di Piacenza, pronnn-
ziarono parecchie sentenze
contro lo Stato. Pu ravvisata
dunque la neceaBita di venire
a trattative con gl'interessati
per un amicbevole componi-
mento, che ora sta per con-
tihiudersi sulle basi di una
nuova perizia dei danni fatta
eseguire, e che li fa ascendere,
invece che a lire 2,518.257 11 T
alia sommadi sole lire 999^710 14.
A questa somma perd debbono
aggiungersi gli interessi legali
che il Governo deve pagare
dal giorno 12 settembre 1867,
in cui cominci6 il giudizio, fino
a quello in cui avra luogo il
pagamento.

I crediti dei comuni delle con-
troscritte provincie furono
riconosciuti con decreti del 9
luglio e del 4 dicembre 1859
del Governo provvisorio, e ne fu
ordinato il pagamento. Questa
disposizione per6 non ebbe
efifetto, e solamente fu fatto
esattamente liquidare il mon-
tare dei detti crediti, che si
riconobbe essere di lire 250,-
263 36, in luogo della maggiore
somma di lire 586,538 36, recla-
mata dai comuni.

Un decreto del governatore
Parini del 23 agosto 1859 or-
diuava che fossero indenniz-
zati questi danni, ma easo non
pote aver effetto, per la man-
canza di un prowedimento
legislative Una Commissione
appositamente instituita nel
1867, tenuto couto che la mag-
gior parte dei beni confiscati
notrebbe venire restituita alle
famiglie dei condannati, liquid6
i danni da indennizzarsi in
dauaro a lire 494,994 86.

ALIEN CLAIMS.
Segue Crediti provenienti dalle guerre degli anni 1859 e 1860.

145

Provincie.

Cagioni del credito.

Somma.

Osservazioni.

Presunta.

Accertata.

Provincie na-

Forniturefatte nell'an-
no 1860 agli eserciti
meridionale e boibu-
nico.

Espropriazioni e som-
ministrazioui militari
avvenute nel 1859.

Requisizioni e danni
di guerra nella cam-
pagna del 1859.

Requisizioni e danni
di guerra nella cam-
pagna del 1859.

Lire. Ct

Lire. Ct.
1,739,104 17

Quests, somma e dovuta al gia.
fornitore degli eaerciti meri-
dionale e borbonico signor
Cassitto, col* quale e in corso
una lite, asserendo egli di
essere creditore di somma as-
sai maggiore.

La controseritta somma rappre-
senta il montare complessivo
delle domande pervenute alia
Commiesione iustituita presso
il Ministero della guerra col
regio decreto del 26 maggio
1867.

politane.

1, 233, 189 14

1, 905; 578 98
6, 122, 541 43

nete e di Man-
tova.

22, 216, 239 80

3, 482, 092 53

25, 698, 332 33

Crediti provenienti dalla guerra del 1866.

Provincie.

Cagioni del credito.

Somma.

Presunta.

Accertata.

Contratti d'appalto per
lavori, provviste, pres-
tazioni d'opera e simili.

Espropriazioni ed acqui-
sti di stabili

Abbattimento di piante
e fabbricati intorno alle
fortificazioni.

Occupazioni temporanee
d'immobili.

Requisizioni railitari ..

Lire. Ct
2, 877, 553 35

305, 061 18
8 280, 887 79

336, 678 10

2, 277, 767 46

3, 929, 392 33

Lire. Ct.
1

Mantova.

Le controscritte somme
rappresentano il mon-

;. I

tare delle domande per-
venute alia Commis-

sione instituita presso
il Ministero della gnerra
col regio decreto del 26

maggib 1867 (Allegato
n° 20).

18, 007, 340 21

N° 99— A.
Sbssionb 1871-72, seconda della XI Legislatura. — Camera dei Deputati.

Belazione della Giunta, composta dei Deputati Finzi, presidente, Pissavini, segretario, Man-
druzzato, Morini, Guerzoni, Verga, e Mantellini, relatare sul progetto di legge presentato
del Ministro delle Finanze del 1° aprile 1871 riprodotto nella tornata del 17 aprile 1872.

INDENNITA PEE DANNI DI GUERRA.

Tornata del 26 aprile 1873.
IL PROGETTO DI LEGGE E LA SUA STORIA.

Signori ! — In esecnzione al trattato di Vienna del 3 ottobre 1866, approva to con la
lego-e del 25 aprile 1867, rimanevano fra 1' Austria e l'ltalia due liquidazioni da fare,
H. Eep. 134 10

146 ALIEN CLAIMS.

l'una del Monte lombardo-veneto, 1'altra dei crediti personali ai prineipi e alle princi-
pes-se di casa d'Austria e principesse entrate nella famiglia imperials.

L'lwilia leclamavu dall'Austria.:

1° II fondo del clero veneto ;

2° 11 fondo territoriale veneto ;

3° 11 fondo dell'Universita di Padova per tasse e sovvenzione governativa ;

4° II fondo del conmne di Cividale ;

L L'attivo della cassa d'auimortizzazione del Monte veneto ;

6" e 7° II conguaglio del valore degli inmiobili e dei titoli riinasti all'Austria, eon gli
arretrati sui titoli consegnati all'ltalia, per la couveuzioue di Milano del 9 settembre
1860;

8o II resto della ripartizione del Monte, seoondo 1'articolo 37 di essa couvenzione ;

9' Gli arretrati sin titoli del debitopubblico generale auslriaeo;

10. L'attivo della cassa dei depositi del Monte veneto ;

11. II fondo della guardia nobile lonibardo-veueta (tiorini 634,059 in obbligazioni,
352,378 29 in deuaro) ;

12. Uu deposito fatto in Vienna nel 7 novembre 1866 dalla societa delle strade ferrate
meridionali anstriache ;

13. II fondo degli stabilimenti termali di Abano e Battaglia;

14. II fondo del magistrate degli Schiavi di Gsnova ;

15. Le indennita per le reqiyisizioui e i dauui di giierra del 1813 e 1814, e del 1848-49
(lire 12,000,000) ;

16. Le indennita per le requisizioni e i danui delle guerre del 1859 e 1866 (lire
18.000,000).

L'Anstria, cbe pure aveva le sue partite da contrapporre, ammesse a credito del-
1'Iralia le partite 1, 2,3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8e9. Eitiut5 le altre, sostenendo dopo la cessione del
Lombardo-Veueto, ad essa nun restati altri obbligbi cbe i risultanti dai trattati di pace,
dove non si legge disposizione da cui venga dato d'argomeutare l'onere nel Governo
austro-ungarico di pagare i danni di guerra, non stati aucoia risarciti nelle provincie
cbe piu non gli appaitengono.

Le trattative riuscirono a una transazione generale, in cui persistendo sempre i com-
missari imperiali nel non potere auuuettere alcuna indennita di guerra, fu da essi otterta
e dai commitsaii italiani ac'cettata la somma, in compenso di ogni pretesa reciproca
dell'Italia e dell'Austria, di fiorini 4,749,000 rappresentadada uu obbligazioue sul debito
pnbblico ausLriaco al 5 per cento alia pari 1 "'.

A conti fatti, l'ltalia veniva pagata di tutte le sue pretese, anche contestate dal-
l'Austiia, eccetto cbe pei danni di guerre. Donde la opiuione, che allora e poi si ebbe,
non essere la partita dei danni di guerra riraasta senza influenza sulla determinazione
dell'Austria di offrire quauto offerse e cbe l'ltalia accett6, iu transazione di ogni reci-
proca pretesa.

Sottoscritte nel 6 gennaio 1871 in Fireuze le due convenzioni, l'una sulle pendenze
con l'impero, 1'altra sulle -pendenze con gli arciducbi e le arciducbesse, venero alia
Camera dei deputati ambedue preseutate dai ministri delle finanze e degli esteri nella
toruata del 16 dello stesso niese di gennaio.

Nel 3 marzo la Giunta^ incaricafa di esamiuarle, present6 la sua relazione. E in
essa relazione la Giunta si tratteune sui danui di guerra, le trattative corse fra i cominis-
sari austriaci e italiani, le note cambiatesi fra i due ministri delle finanze e dt-gli esteri
sull'argomento, per riuscire, come riusci, ad una conclusioue e ad una riserva. La con-
clusione fu di approvare le convenzioni nel modo proposto dai due ministri. Ma nel-
l'intendimento che esse convenzioni non abbiano a produrre altra novazione nelrapporio dei
prirati che la soslituzione del Governo italiano all'austriaco, propose d'agginngere alia legge
un terzo articolo del tenore cbe appresso : Bimangono salvi i crediti e i diritti dei terzi
deriranii dai trattati del 1814, 1815, 1818, e dalle guerre del 1848, 1849, 1859 e 1866.

La discussione, che impiegd le tornate del 6, 7 e 8 marzo, cadde quasi esclusivainente
su quest'agginnta. Per alcuni, l'Austria era tuttora tennta a saldare i danueggiati
dalla guerra del 1813, pei quali del trattato del 1818 ebbe dalla Francia circa 27 milioni
e mezzo, e i danncggiati dalla guerra del 1848, pei quali ebbe dallo Sardegna 75 milioni
nel trattato di Milano del 1849. Pei danni delle guerre del 1859 e del 1866, dei quali
nessun trattato faceva per l'Austria obbligazione convenzionale, i debiti dell'Austria
si dicevauo col tenitorio trasferiti all'ltalia ; con aver trovati piti sostenitoricbe oppo-
nent la opinioue della successione dell'Italia all'Austria a titolo universale nei debiti
e nei crediti, e della universalita della transazione convenuta a Fireuze.

L'articolo venue tuttavia ritirato di fronte all'impegno formale preso del ministro

6 Toutee lea ieclaiuations presentees par Its deux Gouvernenients soot compensees, en voie de trans-
action, moyeunant le paiemeut que -le gouvernenient austro-bongrois s'engage ;'i faire au gouverneinent
italien, dans le ternie de quatre semaines apres la ratification de la presentee convention, d'ane somme
de 4.749,000 florins, representee par une obligation de la dette publique autrichienne convertie, de la
meme valeur nominale, interM 5 pour cent, jo.uissance 1« novembre 1870 ; laquelle obligation sera
inscrita au uom dn government italien. (Art. 2: Convenzione A stipulata in Firenze nel 6 gennaio 1871,
approvata con la legge del 23 marzo, n° 137, serie 2 a .)
6 Ijacava, Finzi, Massari, Pioltide Biancni, Piasaviui, Puccioni, Bonclietti, Righi, Cortose, relatore

' ALIEN CLAIMS. 147

delle finalize di presentare dentro lo stesso mese di marzo un apposite progetto di
legge sui danni di gnerra. Ei non ascose la paura ohe, ruentre 1' Austria nulla voile
ooiisentire ne pei damii delle guerre del 1813 e 1848 ne per quelli delle guerre del 1859
e 1866, l'articolo non risvegliasse lusinghe sopite, o non conferisse diritti a ohi o uon
li ebbe mai o li perde, a detrimeuto della iinauza italiana, tanto bisognosa di veuir
risparmiata.

Nel 1". aprile 1871 il ministro delle finanzepresentava diffatti il progetto di legge, ohe
intitolo; Indennita per danni di guerra.

LA RELAZIONE MIN1STERIALE B IL SUO PROGETTO DI LEGGE.

Nella relazioneehe acoompagnava il progetto si esordiaie dal minstro ool ricordare
ehe, ora-per qnesta, ora per quella provineia, per una o per altra specie di danni della
guerra, dal subalpino e dal Parlamento italiano e stato discusso e si e veuuti qualcbe
volta in soecorso di quelli ohe piu. avevano sofferto e che apparivano piti bisognosi di
aiuto. Dondo si argoroenta die non si era e non si e in temadi credito civile ; o che in
tale materia, fra danneggiati e Governo, intercedono, non privati, ma rapporti d'indole
pubblica, da regolare coi canoni della distributiva giustizia, e con le ragioni della con-
venienza politica.

Riguardo. ai debiti derivanti dall'Austria, nella relazione si richiama all'esame la
posizione dei danneggiati non soddisfatti, in presenza alle norme giuridiche seguite da
quel Governo in tale materia, e alle applicazioni date dall'Austria stessa al § 1044 del
huo Codice : " La ripartizione dei danni di guerra viene regolata dalle autorita politiche
dietro norme speoiali."

E in appoggio della conclusione che siamo in materia politico-amministrativa, dalla
relazione stessa si dice la successione di Stato a Stato, non del giure privato, ma di
diritto pubblico internazionale, e per la quale le obbligazioni dell'autico non divengono
per lo Stato nuovo obbligazioui perfette se non dopo la legge di ricognizione, che dia
quel titolo civile che verso lo Stato nuovo i creditori non hanuo.

Giurisprndenza, consuetudini del regno e Parlamento si invocano per concordi in
qnesta sentenza ; e la legge del 4 agosto 1861 si allega come la legge principe fra queste
leggi di ricognizione.

La qnal mancanza di legge recognitiva, sempre a senso della relazione, non solo e da
opporre pei debiti lasciati dall'Austria, ma altresl pei debiti dei Governi provvisori e
per quelli dei gia Stati italiani. Per la relazione con tutti questi creditori, i rapporti
del Governo nazionale sono rapporti di natura politica, da Governo a governati, defini-
bili, con le norme della giustizia distributiva e secondo le ragioni di convenienza poli-
tica; non obbligazioni civili, e per le quali i creditori ahbiano verso l'italiana le azioni
chg avrebbero per avveutura potnto esperimentare verso le passate amministrazioni di
Napoli, Modena e Toscana.

Via dnnque dal conto imprestiti nazionali del 1821, del 1848 e 1849; via le confis'che
e i pregindizi inferiti dai Governi anteriori ; via i credit! dei comuni toseani per le soru-
ministrazioni austriache dal 1849 al 1855; via dal conto i danni patiti dalle provincie
della Lomellina e di Novara per le invasion! del 1859.

La relazione non fa grazia che pei fondi gia occupati per cagione di gnerra e non
pagati, sebbene tuttora tennti dal Governo nazionale ; dacche l'obbligazione di lui sor-
gerebbe allora dal fatlo stesso della sua detenzione. Ma per tutte le altre pendenze o pre-
tese, essa conclude che non siamo in materia di diritto ma d'interessi, piu o meno grave-
mente sacrificati ed offesi, a provvedere ai qxm\i non ragioni di obbligazioiw civile potrebbero
coslringere, ma solo ragioni d'umanila e di equitd potrebbero consigliare, quando cid fosse com-
patibile con lo staio della pubblica finanza.

Informata da questi principii, la relazione scende pertanto a proporre una legge di
due articoli. Col primo si compeusano gli espropriati nelle guerre, non dei frutti per-
dnti ne dei sofferti deperimenti del fondo, ma solo del prezzo di stima dei fondi che loro
non si restituiscano. L'eredita dei passati Governi e cosl rifiutata recisamente, limitato
l'obbligo del Governo nazionale alle conseguenze del fatto suo proprio della detenzione.
E col secondo articolo si destina un fondo per sovvenire ai cittadini delle provincie lom-
bardo-venete di piu ristretta condizione di fortuna. Si vuol socorrere a provincie, al
confronto delle altre, danneggiate in proporzione molto maggiore; e vi si destina il
findo di riserva della guardia nobile lombardo-veneta, dacchfe qnesto fondo, per dispo-
sizione espressa nello statute d'organamento di quella guardia, doveva restare perma-
nente propriety del paese.

La relazione e accompagnata da un prospetto dei crediti che si lascierebbero non
soddisfatti. Poiche ogni provineia avendo i suoi, si consiglia di non mutarne il reparto,
ctie gia ne avveune di fatto ; intanto che si studia di mettere in rilievo il peso che,
sempre gravoso anchein floride oondizioni della finanza, diverrebhe insopportabile nelle
condizioni presenti, nelle quali lo stato della nostra finanza potrebbe riassumersi nello
sforzo costante di raggiungere un pareggio che sempre sfugge, malgrado i gravissimi carichi
imposti al paese, e qnando insta la suprema neoessita di provvedere al riordinamento
dell'esercito e alle difese nazionali.

148 ALIEN CLAIMS.

L'ALLEGATO ALLA RELAZIONE MINISTERIALE.

Nell'allegato alia relazione 8i hanno partite per lire 6,178,711 39 a tutto il 1821. Vi
sono iiotate la Lombardia e la Venezia per somministrazioni fatte all'armata nella cam-
pagna del 1809, e per espropriazioni e somministrazioni, o appropriazioni sotto il prinio
regno italico : Parma e Piaeeiiza per somministrazioui fatte nel 1811, 1812, 1814, e 1815 ;
le provincie napoletane per una parte d'imprestito nazionale del 1821, che dicesi non
•per anche restituito.

Dai fatti degli anni 1848 e 1849 l'allegato tira fiiori una sonima di lire 64,694,978 C3.
E a formarla> vi eoncorrono le proviucie ex-pontificie per somministrazioni alle milizie
della repubblica romana e del papa ; la Lombardia pei prestiti, somministrazioui e
requisizioui. e per l'iucendio delle case del suburbio di Milano nella notte dal 4 al 5
agosto; Parma e Piacenza per prestazioni e somministrazioni a truppe austriache e
riaziouali ; Modena per requisizioni e somministrazioni ruilitari ; Toscana pel manteni-
mento -delle truppe austriache dal 1849 al 1855; le provincie napoletane pel prestito
forzato ; la Sicilia per somministrazioni, requisizioni o danni di guerra ; il Piemonte per
requisizioui e danni della campagna di marzo 1849 ; le provincie venete e di Mantova per
le requisizioni e i danni della guerra ; Venezia per gli imprestiti, i buoni, e la moneta
patriottica e del comuue ; Roma per la perdita dei buoni repubblicani, prestito forzato,
requisizioni.

11 contingente delle guerre del 1859 e 1860 risulta di lire 25,698,332 33. A formare il
quale contingente contribuiscono le provincie ex-pontiticie.. allora annesse, per som-
ministrazioni e requisizioni militari e forniture diverse ; la Lombardia per requisizioni,
forniture ed espropriazioni ; Parma e Piacenza per requisizioni e somministrazioni mili-
tari, e specialmente per espropriazioni, taglio di piante, abbatimento di case, ed amplia-
nieuto delle fortifieazioni di Piacenza; Modena e Eeggio per somministrazioni fatte
agli Anstriaci, e per confische patite da condannati politiei ; le provincie napoletane
per forniture agli eserciti meridionale e borbonieo ; le provincie venete e di Mantova
per espropriazioni e somministrazioni militari ; Novara e la Lomellina per requisizioni
e danni di guerra.

Le proveuienze della guerra del 1866 sommano a lire 18,007,340 21, tutte a credito
delle provincie venete e di Mantova per lavori, espropriazioni, abbattimento di piante
e case intorno ai forti, per requisizioni e danni di guerra.

Si otticnecosl un totale di lire lj.4,569,361 96, costituito da partite in gran parte gia
liquidate. La quale e certo somma egregia e che pienamente giustifica le preoccupa-
zioni del ministro per la finanza italiana.

COKTINUA LA STOEIA.

Relazione, progetto di legge e allegato, portati iu Comitato, suscitarono una tern-
pesta d'opposizioni, di raccomandazioni, di controprogetti per la Giunta che si nomino
per riferirue alia Camera. Ma sopraggiunse la cbiusura della Sessione prima, che la
Giunta avesse conipitvti i snoi lavori.

La questione torno a sollevarsi alia Camera nella tornata dell'll marzo 1872 in occa-
sione di due petitizioni, 1'una di n° 9065 del comune di Basiglio (provincia di Milano)
per requisizioni austriache del 1859, l'altra di n° 11326 del comune e della Camera di
corameicio di Venezia pel ricouoscimento dei debiti contratti dal Governo provvisorio
nel 1848-1849. Ambedue le petizioni furono, per duliberazione della Camera, iuviate al
ministro delle finauze, il quale toruo a promettere di portare la questione al cospetto
del Parlamento, dove si sarrebbe discusso di tutte le opinioni e deliberato con piena
cognizione di causa sul partito che convenga adottare.

E nel 17 apr'ile 1872 ei si sdebitava dell'assuuto impegno col ripresentare tale e quale
il primo progetto di legge, che a senso del ministro, mentre indica nna soluzioue, la
quale soddisfa a talune domande per ogni rispetto incontestabili e soccorre ai piu. striu-
genti bisogni pei danni patiti nelle guerre uaziouali, non compromette l'andameuto
della pubblica finanza. Resta ora, cosl chiude la succinta sua relazione il ministro,
vesta ora al Parlamento alia cui sagacia niuna degli aspetti del gravissimo problema da risol-
versi sfuggira, il vedsre qnzls deliberazione sia da prendere.

II progetto ebbe nella seconda la stessa accoglienza della prima volta in Comitato,
che con le stesse raccouiaudazioni lo passb alia medesima Commissioue, sostituiti due
nuovi commissari all'onorevole Audreucci, fatto senatore, e all'ouorevole Tasca che
dette la sua rinunzia.

.LA COMMISSIONE E IL SUO MANDATO.

La Commissione ha studiata con la cura voluta dalla gravity dell'argomento la ques-
tione su tutti i punti, e dopo luughe e pazienti discussioni iucaricava me sottoscritto
di rendereconto dei suoi studi sulla relazione, sull'allegato e sul disegno di legge del-
1'onorevole ministro, non che delle proposte state da essa tradotte in un coutroprogetto
di legge.

La Commissione peno poco ad accorgersi che il ministro si era ispirato a un solo sen-
timento, non aveva preso consiglio che dalle condizioni della nostra finanza, tanto

ALIEN CLAIMS. 149

bisognosa d'essere risparmiata : essa fu presto d'accordo non potersi accettare nn pro-
getto die uon teneva oonto di nn iuteresse, auohe piu supremo, qual e quello della
giustizia, die pur costituisoe il fine d'ogni politica associazione, e alia quale l'ltalia
non e mai venuta e non vena meno.

La Commissioue ha dovuto altresl convinoersi clie ilrigettare puramente e semplice-
mente il progetto mioisteriale avrebbe lasciata insoluta una questione che la Camera
aveva piil volte manifestato il desiderio di sciogliere, che era nell'interesse di tutti che
si soiogliesse, e sollevata da relazioni che dallo stesso ministro apparivano preseutate
meno per far passare quel suo progetto in legge, che nel proposito di provocare dal
Parlamento una soluzione dell'intricato quanto delicato problema.

Per la Commissione, che non parteoipava dei principii,e rifiutava le applicazioni
ministeriali, si e dunque trattato di riuscire a uu progetto di legge che si sostituisse al
progetto del Miuistero, e col quale si dia a chi ha da avere, pure studiando di non tur-
bare le nostre finanze da quell'assetto per do>ve con tanta lode del ministro si vedon<>
avviate, che pur troppo uon hanno ancora raggiunto, e dal quale nessuuo pensa di
deviarle.

II mandato in questi termini diveutava sicuramente non facile, e la Commissione
conta sul benevolo concorBO della Camera per uscirne a secouda di propositi che reputa
comuni a tutti.

I PRIKCIPII DELLA COMMISSIONE.
I.

Demosteue loda gli Ateniesi che,dopo la cacciata dei trenta tiranni,restituirono i
dehari che i trenta avevauo accattatti, iu pnbblico nonie, dagli Spartani. Et turn
quidem etiam illis, qui iniurii in vos fuerunt pecunias illas conferre voluistis, ne quid de rerum
conventarum fide deperiret.

Per cangiare di rappresentanti lo Stato non cangia fortuna, o non perde diritti ne si
scioglie da obbligazioni, per poco che quei diritti si acquistarono, o queste obbligazioni
si assunsero da chi aveva dello Stato la legittima rappresentanza. Les actes de VElat
obligeni VEtat, et obligent par consequent lea divers representants que VEtat peut avoir, Se il,
Ee di Sardegna e l'elettore di Hesse alia restaurazioue del 1814 immagiuarono di con-
siderare la epopea napoleonica come non avvennta, non si deve in ci6 vedere la espres-
sioue d'un principio di diritto, ma nn vano capriceio della reazione. Intauto che si ebbe
ragione di rifintare il carattere di veri rappresentanti dello Stato ai Governi provvisorii
del dittatore Manin a Venezia, di Kossuth in Ungheria, e alle repubbliche romana e
badese del 1849. Cosi il piu moderno pubblicista il Blunlsehli nel suo Codice di diritto
internazionale. 7

II Weaton negli elementi del diritto internazionale e del suo parere. 8
* E col cessare dello Stato per estinzione, dispersione o emigrazione del suo popolo che
ne cessuno a un tempo con lni i diritti e le obbligazioni. Ma qnando dello Stato rimane
la parte essenziale, eioe popolo e territorio, la sua fortuua attiva e passiva, dernanio
pubblico e dernanio privato, coi suoi crediti e coi suoi debiti, passa nel suceessore, sia
pure a titolo di conqnista. Cosl prosegue Bluntsckli, e prima di lni il nostro Lampked'i.
Non desinit debere populns . . . aut si in Victoria transeat potestatem. .'

Pub lo Stato nuovo aver buone ragioni per ritiutarsi dal pagare tutti o parte dei debiti
dello Stato anteriore; pub, osserva Weaton, il fatto prendere il loco del dikitto, ma del
sno rifiuto, legittimo o no, deve almeno coustare per atto positivo e non equivoco. Anziche
di legge recognitiva,\a. quale muti in civile la obbligazione morale nel nuovo Stato, di
fare onore agl'impegni del popolo rimasto lo stesso e sul medesimo territorio, bisogna
invece una dichiarazione la quale venga ad arrestare questo trasferimeuto della fortuna
atliva e passiva che altrimenti avverrebbe ipso jure.

Nazioue per ragione geografica, il bel paese che Appennin parte e il mar circonda e
VAlpe, per comunione di origiue, di liDgua, di letteratura, di arti, di storia, l'ltalia aspi-
rava da secoh a costituirsi in nazione anche politicauiente. I fatti militari di San
Martino e di Solfeiino, di Calatafimi e del Volturuo, di Castelfidardo, di Custoza e per
ultimo di Porta Pia rimossero l'ostacolo alia libera mauifesrazione dei voti degl'Italiani,
che riuniti nei comizi di liberta votarono a sufl'ragio universale il plebiscito. La Lom-
bardia aveva votato il suo plebiscito fino dal 1848. E nell'll e 12 marzo 1860 la Tos-
eana e l'Emilia, nel 21 ottobre le prnvincie napoletane e la Sicilia, nel 4 e 5 uovembre
dello stesso anno 1860 le Marche e l'Umbria, nel 21 e 22 ottobre 1866 le proviucie della
Venezia e di Mantova,e Roma nel 2 ottobre 1870, tutte votarono concordi per Vnvione
alia monarcliia costitnzionale del Re Yiltorio Emanuele, o che il popolo vuole l'ltalia una e
indirisibile con Viltorio Emanuele Be costituzionale e suoi legiftimi discendcnti.

L' unione, per consentimento unanime dei pubblicisti, porta fra gli Stati uniti la
comunione dei pesi e dei vantaggi.sia internazionali, sia e molto piii,di ragione civile.
Dico molto piii ; il pagamento dei debiti escendo affare di buonafede e non di political
quid de rerum conventarum fide deperiret.

Grozio dopo avere scritto : non desinit debere pecuniam populus, rege sibi iniposito, quam
liber debebat, soggiunge: quod si quando uniantur duo populi non amittenturjura sed com-

M4, 45. »P. 1, cap. 2.

150 ALIEN CLAIMS.

mnnicabuntiir. E, dopo lui, Puffendorf : si duo populi uniantur, non per modum fa'deris,
aid per commnrwm regtm sed ut rerera ex dnabus civitalibus ana fiat: quo casu, jura qua
singula} civitatvs uniendce habuerunt, non amitli, sed communicari, sicut et onera dtque debita,
ubi dirersum non eonvenerit.

La sola eccezione e di qnei diritti ocl obbligazioni la di cni eonservazione non riesca
compatible col uuovo ordine di cose. Cosi ITeaton e BluntschU. a

Nell ; nnirsi potevano convenire diversaniente, di riservarsi, cioe, qnalche debito o
qualche credito ili ragione civile, come anche qnalche prerogativa o privilegio di
ragione politica. Nella formazione del regno d'ltalia i popoli cbe vi concorsero vollero
iuveee la fusione dei diritti e delle obbligazioni, l'uno dell'altro, senza limiti e senza
riserve ; la piu assolnta ugnagliauza civile e politica. Fu questa la condizione, questo
il patto del voto dato all'unione.

I plebisciti furono per la monorchia constiluzionale di Tie Vittorio Eman.usle : per Vllalia
una e indivisibile con Vittorio Emanuelc , lie cosiituzionale ; e Vittorio Emanuele e Re
coslituzionale per lo Statuto dal inagnaniino Re Carlo Alberto dato a Torino a d\ quattro
del mese di marzo Vanno del Signore milleottocento quarantotto e del suo reguo il decirno
oltavo.

Lo Statuto nel suo articolo 31 garantisce il debito pubblico e dice inviolablile ogni
impeguo dello Stato verso i suoi creditori, II debito pubblico e guarantito. Ogni im-
pegno dello Stato verso i suoi creditori e inviolabile.

Non so se in tntte, ma certo in inolte parti d'ltalia, lo Statuto del 1848 col suo articolo
31, venne promulgate prima del plebiscito, ne mai ebbe, e non ba vigore in virtu d'altra
promnlgazione cbe quella d'allora. In ogni modo, il plebiscito, che certo a esso Statuto
si rifenva, vote l'unione a condizione cbe non solo il debito pnbblico, ma che ogni im-
peguo dello Stato verso i snoi creditori fossero rispettati. Lo che fe quanto dire, coloro
che credono fosse morale la obligazioue d'ltalia di pagare i debiti dei gia Stati italiani
tino alia legge di ricognizione che 1'avesse mutata in obbligazioue civile, trovano
questa nella, legge che accolse i plebisciti.

"Visto il risultamento della votazione universale delle provincie dalla quale

consta essere geuerale voto di quella popolazione di unirsi al nostro Stato:

" Art. 1. Le provincie faranno parte integrante dello Stato dal giorno della data

del presente decreto.

"Art. 2. II presente decreto verra presentato al Parlamento per essere convertito in,
legge."

" II Senate, ecc.

" Articolo unico. II Governo del Ee e autorizzato a dar pieua ed intera esecuzione
all'articolo 1 del regio decreto, ecc."

Ecco la formula con la quale furono accettati i plebisciti dei gia Stati, ora provincie
d'ltalia, con le leggi del 15 aprile e 17 dicembre 1860, 18 luglio 1837 e 31 dicembre 1870.

Le quali sono pur leggi nostre, dello Stato italiani), che mentre non lasciano dubbioso
avere nella sua formazione il regno d'ltalia riconoscinto e guarentito ogni debito
pubblico, e qualuuque impegno dei gia Stati italiani, aspettano la loro osservanza e la
loro applicazione come ogni altra legge dello Stato.

Sicnramente, quajio la Lombardia si staccb dalla Venezia, epoila Veneziasi liberava
dall'austriaca doiuHlzione, rimanevano da separate i debiti speciali al paese unite, i
debiti che esso aveva in comune con Ja parte italiana ancora divisa, e i debiti di tutto
l'impero. Le Marche e l'Umbria portarono nell'nnione all'Italia uua eredita divisibile
col patrimouio di San Pietro, fiuche a questo patrimonio nou si estese la uuioue.

Bisoguava liquidare e ripartire, come si liquido e riparti debito e credito fra l'ltalia
e la Francis dopo la cessione di Nizza e Savoia., col trattato di Torino del 24 marzo e la
convenzione del 13 agosto 1860. Con l'Anstria la liquidazione e il riparto si fecero per
la Lombardia nel trattato di Znrigo del 10 noveinbre 1859, e nella convenzione di
Milano del 9 settembre 1860, per la Venezia iu quello di Vienna del 3 ottobre 1866,
Susseguito dalle convenzioni di Firenze del 6 gennaio 1871 di geuerale liquidazione.
Con la Santa Sede, o per la Santa Sede la convenzione si stipulo, a uiediazione della
Francis, nel 7 dicembre 1866 stata approvata con la legge del 27 niaggio 1867, alia quale
teune dietro il ( protoco]lo sottoscritto in Firense uel 31 luglio, reso esecutorio col decreto
reale del 18 agosto 1868, n° 4574.

Fincbe la qnestione era internazionale, o cbe prima bisognava intendersi fra Stato e
Stato, il creditore dcll'Austriaco o del Poutificio, che impaziente cercasse d'esser pagato
dall'ltalia, si trovb dal Consiglio di stato, giudice del conflitto, allontanato dei tribu-
nal, e spesso dagli stessi tribunali respinto dal giudizio. Ma non dopo le conveuzioni
di Firenze, e non dopo la riunione di Roma all'Italia.

Dell'Italia b politica e non civile la obbligazione di riparare i torti dei mali Governi
passati, e morale o politica, nou civile,?; la sua obbligazioue rispetto ai debiti dei Go-
verni provvisori del 1848.

Furono leggi di riparazione quella. del 30 giugno 1861 ; l'articolo 42 della legge snlle
peii8ioni del 14 aprile 1864, la legge del 23 aprile 1865, la legge del 5 marzo 1868 e la

9 Grozio, lib. II, cap. 9 Puffendorf, lib. vm, cap. 12, §6.— Weattm, p. i, cap. 2, §9.— Bkmtschli, §50 e

ALIEN CLAIMS. 151

pin recente del 2 lnglio 1872 che agli impiegati, sia dei pennaaenti che dei Governi
provvisorii, stati privati per causa politica, del grado, se militari, del posto, se civili, e
riainmessi dal Governo nazionale in servizio, si consent! di compiitare per la pensions
il tempo della interrnzione patita nel servizio.

L'ltalia, che fn generosa fino a restituire una posizione a chi poteva dubitarsi se
1'avesse consegnita rnai, nou potra e nou dovra lasciare senza riparazioje i danni delle
confische politiche. Ma questa si cbe e tale riparazione che sblo pub essere data in
virtu d'uua legge. Lo ba deciso il Consiglio di stato nel 16 marzo 1872 nella causa
Pezzini, coudaunato nel capo e nella confisca dei beni dalla Conimissione statariadi
Mcideua del 1835 ; e uell'8 aprile 1873, in altro conflitto, nella causa Faucitatw, che sub!
uguale condanna nel 1851 sotto i Borboui di Napoli. 10

La Cassazione di Palermo disse non civile ma politica la obbligazione nel Governo
(Vltalia di pagare i debiti del Governo provvisorio siciliano del 1848." E il Consiglio
di stato allontanb dai tribunali i creditor! dei Giverni provvisorii della Lombavdia e
della Venezia, attesoche ildecidere se il Governo del regno d' Italia sia sacceduto al Governo
provvisorio di Milavo (o della Venezia) del 1848, non pub essere di competenza deU'autorila
. giudiziaria. 13

A ben considerare, tauto coloro i quali ebbero a patire dei torti da parte dei Governi
permanent), quanto coloro die rimasero ad avere dai Governi provvisorii, phi che cre-
ditori con azione civile, si trovavano, all'epoca delle anncssioni, nella condizione di pre-
tendenti politici, col loro diritto manomesso o pregiudicato, e che una legge di reslaura-
zione poteva e pub ristabilire, nou riconoscersi o dicbiararsi per seutenza di giudice.

Invece nou conoseo esempio di decisione di tribunale ordinario dove si negbi al cre-
ditore d'esperimentare le sue azioni verso l'ltalia. per fatti o contratti dell'ammiuis-
trazione piemontese, lombarda, toscana, parmcnse o napoletana, solameute per difetto
dijegge recogniliva del debito da parte dei poteri dello Stato nnovo.

E a torto che si cita l'aufcorita della Cassazione di Palermo, la quale decideva sopra
una domanda contro il Governo provvisorio di Sicilia del 1848 ; 13 come si cita senza ra-
gione una decisione della Corte d'appello di Eirenzeche r-igettb la istanza d'nn credi-
tore per contratto col Governo pontificio, stata promossa prima della rinnioue di Roma. 14
Piii o meno corretti che ne appaiano i motivi, una buona ermeneutiea non eonsenti-
rebbe a esse decisioui un'autorita, sia pur dottrinale, all'infuori dei termini del caso
deciso.

Le Corti di Macerata, d'Ancona e di Milano hanno scartata affatto questa eccezione.
E notisi che esse pure non vi pronunziarono che per mera occasione. La Corte di
.Macerata aveva da decidere snlla restitnzione d'nn deposito fatto in Roma per un ser-
vizio pubblico di Citta di Castello. Le Corti di Ancona e di Milano avevano da pro-
nuuziarsi sopra la portata della servitu militare net rapporti dell'iudennita, dovuta o
no, al padrone del fondo che ne vada soggetto. Fn a guisa di premessa, o per farsi
strada a decidere la vera questiime della cansa, che esse Corti toccarono della natnra
ed estensione degli obblighi dell'Italia di derivazione dalle amministrazioni pontihcia
od a'usrriaca. 15

-Di tutto cib la ragione e una sola. L'amministrazione italiana non ha opposto il
difetto d'uua legge italiana di ricognizione del debito toscano, parmeuse o napoleta'no,
come non avrebbe pensato ad opporlo pel debito piemontese ; ma ha pagato o transat-
to. La eccezione ba creduto diriservarla per alcilni debiti soltanto, o percbe ne riguar-
dasse con qualche diffidenza l'origine, o percbe la cansa del debito lecomparisse politica
piii che civile ; e senipre in questioui di competenza, o di conflitto d'attribuzioni.

Per tacere dei pareri pih autichi ricorderb, del Consiglio di stato, qnello dato asezio-
ni riunitenel 6febbraio 1868, dove, interrogate se pel fatto della rioocupazione francese
di Roma fosse venuta meno la conveuzione del 1866 sul reparto del debito pontificio, il •
Consiglio opinb conuaturale all'oeoupazione del territorio, e perb iudipendente da ogni
convenzione l'acquisto delle attivita, come 1'aceollo delle passivita che vi si riportano. 11 '

Come ricorderb tre decisioui profetite dal Consiglio di stato, dne nel 31 dicembre
1872 nella Causa Trtvisani, l'altra nell'8 aprile 1873 nella causa Eanucci. In tutte e tre
il conflitto era stato decretato sul principio che, trattaadosi di debito dependeute, nei
primi due dall'austriaco, e nel terzo caso dall'amministrazione pontifioia, uon poteva
venirne azione civile da esperimentare verso l'ltalia se non dopo una legge di ricogni-
zione. I tribunali avevano rigettata la eccezione d'incompetenza; e sul decreto del
prefetto, il Consiglio di stato rinvib la cansa ai tribunali. 17

Invauo con Bluntschli (articolo 54) si dice di pubblico diritto la successione di Stato a

<° Vedi allegata n° 14.

11 Decisione 15 gennaio 1870, nella causa Morgante.

12 Deeisioni nelle cause Eiva, Cagnola, Borgia, Rossi, Padri Mecliitaristi di Venezia, e Croce del 16
maggio, 12 giugno, 2 luglio, 6 novembre e 7 dicembre 1872.

13 Citata decis. del 15 gennaio 1870.

14 Decis. 14 maggio 1870 nella causa Forini.

16 Decif. della Corte di Macerata del 14 gennaio 1865 nella causa Piersantelli : della Corte di Ancona
. del 31 marzo 1868 nella causa Perozzi; e della Corte di Milano del 3 maggio 1868 nella causa Antona-
Traversi.

16 Allegata n° 13.

17 Vedi decisioui negli allegati 15 e 16.

152 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Stato, la quale se una certa analogia ha con la auccessione del diritto civile non deve esserle
confusa; e invano con Heffter (§ 25), a cbi domandi, in caso di scioglimento di tutto o
di parte di uno Stato se, e a chi e a qual titolo, universale o particolare, ne ricada la
successions dei vantaggi e dei caricbi, si risponde che mescolando cosi i principii del diritto
privato con quelli del diritto pubblico si e dovuta necessariamente turbare la semplicita e
Varmonia di questi ultimi.

Innanzitutto Bluntschli ed Heffter parlano dei rapporti pubblici cbe stabiliti in vista
dell'antica associazione politica cessano con essa dove il conservarli non risulti eom-
patibile con la nuova condizioue di cose. L'amministrazione del demanio privato, traduco
V Heffter nello stesso paragrafo, cot pesi che lo gravano appartiene, dopo lo scioglimento d'uno
Stato, a quello che gli h succeduto. E cib che fa dire che il nuovojisco succede a titolo univer-
sale nei dirritti e nelle obbligazioni dell'antieo. Non bisogna perder di vista la regola, bona

NON IXTKLLIGUNTUR NISI DEDUCTO ABRE MJENO.

In ogui modo ne con Bluntschli ne con Heffter si riesce davvero a rendere interna zion ale
una questione cbe sia di diritto interna, come di diritto interno diventb la questions
fra noi pel Lombardo-Veneto dopo disinteressata 1' Austria per effetto delle convenzioni
del 1871, lo fn seinpre pel Napoletano, Parmense, Toscaao, e ora lo e per l'ex-Pontificio.
Cessato, o non roai esistito Ira Stato a Stato, rimane un solo rapporto da definire, quello
fra la pubblica adniiuistrazione e il suo creditore, e questo e rapporte di materia civile,
dipendente dal diritto, non intern azionale, ma interno. Col creditore per contratto, cadra
in discussione il contratto, il suo adempimeuto o inadempimento, tenuto conto delle
circostanze di fatto che lo accouipagnarono e susseguirono. I politici avvenimenti
porgeranno materia alia causa, o ne tesseranno la fattispeeie, ecco tutto; e in caso di,
contestazione dovranno bene pronunziarvi i giudici del diritto civile, alia fattispeeie
applicando le regoledel Codice, edove bisogui,i principii generali del diritto sia privato
che pubbheo. E quanto il Consiglio di stato decise, e con tale gravita di niotivi da non
poterci tornare piu sopra.

Giurisprudenza e cousuetudini del regno stanno adnnque per principii affatto opposti
a quelli della relazione miuisteriale cbe pur ne iuvoca l'autorita.

Non a proposito essa relazione cita la legge del 4 agosta 1861 come la principale fra
le leggi di ricognizione fatte dall'Italia dei debiti dei precedenti Governi. Poichfe qnella
legge non intese gia ad attribuire azione civile ai creditori dei gia Stati d'ltalia, ma
sibbene a unificare i debiti pubblici cbe si potevano unificare. Gia per la legge del 10
lnglio 1861, cbe istitui il Gran Libro del deuito pubblico, nessuna rendita poteva es-
servi iscritta se non in virtil di una legge. E la legge del 4 agosto, guidata da un fine
economico e politico a uu tempo, iscrisse nel nuovo Gran Libro del debito pubblico del
regno d'ltalia il maggior numero dei debiti dei gia Stati italiani. Basta ripercorrere
le discussioni fatte alia Camera 18 su queste leggi, per convincersi che, auziehe rico-
noscerue alcuui e altri no, si unincarono debiti qnauti piu si poterono,cou rinviare a
leggi speciali la iscrizione di quelli che si tenevano fuori, e con eccetuare quelli soltanto
cbe non si prestavauo a essere uniticati, attese le speciality loro di premi, d'ammortizza-
zione, di garantie cbe nerendevano la condizioue differeute dalla condizioue degli altri.
Le eccezioni veuuero motivate dal rispetto dei diritti quesiti, nou per negare ai debiti
eccetuati una ricognizione fatta per gli altri, e della quale ricorresse bisogno. Uuifi-
cati o no, l'ltalia li ha tutti pagati e li paga.

II.

L'antico diritto della guerra faceva leeito l'uccidere il nemico in solo proprio, in solo
hostili, in solo nullius et in mari, fino ai fanciulli e alle donne, quod infantium quoque et
faiminarum cades impune habetur, et islo belli jure comprehenditur. Cosi il Grozio, ispirato
nel suo capo IV del libro III, al verso di Virgilio :

Turn certare odiis, turn res rapuisse licebit.

Secoudo una felice frase di Cicerone, la vittoria rendeva profane anche le cose sacre,
e sono parole del testo : Sepulchra hostium nobis religiosa non sunt.

Del nemico preso in guerra fatto servo, era uaturale che ogni bene si acquistasse dal
vincitore e padrone, e gli stabili alio Stato che aveva vinto, le cose mobili ricadevano
a chi se le pigliava per se o per dividersi coi eompagni. 111

La civilta, ha mutato il diritto. Fino dal 1743 Montesquieu insegnava il gins delle
genti fondarsi su questo principio, die le diverse nazioni devono farsi nella pace il maggior
bene e nella guerra il minor male possibile. La guerra non e relazione d'uomo ajiomo, ma
di Stato a Stato ; gli iadividui dell'miu o dell'altra di due nazioai in guerra, diceva
Portalis, sono nemici per accidente, e non lo sono come uomini, e nemmeno come cittadini, ma
solo come soldati.

Per tacere dei ricordi biblici, dalla legge pagana, della quale le storie ci hauno la-
sciate memorie di inesorabili applicazioni da parte dei Romaui, conquistatori del mou-

18 T(iriiate del 5 jriuglio e 19 ^iugno 1861.

15 LL. 3, in tin. Art leg.. Cornel. <1« sicariis, 1, 5 1, 5. § 7, 51. De adquir. rer. dom. 20 5 1, De captivisi
4, De aepulchro violato ; 36, De religiosis.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 153

do, e di feroci da parte dei barbari del nord, obe nella caduta dell'inipero ne ihvasero
le provinoie, siamo di progressoin progresso giunti alia dichiarazione dei prineipii del
oongresso di Parigi del 30 marzo 1856, e alle istruzioui date per le armate in campagna
nella guerra di separazioue fra le provincie del nord e le provincie del sud degli Stati
Uniti. E ci troviamo sempre in via, non per anobe giunti dove la civilta ne sospinge ;
tuttavia lontani nieno nelle guerre di terra obe nelle guerre di mare. A populi armati
in estermiuio di altri popoli, si sostituirouo eaereiti permaneuti contro eseroiti perma-
nent^ la devastazione fu resa locale sul oampo della zuffa, o dove si decide il conflitto ;
la stessa lotta ebbe le sue leggi.

Lo spagnuoio Ferdinando Vaequez nelle sue Controversie celehri neg6 aflatto nella eittct
l'obbligo di risarcire al cittadino il dauno patito per eansa di guerra, eo quod jus belli
talia permittat. La guerra invece essendo un fatto sociale, la societa do vr£ riparare le
perdite cbe la guerra cagiona, o compensarne i danni mediante giusta, perequttzione a
guerra fmita. La uazione, cbe la guerra a suo riscbio o vantaggio, non puo lasciare
il cieco caso arbitro dei danni, ma le bisogna repartire questi danni fra tutti, come su
tutti ricadono i beneflzi. Cosl VAkrens nella sua filosofia del diritto, e YHeffter nel suo
diritto delle genti dell'Europa moderna. A Vasquez, l'ultimo scrittore del diritto
autico, Grozio™ e i suoi L commentatori Puffendorff, Heineccio, Barleyrac, avevano gia con-
trapposta la medesima ragione della legge rhodia sul getto dalla nave pericolante.

Vattel distingue i danni nella guerra prodotti dallo Stato o dal sovrano, e i fatti dal
nemico.

"Dei primi, alcuni, ei dice, sono inferiti liberamente e per precauzione, come quando
si prende il campo, la casa, o il giardino di un particolare per costruirvi il bastione
d'una citta, o un'opera di fortificazione, quando si distruggono le messi o i propri
magazzini percbe non ne profitti il nemico. Lo Stato deve pagare queste speci di
danni al particolare, il quale non deve sopportare cbe la sua quota parte. Altri danni
vengono da una inevitabile necessita, tali sono per esempio, i guasti dell'artiglieria in
una citta cbe si riprenda al nemico. Questi sono accideuti, disgrazie della fortuna pei
proprietari sui quali ricadono. II sovrano deve avervi un equo riguardo, quando la
condizione dei suoi, affari a lui lo consenta, ma non si ba contro lo Stato azione per
sciagure di questa natura, per perdite cbe non ba cagionate liberamente, ma per neces-
sita, per accidente, usando dei suoi diritti.

■ " lo dico, prosegne Vattel, lo stesso dei danni cagionati dal nemico. Tutti i sudditi
vi sono esposti, e disgrazia a coloro sui quali ricadono ! Si pu6 in una societa correr
pure questo riscbio pei beni, daccbe lo si corre per la vita. Se dovesse lo Stato inden-
nizzare a rigore tutti quelli cbe perdono in questo inodo, le pubblicbe finanze sareb-
bero ben presto esaurite ; dovrebbe ognuno contribuire del suo in una ginsta propor-
zione, cio cbe sarebbe impracticabile. Queste indennizzazioni, del resto, darebbero
luogo a mille abusi, e a un dettaglio spaventoso. Donde e a presumere che a cib non
intendessero quelli cbe 8i sono uniti in societa.

"E tuttavia; conclude Vattel, assai couforme ai doveri dello Stato, e del sovrano, e
perconseguenzaequissimoe ancbe giustissimo sollevare, tanto che si puo, i disgraziati
rovinati dalle devastazioni della guerra, come prender cura di una famiglia, di cui il
capo e il sostegno ha perduta la vita in servizio dello Stato. Vi sono bene dei debiti
sacri per chi conosce i suoi doveri, sebbene essi non dieno azione contro di lui." 21

Vattel piuttosto che inseguare una teoria diversa da quella deWAhrens e AeXYHeffter
e cosl che Fanuunzia. Ei vuol riparati i danni della guerra con questa differenza :

Che pei danni deliberati dall'autorita in apparecchio di militare offesa o difesa, col
proposito di muoizioni o di cautele, Vattel riconosce azione civile a risaroimento, cbe
nega pei danni fortuiti o fatdli come son quelli d'una invasione nemica. Per questi
ultimi ei raccomanda, e con calore, di venire in soccorso, ma consente che si consulti
un po'anche lo stato della pubblica finanza.

Sono rimasti celebri nell'istoria i decreti promulgati in Fraucia dall'Assemblea
nazionale nell'll agosto 1792 e dalla Convenzione nel 14 agosto 1793, e nel 16 nies-
sidoro dell'anno II. L'Assemblea nazionale decretava : " II serait accord^ des secours
on des indemnitee aux citoyens frangais qui pendant la duree de la guerre auront
perdu par le fait des enuemis exteneurs tout ou partie de leurs proprietes." Ma se si
vollero risarciti tutti i danneggiati nei loro beni dai nemici o nella difesa del terri-
torio, era caso per caso dalla Convenzione stessa cbe si decretava la indennita. Ne
pur troppo a questo geueroso ricordo vuolsi disginngere l'altro amaro ricordo degli
asseynati ; cbe cioe col pagare soverchio si finl col pagare nessuno-o col pagare in
una moneta che valse piu nulla.

Alia distinzioue del Vattel si attenne il conte di Cavour nelle sue celebrate orazioni
alia Camera dei deputati sul trattato di Zurigo nella tomato del 21 maggio, e sulla
interpellanza Depretis in quella del 22 gingno 1860. Nel 16 agosto 1860 il ministro Fa-
rini vi inforniava una circolare diramata ai prefetti. 22 II Consiglio di stato ne pro-
fessb in via di massima i prineipii nel voto del 27 maggio 1867; 83 e ne ha fatta l'appli-
cazione ai danneggiati di Gaeta, dAlessandria, di Casale, di Piacenza, del Bolognese,

''Lib. III. cap. 20. 2 "§232. 22 Allegato n° is. " ^Allegato u« 12.

154 ALIEN CLAIMS.

di Castiglion delle Stiviere e di Roma, ooi pareri del 26 maggio, 10, 14 lnglio e 21 otto-
bre 1865, 28 febbraio, 26 gingno, 16 luglio, e 3 dicembre 1868, 12 luglio 1870, 10 feb-
braio, 5 maggio e 29 settembre 1871, per tacere di altri.

I tribunal! bauno applioata la, medesima teoria. ' Dov'e deliberazione, liberta di
conaiglio, ivi la responsibilita del danno ; dove I'accidente e all'mfnori della volouta,
della liberta e della scelta, fu imprevedibile il caso, divina laforza, ivi il fortuito, il
fatale di cui nessuno risponde.

Nel 1858 e 1860 la Corte d'appello di Lucca e la Cassazione di Firenze in una causa
Santernecchi ; nel 1867 el868 il tribunale e la Corte d'appello di Milano in una causa
Anton a-Traversi ; e nel 1866 la Corte d'appello di Messina e la Cassazione di Palermo
nel 1868 in un causa THpodo, hanno quella distinzioue del Vattel elevata fra noi a
niassima ricevnta di giurisprudenza. 24

Nell'applioazione non si ebbe difficolta, quando si e trattato d'abbattimento d'alberi
e di case intorno alle fortezze non ancora attaceate dal nemico, o di occupazioni di
terreni per fortificazioni passeggere durante l'armistizio.

Una difficolta e sorta sulle requisizioni f atte dal nemico per mezzo dell'autorita locale.
Poiche di rimborsare le requisizioni fatte dentro lo Stato per le truppe nazionali, nes-
suno ha mai dubitato e non dnbita. Le regie patenti del 9 agosto 1836 si tiovano d'aC-
cordo con la legge francpse del 26 e 29 aprile 1792 nell'ammettere il principlo del paga-
mento; l'urgenza potendo autorizzare 1'oceupazione e il modo, assolvere dalla preven-
tiva,non dall'indennita, anche ex post facto.

II conte di Cavour sui terreno del diritto, rispose recisamente, costituire un vero debito
dell'Italia le requisizioni fatte dull' Austria in Lombardia, e non considerarsi per tali le
requisizioni fatte da questa parte del Ticino. In Lombardia prima della guerra il Governo
austriaco era Governo regolare,di qua del Ticino era un nemico combattente. Sonolesue
parole. Gli rispose il deputato Cabella che il nemico sulle proviucie occupate esercita i di-
riiti della sovranita difatto ed ha il diritto di rivere, e per conseguenza sefa requisizioni per
alimentare le sue truppe, impone un debito alio Stato. u

Ed e vero chele requisizioni si sostituirono ai saccheggi e alle depredazioni, riscatta-
rono dalle rapine il paese invaso, imposero regola e modo alia militare licenza.

Ricorda il Dalloz la legge del 23 settembre 1814, cbe dichiarb affette alle requisizioui
e forniture fatte per le armate le coutribnzioni dirette si ordinarie die straordinarie
dal 1813 e 1814 ; la legge del 28 giugno 1815 che autorizzo il Governo ad assicurare le
sussistenze e i trasporti militari delle armate per via di requisizioni, a prezzi di lariffa ;
el'ordinauza del 16 agosto 1815, che in via d'urgenza impose una contribuzioue stra-
ordinaria di cento milioni e la ripartl sui diversi dipartimenti.in proporzione delle loro
risorse, per diminuireil carico delle requisizioni che pesavano unicameiite sui diparlimenti
invasi ; l'ordinanza del 5 ottobre 1815 ; le leggi di finanza del 28 aprile 1816 e sui bilan-
cio del 1821, relative alio stesso argomento.

Con tutto cib si troya negata azione ai dauneggiati da requisizioni del maire per
fornire le truppe nemiche. 26

™Anmili di giurisprudenza toscano, anno 1858, 2, 891, anno 18G0, 1, 243 ; DD. del tribunale civile di Mi-
lano, del 2tf maggio 1867, e della Corte d'appello-di Milano, del 3 maggio 1868 ; Corte d'appello di Mes-
sina, del 28 dicembre 1866, Cassazione di Palermo del 7 gennaio 1868.

In Toscana sono conosciute le due decisioni dell'antica Ruota, e del Magistrate supremo del 1° luglio
1806 e 22 settembre 1807, nella Libumen. prcetensce refectionis damnorum. Anche allora si trattave
d'un barone D'Aspre entrato nel 1799 in Livorno eoi ■ Tedeschi, cbe avevano depredato on livornese
(Trouquy). d'alcuni quadri di provenienza francese ; nonostante gli editti che risparmiavano dai se-
qnestri, accesi sulle robe del Governo francese, le robe dei privati, non militari e non impiegati nelle
armate. Una Commissione di prede nominata dal D'Aspre ordind la restituzione al Trouquy dei suoi
quadri, a patto che ei rinunziasse ai venduti o spediti a Vienna. II Trouquy ne mosse lite contro it
Governo del regno d'Etruria. E prima Ubaldo Maggi, poi il Sermolli e il Puccini, e per ultimo il SalvetH,
il Niccolini e il Etai rigettarono la domanda dell'attore. Allora i motivi delle decisioni spaztavano in
trattati della materia. Iotrascrivo questo solo, che e del Puccisi :

"Non couaiderata punto la detta sentenza (della Commissione delle prede nomiaata dal D'Aspre), lo
spoglio predetto riinaneva un atto di privata violenza fatto da persone maucanti d'autorita per commet-
terlo in qualunque rappresentanza vogliono riguardarsi. e che obbliga esse solamente e non la univbrsa-
lita dei poasessori dello Stato. innocenti e non partecipi in alcuna guisa del fatto.

" O vuol considerarsi questa sentenza, e le sentenze ingiuste daano luogo a ripari coovenienti avanti
altri giudici, ed in ulterior! istanze, ma giammai a indennita contro il Tesoro pubblieo dello Stato nel
cui territorio sono proferite.

" Non tutti i danni, non tutte le perdite che gli individui soffrono per la circostauza d'una guerra deb-
bono riaarcirsi dall'universalita dello Stato, sebbene accaduti nel suo territorio. Alcuni fra i quail
Grozio e Pufendorf, col loro traduttore Barbeyrac, hanno creduto, e vero, che nel rigore dei doveri
eociali vi sia qnello di far risentire a tutti per la quota parte di ciaschedune i danni di qnalsivogli^
specie portati sui singoli cittadini dalla guerra. come derivanti da una casua universale. Ma hannovi
in opposizione altr^ che non riconoscono alcuna obbligazione di rimborso nella societa per le conseguenze
qualunque della guerra risentite dai particolari ; come Herzio, Enrico Coccejo, Sam. Stykio. Gli stessi
poi di sopra citati scrittori hanno creduto ineseguibile la loro dottrina nella sua pienezza, e ne fanno
poi dipendere la giusta estensione ed applicazione dal Governo civile. Ed oggimai la teoria comune
presso gli scrittori di diritto pubblioo 6 nella pratiea delle nazioniee che non sia lo Stato tenuto alia
rifazipne di altri danni che di quelli cagionati dalla legittima rappresentanza dell'universale, o che
dell'universale hanno ridoudato in un oerto vantaggio; e che tutti gli altri di diversa specie restino a
carico dei particolari che li hanno sofferfci, come accidenli parziali e mali inevitahili della fortuna."
■Ziegler, Dejuremajestatico; Vattel, Droit des gens, etc.

25 Tornata del 22 giugno 1860.

26 Ordon. 16 novembre 1825 in aff. Schoengriin.

. ALIEN CLAIMS. . 155

II Blnntachli, parlando delle contribnzinni che un'armata ha diritto di levare sul ter-
ritorio nemico, si studia di restringerle alle assolutarnente indispensabili perman-
tenersi e pei suoi movimenti. Ei credepoterel'araiata neraica reclamare gratuitamente
dalle popolazioni le sole imposizioni e contribuzioni di gnerra nei limifci stabiliti dal-
Tuso 6 dalle leggi del paese. Laraenta che, al di la, il nernico che ha ordinata la requi-
sizione si limiti a rilaseiame rioevuta ea fame sperare ilrimborso dal Go vera o locale, il
quale, nulla avendo ricevnto, non vuol nulla saperne E, osservato che nei trattati di
pace se ne fa rarainente qnest.ione, il Blnnlschli conclude trovarsi allora i diritti dei co-
muni e dei particolari verso lo Stato uemico ben gravemente compromessi, e cbe tutto
ci6 cbe ad essi rimane e di chiedere al loro Governo di aiutarli in nome dell'equita. 37

La giurisprndenza si e pronunciata in qnesto seuso anche fra noi.

Sulle requisizioni del 1S59 fatte dagli Austriaci nella Lomellina col nwzo dei sindaci,
si ha una dotta decisione della Cassazione di Milano del 18 luglio 1864, proferita nella
causa fra il comnne di Santiazzaro e Maggi Pietro.

Ivi la Cassazione nega i termini del mandato per difetto di volonta ; della gestione di
negoziche trova il suo appoggio nei mandato legalmentepresunto ; e della legge rhodia, che
ba per base l'nguaglianza dei rischi e dei vantaggi. Invoca la dottrina dai pubblicisti,
dei quali, i piti favorevoli al principio dell'indennita, lo applieano verso In Stato e non
verso i comuni, essi pure danneggiati, e anche verso lo Stato non consentono azione
civilmente esperibile. Cita la Francia ri voluzionaria, che sospinse la solidalita nazionale
fino all'esaltaziono del seutimeuto, eppure nego ogni azione giudiziaria per fatti e danni
di gnerra, inflXUi ai citladini da violenza neniica, con o senza il ministers passivo dei sindaci.
■E casso senza rinvio la sentenza del tribnnale di Vigevano oontraria alia comiinita, chiu-
dendo la serie delle sue considerazioni con la seguente :

" Attesoche le au'torita couinnali cbe. nell'iuvasione dello straniero pur rimasero al
loro posto e i cittadini che ne ascoltarono la voce ed ora aspettano pazientemente
un equo provvedirnento, adempierono un patriottico nfficio eben meritarono del paese ;
e certamente vi hanno debiti sacrosanti per chi conosce il dovere bencbe non sanzio-
uati da azione giuridica ; ne e da dubitare che la nazione sia per diraenticare cio cbe le
consigliano gl'interessi superiori dell'av^enire, la giustizia ed in specie la pieta verso
nnmerose famiglie spogliate e forse ridotte in misero stato. Questo solo si nega che
un'azione giudiziaria con principii, con metodi e con procediinenti inetti al bisogno,
possa sostituirsi cola dov'e solo competente e praticabile un arbitrato legislative"

III.

Secondo la vostra Corrmissione, giuridica e dunqne per l'ltalia laobbligazione di
pagare i debiti lasciati dalle aimniuistrazioni permanenti, cbe precedevano la sua for-
rnazione; e civile l'azione dei creditor! ; di diritto interno la questione.

Non ha invece che natura politica il rapporto dell'Italia verso i creditori dei Govern!
provvisori del 1848 e 1849 ; e per6 non d'azione dasperimentare utilmente ai tribunali,
ma quel rapporto puo solo e deve foiinare soggetto d'un provvedirnento legislative

Era danneggialo per la gnerra e Governo intercede rapporto di creditore a debitore dove
il danno venga prodotto'da proposito deliberato dall'autorita, mentre al dauuo forttiito
o fatale, se si viene o si pno venire insoccorso, non si conseute azione. Faiale eil danno
che reca il nemico, incursus hostium; 28 e lo sono pertanto le sue 'requisizioni anche se
fatte e regolate col mezzo dei sindaci. Nelle quali vuolsi tuttavia'riconoscere al diritto
della forza mescolarsi uu po 'anche il diritto della ragione, o il caso assumere indole di
caso misto, da conseguentemente reclamare un trattamento speciale.

Ecco i principii cbe la Commissione ha presi a guida delle sue proposte ; e dei quali
scendo in suo nome a discorrere delle applicazionf, a suo giudizio, convenienti a tutte,
l'una dopo l'altra, le partite notate nell'a(%ato alia relazioue ministeriale.

La Commissione ha dovuto avvertire che Vallegato rnescola insieme e confonde par-
tite di natura diversa e politicarnenfe e giuridicamente. Essa Una volta per tutte qui
nota che l'allegato, se da un lato abbonda, dall'altro trascura partite che hanno lo stesso
titolo, e perb da sottoporre a ugual trattamento.

Se pertanto i principii della Commissione prevarranno, l'applicazione de'suoi prin-y
cipii sara da estendere a ogni pendenza che rientri nella formola generate della loro
definizione, e ci6 quand'ancue si tratti di partita, non coutemplata nell'allegato, o noa
dalla relazione presente, che ha preso a seguirlo.

LB APPLICAZIOKI ALL'ALLEGATO DEI PRINCIPII DELLA COMMISSIONE.

1. — Lonibardia e Venezia.

Espropriazioni e somministrazioni militari, appropriazioni di stabili fatte dalla cassa
d'ammortizzazione del Governo italico.

Sommano a lire 5,043,687 33 i crediti, non regolati, sebben reclamati da comuni e
privati di Lonibardia avanti alia speciale Commissione presso il Monte lombardo-veneto,

27 653. 2 » Leg. 18, ff ; commodati.

156 . ALIEN CLAIMS.

instituita in esecuzione all'articolb 97 dell'atto finale del Congresso di Vienna del 9
giugno 1815.

Nel trattato del 30 raaggio 1814, stipulate) fra la Francia ebe cedeva e l'Austria che
aequistava il Lombardo-Veneto, all'articolo 19 il Goveriw francese si impegnava di far
liquidare epagare le sonvme rimaste a suo debito neipaesi fuori del suo territorio per cdntratti
o altre obbUgazioni per furniture o somministrazioni verso privati o verso istituti.

Dopo i eento giorni, per la eonvenzione finale del 25 aprile 1818, la Francia, in eseou-
zione all'articolo 19, pagb ai Governi sottoscritti al trattato 11! milioni e 40,000 lire di
rendita, o 240 milioni e 800,000 lire di capitale, dei quali toccarono all'Austria pel Lom-
bardo-Veneto 25 milioni, oltre 2,612,642 lire da essa ricevute prima.

Con la patente del 27 agosto 1820 l'Austria institul una Commissione liquidatrice del
debito arretrato dell'amministrazione del cessato regno itallco, con intimazione ai
creditor! ad esibire i loro titoli a tutto il 1821, e tolta ogni relativa couipetenza ai tri-
bunal], come ad ogni altra magistratura ammiuistrativa.

Eppure uel 1859 e nel 1866 questa liquidazioue non era peranche chiusa, ne saldati si
trovarono i conti. La eonvenzione del 9 settenibre 1860, stipulata al seguito del trat-
tato di Zurigo del 10 novembre 1859, e il trattato di Vienna del 3 ottobre 1866, rimet-
tevano a regolarsi fra chi di diritto queste antiche pendenze.

E tutte si riprodussero, e invoeati gli stessi titoli dei trattati del 1814, del 1815 e del
1818, dai coinmissari italiani nelle discussioni coi commissari imperiali, le quali pre-
cederono e prepararono la eonvenzione del G gennaio, approvata eon la legge del 23
marzo 1871.»»

E attesoche si pattuiva in questa eonvenzione — tovtes les reclamations pre'sente'es par
les deux Gouvernenients sonl compensies en voie de transaction, moyennant le paienient que le
Gouvernemeiu Austro-Hongrois s'migage a faire an Gouiernement italien dans le semestre
d'une sommede 4,749,000 florins — il debito non ancora liquidato e non pagato dall' Austria
divent6 debito da liquidare e da pagare dall'Italia.

Nella discussione alia Camera suile convenzioni del 1871, principio e applicazione
furono propugnati da piil d'un oratore. E a ragione. Poiche l'Austria non ba mai im-
pugnato il debito. Messe poea buona volonta nel liquidarlo e ancbe meno nel pagavlo,
raa eceezioni non le oppose mai. E ora il Governo d'ltalia, snbentrato negli obblighi
dell'Anstria per ragioni territoriali e per eonvenzione, non solo non vorra opporre ecee-
zioni non opposte dall'Anstriaco, ma e da contare che portera uel conipiere le liquida-
zioni e nel saldare i pagamenti una volonta migliore di quella gia messa (Tall'Austria
che allungb tanto le prime per dift'erire i secondi.

2. — Parma e Piacenza.
Somministrazioni degli anni 1811, 1812, 1814 e 1815.

£ questoun credito.degli ospizi civili di Borgo San Donnino del 1814 el8l5 per man-
tenimento di ricoverati mendicanti, di lire 6419 66, per provvista di pagliericei e pauni
pei detenuti in quelle prigioni, e di lire 416 02, in tutto lire 6835 68.

Ma come sia debito dello Stato, e meno che mai perche figuri in un prospetto di
danni di guerra, alia Commissione non e risultato. Ella sa che il Governo parmense non
lo ricouobbe, e che si' ha per debito prescritto, e perb passa oltre.

3. — Provincie napoletane.
Prestito forzato nazionale del 1821.

£ l'imprestito votato in 3,000,000 di ducati dal Parlamento napoletano, decretato per
legge del 17 febbraio 1821, stato nel 27 marzo sospeso e poi anuullato per decreto del 6
aprile 1821. Sui versamenti avvenuti dal 17 febbraio al 27 marzo si dicono rimasti da
restituire ducati 265,456 09, pari a lire 1,128,188 38. Ma si tace come e perche non
restituiti, non si dicese i titoli sono conservati ed esibiti, e dove e in quale giuridica
condizione si siano trovati o si trovino, o dopo quali preuedenti dei Governi provvisorii
o permanenti del Napoletano.

La Commissione pertanto ha lasciata questa partita senza proposte nelle condizioni
di diritto che ha.

Dalla natura del suo mandato essa si tenne invitata ad esordire i suoi lavori dal
1848, da quando spuntb l'aurora del nazionale risorgimento. Dei debiti del gia regno
italico ha dovnto ocennarsi, perehe li trovb fatti suoi dall'Austria e riugiovaniti nelle
conferenze diplomatiche del 1870 e dalla eonvenzione approvata con la legge del 1871.
Mentre a saputa della Commissione nulla e sopraggiunto che revoohi a nuova vita un
fatto che sembra dall'amministrazione borbouica lasciato per complnto, col sistema di
governo che aveva. Male avvezza, avra fatto male; la sua sara stata opera di mai
governo, e potra esserne venuto uu torto da riparare dal Governo italiano ; ma non
saremmo iu termini di civile obbligazibne o di debito che questo abbia senz'altro a
dimettere. Le quali cose si dicono quasi a modo di divinazione, e, anziche per proferire
giudizi sopra fatti accertati, per giustificare la riserva della Commissione.

s9 Vedaei la relazione presentata su quella convenziono dalla Giunta nel 3 marzo 1871.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 157

4. — Imprestiti dei Governi provvisorii del 1848.'

La Lombakdia apparisce per lire 8,497,890 72, somma costituita da imprestiti in
denaro ordiuati coi decreti del Governo provvisorio dei 27 marzo, 1" giugno e 28 lnglio
1848, da ritennte fatte sngli stipendi e le pensioni coi decret.i dei 29 aprile e 19 inaggio
1848, e dal prestito - in oggetti d'oro e d'argento decretato nel 1° lnglio 1848.

La Lombardia vot.6 il suo plebiscito nell'8 giugno 1848, aceettato da Re Carlo Alberto
nel 13 gingno e dal Parlamento subalpino eou legge dell'll lnglio. No la Lombardia fn
cbiamata uel 1859 a rinuovare il sno plebiscito. Bestaurato il diritlo nazionale, i vostri
voti raffermano I'unione col mio regno cite si fonda nelle guarentigie del viver civile, bandiva
Vittorio Emauuele col proclama del 9 giugno quando, ricondotto dalle armi liberatrici,
riprendeva il governo di Lombardia. E un fatto storico che I'unione nou si fece allora,
o che nel 1859 si ripristmb l'nnione votata nel 1848.

Di consenso coi regi commissari Montezemolo e Strigelli, questi imprestiti ebbero carat-
tere in parte volontario, e in parte coattivo. Si presero da quel Governo ancbe i depo-
sit! necessari, dei quali poi l'Austria non restitul che i necessari per necessita di legge
o di contratto, non rimasti nella cassa tin giorno piu del prescritto ed esclusi quelli
esegniti nel periodo del Governo di fatto. Sono restrizioni imposte dall'Anstria e pub-
blicate con risoluzione del 13 lnglio 1852. Intanto i denari raccolti da quelli imprestiti
come i presi dalla cassa dei depositi servirono ugualmente alia causa nazionale, stata
inaugurata cou le famose cinque giornate.

Fin dal dicembre 1859 il commissario straordinario Vigliani propose di questi debiti
la iscrizione nel libro del debito pubblico dello Stato. Ne la prefettura di Milauo trovo>
in aprile del 1860 da fare diverse proposte.

II ministro Bastogi nella discussione alia Camera snl progetto di legge per Yunifica-
zione dei debit: pubblici d'ltalia, rispondendo al deputato Allievi, dicbiarava in nonie
del Ministero, presiednto allora dal conte di Caxiour, riconoscere i generosi sforzi fatti
dalla Lombardia nel 1848, essersi data ogni aura per raccogliere documenti, esaminarli accu-
ratamente per poter quindi presentare una legge affinclw vengano posti in regola ipresiiti che
fece la Lombardia nel 1848.

II ministro Minghetti a identicbe dichiarazioni, sulle interpellanze del deputato
Maccki, nelle tornate del 4 marzo e 28 lnglio 1863, aggiungeva che alia presentazione
d'un progetto di legge non mancava oramai che il parere del Consiglio di stato.

E il Consiglio di stato dette il sno parere nella seduta del 3 settembre di quell'anno
18G3 nel senso che il progetto avesse ad essere presentato, comu>nque trattandosi d'ob-
bllgazione naturale a cui si deve restituire il carattere d'obbligazione civile per condderazioni
di giustizia, d'equita e di convenienza polilica spetti al Governo il giudicare delta opportunity
del tempo in cui la proposta debba esser fatta. 30

II Consiglio di stato, che costanteraente ha negato ai creditori dei Governi provvi-
sorii del 1848 di far valere ai tribunali le loro ragioni, si e manteunto pure costanteuel
sollecitare il Governo a provocare dal Parlamento una legge, la quale restituisse ai
titoli di essi creditori la virtu giuridica che avevano pardnta e togliesse le inique restri-
zioni opposte dall'Austria alia restituzione dei depositi con la risoluzione del 1852. 31

Un progetto di legge d'initiativa parlamentare nel gennaio del 1865 venne anche
presentato da 52 deputati per cambiare i titoli di quelli imprestiti in tanta reudita
consolidata del 5 per ceDto. E sequel progetto restb sorpreso dalla chiuaura delU Ses-
sione, costituisce pur sempre un precedente da tenere in conto.

Passaggi da una ad altra mano per alienazione di questi titoli potranuo essere, e
saranno avvennti. La Giunta non sa ne vuole escluderlo, come ecerto che agli acqui-
renti non sono quei titoli costati il loro valore nominate. Ma ne si deve esagerare il
fatto, avendosi prove che molti di quei titoli si conservauo tnttora dagli origiuari sov-
ventori ; e non e il 5, ma il 3 per cento che la Giunta si e indotta ad oifrire a questa
specie di creditori, ai quali venne ineno o resto interrotta la coudizione giuridica del
loro titolo di credito. E dentro questi limiti, il trattamento sembra verameut'e dover
vincere ogni ritegno, disarmare ogni opposizione.

Venbzia sta nella lista deWallegato :

per 3,888,900, 00 prestito del 14 raaggio 1848:
1, 296, 300 00 per quello del 20 giugno 1843 ;
1,296,880 00 prestito in oggetti d'oro, d'argeuto e ritenute del 19 luglio e 16

agosto ;
1, 609, 875 00 Buoni emessi dalla Banca di sconto, giusta il decreto del 25 luglio

1848;
2, 659, 834 76 prestiti dei 19 settembre, 14 ottobre, 15 novembre 1848 e 9 aprile

1849;
1,571,136 22 moneta patriottica rimasta in circolazione dopo la notificazione

austriaca del 2 ottobre 1849;

™ Verti allegato n° 11.

31 Pareri del 20 ottobre 1868 in aff. Eredith Labia, del 26 marzo 1869 in an*. Rossi c del 5 marzo 1873 in
aff. Eaffard.

158 ALIEN CLAIMS.

per 8, 973, 774 57 scapito sulla carta, emessa dal commie di Venezia, e per lire austria-
che 20,766,291 52, cambiata oontro a valuta austriaca al 50 per
cento, per effetto della convenzione del 22 agosto 1849.

Sn quest'ultima partita uou e a tratteuersi ; il eambio fra carta veneta e carta au-
striaca essendosi consumato senza lasciar traccie sensibili dietro a se, e per disposizione
del Governo del tempo.

Ma gli iniprestiti della Venezia hauno la medisima origine, ebbero lo stesso fine e
rneritauo ugual trattamento degli imprestiti lombardi.

Venezia si nnl con la Lombarrlia al Pieuionte per plebiscito acoettato con la legge del
27 lnglio 1848, ebbe il suo regio commissario, prosegul i militari apprestamenti dopo
l'armistizio Salasco, fn sovvenuta dal Piemonte d'un sussidio mensiJe di lire 600,000,
delle quali iu gennaio del 1849 tocco un primo accouto di lire 200,000, e dopo Jfovara
soateuue da sola quella eroica resistenza ad ogni costo, che restera inemorabile nella
storia.

Se per Venezia mancano le dichiarazioni che i ministri fecero tante volte per la Lom-
bardia, fn perche Venezia pote solo riuuirsi all'Italia in ottobre.del 1866: uientre fa la
petizioue del suo nmuicipio e della sua Camera di commercio, che provoco quella dis-
cussione alia Camera, al seguito della quale venne ripresentato il progetto su cui si
discute.

Roma ebbe la sua predita di bnoni emessi dalla repubblica coi decreti dei 1° e 26 marzo,
5 e 11 aprile^e 5 maggio 1849, e ritirati con la riduzione del 35 per cento per notifica-
zioue del Governo poutiticio del 24 settembre 1849. E di questa perdita non potrebbe
ora faisi ragione, come non 6 fatta per la veneta, mutata iu valuta anatriaca col maggiore
scapito del 50 per cento. Poiche in quella come in questa perdita il cauibio si ordon&"
come p da ehi allora poteva ordinarlo, ne, dopo il ritiio dei titoli, sono rhnasti dauaeg-
giati accertabili.

Ma Rorna ebbe pure il suo imprestito coattivo, ordinato dalla repubblica col decreto "
del 2 marzo 1849, e una requisizioue di argeuti decretata nel 2 maggio; con aver data '
il primo una somma di lire 1,298,932 98, la seconda di lire 509,432 20.

Se non che, di froute agli, argenti reqnisiti si couseguarono dalla Zecca dei buoni, •
'stall pagati in moneta d'argento plateale emessa dalla repubblica, e la Zrcca verso in deposi-
teria iu settembre del 1850, in moneta metallica, scudi 5549 61, valore di 17 bnoni, restati
insoluti, per argenti presentati alia Zecca dal Triumvirate, dal Ministero dell'iuterno e '
da vaiie Commissioni di requisizioni. 3 * Apparisce insomnia partita saldata.

Nou rimane pertanto che l'imprestito per 1,298,932 lire e cenfesimi 98. E di questo
la vostra Coinmissioue vi propone il mertesimo trattamento degli imprestiti degli altri
Goverui provvisorii del 1848. Se il romano non si ispir6, come gli altri Governi, al
priucipio mouarchico, s'isgiro, come gli altri, al principio nazionale, con averlo, nella
difesa di Roma, propognato cou valore, resistendo a soldati strauieri, stimati allora i
niigliori d'Europa.

Napoh.— Nelle ruoviNCiE napoletane, con decreto reale del 26 aprile 1848, fu ordi-
nato un imprestito forzato per due e volontario per un milione di ducati.

Annullato e ritirato, pare che rimangauo di esso imprestito non rimborsati tanti titoli
per ducati 458,032 41, pari a lire italiane 1,946,637 74. E se di questi titoli ne restino
aucora in corso. la Comrnissioue nou ha potuto appurare. Se ne restano, meritano sicu-
rameute di essere ritirati e pagati come si ritiruno e pagano gli altri di quell'epoca, '
della medesima causa e che si raccomaudanp a lino stesso ordine di considerazioni. '
Napoli non ebbe Governo procvisorio uel 1848, e reale fu il decreto che orcliub l'impre-
stito. La quale c tal circostanza da non dimeuticare nel trattamento di questa partita.

Secilia. — Chi manca nella lista e la Sicilia. Poiche ai debiti del Governo provvi-
sorio della Sicilia provvide un decreto luogotenenziale del 31 dicembre 1860, con questo
articolo: / titoli dei debiti nazionali del 1848 e 1849 non ancora tstinti sono commutati in
iscrizioni di rendila 5 per cento da assegnar'si sul loro valor capitate, col godimento dal 1°
gennaio 1861.

E quanti ebbero titoli di quei debiti nazionali della Sicilia se li trovano ora convertiti
in altrettauto consolidato 5 per cento italiano.

La quale sorte nou pu6 che solicitare a provvedere ai debiti degli altri Governi di
ugual natura, se pur non vogliamo che la ginstizia distribntiva patisca piu a luiigo
un'oiiesa, clie non si e nemmeno dispusti a nparare completamente.

5. — Somministrazioni, requisizioni e danni de gnerra del 1848-49.

Le provincu? ex-pontipicib, aunesse nel 1859 e 1860, per prestazioni e somministra-
zioni alle milizie della repubblica romana e del Governo pontificio hanno pressoche
liqnidato un credito di lire 124,867 97.

La Lombakdia per somministrazioni e lavori di corpi nwrali e privati, per conto del
Governo provvisorio, ha un credito accertato di lire 1,235,763 63 per tacere d'altra par-
tita presuuta di lire 2,237,957 54 messa in nota per requisizioni e danni, nou giustifioati
e perb da eliminare dal conto.

32 £ quanto risulta da un attestato rilaaciato daH'inteudeuto della Zecca romaua nel 28 marzo 1871.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 159

Parma e notata per un piccolo credito presnnto di lire 86,0R7 11 per spese di vitto e ,
alloggio di truppe austriaclie, e, insieme con Piacenza, per altro credito di lire 8150 83
per prestazioui e somministrazioni a truppe nazioDali.

Nell'EX-DicATO di Modena per questo titolo si liquidb appena la iasignificante
somrua di lire 609 73.

E la Sicilia per somministrazioni militari liquido per lire 18,283 28, e nulla per
requisizioni e dauni pei qnali si avevano reclami per lire 240,008 63.

11 Piemonte nella campagna del marzo 1849 patl requisizioni e danni di guerra che
si dissero asceudere a lire 2,152,392 48.

Una legge del 15 giugno 1^50 apil uu credito di lire 500,000 per sovvenire gli aMlanti
delle prorivcie di Novara e di Lomellina, danneggiatiin occasione delta guerra del mese di
marzo 1849 e die troeangi in ristrette coudizioni di forluna.

Sono 500,000 lire che scemano d'alrettanta somma quella partita, o, per dir meglio,
la soldano. Se infatti delle requisizioni e dei danni si teneva allora lo stesso criterio,
tntti sanno che le requisizioni regolari o giustificate furono pagate, donde e uua partita
rimasta nella nota solo per figura.

E per ligura vi stanno le puovincie venete e di Mantova niente meuo che per lire
11.150,059 35 a titolo di requisizioni e danni della guerra del 1848 e 1849.

Imperocche e noto come per disposizione del Goveruo austriaco le aomministrazioni
dei generi di sussistenza, foruite dal 18 marzo 1848 al 31 dicembre 1849, alle truppe
imperiali accampate nel Lombardo-Veneto per combattere la insurrezione e I'armata ita-
■ liana, piu la tassa di guerra allora imposta, e i gravi' danni arrecati dal militare in quelle
circostanze, si 1'ecero gravare a tutto carico delle proviucie stesse in proporzione del loro
estinio.

Ed e uoto del pari che nn decreto del Miuistero di Vienna del 17 novembre 1858
sauziono la perequazione o il conguaglio fra le provincie lombarde e venete di uu debito

ris'ultato per prestazioui, in natura e iu deuaro, di,. L.55, 988,741 66

Per il fundo sociale costitnito per corrispondere alle esorbitanti pretese

del militare '. 862,853 96

Per la tassa bellica „ '. 36,045,100 59

In totale austriache 92,896,706 21

Nella perequazione stata approvata, la Lombardia risultd debitrice per conguaglio
verso la Venezia di lire 3,80 n ,000. E se ne restb ritarda'o il pagameuto lu per le
sopraggiunte vicende politiche, c anche per difficolta di subreparto del debito, sorte
fra, le provincie interessate.

II Miuistero ha dovuto piu volte mescolarsi e mescolare il^Consiglio di stato nella
questione, portata per ultimo dalla proviucia di Cremona alia, decisioue dei tribunali
ordinari. Ne opportuno, ne legale pare pertanto alia Commissione il turbare con sue
proposte il corso ordinario di giustizia, stato preso dapendenze, che alcune provincie
hanno con altre provincie, qnali persone giuridicne, costituite l'una verso l'altra in
rapporti civili di debito e credito. 33 Si augura tuttavia la Conjmissiono che ogni peu-
denza verra definita sollecitamente; e che ne l'autorita giudiziaria ne Tautorita auimi-
nistrativr , nella sfera delle rispettive compete nze, mancheranno, ciascuna dal canto suo,
di decidere e provvedere .con la prontezza che e parte di quella giustizia o di quella .
buona ammiuistrazione che spetta a loro di reudere.

.6. — Incendio delle case nel 8ubu.rbio di Milano, nella notie dal 4ol5 agosto 1848.

A nno speciale ricordo richiamano le case del suburbio di Milano incendiate nella
notte dal 4 al 5 agosto 1848 per ordine di Ee Carlo Alberto, quaudo ripiegava gli avauzi
del valoroso suo esercito per coprire una cirta risoluta a disperrfta difesa. Fumavano
ancora le case incendiate, che le sorti della guerra costrinsero alia capitolazione di
Milanu, e l'esercito sardo a ripassare il Ticino. Ma quelli iucendi non fuiouo dimenti-
cati ne dal vincitore oe dal vinto.

II maresciallo Eadetzki, nel 18 agosto con notificazione dell'iutendenza generale del-
l'armata, nomino una speciale Commissione con l'incarico di rilevare e stimare i danni
in contraddittorio dei proprietari delle case incendiate.

E il suo Governo nelle trattative di pace, per elevare a maggior somma la indemnita
della guerra da imporre sullo Stato sardo, allego bene l'impegno assuuto con la noti-
ficazione del 18 agosto.

II Governo sardo col primo degli articoli addizionali al trattato di Milano del 6 agosto
1849, si sobbareo a pagare in diverse rate a S. M. Vimperalore d' Austria la somma di 75
milioni a titolo d 'indemiita delle spese di guerra d'ogni maniera e dei danni sofferti durante la
guerra, dal Governo austriaco e daisuoi sudditi, cittd, coiyi morali, o corporazioni, senza alcuna
eccezione come pure pei reclami die fosaero Stati elevati per la medesima causa dalle LL. A A.
BR. I'arciduca, duca di Modena, e I'infante di Spagna, duca di Parma e di Piacenza.

A pace fatta, il Governo austriaco distribui poco, e achi voile, di quei 75 milioni ; e

33 Vedi allegati numeri 8, 9 e 10.

\

160 ALIEN CLAIMS.

ci6 anche dopo l'atteggiamento preso dal conte di Cavonr nel congresso di Parigi del
1856 ; dopo il quale pur vennero da Vienna ordini di riassnmere la liquidazione comin-
ciata dalla Conimiasione del 1848, e, sopra una petizioue del comune dei Corpi Santi, si
compie il lavoro e si ripresero perfino i pagaraeuti.

Sopragginnto il 1859; i commissari di Re Vittorio Emannele, nolle trattative che
riusoirono al trattato di Zurigo mossero aperte lagnanze della incompiuta esecuzioue
data dall'Austria al trattato di Milano. Come e vero che i commissari austriaci si riliu-
tarono ad ogni relativa discussione, deducendo quanto all'Anstria eseguito il trattato,
e rispetto, alia Sardegna, essersi la medesima sdebitata coi 75 milioni. La questions
rimasta sospesa, diventd are conto di piu da regolare con V Austria, secondo allora dicevail
ministro dell'interno, il compianto Farini.

I dauneggiati infatti anziche arrendersi, in numero di 41, muniDi d'un certificato di
credito, rilasciato a loro dalla direzione del Tesoro di Milaud, chiesero e ottennero per
lire 645,004 67 la prenotazione di suppegno sni crediti iscritti a favore del Governo au-
striaco presso l'ufficio delle ipoteche di Castiglione delle Stiviere.

Tuttora pende in Cassazione il ricorso dai medesimi interposto contro la sentenza
della Corte d'appello di Brescia del 24 luglio 1867, la quale accolse la eccezioue d'in-
competenza opposta dal Goveruo austriaco, rimasto soccombente sul merito in prima
istanza.

Pratiche uel frattempo si fecero a Vienna per strappare un accomodamento, e prati-
che si tornarono a fare dai commissari italiani nolle trattative dalle quali usci fuori la
convenzione del 1871. E qui pure torna l'argomento che per la transazione, allora con-
clusa, e per la somma sborsata dall'Auatria in 4,749,000 fiorini, a compenso d'ogni pre-
tesadell'ltalia, anche questa partita e oramai da ritenere fra quelle nelle quali l'ltalia
subeutrava all' Austria a titolo correspettivo.

II Consiglio di stato, dirimendo un conflitto di attribuzioni suscitato nella causa delle
sorelle Nicolini, flglie ed eredi d'uno dei danneggiati, ricorso ai tribunali contro l'am-
miuistrazione italiana, decise per la competenza del potere amministrativo a risolvere
la controversial 4

Ma questa decisione non toglie, ne scema nel Governo nazionale l'impegno di
riconoscere un debito le tante volte da esso fatto valere come debito del Governo a
cui e subeutrato. E il caso di attribuire virtu giuridica al titolo che per avveutura ne
manchi. Poiche, se il debito ha conservata la natura che aveva, il Governo nazionale
non lo put) soddisfare con le restrizioni e la mala fede che rimproverava all'Austriaco ;
ma lo deve con qnella larghezza con la quale esigeva che lo avesse pagato l'Austriaco,
secondo le promesse fatte e i compensi ottenuti.

Oggi, richiesta dei danni non e altrlmenti la Sardegna, che li pagb coi 75 milioni
quando perdeva la Lombardia, ma e l'ltalia; e lo e, ora che ha riscosso il saldo che pote
riscuotere per ogni sua pendenza con l'Austria, e, quello che piu rileva, dopo acquistata
o annessa la Lombardia.

7. — Toseana.

Mantenimento delle truppe austriache dal 1849 al 1855.

Ecco una partita che non poteva e che non doveva confondersi coi danni di guerra,
coi quali non ha nulla di comune.

' II moto popolare, che nell'll aprile insanguinb le vie e le piazze della citta di
Firenze non valse a trattenere i proclaim del 5 e 24 maggio, coi quali, per ordine del
maresciallo Kadetzky, il barone d'Aspre eutrava con gli Austriaci in Toseana, e nella
stessa Firenze, chiamato dalgranduca a rassicnrarlo sul trono; e non il manifesto del conte
Serristori del 18 maggio 1849 per annunziare indispensabile il temporaneo intervento di
milizie ausitiari ad assicurare permanentemente il trionfo della legge.

Per la convenzione del 22 aprile 1850, stipulata fra l'imperatore d' Austria e il gran-
duca, restb regolato tutto cio che si riferiva al soggiorno in Toseana d'un corpo ausiliare
di truppe austriache, con addossarsi l'Austria la paga e I'equipaggiamenlo e la Toseana
tutte le spese di mantenimento, 'dal giorno dell'ingresso delle truppe nel territorio tos-
cano.

La liquidazione venue affidata ad una Commissione con decreto del Governo del 13
giugno ; e un decreto granducale del 3 novembre 1850 incaricb la Commissione stessa
di liquidare i crediti per quoste spese fatte dagli spedali e dalle comunita, alle quali si

M La decisione fu proferita quando la presente relazione era in corao di stampa, nel 3 maggio 1873,
sulle considerazioni : " Che la controversia di che si tratta si risolve in una questione di partecipazione
al reparte dell'indennita asseguata al Governo austriaco col trattato di pace del 1849 a favore dei suoi
sndditi danneggiati dalla guerra ; che tale reparto per propria natnra e nello spirito del trattato, era
atto di Governo da compiorsi con quei criteri e quelle forme di giustizia distrihativa, clie appartengono
airamministrazione, anziche ai tribunali ; che in questo seuso la cousider6 lo stesso Governo austriaco,
e non havvi ragione per cui possa credersi rantata, col passaggio della Lombardia sotto le leggi italiane."

II Governo austriaco cousiderawila questione tanto poco giuridica, che il maresciallo Radetzsky, il
quale, nel 18 agosto 1849, aVeva nominata la Commissione per liquidare questi danni, neg6 poi di con-
templarli nel reparto ; dacche la citta di Milano pel contegno tenuto nell'epoca della guerra non si e rem
meritevole di nessun speciale riguardo.

Sono parole della istruzione del 12 aprile 1852, letta dall'onorevole Sella nella tornata del 7 niarzo
1871.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 161

prometteva il rimborso in un ooi frutti ohe avessero dovuto corrispondere sui capitali
presi a imprestito per supplire a quegli straorclinari aggravi per un ogrjetto che interessa
Vuniversalita dello Stato. 3 '

Gli Austriaci rimasero in Toscana dal 5 maggio 1849 al 30 aprile 1855. E firio a quel
giorno dalla relazione presentata nel 17 maggio 1858 dalla Commissione liquidatrice si
hanno gli appresso risultati :

Somministrazioni fatte dai comuni L. 8, 844,052 35

Frutti corriaposti sulle somme dai comuni prese a imprestito 1, 341, 359 17

Spese inerenti adetti inrprestiti 31, 190 15

Spese d'amministrazione 40, 789 .08

Totale 10,357,390 75

Acconti dati dal Governo 4, 318, 139 32

Eesta da pagare ai comuni 6, 039, 251 43

Noto in questo conto Arezzo per circa lire 200,000, Lucca per 300,000, Pisa per 500,000,
Pistoia per 100,000, Prato per 150,000, Siena per 100,000, e, se Livorno per un milione e
mezzo, la citta di Firenze, essa sola, per 3,200,000 lire, a cifre tonde.

Caduto il Governo granducale, il procuratore generale della Corte dei couti, con rap-
porto del 10 settembre 1860 propose di portare in giorno quella liquidazione e di sod-
disfare i comuni con tanti buoni fruttif eri sulla depositeria. E il barone Eicasoli, allora
governatore generale della Toscana, nel 29 settembre decretb ambedue le proposte del
procuratore generale. Se non che una deliberazione presa in Cousiglio dei ministri a
Toriuo nel 22 ottobre sospese la esecuzione del decreto del Eicasoli.

Chiedeva il Governo centrale informazioni sulla posizione di quei crediti ; intanto
che sulla emissinne dei Buoni sollevo la questione costituzionale.

Interrogato, il Consiglio di stato con voto del 16 marzo 1861 ammise in genere il
credito dei comuni, ma dubitb sui frutti, sulle spese e anche sulle tariffe aplicate per gli
alloggi, stallaggi, trasporti e vetture.

Non cosl la Commissione istituita col decreto del 7 settembre 1860 nel Ministero della
guerra, non cosl l'avvocato patrimoniale regio, e non cosl il referendario al Consiglio di
stato, commendatore Brnzzo che ne riferl, d'incarico dei due miDistri dell'interno e della
guerra. Poiche la Commissione con rapporto del 28 agosto 1861, l'avvocato patri-
moniale col voto dell'8 giugno 1862 e il commendatore Bruzzo col parere del 1° dicem-
bre 1864 conclusero concordemente, avere i comuni toscani sostenute le spese di man-
tenimento delle truppe austriache per ordine e conto dello Stato, doversi ai medesimi
comuni il rimborso del capitale anticipato, piu dei frutti corrisposti, e delle spese in-
contrate, comparir disperato pel Governo l'assunto di dii'endersi dalle azioni che da quei
creditori si fossero cimentate ai tribunali.

Si trattb allora fra la direzione del contenzioso e i comuni piu interessati un accomo-
damento e se ne combinarono le basi. Ma di nuovo sentito, il Consiglio di stato pro-
pose nuovi dubbi, articol6 nuove incertezze e suggerl nuove difese sopra alcune partite
della liquidazione.

Le diiese suggerite si spiegarono per conto dello Stato contro il comune di Livorno
che primo ricorse al tribunale civile di Firenze. E il tribunale civile di Firenze, con
sentenza del 23 marzo 1869, dette causa vinta al comune di Livorno su tutti i punti,
rigettate con le antiche le difese nuovo della finanza. Dopo questa sentenza, sicuri del
fatto loro, i comuni di Firenze e di Pisa riassunsero la lite, ella finanza, nella dispera-
zione di vincere, finalmente si appighb al conflitto.

II prefetto di Firenze lo decret6 sui fondamento, che obbligazione, nascente dal prin
cipio di gins pubblico internazionale, pel nuovo di pagare i debiti dello Stato vecchio, e
solo morale, ed aspetta per tradursi in civile una legge di ricognizione del debito da parte
di esso Stato nuovo.

Era il principio che leggesi riprodotto dalla relazione e che la vostra Giunta rifiuta,
d'accordo in cib, con l'ultima giurisprudenza del Consiglio di stato. II quale, se coi
decreti del 17 agosto 1870 nella causa coi comuni di Firenze e di Pisa, accolse il conflitto,
lo accolBe per un motivo e con intendimenti diversi affatto da quelli per cui venne
decretato dal prefetto.

Avveitl il Consiglio che nel decreto del 1850 il Governo granducale ordinb ai comuni
di fornire alle truppe austriache viveri e casermaggio, riservandosi di provvedere a sub
tempo al rimborso della spesa, o con farvi contriouire tutti i comuni del granducato, o con
fondi della depositeria; e considerb che 10 sciogliere questa espressa rlserva o il com-
pierre l'atto governativo non potendo competere che al Governo, si era sempre nel
periido del disporre e non per anche entrati in quello del giudicare.

Puo essere stata intenzione del Governo granducale di accennare con la sua riserva

3t Allegato n° 1. '

H. Eep. 134 11

162 ALIEN CLAIMS.

anche al partito di far contribuire tutti i comuni a una spesa die non era giusfco pesasse
sopra pocbi soltanto e in proporzioni tanto disuguali. Fatto e clie nella riserva il
decreto non oontienne parola di allusione a questo contribute) dei cornuni o a questo
modo di perequazione.

Al Consiglio di stato inoltre sfuggl che quella vaga riserva del decret", dal Governo
toscano era stata diruenticata o gia sciolta e >1 tempo, col fatto e con gli Bpiegati propositi.
Col tempo; dal 1850 in poi il Governo toscano nulla avendo disposto per distributee o
ripartire la spesa, e avendo anzi tutto disposto per accollarla snll'erario, come voleva la
qualita sua di spesa interessante la universalitd dello Stato. Col fatto; dacche il Governo
toscano liquids il deblto come se fosse tutto suo, e vi pagb tanti acconti da eccedere i
quattro decimi del debito risultato dalla sua liquidazione finale del 1858. E coi propositi;
poiche tanto il pegno sulle miniere dell'Elba con la casa Bastogi del 1851, quanto i tre
milioni di rendita consolidata al 3 per cento stata emessa nel 1852, dal Governo toscano
si decretarono con la dichiarazione espressa di servirsene a saldare le spese per le truppe
ausiliari. 36 Furono spese costate ben piii cbe 25 milioni, dei quali non erano che un resto
i sei a credito dei comuni, risultati dalla liquidazione del 1858. E notisi che molta parte
del consolidato trovavasi tuttora invenduta quando nel 27 aprile del 1859 cadde il
Governo, che lascib non saldato quel resto.

II Consiglio di stato ignorava le circolari del Governo toscano e i suoi carteggi coi
comuni per regolare un debito dal Governo const antemente ritenuto debito erariale ; il
Consiglio di stato non sapeva che il comune di Firenze si forniva e fornisce le necessarie
risorse sopra cambiali, nelle quali, per una somma che ora eccede le 700,000 lire,trovasi
jmpegnata la firma del Governo nazionale, come prima lo era del Governo toscano.
Erano cambiali Annate prima dal direttore dei conti della depositeria, che ora lo sono
dall'intendente di finanza e che di mano in mano che scadono, si rinnovavano e rinno-
vano alia Banca Nationale toscana per una somma cresciuta dello seonto.

In ogni modo, non e punto esatto quanto afferma la relazione, che nei decreti del 17
agosto 1870 il Consiglio di stato negasse ai comuni toscaui per questo credito azione
dvilmetite esperibile contro il Governo italiano. Avrebbe allora profesata una massima
troppo apertamente disdetta dai motivi delle recenti sue decisioni sui conflitti nelle
cause Trevisani e Manned. La verita e che i decreti del 17 agosto 1870 furono di semplice
effetto sospensivo, interlocutori non definitivi, o intesi alio scioglimento di una riserva,
nel falso supposto che fosse sempre da scingliere, e relativa al modo del pagatnento, non
all'accertamento, e non alia ricognizione del credito dei comuni. Se per quei decreti
rimaneva da provvedere al modo del pagamento, anziche contraddire, si ammetteva
che si era un debito da pagare. No, l'azione civile ai comuni toscani non e stata mai
contraddetta da nessuu consulente, e nemmeno dal Consiglio di stato, come e stata, per
sentenza dei tribunali riconosciuta ed ammessa.

La pendenza dura inflne da troppo tempo per lasciarsi piu a lungo non sistemata;
essa non rimane cagione ultima se i bilanci della citta di Firenze, la quale avanza piii
che la meta della somma, si trovano come si trovano. Creditori sono i comuni, non
l'imperatore d'Austria e non il gia granduca di Toscana. A chi ami con le giuridiche di
mescolare le considerazioni politiclie, la storia contemporanea ricorda, non solo che le
truppe austriache stanziarono in Toscana come ausiliari, non come truppe nemiche, per
convenzione, non per fatto di guerra, ma di piu che in quelli auni Austria e Toscano
vissero in tanto pace che fu alleanza; e che qnest'alleanza, costb alia casa di Lorena il
granducato, e frutt6 al paese l'annettersi al regno, diventato regno d'ltalia.

In Toscano non si aveva questione amministrativa e non si ebbe mal governo ; in Tos-
cana la questione politica data dai proclami dei generali tedeschi del maggio 1849.

8. — Requisizioni militari del 1859.

Nella guerra del 1859 si hanno somministrazioni militari e requisizioni per molti
milioni.

Le proviucie ex-pontificie presentarouo per questo titolo una nota, Aall'allegato ridotta
presuntivamente a lire 613,156 62.

La Lombardia vi e portata per lire 12,241,279 24, ma con le requisizioni eforniture mili-
tari vi sono mescolate da un lato le espropriazioni e dall'altro i danni della guerra.

Anche Parma la sua cifra di lire 100,502 39 la ottiene con aggiungere alle requisizi-
oni partite da riferire a danni di guerra.

Modena ha una storia speciale. Poiche due decreti del Governo provvisorio del 9
luglio e 4 dicembre 1859 riconoscono il credito di quei comuni nella somma stata poi
liquidata in lire 250,283 36, e ne ordinano il pagamento, che essi aspettano ancora.

Le provincie che patirono le piu forti requisizioni e i piu gravi danni nella guerra
del 1859 furono le provincie di Novara della Lomellina e di Vercelli. Di Novara e cal-
colata di lire 1,905,570 98 ; della Lomellina dall'allegato si calcola una sofferenza di lire
6,122,541 43 ; Vercelli vi fu dimenticata.

36 13 un proposito eapresso tanto nel decreto del 10 giugno 1851, col quale si costitul un debito di 12
milioni anile miniere, quanto nella relazione che precede l'altro decreto del 3 noveiubre 1852, col quale
si coatitui il debito di tre milioni di rendita (lire toscane).

ALIEN CLAIMS. ■ 163

La storia ha registrati i feroci proclaim ooi qnali Zobel anuunziava la invasions de-
gli Austriaoi nella Louiellina, nel Novarese e nel Veroellese, provinoie lasoiate senza
impiegati e senza armi dal Governo sardo per accorgimento di guerra al ronipersi delle
ostilita.

Se vi sono danni che meritassero nn'eqna ripartizione su tntte le provinoie dello
Stato, sembrano veraruente i patiti per la causa comune da proviucie abbandonate per
ragioni di strategia, e clie pagarono le pubbliche imposte anche del tempo che invece
•di governo dui-6 su loro la invasione nemica. E 1 im caso dove la ragione politica s'in-
treccia cou la equlra giuridica, con quella equita che non e grazia ma trionfo della
giustizia, in quanto tempera nell'applicazione quel sommo gius che, rigidamente appli-
cato, diventerebbe ingiuria somma.

Se non i danni, le requisizioni almeuo bisognera pertanto pagarle. Anche perche
furono i sindaci, capi dei conmni e ufficiaii del Governo, i quali si adoperarono a miti-
gare spesso la rapacita tedesca nelle richieste, e sempre il danno dei requisiti nel modo
di corrispondervi. Com'e vero, che in gran parte lie diventarono creditori gli stessi
comuni, i quali, per pagare i buoni ai requisiti, dovettero indebitarsi per forti somme.
Se la legge del 28 luglio 1861, n° 140, venue in loro soccorso, cou mettere, a carico dei
proventi dello Stato sulla cassa dei depositi e prestiti, 1'interesse, oltre il 2k per
cento, delle nomine dalla cassa imprestate per qnesto titolo a quei comuni, questi ri-
mangono tut!:avia debitor! del capitale.

Confischc.

Tacer6 delle confische del tirannello di casa d'Este, e delle quali una Commissione
speciale nel 1867 liquidava i danni in lire 494,994 56, non contati i beni da potersi
nella maggior parte restituire in natura alle famiglie dei coudannati.

Uu decreto del Farini del 23 agosto 1859, mentre ordinava la immediata restituzione
dei beni confiscati al generale Zucchi, senza pagamento di frutti, questa massima vo-
leva applicata nei casi in esame della Commissione, da lui stesso nominata a rivedere i
processi politici e a proporre i modi equi di riparare in qualche guisi i danni recati alle dis-
graziate famiglie dalle confische e dalle arbitrarie distribuzioni dei loro be,ni. Nessun dubbio
pertauto che nel concetto stesso di questi dacreti solo un atto legislativo possa abolire
condanne e restituir beni confiscati per sentenza, e riparare con modi equi i danni con-
seguenti.

La Commissione vostra, cib non ostante ha creduto doversi astenere da un argomento
che si discostava troppo dal soggetto di una legge sui danni di guerra. A lei e parsa
questa, tale materia da rinviare ad una legge a parte, quale si fece per indennizaregli
impiegati civili e militari, stati interrotti nella loro camera per ragione politica. Essa
e scesa in questa Bentenza anche perche, meglio di una legge generale, o che per gene-
rali definizioni ripari alle confisce politiche di Modena, e che bisognerebbe estendere
a quelle dei Borboni di Napoli, potrebbe comparire conveniente il provvedere con tante
leggi speciali, caso per caso. E che si provveda la Commissione sollecita col suo voto
e ne muove le piti calde raccomandazioni.

Sicilia e Napoli.

Non una parola si spende dall'allegato per la Sicilia. E la ragione e questa, che ivi
i danneggiatti dalle truppe borboniche si risarcirono con le rendite delle opere pie,
fidecommissarie e istituti di beneficenza, in virtii dei decreti di Garibaldi del 18
maggio e 9 giugno 1860. La legge del 2 aprile 1865, anziche disdire, regol6 la esecu-
zione di quei decreti, facendo versare le somme dovute dalle opere pie nell'erario, con
imporre a carico del bilancio dello Stato il pagamento dei buoni e degli interessi dei
buoni rilasciati in pagamento ai danneggiati, per effetto dei decreti reali del 31 agosto
1861 e 18 novembre 1862. Di questi buoni si rilasciarono per circa cinque milioni ; e
nel bilancio dell'entrata del 1872 si hanno trasporti sulla competenza del 1872 e per
residui attivi del 1871 e retro, di lire 3,075,000. La Sicilia non poteva dunque figurare
nel conto.

Se Napoli vi e notato, e per lire 1,739,104 17, non e per danni di guerra o requisizioni^
ma per un credito accampato in maggior somma dal Cassitlo, fornitore degli eserciti
meridionali.

Era il Cassitto proveditore generale delle snssistenze militari nelle provinoie napole-
tane e siciliaue, per contratto del 30 novembre 1867, fatto col Governo borbonico, per
sei anui, dal primo gennaio 1858 alia fine del 1863.

Nel 1860 il Cassitto si trovb a fbrnire e forni truppe borboniche, truppe garibaldiue
e truppe regolari italiane, e dall'intreccio o passaggio dall'uno all'altro servizio ne sor-
sero contestazioni di liquidazione e di competenza passiva su molte partite di spese o
di provviste.

Con legge del 25 gennaio 1865, n° 2118 si dicbiarft bene che le somministrazioni fatte
alle truppe borboniche non sarano ammesse a pagamento se non in quanto furono anteriori al
14 maggio 1860 per cib che riguarda la Sicilia, e al7 di settembre 1860 per quelle che si effet-

164 ALIEN CLAIMS.

luarono nelleprovincie napoletane. Ma, nonostante questa dicbiarazione, la lite non pote
risparmiarsi.

La intendenza militare, sull'appoggio delle conelusioni della Commissione liquida-
trice istituita in Torino, sosteneva il Cassitto debitore di lire 1,458,069 33 avanti il tri-
"bunale di commeroio di Napoli, cbe dichiarb invece creditore il Cassitto di lire 983,883 92.
Da questa 6entenza appellarono tanto la intendenza quanto il Cassitto. E la Corte di
Napoli, dicidendo sui due appelli, eon sentenza del 16 dieeinbre 1867 ridusse il credito del
Cassitto a lire 818,978 77. Neppure a questa decisione della Corte d'appello si acquie-
tarorjo i contendenti, cbe am bi la denunziarono alia Corte suprema di cassazione di
Napoli. La quale, con deoreto pubblioato nel 13 febbraio 1873, rigettb il rieorso di tutti
e due.

E dnnque caso oontenzioso, e portato a tali termini da non cercare altro cbe la ese-
cusione del giudicato.

Mantova e Piacenza.

Delle somministrazioni milifcari e delle espropriazioni del 1859 nell'allegato scritte a.
Mantova per una somma presunta de lire 1,233,189 14, conviene meglio che io mi trat-
tenga in un con quelle del 1866, alle quali discendo, dacche sono dominate dagli stessi
principii. E toccherb allora delle lire 997,710 14 per espropriazioni di Piacenza, ecome
sienno da cancellare dal couto.

9. — Espropriazioni e somministrazioni militari nel Veneto e Mantovano del 1859 e 1866.

II Codice civile austriaco ba due articoli o paragrafi, il 365 sulle espropriazioni nel
capo 2° del diritto della proprietd, e il 1044 sui danni di guerra nel capo 22 del mandato e
di altra specie d'amministrazione degli affari.

" 5 365. Quando l'utilita pubblica lo essiga deve ciascmi membro dello Stato cedere
ancbe la sua piena proprieta contro una conveniente indennFzzazione.

"4 1044. La ripartizione dei danni di guerra viene regolata dalle attorita politicbe-
dietro norme speciali."

Coi rescritti o risoluzioni del 5 aprile 1816, 19 febbraio 1819, 20 maggio 1820 1'Austria
provvide ai danneggiatti dalle gaerre del primo regno italieo. Dopo la guerra del 1859
diramb leistruzioni del 9 agosto 1861, con le quali ammise a compenso le effettiveprestazioni
militari e i danni derivati alle proprieta.

Per esse istruzioni le espropriazioni dei fondi a uso permanente, e cost pure le servitu spe-
ciali addossaie ai fondi privatiper iscopi dislrategia militare, non cbe i danni derivati dall'occu-
pazione e dalla distruzione di edifizi, oper iseopi passeggeri di strategia militare sono compen-
sati ai proprietari ; ai quali, a norma del § 935 del Codice civile e della risoluzione del
4 maggio 1837 vengono altresl corrisposti gli interessi di mora del 4 per cento, decorri-
Mli dal momento dell'apprensione e rispettivamente daj[uello della occupazione passeggera della,
proprieta fino al pagamento o al deposito giudiciale del compenso.

E nel § 16 e detto : " Le parti, che non si ritenessero soddisfatte delle decisioni emesse
e dei oompensi loro assegnati, saranno rimesse alia via civile." 37

In Austria lo Stato compensa :

1° Le prestazioni militari per le imperiali e reali truppe, cioe, Yacquartieramento, le
vetture militari o carriaggiin uso nelpaese, le somministrazioni, fornitare e reqaisizioni d'og-
getti innatura, viveri, foraggi, traghetti, lavori in generate, ecc.;

2° Le espropriazioni di terreni per iscopi militari ;

3° I danneggiamenti di beni piivati, in causa ad ordini degli imperiali e reali coman-
danti di truppe o delle imperiali e reali autorita per iscopi strategici.

(I danni causati dalle operazioni militari non vengono compensate sa avvenuti in seguito a
combattimenti o movimenti di marcia. Cosipure i danni fortuiti o causati da disordini non
danno diritto a compenso.)

Dei danni commessi per petulanza i responsabile ehi nee Vautore. (Decreto aulico del 10
aprile 1821.)

Sono i principii riassunti Delia notificazione pubblicata a Trieste nel 16 ottobre 1866
dall' Austria, per essere applieati alle provincie rimaste a lei, al di la dell'Isonzo. 38
E sono, del resto, i principii del Vattel, ed amessi nella giurisprudenza di tutti i popoli
civili.

L' Austria dopo la guerra del 1859, in applicazione di questi stessi principii, pago nel
Veneto e Mantovano 2,997,160 fiorini 44 e mezzo, sopra fiorini 3,496,602 04 e mezzo
stati liquidati. E un dispaccio del Miuistero Viennese del 13 marzo 1866, n° 1138, aveva
ordinate di saldare la partita, salvo pei proprietari il provare la proprieta e liberta dei
fondi colpiti. Fu dopo la guerra che 1' Austria dichiarb cessati i suoi impegni verso le
popolazioni. Come fu dopo la pace cbe l'ltalia concluse con 1'Austria le convenzioni di
Firenze.

Nessuna obiezione pub effettivamente sollevarsi riguardo ai danni di guerra del 1859, ove si
consideri die essi furono liquidati senza eccezione alcana ed ammessi a pagamento. Cosl la
direzione generale del Tesoro nel 21 dieembre 1869 scriveva alia Commissione liqnida-

"Allegato n° 3. s8 Ailegati numeri 4, 3, 6 e 7.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 165

trice istituita'in Firenze pre3S0 il Miuistero della guerra col regio decreto del 26 raag-
gio 1867. E le lire 1,233,189 14 dell'allegato, rappresentano appunto il montare com-
plessivo delle domaude pervenute a essa Commissione.

Delia guerra del 1866 le venete e mantovana scrao le sole provincie notate nell'allegato ;
e lo sono per lire 18,007,340 21, divise in sei partite.

Delia prima partita di lire 2,877,553 35, per contratti d'appalto per lavori, provviste, pre-
stazioni d'opere e simili, la Commissione istituita col regio decreto del 26 maggio 1867 non
ritenne ammissibili le domande eke por lire 177,804 64, rigetatte le altre o sospese.

Le lire 305,061 18 per espropriazioni ed acquisti di stabili, notate in secondo lnogo, con-
stituiscono forse la sola fra tutte le partite Aell'allegato che potrebbe rientrare nell'arti-
colo 1 del progetto di legge ministeriale, dato che gli espropriati riescano a provare,
secondo ivi e prescritto, U tempo e il modo dell'espropriazione patita, la data delladomanda
o delle domande d'indennita, rimaate insoddisfatte ; e bene inteso che i fbndi espropriati
sieno tenuti tuttora dal Governo italiano, e che il Governo italiano non si decida a restituirii
nello stato in citi si trovano attualmente.

Non cosl la terza partita di lire 8,280,887 79 per abbaitimento dipiante efabrieati intorno
die fortificazioni.

La guerra non era per anche dichiarata, che 1' Austria, prevedendola, voile costruire
nuovi, e munire i suoi forti, con allargarne il raggio delle zone, da lasciar libero all'azio-
ne dei fuochi dei canoni di nuovo modello.

Fu allora che si abbatterono le piante e i fabricati intorno alle fortezze; in esecuzione
di ordini dell'imperiale e reale coinmissariato generale dell'armata del sud del 31 mag-
gio 1866, dell'imperiale e reale comando della citta e fortezza di Verona dell'll agosto e
dell'imperiale e reale direzione militare del genio del 15 di detto niese, i quali disposero
per l'accertamento dei danni a cura della solita Commissione mista, civile e militare, in
applicazione all'articolo 365 del Codice e delle istruzioni del 1861.

La Commissione mista cessb dai suoi lavori sol amente il 22 ottobre, 6 19 giorni dopo
firmata la pace, e cessb dopo avere, ai piu fra i danneggiati, rilasciato un protocollo in-
testatocosl: " In seguito alia rispettata ordinanza 11 agosto 1866, n° 3857, dell'impe-
riale e reale comando di citta e fortezza, l'imperiale e reale direzione del genio, alio
scopo di riconoEcere i ti toll d'indennizzo e di ventilare l'importo dei danni pegli effetti
del paragrafo 385 dell'imperante Codice civile austriaco, radunb una Commissione
mista, composta dei membri seguenti, ecc, ecc.

Nessun dubbio pertaato che per 1' Austria non fosse questo nn debito regolato dal
paragrafo 365 del Codice civile, o al quale non si avessero ad applicare le istruzioni del
1861, con quel loro paragrafo 16 : " Le parti che non si ritenessero soddisfatte delle del
cisioni emesse e dei compensi loro assegnati, saranno rimesse alia via civile."

L' Austria, autorizzata dal Governo di Parma con la convenzione del 14 ruarzo 1822,
aveva atterate case e piante intorno alia fortezza di Piacenza. E i Piacentini, che non
furono in tempo a farsi pagare dall' Austria, chiesero pagamento all'Italia. Sono le
loro domande che si trovano nell'allegato per lire 997,710 14 ; ma ho gia detto chela e
partita da cancellare, ed ora aggiungo il perche.

I Piacentini ricorsero ai tribunali, e Antona-Traversi fra gli altri riportb sentenza di
condanna a carico dell'amministrazione italiana. La quale, per non esporsi ad altre
condanne, ha transatto e pagato, a cio confortata dal Consiglio di stato. 39

Gli atterramenti delle piante intorno Alessandria e Casale erano gia stati pagati da
unpezzo; 40 e se questi furono opera delle autorita italiane, si ordinarono dalle au-
• striache gli atterramenti degli alberi intorno a Pavia, dall'amministrazione italiana
risarciti appena da ieri. 41

La eccezione della incompetenza dei tribunali, e poi il confiitto di attribuzioni, ri-
sparmiati ai Piacentini e ai Pavesi, si riservarono pei Veronesi e a quei di Eovigo. Ed
e naturale che i Veronesi e quei di Eovigo non debbano saper buon grado all'ammini-
strazione italiana di questo privilegio cosi odioso per loro. Tanto piu naturale, che della
nota del 15 giugno 1869, scritta dal Digny, ministro delle finanze, al ministro degli
esteri, e dall'ufficio dell'll settembre del Bertole-Viale ai Veronesi, il credito ne pareva

■ ed era rioonosciuto dal ininistero italiano. 42

La quarta partita e notata in lire 2,27,7,767 46 per requisizioni militari ; e, di queste,
lire 88, 888 40 per somministrazioni, non per ancbe regulate dall'amministrazione aus-
triaoa, fatte fra il 1859 ed il 1866 ; mentre la maggior somma, o lire 2,188,879 06, rientrano
tutte nel periodo della guerra del 1866.

Per l'approvigionamento delle truppe mobilizzate trovasi disposto, eke le sommini-
strazioni fatte in dipendenza di requisizioni militari, sia in tempo dipace che di guerra all'im- l
periale e reale esercito in territorio dello Stato, od in quello di potenza arnica, devono essere
pagate a coloro che le lianno effettuate.

Infatti le somministrazioni non solo si sono sempre dall'Austria pagate, ma, mobiliz-

39 V. Pareri del 10 luglio 18C5, 28 febbraio 1868, 12 luglio 1870 e 5 maggio 187], Sezione di finanza. E
vedasi l'allegato n° 4, al capitolo 41 del bilanoio definitive) della guerra del 1872.
*> V. Pareri del Consiglio di Stato del 14 luglio e 21 ottobre 1865.

41 V. Parere dell'll aprile 1873.

42 Al moroento che scrivo, il Consiglio di stato non si e ancora prouunziato sui conrStti avanti a lui

■ pendenti nelle cause coi veronesi e quei di Rovigo.

166 ALIEN CLAIMS.

zata appena l'armata, con notificazione lnogotetiziale del 25 giugno 1866 si provvide a
meglio garantire i commit egll individui chiamati aprestare somministrazioni a vantaggio del'
militare, e a metterli immediatamente in possesso d'un titolo legalmtmte valido e trasmissibile
anclie a terze persone, e con circolare dello stesso giorno si prescrissero norme per 'ovriare alle
difficoltd incontrate nelle liquidazioni delle prestazioni fatte al militare nella guerra del 1859.

Con la notificazione del 16 ottobre 1866, tredici giorni dopo sottoscritta la pace, 1' Au-
stria provvide ai suoi debiti per somministrazioni militari nelle provincie a lei soggette.
L'ltalia non ancora ha provvisto ai propri.

II quale confronto alia deputazione provincials di Udine nella ana petizione al Par-
lamento nazionale strappa il rioordo che il regio commissario nel 15 settembre del 1866
scriveva in Besiutta, riooeupata dagli imperiali dopo l'armistizio di Cormons, per h-
darne la deputazione comunale del contegno tenuto di fronte al commissariato di Mog-
gio, per avvertirla che i patti dell'armistizio non assicuravano agli Austriaci alcuna
ingerenza civile nei paesi temporaneamente occupati da loro, e per infervorarla a con-
tinuare a nou prestare obbedienza al commissariato distrettnale. Solo alle domande del
militare, se scHlte, ivi s'inculca il rispetto. Bispetti cotesta deputazione le domande del
militare austriaco quando siano scritte.

Delle lire 336,678 10 della quinta partita, la Commissions non ammise domande che
per lire 117,196 92, e anche queste da liquidare. Ivi si parla d'occupazioni temporanee
d'immobili. E se e dove l'occupazione, sebbene temporanea, sia avvenuta in aparec-
chio di difesa prima del rompere delle ostilita, il danno sara da risarcire. Come sara
solamente da lamentare il danno di un'occupazione per opere di difesa passeggiera
fatte in presenza del nemico, per accampamenti, marcie, e per prendere una posizione.

Dopo la ritirata di Custoza avanti alia testa di ponte di San Bocco al porto si atter-
rarono piante, e improvvisarono alcune opere di difesa, con danno dei proprietari. Con
parere del 28 febbraio 1868 il Consiglio di stato si pronun'zi6 per una transazione coi
danneggiati. Poiche nel carattere del danno riscontrb mistura di fatale e di volon-
tario ; di fatale nel fatto bellico che aveva determinato l'atterramento delle piaute, di
volontario nelle condizioni nelle quali gia era costituita Piacenza, di punto preordi-
nato di difesa.

Nell'Httsma partita di lire 3,929,392 33 siamo in tenia di danni veri di guerra o fli
danni di guerra guerreggiata, bivacchi, depredazioni, devastazioni, sperperi, taglie. E
il caso non piu del § 365, ma tutt'al piu del § 1044 del Codice civile austriaco ; cioe,
non e che l'autorita politica che assegnare possa e ripartire indennita ; o siamo nel ter-
reno della equita, della politica convenienza, ed anche della finanziaria, usciti fuori dal
campo del diritto.

La Prussia fu ed e larga indennizzatrice di chiunque pati nella guerra e per la guer-
ra del 1870 ; ma non importa ricordare quanto sia stata nelle sue larghezze incorag-
giata dai cinque miliardi imposti da lei sulla Francia _debellata, e che la Francia con
meraviglia del mondo le ha pagati in si breve tempo. E piuttosto degno di nota che-
la stessa Francia, nel momento che scrivo, con la legge del 7 aprile 1873, soccorre con
140 milioni Parigi, e con 120 milioni i dipartimenti iuvasi daiprussiani.

Non e ancora la perequazione, secondo la moderua filosofia del diritto, fra i eoci
del danno per alcuno patito a benefizio o per causa della societa ; non e ancora il re
parto fra tutti i cittadini o nazionali del dauno cagionato a uno o a pochi dalla guerra,
intrapresa a nome e per conto della citla o nazione ; ma e qualche cosa che gh somi-
glia, o che si studia d'assomigliargli.

IL PROGETTO DI LEGGE DELLA COMMISSIONS.

Signori! La legge non disponendo che per I'avvenire, la vostra Giunta, se poteva pro-
porvi una legge attributiva di diritti, ha 5ovuto guardarsi dal proporvene una la quale
attentasse al diritto di chi lo ha, o che creda di averlo. Essa nou poteva ne voile atten-
tare al diritto di chi lo ha, contro l'articolo 29, pel quale tutte le proprieta, senz'alcuna
eccezione, sono inviolabili, ne proferire decisioni per le quali potesse alcuno essere distolto
dai suoi giudiei naturali, contro l'articolo 21 dello Statuto.

La Commissione si e studiata di formulare e ha formulato un disegno di legge che-
stanziasse i fondi per dimettere i debiti che stimava gia debiti nazionali; lo stanzia-
mento dei fondi o la iscrizione in bilancio di.una partita d'uscita o di uua rendita nel
Gran Libro, essendo prerogativa del potere legislativo. Essa poteva altresl proporvi e
vi propone d'ammettere a pagamento quelle partite sulle quali, se dubbioso il diiitto, le
appariva imperiosa pel Governo nazionale la ragione politica di provvedere. E tutto
cib combinando le sue proposte con lo spirito di non frastornare il piano dal ministro-
delle finanze seguito con tanta lodevole costanza per giungere al pareggio. Ma in
pari tempo senza pregiudicare ad alcun diritto ne ad alcuna pretesa.

A compiuta soluzione dell'intricato problema, la Commissione ha distribuite le par-
tite deWallegato in tre categoric.

Ha situati nella prima i debiti delle amministrazioni permanenti, sostituite dall'ita-
liana nel 1859, 1860, 1866 e 1870, e i quali, secondo gli ordinamenti di allora, si sarebbero •
pagati o dovuti pagare. E a questi debiti ha destinato tanto consolidate 5 per cento r
da conteggiare al cento di capitale per ogni cinque di rendita.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 1G7

Sotto questa oategoria sarebbero, a giudizio della Commissione, da riportare quelle
notate neWallegato,

La partita prima delle espropriazioni e somministrazioni militari, appropriazioni di
stabili del Governo italico ;

Le rinianerize del prestito napoletano del 1848, quando se ne trovino;

La partita settima del mantenimento delle truppe austriache in Toscana dal 1849 al
1855;

E la nona in quanto si riferisee a lavori e prestazioni di opere, a espropriazioni e ac-
quisti di stabili, ad atterramenti di piante e case intorno alle fortezze.

Nella oategoria seconda ha collocati i debiti lasciati dai Governi provvisorii del 1848,
le provviste e requisizioni regolarmente aoeertate, sia per le truppe nazionali nella
guerra del 1848-49, Bia fatte dall' Austria nelle guerre del 1848 e 1849 in Italia, fuori del
lombardo-veneto, e nelle guerre del 1859 e del 1866 in lombardia, nel veneto e manto-
vano. E,in pagarnento di questi debiti,la Commissione ha destinato tanto oousolidato
3 per cento, da conteggiare al cento di capitale per ogni tre di rendita.

Sotto la quale oategoria, a suo giudizio, cadrebbero :

La partita quartet formati dagli imprestiti dei Governi provvisorii di Roma, della
Lombardia, della Venezia, compresi i depositi colpiti dalle restrizioni del 1852, esclusa
dal novero la carta ritirata dal corso in Venezia e Roma.

La partita quinta delle requisizioni e somministrazioni nelle pro vincie ex-pontificie, di
Lombardia, di Parma e Piacenza, di Modena, della Sicilia, tutte del 1848-49, e della
stessa natura o derivazione.

La partita seste dell'incendio delle case del suburbio di Milano nella memorabile
notte dal 4 al 5 agosto 1848.

La partita ottava delle requisizioni militari del 1859 nelle provincie ex-pontificie, nella
Lombardia, in Parma e Piacenza, in Modena e Eeggio, e piu che tutto nelle provincie
di Novara, di Vercelli e della Lomellina ;

E la nona in quanto si riferisee alle requisizioni del Veneto e Mantovano tanto del
1859 che del 1866, non senza un qualche scrupolo della Commissione. La quale, se
nemmeno le requisizioni del 1866 riportb alia oategoria prima, fu per aver fatto delle
requisizioni una sola classe, e anche perche nel 1866 lAustria sentiva gia mancarle il
territorio della Venezia e di Mantova, e lo tratt6 da nemico piu deoiso a cederlo che a
difenderlo.

Cos! rimarrebbero per la terza oategoria, cioe senza sistemazione o rinviate :

a) Le partite seconda e terza che parvero fuori del tema, la partita seconda degli ospizi
civili di Borgo San Donnino ; la partita terza del prestito nazionale napoletano del 1821,
di cui non si hanno spiegazioni della rimauenza ;

b) Le confische alle quali sembra che sia da riparare con provvedimenti legislativi
speciali ;

c) Le requisizioni nel Lombardo- Veneto del 1848 e 1849, regolate gia, dall' Austria col
sistema della perequazione ;

d) Gh scapiti nel cambio fatto dai passati Governi di monete patriottiche ;

e) I veri danni della guerra, che pooo piu poco meno afflissero pressoche tutte le pro-
vincie del regno.

Caduto il primo impero di Francia, l'Austria col mezzo di speciale Commissione
liquidb i debiti da esso lasciati nel Lombardo-Veneto, pagando in denaro i depositi giu-
diziari o fatti con la cassa d'ammortizzazione, e in titoli di rendita alia pari con garan-
zia di un corso piu o meno vicino al nominale a seconda della diversa natura dei de-
biti. 43

Nel Piemonte si commise a una Giunta provvisoria di olassare il debito e il credito •
dello Stato riferibile all'epoca francese, e si assegnarono termini ai creditori per esibire
i titoli, e alia Commissione per compiere il suo lavoro. 44

La prova piu eloquente che l'ltalia ha tenuta e tiene la sua amministrazione rispetto
ai creditori dello Stato come una continuazione delle amministrazioni anteriori, si ha
nel fatto che, si sono liquidate per mezzo di Commissioni alcune speoi di peudenze, ma
per sistema, invece di nominare Commissioni liquidatrici, si econtinuato apagare come
se nulla fosse successo.

Dacche una eocezione si e tuttavia crednto di farla pei debiti, che hanno formato
soggetto della relazione, e dacche si sta per restituire la condizione di diritto a partite
che l'avevano perduta, spontanea venne l'idea di affidare a una Commissione il liqui-
dare cib che ancora non sia liquidato, assegnando termini perentorii tanto pei creditori
a esibire i propri titoli, che per la Commissione a chiudere le sue liquidazioni.

A esaurimento infine del tema, la Commissione aggiunge un articolo, pel quale si
renda palese che vuolsi attribuire un diritto ai contemplati nelle nuove disposizioni, e
imporre un'obbligazione al Governo ; non si vuole imporre la obbligazione ai creditori di
subire, o attribuire un diritto al Governo d'imporre il disposto trattamento a coloro che
non intendessero di accettarlo.

Chi lo rifiutasse non diventerebbe creditore in virtu della nuova legge, e come avente
interesse, al quale la nuova legge nulla da e nulla toglie, gli resterebbero le ragioni tali

43 Notificazioni del 13 dicembre 1814 e del 1° marzo 1816. 4J Begie patenti del 29 ottobre 1816.

168 ALIEN CLAIMS.

quali risultaesero protette dalle vigenti leggi e coi modi per farle valere conseutitidalha
istituzioni che ci reggono.

E bene aprevedere che ai contemplate dall'articolo 1 del progetto di legge del Minis-
tero, e ad alcuni fra gli altri dell'allegato, allettera pooo uu pagamento che li sottopone
a scapitare circa un quarto del loro credito. Ed e appunto in vista di cib che la Com-
missione e vuol libero il Governo di trattarli come trait6 iPiaceutini e liberi i oreditori
d'insistere per essere pagati in contanti.

Per quelli i quali non vorranno accettare il trattamento disposto con la nuova legge,
o che per transazione o per sentenza hisognasse invece pagare in contanti, come a con-
tanti si pagarono i danneggiati per le fortificazioni di Piacenza, ci vorra una nuova
legge, o speciale odel bilancio, che stanzi i fondi,dalla legge proposta stanziati fin d'ora
in pagamento di quelli i quali consentirauno di essere pagati con titoli di rendita.
Queata e la posizione, e non altra, fatta dalla proposta della vostra Commissione, nel-
l'intendimento suo di non turhare alcuna attribuzione e di non offendere alenn di-
ritto.

La Commissione dapprima carezzb l'idea di concepire la riserva con tali parole che
garantissero tanto quelli di prima che di seconda e auche di terza categoria, i quali
avessero voluto cimentare le loro pretese, che avrebbero trovata sempre la via dei tri-
bunali dischiusa o non intercettata da decreti di conflitto. La incertezza con la quale
si e conteuuto il Governo che anche per titoli della stessa natura ora oppose, ora no, la
declinatoria dei tribunali, e una giurisprudenza non per anche ben feriua, tentavano a
raffermare legislativamente una conclusione, quale, del resto, appariva con bastante
chiarezza stabilita fin dall'articolo 2 dell'allegato E alia legge del 20 marzo 1865.

Considerando pur nonostante che la giurisprudenza nell'ultimo suo stato si e deter-
minata per una via di spiegato progresso, e che la tesi dei conflitti d'attribuzione ha
troppa importanza per essere risoluta quasi per incidente in una legge sui danni della
guerra, la Commissione ha.finito con lasciare nelle sue proposte gli aventi interesse
nelle condizioni nelle quali si trovano, tanto rispetto alle leggi sostantive, quanto ri-
spetto alle leggi di competenza e di rito.

II progetto che si sostituisce al progetto ministeriale viene cosi a comporsi di qnattro
articoli.

Col prhno si oflre modo al Governo del Re di pagare con 5 per cento i debiti per causa
pubblica, (imprestiti) militare (forniture, somministrazioni)o di guerra (espropriazioni
o danni per fortificazioni ) delle amministrazioni permanente anteriori.

Col secondo si offre modo al Governo del Re di pagare con 3 per cento i debiti d'ugual
natura dei Governi provvisorii del 1848, e le requisizioni non regolate o non soddisfatte
dall'armata austriaca.

Col terzo s'incarica una Commissione dell'accertamento e della liquidazione, con ter-
mini perentorii.

E col quarto articolo gli aventi interesse non consenzienti vengono lasciati nella
posizione che hanno con tutte le azioni,ed esposti a tutte le eccezioni, anche giurisdi-
zionali.

LA FINE.

Signori ! La vostra Commissione accolse unanime i principii esposti nella presente
relazione, e unanime combino le sue proposte. Francamente, essa crede che possa dis-
cutersi sopra alcuna delle applicazioni alle quali discese, non dei principii che la guida-
rono nelle sue conclusioni.

Avverte che potranno aggiungersi ancora altre partite congeneri a quelle dell'alle-
-gato; ealcune fra le notate crescere d'importanza ; ma chepinttosto e a prevedere che
nelle finali liquidazionil'ultinio resultato sar& per portare una diminuzione vistosa sulla
cifra presagita.

Secondo un calcolo, del resto molto approssimativo, con forse due milioui e due o tre-
cento mila lire di rendita, il Tesoro nazionale nel modo proposto si riscatterebbe da
ogni debito dipendente dalle fortunose vicende attraverso alle quali l'ltalia si e final-
mente costituita in libera nazione.

Se pertanto non leggero, il carico che sta per derivarne non pub dissestare l'erario
nazionale, mentre non vogliouo dimenticarsi due cose. La prima che il bilancio passivo
dello Stato si compila per pagare non per disimularne il debito ; la seconda che nel prov-
vedimento proposto, piil del danno erariale diventa apprezzabile la soddisfazione che
sta per risentirne la coscienza pubblica.

Poiche, o Signori, e in nome della giustizia, della equity e della politica che la Com-
missione non esita a raccomandare alia vostra sanzioue i quattro articoli del suo disegno
di legge.

MANTELLINI, relatore.

PROGETTO DEL MINISTEEO.

Art. 1. I fondi per ragioni militari dai precedenti Governi espropriati, setiza pao-a-
mento d'indenniU, nelle guerre che prepararono e compierono il nostro nazionale risor-

ALIEN CLAIMS. 169

■gimento, come in quelle onde furono funestate nell'entrare del secolo le provincie del
primo regno italico, quando sieno tenuti tuttora dal Governo ifcaliano, saranno da esso
restituiti nello stato iu cui si trovano attualmeute, o ne sara pagato il prezzo di stima
a coloro che, giustifioando nei modi legali la proprieta del fondo, dimostrerauno insieine
il tempo ed il modo del l'espropriazione, e la data della doinanda o delle domande d'in-
dennita ritnaste insoddisfatte.

Art. 2. Dalla obbligazione di' 4,749,000 fiorini nominali, rimessa dal Governo austro-
ungarico al Governo italiano ai termini dell'artieolo 2 della oouvenziorie A del 6 gen-
naio 1871 approvata con legge del 23 marzo anno medesimo, nutnero 137 (serie se-
couda), sara prelevata una quota parte di fiorini 634,000 del pari nominali, per sovve-
nire ai cittadini delle provincie lotnbardo-venete di piii ristretta condizione di fortuna,
che non fossero stati indennizzati delle requisizioni ed altri dauui per essi sofferti a
causa delle guerre menzionate nell'arfcicolo precedents, e che fossero d'altronde in
grado di fornire la prova del danno e indicare la data dei reclaim presentati senza
risultato.

Art. 3. Del reparto della somme come sopra stabilita e incaricata una Commissione
composta di delegati delle 'pro viucie della Lotubardia e "della Venezia, uno per ciasche-
duna provineia, nominate dal rispettivo Consiglio provincial.

La Commissione sara presieduta dal prefetto della citta di Verona, dove avra la sua
sede ; e potra fra i suoi componenti, nominare mi Comitato per la esecuzione delle sue
deliberazioni.

PROGETTO DELLA GIUNTA.

Art. 1. I debiti per causa pubblica, militare o di guerra, che, formati o contratti
•secondo gli ordinamenti di allora, si lasciarono non regolati o non soddisfatti dalle am-
niinistrazioni permanenti dei gia Stati italiani, alle quali nel 1859, 1860, 1866 e 1870 si
sostituiva l'amministrazione del reguo d'ltalia, saranno dal Governo del Re pagati con
tanto consolidato 5 per cento alia pari : tranne i coutemplati dal seguente articolo.

Art. 2. Con tauto consolidato 3 per cento alia pari saranno soddisfatti i debiti di
ugual natura lasciati dai Governi provvisorii del 1848, e le requisizioni e provviste re-
golarmente aocertate, sia per le truppe nazionali nelle guerre del 1848 e 1849, sia fatte
dalP Austria nelle guerre del 1848, 1849 e 1859 in Italia, fuori del lombardo-veneto, e
nelle guerre del 1859 e del 1866 nella Lombardia, nel veneto e mautovano.

Art. 3. II Governo provvedera col mezzo di apposite Commissioni all'aceerfcamento
ed alia liquidazione delle partite di credito contemplate dalla presente legge.

Gli aventi diritto presenteranno alia detta Commissioue i loro titoli di credilio coi
relativi documenti, nel termiue perentorio di sei mesi dalla data della nomiua della
Commissione, che dovra chiudere le sue liquidazioni dentro l'anno succesBivo alia pre-
sentazioue" dei titoli.

Art. 4. La presente legge non ha effetto per quelli fra gli aventi iuteresse che non
oonsentano al trattamento disposto eoi precedenti articoli 1 e 2.

Alleoato N°. 1.
Decreto del Granduoa di Tosaana del 3 novenibre 1S50 sulle spese per le truppe ansiliari.

NOI LEOPOLDO, ecc.

Visto il decreto nell'assenza nostra ed in nostro nome emanato dal Consiglio dei
ministri sotto il dl 13 giugno ultimo passato ed in ordine al quale furono nominati il
dottor Girolamo Gargiolli membro, allora, del Consiglio di Stato in servizio ordinario,
ed il colonnello in ritiro cavaliere Michele Ceccherelli per liquidare tutte le spese oc-
corse per il corpo di truppe imperiali austriache dal giorno del loro ingresso in Tos-
•cana fino a quello del cambio delle ratifiche della convenzione del 22 aprile precedente,
a forma di quanto disponeva l'articplo 4 della convenzione snrriferita.

Considerandp che ad una paTte delle spese preindicate hanno supplito le diverse co-
munita dello Stato, le quali hanno fatto fronte a quello straordinario aggravio, o con i
.soccorsi ricevuti dalla regia depositeria, o con mezzi loro propri, o con quelli che si
rsono precariamente procurati a titolo frutfcifero da terzi soventori ;

Consideraudo che, per il titolo in ispecie dell'alloggio, le comunita hanno dovuto,
^.nche dopo il primo di luglio ultimo passato, epoca, nella quale il regio trono prese di-
jettamente a provvedere al servizio delle truppe ausiliari, sostenere qualche aggravio
iper questa dipendenza ;

Considerando che anche vari spedali dello Stata sono in sofferenza per spedalita
.■somministrata alle truppe medesime, ed altri aggravi spff'erti per questa causa;

E considerando finalmente, che quanto e necessario di dar ordine e regola a tutte

170 ALIEN CLAIMS.

le spese occasionate dalla presenza delle truppe ausiliari nel Granduoato, altrettanto e
impossible che a tuttesimultaneamente, e direttamente provveda sabito il regio erario.

Sulle proposizioni del nostro ministro segretario di Stato del dipartimento delle
finanze, del cornmercio e dei lavori pubblioi ;

E sentito il nostro Consiglio dei ministri ;

Abbiamo decretato e decretiamo quanto segue :

Art. 1. I commissari destinati dal decreto del tridici' giugno ultimo passato a liqui-
dare le spese occorrenti per il servizio delle truppe imperiali austriaehe dal momeuto
del loro ingresso nel Granduoato a tutto il trenta giugno ridetto, estenderanno pur
anco il loro uffioio a liquidare, distintauiente, con le comunita, e con gli spedali le spese
da essi respettivaroente fatte per tal dipendenza, le somme che banno ricevuto in conto
dal regio erario per suppliere alle spese medesime, e quelle di cui rimangono per questo
titolo in disborso.

Art. 2. Le subalterne liquidazioni delle quali si tratta nell'articolo precedente sa-
ranno frattanto protratte a tutto dicembre prossimo fnturo, riserbandoei in seguito a
provvedere nei modi che saranno reputati i piu giusti, alia distribuzione e reparto delle
spese rese necessarie dalla presenza delle truppe austriache in Toscana, ed ai rimborsi
di ragione dovuti alle amministrazioni creditrici per tal dipendenza.

Art. 3. Non potranno frattanto pert le comunita rivalersi per qualsiasi quota di
quei loro crediti sui tributi che per diversi titoli sono, a forma degli ordini, richiainati
a versare nelle casse dello Stato nelle epoche consuete, onde qneste possan far fronte ai
carichi giornalieri, ed alle esigenze del pubblico servizio. Bensl sono autorizzati i
commissari liquidatori a tener conto alle singole comunita nelle liquidazioni dei loro
crediti, degli interessi passivi che avessero dovuto o dovessero ancora corrispondero
sulle somme che sono state nella necessita di procurarsi per supplire a quelli straordi-
nari aggravi, e per un oggetto che interessa l'universalita dello Stato.

I nostri ministri segretari di Stato per i dipartimenti delle finanze, ecc, e dell'interco
sono incaricati ciascuno per quanto loro spetta della esecuzione del presente decreto.

Dato il 3 novembre milleottocentocinquanta.

LEOPOLDO.

Allbgato N° 2.

Circolare del minist.ro dell'interno ai signori gorernatori provinciali ed intendenti generali pei
danni e requisizioni della guerra 1859 : 16 agoato 1860.

Dagli atti del Parlamento inserti nel giornale ufficiale del regno, i signori governa-
tori ed intendenti generali avranno veduto ohe nella tornata della Camera dei depu-
tati del 24 precorso giugno, iu seguito a interpellate mosse dall'onorevole deputato
Depretis, il Governo del Re assuose l'impegno di fare vari prowedimenti diretti a re-
care il maggiore sollievo possibile ai mali cagionati dalla guerra d'indipendenza com-
battuta nel 1859.

Premendo di tradurre il piu presto in atti siffatti propositi, a raggiungere il deside-
rate scopo, il Governo del Re ha deciso, in Consiglio dei ministri, che gli interessati
tutti sarebbero invitati a proporre le loro domande per risarcimento di danni sofferti
per causa della guerra entro un discrete tei-mine da stabilirsi mediante apposito avviso
da pubblicarsi dai signori governatori ed intendenti generali, e che tali domande
raccolte per cura dei signori intendenti di circondario, e corredate di tutti i titoli ne-
cessari per accertare la natnra, la realt.a e l'entita dei dauni patiti, non che delle occor-
renti informazioni sulle condizioni di fortuna dei ricorrenti, sarebbero poscia ciunite per
provincie, trasmesse a questo Ministero dai signori governatori ed intendenti generali
predetti, accompagDate dalle particolari loro informazioni.

Sebbene le esplicite e precise dichiarazioni da sua eccellenza il presidente del Consi-
glio dei ministri fatte alia Camera elettiva nella tornata predetta, chiaro dimostrino
quali siano le intenzioni del Governo riguardo alle persone ed ai danni che il medesimo,
s'incarica di risarcire, si crede tuttavia opportuno di qui riassumerle a seanso d'ogni
possibile equivoco ed a piu sicura norma tanto degli interessati nel proporre, quanto
degli intendenti nel reccogliere le domande di cui s^ tratta.

A termineadunque delle preaccennate dichiarazioni, conviene ritenere che il Governo
si sarebbe proposto ;

1° Di provvedere per venire il piti sollecitameute possibile in soccorso dei cittadini
piu poveri stati danneggiati dalla guerra ;

2" Di considerare a carico dello Stato il compenso dei danni cagionati :

a) Dalle requisizioni regolarmente fatte dagli Austriaci in Lombardia ;

o) Dalle occupazioni di terreni operate dalle autoritsl austriache in Lombardia e nei
Ducati per opere di fortificazioni stabili o campali prima del cominciamento delle osti-
lita ;

c) Dalle occupazioni della stessa natura ordinate dalle autorita nazionali e dai co-
mandanti delle truppe nazionali ed alleate ;

ALIEN CLAIMS. 171

d) Dalla distruzione di capitali inobili e dalle inondazioni sequite per ordine delle
autorita stesse per impedire l'invasione dei nemici ;

3° Di dare le necessarie disposizioni perche la cassa dpi depositi e prestiti e quelle
di risparmio potessero largamente soinmimstrare dei fondi a quei coumni ehe piu ne
avessero di bisogno per sopperire agli oneri contratti per la stessa causa ;

4° Inline, di adoperarsi efflcacemente presso i Consigli provinciali onde prorauovere
un'associazione fra tutte le provincie del regno, diretta a sovvenire a quei danni ehe-
non saranno o non potranno essere alleviati dal Governo.

Vari e di vario genere essendo i danni ai quali si tratta di riparare ne per tutti po-
tendo essere adottato un solo ed uniforme procedirnento, onde pervenire all'esatta e
regolare loro constatazione, lo scrivente si limitera ad acoennare ehe o si tratta di danni"
oagionati da ocoupazioni di propriety per opere di difesa permanente o passeggiera,
ehe non sono ancora state, o non possono piu essere restituite al primitivo loro uso, ed
in tal caso, ove gia non esistano regolari perizie, si dovra prooedere alia loro esecuzione
onde far luogo al rimborso del prezzo ed alia refezione dei danni ehe saranno fissati.

Ovvero si tratta di danni ehe per la loro natura e per il tempo traseorso nou possono
piu essere determinati per mezzo di periti, ed allora si dovra ricorrere ad altri idonei
mezzi di prova.

Lo stesso dovra pratioarsi riguardo alio stato di fortuna dei ricorrenti, avvertendo
inoltre, per rispetto a questi, di far conoscere altresi la situazione delle loro faraiglie, il
numero cioe dei membri di ehe sono composte, la loro eta, ed i mezzi dei quali ciasouno
di essi pub disporre, per provvedere al proprio ed al eomune sostentamento.

Non accade poi di aggiungere ehe, per quanto sara possibile, dovrano essere prodotti,
od almeno indicati colla maggiore preoisione, gli ordini delle autorita iu virtu dei quali
furono occupate le varie proprieta od arrecati i lamentati danni, come necessaria ugual-
mente sara la prodnzione dei titoli coustatanti le requisizioni fatte dalle autorita au-
striache o nazionali, delle quali si chiedera il rimborso.

A questo fine si trasmettono ai signori governatori ed intendenti generali diversi do-
cumenti gia prodotti da aleuni danneggiati, onde abbiano a servire di norma alia com-
pilazione di si important* lavoro.

II Governo, del resto, fidente nella conosciuta perspicacia ed oculatezza dei signori
governatori ed intendenti generali, non crede di poter fare meglio ehe di rimettersi in-
tieramente al prudente loro arbitrio, persuaso ehe non tralascieranno cure onde eircon-
darsi di tutti i lumi necessari per porre il Governo in grado di provvedere con piena
cognizione di causa, perche nei limiti del diritto sia concesso ai danneggiati unsollievo-
senza spreco della pubblica finanza.

Non h poi necesaario ehe lo scrivente qui si estenda in minuti particolari per ci6 ehe
concerne i mutui ehe possono oceorrere ai comuuiper sopperire agl'impegnida essi oon-
tratti per la stessa causa ; nel limitarsi pertanto a rinnovare le promesse fatte dal Go-
verno di agevolare, per quanto sta in Ini, la concessione, dalla cassa dei depositi e dei
prestiti o da quelle di risparmio, delle anticipazioni di fondi dei quali si giustifichera il
bisogno, lo scrivente si riferisoe quanto al modo di formnlare e di istruire le relative
domande, alle istruzioni ehe prima d'ora furono diramate su tale materia, invitando i
signori governatori ed intendenti generali ad uniformarvisi esattamente, a scanso di
dannosi lirardi ehe non potrebbero poi essere ascritti a colpa del Governo.

Non riniane quindi piu ehe a parlare del progetto di associazione da attivarsi fra tutte
le provincie dello Stato per venire in soocorso di quei danni ai quali il Governo stesso
non e chiamato a riparare ed a tale proposito ugualmente lo scrivente pienamente affi-
dato ai caldi sentimenti d'affetto dai quali sa essere le rappreseutanze provinciali ani-
mate per la causa nazionale, mentre altamente fa plauso al patriotico pensiero ehe voile
tutte le provincie sorelle associate alia pietosa opera di alleviare i mali di una guerra
ehe ha iniziate la liberazione e l'indipendenza della patria eomune, nutre ferma fidu-
cia ehe il medesimo sara col massimo favore accolto da tutti i Consigli provinciali, e
ehe, grazie al largo e generoso loro eonoorso, troveranno il maggior possibile riparo i
danni oagionati dalla passata guerra sicche i popoli ne trarranno argomento e conforto
a maggiori sacrifizi, quando cosl il bene della patria richiedesse.

Nel lasciare pertanto ai Consigli stessi tntto il merito della iniziativa, lo scrivente in-
vitera solo i signori governatori ed intendenti generali a secondarne colla loro autorita
le deliberazioni ed a farle poi colla maggiore sollecitudine pervenire a questo Ministero.

Nella persuasione cbe i signori governatori ed intendenti generali penetrandosi della
gravita ed importanza del lavoro ehe loro e demandato vi apporteranno tutta quella
sollecitudine ed impegno cbe potranno maggiori, sicche il medesimo eoncili in modo
soddisfacente gli interessi dei privati e dello Stato, lo scrivente stara attendendone il
pronto compimento ; non senza soggiungere, per maggior chiarezza ed uniformita, ehe
le domande di indennita dovranno essere riepilogate e divise in altrettanti stati quante
sono le categorie dei danni ai quali si tratta di riparare, avvertendo inoltre di tener
separati i danni e le requisizioni seguite pel fatto delF Austria, da quelle derivanti dalla
autorita e dalle armate nazionale ed alleata, e ne porge loro fin d'ora i pitt sentiti rin-
graziamenti.

II ministro

FAEINI.

172 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Allegato N° 3.

Istruzioni 3 agosto 1861 diramate dall' Austria per la liquidazione delle domande di compenso
sai danni provenienti dalla guerra del 1859 nelle provincie venete.

§ 1. Sono ammissibili ad un compenso dall'imperiale e regio erario, dipendenteruente
dalle vicende della guerra dell'anno 1859, le effettive prestazioni rnilitari ed i danni
•derivati alia propriety.

La pertrattazione delle domande di compenso in causa di prestazioni militari, e rego-
lata dall'istruzione abbassata col rescritto 13 maggio 1861, n° 2210 dell'eccelso imperiale
e regio Ministero della guerra.

Le norme, a seconda delle quali debboua pertrattarsi le domande di compenso per
danni derivanti alia proprieta dalle vicende della guerra (danni della guerra), vengono
tracciate colla presente istruzione.

§ 2. La Commissione del Dominio sulla liquidazione delle prestazioni militari
efiettuate nel regno Lombardo-Veneto, dipeudentemente dalla guerra del 1859, e che
venne istituita colla sovrana risoluzione 2 marzo 1861, dovra occnparsi anche della
liquidazione delle domande di compenso pei danni della guerra 1859 e dovra quindi
d'ora in poi nominarsi : Commissione pella liquidazione delle prestazioni militari e delle
■espropriazioni.

§ 3. La Commissione del Dominio dovra prefiggere un congrao termine perentorio
pell'insinuazione della domanda.

§ 4. Per poter prender in considerazione tali domande di compenso, non deve con-
stare che chi domanda il compenso abbia durante la guerra del 1859 presse le armi con-
tro l'imperiale e regio Governo e che si abbia reso colpevole d'altra azione ostile contro
il medesimo ; nascendo il sospetto dovrebbe provarsi il eontrario.

§ 5. 15 massima cardinale nella pertrattazione delle domande di compenso per danni
di guerra, che tali danni di regola non sono ammissibili ad un compenso dall'imperiale
e reale erario.

§ 6. Eccettuati e quindi ammissibili ad un compenso dall'imperiale e regio erario,
sono :

a) Le espropriazioni di fondi ad un uso permanente militare, e cosl pure le servitu.
speciali addossate ai fondi privati per iscopi di strategia miltare ;

o) I danni derivati dall'occupazione e dalla distruzione di edifizi o del soprassuolo
per iscopi passeggieri di strategia militare.

§ 7. Occupazioni ed usi passeggieri effettuati dal nemico e cosl pure i danni di ogni
sorta dipendenti dalla predisposizione od esecuzione di operazioni militari, da arbitrii
e da eccesi sia della mata nemica, sia delle imperiali e regie truppe (danni di guerra
propriamente detti), non possono compensarsi dall'imperiale e regio erario.

§ 8. Le domande di compenso, relative ai danni acceunati nel § 6, sono da pertrattarsi
a norma dell'istruzione, per le stime dei danni recati alia esecuzione di opere pubbliche,
•del 9 giugno 1826, n° 5315-931. (Collezione di leggi e regolamenti pubblicata dall'im-
periale e regio governo delle provincie venete, anno 1826, parte I, n° 62, pagina 114), c
devono tenersi dei protocolli separati in tale proposito.

§ 9. Del resto, in quanto trattasi degli amminicoli di prova o della sucoessiva con-
statazioue degli ordini militari relativi alia occupazione, all'uso ed alle servitu in parola,
valgono anche qui le norme in proposito tracciato ai §4 7, 8, 12 dell'istruzione 13 niaggio
1861 sulla liquidazione delle prestazioni militari, seuipreGhe tali norme possano trovare
applicazione nei casi di espropriazione.

§ 10. Valgono del pari anche pella pertrattazione delle domande di compenso in
causa di danni di guerra le norme tracciate ai §§ 2, 3, 4 della detta istruzione, relativa-
mente alia procedura di liquidazione al § 5, relativamente al termine perentorio da
fissarsi, ed al § 20, relativo ai rapporti da avauzarsi dalla commissione.

§ 11. Ai rispettivi proprietari competono, a norma del § 995 del Codice civile e della
sovrana risoluzione 4 marzo 1837, gli interessi di mora del 4 per cento, decorribili dal
momento dell'apprensione e rispettivamente da quelle dell'occupazione passeggiera
della proprieta, che, se in tale momento non si lasciasse precisare, gli interessi in parola
verranno liquidati decorribilmente dal giorno dell'insinuazione.

§ 12. Nei casi di occupazioni ed usi passeggieri di fondi, dovra couteggiarsi il com-
penso senza diffalchi (delle imposte).

§ 13. Sussistendo dei contratti approvati dall'autorita competente, e la di cui appro-
vazione sia gia stata notificata, dovra aversi rlguardo ai medesimi nel commissurare il
compenso.

§ 14. Le deliberazioni della Commissione liqnidatrice dovranno in uno cogli atti di
pertrattazione necessari per formarsene un giudizio, assoggettarsi all'eccelso imperiale
e regio Ministero della guerra per la decisione dei dicasteri interessati, e tali decisioni
finali che verranno abbassatl dal prefato Ministero, dovranno subito intimarsi alle parti.

§ 15. E riservata la determinazione sui mezzi coi quali avra luogo il pagainento dei
■ compensi liquidati ed approvati come sopra.

§ 16. Le parti cbe non si ritenessero soddisfatte delle decisioni emesse e dei compensi
loro assegnati, saranno rimesse alia via civile.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 17$

$ 17. Quegli importi di compenso che non fossero prelevati dalle parti entro 14 giomi
dall'intimazione della decisione delle autorita centrali, dovranno depositarsi in giudizio.

Ci6 avr& luogo anche nel caso di cui al § 16.

Col giorno di tale deposito oessano di decorrere gli iuteressi di mora del 4 per cento,
vale a dire che dal detto giorno in poi non ha piii luogo un ulteiiore corresponsione
d'interessi.

Venezia, 3 agosto 1861.

Dall'I. R. Luogotenenza Lombardo-Veneta.

AlXBGATO N° 4.

Kotijicazione del governo austriaco sulVapprovvigionamento dell'armqta mobile del 25 giugno-

1866.

Alio scopo di viemmeglio guarentire i comuni e gli individui che in causa della mo-
liilizzazione dell'imperiale regio esercita nel regno Lombardo-Veneto vengono chiamati
a prestare somministrazioni a vantaggio del militare, e per metterli immediatamente
in possesso di un titolo legalraente valido e trasmissibile anche a terze persone, trovasi
in relazione all'istruzione provvisofia emanata nel 1861 per gli organi, cui incombe
l'approvigionamento di un'armata mobile, di disporre quanto segue :

I. II militare dovra fare ogni ricerca di somministrazioni soltanto ai comuni e non
mai ai singoli abitanti; cosl pure la consegna degli articoli da somministrarsi non
verra mai effettuata direttamente da parte dei singoli abitanti, ma sempre coll'inter-
vento dei comuni.

Gli oggetti, che saranno chiesti del militare, dovranno essere somministrati dai
comuni solo in natura, non mai in danaro. Si ricorda pure in questa occasione il
vigente divieto, secondo il quale non si possouo comperare oggetti attinenti all'abbi-
gliamento, all'armamento o ad altri scopi militari, ne commestibili, foraggi ad altri
articoli di provianda, che fossero venduti dal soldato.

II. Non potra chiedersi da parte del militare alcuna somministrazione senza rila-
sciarne quitanza.

Per uniformita i comuni saranno provveduti di appositi bollettari, Dei qnali la madre
formera la quitanza del militare per gli articoli ricevuti, e la viglia la reversale del
comune sulla prestazione medesima.

Tanto la quitanza, quanto la reversale dovranno sempre venir emesse prima della
consegna e del rispettivo ricevimento delle prestazioni.

La bolletta madre, cioe la, quitanza propriamente detta, rimarra al comuue, e la
bolletta figlia staccata, cioe la reversale, sara rilasciata alia parte militare.

III. Le competenze militari di vitto e d'altro verranno esposte nella quitanza e nella
reversale in razioni giornaliere a peso e misura di Vienna.

Le congregazioni provinciali dovranno quindi fornire ai comuni apposite tabelle di
ragguaglio dei rispettivi pesi e misure, ed i comuni poi sulle stesse praticare le debite
riduzioni per effettuare regolarmente la somministrazione al militare e la ripartizione
della medesima sugli abitanti.

Le predette tabelle dovranno presso gli ufiici comunali essere sempre ostensibili al
militare.

IV. I comuni dovranno riportare le quietanze militari secondo l'ordine cronologico
ed eguale a quello in cui furono registrate nel bollettario, in un prospetto, che sara da
chiudersi il 15 e l'ultimo d'ogni mese e da trasmettersi subito dopo siffatti termini in
doppio esemplare e col corredo delle quietanze militari costituenti il bollettario della
quindicina, all'imperiale regia intendenza dell'esercito, col tramite della congregazione
provinciale.

V. L'intendenza dell'esercito procedera alia liquidazione interinale, emettera dei
Buoni di antieipazione per due terzi dei prezzi minimi degli oggetti somministrati, pre-
notera tale emissione sopra ambedue gli esemplari del prospetto e traBmettera uno di
questi colle relative quitanze all'imperiale regia contabilita centrale militare, perche-
trattenga il tutto ne' propri atti, restitnendo poi al comune, pel tramite predetto, l'al-
tro esemplare colle eventuali osservazioni, unitivi i relativi Buoni di antieipazione.

VI. I prospetti restituiti ai comuni saranno trattenuti presso i medesimi per essere
prodotti a suo tempo alia Commissione liquidatrice del Dominio, mentre i Buoni di
antieipazione potrano essere girati dai comuni anche a terze persoue, e, senza bisogno
di altra liquidazione, saranno a suo tempo pagati nel valore nominate al portatore da
quell'imperiale reale cassa, che verra a ci6 autorizzata. -«i

VII. Nella definitiva liquidazione sara aggiundicata ed assegnata pel pagamento ai
comuni l'ultima terza parte, oltre, l'eventuale aumento dei prezzi giusta l'effettivo valore
locale, e le indispensabili spese di trasporto sostenute e da comprovarsi mediante rego-
lari documenti.

Venezia, li 25 giugno 1866.

Dall'I. R. Luogotenenza Lombardo-Veneta.

TOGGENBURG.

174 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Allegato N° 5.

Circolare alle onorevoli Congregazioni provinciali, agli II. BB. commiseari distrettuali ed alle
Congregazioni municipali e deputazioni comunaU.

Per quanto il Governo siasi dato ognora, e specialmente in occasione della guerra del
1859, tutta la aolleoitudine, mediante l'apposita Commissione a cid istituita, nel defi-
nire la liquidazione delle prestazioni fatte al militare, ci6 nullostante la natura stessa
delle pratiohe occorrenti nelle relative operazioni esigeva un lasso di tempo che riu-
sciva lungo ai creditori.

Per ovviare a queste difficolta, la Luogotenenza, presi gli opportuni concerti coll'l.
E. comando dell'esercito in Verona e colla Congregazione centrale lombardo-veneta,
ha trovato di pubblicare la qui unita notificazione, che ricorda aloane norme preesi-
Btenti e prescrive altre nuove modalita per assiourare l'immediato e pleno riconosci-
mento dell'intera effettiva prestazione, e perche, almeno per buona parte del suo valore,
sia tosto rilasciato un apposito titolo di oredito ai comuni ed iridividui chiamati a pre-
stare somministrazioni a vantaggio del militare in occasione della mobilizzazione dell'I.
E. esercito in questo dominio.

Venezia, 25 giugno 1866.

Dall'I. E, Luogotenenza Lombardo-Veneta.

Allegato N° 6.

I. E. LUOGOTENENZA IN TEIESTE.

Nota all'inclita regia prefettura della provincia di Udine.

In riscontro al gradito foglio 22 corrente mese, numero 7096, la scrivente ha l'onore
di partecipare a cotesta inclita regia prefettura che la notificazione governativa 25
giugno 1866, n° 2852, di cui si unisce una copia, emanata dall'I. E. Luogotenenza lom-
bardo-veueta d'allora, che la medesirua Don venne pubblicata nella provincia del litto-
rale, e che le dispositive ivi contenute non ebbero vigore per questa provincia.

Per le somministrazioni militari, ed in generale per prestazioni e danni derivati dalla
guerra del 1866, si applicarono in Austria le massime'stabilite con sovrana risoluzione
10 settembre 1866, le quali si desumono dalla notificazione luogotenenziale 16 ottpbre
1866, che pure si allega in copia.

In base a queste massime si procedette anche riguardo alia provincia di Gorizia nella
trattazione delle relative domande d'indennizzo, liquidando, a termini della tariffa
•unita a quella notificazione, quelle prestazioni che risultarono compensabili.

Trieste, 31 marzo 1872.

FEEEY.

Allegato N° 7.

Notificazione dell'I. B. Luogotenenza del litiorale, concern ente il trattamento dei danni deri-

vanti dalla guerra del 1866.

Sua Maesta I. E. Apostolica, con sovrana risoluzione del 10 settembre anno corrente,
•si e graziosamente degnata di approvare le seguenti massime fondameutali pel tratta-
mente dei danni che derivauo dall'ultima guerra:

§ 1. — Quali prestazioni e danni vengono dallo Stato eompensati per legge.

Lo Stato compensa :

1° Le prestazioni militari per le II. EE. truppe, cioe :

a) Vacquartieramento, a norma delle vigenti leggi ;

o) Le vetture militari o carriagi in uso nel paese, a norma delle vigenti leggi ;

c) Le somministrazioni, requisizioni, ed in generale tutte le prestazioni non comprese
ad a e b, per esempjo le forniture, le somministrazioni di oggetti in natura, del servizio
<la tavola, di viveri e di altre occorrenze dell'armata, la prestazione di foraggi, il pa-
scolo di animali da macello appartenenti all'erario militare, i traghetti, i lavori in gene-
rale, ecc. ;

2° Le espropriazioni di terreni per iscopi militari ;

3° J danneggiamenti di oeni privati in causa ad ordini degli II. EE. comandanti di
-truppe o delle II. EE. autorita per iscopi strategici.

(Danni causati dalle operazioni militari non vengono eompensati, se avvenuti in se-
gnito a combattimenti o movimenti di marcia. Cos! pure i danni fortuiti o causati da
disordini non danno diritto a compenso.)

Dei danni commessi per petulanza e responsabile chi ne e l'autore. (Decreto aulico
del 16 aprile 1821, n° 10,086.)

Trieste, 16 ottobre 1866.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 175

Allegato N° 8.

MINISTERO DELL'INTEENO.

Conguaglio delle spese della guerrapel 1848-1849 nella Lombardia e Yenezia.

Fieenzb, 1 apvile 1869.
Ai signori prefetti,

E gia noto a cotesta prefettura come, per disposizione del Governo austriaco, tutte le
somministrazioni dei generi di sussistenza fornite dal 18 marzo 1848 al 31 dicembre
1849 alle sue truppe aceanipate nelle provincie lombardo-venete per combattere l'insur-
rezione e l'armata italiana, piu la tassa di gnerra cbe venue iuiposta e i gravi danni
arrecati dal militare in quelle circostauze, furono fatte gravare a totale carico delle
provincie stesse in proporzioue del loro estimo.

In eaecuzioue di tale disposizione il Ministero dell'interno di Vienna, con dispaccio 31
dicembre 1851, n° 20,174-194, prescrisse cbe ciascuna provincia liquidasse i debiti con
i rispettivi creditori e quindi presentasse alia contabilita di Stato le proprie liquidazioui
per gli effetti della perequazioDe generale per tutto il territorio del regno Lombardo-
Veneto, e successivamente, con istruzioni del 12 luglio 1852, fissb le norme generali per
siffatte perequazioni.

Una Commissione in ogni provincia attese quindi alia prima delle liquidazioui accen-
nate dalle istruzioni ministeriali, e le due contabilita di Stato di Milano e Venezia,
ciascuna pel rispettivo territorio, attesero alia pereqnazione generale.

II prospetto complessivo redatto dalle predette contabilita di Stato venne in seguito
sottoposto ad una Commissione centrale di deputati Lombardi e di Veneti radunata in
Milano, la quale, e per le predette istruzioni 12 luglio 1852 e pelle posteriori proposte
(formulate in base alle risultanze delle esibite giustificazioni ed accolte dal Ministero),
modificava in qualcbe parte quel lavoro, includendo alcune somme cbe non erano state
da dette contabilita ammesse, cioe, per esempio, lire 9439 13 per la provincia di Brescia,
lire 1391 54 per quella di Conio e lire 5030 per quella di Mantova, ed escludendone altre
pnr da esse accolte, ma non ritenute abbastanza giustificate, come alcune di Bergamo
e di Milano.

I titoli delle spese e danni cosl ammessi defiuitivamente riguardavano :

1" Le requisizioni dei generi di sussistenza ;

2° Le requisizioni dei mezzi di trasporto ;

3° Quelle degli articoli di casermaggio, come leuzuola, coperte, ecc. ;

4° Le somministrazioni d'alloggio per parte degli albergatori ;

5° I danni cagionati dalla occupazione Jmilitare nei locali ad uso dei pubblici stabili-
menti ;

6° Le somministrazioni d'alloggio in abitazioni dateapigione, quando al proprietario
ne fosse causato un danno ;

7° Le spese di trasporti, messi od espressi adoperati'esclusivamente pel servizio mili-
tare ;

8° Le spese per i lavori di fortificazione ;

9° Quelle per oreazione di ospedali militari ;

10. Quelle per telegrafi ;

11. Quelle perform dicampagua ;

12. Quelle per scuole di equitazioue ;

13. Quelle per bersagli ;

14. Quelle per ponti volanti, in quanto avessero carattere di prestazione militare e
fosse dimostrato cbe esse venissero incontrate a favore del militare ;

15. La tassa di guerra ordinata in quel tempo ;

16. E, pel solo territorio della Lombardia, i crediti (lire 149,468 75) di alcune ditte
milanesi per esecuzione di opere o ristauri di fabbricati demaniali militari eseguite du-
rante il periodo del Governo provvisorio (decreto speciale del Ministero dell'interno, in
data 16 dicembre, 1857, n° 32,433-1320).

Con tale operazione fu pure regolarizzato il cosi detto fondo social* cui le provincie,
a cid autorizzate dalla circolare 19 settembre 1848 della intendenza generale dell'armata,
avevano ricorso merce un'imposta speciale nei momenti piu gravi, onde raocogliere le
somme per corrispondere alle esorbitanti pretese dell'autorita militare.

La pereqnazione eseguita da questa Commissione centrale colla scorta di tutti i pre-
accennati criteri veniva definitivamente sancita dal Ministero di Vienna col decreto 17
novenibre 1858, portato a cognizione delle provincie venete colla circolare 7 dicembre
detto anno, e di quelle della Lombardia coll'altra del giorno 13 detto mese ed anno.

Con tale decreto venivano defiuitivamente ammesse per tutto il Lombardo-VeneLo le
somme seguenti, cioe :

a) Per le prestazioni in naturaaust ". L. 55,988,741 66

6) Per il fondo sociale 862,863 96

c) Per la tassa bellica , 36,045,100 59

In totale austriache 92,896,706 21

176 ALIEN CLAIMS.

II citato decreto inoltre determinava, nella somma di austriache lire 4,020,017 54, il
debito di ragguaglio della Lombardia verso la Venezia, ed assegnaudo a scarico di
questo debito il residuo del fondo sociale esistente presso le casse prinoipali del Lom-
bardo-Veneto nella sorama di austriaehe lire 207,204 56, il debito della Lombardia resi-
duavasi cosl ad austriache lire 3,800,000. II pagameuto di questa residua somma fa
Btabilito dovesse farsi col prodotto delle imposte da attivarsi negli anni 1859-1860-1861,
tanto per questo titolo come per quello della perequazione provinciale in ciascun do-
minio, e comunale in ciascuna provineia ; ed a parziale modificazione di quanto era
fissato nelle preliminari istruzioni del Ministero in data 12 luglio 1852, si stabill che il
congualio fra i due territori dovesse effettuarsi in base dell'imposta fondiaria dell'anno
1857, con esclusione per6 dell'imposta eulla rendita dei fabbricati che esisteva nelle
provincie lombarde avanti il vecchio censimento. Kispetto poi alle somme concernenti
il fondo sociale ed alia tassa bellica, il cui ripartoaveva laogo in base al montare degli
anni 1848-1849, determinavasi che il congaaglio dovesse effettuarsi secondo le risultanze
medie del debito d'imposta del preaccennato biennio. Finalmente fu aperto l'adito ad
una ulteriore insinuazione (in base sempre ai criteri cui era informata la prima) di
quelle pretese che i privati, i comuni e le eorporazioni avrebbero creduto di far valere,
non ostante l'anteriore recusa delle pretese stesse per ritardata insinuazione, o per di-
fetto di motivazione del titolo, o di regolare giustificazione. In base a tali dispoci-
zioni le due contabilita di Stato, procederono alia compilazione dsl quadro di riparto
delle suddette spese per le provincie dei rispettivi territori.

Sottoposto il prospetto di questo riparto delle provincie lombarde (in data 5 marzo
1859) alle deliberazioni della Congregazione centrale in Milano, questa non credette
poterne accettare i risultati, in quanto sostenne non doversi prendere per base del
riparto stesso l'imposta fondiaria del 1857, regolata da un novissimo censimento che
aveva molto variate le condizioni delle proprieta lombarde a tutto vantaggio delle ve-
nete, ma bensl (trattandosi di danni e spese verificatesi nel 1848-1849) l'imposta di tale
biennio, sulle risultanze del vecchio censo in allora vigente, dal quale diverso calcolo
ne resultava che il debito della Lombardia verso la Venezia, anziche ammontare a lire
4,020,017 54, ascendeva invece a soli 2,638,355 di lire austriache.

Sopraggiunti intanto gli avvenimenti politici del 1859, sia per la impossibility di
prendere concerti col Governo austriaco, per quanto rifletteva la Venezia come per la
inutilita di ogni tentativo diretto a modificare il citato decreto ministeriale del 17
noveinbre 1858, il quale maggiormente favoriva le provincie venete rimaste sotto il suo
dominio, questo Ministero non pote dal 1860 al 1866 riattivare le opportune pratiche per
quella perequazione, la quale sarebbe rimasta imperfetta, se si fosse limitata al riparto
fra le sole provincie lombarde.

D'altronde il Governo italiano aveva potuto conoscere come, malgrado le piu. vive
sollecitazioni della congregazione centrale di Venezia al Ministero di Vienna, onde in
via diplomatica ottenesse i pagamenti dovuti dal gia ^dominio lombardo, quel Mini-
stero avesse deciso di sospendere per allora qualunque pratica in proposito, anche pel
Veneto.

Cessato finalmente nel 1866 il dominio austriaco anche nella Venezia si fu allora che
si avanzarono e si sono ripetute insistenti premure a questo Ministero onde volesse
provvedere alia definitiva esecuzione di quel riparto.

Ne questo Ministero era alieno dal secondare a si giuste domande, e gia da qualehe
anno aveva assunte indagini, e si era dato cura di raccorre tutti i materiali occorrenti
in si complicata vertenza, affidando apposito incarico a funzionari d'ordine superiore, e
gia versati in quella materia. Eaccolti i risultati delle prime insinuazioni dei crediti,
il Consiglio provinciale di Milano prendeva a tratfcarne nella sua tornata del 12 aettem-
bre 1862, e promuoveva dal Ministero un invito a tutte le altre provincie lombarde
perche desero mano ad egual lavoro, al che venne adempiuto colla circolare 28 febbraio
1863, n° 22,212. Ma le risposte da queste provocate non esanrirono che in parte le
richieste del Ministero, oltredichfe rimaneva sempre l'altra questione gravissima posta
innanzi dalla gia congregazione centrale lombarda, la quale formava il maggiore
ostacolo alle operazioni,in quanto ne impugnava le basi fissatecol decreto ministeriale
austriaco del 17 novembre 1858. Dal canto loro invece le provincie venete appena
ricongiunte al regno insisterono per la piena esecuzione del decreto stesso.

In tale stato di cose il Ministero non pote esimersi dallo interpellare in proposito, a
termine di legge, il Consiglio di stato, il quale, in data del 17 settembre 1867, emise il
parere letteralmente trascritto in line della presente.

II Ministero crede dover prendere per base degli ulteriori provvedimenti in proposito
quel voto, ed ora intende affrettare la definitiva risoluzione della pendenza cm quel-
l'impegno ed urgenza che a buon diritto e reclamata dall'interesse delle provincie della
Lombardia e Venezia.

Egli e percib che richiamando, con questi dettagli che si sono ravisati necessari,
l'attenzione del signor prefetto di su tutte le fasi subite da tale

pendenza, il Ministero intende sia della presente data, a mezzo delle deputazioni pro-
vincial!, pronta comunicazione ai rispettivi Consigli provinciali della Lombardia e
Venezia, i quali essendo succeduti alle antiche congregarizioni di provineia, ed anche

ALIEN CLAIMS. 177

alia centralu hanno le attribuzioni die a quelle erauo riservate dalle ordinanze del
gia Governo austriaco, e possono, ove lo credano, esporimentare le loro ragioni ai ter-
mini del citato parere del Consiglio di stato.

Le prelodate deputazioui vorranno raccogliere tutti i mateviali clie sono richiestt
dalla necessita della regolare istrnzione dell'affare onde meglio informare di tutto il
Consiglio, avvertendo che, oltre agli atti reperibili negli arehivi delle antecedent dele-
gazioni e congregazioui provinciali potrauno, quelle delle proviucie lombarde ricorrere
per maggiori sobiarimenti e notizia alia regia prefettura di Milauo, ed a quella di Vene-
zia le altre.

Giovera anzi, poresaurire completamente leinformazioni occorrenti, chesia reso noto
alle varie autorita provinciali come del citato parere del Consiglio di stato fosse in-
formato il Consiglio provinciale di Milano, il quale, colla, sua deliberazione del 10
settembre prossimo passato, nou solo abbandonava ogui opposizione contro il decreto
ministeriale austriaco 17 novembre 1858, ma propoueva:

1° Che si attuasseeontemporaneamentefra leprovinciediLombardia la perequazione
gia i>redisposta dalla contabilita di Milano, onde cosl raccogliere i mezzi necessari per
devenire tanto al conguaglio generate, come alia stessa perequazione interna ;

2° Che si curassero le insinuazioni suppletive,e il successivo conguaglio addizionale,
facendo per6 espresso voto che ad ogni modo i lavori inerenti alia prima insinuazione
abbiano a procedere separati e indipendenti da quelli della seconda, cib essendo nello
spirito e uella lettera delle disposizioni precitate, e servendo alio scopo di non protrarre
piii oltre provincie creditrici il rimborso di somme che furono anticipate gia da 20 anni,
e che dovevano essere rifuse gia da 10 anni.

II signor prefetto di e pregato di mi pronto cenno di ricevimento

della presente, come di riferire quando sara couvocato il Consiglio provinciale per la
apportuna trattazioue di si rilevante affare.

Pel minislro

GEREA.

Allegato N° 9.
CONSIGLIO DI STATO.

La sezione dell'iuterno in adunanza del 17 settembre 1867,

Vedutala relazione 26 agosto 1867 del Ministero dell'iuterno, divisione 5", sezione 4",
n° 67,326-13,700, coi docnmenti uniti al piano di liquidazione e perequazione fra la
Lombardia ed il Veneto delle spese per requisizioni e prestazioni militari durante la
guerra 1848 e 1849 ;

Sentito il relatore,

Eitenuto che, avendo il Governo austriaco ordinato fin dal 1848 e 1851, che le spese
della guerra, e particolarmente quelle del mantenimento dell'armata imperiale, dal 18
marzo 1848 al 31 dicembre 1849 fossero a carico delle provincie delle Lombardia e della
Venezia, che dovevano contribuire in ragione della rispettiva forza estimale, fu instituita
una Commissione, mista di Lombardi e di Veneti, per procedere alia liquidazione dei
rispettivi crediti e debiti delle provincie lombarde e veuete ;

Che concordi in tutti gli altri elementi della liquidazione, i commissari Lombardi
disseutirono dai Veneti soltanto in questo che, mentre gli uni assumevano a base del
riparto i risnltati del nuovo censimeuto gia noti nel 1856 e concedevano soltanto che le
contribuzioni del fondo sociale e della tassa bellica fossero ripartite secondo i dati
dell'imposta del 1848 e 1849, e Lombardi pretendevano che l'intiero riparto fosse fatto
sulle basi di quella imposta ;

Che dalla diversita di quelle basi emergeva che secondo i commissari Lombardi il
debito delle provincie della Lombardia a favore di quelle della Venezia, in ragione della
maggiore spesa sostenuta da esse, sarebbe di lire austriache 2,638,955 30, mentre, secondo
i calcoli dei commissari Veneti, risulterebbe di lire austriache 4,020,017 53 ;

Che, avendo il presidente della Commissione votato coi Veneti, la loro opinione
prevalse nella giunta e fu, con relazione del 14 marzo 1858 (in cui si fece larga
meuzione del voto dei commissari Lombardi) insieme con gli atti verbali delle sedute,
sottomessa al Ministero dell'interno in Vienna ; il quale approvava la detta liquidazione
sulle basi preferite dalla Commissione, con decreto ministeriale del 17 novembre 1858 ;

Che, comm unicato il detto decreto dalla luogotenenza di Milano colle norme per darvi
esecuzione, la congregazione centrale della Lombardia ne domandava la revisione con
sua rappresentanza del 5 maggio, trasmessa in Vienna il 13 maggio 1859, allegando che
se per la tassa bellica e per il fondo sociale si era adottata per base di riparto l'imposta
del 1848 e 1849, doveva, per parita di ragione, addottarsi anche per le requisizioni
militari e per ogni altra causa di debito ;

Che avvenuta, poco dopo, l'annessione della Lombardia al regno d'ltalia, l'amminii
strazione non ebbe piu ad occuparsiche del riparto tra le provincie lombarde, per cu-

H. Eep. 134 12

178 ALIEN CLAIMS.

spediva in Milano uu ufficiale del Ministero dell interno, clie in data del 15 maggio 186tl
elevava nel suo rapporto il dubbio, Be alia cessata congregazione centrale della
Lombardia conapeteva ricorso oontro una deeisione emanata dal Governo imperiale di
Vienna ;

Che, dovendosi ora procedere all'estinzione del debito sulle istanze della ComniisBione
centrale per l'amniinistrazione del fondo territoriale Veneto, ed inoltre alia liqnidazione
delle partite suppletorie (che il decreto ministeriale del 17 novembre 185b ordinava
farsi sulle hasi adottate dalla maggioranza della Comniissione lombardo-veneta) il
Ministero dell'interno avrebbe aggiunto al detto quesito sull'ammissibilita del ricorso,
la questione sul merito, Be il reclamo della congregazione centrale aveva ragione di
essera negli elementi che informarono la repartizione delle spese di cui e parola ;

Considerando che, sebbene non possa dubitarische ci la determinazione ministeriale, del
17 novembre 1858 emanata dalla superiore autorita in via gerarchica non era suscettiva
di alcun rimedio ordinarioiu via amministrativa, in inodo che neesun reclamo avrebbe
potuto sospendere la esecuzione che per effetto della detta determinazione era ordinata
dalla luogoteneuza tuttavia non potrebbe nemmeno ritenersi che un provvedimento
amministrativo di qualsiasi gradonon potesse essere riformato in via straordinaria e di
revisione, dallo stesso Governo o dal capo dello Stato in una monarchia assoluta, come
era quella dell'impero austriaco ;

Che anche le leggi del regno d'ltalia concedono contro i provvedimenti amnainistra-
tivi quando non siano piii riparabili in via gerarchica, il rimedio del ricorso al Ee,
udito il Consiglio di stato ;

Ma che non e lecito confondere il rimedio straordinario del ricorso al Ee, secondo le
leggi italiane, col richiamo per revisione al Governo imperiale austriaco nel 1859;
dappoiche il primo non potrebbe riuscire che all'esaine, se siano state violate le regole
date con autorita legislativa dal caduto Governo ; ed in tale esame gli atti governativi
posteriori alle disposizioni legislative, potrebbero assumere il carattere di atti di
interpretazione autentica, e di risoluzioni delle questioni insorte, anche con nuove
regole che il potere assoluto era in arbitrio di mutare ; ne mai la deeisione ammini-
strativa potrebbe, quanto agli effetti, in una questione di riparto di contrihuzioni, e
dopo esaurita la esecuzione, limitare l'esercizio dei poteri dell'autorita giudiziaria ; mentre
tutt'altro poteva essere il fine del ricorso per revisione al Governo imperiale austriaco ;

Che quindi il richiamo della congregazione centrale lombarda del mese di maggio
1859, omessa ogni altra questione, non potrebbe tener luogo del ricorso al Re secondo la
legge sul Consiglio di stato del 20 marzo 1865 ;

Che d'altronde disciolta la congregazione lombarda non vi sareobe luogo a discutere
l'ammissibilitadi un reclamo, non riasunto dalle amministrazioni che le sonosuccedute;

Che in tale stato della vertenza, sarebbe prematura il discutere ogui altra questione
di merito ;

E d'avviso,

Che poteva la congregazione centrale lombarda ricorrere, come fece, al Governo im-
periale austriaco per la revisione della determinazione ministeriale del 17 novembre
1858, ma che, non essendovi piu' luogo all'esercizio dell'autorita a cui essa riferivasi,
debba il Governo dare esecuzione alia impugnata determinazione ministeriale, salvi i
richiami che potranno sorgere a norma delle leggi vigenti.

Visto : II presidente della sezionc.

Firmato :

IANIGEO.

Allegato N° 10.

MINISTEEO DELL'INTEENO.

Pereguazionc delle spese di guerra 1848-1849 nella Lonibardia e nella Venezia.

Fireisze, 1° settembre 1870.
Ai signori prefetti,

Colla circolare 1° aprile 1869 prossimo passato, numero 1124, questo Ministers
riassumendo tutte le fasi subite dalla vertenza della perequazione delle spese di guerra
1848-1849 per le provincie di Lombardia e Venezia, faceva sentire alia S. V. essere suo
intendimento che a sfogo dei reiterati reclaim delle provincie stesse, le quali veggono
impegnati in tale vertenza importanti interessi, si procurasse o per accordi tra le pro-
vincie medesime, o nei modi legali, che le riluttanze fin qui opposte da parecehie rap-
presentanze venissero rimosse, e fosse data cosl esecuzione al riparto delle liquidazioni
risultanti dalla prima insinuazione gia debitamente sanzionate col decreto 17 novembre
1858, n° 22,116-647 del Ministero di Vienna.

Ed ora, poiche i predetti accordi non poterono eonchiudersi tra le provincie, comun-
que si tentassero pareccbi convegni delle rispettive rappresentanze, il Ministero in-
tende si attui senza dilazione di sorta il secondo degli accennati propositi, ed invita i
i^uori prefetti a presentaro alia deputazione provinciale il riparto predetto perche

ALIKN CLAIMS. 179

ciascuna, per quanto la risguarda, alloghi, nel bilancio della propria provinoia, la
somma occorrente per soddisfare alia quota di debito obo le fa carieo in forzadel riparto
stesso ; die se sorgessere nnove opposizioni da parte di talnna proviricia, il Governo
intende si proceda, senza ulteriore indugio, alle allogazioni di ufficio, salvo il ricorso
alle parti interessate come e accennato anohe dal parere del Consiglio di stato 17
settembre 1867, letteralinente riportato in fine della precitata oiroolare 1° aprile 1869.

All'effetto poi che ciaseuna prefettura possa avere la copia del riparto delle spese
sancite col deoreto 17 novembre 1858, i signori prefetti delle provincie lombarde po-
tranno rivolgersi al prefetto di Milano, ed a quello di Venezia gli altri delle venete.

Si prega aceusar ricevuta della presente, porgeudo a suo tempo solleciti ragguagli
sulla esecuzione degli ordini impartiti in essa.

Pel ministro

CAVALLINI.

Allegato N° 11.
Parere sitgli imprestiti dei Governi provvisori.

CONSIGLIO DI STATO.

La sezione d'affari interni e finanze in adunanza 3 settembre 1863,
Veduta la nota 30 luglio scorso del Ministero delle finanze oolla quale si chiede il
parere del Consiglio di stato sulla convenienza di presentare al Parlamento un pro-
getto di legge per il riconoscimento dei debiti eontratti sotto forma di debito pubblieo
dal Governo provvisorio della Lombardia nel 1848 :
Vista l'altra nota del 10 agosto 1863 ;

Sentito il relatore,

Ritenuto, cbe il governo provvisorio della Lombardia rieonosoendo il suo mandato
dal fatto della rivoluzione di quell'anno, dopo avere nel proolama 29 marzo interpretato
quel fatto come unamissione a conquistare l'indipendenza della patria pergiungere a
costitnire l'ltalia unita e libera, nel 12 maggio apriva i registri al suffragio universale
per l'uiiione immediata delle provincie lombarde cogli Stati sardi nell'interesse di
quelle provincie, e in quello di tutta la nazione, salve le basi e le forme della nuova
monarchia costituzionale da stabilirsi colla dinastia di Savoia ;

Che, con legge del di 11 luglio 1848, veduto il risultamento della votazione univer-
sale tenutasi nella Lombardia fu accettata la immediata unione di quelle provincie, e
fu dichiarato che esse formavano, con gli Stati sardi e cogli altri gia uniti, un solo
regno ;

Che, per effetto dei contrari eveuti della gnerra dell'indipendenza, col trattato del 6
agosto 1849, reso eseeutorio per la legge del 23 gennaio 1850, la felice unione di quegli
Stati, venne disciolta, e la monarchia sarda fu costretta a rinunziare i diritti acquistati
con la legge dell'll luglio ;

Che, accesa nuova guerra nel 1859, la stessa monarchia rientro in possesso delle
provincie lombarde per i trattati di Zurigo del 10 novembre 1859, resi esecutori con la
legge del 1° dicembre di quell'anno, dappoiche 1' Austria, avendo rinunziato in favore
dell'imperatore dei Francesi ai suoi diritti e titoli sulla Lombardia, questi li trasferl
nell'atto stesso in persona di S. M. il Ee di Sardegna ;

Che, per effetto di detti trattati, la monarchia sarda pres6 a suo carieo tre quinti del
debito pubblieo del Monte lombardo-veneto, e di quello nascente dal prestito austriaco
del 1854, e si costitul successore in tutti i diritti ed obbligazioni risultanti da eontratti
regolarmente stipulati dall'amministrazione austriaca per causa di pubblieo interesse e
concernente il paese ceduto. Nulla pero, fu detto dei prestiti eontratti nel 1848 dal Go-
verno provvisorio di Lombardia ;

Considerando che i detti prestiti eontratti per sostenere la guerra dell'indipendenza
e per le spese del Governo provvisorio di Lombardia (al quale succedeva per diritto
nazionale il Governo sardo, per effetto della votazione generale di quelle provincie,)
obligavauo certamente il nuovo regno dell'Alta Italia costituito in quell'anno, essendo
giusta e Concorde opinione di tutti i pubblicisti oiie le provinoie annesse, in difetto di
particolari stipulazioni, se da una parte sottostanno alle leggi dello Stato cou cui si
annettano, dall'altra portano in esso tutti i diritti inerenti alia sovranita, e le obbligazioni
contratte nelF interesse di quelle provincie ;

Che pero, l'nnione del 1848, fu disciolta dagli eventi della gnerra che furono causa al
diritto stabilito col trattato del 6 agosto 1649 ;

Che il Governo austriaco, rientrato in possesso delle provincie lombarde, non voile
iconoscere i prestiti fatti dal Governo provvisorio, e si ricusb a r/agarne gli interesse e
sorte

Che in tal modo, il caso di forza maggiore risultante dagli eventi della guerra, se da
una parte priv6 la monarchia subalpina del benefizio dell'annessione delle provincie
ombarde, dall'altra la prosciolse dalle obbligazioni correlative ed inerenti all'annes

180 ALIEN CLAIMS.

sione, e colpi i prestatori nei loro titoli e diritti, senza che da questo fatto possa
scaturire alcuna ragione legale d'indennita da una parte verso l'altra, per il uoto prin-
cipio che res perit domino ;

Considerando, che per la ragione internazionale dei trattati, il regno di Sardegna
succedeva all'irapero A' Austria nel dominio delle provincie lombarde, come questo le
teneva prima del 1859 e della pace di Villafranca ; e non potrebbe quindi per titolo dei
trattati di Zurigo essere tenuto il nuovo regno a maggiori obbligazioni di quelle che
scatnriscono dai detti trattati, o dalla natura dell'atto stesso traslativo della sovranita
di quelle provincie ;

Considerando per altra parte come importi il rammentare che l'annessione della
Lombardia aveva avuta la sua prima origiue e salda base dal libero voto dei popoli,
sul quale sifonda la formazione del regno italiano ;

Cohsiderando che le mutate condizioni per cui ai primi prestatori sono succeduti i
presenti portatori dei titoli dei prestiti lombardi del 1848, da essi aequistati, probabil-
mente a tenue prezzo, quando caddero in discredito per le infauste vicende degli
ultinii mesi di quell'anno, possano plausibilmente essere volutate nello stabilire la
misura con la quale dovrebbero essere riconosciuti e soddisfatti i debiti di cui e parola ;

Che se questo criterio fu cagdone per cui furono ridotte a minimi termini le ragioni
di altri creditori di rivoluzioni, le quali, beneho si avvolgessero in lunghe vicende,
come la Francese nel 1792, tuttavia non patirono sconfitte, puo meritare maggiore con-
siderazione nel caso dei prestiti lombardi, in cui la forza maggiore tronco le obbliga-
zioni non meno che i diritti del Governo della rivoluzione ;

Considerando. che se il Governo italiano adempie ai debiti del Governo provvisorio
di Lombardia, nel modo stesso in cui sarebbe tenuto a soddisfarli lo stesso Governo
della rivoluzione redivivo dopo la restaurazione austriaca, del 1848, nessuno potra
muovergli rimprovero di avere rinnegata la sua origine popolare nazionale ;

Che lo stesso Governo delle cinque giornate, se fosse tomato in essere nel 1859, non
altrimenti sarebbe stato tenuto di soddisfare ai debiti del 1848, che come ad obbliga-
zioni naturali, giuste ed eque, poiche il nesso civile che dava ad esse la sanzione e la
forza del diritto positivo era stato distrutto dalla forza maggiore e troncato dalla spada
del vincitore ;

Che quindi avrebbe potuto lo stesso Governo della rivoluzione, nello stabilire la
misura dei suoi adempimenti, avere rignardo alia picciolezza dei sacrifizi fatti dagli
attuali portatori dei titoli di credito, alia trasformazioue del diritto acquistato dai
creditori, che dopo la pace del 1849 si convertl in semplice speranza; ed anche alle
strettezze finanziarie ed al dovere piil perfetto che hanno gli Stati,non meno che i
privati cittadiui di adempiere alle obbligazioni civili prima di soddisfare quelle che
hanno il solo sussidio del diritto naturale e della convenienza politica ;

Che un precedente favorevole ai creditori, circoscritto per6 entro certi limiti, ebbe
gia luogo in circostanze non molto dissimili per le provincie siciliane ;

Per questi rnotivi : »

15 di parere,

Che se per legge positiva non e tenuto il Governo italiano a soddisfare i debiti con-
tratti sotto forma di rendita pubblica dal Governo provvisorio lombardo del 1848, egli
deve, per ragioni non meno valide di diritto naturale e per legittima applicazione del
diritto nazionale che e fondamento delle istituzioni del regno, proporre al Parlamento
una legge che riconosca quei debiti, e restituisca i creditori nel pdssesso di un'azione
civile per chiederne il sodclisfacimento ;

Che pero il progetto di legge speciale da presentarsi in proposito a norma dell'articolo
2 della 4 legge agosto 1861 debba essere preceduto dalle neceesarie veriricazione di cui e
parola in detta legge, e da una liquidazione da proporsl nello stesso progetto all'ap-
provazione del Parlamento, alia quale dara il Governo regole e norme secondo le cou-
siderazioni che precedono, relative alia misura con cui debbono soddisfarsi tali debiti,
avuto riguardo agli esempi del Governo della rivoluzione siciliaua del 1860 ;

Che, trattandosi di obbligazione naturale a cui si deve restituire il carattere di ob-
bligazione civile, per considerazioni di giustizia, di equity e di convenienza politica,
spetti al Governo il giudicare dell'opportunita del tempo iu cui debba farsi la proposta
di cui e parola.

Visto : II presidente della sezione.

Firmato: SAPPA.

Alijegato N" 12.
Parere sui danni di guerra.

CONSIGLIO DI STATO.

La s6zione di finanza in adunanza del 27 maggio 1867,

Veduta la relazione del Ministero della guerra (divisione del materiale del genio, n°
10), in data 5 maggio 1867, colla quale si richiede il parere del Consiglio di stato sulli

ALIEN CLAIMS. 181

diverse controversie ultimamente insorte per pretese di compenso in conseguenza de
danni risentiti dai privati per operazioni militari eseguite durante 1' ultima guerra;

Sentito il relatore ; .

Veduti gli atti cue corredano la pratioa ;

Ha oonsiderato,

Che, giusta la giurisprudenza gia adottata dal precedente Consiglio di stato di To-
rino e applicata in diversi casi anche dal Consiglio di stato del regno d'ltalia, i danni
della guerra guerreggiata che sono cagionati dall'immediata azione bellica, e che peroi6
pigliano oarattere di un fatto aceideutale compiuto sotto l'irapero di una istantanea
necessita, non possono essere considerati come titolo giuridico per domande di inden-
nita. Questa soluzione e stata accettata dalla maggior parte degli scrittori di diritto
pubblico, ed e fondata sul prineipio della fbrza maggiore e della mancanza di liberta
nello Stato che ha recati i danni solo per necessita e per dovere di difesa, e quindi ad
intento di beneficare anziche di danneggiare.

II prineipio giuridico della forza maggiore che scioglie da ogni responsabilita lo
Stato, non impedisce per6 che possa esservi per riguardi di equita e di convenienza
politica anche per lo Stato, il caso di soccorrere i danneggiati ; ma le due questioni non
voglionsi confondere, e non si deve credere che dove i cittadini sono obbligati a mettere
la loro vita per difesa della patria, i possessori che, per ragione della stessa difesa,
venissero a subire danni materiali possano costituirsi couie veri creditori dello Stato
ed avere azione d'indennita.

II prineipio che si e indicato porta seeo stesso la sua litnitazione. Tutti i danni che
lo Stato reca deliberatamente, nou gia sotto la immediata azione dell'attacco, ed in
causa dell'urto delle forze belligeranti, dove pu6 dirsi che non vi sia neppure scelta di
luogo e di tempo, poiche la determinazione del luogo e del tempo e una necessaria con-
seguenza del muoversi o dell'appostarsi dei nemici ; tutti gli apprestamenti e i prepa-
rativi che precedono la guerra o che vengono ordinati lungi dal vero campo d'azione e
per sola previsione di successive eventuality belliche, non hanno per se stesse quel
carattere d'indispensabile necessita die giustifica la esclusione di ogni compenso dei
danneggiati. Percio i danni recati dalle truppe in marcia, prima che sia effettivamente
cominciata la guerra, gli atterramenti di edifici e gli abbattimenti di alberi fatti in-
torno alle fortezze non attaccate dal nemico, le occupazioni di terreni e l'erezione di
fortificazioni passeggere compiute. durante gli armistizi e gli altri fatti consimili, di
-cui e cenuo nella relazione ministeriale, non possono recisamente agguagliarsi alle
conseguenze della viva e vera azione bellica ; e percio converra in questi casi pro-
cedere con piii cauti avvedimenti, e nori rifiutare le offerte e le pratiche per venire ad
cqui componimenti.

Vero u che in alcuni casi anche i lavori di fortificazione, o- le occupazioni fatte fuori
della presenza e dell'urgenza dell'attacco nemico, possono, per rispetto alia rapidita e
la complicazione degli avvenimenti strategic!, pigliare carattere d'urgenza o di inde-
clinabile necessita, ma un giudizio sicuro sulla natura di questi fatti puo trarsi solo
dall'esame dei singoli casi; ed il Consiglio di stato non crede possibile di porgere alia
amministrazione una norma giuridica sicura ed immntabile, cbe valga per tutti i
diversi atteggiamenti di codeste svariate eventualita. Gli e percib che si e ricordato
il prineipio fondamentale, il quale. autorizza, anzi obbliga lo Stato a rifiutare le in-
dennita pei veri danni della guerra guerreggiata, come quello che contiene in se stesso
la ragione delle eccezioni.

II Ministero, per tutti i casi in cui non e evidente la presenza e l'urgenza del fatto
bellico, il quale non lascia luogo ne a scelta, ne a liberta ne a responsabilita, e che e in
tutto equiparabile ai fatti consimili ed ai disastri naturali, potra precedentemente rac-
-cogliere gli elementi valevoli ad apprezzare l'importauza dei danni ; scandagliare l'in-
tenzione dei danneggiati ; far valere le incertezze delle questioni di diritto e di fatto ;
e prima di concordare una transazione, trovera prudente di sentire i suoi consultori
legali e lo stesso Consiglio di stato, che, esaminando gli estremi speciali del fatto,
potranno valutare le probabilita di una soluzione o di una condanna giuridica, e sug-
gerire per conseguenza i termini piii couvenienti di una transazione.

A questo scopo s'aggiunge uu'avvertenza sul metodo di valutazione dell'entita dei
danni. II Ministero ha gia saviamente provveduto cbe, ove fosse possibile, il genio
militare rilevasse sommariamente lo stato dei fatti. La possibility di constatare quali
fossero le condizioni del suolo o dei fabbricati prima che le operazioni militari le tras-
iformassero, e di precisare la natura e l'entita delle opere e delle alterazioni eseguiteper
gli scopi militari, e gia per se stessa un indizio che mancava quell'urgenza e quel-
l'istantaneita la quale trasformava il fatto bellico in caso di forza maggiore.

Nel tempo stesso l'esistenza di queste constatazioni ufficiali da il modo di sottrarre
lo Stato ad esigenze esagerate ed a reclamazioni artificiali.

Oltre cib, occorre un'altra osservazione sussidiaria. I danni recati dalla bufera
bellica o dalle affrettate opere passeggere sono quasi sempre di maggior vista ed appa-
reuza che di sostanza, ed in tatto simili ai gnasti di un disastro eventuale, che non
itoglie al proprietario, nella pin parte dei casi, se non se i frutti e le utilita tem-
poranee.

182 ALIEN CLAIMS.

D'altra n.itnra souo iuvece i danni rooati in forza di un disegno preordinato, come, a
ragione d'esempio, quelli che souo la conseguenza di fortifieaziom stabili, le quali
attirano a se come uno scopo necessario l'azione bellica, ed assoggettano il territorio
circostante ad una specie di perpetua servitu. Vero e che la legge snlle servitu mili-
tari ha gia in parte provveduto a questa materia, ma non e men vero che quando le previ-
sioni generali dellaguerra, olespeciali della strategia, impongonoai proprietari che stano
vicino a questi campi prefissati allefazioni militari saciifizinon imposti dallaordinaria ser-
vitu conviene avere maggior riguardo ai loro reclami, essendo la loro sitnazione deteriore
di quella degli altri proprietari dello Stato. Per questo il Consiglio di stato di Torino
opin6 che si ammettessero le transazioni relative ai danneggiati per gli abbattimenti
degli alberi fatti intorno alle fortezze di Casale e di Alessandria, e su questo si polreb-
bero accogliere come avviamento a ragionevoli transazioni, anche pei reclami dei pos-
sessor! dei fondi danneggiati lo scorso anno intorno alia fortezza di Piaeenza.

Quanto ai danni recati dalle truppe nazionali in marcia, essi non dovrebbero certo
riguardarsi come danni di guerra, e, anzi, i compensi relativi dovrebbero ricadere sui
corpi e sui comandanti che, allontanandosi dalla rigorosa disciplina, avessero danneg-
giate le campagne o le abitazioni dei cittadiui. Ma anche su cib il Consiglio di stato si
riserva di dare un voto piii risoluto quando gli saranno comunicati gli estremi di
fatto ; iinperocche, se le marcie di cui si e toccato, avessero avuto luogo all'imminenza
della dichiarazione di guerra e fossero state fatte sotto l'impero di ordini straordinari,
specialmente quanto al tempo da arrivare e alia via da percorrere, ordini che essi stessi
si avessero a presumere ragionevolmento motivati dall' attitudine delle forze nemiche,
potrebbe darsi che non mancasse qualche elemento di forza maggiore e di necessita, il
quale potrebbe essere fatto valere per diminnire la responsibilita di chi ha recati i
danni.

Visto: II presidente della serione.

Firmato : SAPPA.

AlXBGATO N° 13.

Paivre sulla 6bl>liga:ione delV Italia respetto aldebiti dell'ex-jiontificio.

CONSIGLIO DI STATO.

AdunanzaG feVbraio 1868.
II Consiglio :

Vista la nota del Miuistero degli affari esteri del 14 gennaio prossimo passato, colla
quale si chiede il parere del Consiglio di Stato sulla questione : se pel fatto della rioc-
cupazione francese a Roma sia menomata l'efficaeia della convenzione stipulata il 7
dicembre 1866 fra l'ltalia e la Prancia pel riparto del debito pontiiicio ;

Visti gli annessi documenti ;

Udito il relatore :

Eitenuto che l'unico inotivo di dnbitare e nel riguardare la convenzione del 7 dicem-
bre 1866 come intimamente connessa a quella del 15 settembre 1864, della quale sarebbe
stata necessaria dipendenza e compimento, e nell'inferirne quiudi ehe la violazione
della Convenzione del 15 settembre commessa dalla Prancia col recente suo intervento
negli Stati pontifici abbia prosciolto l'ltalia dall'osservauza degli obblighi assuntisi con
essa Convenzione in correspettivo del ritiro delle truppe franeesi dagli Stati medesimi;

Considerato che l'obbligo pel Governo italiano di addossarsi una quota del debito
pontificio corrispondente a quelle provincie che negli anni 1859 e 1860 si uuirono al
regno d'ltalia, non deriva gia dalla Convenzione del 15 settembre 1864, ma sibbene dal-
Fineontrastibile principio che, quando uno Stato viene a dividersi in pui parti, come
ciascuna di esse, od il Governo cui novellamente appartiene, ha diritto ad una parte
proporzionale delle attivita che alio Stato medesirao spettavano, cosl reciprocamente
non puo esimersi da una quota proporzionale delle passivita di cui lo stesso si trovava
gravato ;

Che per tale principio, mentre il regno d'ltalia si acoollava tutti senza eccezione i
debiti degli Stati che si vennero ad esso integralmente annettendo, assumeva a suo
carico la quota di debito austriaco corrispondente alia Lonibardia e poscia la quota di
debito corrispondente alia Venezia, e la Prancia la quota di debito italiano corrispon-
dente alia Savoia ed a Nizza ;

Che parimenti il Governo italiano non ebbe difficolta, nel 1859 per le Eomagne e nel
1860 per l'Umbria, le Marche e Benevento, di sopperire indi in poi al pagamento di quel
milione e mezzo di rendita sui debito pubblico pontificio che stava inscritto in dette
provincie ;

Che se diversamente avvenne in riguardo alle rendite inscritte sui Gran Libro del
debito pubblico pontificio, il pagamento delle quali facevasi nelle capitale o nelle

ALIEN CLAIMS. . 183

provincie rimaste a quel Governo, ne fa sola cagione l'essere, rispetto a tali rendite,
prima di tutto necessaria una liquidazione, alia quale non si poteva procedere nello
stato delle relazioni in oui trovavansi i Governi italiano e pontifioio ;

Che si fu appunto per far eessare una volta gli ostacoli che per ragioni estranee al
merito si erano sino allora opposti all'acoertamento delle rispettive quote di debito
pubblico fra i due Govorni intereasati, cbe venue inserto nella Convenzione del 15 set-
tembre l'articolo 4 del tenore seguente : " L'ltalie se declare prete a entrer en arrange-
ment pour pendre a sa charge une part proportionelle de la dette des anciens Etats de
l'Eglise."

Che questa disposizione non aveva menomamente per oggetto d'imporre all'Italia
l'obbligo di prendere a suo carico una parte proporzionale dell'antico debito pontifioio,
ma soltanto di ottenere dall'Italia la dichiarazione che era pronta ad entrare in trat-
tative ed a fermare un accordo per soddisfare a tale obbligo lion mai da essa con-
testato ;

Che, di vero, le parole : pour prendre a sa charge, ecc, sono semplicemeute enunciative
ed altro non indicano che la materia sulla quale dovevansi aggirare le trattative che
l'ltalia assumeva 1'impegno d'intraprendere ; giacche, se quell articolo, invece di rife-
rirsi ad una obligazione preessistente, avesse importato un nuovo onere, non pur cosl
grave come quello di cui 6 caso, ma un onere qualnnque alia finanze della Stato, la Con-
venzione del 15 settembre non avrebbe potuto, a termini dell'articolo 5 della Statuto,
avere esecuzione senza l'assenso del parlamento, ne sarebbe quindi stata approvata,
come fu, per semplice decreto reale ;

Che, cio stante. si fa manifesto che il fatto della rioccupazione di Roma non put) avere
influenza nello scioglimento della proposta questione, e sarebbe quindi superflua ogni
indagine intorno alia violazione della convenzione 15 settembre : imperocche ad ogni
modo, siccome l'obbligo dall'Italia assunto consisteva nell'entrare in trattative e nel
devenire ad un aceordo, da che quelle furono intraprese e condnssero alia convenzione
del 7 dicembre 1866, approvata colla legge del 27 maggio 1867, lo scopo della prima
convenzione fu raggiunto e si 6 ora in presenza della seconda, che l'ltalia is tenuta a
puntualmente eseguire.

Per questi motivi,

Opiua :

Che la rioccupazione francese a Roma non abbia in nulla menomata l'efficacia della
convenzione 7 dicembre 1866, della quale si tratta.
Per copia conforme :
II segretario generate BRUZZO.

AlXEGATO N° 14.

Conflltio tra Vautorita amministrativa e Vautorita giudiziaria in causa Fauciiano Salvatore
contro il prefetlo e Vintendente difinanza della provincia di Napoli.

DECRETO.

II Consiglio di Stato,

Visto il decreto del prefetto della provincia di Napoli del di 25 aprile 1872 nella causa
vertente avanti il tribunale civile di quella citta tra Faucitano Salvatore contro il pre-
fetto della provincia di Napoli e l'intendente di finanza di detta provincia, per contro-
versia concernente il pagamento di oltre lire 400 mila in rivalsa di danni ed interessi
per ingiusta condanna del Governo borbonico ;

"Vista la nota del Ministero di grazia e giustizia e dei culti in data 8 agosta 1S72, con
cui trasmise al Consiglio di Stato il decreto surriferito del prefetto ;

Visto il decreto del presidente del Consiglio di Stato in data 16 agosto 1872 con cu i
ordin6 di fare le intimazioni di rito alle parti interessate nel conflitto, prefiggendo loro
il termine di 30 giorni per presentare i documenti e le scritture che stimassero del loro
interesse ;

Vista la nota del Ministero di grazia e giustizia e dei culti in data 20 settembre 1872
con cui trasmise al Consiglio di Stato le relazioni, che attestano le intimazioni dianzi
accennate essere seguite alle parti interessate nel giudicio, addl 9 settembre 1872 in
Napoli ;

Visti gli atti della causa, non che i memoriali stati presentati dalle parti ;

Vista le legge 20 marzo 1865, n° 2248, allegati D ed E ;

Visto il regolamento annesso al regio decreto del 5 giugno 1865, n° 2323 ;

Sentito il relatore ;

Ritenuto in fatto :

Che Salvatore Faucitano, esponendo i gravi danni sofferti per causa politica, con atto
di citazione in data 26 ottobre 1871, chiamava il ministro dell'interno a comparire iu-
nanzi il tribunale civile di Napoli per sentir coudennare l'Erario nazionale a pagargli,
per effetto del decreto dittatoriale del 23 ottobre 1860, a titolo di danni ed interessi per
ingiusta condanna patita dal Governo borbonico, la somma di lire 400,000 in un con gli
interessi al 5 per cento dal di della domanda sino all'effettivo pagamento ; I

184 ALTEN CLAIMS.

. Che iu sostegno di tale domanda iuvocava il deoreto del 23 ottobre 1860 del dittatore
Garibaldi, il quale aveva ordinato : ehe dal valore delle rendite iscritte confiscate ai
Borboni e poste a beneficio dello Stato con altro decreto precedente, dovevasi distaccare
la somma effettiva di 6 milioni di ducati pari a lire 25 milioni, per essere distribuite
con equa ripartizione alle vittime politiche delle provincie continental! dell'ex regno
delle due Sicilie dal 15 maggio 1848 in poi ; che tale distribuzione doveva efiettuarsi
■da una Giunta di cittadini integerriuii, che sarebbe stata a tale scopo nominata ;

Che trovandosi il Faucitano nel numero dei condannati politici di quell'epoca, con
sentenza della Corte speciale di Napoli del 1° febbraio 1851 ehe gli aveva inflitta la
pena di morte, che gli venne commutata in quella dell'ergastolo e quindi nella deporta-
zione, sosteneva di aver acqnistato diritto all'equa ripartizione di quella somma ;

Clie non avendo potuto ottenere dal Governo italiano giustizia, si revolgeva ai tri-
bunal onde essere accolta la sua domanda ;

Che il prefetto della provincia di Napoli, con memoriale ragionato del dl 28 gennaio
1872, chiese, per organo del pubblico Ministero, che il tribunale si dichiarasse incom-
petente ;

Che il tribunale invece, con deliberazione in data 19 aprile 1872, sulle conform i con-
clusion! del pubblico Ministero, dichiarava di non trovar luogo a deliberare sulla do-
manda del prefetto per le considerazioni seguenti :

" Stanteche i] Faucitano stima fondare la sua azione non meno sul decreto dittato-
riale del 23 ottobre 1860 che sulla legge, ed invoca l'articolo 195 del Codice penale che
riguarda una fra le molte ipotesi della disposizione comprensiva dell'articolo 1151 del
Codice civile ;

"Stanteche l'azione per risarcimento di danni e puramente civile, e l'esaine se per
avventura il Governo nazionale possa rispondere degli atti del cessato Governo, im-
porta una questione di merito ;

"Stanteche le ragioni d'inammissibilita e di rigetto enunciate altresi nel memoriale
del prefetto concemono appunto il merito e coufermano la giurisdizione del tribunale
ordinario. Per questi motivi, ecc."

Che il prefetto, venuto a cognizione di questa deliberazione, con decreto in data 25
aprile 1872 :

" Dichiarava esistere conrlitto di giurisdizione fra l'autorita giudiziaria e l'amnrini-
strativa."

Che dietro cio il tribunale civile, con deliberazione in data 22 maggio 1872, sospen-
deva il giudizio ;

D'onde, dopo essersi eseguite le formalita tutte della legge prescritte, il conflitto
■attuale;

Tutto ci6 ritenuto in fatto.

Consideraudo iu diritto ;

Che il decreto' dittatoriale del 23 ottobre 1860, invocato dal Faucitano, avendo pre-
scritto che la distribuzione della somma assegnata alle vittime politiche delle provincie
«ontinentali dell'ex regno delle due Sicilie, doveva effettuarsi da una Giunta di citta-
dini che sarebbe stata a tale scopo nominata dal Governo, basta cio per escludere la
•competenza dell'autorita giudiziaria ;

Che d'altronde l'indole stessa della risoluzione da prendersi, sfnggirebbe da per se a
tale competenza, poichfe si tratta di una distribuzione che il decreto voliva esser fatta
con equa eatimazione fra le persone che avevano sofferto, e la Giunta incaricata di proce-
dervi doveva valutare nella sua prudenza il compenso da attribuirsi pei danni soft'erti, e
per conseguenza il decreto ebbe in mira un complesso di criteri non giuridici ma mo-
rali e politici;

Che il Faucitano non ha potuto radicaro la competenza giudiziaria colla allegazione
da lui fatta che venne danneggiato da una sentenza giudiziaria, la quale dice arbitra-
ria e confonde cogli atti arbitrari puniti coll'articolo 195 del Codice penale il caso
previsto dall'articolo 1151 del Codice civile, posciache e evidente che una sentenza pas-
sata in giudicato non ha che fare con tali atti ;

Dichiara competente il potere amministrativo a risolvere la controversia al cui ri-
guardo venne elevato il presente conrlitto.

Dato a Eoma, addi 8 aprile 1873.

Firmato :

DES AMBROIS,

presidents.

Allugato N° 15.

Decision! nui conjlilli vdlc cause fra Trevisani Vincenzo c i ministri delle finanze e della

guerra (31 dieemlre 1872).

ESTfiATTO DEL DECRETO.

Vincenzo Trevisani, con due separati giudizi, chiedeva in tribunale al Ministero
pagamento di tre forni da pane costruiti e di una fogua riparata, in Verona, per ordine

ALIEN CLAIMS. 185

del genio militare austriaco, in giugno e settembre del 1866. Con due sentenze sepa-
rate, ma dello stesso giorno, il tribunale di Verona non accolse la istanza d'incompe-
tenza avanzata dal prefetto nei Buoi due raemoriali. . E non l'aooolse, perche la que-
stione era di mio edituo; perche l'autorita amministrativa non avocandola a se, e
dicendola portata avanti al Parlameuto, ora non troverebbe foro avente ginrisdiziono
per defiuirla ; perche il decidere se e quali obbligazioni contratte dall'Austria obbli-
ghino ora civilmeute o moralrneiite l'ltalia, se vi sia o no bisogno di uu rioonoscimento
e quale, se di uu trattato cue all'Italia le irnponga, importava una disoussioue di merito
o non di competenza.

II prefetto invece deereto il conflitto, considerando cbe il decidere se l'obbligo di
pagare le somme ricbieste dal Trevisani e questione che va determinata da un trattato
internazionale o da un aito del potere legislativo ; che in quanto agli obblighi ed ai diritti
rispettivi fra i Governi d'ltalia e il Governo austro-ungrico, dopo conchiusa la pace, vennero
regolati da due speciali convenzioni finanziaric in data del 6 gennaio 1871, approvate con legge
del 23 marzo 1871 ; die in occasione della presenlazione di quella legge, nella tornaia dell'8
marzo 1871, il Governo, per organo del ministro delle finanze, dichiarb prendere formale
impegno di presentare al Parlameuto, entro il mesedi marzo 1871, miprogetto di legge speciale
atto a definirc i diritti che potessero spettare ai terzi in conseguenza dei trattaii del 1814, 1815,
1818 e delle guerre del 1848, 1849, 1859 e 1866, progetto che ha presentato alia Camera dei
dcputati; e che l'autorita giudiziaria non e competente quando e necessario un provvedimento
amministralivo, sia che il Governo abbia «. staluire da se, sia che debba invocare, eome nella
specie, il emcorso del potere legislativo.

Nel 27 novembre in sezione di giustizia, nel 7 dicembre in sezioni riuuite, si lesse il
progetto di deereto, e si rinvio la decisione all'adunanza del 31 dicembre 1872, nella
quale il Consiglio di Stato, riunite le due cause, le dicbiarava di competenza dell'au-
torita giudiziaria.

Richiamato l'articolo 8 del trattato di Vienna del 3 ottobre 1866, considers il Con-
siglio che "se le questioni nascenti da trattati pubblici non appartengono ai tribunali
ordinari in cid cheriguarda i rapporti internazionali, ove si contenga in essi una di-
sposizione cbe possa far hascere diritti civili in favore di cittadini di uno Stato verso il
proprio Governo, possono questi esperimentarli, come ogni altro diritto civile derivante
da legge, innanzi ai rispettivi tribunali ; e che l'esaminare e il decidere se le domande
-del Trevisani si fondino sopra contratti regolarmente stipulati dall'araministrazione
austriaca, e per ecopo di pubblico interesse, che si riferisca specialmente al territorio
ceduto, e discussione essenzialmente di fatto, la quale, alio stato delle cose, non entra
nella sfera delle questioni internazionali, e spetta di conseguenza all'autorit& giudi-
ziaria."

(Segue la parte dcliberativa.)

Aulegato N° 16.

■Conflitto Ira l'autorita amministrativa el'autorith giudiziaria in causa Sanucci Ernesto contro

il Ministero delle finanze.

DECEETO.

II Consiglio di Stato,

Visto il deereto del prefetto della provincia di Roma del 14 novembre 1871 nella
<;ausa vertente avanti il tribuuale civile di Roma, tra Ernesto Ranucci e il Ministero
delle finanze per una controversia rclativa alia presentazione di un conto esatto di tntti
gli utili, che nel novennio dal 1859 al 1867 devono essere risultati dall'amministrazione
dei sali e tabacchi nelle provincie gia poutiflcie;

Vista la nota del Ministero di grazia e giustizia e dei culti in data 27 dicembre 1871
con la quale trasmise al Consiglio di Stato il deereto surriferito del prefetto ;

Visto il deereto del presidente del Consiglio di Stato in data 9 novembre 1872 con cui
ordino di fare le intimazioni di rito alle persono iuteressate nel conflitto prefiggendo
loro il termine di 30 giorni per presentare i documenti e le scritture che stimassero del
loro interesse ;

Vista la nota del Ministero di grazia e giustizia e dei culti in data 18 febbraio 1872
«on cui trasmise al Consiglio di Stato le relazioni che attestano le intimazioni dianzi
accennate essere seguite, tanto al Ministero delle finanze che al Ranucci in Roma, addl
29 gennaio 1872 ;

Visti gli atti della causa uon che i memoriali stati presentati dalle parti ;

Vista la legge del 20 marzo 1865, n° 2248, allegati D ed E ;

Visto il regolamento annesso al regio deereto in data 5 giugno 1865, n° 2323 ;

Sentito il relatore ;

Ritenuto in fatto;

Che Ernesto Ranucci, con citazione in data 19 agosto 1871, sfidava innanzi il tribu-
nale civile di Roma il ministro delle finanze, chiedendo :

Prefiggersi al Miuistero delle finanze un unieo e breve termine all'effetto di esibire

186 ALIEN CLAIMS.

innanzi al tribuuale il eonto essatto di tutti gli utili che nel novennio dal 1859 al 1867
sono e devouo essere risultati dall'amministrazione poutificia dei sali e tabaoohi, cari-
candosi pur anco di aggiungere gli utili corrispondenti alle provinoie romatie durante
il dodiceunio;

Liquidare il dividendo, corrispondente a venti centesimi, di tutte le azioni, avendo
a base il capitolato notifieato add! 3 ottobre 1854 e la osservanza praticata nelle finanze
pontifieie durante il primo triennio ; attribuire la quota proporzinale del comune divi-
dendo a ciascuna azione di quelle che l'istante esibisee ; e per la somma cumulativa
degli anni nove eondannarsi il Ministero stesso al pagamento in favore dell'istante :
scorso poi detto termine e non esibito il coiito tenersi insospesola condannaterminale;
ed intanto eondannarsi il ministro stesso al pagamento di una multa giornaliera in
quella misura e per quel tempo, che il lodato tribunale eredera giusto; nfe tornando
prossimo siffatto provvedimento, autorizzare l'istante ad esibire esso stesso negli atti
una nota giurata degli utili certi e presuntivi, e su quelle basi approvarsi il conto
ragiouato che esso stesso redigera o fara redigere onde il risultato sia base alia ricbiesta
definitiva condanna ;

Che in sostegno di tale domanda esponeva in fatto ;

Che il cessato Governo pontifleio con notiflcazione del 3 ottobre 1854 dichiarava che
aveva divisato di assnmere per conto proprio l'amministrazione dei sali e tabacchi
chiamaudo a compartecipi degli utili i sovventori della somma di un milione di scudi,
onde impiegarli nella restituzione della cauzione all'intraprenditore che andava a
cessare, e nell'acquisto di stigli ed attrezzi, nonche delle provviste necessarie aU'anda-
mento dell'amministrazione ;

Che a tale oggetto venne istituita un'amministrazione governativa della Regia dei
sali e tabacchi con fissarne a dodici anni la durata, cioe dal 1° gennaio 1856 a tutto
l'anno 1867 ;

Che a tale uopo si fece un prestito per la somma di un milione di scudi romani diviso
in 3750 azioni in'parte di scudi 200, in parte di scudi 100 per ogni azione, rappresentate
da caitelle al portatore ; facendosi diritto ai portatori all'interesse del 5 per cento, e
ad una compartecipazione degli utili che si avrebbero da ripartirsi fra gli azionisti ;
dichiarandosi che nel caso di perdita si sarebbe, a titolo di corrispettivita, attribuito
alle 5000 azioni il riparto della perdita che si potesse verificare, limitata soltanto alia
perdita in tutto od in parte dei 20 centesimi degli utili ;

Che dalla massa degli introiti si stabiliva il diffaleo preventivo a favore del pubblico
Tesoro di un milione e seicentomila scudi, piti un capitale per soddisfare gli interessi
delle azioni, per l'onorario al gestore ed altre provviste ;

Che inline, salvo la restituzione del capitale e ciasenn azionistatre mesi dopo spirato
il dodicennio, il rimanente degli utili netti depnrati dai diffalchi, si dovesse ripartire
nel modo seguente, cioe :

Per 20 centesimi agli azionisti ;

Centesimi 15 al gestore ;

Centesimi 65 al Governo ;

Che in tal modo eostituita la Regia fancionava regolarmente per alcuni anui con la
corresponsione dei relativi interessi sopra le 5000 azioni : che anzi nel 1868 furono
rimborsate per intero le azioni dal Governo pontificio stesso ;

Che in quanto agli utili, che non vennero piti corrisposti dal Governo pontificio dal
1859 in poi epoca in cui vennero annesse alcune provincie dell'ex Stato pontificio al
regno italiano, il Ranucci possessore di n° 631 cuponi di quelle azioni, si e fattoea chie-
dere dinanzi al tribunale civile di Roma che il Governo italiano debba rispondere della
domanda surriferita ;

Che il prefetto della provincia di Roma venuto a cognizione di un tale gindizio, con
suo memoriale ragionato, in data 11 settembre 1871 diretto al procuratore del Re, chiese :
che il tribunale dichiarasse la propria incompetenza a senso dell'articolo 13 della legge
sui conflitti del 20 novembre 1859, n° 3780, pubblicata in Roma col decreto reale 18
ottobre 1870, n° 5957 ;

Che il procuratore del Re con sua requisitoria del 27 settembre 1871 conchiuse, che
il tribunale, sul conflitto sollevato dal prefetto di Roma, dichiarasse la propria com-
petenza a conoscere e giudicare le causa promossa dal Ranucci contro il Ministero delle
finanze con l'atto di citazione del 19 agosto 1871, per le considerazioni segueuti, adottate
dal tribunale civile di Roma nella sua deliberazione in data 3 settembre 1871 dichia-
rando la propria competenza.

Ritenuto, che 1' azione dedotta in giudizio dal Rauucci, giusta i termini della domanda,
si fonda sulla convenzione del 3 ottobre 1854 stipulata fra l'attore ed altri azionisti con
il cessato Governo pontificio; non raeno che sni decreti 9 ottobre 1870 merce i quali il
Principe ha accettato il plebiscito romano, pubblicando nella provincia di Roma e
Comarca lo Statuto imperante nelle altre parti del regno,

Che per effetto dell'unione di Roma alle altre provincie del regno si deve intendere
effettuato il completo trapasso dello stato giuridico dei diritti e doveri pertinenti al
Governo che cess6 al Governo che gli succedette ; e cio non solo per principio di asso-
luta giustizia e di morale, ma ancora perche il fatto complesso implica trattato e con-

ALIEN CLAIMS. 187

venzione d'interno pubblico diritto uei molteplici rapporti del Principe coi cittadini
dello State, e presuppone necessariaraente consultate le ragioni di Stato ed ogni altra
convenienza ;

Che se pure nou voglia aramettersi che veramente fra il Principe ed i cittadini sia
intervenuto un trattato ed una convenzione, la quale senz'altro partorisca diritti per-
fetti nel rapporto del Governo di fatto, come molti pubblicisti insegnano, cessa ogni
ragione di dubitare, dacche dopo il plebiscite romano venne pubblicato lo Statute, il
quale con l'articolo 31 guaroutisce il debito pubblico, e diehiara inviolabile ogni im-
pegno dello Stato verso i suoi creditori ;

Che come corollario dei summentovati principii, rie discende che Eanucci con l'affer-
marsi creditore dello Stato nell'atto di citazione abbia dedotta avanti il tribunale una
materia civile, un diritto perfetto alia base della convenzione e della legge.

Che pef tanto il c&mpito dell'autorita giudiziaria nel caso di cui si tratta, non si
cstende sino al punto di sottoporre ad esame un atto dell'autorita amministrativa per
revocarlo o modificarlo ; e neanche si limita ad un semplice interesse insussistente sul
pratico terreno del jure civile ; ma ha per oblietto un punto certo di diritto, scritto
nella legge civile e diretto alio esclusivo scopo di regolare e guarentiee gli interessi dei
singoli cittadini;

Che sono devolute alia giurisdizione ordinaria tutte le materie nelle quali si faccia
questione di un diritto civile, comunque possa esservi interessata la pnbblica ammini-
strazione ; articolo 2 della legge 20 marzo 1865, allegato E ;

Eitenuto che dalla sapiente sentenza pronunziata dalla Corte d'appello di Firenze il
14 maggio 1870, alle cui giuste considerazioni si appoggia il prefetto di Eoma, per
sostenere la incompetenza del tribunale adito dal Eanucci, non si possauo oggidl trarre
norme incontrastabili, atteso il mutamento del diritto pubblico interno di Eoma dopo
la prolazione di detta sentenza : dappoiche quel magistrate giudicb bensl sopra una
domanda consimile a quella proposta dal Eanucci, ma al cospetto di terre riscattate col
valore delle armi italiane, ad annesse alio Stato d'ltalia, pur rimanendo in vita, seb-
bene in piu augusto territorio quel Governo di cui le terre anzidette furono emanci-
pate, e col quale i soci capitalisti trattarono nel 1854 intorno ad un'operazione, che
spaziava tra i confini dello Stato romano di quell'epoca; appariva quindi chiaro, che
trovandosi allora due eserciti belligeranti e due Principi l'uno vinto e l'altro vittorioso,
quest'ultimo in rapporto alle provincie annesse assumesse il morale dovere di far fronte
agli impegni quantitativi corrispondenti alle medesime, e che gli impegni stessi po-
tessero di poi, in virtu, di trattati internazionali, addivenire attuabili ed esperibili in
giudizio come doveri perfetti.

Era a dedursi pertanto, siccome acconoiamente e stato ritenuto nella sovraccennata
sentenza, che infino a quando non avesse termine il lavoro tracciato nella convenzione
internazionale del 27 maggio 1867, n° 3745 e relativo protocollo in data 15 agosto 1868,
le istanze tendenti ad ottenere il pagamento dei ratizzi pertinenti a' creditori dello
citta annesse sfugisse al sindacato dell'autorita giudiziaria ;

Che non vi ha chi non vegga quanta le condizioni e le leggi di quei tempi siano in
oggi disformi.

Ne si dica che la domanda del Eanucci, afferente alia convenzione del 3 ottobre 1854,
implica simultaueamente interessi di cittadini romani, nonche delle Marche e del-
l'Umbria, e come almeno per quest'nltima parte trovi ostacolo nel trattato internazionale
del 27 maggio 1867 tra il Ee d'ltalia ed il Pontefice ammesso pure che per l'altra
l'unione recente di Eoma, abbia recato gli effetti superiormente accennati ; od in altri
termini, non si dica, che se il plebiscite romano trasferi nell'attuale glioneri delcaduto
Governo : non si possano avere per trasferiti se non in quanto essi stavano per gli an-
tichi domini del Pontefice a norma delle condizioni seguate nella convenzione del 1867
vigente all'istante in cui ebbe luogo il plebiscite anzidetto ; imperoche, essendo nel
concreto caso avvenuto, che provincie dello stesso regno nella successione del tempo e
sotto coudizioni e modi diversi, si sono annesse ed unite ad altro regno ; la risultanza
che ne consegue si concreta e si compenetra nello stesso ente e rende di per se inattua-
hile ed inefficace la esecuzione di trattati che siansi antecedentemente stipulati. D'al-
tronde, anche sotto quest'ordirie d'idee, la domanda del Eanucci, che e cosa individua,
riferendosi almeno per una parte ad tin diritto perfetto, 6 evidente in obbedienza alle
leggi imperanti,- che non si possa sottrarre al potere giudiziario ;

Che le altie ragioni addotte dal prefetto, comeche si attengano al merito della causa
promossa dal Eanucci, non possono in oggi essere valutate ed apprezzate ; versandosi
unicamente il giudizio sulla competenza del magistrate, udito, ecc.

Che il prefetto, vista la deliberazione surriferita, con decreto in data 14 novembre
1871 eccitava il conflitto di giurisdizione per le considerazioni seguenti :

Considerate, che non pub ammettersi in via assolnta il principio proclamato dal pub-
blico Ministero nelle sue conclusioni adottate dal tribunale giudicante, che essendosi il
Eanucci affermato creditore dello Stato ha con cib dedotto avanti il tribunale una ma-
teria civile, un diritto perfetto ; e che siano devolute, alia giurisdizione ordinaria tutte
le materie nelle quali si faccia questione di un diritto civile, poiche fra le altre disposi-
zioni avvi pur quella, che per l'articolo 10 della legge 20 marzo 1865, n° 2248 pubblicata

188 ALIEN CLAIMS.

in questa provincia col regio decreto 18 ottobre 1870, numero 6957, b riservata alia giu-
risdizioue propria del Consiglio di Stato ogni controversia fra lo Stato ed i suoi creditori
risguardante l'interpretazione dei contratti di prestito pubblico, delle leggi relative a tali
prestiti e delle altre sul debito pubblico.

Coasiderato, cbe nou pub trattarsi nel caso concrete di un diritto perfetto, perche non
venne finora rieonoscinto dal potere legislativo dello Stato, che solo ba veste legislativa
per disporre che un debito diventi obbligo civile dello Stato.

Considerato, cbe se alcune delle considerazioni gia svolte dalla Corte d'appello di
Firenze nell'identica materia con la sentenza 14 maggio 1870 oessarono di essere appli-
«abili all'odierna lite pel fatto dell'uniorie di Roma e sua proviuoia al regno d'ltalia,
non cessano perb d'esBere sempre applicabili i principii di diritto pei quali fu sottratta
alia competenza giudiziaria la identica causa promossa da Forini Emilio.

Considerato in fatto, cbe le questioni, che si fondano suatti del Governo aventi il ca
rattero essenzialmente politico sono di competenza esclusiva della pubblica amministra-
zione, perche dominate dalla suprema ragione di Stato ; e che nel caso concreto devonsi
per l'appunto ritenere di tale natura quelle che si devono svolgereperladecisione della
promossa vertenza ; in quanto 6 necessario far risalire le indagini alle conseguenze legali
derivate da atti e fatti di natura esclusivamente politica, siccome la prima occupazione
della provincie, che furono staccato- dallo Stato pontificio negli anni 1859 e 1860, e
dall'ultimo fatto cbe soppresse interamente ed annnllb lo Stato pontificio.

Considerato, che fu generalmente ammesso in tutti gli Stati, che la presa di possesso
di un nuovo territorio e un fatto tale le cui conseguenze non possono essere apprezzate
dall'autorita giudiziaria, e cbe nel caso speciale l'apprezzamento di tutte queste conse-
guenze di fatti politici 6 complicato anche dall'esame degli effetti e della validita della
convenzione intern azionale 7 dicembre 1866 posta in rapporto ed in armonia coi fatti
politici posteriormente avvenuti.

Ritenutele altre considerazioni svolte nella succitata domauda in data 11 settembre
1871.

Per queste considerazioni, ecc,

Che in seguito a cio il tribunale civile di Roma con deli berazione in data 24 novembrc
1871 ordinb la sospensione del giudizio ; d'onde, dopo essersi eseguite regolarmente le
formalita tutte prescritte dalla legge il confiitto attuale.

Tuttocib ritenuto in fatto :

Considerando, cbe la sostanza della controversia sta nell'apprezzere le conseguenze
di un contratto stipulate dal Governo pontificio ;

Che se alcune parti dell'antico Stato pontificio, ora fuso nel regno d'ltalia, furono
anteriormeute staccate dallo Stato stesso, le domaude od eccezioni che possano nascere da
questo fatto e dalle circostanze che lo accompagnarono o lo seguirono iu ordine all'oggetto
della controversia anzidetta, non potrebbero nello stato attuale delle cose considerarsi
altrimenti cbe come accessorie e connesse alia medesima ;

Cbe ormai si tratta unicamente di questioni di diritto interno in materia civile ;

Cbe non 6 il caso d'interpretazione di un vero imprestito di Stato, cui possa essere
applicable la competenza giurisdizionale del Consiglio di Stato ;

Dicbiara competente l'autorita giudiziaria a risolvere la controversia nclla quale fu
elevato il presente confiitto.

Date in Roma, add! 28 marzo 1873.

11 presidente

Firmato: DES AMBROIS.

Allegato N° 17.
Catalogo delle Pethioni intorno ai danni di guerra.

1916. 11 Parroco di Olengo e vari possidenti di quel comune rinnovauo lo loro istanze
, perche si ripari ai danni cagionati dall'invasione Austriaca.

1947. II Sindaco e gli abitauti del comune de Nibbiola cuiedono riparazione dei danni
cagionati dall'invasione Austriaca.

2091. II Consiglio delegato del comune di Candia (Lomellina) fa vive istanze percbe
siano riinborsate le requisizioni e risarciti i danni cUe ebbero luogo in occasione della
guerra.

2157. N° 19 abitanti del roandameuto e comune di Momo, provincia di Novara, sup-
plicano per il compenso dei danni della guerra.

2247. Alcnni abitanti di Novara chiedono che siano sollecitamente fissati i soccorsi
da darsi ai danneggiati dalla guerra.

2253. I Sindaci e molti proprietari della provincia di Novara ricorrouo onde ottenere
un sollecito risarcimento dei danni derivati dall'invasione Austriaca.

2290. Albini avvocato Pietro chiede si provveda pel risarcimento dei danni sofferti
■da alcuni abitanti di Vigevano durante la guerra, gia liquidati dall'azienda gencrale
di guerra fino dall'agosto 1848.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 189'

2293. Vari sindaci, proprietari ed affittajoli della provincia di Lomellina cbiedono il
risaroimento dei danui sofferti dall'occupazione Austriaca.

2378. Sinforiani Antonio, di professions domestioo, domiciliato in San Fedele (Lomel-
lina), lagnasi di essere stato inscritto nelle liste dei danneggiati dalla guerra per un
compenso di sole lire 50, mentre i dauni ricevuti auimontano a lire 415, e chiede che la
Coinrnissioue lo compensi proporzionatamente.

6642. Brigatti Luigi, da Suno, provincia di Novara, chiede di essere indennizzato
almeno in parte dei danni da lui suff'erti nella ritirata delle truppe in seguito alia bat-
taglia di Novara, siccoroe risnlta da giudiziale perizia anuessa alia petizione.

6853. N° 75 cittadini di Messina chedono sia posco in esecuzione il decreto emanato
nel 1848 dal Parlamento Siciliauo, relativo all'obbligo del Governo di iudennizzare gli'
abitanti di qnella citta dei danni sofferti dall'incendio, dal bombardameuto e dal sac-
cheggio delle truppe Borboniche.

6889. N° 27 cittadini di Caserta rappresentano i guasti sofferti nei loro poderi per lo
stanziamento delle truppe volontarie e regolari durante l'assedio di Gaeta, e cbiedono
di essere indennizzati.

7639. II Sindaco di Borgo Vercelli trasmette una deliberazione del Consiglio munici-
pal per ottenere dal Governo Fintegrale rimborso dell'ammontare delle requisizioni e
dei danni a cui soggiacque quel comune par la guerra del 1859.

8247. I fratelli Mastroddi, di Tagliacozzo, promuovono istanza per ottenera il rim-
borso dei danni sofferti dal cornbattimento delle truppe contro lo spagnuolo Borjqs,
seguito in una casa rurale di loro propriety, stata incendiata.

8446. Tosti conte Eaffaele rappresenta i danni sofferti in conseguenza dell'assedio di
Gaeta, e ne chiede indennizzazione.

8800. Sartori Lucia vedova contessa Tracagni ed i di lei figli Fabio ed Emilio, di Salo,
proprietari dello stabile detto di San Martino, sul quale si decisero nel 1859 le sorti
dell'Italiana indipendenza, dornandano che sulla indennita che loro pub spettare pei
danni di guerra, gli sia intanto accordata una anticipazione in quella misura che nieglio
si crederSi dal Parlamento.

9065. La Giunta niunicipale di Basiglio, circondario di Milano, sollecita il pagamento
delle sorame dovute al comune per requisizioni forzate fatte dall'armata austriaca,durante
la guerra del 1859.

9858. Gli orfani Camillo ed Angiolina Licenziati, di Gaeta, ricorrono al Parlamento
perche sia loro concesso un sussidio mensile come indennizzazione della loro casa, la quale,,
crollando intieramente durante l'assedio di quella piazza, li lascio privi di ogni mezzo
di sussisteuza.

11,326. Le rappresentanze civicae commercialedi Venezia dornandano al Parlamento
il riconoscimento dei debiti contratti dal Governo provvisorio di Venezia negli anni
1848-49 per la causa della nazionale indipendenza.

11,579. II sindaco di Bormio, provincia di Sondrio, rassegna alia Camera i conti delle
spese incontrate dai comuni di quel mandameuto pei fatti d'armi degli anni 1848, 1859'
el866, affinche vengano presi in considerazione e soddisfatti.

11,677. II sindaco del comune di Bormio, provincia di Sondrio, aggiunge alle petizione
presentata per risaroimento di spese incontrate durante le guerre dal 1848 in poi, nu<
nuovo prospetto di altre spese occorse per sgombro di frane.

.12,067. La Giunta municipale di Adria, provincia di Ravigo, rivolge alia Camera una
petizione per ottenere a carico dello Stato la rifusione della forzosa contribuzione di
riorinl 10,000 imposta nelluglio 1866 dal comando dell armata Austriaca su quel comune
in punizione della parte presa da quegli abitanti in favore delle truppe Italiane.

12,500. II mnnicipio de Montechiaro sul Chiese, provincia di Brescia, ricorre alia.
Camera per ottenere il rimborso delle spese sopportate per somuiiuistrazioni fatte alia
truppe Nazionali ed Austriache nel 1848, 1859 e 1866.

12,507. Muratori Giovanni, di Modena, ed altri 17 barocciari e carrettieri dei paesi
rlnitimi di detta provincia, presentano alcuui documenti onde essere compensati pei
servizi di trasporto forzato, prestato d'ordine muuicixJale alle truppe Estensi ed Austria-
che fino dalli 7, 11 e 12 giuguo 1859.

12,528. Vari proprietari di mulini natanti sull'Adige nel comuue di anguillara, invo-
cano il pagamento dei compensi pei danui loro cagionati dalle truppe Austriache nel
1866.

12,885. II sindaco e parecchi abitanti del comune di Castelfranco veneto invocano
dal Parlamento una disposizione legislativa per cui dal Governo s'addivenga tosto
all'indennizzo dei comuni e dei privati chenell'anno 1866soggiacquero alle requisizioni
forzati e subirono depredazioni dall'esercito Austriaco in ritirata.

13,463. Danieli Ciovanui Battista,' di Borgo Santa Lucia in Vicenza, dopo avere
ricorso inutilmente onde ottenere di essere indenizzato dei danni sofferti in sigueto al
ritoruo degli Austriaci, nel 1848, in quella citta i quali gli incendiarono case esostanze,
invoca dal Parlamento uu sollecito provvedimeuto.

13,479. Murer Pietro, di San Dona di Piave, nella provincia di Venezia, si rivolge alia
Camera per ottenere il refacimento di danni patiti a causa delle fazioni militari del 1848
e 1849.

190 ALIEN CLAIMS.

13,485. I danneggiati dagli 'incendi del 4 e 5 agosto 1848, nel oomuue dei Corpi Santi
di Milano, chiedono che, ove siano approvate le convenzioni finanziarie concbiuse col-
1' Austria inesecuzionedel trattato dipace 3ottobre 1866, vengano con apposita riserva
diohiarati impregiudicati ed illesi tutti e singoli i diritti e le ragioni ed azioni anehe
reali ed ipotecarie ad essi competenti.

13,488. La Giunta munioipale di Ostiglia, provincia di Mantova, rivolge istanza
perche, nell'ammettere la convenzionefinanziariastipulata coll' Austria, siauo dichiarate
salva le ragioni creditorie dei terzi pei danni di guerra degli anni 1813, 1814, 1848, 1849,
1859 e 1866.

13,491. II ConBiglio provinciale de Novararinnova al Parlamento le sue istanze perche
provveda, in quella misura che stimera piil equa, al conipenso delle requisizioni Au-
striache praticatesi nel 1859 in quelle terre.

13,493. Alcuni cittadini di Mantova, espropriati dall'Austria per opere di fortifica-
zione, domandano il pagamento dei loro crediti g'a liquidati dall'Austria stessa, ai
quali furono fino al presente opposte le trattative che pendevano a Vienna.

13,504. La Giunta municipale de San Benedetto-Po, provincia di Mantova, chiede il
rimborso a quel comune di lire 21,178 72 per danni di guerra e requisizioni fatte
dall'armata Piemontese, Toscana, Modenese, Lombarda e Corpi volontari nell'auno
1848.

13,509. Damiani-Galvani Lucia, Marcon Angelo, Brusadia Marco ed altri 5 cittadini
possidenti di Pordenone, nel Friuli, chiedono il pagamento dei danni che alle rispet-
tive loro propriety arreco Farmata Austriaca ritirandosi dal Veneto nel luglio 1866.

13,563. Gli eredi del barone Gaetano Teata, di Parma, si rivolgono alia Camera per
ottenere il risarcimento di danni da questi sofferti pella distrusione ordinata dall'auto-
rita locale nel 1849 degli edifizi e macchine costituenti lo stabilimento di brondolo dal
medesimo eretto per la bonificazione dei terreni adiacenti.

13,606. Giovanni ed Antonio David e Molduzzi Gaetano, di Eavenna, si rivolgono
alia Camera con distinte petizioni per ottenere il risarcimento di danni sofferti per
fatto d'un corpo d'armata Austriaca, mentre abbandonava la citta d'Ancona per riti-
rarai nel Veneto.

13,620. Sette cittadini rappresentanti i creditori dello Stato della provincia di
Verona per eapropriazioni di suolo e soprassuolo durante la dominiazione Austriaca,
fanno istanza perche dalla Camera venga respinto il progetto di legge presentato dal
ministro delle finanze per le indennitik dei danni di guerra.

13,638. Guaita Cristoforo e Croce Paolo, di Milano, si rivolgono alia Camera per
ottenere l'integrale pagamento delle diverse odere eseguite e delle sommistrazioni fatte
di materiali a stabilimenti militari nell'anno 1848 durante il Governo provvisorio di
Lombardia.

516. La deputazione provinciale di Milano sottopone al Parlamento nna petizione
diretta ad ottenere che nella discuasione del progetto di legge per l'indennitil dei danni
di guerra sia dichiarato che il fondo della guardia nobile Lombardo-Veneta nella prima
cifra assegnata all'Italia dal Governo auatriaco,debba ritenerai di ragione della fondia-
ria delle provincie lombardo-venete ed assegnarsi alia provincia di Milano, sulla base
dell'eatimo censuario del 1859, la eomma proporzionale di lire 163,069 11.

543. La deputazione provinciale di Udine si rivolge alia rappresentanza nazionale
perche voglia invitare il Governo a provvedere al pagamento dei crediti che i comuni
di quella provincia professano per le sommiiiistrazioni fatte all'esercito Austriaco in
base alia notifica'zione luogotenenziale 25 giugno 1866.

550. La Camera di commercio ed arti della provincia di Venezia aggiunge schia-
rimenti e dimostrazioni per constatare la giustizia della domanda inoltrata al Parla-
mento colla petizione 11,326 da quella rappresentanza civiea e commerciale onde otte-
nere il riconosoimen to ed il rimborso dei prestiti dal Governo provvisorio di Venezia
incontrati negli anni 1848 — 49.

574. La deputazione provincial* di Padova, associandoai alle considerazioni esposte
nella petizione inoltrata da quella di Udine, domanda che sia invitato il Ministero a
provvedere al pagamento dei erediti che i comuni della provincia di Padova professano
verso il Governo per 13 aomministrazioni fatte all'esercito Austriaco nel 1866.

586. La deputazione provinciale di Belluno si associa alia petizione presentata da
quella di Udine per ottenere che sia provveduto al pagamento dei crediti che profes-
sano i comuni contro il Governo per le aomministrazioni fatte all'esercito Austriaco
nel 1866.

648. La Giunta municipale della cittJt di Como domanda il pagamento del residuo
auo credito per aomminiatrazioni fatte ai Cacciatori delle Alpi nell'anno 1859.

654. La rappreaentanza municipale del comune di San Giovanni Incarico, provincia
di Terra di Lavorro, ricorre al Parlamento perche voglia provvedere che dal Governo
siano rimborBate le apeae incontrate da quel comune per somministrazloni militari fatte
alle truppe Borboniche negli anni 1859 e 1860, ed alle truppe nazionali nel 1861.

607. La Commissione municipale di Gaeta rivolge iatanza perche quei cittadini ven-
gano risarciti dei danni di guerra sofferti nell'assedio 1860 — 61.

Una Commissione delegata dai danneggiati di Brescia pei fatti del 1848 e 1849 fa

ALIEN CLAIMS. 191

istanza onde sia decretata l'indennjzzazione dei danni di guerra sostenuti dalle pro-
vincie Lombarde, e specialmente dalla citta di Brescia, in dette epoolie, avendo anzi
uno speeiale riguardo all'anteriorita di tale debito della Nazione in oonfronto dei danni
cansati nelle guerre successive.

Queste petizioni si riferiscono a danni di guerra e requisizioni, a espropriazioni per
opere di fortificaziom, a forniture militari e imprestiti. Quelle di esse petizioni, e sono
le piu, che porsero tema all' Allegata ministeriale, trovano espresso il loro trattamento
nella relazione della Commissione, la quale, una dopo l'altra, ha preso ad esaminare
tutte le partite AeWAllegato. Per le petizioni ivi non tradotte, basta la sola evvertenza
che la Commissione ha, nella sua relazione, esposti principii e, nel suo disegnodilegge,
fatte proposte con formule generali, e per6 applicabili caso per caso, secoudo la diversa
natura e i termini della fattispeoie di ciascuna petizione.

MANTELLINI, relatore.

General Schenclc to Mr. Fish.

Xo. 624.] Legation of the United States,

London, October 17, 1874. (Received October 30.)

Sir: Immediately after receiving your circular of the 23d of June,
instructing me to obtain trustworthy information in regard to the course
pursued by the government of Great Britain in relation to the adjust-
ment of claims against it by its own subjects or by aliens, and the mode
of procedure adopted in the investigation and determination of such
claims, I addressed a note to Lord Derby, asking to be supplied with
the information desired, and inclosing a copy of the schedule of inqui-
ries which accompanied your circular.

On the 10th instant I received from his lordship a note in reply, in-
closing what purports to be a legal memorandum and opinion on the
subject, forwarded to him from the home department for my informa-
tion.

The opinion thus given in answer to my request is not exactly of the
character, nor in the form, which I think you desired, and which I ex-
pected to obtain. But it seems to be all that there is a disposition now
to furnish. This memorandum appears to me not so much to explain
the forms of procedure, and to indicate the tribunals to be appealed to,
in order to establish a claim against Her Majesty's government, as it
notes the doubts and difficulties in the way of the prosecution of any
such claim.

I inclose herewith copies of my note to Lord Derby; his answer; the
paper communicated from the law-office of the home department; and
my acknowledgment of his note and its inclosure.
I have, &c.,

ROBT. C. SCHENCK.
[Inolosures.]

1. General Schenck to Lord Derby, August 19, 1874.

2. Lord Derby to General Schenck, October 8, 1874.

3. Legal opinion of the home department, September 20, 1874.

4. General Schenck to Lord Derby, October 15, 1874.

[Inclosure No. 1 in So. 624.]
General Schenck to Lord Derby.

Legation of the United States,

London, August 19, 1874.
My Lord : For the purpose of facilitating the adjustment and determination of
claims presented against the Government of the United States, whether held by its

192 ALIEN CLAIMS.

own citizens or by the subjects or citizens of foreign governments, and with a view to
establishing as far as may be practicable a general and uniform system and mode of
procedure for the investigation and determination of these classes of claims, my
Government is desirous of obtaining exact and trustworthy information in regard to
the course pursued by Her Majesty's government in relation to the adjustment of
claims of a similar character against her government, and the mode of procedure
adopted in the investigation and determination of such claims.

I have the honor to inclose herewith a list of inquiries, numbered from 1 to 7, in-
clusive, pointing more directly to the particular information sought and the specific
points upon which it is most desired ; and I will thank your lordship to cause me to
be favored with replies to these questions, and, when the' information is based upon
legislative enactments or public and general regulations by the executive department
of Her Majesty's government, with copies of such laws and published regulations, bo
far as you may be pleased to supply them.

I have the honor to be, my lord, your lordship's most obedient, humble servant,

ROBT. C. SCHENCK.

The Right Honorable the Earl of Derby.

[Inclosure No. 2 in No. 624. J

Lord Derby to General Sdhenclc.

Foreign Office,
October 8, 1874. (Received October 10.)
Sir: I referred to Her Majesty's secretary of state for the home department your
note of the 19th of August, in which you asked, on behalf of your Government, to
be furnished with information as to the course pursued by Her Majesty's government
in regard to claims prosecuted against it by its own subjects or by aliens, and I have
now the honor to transmit to you a legal opinion on the subject, which has been for-
warded to me from the home department, for your information.

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration sir, your most obedient, hum'
ble servant,

DERBY.

[Inclosure No. 3 in No. 624.1
LEGAL OPINION OP THE HOME DEPARTMENT.

In his letter of August 19, 1874, General Schenck asks for exact and trustworthy
information in regard to the course pursued by Her Majesty's government in relation
to the adjustment of claims prosecuted against it, whether by its own subjects or by
the subjects or citizens of foreign governments, and the mode of procedure adopted
in the investigation and determination of such claims ; and he supplements each re-
quest by a series of questions of the most minute character, having reference not
only to the subject-matter of his more general question, but also to the status of
aliens in respect of proceedings before British tribunals, as well as regards aliens re-
siding in Great Britain as those resident elsewhere.

To answer these questions with a sufficient amount of detail to be of any practical
utility to the United States minister, would involve the compilation of a treatise of
considerable bulk, which, when compiled, would only contain information to be found
in the text-books of greater or less authority.

We propose to indicate presently some of the chief sources of information upon
these subjects. With respect to claims made against the Crown, the common-law
method of obtaining possession or restitution of real or personal estate has, for the
most part, been by petition of right, a form of proceeding dating from the time of
Edward the First ; but in 1860 an act of Parliament was passed, (33 and 24 Vic, C.
34,) by which provision was made for assimilating, as nearly as may be, the proceed-
ings on petitions of right to the course of practice and procedure in actions and suits
between subject and subject; but inasmuch as it is provided by the seventh section that
nothing in the act shall be construed as giving to the subject any remedy against the
Crown in any case in which he would not have been entitled to such remedy before the

ALIEN CLAIMS. 193

passing of the act, recourse must still be had to the state of the law as it existed be-
fore the passing of the act, for the purpose of determining the class of cases in which
the remedy exists.

A few years since a very able treatise on the subject, in the form of a letter addressed
to Chief-Justice Bovill, was compiled by the present Mr. Justice Archibald. It was
printed for private circulation, but it is to be found in most law libraries. It contains
the most valuable information, within a narrow compass, to be found upon the subject,
and has references to all the older leading authorities, among which we may mention
Ey ley's Placita Parliamentaria ; Stamford's Prerogative, title Petition ; The Bankers
Case, 14 Howard's State Trials, with Lord Lomer's celebrated judgment ; Skinner's
Reports, page 613, containing Lord Holt's judgment in the Bankers Case ; Manning's
Practice in the Exchequer, vol. 1, pages 84-88. As regards this latter authority, it
should be stated that the soundness of the views expressed in it has been questioned
in several recent cases.

Among the more important of the recent decisions upon the subject of the petition
of right, we may refer to Viscount Canterbury vs. Attorney-General, 1 Phi]., 306; Ee
Carl Von Frantzius, 2 De Gex & Jones, 126 ; the case of Baron de Bode, 8 Q- B., 271 ;
Tobin vs. The Qneen, 16 C. B., (N. S.,) 353 ; Feather vs. The Queen, 6 Best & Smith, 294 ;
Churchward vs. The Queen, 1 L. E,, (Q. B.,) 173.

We think, however, right to add that in some respects the law upon the subject of
claims against the Crown must be considered as still unsettled, inasmuch as a case
( Thomas vs. The Queen) was argued, at considerable length, before the Court of Queen's
Bench, in the month of June last, in which a variety of questions of great importance
were raised, and, among others, whether a petition of right would lie for breach of
contract or to recover money claimed by way of debt or damages, or, indeed, for any
other object than specific chattels or land. The court reserved its judgment, which
has not yet been delivered. Whatever may be the ultimate decision of the Court of
Queen's Bench in this case, it is to be hoped that a clear exposition of the present state
of the law will be obtained. ~~

As regards the inquiries of the United States minister which have reference to the
"status of aliens," we may state, in general terms, that an alien, whether resident or
not in this country, may sue and be sued before the ordinary tribunals, and will be
bound by, and have the benefit of, the same forms of procedure and rules of. evidence
as a native ; but an alien enemy cannot, during the continuance of war, unless under
license from the Crown, bring an action or continue an action commenced before the
war began.

As regards the inquiries which have reference to the course adopted by the various
departments of the executive government with respect to claims made upou or against
them, we are not in a position to afford any information or to express any opinion.

September 26, 1874.

[Inclosure No. 4 io No. 624.]
General Schench to Lord Derby.

Legation of the United States,

London, October 16, 1874.
My Lord : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your lordship's note of
the 8th instant, inclosing for my information, in reply to my letter to you of the 19th
of August, a legal opinion from the home department on the course pursued by Her
Majesty's government in regard to claims prosecuted against it by its own subjects or
by aliens, and I have much pleasure in expressing to your lordship, and through you
to Her Majesty's home department, my thanks for the opinions in question.
I am, with the highest consideration, my lord, your lordship's most obedient servant,

EOBT. C. SCHENCK.
The Eight Honorable the Earl of Derby, #c.

Department of State,

Washington, December 23, 1874.
Sir : Eeferring to previous correspondence, I have the honor to in-
close herewith, for your farther information, a copy of a dispatch of the
H. Eep. 134 13

194 ALIEN CLAIMS.

29th of October last, No. 90, and of its accompaniment, from Mr. Lewis,
the minister of the United States to Portugal, relative to the presenta-
tion of claims against that government.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

HAMILTON FISH.
Hon. War. Lawrence,

Chairman of the Committee on War-Claims,

House of Representatives.

[Inclosure.]

Mr. Lewis to Mr. Fish, October 29, 1874, No. 90, with an accom-
paniment.

Mr. Lewis to Mr. Fish.

No. 90.] Legation of the United States,

Lisbon, October 29, 1874. (Received December 4.)
Sie : I herewith have the honor to inclose the several replies to the
" schedule of inquiries," inclosed in circular dated June 20, from the De-
partment of State, relative to the course pursued by the government of
Portugal in the adjustment of claims against that government, and the
mode of procedure adopted in the investigation and determination of
such claims.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

OH. H. LEWIS.
Hon. Hamilton Fish,

Secretary of State, Washington.

[Inclosure.]

1. Replies to schedule of inquiries.

[Inclosure No. 1 with dispatch Ko. 90.]
Answers to " schedule of inquiries " contained in circular (June 23) from Department of State.

1. The claim is investigated by the government, and if considered valid, they may
pay it, provided it may be included under any of the appropriations; otherwise it is
necessary for the government to propose a bill to the Cortes asking an appropriation.

2. A bill proposed by the government to pay a claim is referred to the usual com-
mittees of the two houses, and follows the same course as any other measure. The
Cortes may ask for the necessary evidence from the executive branch of the govern-
ment, but there is no special law regulating the means for obtaining such information.

3. The case is investigated by the "procurador geral," (attorney-general.) There is
no special mode of procedure designated by law. The usual means for obtaining evi-
dence are employed. There are no privileges enjoyed by subjects over foreigners in
this respect ; either may on equal terms sue the government in the courts.

5. Foreigners have the same rights as subjects. They may maintain whatever action
against a subject, and resident and non-resident aliens have same privileges in this
respect.

6. There are neither classes nor distinctions in the systems of adjudication. The
government has no privileges in questions of proof.

7. The government in a case with an individual has no privileges. The appropria-
tion by the Cortes is always necessary when the amount to be paid is not included in
the annual and regular appropriations.

alien claims. 195

Department op State,

Washington, January 2, 1875.
Sir : Eeferring to previous correspondence, I have the honor to inclose
herewith, for your farther information, a copy of a dispatch of the 12th
of November last, No. 28, from Mr. Osborn, minister resident of the
United States to the Argentine Eepublic, relative to the presentation of
claims against that government.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

HAMILTON FISH.
Hon. William Lawrence,

Chairman of the Committee on War-Claims,

Souse of Representatives .

[Inclosure.]
Mr. Osborn to Mr. Fish, November 12. 1874, No. 28.

United States Legation,

Buenos Ayres, November 12, 1874.

Sir: In my dispatch No. 9, dated September 10, 1 had the honor to
acknowledge the receipt of dispatch from the Department of State,
dated June 23, 1874, with schedule of inquiries inclosed, relative to in-
formation in regard to the course pursued by the government of the
Argentine Eepublic in>elation to the adjustment of claims against the
government, and the mode of procedure adopted in the investigation
and determination of such claims.

I now have the honor to reply that, on account of the breaking out of
the rebellion in this country, and the consequent excitement here, I have
been delayed in my investigation, and it has not been perhaps as thorough
and complete as it might have been under other circumstances.

In my examination I found that previous to the last administration
(President Sarmiento's) there was no settled mode of procedure in the
presentation and adjustment of claims, but their rejection or acceptance
seemed to depend upon favor and influence.

Dr. Tejidore accepting the position of minister of foreign affairs, some
three years ago, under President Sarmiento, adopted at once, and for
the first time in the history of this country, American precedents, re-
fusing to foreigners all indemnity in cases of revolt or rebellion, other
than that granted by the law of nations, and referring them to the
courts, under the constitution, rejecting the intervention of ministers,
but recognizing the claim to be just in the initiative, when based upon
alleged injustice of the courts.

The course pursued by the government in the adjustment and final
determination of claims, when based upon the alleged injustice of the
courts, and presented to the executive, will be answered in my reply to
the inquiries presented from 1 to 7 inclusive.

Schedule of inquiries and answers.

Question 1. "Are claimg against the government investigated, determined, and, if
allowed, then payment directed and provided for by the legislative branch of the gov-
ernment ?"

Answer. Every claim is presented to the executive and proper department, accord-
ing to its nature. It must be substantiated by the report of that department which
may be acquainted with its antecedents, and with the opinion of the attorney of the
treasury or the attorney-general of the nation.

196 ALIEN CLAIMS.

The executive can also ask for all the data, reports, or testimony that may be con-
sidered necessary to establish the truth of the alleged facts. In this respect there is
no law whatever establishing a fixed form of procedure. If the executive finds the
claim admissible, and there exists in the general budget of the administration or in
special laws authority to make payments of the nature of the claim, he then orders its
payment by the finance department, charging it to the budget or the special law, as
the case may require.

If there should be no authority in law to make such payments, then the case is passed
to Congress, accompanied with a bill to vote the necessary funds to meet the pay-
ment.

Congress studies the claim anew, and if found admissible, accepts the bill submitted
by the executive. If the executive finds the claim inadmissible, he rejects it.

In this latter caso the interested party sometimes presents himself direct to Congress,
complaining of the decision of the executive, and asking that by a special law the pay-
ment be ordered for the amount claimed.

Congress has admitted this kind of claims, and has acted on them, deciding, after due
examination, in favor or against them. During the last administration the executive
rejected this custom, upon the ground that, in administrative affairs, as he considered
these claims, Congress cannot assume the power of a chamber of appeal from the reso-
lutions of the executive, and that these questions ought to be finally closed with the
decision of the executive, unless he should allow the party interested to carry the case
before the national Congress. Upon this controversy no definitive jurisprudence is as
yet established.

Question 2. "If the legislative authority does entertain such claims, what is the mode
of procedure, by the committee or otherwise ; and what means, if any, are provided for
procuring evidence on behalf of the government 1 "

Answer. Even though the claim has been passed by the executive, asking funds to
meet its payment, or even presented direct to Congress by the interested party,
the chambers to which the claim has been sent refers it to one of the committees, ac-
cording to its nature.

The committees of the chambers are six, denominated, on " Constitutional Affairs,"
on "Legislation," on " Finance," on the "Budget," " Military," and on "Petitions."
They are composed of five members in the Chambers of Deputies, and three in the
Chamber of Senators.

The claim being passed to the competent committee, it can obtain all the particu-
lars, and make all the investigations that may be considered necessary, without any
limitation whatever, or without any certain form of proceeding to establish the truth
of the facts.

When this committee requires information, details, or antecedents of any other au-
thority, or dependency of another department, it then demands authorization of the
chambers, which, once granted, it asks for such detailed information or antecedents
through the president of the respective chambers.

After the case has been only considered, the committee presents to the chamber, in
the form of a project of law or bill, its decision,, accepting, rejecting, or modifying the
claim.

Afterward, both chambers observe the forms of procedure established in the consti-
tution, for the framing and sanction of laws, until the affair is definitely ended.

Question 3. " What provision, if any,. is made for the examination and determination
of claims by the executive department ? What is the mode of procedure in the investi-
gation of claims by or before executive officers ; and what means are provided for pro-
curing evidence on behalf of the government ? "

Answer. The principal part is already found in the reply to the first question.

There is no fixed form of procedure determined by law in contentious administrative
affairs, as these claims generally are.

The established procedure is the one I have indicated in answering the first question.
It can be, and has been, varied in certain cases.

There have been cases in which claims have been submitted to the decision of arbi-
trators appointed by the party and the executive.

There is also a certain kind of claims that are governed by special laws, in which
regular forms of proceedings have been established. At the conclusion of this report I
Trill speak of these laws.

The means of proof in favor of the government, as well as in favor of the party inter-
ested, have no limitation or special form ; all the means of legal proof are admitted on
the basis of good faith. .

Question 4. " Is there any provision of law allowing a citizen or subject to sue the
government in the regularly-established courts, or in any special tribunal, and the
privilege of maintaining an action against the Government (if it exists) extends to
aliens."

Answer. The federal supreme court has declared that the executive cannot be. sued
To establish an action against him it is necessary, first, that he should previously.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 197

permit it by a special resolution in each case. This permission has been granted by
both branches of the government, executive and legislative ; by u. simple resolution
when granted by the executive, or by a formal law when given by the legislative
power.

This is the jurisprudence established in order to prevent all arbitrary proceedings,
which might ensue should Congress refuse such application. A bill has been presented
to Congress to create a tribunal of claims, and to determine the proceedings which
should be followed before it.

Although this is only a project as yet, there is no doubt that it will be converted into
law, with more or less modifications. Public opinion is already settled in its favor.

Foreigners may bring suit in all respects as the citizens. See the following question
for the explanation of this assertion. ,

Question 5. " What is the status of aliens before the regularly-established courts of
the country ? Can they maintain an action in such courts against a citizen or subject ;
and, if so, does the privilege extend to all aliens, or is it confined to resident aliens
only?"

Answer. The statute on aliens is fixed by the following article of the constitution :

"Art. 20. Aliens enjoy in the territory of the republic all the civil rights that citi-
zens do. They can follow their occupation or profession, possess, buy, or sell real
estate, navigate the rivers and coasts, exercise freely their religion, testate and marry
according to its laws. They are not obliged to become citizens, or pay extraordinary
or forced contributions."

From these primordial rights given by the constitution to foreigners spring all the
rights that are correlative to them, and, among others, the right of suing or being sued
by any individual, native or foreign, before the courts or the government, in the oases
and conditions before mentioned, or in any civil or criminal suit that originates from
the exercise of the rights above mentioned, or for the violations of said rights. Further-
more, when a question arises between a foreigner and a native, they are not obliged to
submit to the local tribunals, but either of them can oblige the other to appear before
the federal tribunals of the nation. This right does not exist when the question is
between two foreigners or two natives, in which case they are obliged to submit to
the decision of the province in which they reside.

The resident foreigner and the temporary sojourner have equal rights in law. The
only difference, therefore, between a citizen and an alien in the republic is, that the
latter cannot be an elector for members of any of the three highest positions in the
nation, nor can he, on the other hand, be obliged to perform military service, or pay
extraordinary obligatory contributions.

The foreigner can nevertheless, in some provinces of the republic, be elector and
elected for municipal posts, without incurring any obligation in consequence. The
alien who resides two years in the republic can obtain citizenship, or sooner, if he has
rendered important services to the country. The certificate of citizenship permits
him to exercise the political rights of the native-born without being obliged to give
military services, and it can only be issued by the supreme federal court.

From the above it can be affirmed, without exaggeration, that in no other country of
the world has the foreigner fuller privileges than in the Argentine Republic.

Question 6. " If different systems of adjudication exist, as regards different classes of
claims, what is the system with reference to each class ; and what the mode of pro-
cedure, and the privilege of the Government in relation to evidence in its behalf, and
the means of procuring such evidence ?"

Answer. The only laws that establish formalities for certain claims, and special
forms of payments, are those to which I referred in answering the first question, and
which I now proceed to give in detail.

The damages suffered by individuals during the civil wars, the assistance given to
the armies which fought against the tyranny of Rosas, that ended in 1852, and the
debt which was left unpaid by the old government of the confederation, which. ceased
the year 1860 by the incorporation of the province of Buenos Ayres, have been recog-
nized by laws of Congress as public debts of the nation, and ordered to he paid in
public funds, at 6 per cent, interest and 1 per cent, annual amortization.

Those laws have fixed the forms of procedure that are to he followed in prosecuting
private claims.

All of them decide that the executive shall appoint an especial commission to ex-
amine the claims.

This commission, after the proper study of the case, for which it had full powers for
taking all the evidence it may judge necessary, passes the claim to the executive, with
the draught of the resolution prescribed by its judgment.

In view of it, the executive, according to the case, acknowledges the debt, and orders
the corresponding payment in public funds, or rejects the claim.

In the law upon assistance rendered to the armies that fought against the tyranny
of Rosas, it has ordered that the written documents originally given by the chiefs of

198 alien claims.

the armies, by the commissions officially named to procure means, or by the govern-
ment of provinces that helped said armies, should be admitted as proof.

In all the other cases there was no limitation as to the means or burden of proof, this
always belonging to the part of the plaintiff.

These laws fixed the time in which the claimants ought to present themselves, and
that term having expired, no more claims were allowed ; ou the other hand, there were
very few who did not present themselves.

Treaties, also, have been made with various nations as to the form of proceeding and
payments of the same kind of damages done to aliens, besides those caused during the
war of independence, that have not been paid yet to the citizens. The amount of
those damages has been generally fixed by commissioners of arbitrators appointed by
the executive and foreign ministers, and paid in public funds or treasury bonds.

Nearly all these claims are already decided, there being very few that are as yet
unsettled.

The government has no privilege whatever respecting proofs, but simply those
belonging to its condition as defendant.

It is incumbent in the claimant, who is called the creditor, to produce sufficient
proof of the truth of his demand, and not on the executive, who ouly judges the merits
of the proof without in any wise preventing the presentation of documents or declara-
tions to the contrary, whenever they can be obtained, as would happen with any other
party sued.

I have the honor to be, vour obedient servant,

THOS. O. OSBOEN
Hon. Hamilton Fish,

Secretary of State, Washington, J). C.

Department of State,

Washington, February 12, 1875.
Sir : Eeferring to previous correspondence upon the subject, I have
now the honor to inclose, for the information of the committee over
which you preside, a copy of a dispatch of the 8th of January ultimo,
No. 303, from the minister of the United States at Copenhagen, and of
its inclosure, in relation to the course pursued by the government of
Denmark in the adjustment of claims presented by its own subjects, or
by the subjects or citizens of foreign governments.

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,

HAMILTON FISH.
Hon. William Lawrence,

Chairman of the Committee on War-Claims,

House of Representatives.

[Inclosure.]

Mr. Cramer to Mr. Fish, January 8, 1875, No. 303, with accompani-
ments.

Mr. Cramer to Mr. Fish.

No. 303.] Legation of the United States,

Copenhagen, January 8, 1875.
Sir : Eeferring to the Department's communication of June 23, 1874,
requesting exact and trustworthy information in regard to the course
pursued by the government of Denmark in relation to the adjustment
of claims presented against that government, either by its own subjects
or by the subjects or citizens of foreign governments, as well as in regard
to the mode of procedure adopted in the investigation and determination

ALIEN CLAIMS. 199

of such claims, I have the honor to inform you that on the 30th of July,
1874, I addressed a note to the Danish minister for foreign affairs, re-
questing him to furnish me with the desired information for transmis-
sion to the Government of the United States. For the purpose of show-
ing him more precisely the nature of the information desired, I inclosed
in my note a copy of the " Schedule of Inquiries" that had been inclosed
in the Department's communication. A copy of my note I herewith in-
close, marked No. 1.

The reasons for addressing the said note to the minister for foreign
affairs were : 1. The belief that, as the Department desired exact and
trustworthy information, none would be better able to furnish it than .
the government itself. 2. That, had I requested an able lawyer to fur-
nish me with the same, he would have, in all probability, asked a large
fee for it, for the payment of which I had no authority.

After having waited five months — though, during that time, I have
twice alluded to the subject in my conversations with the minister for
foreign affairs — I received, on the 2d instant, a note from him, dated
December 31, 1874, in which he answers seriatim the questions contained
in the schedule of inquiries referred to. A copy of this note is herewith
inclosed, marked No. 2.

I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

M. J. CRAMER.

Hon. Hamilton Fish,

Secretary of State, Washington, D. 0.

List of inelosures. v

1. Copy of a note addressed by Mr. Cramer to the minister for foreign
affairs, marked No. 1.

2. Copy of a note addressed by the Danish minister for foreign affairs
to Mr. Cramer, marked No. 2.

3. A printed copy (in French) of the constitution of the Kingdom of
Denmark, referred to in the minister's note, marked No. 3.

[Inelosures.]

No. 1.

Legation of the United States op America,

Copenhagen, July 30, 1871.

Excellency: My government desires me to procure exact and trustworthy infor-
mation in regard to the course pursued by the government of His Majesty the King of
Denmark, in relation to the adjustment of claims presented against the said govern-
ment, whether by its own subjects or by citizens or subjects of foreign governments.

The reason why my Government wishes to possess such information is the desire to
establish, as far as may be practicable, a general and uniform system and mode of pro-
cedure for the investigation and determination of claims presented against the Gov-'
ernment of the United States, whether by its own citizens or by citizens or subjects of
other governments.

I therefore take the liberty to request your excellency to have the goodness, so far
as may be consistent with the rules and [regulations of His Majesty's government in
such cases, to furnish me with the desired information ; and also, where such informa-
tion is based upon legislative enactments, or public and general regulations by the
executive departments, to send me copies of such laws and published regulations for
transmission to my Government.

For the purpose of showing more precisely the nature of the information desired I
take the liberty to inclose herewith a list of inquiries numbered from 1 to 7, inclusive,
pointing more directly to the particular points upon which information is most desired.

Be pleased, your excellency, to accept renewed assurances of my most distinguished
consideration.

M. J. CEAMES.

His Excellency Baeon O. D. Rosenorn-Lehn,

lioyal Danish Minister for Foreign Affairs, $c.

200 ALIEN CLAIMS.

No. 2.

[Translation. J

Copenhagen, December 31, 1874.

Sir: In the note which yon were pleased to address me, under date of the 30th of
July last, you expressed adesire to be furnished with information as to the rules estab-
lished in Denmark relative to claims presented against the government of the King,
either by its own subjects or by foreigners, and especially in regard to the manner in
which claimants are required to furnish evidence of the validity of their claims.

In order to comply with this request I have requested the competent departments to
answer the various questions propounded by you, and I am now enabled, by the com-
munications which have been received by me from these departments, to furnish you
with the desired information, which, for the sake of greater clearness, I shall have the
honor to submit to you in Buch a way that each question will be answered separately.

1. "Are claims against the government investigated, determined, and, if allowed,
their payment directed and provided for, by the legislative branch of the government ?"

1. According to the laws of Denmark it is the province of the executive department
of the government, properly so called, to examine all claims presented against the
treasury, to decide to what extent they can be allowed, and finally to cause to be paid
to the claimants the sums to which they are entitled according to the decision. Al-
though, therefore, the legislative branch does not interfere directly in matters of this
nature, the competency of the executive branch is essentially limited in matters of this
nature by section 49 of the constitution of the Kingdom of Denmark of June 5, 1849,
revised and promulgated July 28, 1866, according to which "no expenditure can be
made which is not authorized by the said law, or by a supplementary appropriation."

The executive branch of the Danish government cannot, therefore, allow such claims,
unless the Eigsdag has previously appropriated the money deemed necessary for this
purpose ; and it is only in urgent cases that it can, on its own responsibility, allow any
claims without having been authorized to do so by the Rigsdag, to which it must then
apply in order to obtain, by means of a supplementary appropriation, the sanction of
the expenditure made by it. For the sake of greater control over the acts of the ex-
ecutive department, it is prescribed by section 50 of the constitution that each of the
chambers of the Rigsdag, namely, the folkething andthelandsthing,areto appoint two
paid examiners, whose duty it is " to examine the accounts of the fiscal year, and to see
whether all moneys received by the state have been properly entered, and whether any
expenditures, other than those allowed by the budget, have been made." When this
examination, which is very different from the examination made in the bureaus of the
various ministries, has been made, the annual accounts of the state, together with the
remarks of the examiners, are to be laid before the Rigsdag, which, according to sec-
tion 14 of the constitution, has the right to impeach the miuisters of the King for any
disbursements made by them without authority from the legislative branch.

It appears from the foregoing that the general rule is that any person having claims
against the Danish treasury must address the executive department, whose duty it is,
within the limits above stated, to examine them, and to allow them if they are found
to be just.

2. "If the legislative authority does entertain such claims, what is the mode of pro-
cedure, by committee or otherwise, and what means, if any, are provided for procuring
evidence on behalf of the government ? "

2. This rule, however, does not prevent a claimant, if he prefers doing so, from pre-
senting his claim to the Rigsdag, provided he observe the provision of section 63 of the
constitution, which is "that no proposal shall be submitted to the chambers except
through one of their members." If the claim has not been presented to the executive
department before it is laid before the Rigsdag, that body confines itself to transmit-
ting it, without comment, to the competent minister, who then treats it as if it had
been submitted to him directly. On the other hand, if the claim has been rejected by
the executive department, and if, in consequence, the fact of its presentation to the
Rigsdag implies dissatisfaction with the executive decision, the Rigsdag may, according
to section 64 of the constitution, return it to the competent minister with or without
recommendation. In acting thus, the Rigsdag indicates that, in its opinion, the claim
deserves to be taken into consideration by the executive department, although its re-
turn to the minister can give the claim no legal value other than that which it in-
trinsically possesses.

3. "What provision, if any, is made for the examination and determination of
claims by the executive department ; what is the mode of procedure in the investi-
gation of claims by or before executive officers ; and what means are provided for pro-
curing evidence on behalf of the government ? "

3. As regards proofs of the validity of claims against the Danish treasury, the exec-
utive department demands none stricter than those which, according to the ordinary
laws of procedure, are admissible before the courts in private cases. Save the excep-
tion which will be mentioned under number four, the claimant may, even if he con-

ALIEN CLAIMS. 201

aiders himself aggrieved by the attitude taken by the executive department in regard
to his claim, bring suit against the competent minister in the manner prescribed for
civil cases between private citizens.

4. " Is there any provision of law allowing a subject to sue the government in the
regularly-established courts or in any special tribunal; and does the privilege of
maintaining an action against the government (if it exists) extend to aliens ? "

4. According to the laws of Denmark, both the subjects of the kingdom and the sub-
jects of another state have a right to bring suit before the courts against the executive
department as well as against a private citizen. To this rule there is but one exception,
employe's appointed since April 1, 1870, not being allowed, according to section 12 of a
law of March 26, 1870, to cause such disputes as may arise between them and the
ministers with regard to their salaries to be submitted to the decision of the courts.
Disputes of this nature are settled by the minister of finance conjointly with the min-
ister under whom the functionary interested is employed.

5. "What is the status of aliens before the regularly-established courts of the
country? Can they maintain an action iu such courts against a subject; and, if so,
does the privilege extend to all aliens, or is it confined to resident aliens only ? "

5. As regards the status of aliens in the courts of Denmark, they are placed upon
the same footing as the subjects of the kingdom. They may, therefore, although not
domiciled in Denmark, bring suit against the subjects of the country befor9 these
courts.

6. "If different systems of adjudication exist as regards different classes of claims,
what is the system with reference to each class, and what the mode of procedure and
the privilege of the government in relation to evidence in its behalf, and the means
of procuring such evidence ? "

6. As has already been observed under number 3, the laws of Denmark prescribe
no different rules of procedure, whether the suit be brought against the government of

the King or against a private individual.

# # * * # # *

I inclose to you a copy of the constitution of the kingdom of Denmark ; and I avail
myself of this occasion to beg you, sir, to accept the assurances of my most distin-
guished consideration.

O. D. EOSENOKN-LEHN.
Mr. Cramer,

Minister Resident of the United States of America.

THE LAW OF CLAIMS

THE UNITED STATES.

THE MODE OF ADJUSTING CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT,

THE PROCEDURE ADOPTED IN THEIR INVESTIGATION.

INTRODUCTORY.

THE OFFICERS AND TRIBUNALS HAVING JURISDICTION TO INVESTI-
GATE CLAIMS.

Claims against the United States are examined either by officers in
the Departments of the Government, by the Court of Claims, the Com-
missioners of Claims, by committees of Congress, or by mixed commis-
sions, under treaties.

Claims may be presented in either House of Congress, by petition or
by bills introduced by members. These are generally referred to ap-
propriate committees, and by these examined, and then a report is made
to the House in which the claim was presented, and if in favor of the
claim with a bill or joint resolution for an appropriation to make pay-
ment, which is considered and passed or rejected as other private bills.
Sometimes the bill refers the examination of the claim to the Court of
Claims or to the Commissioners of Claims.

The Court of Claims renders judgments subject to an appeal to the
Supreme Court of the United States, in which final judgment is entered,
and these judgments are regarded as conclusive and paid without exam-
ination by appropriations made by Congress.

The Commissioners of Claims examine certain classes of claims, and
report their conclusions to the House of Eepresentatives, where they
are open to examination, and, subject to such supervision, are rejected or
paid by appropriations.

The officers of the several Departments of the Government examine
the ordinary claims for salaries and other expenses of the Government,
when they are reported to the proper officers of the Treasury Depart-
ment and paid out of appropriations made from time to time by Con-
gress.

An examination of the statutes will show the jurisdiction exercised
by the officers of the Departments, the Court of Claims, and the Com-
missioners of Claims, in the examination of claims, and the mode of
procedure authorized by law.

It is not practicable to give all these in this connection, but sufficient
will be presented as to each to show the general course of proceeding,
with some of the acts of Congress relative to the Departments, and all
relating to the Court of Claims and the Commissioners of Claims.

Mixed commissions, under treaties, exercise such jurisdiction and in
such mode as the treaties provide, aided by such legislation of Congress
as may be necessary, and their awards are paid by appropriations made
by Congress.

THE LAW OF CLAIMS.

CHAPTER I.

OF WAR— REBELLION— THE CLASSES OP WAR-CLAIMS— GENERAL PRIN-
CIPLES.

During the progress of the> wars in which the United States have
been engaged, many claims 45 have been from time to time made against
the Government, by citizens, corporations under national, or State, or
foreign authority, and by aliens. 46 Some of these may be properly
arranged into classes, with a view to consider the questions of law which
arise as to the liability of the Government to make compensation
either under the Constitution, the laws of nations, common or statutory
law. The expediency of providing compensation where no legal liability
exists, involves questions which a powerful and just nation should be
ever ready to consider.

4E For claims see American State Papers, class IX, vol. 1, " Claims."

Also Senate Mis. Doc. 43, 3d sess. 40th Cong., list of private claims brought before
Senate from commencement of 14th to close of 39th Congress.

House li3t of private claims, vols. 1, 2, and 3, from 1st to 31st Congress, entitled
" Digested Summary and Alphabetical List of Private Claims," &c. House Mis. Doc.
109, 42d Cong., 3d sess., digested summary private claims, presented to House of Reps,
from 32d to 41st Congress inclusive. See an article on " Government Claims," 1 Ameri-
can (Boston) Law Review, 653, (July, 1867.)

'"'Claims of aliens have frequently been made the subject of diplomatic arrangements.
See report of Hon. R. S. Hale, November 30, 1873, to Secretary of State, of proceedings
of commission under 12th article treaty of 8th May, 1871, between United States and
Great Britain.

See " opinions of heads of Executive Departments and other papers relating to expa-
triation, naturalization, and change of allegiance," in House Ex. Doc. 1, part 1, 1st sess.
43d Congress, Report of Secretary of State on Foreign Relations, p. 1177, part 1, vol. 2.

The act of July 27, 1868, (15 Stat., 243, sec. 2,) gave aliens a right to sue in the Court
of Claims, when the government of such aliens gave a similar right to our citizens.

In Fichera v. V. S., 9 Court Claims R., decided in 1873, Nott, J., said :

" The only question presented by this case is whether, under the Italian law, an
American citizen may maintain an action against the government of Italy. As we have
before found, the perfected justice of the civil law made the government, in matters of
ordinary obligation, subject to the suit of the citizen, in the ordinary tribunals of the
country. We have found this right to be preserved under modern codes in Prussia,
Hanover, and Bavaria, {Brown's Case, 5 C. Cls. R., p. 571 ;) in the republic of Switzer-
land, (Lobsiger's Case, id., p. 687 ; ) in Holland, the Netherlands, the Hanseatic Prov-
inces, and the Free City of Hamburg, (Brown's Case. 6 C. Cls. R., p. 193;) in France,
(Dauphin's Case, id., p. 221;) in Spain, (Molina's Case, id., p. 269;) and in Belgium,
(De Gives' 's Case, 7 C. Cls. R., p. 517.)

It was also shown in Brown's Case, (5 C. Cls. R., p. 571,) by a distinguished historical
writer who was examined as a witness, Mr. Frederick Kapp, that this liability of a
government under the civil law is not a device of modern civilization, but has been
deemed inherent in the system, and has been so long established that, to use the phrase
of the common law, the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. Therefore, it is
to be expected that in Italy, the seat and fountain of the civil law, this same liability,
of government is to be found existing. The " Civil Code of the Kingdom of Italy " of
1866 recognizes, rather than establishes, the fundamental principle of liability; bat it
expressly provides (article 10) that, "in suits pending before the judicial authority
between private persons and the public administration, the proceedings shall always
take place formally at the regular session.

206 ALIEN CLAIMS.

During the late rebellion, or civil war, property of immense value, of
every kind, was taken, used, or destroyed, on sea and land, by rebel and
Union civil authorities and military forces, without any compensation
rendered. It is, of course, a duty of the Government to patiently and
attentively hear every claimant for compensation or damages, and pass
- upon the merits of the claim in the light of reason and law.

Perhaps no classification can be made which would comprehend every

It is also provided, by the third article of the same code, that " the alieu is admitted
to enjoy all the civil rights granted to citizens." These provisions establish the right
of an Italian citizen to maintain his action in this court, within the meaning of the
Act July 27, 1866, (15 Stat., p. 243, § 2,) which prohibits 'the subject of a foreign gov-
ernment from maintaining a suit for captured property, unli si "the right to prosecute
claims against such government in its courts" is reciprocal and extends to citizens of
the United States.

In England aliens have a remedy by "petition of right," regulated by act 23 and 24
Victoria, July 3, 1860. U. S. v. O'Keefe, 11 Wallace, 179 ; Carlisle v. IJ. S., 16 Wallace,
148. See Whiting's War Powers of the President, 51 ; The Venus, 8 Cranch ; The
Hoop, 1 Robinson, 196; The Amy Warwick, Sprague, J.

See Whiting's "War Claims," affixed to 43d ed. of " War Powers," p. 333, ed. of 1871 ;
Perrin v. U. S., 4 Court Claims, 547.

The claims of aliens cannot properly be examined by a committee of Congress.

This was sojheld in Report No. 498 of the Committee on War-Claims, first session
Forty-third Congress, May 2, 1874. That case was as follows :

Charles Bombonnel represents, in a memorial referred to the committee, that he is
and always has been a citizen of France, and resides in Dijon ; that prior to the rebel-
lion, and ever since, he owned certain real estate, with buildings thereon, at Carrolltou,
in the parish of Jefferson, Louisiana ; that the military authorities of the United
States took possession of these August 23, 1862, and that the said premises were there-
after used by the Union military authorities as a hospital, and for other purposes, to
September 1,1865; that the premises were damaged $1,600 by the occupancy, and
that the use and occupation was worth $55 per month. He asks payment of $3,580
and interest. He alleges that he, by his agent, had leased the premises, and they were
in the occupancy of his lessee when the military authorities required the tenant to va-
cate them in August, 1862. He also alleges that he has made repeated efforts to ob-
tain justice through the military authorities, through the French legation at Washing-
ton, and through the Quartermaster-General, and has uniformly received the reply
that there is no authority to settle the claim but Congress.

The right of a citizen of the United States to petition Congress is recognized in the first
article of amendments of the Constitution, and it is declared this right shall not be
abridged. The language of this amendment is that it shall be " the right of the people

* * to petition," &c.

In Paschal's annotated Constitution, it is said the expression, " the people," here is
used in the broad sense of the preamble, and a broader sense than " electors." (See
Story, Const., sec. 1994-1995 ; discussions on 21st Rule of the House of Representatives
in 1838 and 1846.) The preamble to the Constitution recites that "We, the people of
the United States, * * do ordain this Constitution," &c.

The " people" who did ordain the Constitution, and to whom the right of petition is
secured so that it cannot be abridged, were, and are, citizens of the United States. When
such right is secured, it carries with it the duty of Congress to hear and consider the
petition, for otherwise the right would be vox etprwterea nihil.

But such right of petition is not thus secured to aliens. It is not a legislative duty to
hear their petitions.

There is a department of government in which most questions of an international
character may be considered, that which has charge of foreign affairs.

A foreign government may, on behalf of its citizens or subjects, treat with the Gov-
ernment of the United States in relation to claims of such citizens or subjects, but
when this is done the Uuited States can arrange to secure the claims of their citizens,
or such other rights as international justice may require.

Congress cannot safely, and by piecemeal, surrender the advantages which may
result from diplomatic arrangements.

This has been the general policy of the Government. Congress has not generally
entertained the claims of aliens, and certainly should not unless on the request of the
Secretary of State representing our foreign interests.

In support of this the following is submitted :

"Department of State, Washington, April 22, 1874.
" Sir: In reply to your telegram stating that claims are presented by French citizens
and other aliens through Congress, to the Committee on War-Claims, I have to remark

ALIEN CLAIMS. 207

claim that has been or could be made. The liability of the Government
for any class of claims growing out of the war of the rebellion depends
somewhat upon the status of the so-called rebel States and the people
thereof, their relations to the National Government, and the place where
the right to demand compensation arose.

It is now determined, by the highest court, that the civil war began
at least for some purposes and at some localities, as early as April,
1861. 46a By the President's proclamations of April 15 and 19, 1861, an
insurrection was declared to exist in certain States. Under, and it may
be correct to say by virtue of, the act of Congress of July 13, 1861, the

that such presentation is entirely inconsistent with usage, which requires that alieus
must address this Government only through the diplomatic representatives of their own
governments.

" This Department refuses to entertain applications or to receive claims from aliens,
except through a' responsible presentation by the regularly accredited representative
of their government.

" I have also been under the impression that Congress refused to receive petitions or
claims from aliens. Such I am advised was at one time the rule of the House of Rep-
resentatives, and such is the rule at present in the Senate as I am informed. The pro-
priety of the refusal to allow an alien to intrude his claims upon Congress cannot be
questioned.

" I have the honor to he, sir, your obedient servant,

"HAMILTON FISH.

" Hon. Wm. Lawrence, Souse of Representatives."

But there are very many claims of French citizens growing out of the war of the
rebellion, and it would be utterly impracticable for Congress to become a claims com-
mission to pass on all these. Similar claims of subjects of Great Britain were submit-
ted to a commission under the 12th article of the treaty of 8th May, 1871, and the
report of its proceedings will be found in House Ex. Doc. 1, part 1, first session Forty-
third Congress, with the papers relating to foreign relations.

For the acts relating to debts due by or to the United States see act of 3 March, 1797,
chapter 20, volume 1, page 512 ; act of June 6, 1798, chapter 49, sections 1, 3, volume
1, pages 561, 562 ; act of 3 March, 1817, chapter 114, volume 3, page 399 ; *act of 19
February, 1833, chapter 33, volume 4, page 613 ; *act of 30 June, 1834, chapter 153,
volume 4, page 726 ; *act of 18 January, 1837, chapter 5, volume 5, page 142 ; act of
14 October, 1837, chapter 5, volume 5, page 204; act of 7 July, 1838, chapter 177,
volume 5, page 288 ; resolution of 31 May, 1838, number 4, volume 5, page 310 ;
act of 3 March, 1839, chapter 93, section 1, volume 5, pages 537, 538 ; act of 27
February, 1841, chapter 13, volume 5, page 414 ; act of 23 August, 1842, chapter 185,
volume 5, page 511 ; act of 3 March, 1843, chapter 103, volume 5, page 648 ; act of 15
Juue, 1844, chapter 73, section 2, volume 5, page 673 ; act of 29 July, 1846, chapter 66,
volume 9, page 41 ; act of 6 August, 1846, chapter 90, section 19, volume 9, page 64 ;
"act of 2 March, 1847, chapter 39, volume 9, page 154 ; act of 3 March, 1849, chapter
129, volume 9, page 414 ; act of 31 August, 1852, chapter 108, section 2, volume 10, pa<;es
■97,98; act of 26 February, 1853, chapter 81, sections 1, 7, volume 10, pages 170, 171;
act of 1 March, 1862, chapter 35, volume 12, page 352; act of 17 March, 1862, chapter
45, section 1, volume 12, page 370 ; act of 17 July, 1862, chapter 205, volume 12, page
610 ; act of 3 March, 1863, chapter 76, section 10, volume 12, page 740 ; act of 3 March,
1863, chapter 78, section 6, volume 12, page 743 ; act of 25 June, 1864, chapter 150,
volume 13, page 182; act of 4 July, 1864, chapter 240, sections 2, 3, volume 13, page
381 ; act of 28 July, 1866, chapter 297, section 8, volume 14, page 327 ; resolution of 18
June, 1866, number 50, volume 14, page 360; resolution of 28 July, 1866, number 99,
volume 14, page 370 ; act of 21 February, 1867, chapter 57, volume 14, page.397 ; reso-
lution of 2 March, 1867, number 46, volume 14, page 571 ; act of 20 April, 1871, chapter
21, section 27, volume 17, page 12.

«» The Prize Case?, (2 Black, p. 636.) The court held that war commenced with the
President's proclamation of blockade, April 27, 1861. The dissenting judges held that
it commenced with the act of Congress of July 13, 1861. (12 Stat., p. 257.) See procla-
mations of April 15, April 19, and April 27, 1861, (12 Stat., pp. 1258-1260 ;) Lawrence's
Wheatou, second annotated ed., sup., 44 ; proclamation of July 1, 1862 ; act June 7,
1862. The treaty of Washington fixes the commencement April 13, 1861. (17 Stat.,
p. 867. sec. 12.) See the diplomatic correspondence with Great Britain, April and July,
1865, pp. 362, 365, 367, 388, 394, 397, 407,421,422,423; proclamations May 10, 1865, (13
. Stat., p. 757,) May 22, 1865, (13 Stat., p. 758.) See schedule of proclamations in appen-
dix B to this report.

* Acts distinguished by a * have been heretofore repealed.

208 ALIEN CLAIMS

proclamation of insurrection was extended so as to declare eleven States^
with unimportant exceptions, in rebellion. 47

War was continued in those States until the President's proclamation
of August 20, 1866, 48 proclaimed the " insurrection at an end." A " state

47 The Venice, 2 Wallace, 277. See proclamation of August 16, 1861, &c, and July 1,
1862, 12 titat., 1260-1266. Proclamation September 22, 1862, and January 1, 1863, 12
Stat., 1267-1269. See letter of Quartermaster-General M. C. Meigs, in appendix to this
report. February 26, 1874.

48 McPhersou's History Reconstruction, 194; 13 Stat., 763. Tennessee, June 13, 1866;
14 Stat., 812, 816. Sundry States, April 2, 1866. Texas, August 20, 1866. Fleming v.
Page, 9 Howard, 615. Cross v. Harrison, 16 Howard, 189. United States v. Anderson,
9 Wallace, 56. Grossmeyer v. United States, 9 Wallace, 72. Lawrence's Wheaton, 513,
note. 7 Court of Claims, Protector «. United States, 9 Wallace, 687. Treaty of Wash-
ington of May 8, 1871, art. 12 ; 17 Stat., 867. Act March 2, 1867, sec. 2 ; 14 Stat., 428.
Grossmeyer v. United States, 4 Court of Claims. Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheaton. 29 Law
Reporter, July, 1861, p. 148.

Schedule of proclamations of Presidents Lincoln and Johnson respecting the condition of the

insurrectionary States.

April 15, 1861. — Militia (75,000) called out, the laws of the United States having been
opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed in the following States : South Carolina,
Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.

April 19, 1861. — Whereas an insurrection has broken out in tlje following States, a
blockade of the ports within the States is hereby declared : South Carolina, Georgia,
Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.

April 27,1861. — Whereas, for reasons assigned in the proclamation of April 19, a
blockade was established in States therein named ; and. whereas, since that date,
the collection of revenue has been obstructed in North Carolina and Virginia, a block-
ade of the ports of these States is proclaimed.

May 19, 1861. — Whereas an insurrection exists in the State of Florida, the com-
mander of the United States forces is allowed to suspend the writ of habeas corpus if
necessary.

August 16, 1861, (issued in compliance with an act of Congress prohibiting commercial
intercourse.) — Whereas on the 15th of April, 1861, the militia were called out, in view of
an insurrection which had broken out in the following States : South Carolina, Georgia,
Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas ;

And whereas such insurrection has since broken out, and yet exists, within the fol-
lowing-named States : Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas :

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, in pursuance of act of Congress, July 15, 1861,
do hereby declare the inhabitants of the following States to be in insurrection : South
Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, (except
the part of Virginia lying west of the Alleghany Mountains,) North Carolina, Tennes-
see, and Arkansas. And except the inhabitants of such parts of the States hereinbe-
fore named as may maintain a loyal adhesion to the Union and the Constitution, or may
be, from time to time, occupied or controlled by forces of the United States engaged in
the dispersion of said insurgents.

May 12, 1862. — Eelaxes the blockade of the following-named ports : Port Eoyal, S. C,
New Orleans, La., Beaufort, N. C.

July 1, 1862. — Whereas, by the act of Congress approved June 7, 1862, entitled "An
act for the collection of direct taxes in insurrectionary districts," it is made the
duty of the President to declare the following States in insurrection : South Carolina,
Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, n Virginia, North Carolina,
Tennessee, and Arkansas.

January 1, 1863. — Emancipation proclamation declares the following States and parts
of States to be in rebellion this day ; the excepted parts to remain precisely the same
as if this proclamation had not been issued : South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama,
Florida, Mississippi, 'Louisiana, Texas, "Virginia, North Carolina, and Arkansas.

"Except the following counties: Hancock, Brooke, Ohio, Marshall, Wetzel, Marion, Monongalia*
Preston, Taylor, Pleasants, Tyler, Ritchie, Doddridge, Harrison, Wood, Jackson, Wirt, Roane, Calhoun>
Gilmore, Harbour, Tucker, Lewis, Braxton, Upshur, Randolph, Mason, Putnam, Kanawha, Clay, Nicho"
las, Cabell, Wayne, Boone, Logan, Wyoming, Webster, Fayette, and Raleigh ; 39 counties.

'Except the parishes of Saint Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, Saint John, Saint Charles, Saint
James, Ascension, Assumption, Terre Bonne, La Fourche, Saint Mary, Saint Martin, and Orleans, in-
cluding the city of New Orleans.

c Except forty-eight counties of West Virginia, as follows : Hancock, Brooke, Ohio, Marshall, Wetzel,
Marion, Monongalia, Preston, Taylor, Tyler, Pleasants, Ritchie, Doddridge, Harrison, Wood, Jackson,
Wirt, Roane, Calhoun, G-ilmore, Barbour, Tucker, Lewis, Braxton, Upshur, Randolph, Mason, Putnair,
Kanawha, Clay, Nicholas, Cabell, Wayne, Boone, Logan, Wyoming, Mercer, McDowell, Webster, Poca-
hontas, Fayette, Raleigh, Greenbrier, Monroe, Pendleton, Hardy, Hampshire, and Morgan; and also
the counties of Berkely, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk,
including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 209

of war ?' continued beyond this time, more or less extensive in its theater —
"non flagrante bello sed nondum cessante bello." 40

This condition of war is recognized by the law of nations. 50

The existence of what is called " a state of war" after flagrant war
had ceased is recognized on the same principle as the personal right of
self-defense. This is not limited to the right to repel an attack ; but so
long as the purpose of renewing it remains — the animus revertendi — so
long as the danger is imminent or probable, the party assailed may
employ reasonable force against his adversary to disarm and disable
him until the danger is past, and in doing this and judging of its neces-
sity precise accuracy as to the means and time is not required, but only
the exercise of reasonable judgment in view of the circumstances. 51

If after the forces under the command of Lee surrendered in April,
1865, the United States forces had been immediately withdrawn, the
rebellion would possibly have resumed its hostile purposes.

It was upon this theory, coupled with the Constitutional duty of Con-
gress to " guarantee to each State a republican form of government," 52
that the reconstruction 53 acts of Congress were passed, and military as
well as civil measures adopted in pursuance of them. During some
portions of the period of rebellion tiagraut war existed, not only in the

April 2, 1863. — Whereas certain States, by proclamation of August 16, 1861, were de-
clared in insurrection ; and whereas experience has shown that the exceptions made
embarrass the enforcement of the act of July 13, 1861, the exceptions are revoked, and
the following States declared in rebellion : South Carolina, (except Port Royal,) Geor-
gia, Alabama, Florida, (except port of Key West,) Mississippi, Louisiana, (except, port
of New Orleans,) Texas, Virginia, (except forty-eight counties of West Virginia,) North
Carolina, (except port of Beaufort,) Tennessee, and Arkansas.

September 24, 1863. — Eeleasea blockade of Alexandria, Va.

February 18, 1864. — Releases blockade of Brownsville, Tex.

November 19, 1864. — Releases blockade of Fernandina and Pensacola, Fla., and Nor-
folk, Va.

June 13, 1865. — The President declares the insurrection in the State of Tennessee t<>
have been suppressed, and the authority of the United States therein to be undis-
turbed.

April 5, 1866. — After reciting the various proclamations, the President states that
whereas no armed resistance to the authority of the' United States exists in the follow-
ing States, it is declared that the insurrection which heretofore existed in those States
is at an end, and is henceforth to be so regarded:" South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama,
Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas.

10 Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wallace, 419.

50 Cross v. Harrison, 16 Howard, 164 ; Whiting, War Powers, 55 ; Article 2 of Francis
Leiber, rules for government of the armies, Scott's Digest Military Laws, p. 442, sec.
1142 ; Elphinstone v. Bedreechund, 1 Knapp's P. C. R., 300, cited in Coolidge v. Guth-
rie, by Swayne, J., U. S. circuit court southern district Ohio, October, 1868. Appendix
to 43d edition Whiting's War Powers, 591, edition 1871. Letter of Hon. Hamilton Fish,
Appendix C to this report.

For sundry cases relating to the rebellion, see The Prize Cases, 2 Black, 635 ; Mrs.
Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wallace, 404 ; The Venice, 2 Wallaoe, 258; The Baigorn, 2 Wal-
lace, 474 ; Mansan v. Insurance Company, 6 Wallace, 1 ; The Ouachita Cotton, 6 Wal-
lace, 52 ; Hanger v. Abbott, 6 Wallace, 532 ; Coppell v. Hall, 7 Wallace,- 542 ; Melvee r.
United States, 8 Wallace, 153 ; United States v. Grossniayer, 6 Wallace, 72 ; Vallatulii:-
ham's case, Appendix to Whiting's War Powers, (43 ed. of 1871,) 524; The Circassian.
2 Wallaee, 150 ; Curumings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace, 316 ; Ex-parte Garland, 4 Wallace,
374; Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wallace, 497.

51 1 .Bishop, Crim. Law, (5th ed.,) sees. 301, 305, 838, and numerous authorities cited.
Stewart v. State, 1 Ohio State R., 66-71.

62 Constitution, art. 4, sec. 4.

63 See McPherson's Hist, of Rebellion, 317, &c, and McPherson's Hist. Reconstruction,
passim.

Act of March 2, 1867, 14, Stat., 428. Act of March 23, 1867, 15 Stat., 2.

a August 20, 1866, all the States declared as out of insurrection.

Note. — Joint resolution of June 19, 1866, extends act of July 4, 1864, (chap. 240,) to counties ofBerkely
and Jefferson, W. Va.

H. Rep. 134 14

210 ALIEN CLAIMS.

States proclaimed as in rebellion, but, as we all know as a matter of
history, in Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia, and tempo-
rarily in parts of Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The war in the
three former States partook of the character of civil war, and of an
invasion from the rebel States, while in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylva-
nia, it was purely of the character of invasion. 64 The war in Missouri,
Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia, so far as resident insurrec-
tionists organized or engaged in rebellion, was none the less civil war,
because these States were not proclaimed as in rebellion. 55

The lawful State governments were not subverted in these States as
they were in the eleven rebel States, but the fact of flagrant war with-
out any proclamation or declaration by Congress is a matter of history,
and is judicially recognized by the courts. 56

War, either foreign or civil, may exist where no battle has been or is
being fought. 57

The rights, duties, and liabilities of governments in cases of foreign
war or invasion are generally well defined by the laws of nations. But
before stating these as they are established by the usage of nations and
laid down by writers, it is important to see how far they apply in cases
of a civil war.

It may be stated, then, in comprehensive terms, that the usages and
laws of nations, applicable in cases of war between independent nations,
apply generally to civil wars, including the recent war of the rebellion,
and especially when, as in the States proclaimed in insurrection, the law-
ful State governments were entirely overthrown, and the courts and
civil authority of the National Government equally disregarded and
powerless.

The Supreme Court of United States decided in December, 1862,
while the war was in progress, that —

The present civil war between the United States and the so-called Confederate States
has such character and magnitude as to give the United States the same rights and powers
which they might exercise in case of a national or foreign war." E8

The court determined also that citizens in the rebel States owed " su-
preme allegiance to the " National Government, and that " in organiz-
ing this rebellion they have acted as States."

In the prize cases it was insisted by counsel " that the President in
his proclamation admits that great numbers of persons residing" in the
rebel States " are loyal," and the court were asked to hold " that they
* * have a right to claim the protection of the Government

for their persons and property, and to be treated as loyal citizeus."

But the court answered this by declaring that —

All persons residing within this territory whose property may be used to increase the

" " Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wallace, 140.

See report of the Judge-Advocate-General to the Secretary of War, on the "Order of
the American Knights," or " Sons of Liberty," a western conspiracy in aid of the south-
ern rebellion. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1864.

m Prize Cases, 2 Black, 636.

r ° Prize Cases, 2 Black, 636 ; Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wallace, 140 ; Whiting's War- Power
of the President, 140 ; President Grant's veto message, June 1, 1872 ; id., June 7, 1872;
d., January 31, 1873 ; id., February 12, 1873 ; Lawrence's Wheaton, 513, note. % •

■■' Const., art. 3., sec. 3, clause 3 ; Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wallace, 127, 140, 142. Luther v
Borden; Grant v. United States, 1 Nott & Hopkins, Court Claims, 41 ; S. C, 2 ; id., 551 ;
Whiting's War-Powers, 43 ; Ex parte Milligan, 127 : The court say to justify martial
law " the necessity must be actual and present ; " Paschal, Annotated Const., 212, note
215; Ex parte Bollman, 4 Crauch, 126; United States v. Burr, 4 Cranch, 469-508; Ser-
geant, Const., ch. 30, [32;] People v. Lynch, 1 Johns., 553.

"a The Prize Cases, 2 Black, 636 ; Vattel, 425, § 294.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 211

revenues of the hostile power are in this contest liable to be treated as enemies though
not foreigners. 69

The inhabitants of the invaded States of Indiana, Ohio, and Penn-
sylvania, never having rebelled, are all to be deemed loyal except on
proof to the contrary.

Having thus marked out the boundaries of the theater of the war of
the rebellion, and ascertained the status of all within the States pro-
claimed in rebellion, or where actual rebellion existed, and in the in-
vaded but not rebellious States, it becomes proper to ascertain the rights
of the National Government over these, and its liability to the inhabit-
ants for injuries to person or property of whatever kind. It may be
proper to say first, however, that the power of a nation over its own
rebel citizens is greater in a civil war than over alien enemies, because
over the former it " may exercise both belligerent and sovereign rights " 6e
— that is, the belligerent rights of war, and the sovereign right to con-
fiscate and punish for treason— while over alien enemies it can only ex-
ercise belligerent rights.

The inquiry also arises, within what boundaries are citizens to be re-
garded as enemies I Certainly not in Indiana, Ohio, or Pennsylvania,
for there was no insurrection in those States. 61 There was only invasion.
In some portions of Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland, and for limited
times, there was insurrection, but these States were not proclaimed as
in insurrection, and, as States, they never were so in fact. These States
are therefore to be deemed loyal, and the citizens thereof as having all
the rights of loyal citizens, except so far as they were in fact disloyal,
and subject only to the sovereign and belligerent rights of the Govern-
ment. 62

In the prize cases, Nelson, J., said, " This act of'Oongress, [July 13, 1861,]
we think, recognized a state of civil war between the Government and
the Confederate States, and made it territorial." The Government was
at war with all the rebel States, just as much so as it was in other wars
with England or Mexico. In the Venice, 2 Wallace, 274, Chief Justice
Chase said : " Either belligerent may modify or limit its operation as to
persons or territory of the other, but in the absence of such modifica-
tion or restriction judicial tribunals cannot discriminate in its applica-
tion." The District of Columbia was never declared in insurrection, but
martial law was proclaimed, and it was subjected to the laws of war. It
was a fortified military stronghold, and all civil authority was super-
seded so far as deemed necessary, and the civil safeguards of the Con-
stitution withdrawn from the inhabitants. 63

» Prize Cases, 2 Black, 674, 678, 693 ; Halleck's Laws of War, 425,446; Mrs. Alex-
ander Cotton, 2 Wallace, 419 ; Whiting's War-Power of the President, 58 ; Vattel, 425,
4 293; Bynkershoek, Laws' of War, 25 ; United States vs. Anderson, 9 Wallace, 64;
Whiting's "War-Claims" affixed to " War-Powurs" (43d ed.) of 1871, p. 335; Marcy's
Letter to Jackson, January 10, 1854, House Ex. Doc. 41, 1st sess. 33d Cong.; Hnberus,
torn, ii, 1. i, tit. 3, De Conflict Lex., § 2; Jecker vs. Montgomery, 18 Howard, 112; The
Peterhoff 5 Wallace 60.

60 Prize Cases, 2 Black, 673; 4 Cranch, 272; Whiting, War-Powers, 44-47. But see
Lawrence's Wheaton,2d anotated ed., sup., 33. Whiting, in his War-Powers, says:
" Beliels in civil war, if allowed the rights of belligerents, are not entitled to all the
privileges usually accorded to foreign enemies," 43d ed. of 1871. p. 331.

61 Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wallace 3, 127.

m Prize Cases, 2 Black, 274; Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wallace, 127; President Grant's
veto messages of June 1 and June 7, 1872, and February 12,1873; Debates on Sue
Murphy, claim 71, Globe, 299, 386, 86, 161, 278.

63 Department op State, Washington, February 6, 1874.
Sir : By direction of the Secretary of State, I have to acknowledge the receipt of
your letter of the 3d instant, in which you request to be informed as to the date of the

212 ALIEN CLAIMS.

The obligation of a government after a civil war is terminated to those
whom the severe rules of the laws of war denominate " enemies," is on
the strict principle of such laws as stated by writers on the subject no
greater than to alien enemies whose territory is invaded in an interna-
tional war. But a humane government may always in such a case dis-
criminate between alien enemies in fact, and its own citizens who are
not so in fact, but only by legal construction. It is also conceded that
the rule of law which stamps as " enemies " in a rebel State men who
are in fact loyal to the flag, sometimes operates harshly. But the highest
court has declared them enemies at given times and under certain cir-
cumstances, and this has been done upon principles recognized among
civilized nations which antedate our Constitution.

Harsh as the rule sometimes is in its application,"there are reasons
of State policy on which it rests, or it would not exist as law. It may
be proper to refer to some of them. It is a matter of history that seces-
sion was carried in the rebel States, with one or two exceptions, against
the real wishes of a decided majority of the voters aud people. 61 They

proclamation declaring martial law in the District of Columbia, and, second, the period
of continuance of martial law within the same.

The date of the President's proclamation declaring martial law in the District of Co-
lumbia is September 15, 1863, (13 Stat, at Large, p. 734,) and the continuance thereof
in the language of the proclamation was " throughout the duration of the said rebel-
lion."

There might and probably would be a difference of opinion as to the date at which
martial law ceased to exist in tbe District. The President's proclamation of the 2d of
April, 1866, (14 Stat, at Large, p. 811,) may without impropriety be taken to fix the
limitation referred to, but the Department does not wish to be understood as express-
ing an opinion on that point, as it would seem more properly to present a question for
the opinion of the Attorney-General.

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

SEVELLON A. BROWN, Chief Clerk.

Henky H. Smith, Esq., Cleric of the Committee on War-Claims, Rouse of Representatives.

See the trial of the conspirators, May, 1865 ; Attorney-General's opinion, July, 1865 ;
11 Opinions, 297.

In Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wallace, 137, Chase, C. J., said :

" The Constitution itself provides for military government as well as for civil gov-
ernment. And we do not understand it to be claimed that the civil safeguards of the
Constitution have application in cases within the proper sphere of tbe former.

* » # # # 7f *

" We think, therefore, that the power of Congress, in the government of the land and
naval forces, and of the militia, is not at all affected by the fifth or any other amend-
ment. It is not necessary to attempt any precise definition of the boundaries of this
power. * * * ■* * *

" There are under the Constitution three kinds of military jurisdiction : one to be
exercised both in peace and war ; another to be exercised in time of foreign war, with-
out the boundaries of the United States, or in time of rebellion and civil war, within
States or districts occupied by rebels treated as belligerents ; and a third, to be exer-
cised in time of invasion or insurrection within the limits of the United States, or, dur-
ing rebellion, within the limits of States maintaining adhesion to the National Gov-
ernment, when the public danger requires its exercise. The first of these may be called
jurisdiction under military law, and is found in acts of Congress prescribing rules and
articles of war, or otherwise providing for the government of the national forces; the
second may be distinguished as military government, superseding, as far as may be
deemed expedient, the local law, and exercised by the military commander uuder the
direction of the President, with the express or implied sanction of Congress ; while the
third may be denominated martial law proper, and is called into action by Congress, or
temporarily, when the action of Congress cannot be invited, and in the case of justify-
ing or excusing peril, by the President, in times of insurrection or invasion, or of civil
or foreign war, within districts or localities where ordinary law no longer adequately
secures public safety and private rights." * » • *

^Alabama.— Delegates to convention elected December 24, 1860. Popular majority
claimed at 50,000. Ordinance of secession passed by a vote of 61 to 39. January 11,
1861, the minority being from counties where the free population predominated.
(Greeley's American Conflict, vol. 1, p. 347.)

Arkansas.— Legislature voted u call for convention, which met November 16, 1860.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 213

bad power to avert it. If they had reflected that secession and rebel-
lion would stamp them all as enemies of the lawful National Govern-
ment, subject to have their property taken or destroyed, by or in aid of
its military operations, or to weaken the power in revolt, without any
compensation, it might have induced a vigilance which would have
averted the calamity of civil war. Their inaction or want of energy in re-
sisting secession brought death and all the woes of war. Even loyal
men were not everywhere or in all cases guiltless. Their moral guilt
■was an omission of duty. In the transgression of active secessionists
all in legal contemplation transgressed. If now, all loyal citizens should
be compensated for all property taken or destroyed by the Union Armies,
the rebellion might be to some of them, with the opportunity which
always exists to fabricate fraudulent claims, rather a profitable pastime,

The papular vote showed a majority for Union. Subsequently another convention was
called tor March 1, 1861, and after listening to a message from Jeff. Davis, that conven-
tion voted 39 to 35 not to secede from the Uniou. This last convention decided to pro-
vide for a vote of the people on August 1, 1861. and adjourned to meet August 17. On
receiving the news of the firing on Port Sumter the convention was reconvened at
the instance of the governor, and May 6, 1831, passed an ordnance of secession by a
vote of 69 to 1. (Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 348-486.)

Florida. — Legislature voted December 1, 1860, to call a convention for January 3,
1861, and January 10 passed an ordinance of secession by yeas 62, nays 7, many dele-
gates expressly elected as Unionists voting for secession. (Ibid., vol. 1, p. 347.)

Georgia. — Was the first State to follow South Carolina. Legislature passed au act
November 13, 1860, appropriating §1,000 000 to arm and equip the State, and called a
convention for Jauuary 9, 1861. On the 18th it passed ordinance of secession by a
vote of 208 to 89, A. H. Stephens and Herschel V. Johnson voting no, though the day
previous a resolution declaring it to be the right and duty of Georgia to secede, was
adopted by a vote of 165 to 130, and on March 16 following it ratified the confederate
constitution by a vote of 96 to 5. (Ibid., vol, 1, p. 347.)

Louisiana. — Legislature met December 10, 1860, and called a convention for December
17. On the 26th of January, 1861, it passed an ordinance of secession by a vote of 103
to 17. The convention voted 84 to 45 to submit the ordinance of secession to a vote of
the people. The popular vote stood 20,448 for secession to 17,296 against, only two-
fifths of the vote cast for President just before. (Ibid., vol. 1, 348.)

Mississippi. — Legislature assembled November 26, I860, and fixed upon December 20
as date of election of delegates to a convention ; the same to meet January 7, 1861. On
January 9 it passed an ordinance of secession by a vote of 84 to 15. The slave popu-
lation of Mississippi was at that time next to that of South Carolina. (Ibid., vol. 1, pp.
347, 348.)

North Carolina. — Legislature called a convention in November, 1860. This conven-
tion was strongly for the Union, and December 22, 1860, adjourned, having provided
that it should not again meet. A State's-right convention was called for March 22,
1881, but no action was taken. After the firing on Fort Sumter, the governor called
an extra session of the legislature for May 1, which called a convention for May 20,
1861, the delegates to be elected May 13. On that day an ordinance of secession was
passed by a unanimous vote, inspired largely by a resolution reciting grossly false
statements. (Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 347, 485.)

South Carolina. — Legislature called for November 5, 1860, and a convention was
called for December 17, delegates to be elected on the 6th of December. Ou the 20th
of December an ordinance of secession was reported from a committee of seven, and
immediately passed without dissent, the yeas being 169. (Ibid., vol. 1, p. 347.)

Tennessee. — Legislature met Jauuary 7, 1861. On the 19th it decided to call a con-
vention, subject to a vote of the people. That vote was taken early in March, and on
the 10th the result was officially proclaimed as follows : for the Union, 91,803 ; for dis-
union, 24,749 ; a Union majority of 67,054, many counties not rendering any returns.

After the firing on Fort Sumter, the legislature, on May 1, 1861, secretly adopted a
resolution authorizing the appointment of " three commissioners ou the part of Ten-
nessee, to enter into a military league with the authorities of the Confederate States,
and with the authorities of such other slave-holding States as may wish to enter into
it; having in view the protection and defense of the entire South against the war
which is now being carried on against it." These commissioners framed a convention
" between the State of Tennessee and the Confederate States of America," which prac-
tically placed the military force of the State under the control and direction of the-
Confederate States, and turned over to said Confederate States all the public property,.

'214

ALIEN CLAIMS.

and future attempts at revolt would stimulate them to no earnest resist-
ance to prevent it.

Grotius, referring to foreign invasion and the liability of an invaded
city to make compensation, assigns as a reason why " no action [that is,

naval stores, and munitions, of war belonging to the State of Tennessee, which had
been acquired from the United States.

This convention was submitted to the legislature, in secret session, and was ratified
in the senate by yeas 14, nays 6, absent or not voting 5 ; in the house by yeas 43, nays
15, absent or not voting 18. On the preceding day the legislature had passed an ordi-
nance of secession, to be submitted to the people June 8, 1861. The State was covered
with confederate soldiers, so that freedom of opinion and expression on the side of the
Union was completely crushed out, as is illustrated by the following article from the
Louisville Journal of May 13, 1861.

The Louisville Journal of May 13 said :

" The spirit of secession appears to have reached its culminating po int in Tennessee.
Certainly the fell spirit has as yet reached no higher point of outrageous tyranny.
The whole of the late proceeding in Tennessee has been as gross an outrage as ever
was perpetrated by the worst tyrant of all the earth. The whole secession movement,
on the part of the legislature of that State, has been lawless, violent, and tumultuous.
The pretense of submitting the ordinance of secession to the vote of the people of the
State, after placing her military power and resources at the disposal and under the
command of the Confederate States, without any authority from the people, is as bit-
ter and insolent a mockery of popular rights as the human mind could invent."

On the 24th of June, Governor Harris issued his proclamation, declaring that the
vote of the 8th had resulted as follows :

Separa-
tion.

No sepa-
ration.

14,780

58, 265

29, 127

2,741

32, 923

8,198

6, 117

Total

104, 913

47, 238

A convention was held at Greenville, in East Tennessee, in which thirty-one coun-
ties were represented. This convention adopted a resolution which declared the re-
sult of the election as in no sense " expressive of the will of a majority of the freemen
of Tennessee." (Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 481, 482", 483, 484.)

Texas. — Convention assembled January 28, 1861, and passed ordinance of secession,
yeas 166, nays 7, February 1, 1861, which was submitted to popular vote snd ratified
by a considerable majority, in many districts it being safer to vote secession than not
vote at all, and not to vote at all rather than vote Union. (Ibid., vol. 1, page 348.)

Virginia.— Legislature met January 7, 1861, on call of Governor Fletcher ; and, on
the 13th, passed a bill calling a convention, a Union majority being returned. April
4 the convention decided, by a vote of 89 to 45, not to pass an ordinance of secession.
Subsequently, April 17, three days after the firing on Fort Sumter, the convention
passed an ordinance of secession by a vote of 88 to 55, the convention being largely
influenced by an act of the confederate congress forbidding the importation of slaves
from States out of the confederacy, a blow at Virginia's most important and productive
branch of her industry. (Ibid., vol. 1, pp. 348, 452.)

The Louisville Journal of June 1 said :

" The vote of Virginia last week on the question of secession was a perfect mockery.
The State was full of troops from other States of the confederacy, while all the Vir-
ginia secessionists, banded in military companies, were scattered in various places to
overawe the friends of Union or drive them from the polls. The Richmond conven-
tion, in addition to other acts of usurpation, provided that polls should be opened in
all the military encampments, besides the ordinary voting-places. * * *

No man voted against secession on Thursday last but at the peril of being lynched or
arrested as an incendiary, dangerous to the State."

West Virginia. — The people of West Virginia hostile to the confederacy met at King-
wood May 4, 1861. A similar meeting was held at Wheeling May 5, and another May
13, 1861 ; on the 13th, a convention of delegates, representing thirty-five counties of
West Virginia, and, after calling a provisional convention for June 11, adjourned on
the 15th. June 20 a unanimous vote in favor of ultimate separation was cast, the

■ALIEN CLAIMS. 215

no claim] may be brought against a city for damages by war, " that it
is " in order to make every man more careful to defend liis own." 65

Vattel assigns as reasons that the damages would be so great that
"the public finances would soon be exhausted. * * * Besides, these
indemnifications would be liable to a thousand abuses, and there would
be no end of the particulars. It is therefore to be presumed no such
thing was ever intended." 66

There is a maxim, too, the force of which cannot be overlooked : Stilus
populi swprema lex.

It is a principle of law, applicable alike to nations and individuals,
that there is no wrong without a remedy. A nation lias its rights— its
remedies.

Citizens have their rights and remedies as well when a right of per-
son or property is invaded by the nation as by individuals. The Con-
stitution recognizes all these, leaving details to common or statutory or
international law.

The fifth article of amendments to the Constitution provides that —

No person shall be * * deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process
of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use without, just compensation.
Article V, amendment.

The phrase " due process of law," in this connection means that —

The right of the citizen to his property as well as life or liberty could only be tahjeij
away upon an open, public, and fair trial before a judicial tribunal according to the
forms prescribed by the laws of the land. 67

If there were no other provision in the Constitution on the subject of
life or property, the life of a rebel citizen could never be lawfully taken
by command of the Government, even in battle, and property for army
supplies, hospitals, and other military purposes, could never be taken for
the public use against the owner's will, except by the tedious process of
a judicial proceeding in court, in the exercise of the civil right of emi-
nent domain.

In a foreign war the Government, of course, does not organize an
army for the purpose of taking the lives of our citizens, and it may be
said that the constitutional provision referred to may in such case be
operative, and is not violated. But in a civil war the very object of
organizing an army is to take the lives of rebel citizens without any
" process of law," and the fifth article of amendments has no application
to such case.

convention having voted two days previous that the separation of Western from East-
ern Virginia was one of its paramount objects. Congress ratified the action taken,
and Jannary 6, 1862, admitted the State of West Virginia into the Union. (Ibid., vol.
1, pp. 519, 520.)

The following table exhibits the population of the States declared in insurrection in
1860, with the vote cast in each at the presidential election of that year :

• Population. Vote cast.

Alabama 964,201 90,357

Arkansas 435,450 54,053

Florida 140, 424 14, 347

Georgia 1,057,286 100,365

Louisiana 708,002 50,51(1

Mississippi 791,305 69,020

North. Carolina 992,622 96,230

South Caro ina a 703,708

Tennessee 1,109, SOI 145,333

Texas 604,215 0-J.657

Virginia 1,596,318 167,123

66 Book 3, ch. XX, sec. 8, p. 290.

<* Vattel, ch. XV, p. 403.

67 Paschal, Annotated Constitution, 260, note 257 ; Whitiug's War-Powers, 60.

11 Elects by legislature.

216 ALIEN CLAIMS.

But if it be said that on some principle recognized among nations,
justified by reason and necessity, rebels forfeit all constitutional rights,
yet some of the provisions of the fifth amendment still cannot apply to
a state of war, because a citizeivwho is conscripted against his, .will,
arrested, and carried into the army, is deprived of his " liberty '?; with-
out any " process of law." The war-power in such case is operating,
and the fifth amendment so far yields to it and is not applicable to
such case. 68

In what has been said no reference is intended to be made to the
last clause of the fifth amendment, which requires compensation for
private property taken for public use. That presents a separate in-
quiry as to what is a "public use," and whether compensation is to be
made by force of that clause or on general principles of international
law.

Since war could not be carried on if all the provisions of the fifth
amendment applied in time and on the theater of war, the Constitution,
in view of the fact that war would or might exist, gives to Congress
the power —

" to define and punish " offenses against the law of nations; "

" to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning
captures on land and water ; "
" to raise and support armies; "
1 ' to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,"

and makes other equally emphatic provisions relative to a state o f
war. 69

The Constitution recognizes, and, for their appropriate uses, adopts
" the laws of nations," and these include the laws of war.

The laws of war, equally with the amendments to the Constitution, de-
termine certain rights of person and property. Here, then, in the Oon-
utitution are two systems of law, each having a purpose. By well-known
legal rules of construction they are to be construed in pari materia ;
effect is to be given to each, so that neither shall fail of having an object
or be defeated in its application to that object exclusively, when neces-
sary to accomplish it.

Both systems of law cannot have full or exclusive force, effect, and
operation at the same time and place or over the same rights of person
and property. 70

The laws of peace, and the amendments to the Constitution for the
security of life and property, apply in time of peace and in time of war
where no war or state of war exists. 71

But where war is actually flagrant, or a state of war and the exercise
of military authority exist, the laws of war prevail ; and, so far as clearly
necessary for all purposes of the war, they are so far exclusive that no
antagonistic law or exercise of jurisdiction can be allowed. 72

It is not to be inferred from this that there is no protection for life or
property. The laws of peace, the ordiuary tribunals, may be allowed,

0P Tn ex-parte Milligan, 4 Wallace, 137, Chief- Justice Chase said : " The Constitution
itself provides for military government as well as civil government. And we do not
understand it to be claimed that the civil safeguards of the Constitution have applica-
tion incases within the proper sphere of the former.'" P. 137. (See 11 Opinions, 297.)

69 Whiting's War Powers, 27.

™ Whiting's War Powers, 51.

71 Ex-parte Milligan, 4 Wallace, 127.

This view is taken in Grant vs. U. S., 1 N. & H. Court Claims, 44 ; hut that case
cannot he sustained in some other respects.

72 In ex parte Milligan, 4 Wallace, 127, the test applied as to whether the laws of war
were in force quo ad rights of person, was whether the civil courts were open, and it was
held that the court was the judge of this. And see Coke, Com. Lit., lib. 3, ch. 6, sec.
412, p. [249 &.]

ALIEN CLAIMS. 217

even on the theater of war, to be operative, so far as practicable. And
in all cases the laws 73 of nations, including the laws of war, promise pro-
tection to life and property, as clearly and as sacred as if written in
plain terms in the Constitution. The laics of war are, therefore, consti-
tutional laivs, as obligatory for their purposes as any other.

Loyal men residing in loyal States during the rebellion but having
property, real or personal, in States proclaimed in rebellion, held it not
as enemies, but nevertheless subject to the laws of war as affecting
loyal citizens in a theater of war. 74

Prom what has been said it will be seen that the laws of war pre-
vailed —

1. Generally in the eleven States proclaimed in rebellion, subject to
some limitations, from the commencement to the close of the state of war.

2. In large portions of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and West Vir-
ginia, during a less period, including only the actual state of war.

3. In the District of Columbia, while under martial law.

4. In a small portion of Ohio and Indiana, for a few days, during the
actual existence of the " Morgan raid."

5. In a small portion of Pennsylvania, during the actual existence of
Lee's invasion and the battle of Gettysburgh. '

The citizens of the eleven seceded States, for the period of war and
by strict law, can only claim those rights of property accorded by the
law of nations under the principles of the Constitution.

Elsewhere where actual war existed, and during its legal continuance,
the rights of person and of property, so far as they were interrupted by
warlike operations, are, in considering the liability of the Government,
to be determined by the laws of war.

The laws of war affecting rights of person and property exist inde-
pendent of legislative sanction back of the Constitution itself. It does
not make but recognizes them as existing and known laws. This com-
mon law of war is liable to change by treaty stipulations, by circum-
stances, and for all internal purposes Congress may, and during the
rebellion did, materially change it, 75 and has since wisely ameliorated 76

Lawrence's Wheaton 526, (2 Am. ed.) Lawrence says this is the English rule, and
applies to 'the seizure of real estafe, "so as the courts were shut up, et silent inter leges
arnia." See U. S. vs. Russell, 13 Wallace, 627. As to this see note 113 post.

Grant vs. U. S., 1 N. & H. Court Claims, 41.

But the mere fact that under the protection of military power civil courts aided the
administration of justice could not exclude rightful military authority. The civil
courts were open more or less in the District of Columbia and some of the States during
a portion of the period of the rebellion.

Upon the same principle as in the text either branch of Congress, has power to
punish for contempts, and the 5th amendment of the Constitution has no application
to it. See proceedings in House of Representatives, January, 1875, in relation to Rich-
ard B. Irwin.

73 There is a summary of these by Francis Lieber, p. 441 et seq., in Scott's Digest of
Military Laws United States, and in the appendix to report of trial assassination of
President Lincoln.

74 Lawrence's Wheaton, 565-576 ; The Gray Jacket, 5 Wallace, 342-364 ; Whiting's
War Powers, (43d ed., 1872,) p. 582 ; Attorney-General's opinion, November 24, 1865 ;
11 Opinions, 405 ; Elliott's claim, September 7, 1868 ; 12 Opinions, 488 ; Prize cases, 2
Black, 674 ; Senator Carpenter, in Cong. Record of March 20, 1874, p. 22.

75 U. S. vs. Klein, 13 Wallace, 128.

'6 Act March 12, 1863—12 Stat., 591 ; Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wallace, 404; act
May 18, 1872—17 Stat., 134 ; act March 3, 1871—16 Stat., 524; act May 11, 1872—17
Stat., 97 ; act March 3, 1873—17 Stat., 577 ; House Mis. Doc. 16— 2d sess. 42 Cong. ; Mis.
Doc. 21, Mis. Doc. 213, Mis. Doc. 218, all, 2 sess. 42 Cong. ; Mis. Doc. 12, 3 sess. 42
Cong. ; Joint Res. No. 50 — 1 sess. 39 Cong., June 18, 1866 ; Joint Res. No. 99 — 1 sess.
39 Cong., July 28, 1866 ; ait July 4, 1864, ch. 240, 1 sess, 38 Cong. U. S. vs. Klein, 13
Wallace, 128.

218 ALIEN CLAIMS.

its rules or made concessions gratuitously in the interest of justice,
humanity, or benevolence.

But the right of military authorities to seize, use, or destroy prop-
erty by the laws of war, is not abridged merely because Congress has
provided other modes of seizing and disposing of property. A statute
which does not by negative words necessarily abolish a common-law
rule leaves the latter in force. 77

As during and since the war rights of property were and are affected
by the laws of war and by statutes independent of them, it becomes
necessary to consider rights of property as affected by both classes.

Questions may arise in several classes of cases relating to compensa-
tion for property, real or personal, taken, used, destroyed, or damaged on
land or sea :

1. By the enemy.

2. By the Government military forces in battle, or wantonly or unau-
thorized by troops.

3. By the temporary occupation of, injuries to, and destruction of
property caused by actual and necessary Government military opera-
tions in flagrant war.

4. And as to property useful to the enemy, seized and destroyed, or
damaged, to prevent it from falling into their hands.

Questions arise as to these in wars with foreign nations, in the late
civil war as to States proclaimed in rebellion, in other States and Terri-
tories and the District of Columbia, during the period of flagrant war,
and the succeeding state of war, in behalf of resident and non-resident
crtizens, aliens, and corporations.

Upon ordinary claims the Government is not liable for interest unless
by contract so providing. 78

77 Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 "Wallace, 404, held " cotton in the southern rebel dis-
tricts was a proper subject of capture by the Government during the rebellion on gen-
eral principles of law relating to war, though private property; and the legislation of
Congress authorized such captures."

See Planters' Bank vs. Union Bank, 16 Wallace, 496. Sedgwick on Construction of
Statutes.

Congress has power to make rules concerning captures on land. But this does not
exclude the exercise of the military right of capture by the common law of war :
Brown vs. U. S., 8 Cranch, 110, 228, 229.

78 In an able article in the Boston Law Review, it is said :

"A few leading principles affecting the responsibility of the United States, which
have now received the sanction of judicial approval, may be briefly noticed.

"First, the United States is not liable for interest unless upon special agreement, as
in the public loans. Such was the uniform rule, from the earliest times, in accordance
with the advice of the Attorneys-General. The question was fully discussed in Todd's
case, and the principle sustained by the court. It was held that the right of individ-
uals to interest is merely conventional in its origin, depending upon law and usage,
and that neither law nor usage can be found to render government liable. As this
decision has been re-affirmed, and an act of Congress, recently passed, forbids the pay-
ment of interest on Government claims, the principle is finally settled. It was also
held, in Keith's case, that a resolution of Congress, directing the settlement of au ac-
count 'upon principles of equity and justice,' does not imply the payment of interest."
(American Law Review, Boston, July, 1867, vol. 1, p. 657 j Court of Claims Reports, &c.)

In an argument by John A. Andrew and Albert G. Browne, jr., it is said :

"Interest has always been paid upon the advances of the States for war purposes.

" The Revolutionary war.- — By the acts of Congress of 5th August, 1790, and May 31 ,
1794, providing for the settlement of their advances during the revolutionary war,
interest was allowed and paid.

" The war o/1812-'15. — The whole subject of interest upon advances of States, dur-
ing the war of 1812-15, was discussed in 1824-'25, in a message of President Monroe,
and accompanying papers, upon the case of Virginia. (See Senate Documents, 18th
Congress, 1st session, 3d volume, document 64.)

" The act of March 3, 1825, (United States Laws, vol. 4, page 132,) was the result, and
settled the principle upon which interest has been allowed for advances in 1812-'15,

ALIEN CLAIMS. 219

The fourth article of the treaty of peace of September 3, 1783, be-
tween the United States and Great Britain (8 Stat., 80) provides that —

Creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of
the full value in sterling money of all hona-fide debts heretofore contracted.

The subject of interest under this article is discussed in a volume en-
titled :

" Secret journals of the acts and proceedings of Congress, from the first ineeiing
thereof to the dissolution of the confederation by the adoption of the Constitution of
the United States. Published under the direction of the President of the United
States, conformably to resolution of Congress of March 27, 1818, and April 21, 1820.
vol. 4. Boston : Printed and published by Thomas B. Wait, 1821."

In a report to Congress therein found, it is said :

In short, your secretary does not know of any act of Congress whereby debts due
from Americans to Britons were either extinguished, remitted, or confiscated, and
therefore concludes, that the fourth article of the treaty must be understood not as
reviving or restoring those debts, but as considering them to be and remain exactly
and precisely in their pristine and original state, both with respect to extent and
obligation. If this conclusion be just, your secretary can perceive no ground for the
singular reasons and questions that have prevailed respecting the payment of interest
claimed by British creditors in virtue of express contracts between them and their
American debtors. However harsh and severe the exaction of this interest, consider-
ng the war and its effects, may be and appear, yet the treaty must be taken and ful-
alled with its bitter as well as its sweets; and although we were not obliged to accept
peace on those terms, yet having so accepted it, we cannot now invalidate those terms
or stipulations, nor with honor or justice refuse to comply with them. Much better
would it be for the United States, either severally or jointly, by their bounty to relieve
those suffering and deserving individuals on whom the performance of this article'may
press too hard, than by reasonings and comments which neither posterity or impartial
contemporaries can think just, to permit our national reputation for probity, candor,
and good faith, to be tarnished.

Your secretary will conclude what he has to say on the subject of interest with a few
short remarks.

It appears to him that there are only three cases in which interest can with justice

and since. "Virginia was allowed interest, but not ' on any sum on which she has not
paid interest.' Interest, upon this rule, has been allowed to every State, except Mas-
sachusetts, which made advances in the war of 1812-'15.

" See the following cases :

" Maryland, United States Laws, vol. 4, page 161. Delaware, United States Laws,
vol. 4, page 175. New York, United States Laws, vol. 4, page 192. Pennsylvania,
United States Laws, vol. 4, page 241. South Carolina, United States Laws, vol. 4,
page 499.

" The same principle was applied to the case of the advances of the city of Balti-
more. (See act of April 2, 1830.)

"Indian and other wars. — See the following cases of the allowance of, interest : Ala-
bama, United States Laws, vol. 9, page 344. Georgia, United States Laws, vol. 9, page
626. Washington Territory, United States Laws, vol. 17, page 429. New Hampshire,
United States Laws, vol. 10, page 1.

" The Mexican war. — The rule of allowing interest has been applied not only to States,
but to corporations and individuals. See (U. S. Laws, vol. 9, p. 236) third section of
the act to refund advances, &c, for the Mexican war, as follows :

" ' That, in refunding moneys under this act, and the resolution which it amends, it
shall be lawful to pay interest at the rate of six per centum per annum on all sums
advanced by States, corporations, or individuals, in all cases where the State, corpora-
tion, or individual paid or lost the interest, or is liable to pay it.' (See H. Rep. No.
119, 38th Cong., 1st sess.)"

The interest on the Massachusetts advances was paid by act of July 8, 1870, (16
Stat., 197. See Sumner's Sen. Eep. No. 4, 1st sess. 41st Cong., April 1, 1869 ; Ela's H.
Eep. No. 76, 2d sess. 41st Cong.)

Senate Mis. Doc. No. 121, 1st sess. 43d Cong., memorial of P. P. Pitchlynn.

In Hale's Eep. of November 30, 1873, to the Secretary of State, of claims before the
American British Mixed Commission under Article 12 of the treaty of 8th May, 1871,
he says : " The commission ordinarily allowed interest at the rate of six per cent, per
annum from the date of the injury to the anticipated date of the final award." (See
Ex. Doc, part 1 , 1st sess. 43d Cong. Part 2, Foreign Affairs, p. 21, Hale's Report. And
see the British and American arguments as to interest, delivered to the Tribunal of

220 ALIEN CLAIMS.

be demanded, and that in the first of the three the courts of justice are not and ought
not to he at liberty to refuse it, viz :

1. In all cases where interest is fairly and expressly contracted and agreed to be

Arbitration at Geneva, June 15, 1872, vol. 3, Geneva Arbitration, being Foreign Rela-
tions of United States, part 2, 3d sess. 42d Cong., pp. 550-578.)

The following is from House Report No. 391, Forty-third Congress, first session, sub-
mitted by Mr. I. C. Parker, from the Committee on Appropriations, (to accompany bill
H. R.2189:)

The Committee on Appropriations, to whom was referred the till (H. B. 2189) " to provide for
the payment of the aivard made by the Senate of the United Htatat.es in favor of the Choc-
taw Nation of Indians, on the 9th day of March, 1859," respectfully submit the following
report :

The object and purpose of this bill is to provide for the satisfaction of an award
made by the Senate of the United States in favor of the Choctaw Nation of Indians, on
the 9th day of March, 1859. This award was made iu pursuance of treaty stipulations,
and was to carry into effect obligations assumed by the United States to the Choctaw
Nation, under the treaty with the said nation concluded June 22, 1855. So much of
the said treaty as relates to the manner in which the indebtedness of the United
States to the said nation should be ascertained and determined is as follows :

"Article XI. The Government of the United States not being prepared to assent to
the claim set up under the treaty of September 27, 1830, and so earnestly jontended
for by the Choctaws as a rule of settlement, but justly appreciating the sacrifices,
faithful services, and general good conduct of the Choctaw people, and being desirous
that their rights and claims agaiust the United States shall receive a just, fair, and
liberal consideration, it is therefore stipulated that the following questions be submit-
ted for adjudication to the Senate of the United States :

'"First. Whether the Choctaws are entitled to, or shall be allowed, the proceeds of
the sale of the land ceded by them to the United States by the treaty of September 27,
1830, deducting therefrom the costs of their survey and sale, and all just aud proper
expenditures and payments under the provisions of said treaty ; and, if so, what price
per acre shall be allowed to the Choctaws for the lands remaining unsold, in order that
a final settlement with them may be promptly effected ; or,

'"Second. Whether obe Choctaws shall be allowed a gross sum in further aud full
satisfaction of all their claims, national and individual, against the United States ; and,
if so, how much.' "

"Article XII. In case the Senate shall award to the Choctaws the net proceeds
of the lands ceded as aforesaid, the same shall be received by them iu full satisfac-
tion of all their claims against the United States, whether national or individual,
arising under any former treaty ; and the Choctaws shall thereupon become liable
and bound to pay all such individual claims as may be adjudged by the proper authori-
ties of the tribe to be equitable and just; the settlement and payment to be made
with the advice aud under the direction of the United States agent for the tribe;
and so much of the fund awarded by the Senate to the Choctaws as the proper au-
thorities thereof shall ascertain and determine to be necessary for the payment of the
just liabilities of the tribe shall, on their requisition, be paid over to them by the
United States. But should the Senate allow a gross sum in further and full satisfac-
tion of all their claims, whether national or individual, against the United States, the
same shall be accepted by the Choctaws, and they shall thereupon become liable for
and bound to pay all the individual claims as aforesaid ; it being expressly under-
stood that the adjudication and decision of the Senate shall be final."

(11 Stat, at Large, page 611.)

In pursuance of this agreement between the two contracting parties, the Senate of
the United States, acting in the character of arbitrator, or as commissiout rs under a
treaty, proceeded to an adjudication of the questions submitted to it under the eleventh
article of said treaty ; and on the 9th day of March, 1859, the matter having been pre-
viously considered and investigated by the Senate, the following award was made and
declared in favor of the Choctaw Nation :

"Whereas the eleventh article of the treaty of June 22, 1855, with the Choctaw and
Chickasaw Indians, provides that the following questions be submitted for decision to
the Senate of the United States :

" ' First. Whether the Choctaws are entitled to or shall be allowed the proceeds of
the sale of the lands ceded by them to the United States by the treaty of September
27, 1WS0, deducting therefrom the costs of their survey and sale, and all just and proper
expenditures and payments under the provisions of said treaty ; aud, if so, what price
per acre shall be allowed to the Choctaws for the lands remaining unsold, in order that
a final settlement with them may be promptly effected ; or,

"'Secondly. Whether the Choctaws shall be allowed a gross sum in farther and full

ALIEN CLAIMS. 221

paid. In such oases the debtor is unquestionably bound to pay it, and ought not to
bo absolved or excused from it by any act of legislature. Iu the opinion of your sec-
retary every legislature deviates from the reason and limits of their institution, when

satisfaction of all their claims, national and individual, against the United States ;
and, if so, how much ? '

" Resolved, That the Choctaws be allowed the proceeds of the sale of such lands as
have been sold by the United States on the 1st day of January last, deducting there-
from the costs of their survey and sale, and all proper expenditures and payments un-
der said treaty, excluding the reservations allowed and secured, and estimating the
scrip issued in lieu of reservations at the rate of $1.25 per acre ; and, further, that they
he also allowed twelve and a half cents per acre for the residue of said lands.

" Resolved, That the Secretary of the Interior cause an account to be stated with the
Choctaws, showing what amount is due them according to the above-prescribed prin-
ciples of settlement, and report the same to Congress."

(Seuate Journal, 2d session 35th Congress, page 493.)

In pursuance of this award, the Secretary of the Interior, as directed by the second
of the above resolutions, proceeded to state an account between the United States and
the Choctaw Nation, upon the principles decided by the Senate as the basis of such
account, as declared in the firBt resolution ; and the result of such accounting, as shown
in the report of the Secretary of the Interior, was an indebtedness on the part of the
United States to the Choctaw Nation amounting to two million nine, hundred and eighty-
one thousand two hundred and forty-seven dollars and thirty cents.

The Committee on Indian Affairs of the House of Representatives, in its report made
at the last session of Congress, speaking of this award, used the following language :

"By every principle of law, equity, and business transaction, the United States is
bound by the accounting of the Secretary of the Interior, showing $2,981,247.30 due to
the Choctaws at the date of the Secretary's report.

" First. The Senate was the umpire, and, in the language of the treaty of 1855, which
made it such, its decision was to be final.

" Secondly. The Seuate, in the exercise of its power under the treaty of 1855, chose
to allow the net proceeds of the land as the better of the two modes of settlement pro-
posed by that treaty, and not to allow a sum in gross.

" Thirdly. The Senate directed the Secretary of the Interior to make the accounting,
which he did, May 28, 1860, as shown above.

"Fourthly. The Senate did not, as umpire, or otherwise, reject this accounting ; but,
ou March 2, 1861, Congress made an appropriation of $500,000 on it, and the Senate has
not, since the • Secretary's report, rejected any part of it, though near fourteen years
have elapsed."

(House Report No. 80, Forty-second Congress, third session.)

The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs having had this subject under consideration,
at the last session of Congress, speaking of thi/s award and of the obligation of the United
States to pay it, said :

" If the case were re-opened and adjudicated as an original question by an impartial
umpire, a much larger sum would be found due to the said Indians, which they would
undoubtedly recover were they in a condition to compel justice."

Your committee, from a most careful examination of the whole subject, concur in
these conclusions, and refer to them only for the purpose of showing that the honesty,
the fairness, or the integrity of the award thus made in favor of the Choctaw Nation can-
not successfully be called in question or denied. It was a final settlement and award,
conclusive alike upon the Choctaw Nation and the United States. Neither party to the
treaty could rightfully disavow it or refuse^o be bound by it.

The United States has recognized the conclusiveness of this award by legislative
enactment; for in the Indian appropriation bill, approved March 2, 1861, it was pro-
vided that the sum of $500,000 should be paid to the said nation on account of this
award. (12 Stat, at Large, p. 238.)

Iu pursuance of this act the sum of $250,000 iu money was paid to the said nation ;
but the bonds for a like amount, which the Secretary of the Treasury was directed to
issue, were not delivered on account of the interruption of intercourse with the said
nation caused by the war of the rebellion. These bonds have never been issued or
delivered to the said nation, and all that has ever been paid to the said nation on
account of the said award, therefore, is the sum of $250,000, paid (under the said act
of March 2, 1861,) on the 12th day of April, 1861. The balance remaining unpaid on
the said award since the l'«.th day of April, 1861, therefore, is $2,731,247.30.

THE OBLIGATION TO PAY INTEREST ON THE AMOUNT AWARDED THE CHOCTAW. NATION.

Your committee have given this question a most careful examination, and are obliged
to admit and declare that the United States cannot, in equity and justice, nor without

222 ALIEN CLAIMS.

they assume and exercise the power of annulling or altering bona-fide contracts between
individuals.

2. Interest may be claimed in certain cases by custom, viz, in cases where it has long
been usual for merchants to expect and to allow interest on debts, after the stipulated

national dishonor, refuse to pay interest upon the money so long withheld from the
Choctaw Nation. Some of the reasons which force us to this conclusion are as follows:

1. The United States acquired the lands of the Choctaw Nation, on account of which
the Baidaward was made, on the 27th day of September, 1830, and it has held them
for the benefit of its citizens ever siuce.

2. The United States had in its Treasury, many years prior to the 1st day of January,
1859, the proceeds resultiug from the sale of the said lands, and have enjoyed the use
of such moneys from that time until now.

3. The award in favor of the Choctaw Nation was an award under a treaty, and made
by a tribunal whose adjudication was final and conclusive. (Comegys vs. Vasse, 1
Peters, 193.)

4. The obligations of the United States, under its treaties with Indian nations, have
been declared to be equally sacred with those made by treaties with foreign nations.
(Worcester rs. The State of Georgia, 6 Peters, 582.) And such treaties, Mr. Justice
Miller declares, are to be construed liberally. (The Kansas Indians, 5 Wall., 737-760.)

5. The engagements and obligations of a treaty are to be interpreted in accordance
with the principles of the public law, and not in accordance with any municipal code or
executive regulation. No statement of this proposition can equal the clearness or
force with which Mr. Webster declares it in his opinion on the Florida claims, attached
to the report in the case of Letitia Humphreys. (Senate report No. 93, 1st session Thir-
ty-sixth Congress, page 16.) Speaking of the obligation of a treaty, he said :

"A treaty is the supreme law of the land. . It cau neither be limited, nor restrained,
nor modified, nor altered. It stands on the ground of national contract, and is declared by
tlie Constitution to be the supreme law of the land, and this gives it a character higher than
any act of ordinary legislation. It enjoys an immunity from the operation and effect
of all such legislation.

"A second general proposition, equally certain and well established, is that the terms
and the language used in a treaty are always to be interpreted according to the law of
nations, and not according to any municipal code. This rule is of universal applica-
tion. When two nations speak to each other, they use the language of nations. Their
intercourse is regulated, and their mutual agreements and obligations are to be interpreted,
by that code only which we usually denominate the public law of the world. This
public law is not one thing at Rome, another at London, and a third at Washington.
. It is the same in all civilized states, everywhere speaking with the same voice and
the same authority."

Again, in the same opinion, Mr. Webster used the following language :

" We are construing a treaty, a solemn compact between nations. This compact be-
tween nations, this treaty, is to be construed and interpreted throughout its whole
length and breadth, in its general provisions, and in all its details, in every phrase,
■sentence, word, and syllable in it, by the settled rules of the law of nations. No muni-
cipal code can touch it, no local municipal law affect it, uo practice of an administrative
department come near it. Over all its terms, over all its doubts, over all its ambigui-
ties, if it have any, the law of nations ' sits arbitress.'"

6. By the principles of the public law, interest is always allowed as indemnity for
the delay of payment of an ascertained and fixed demand. There is no conflict of
authority upon this question among the writers on public law.

This rule is laid down by Rutherford in % these terms :

" In estimating the damages which any one has sustained, when such things as he has
a perfect right to are unjustly taken from him, or withholdex, or intercepted, we are
to consider not only the value of the thing itself, but the value likewise of the fruits
or profits that might have arisen from it. He who is the owner of the thing is like-
wise the owner of the fruits or profits. So that it is as properly a damage to be de-
prived of them, as it is to be deprived of the thing itself." (Rutherford's Institutes,
Book I, chap. 17, sec. 5.)

In laying dowu the rule for the satisfaction of.injuries in the case of reprisals, in
making which the strictest caution is enjoined not to transcend the clearest rules of
justice, Mr. Wheaton, in his work on the law of nations, says :

" If a nation has taken possession of that which belongs to another, if it refuses to
pay A debt, to repair an injury, or to give adequate satisfaction for it, the latter may
seize something of the former and apply it to [his] its advantage, till it obtains pay-
ment of what is due, together with interest and damages." (Wheaton on International
Law, p. 341.)

A great writer, Domat, thus states the law of reason and justice on this point :

" It is a natural consequence of the general engagement to do wrong to no one, that
they who cause any damages, by failing in the performance of that engagement, are

ALIEN CLAIMS. 223

term and time of credit and payment has expired. This custom, in the ordinary course
of things, is reasonable ; for equity demands that he who does not pay at the appointed
day should thereafter pay interest to his creditor, as well by way of compensation for
the disappointment as for the use of the money. Whether the reason of this custom

obliged to repair the damage which they have done. Of what nature soever the dam-
age may be, and from what cause soever it may proceed, he who is answerable for it
ought to repair it by an amende proportionable either to his fault or to his offense, or
other cause on his part, and to the loss which has happened thereby." (Domat, Part I,
Book III, Tit. V, 1900, 1903.)

"Interest" is in reality, injustice, in reason, and in law, too, a part of the debt due.
It includes, in Pothier's words, the loss which one has suffered, and the gain which he
has failed to make. The Koman law defines it as " quantum mea interfruit ; id est,
quantum mihi abest, quantumque lucraci potui." The two elements of it were termed
" lucrum cessans et damnum emergens." The payment of both is necessary to a com-
plete indemnity.

Interest, Domat. says, is the reparation or satisfaction which he who owes a sum of
money is bound to make to his creditor for the damage which he does him by not pay-
ing him the mojney he owes him.

It is becauserof the universal recognition of the justice of paying, for the retention
of moneys indisputably due and payable immediately, a rate of interest considered to
be a fair equivalent for the loss of its use, that judgments for money everywhere bear
interest. The creditor is deprived of this profit, and the debtor has it. What greater
wrong could the law permit than that the debtor should be at liberty indefinitely to
delay payment, and, during the delay, have the use of the creditor's moneys for noth-
ing ? They are none the less the creditor's moneys because the debtor wrongfully
withholds them. He holds them, in reality and essentially, in trust; and a trustee is always
bound to pay interest upon moneys so held.

In closing these citations from the public law, the language of Chancellor Kent
seems eminently appropriate. He says: "In cases where the principal jurists agree,
the presumption will be very great in favor of the solidity of their maxims, and no civ-
ilized nation that does not arrogantly set all ordinary law and justice at defiance will venture
to disregard the uniform sense of established writers on international law."

7th. The practice of the United States in discharging obligations resulting from
treaty-stipulations has always been jn accord with these well-established principles.
It has exacted the payment of interest from other nations in all cases where the obliga-
tion to make payment resulted from treaty-stipulations, and it has acknowledged that
obligation in all cases where a like liability was imposed upon it.

The most important and leading cases which have occurred are those which arose
between this country and Great Britain: the first under the treaty of 1794, and the
other under the first article of the treaty of Ghent. In the latter case the United
States, under the first article of the treaty, claimed compensation for slaves and other
property taken away from the country by the British forces at the close of the war in
1815. A difference arose between the two governments, which was submitted to the
arbitrament of the Emperor of Russia, who decided that "the United States of Amer-
ica are entitled to a just indemnification from Great Britain for all private property
carried away by the British forces." A joint commission was appointed for the purpose
of hearing the claims of individuals under this decision. At an early stage of the pro-
ceedings the question arose as to whether interest was a part of that "just indemnifica-
tion " which the decision of the Emperor of Russia contemplated. The British com-
missioner denied the obligation to pay interest. The American commissioner, Langdon
Cheves, insisted upon its allowance, and, in the course of his argument upon this ques-
tion, said :

"Indemnification means a re-imbursemeut of a loss sustained. If the property
taken away on the 17th of February, 1815, were returned now uninjured it would not
re-imburse the loss sustained by the taking away and consequent detention ; it would
not be an indemnification. The claimant would still be unindemnified for the loss of
the use of his property for ten years, which, considered as money, is nearly equivalent
to the original value of the principal thing."

Again he says :

"If interest be an incident usually attendant on the delay of payment of debts,
damages are equally an incident attendant ou the withholding an article of property."

In consequence of this disagreement, the commission was broken up, but the claims
were subsequently compromised by the payment of $1,204,960, instead of $1,250,000, as
claimed by Mr. Cheves; and of the sum paid by Great Britain, $418,000 was expressly
for interest.

An earlier case, in which this principle of interest was involved, arose under the
treaty of 1794 between the United States and Great Britain, in which there was a stip-
ulation on the part of the British government in relation to certain losses and damages
sustained by American merchants and other citizens, by reason of the illegal or irregu-

224 ALIEN CLAIMS.

can apply in time of war, or whether the equity of the demand of interest in virtue of
the custom is, or is not, overbalanced by the equity of refusing it by reason of the
effects of the war, are questions proper for the consideration of the jury ; and your sec-
retary sees nothing in the treaty to prevent their deciding as to them shall appear just
and right.

lar capture of their vessels, or other property, by British cruisers ; and the seventh
article provided in substance that "full and complete compensation for the same will
be made by the British government to the said claimants."

A joint commission was instituted under this treaty, which sat in London, and by
which these claims were adjudicated. Mr. Pinekney and Mr. Gore were commissioners
on the part of the United States, and Dr. Nicholl and Dr. Swabey on the part of Great
Britain ; and it is believed that in all instances this commission allowed interest as a
part of the damage. In the case of The Betsey, one of the cases which came before
the board, Dr. Nicholl stated the rule of compensation as follows:

" To re-imburse the claimants the original cost of their property, and all the expenses
they have actually incurred, together with interest on the whole amount,, would, I think,
be a just and adequate compensation. This, I believe, is the measure of compensation
usually made by all belligerent nations, and accepted, by all neutral nations, for losses,
costs, and damages occasioned by illegal captures." ( Vide Wheaton's iSfeof Pinckney,
p. 198 ;'also p. 265, note; and p. 371.)

By a reference to the American State Papers, Foreign Relations, vol. 2, pages 119, 120,
it will be seen by a report of the Secretary of State of the 16th February, 1798, laid
before the House of Representatives, that interest was awarded and paid on such of
these claims as had been submitted to the award of Sir William Scott and Sir John
Nicholl, as it was in all cases by the board of commissioners. In consequence of some
difference of opinion between the members of this commission, their proceedings were
suspended until 1802, when a convention was concluded between the two governments,
and the commission re-assembled, and then a question arose as to the allowance of
interest on the claims during the suspension. This the American commissioner claimed,
and though it was at first resisted by the British commissioners, yet it was finally
yielded, and interest was allowed and paid. (See Mr. King's three letters to the Sec-
retary of State, of 25th March, 1803, 23d April, 1803, and 30th April. 1803, American
State Papers, Foreign Eelations, vol. 2, pp. 387, 388.)

Another case in which this principle was involved arose under the treaty of the 27th
October, 1795, with Spain; by the twenty-first' article of which, "in order to termi-
nate all differences on account of the losses sustained by citizens of the United States
in consequence of their vessels and cargoes having been taken by the subjects of His
Catholic Majesty during the late war between Spain and France, it is agreed that all
such cases shall be referred to the final decision of commissioners, to be appointed in
the following manner," &c; the commissioners were to be chosen, one by the United
States, one by Spain, and the two were to choose a third, and the award of the com-
missioners, or any two of them, was to be final, and the Spanish government to pay
the amount in specie. This commission awarded interest as part of the damages.
(See American State Papers, vol. 2, Foreign Relations, p. 283.) So in the case of claims
of American citizens against Brazil, settled by Mr. Tudor, United States minister, in-
terest was claimed and allowed. (See Ex. Doe. No. 32, first session Twenty-fifth Con-
gress, House of Representatives, p. 249.)

Again, in the convention with Mexico of the 11th of April, 1839, by which provision
was made by Mexico for the payment of claims of American citizens for injuries to per-
sons and property by the Mexican authorities, a mixed commission was provided for,
and this commission allowed interest in all cases. (House Ex. Doc. No. 291, Twenty-
seventh Congress, second session.)

So also under the treaty with Mexico of February 2, 1848, the board of commission-
ers for the adjustment of claims under that treaty allowed interest in all cases from the
origin of the claim until the day when the commission expired.

So, also, under the convention with Colombia, concluded February 10, 1864, the com-
mission for the adjudication of claims under that treaty allowed interest in all cases
as a part of the indemnity.

So under the recent convention with Venezuela, the United States exacted interest
upon the awards of the commission, from the date of the adjournment of the commis-
sion until the payment of the awards.

The Mixed American and Mexican Commission, now in session here, allows interest
in all cases from the origin of the claim, and the awards are payable with interest.

Other cases might be shown, in which the United States, or their authorized diplo-
matic agents, have claimed interest in such cases, or where it has been paid in whole
or in part. (See Mr. Russell's letters to the Count de Engstein, of October 5, 1818, Amer-
ican Stale Papers, vol. 4, p. 639, and Proceedings under the Convention with the Two
Sicilies of October, 18.32, Elliot's Diplomatic Code, p. 625.)

It can hardly be necessary to pursue these precedents further. They sufficiently and

ALIEN CLAIMS. 225

3. Interest may be demanded, and is often given, under the idea of damages for
■wrongful and vexatious delays of payment. Every ease of this kind must stand on -its
own merits; and the treaty leaves the jury at liberty to give such a verdict as their
opinion of those merits may dictate.

Your secretary will not proceed to examine the acts complained of as infractions of

clearly show the practice of this Government with foreign nations, or with claimants
under treaties.

8th. The practice of the United States in its dealings with the various Indian tribes or
nations has been in harmony with these principles.

In all cases where money belonging to Indian nations has been retained by the
United States, it has been so invested as to produce interest, for the benefit of the
nation to which it belongs ; and such interest is annually paid to the nation who may
be entitled to receive it.

9th. The United States, in adjusting the claim of the Cherokee Nation for a balance due
as purchase-money upon lands ceded by that nation to the United States, in 1835,
allowed interest upon the balance due them, being $189,422.76, until the same was paid.

The question was submitted to the Senate of the United States as to whether inter-
est should be allowed them. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, in their report
upon this subject, used the following language :

" By the treaty of August, 1846, it was referred to the Senate to decide, and that de-
cision to be final, whether the Cherokees shall receive interest on the sums found duo
them from a misapplication of their funds to purposes with which they were not
chargeable, and on account of which improper charges the money has been withheld
from them. It has been the uniform practice of this Government to pay and demand
interest in all transactions with foreign governments, which the Indian tribes have
always been said to be both by the Supreme Court and all other branches of our Gov-
ernment, in all matters of treaty or contract. The Indians, relying upon the prompt
payment of their dues, have, in many cases, contracted debts upon the faith of it,
upon which they have paid, or are liable to pay, interest. If, therefore, they do not
now receive interest on their money so long withheld from them, they will, in effect,
have received nothing." (Senate Report No. 176, first session Thirty-first Congress,
p. 78.)

10th. That upon an examination of the precedents where Congress has passed acts
for the relief of private citizens, it will be found that, in almost every case, Congress
has directed the payment of interest, where the United States had withheld a sum of
money which had been decided by competent authority to be due, or where the amount
due was ascertained, fixed, and certain.

The following precedents illustrate and enforce the correctness of this assertion, and
sustain this proposition :

1. An act approved January 14, 1793, provided that lawful interest from the 16th of
May, 1776, shall be allowed on the sum of $200 ordered to be paid to Return J. Meigs, and
the legal representatives of Christopher Greene, deceased, by a resolve of the United
States, in Congress assembled, on the 28th of September, 1785. (6 Stat, at L., p. 11.)

2. An act approved May 31, 1794, provided for a settlement with Arthur St. Clair,
for expenses while going from New York to Fort Pitt and till his return, and for ser-
vices in the business of Indian treaties, and " allowed interest on the balance found to
be due him." (6 Stat, at L., p. 16.)

3. An act approved February 27, 1795, authorized the officers of the Treasury to issue
and deliver to Angus McLean, or his duly-authorized attorney, certificates for the
amount of $254.43, bearing interest at six per cent, from the 1st of July, 1783, being
for his services in the Corps of Sappers and Miners during the late war. (6 Stat, at L.,
p. 20.)

4. An act approved January 23, 1798, directed the Secretary of the Treasury to pay
to General Kosciusko an interest at the rate of six per cent, per annum on the sum of
$11,289.54, the amount of a certificate due to him from the United States, from the 1st
of January, 1793, to the 31st of December, 1797. (6 Stat, at L., p. 32.)

5. An act approved May 3, 1802, provided that there be paid Fulwar Skipwith the
sum of $4,550, advanced by him for the use of the United States, with interest at the
rate of six per cent, per annum from the 1st of November, 1795, at which time the ad-
vance was made. (6 Stat, at L.; p. 48.)

6. An act for the relief of John Coles, approved January 14, 1804, authorized the
proper accounting officers of the Treasury to liquidate the claim of John Coles, owner
of the ship Grand Turk, heretofore employed in the service of the United States, for
the detention of said ship at Gibraltar from the 10th of May to the, 4th of July, 1^01,
inclusive, and that he be allowed demurrage at the rate stipulated in the charter-
party, together with the interest thereon. (6 Stat, at L., p. 50.)

7. An act approved March 3, 1807, provided for a settlement of the accounts of Oliver
Pollock, formerly commercial agent for the United States at New Orleans, allowing
him certain sums and commissions, with interest until paid. (6 Stat, at L., p. 65.)

8. An act for the relief of Stephen Sayre, approved March 3, 1807, provided that the

H. Rep. 134 15

226 ALIEN CLAIMS.

this article. The first on the list is called an act of Massachusetts, passed the 9th No-
vember, 1784 ; but it was a resolution of the legislature rather than a formal act. As
the abridgment of it in the list of grievances may not be so satisfactory to Congress as
a recital of it at large, your secretary thinks it best to report it.

" Commonwealth of Massachusetts,

" In Senate, November 9, 1784.
" Whereas the payment of interest which might have accrued during the late war upon
debts due from the citizens of this or any of the United States prior to the commence-

accounting officers of the Treasury be authorized to settle the account of Stephen
Sayre, as secretary of legation at the court of Berlin, in the year 1777, with interest on
the whole sum until paid. (6 Stat, at L., p. 65.)

9. An act approved April 25, 1810, directed the accounting officers of the Treasury
to settle the account of Moses Young, as secretary of legation to Holland in 1780, and
providing that after the deduction of certain moneys paid to him, the balance, with
interest thereon, should be paid. (6 Stat, at L., p. 89.)

10. An act approved May 1, 1810, for the relief of P. C. L'Enfant, directed the Secre-
tary of the Treasury to pay to him the sum of $666, with legal interest thereon from
March 1, 1792, as a compensation for his services in laying out the plan of the city of
Washington. (6 Stat, at L., p. 92.)

11. An act approved January 10, 1812, provided that there be paid to John Burnham
the sum of $126.72, and the interest on the same since the 30th of May, 1798, which, in
addition to the sum allowed him by the act of that date, is to be considered a re-im-
bursement of the money advanced by him for his ransom from captivity in Algiers.
(6 Stat, at L, p. 101.)

12. An act approved July 1,1812, for the relief of Anna Young, required the War
Department to settle the account of Col. John Durkee, deceased, and to allow said
Anna Young, his sole heiress and representative, said seven years' half*pay, and interest
thereon. (6 Stat, at L, p. 110.)

1 3. An act approved February 25, 1813, provided that there be paid to John Dixon the
sum of $329.84, with six per cent, per annum interest thereon from the 1st of January,
1785, " beiDg the amount o'f a final-settlement certificate, No. 596, issued by Andrew
Dunscomb, late commissioner of accounts for the State of Virginia, on the 23d of De-
cember, 1786, to Lucy Dixon, who transferred the same to John Dixon." (6 Stat, at
L.,p.ll7.)

14. An act approved February 25, 1813, required the accounting-officers of the Treas-
ury to settle the account of John Murray, representative of Dr. Henry Murray, and
that he be allowed the amount of three loan-certificates for $1,000, with interest from
the 29th of March, 1782, issued in the name of said Murray, signed Francis Hopkin-
son, treasurer of loans. (6 Stat, at L., p. 117.)

15. An act approved March 3, 1813, directed the accounting-officers of the Treasury
to settle the accounts of Samuel Lapsley, deceased, and that they be allowed the
amount of two final-settlement certificates, No. 78,446, for $1,000, and No. 78,447, for
$1,300, and interest from the 23d day of March, 1783, issued in the name of Samuel
Lapsley, by the commissioner of Army accounts for the United States on the 1st day of
July, 1764. (6 Stat, at L., p. 119.)

16. Au act approved April 13, 1814, directed the officers of the Treasury to settle
the account of Joseph Brevard, and that he be allowed the amount of a final-settle-
ment certificate for $183.23, dated February 1, 1785, and bearing interest from the 1st
of January, 1783, issued to said Brevard by John Pierce, commissioner for settling
Army accounts. (6 Stat, at L., p. 134.) •

17. An act approved April 18, 1814, directed the receiver of public moneys at Cin-
cinnati to pay the full amount of moneys, with interest, paid by Dennis Clark, in dis-
charge of the purchase-money for a certain fractional sectiou of land purchased by
said Clark. (6 Stat, at L., p. 141.)

18. Au act for the relief of William Arnold, approved February 2, 1815, allowed in-
terest on the sum of $600 due him from January 1, 1873. (6 Stat, at L.Jp. 146.)

19. An act approved April 26, 1816, directed the accounting-officers of the Treasury
to pay to Joseph Wheatou the sum of $836.42, on account of interest due him from the
United States upon $1,600.84, from April 1, 1807, to December 21, 1815, pursuant to the
award of George Youngs and Elias B. Caldwell, in a controversy between the United
States and the said Joseph Wheaton. (6 Stat, at L., p. 166.)

20. An act approved April 26, 1816, authorized the liquidation and settlement of the
claim of the heirs of Alexander Roxburgh, arising on a final-settlement certificate
issued on the 18th of August, 1784, for $480.87, by John Pierce, commissioner for set-
tling Army accounts^ bearing interest from the first of January, 1782. (6 Stat, at L.,
p. 167.) ,

21. An act approved April 14, 1818, authorized the accounting-officers of the Treasury
Department "to review the settlement of the account of John Thompson," made

ALIEN CLAIMS. 227

meut of the same, the real British subjects and others commonly called absentees,
would be not only inequitable and unjust, but the legislature of this Commonwealth
conceive repugnant to the spirit and intendment of the fourth article in the treaty of
peace, which provides only for the payment of bona-fide debts ; and as the legislature
have taken measures to obtain the sense of Congress upon the said article, so far as
the same respects the payment of interest which might have accrued as aforesaid,
and in the mean time judgment may be obtained iu some of the courts of law within
this Commonwealth for interest accruing as aforesaid, contrary to the true design of
the said treaty: Therefore,

under the authority of an act approved the 11th of May, 1812, and " to allow the said
John Thompson interest at six per cent, per annum from the 4th of March, 1787, to the
20th of Mav, 1812, on the sum which was found due to him, and paid under the act afore-
said." (6 Stat, at L., p. 208.)

22. An act approved May 11, 1820, directed the proper officers of the Treasury to pay
to Samuel B. Beall the amount of two final-settlement certificates issued to him on the
1st of February, 1785, for his services as a lieutenant in the Army of the United States
during the revolutionary war, together with interest on the said certificates, at the rate
of six per cent, per annum from the time they bore interest, respectively, which said
certificates were lost by the said Beall, and remain yet outstanding and unpaid. (6
Laws of U. S., 510; 6 Stat, at L.. p. 249.)

23. An act approved May 15, 1820, required that there be paid to Thomas Leiper the
specie value of four loan-office certificates, issued to him by the commissioner of loans
for the State of Pennsylvania, on the 27th of February, 1779, for $1,000 each ; and also
the specie value of two loan-certificates, issued to him by the said commissioner on the
2d day of March, 1779, for $1,000 each, with interest at six per cent, annually. (6 Stat,
at L., p. 252.)

24. An act" approved May 7, 1822, provided that there be paid to the legal repre-
sentatives of John Guthry, deceased, the sum of $123.30, being the amount of a final-
settlement certificate, with interest at the rate of six per cent, per aunum, from the
first day of January, 1783. (6 Stat, at L., p. 269.)

25. An act for the relief of the legal representatives of James McClung, approved
March 3, 1823, allowed interest on the amount due at the rate of six per cent, per
annum, from January 1, 1788. (6 Stat, at L., 284.)

26. An act approved March 3, 1823, for the relief of Daniel Seward, allowed interest
to him for money paid to the United States for land to wbich the title failed, at the
rate of six per cent, per annum from January 29, 1814. (6 Stat, at L., p. 286.)

27. An act approved May 5, 1824, directed the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to
Amasa Stetson the sum of $6,215, "being for'interest on moneys advanced by him for
the use of the Uuited States, and on warrants issued in his favor, in the years 1814 and
1815, for his services in the Ordnance and Quartermaster's Department, for superintend-
ing the making of Army clothing and for issuing the public supplies." (6 Stat, at L.,
p. 298.)

28. An act approved March 3, 1824, directed the proper accounting-officers of the
Treasury to settle and adjust the claim of Stephen Arnold, David and George Jenks,
for the manufacture of three thousand uino hundred and twenty-five muskets, with
interest thereon from the 26th day of October, 1813. (6 Stat. atL., p. 331.)

29. An act approved May 20, 1826, directed the proper accounting-officers of the
Treasury to settle and adjust the claim of John Stemman and others for the manu-
facture of four thousand one hundred stand of arms, and to allow interest on the
amount due from October 26, 1813. (6 Stat.. at L., p. 345.)

30. An act approved May 20, 1826, for the relief of Ann D. Taylor, directed the pay-
ment to her of the sum of $354.15, with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent.
per annum from December 30, 1786, until paid. (6 Stat, at L., p. 351.)

31. An act approved March 3, 1827, provided that the proper acoounting-sfficers of
the Treasury were authorized to pay to B. J. V. Valkenburg the sum of $597.21, " be-
ing the amount of fourteen indents of interest, with interest thereon from the 1st of
January, 1791, to the 31st of December, 1826." (6 Stat, at L., p. 365.)

In this case the United States paid interest on interest.

32. An act approved May 19, 1828, provided that there be paid to the legal represent-
atives of Patience Gordon the specie value of a certificate issued in the name of Pa-
tience Gordon by the commissioner of loans for the State of Pennsylvania, on the 7th
of April, 1778, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per aunum from the 1st day of
January, 1788. (7 Stat, at L., p. 378.)

33. An act approved May 29, 1830, required the Treasury Department " to settle the
accounts of Benjamin Wells, as deputy commissary of issues at the magazino at Mon-
ster Mills, in Pennsylvania, under John Irvin, deputy commissary -general of the Army
of the United States, in said State, in the revolutionary war;" and that " they credit
him with the sum of $574.04, as payable February 9, 1779, and $326.67, payable July
20, 1780, iu the same manner, and with such interest, as if these sums, with their inter-

228 ALIEN CLAIMS.

"Resolved, That in all actions or suits which are or may be instituted or brought to
any of the judicial courts within this Commonwealth, wherein any real British subject
or absentee is plaintiff or defendant, and which actions or suits by the laws thereof
are sustainable therein, the justices of the same courts are hereby severally directed to

est from the times respectively as aforesaid, had been subscribed to the loan of the
United States." (6 Stat, at L., p. 447.)

34. An act approved May 19, 1832, for the relief of Richard G. Morris, provided for
the-payment to him of two certificates issued to him by Timothy Pickering, Quarter-
master-General, with interest thereon from the 1st of September, 1781. (6 Stat, at L.,
p. 486.)

35. An act approved July 4, 1832, for the relief of Aaron Snow, a revolutionary sol-
dier, provided for the payment to him of two certificates issued by John Pierce, late
coruuiissioner of Army accounts, and dated in 1784, with interest thereon. (6 Stat, at
L., p. 503.)

, 36. An act approved July 4, 1832, provided for the payment to W. P. Gibbs of a final-
settlement certificate dated January 30, 1784, with interest at 6 per cent, from the 1st
of January, 1783, up to the passage of the act. This act went behind the final certifi-
cate and provided for the payment of interest anterior to its date. (6 Stat, at L.,
p. 504.)

37. An act approved July 14, 1832, directed the payment to the heirs of Ebenezer L.
Warren of certain sums of money illegally demanded and received by the United
States from the said Warren as one of the sureties of Daniel Evans, formerly collector
of direct taxes, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum from Sep-
tember 9, 1820. (6 Stat, at L., p. 373.)

38. An act for the relief of Hartwell Vick, approved July 14, 1832, directed the ac-
counting-officers of the Treasury to refund to the said Vick the money paid by him to
the United States for a certain tract of laud which was found not to be the property of
the United States, with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per centum per annum, from
the 23d day of May, 1818. (6 Stat, at L., p. 523.)

39. An act approved June 18, 1834, for the relief of Martha Bailey and others, di-
rected the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to the parties therein named the sum of
$4,837.61, being the amount of interest upon the sum of $200,000, part of a balance due
from the United States to Elbert Anderson on the 26th day of October, lrfll ; also the
further sum of $9,595.36, being the amount of interest accruing from the deterred pay-
ment of warrants issued for balances due from the United States to the said Anilersoa
from the date of such warrants until the payment thereof; also the further sum of
$2,018.50 admitted to be due from the United States to the said Anderson by a decision
of the Second Comptroller, with interest on the sum last mentioned from the period of
such decision until paid. (6 Stat, at L., p. 562.)

40. An act approved June 30, 1834, directed the Secretary of the Treasury to pay
balance of damages recovered against William C. H. Waddell, United States marshal
for the southern district of New York, for the illegal seizure of a certaiu importation
of brandy, on behalf of the United States, with legal interest ou the amount of said
judgment from the time the same was paid by the said Waddell. (6 Stat, at L , p.
594.)

41. An act approved February 17, 1836, directed the payment of the sum therein
named to Marinus W. Gilbert, being the interest on money advanced by him to pay off
troops in the service of the United States, and not repaid when demanded. (6 Stat, at
L., p. 622.)

42. An act approved February 17, 1836, for the relief of the executor of Charles
Wilkins, directed the Secretary of the Treasury to settle the claim of the said executor,
for interest on a liquidated demand iu favor of Jonathan Taylor, James Morrison, and
Charles Wilkins, who were lessees of the United States of the salt-works in the State
of Illinois. (6 Stat, at L., p. 626.)

43. An act approved July 2, 1836, for the relief of the legal representatives of David
Caldwell, directed the proper accounting-officers of the Treasury to settle the claim "f
the said David Caldwell for fees and allowances, certified by the circuit court of the
United States for the eastern district of Pennsylvania, for official services to the United
States, and to pay on that account the sum of $496.38, with interest thereon at the
rate of six per centum from the 25th day of November, 1830, till paid. (6 Stat, at L.,
p. 664.)

44. An act approved July 2, 1836, provided that there be paid Don Carlos Delossus,
interest at the rate of six per centum per aunum on $333, being the amount allowed
him under the act of July 14, 1832, for his relief, on account of moaeys taken from him
at the capture of Baton Rouge, La., on the 23d day of September, 1810, being the
interest to be allowed from the said 23d day of September, 1810, to the 14th day of July,
1832. (6 Stat, at L., p. 672.)

In this case the interest was directed to be paid four years after the principal had
been satisfied and discharged.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 229

suspend rendering j udgment for any interest that may have accrued upon the demand
contained in such actions or suits between the 19th day of April, 1775, and the 20th
day of January, 17H3, until the third Wednesday of the next sitting of the general
court : Provided, afa>aj/s,,That if in any such actions or suits the plaintiff shall move for,

45. An act approved July 7, 183S, provided that the proper officers of the Treasury
he directed to settle the accounts of Richard Harrison, formerly consular agent of the
United States at Cadiz, in Spaiu, and to allow him, among other items, the interest on
the money advanced, under agreement with the minister of the United States in Spain,
for the relief of destitute and distressed seamen, and for their passages to the United
States from the time the advances respectively were made, to the time at which the
said advances were re-imbursed. (6 Stat, at L., p. 734.)

46. An act approved August 11, 1842, directed the Secretary of the Treasury to pay
to John Johnson the sum of $756.82, being the amouut received from the said Johnson
upon a judgment against him in favor of the United States, together with the interest
thereon from the time of such payment. (6 Stat, at L., p. 856.)

47. An act approved August 3, 1846, authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to pay,
to Abraham Horbach the sum of $5,000, with lawful interest from the 1st of January,
1836, being the amount of a draft drawn by James Reeside on the Post-Office Depart-
ment, dated April 18, 1835, payable on the 1st of January, 1838, and accepted by tae
treasurer of the Post-Office Department, which said draft was indorsed by said Abra-
ham Horbach at the instance of the said Reeside, and the amouut drawn from the
Bank of Philadelphia, and, at maturity, said draft was protested for non-payment, and
said Horbach became liable to pay, and, in consequence of his indorsement, did pay
the full amount of said draft. (9 Stat, at L., p. 677.)

48. An act approved February 5, 1859, authorized the Secretary of War to pay to
Thomas Laurent, as surviving partner, the sum of $15,000, with interest at the rate of
6 per cent, yearly, from the 11th of November, 1847, it being the amount paid by the
firm on that day to Maj. Gen. Winfield Scott, in the city of Mexico, for the purchase
of a house in said city, out of the possession of which they were since ousted by the
Mexican authorities. (11 Stat, at L., p. 558.)

49. An act approved March 2, 1847, directed the Secretary of the Treasury to pay
the balance due to the Bank of Metropolis for moneys due upon the settlement of the
account of the bank with the United States, with interest thereon from the 6th day of
March, 1838. (9 Stat, at L., p. 689.)

50. Au act approved July 20, 1852, directed the payment to the legal representatives
of James C. Watson, late of the State of Georgia, the sum of $14,600, with interest at
the rate of 6 per cent, per annum, from the 8th day of May, 1838, till paid, being, the
amount paid by him under the sanction of the Indian agent, to certain Creek war-
riors, for slaves captured by said warriors while they were in the service of the United
States against the Seminole Indians, in Florida. (10 Stat, at L., p. 734.1

51. An act approved July 29, 1854, directed the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to
John C. Fremont $183,825, with interest thereon from the 1st day of June, 1851, at the
rate of 10 per cent, per annum, in fnll for his account for beef delivered to Commis-
sioner Barbour, for the use of the Indians in California, in 1851 and 1852. (10 Stat, at
L., p. 804.)

52. An act approved July 8, 1870, directed the Secretary of the Treasury to make
proper payments to carry into effect the decree of the district court of the United
States for the district of Louisiana, bearing date the fourth of June, 1867, in the case
of the British brig Volant, and her cargo ; and also another decree of the same court,
bearing date the eleventh of June, in the same year, in the case of the British bark Sci-
ence, and cargo, vessels illegally seized by a cruiser of the United States ; such pay-
ments to be made as follows, viz : To the several persons named in such decrees, or
their legal representatives, the several sums awarded to them respectively, with interest
to each person from the dale of the decree under which he receives payment. (16 Stat, at L.,
p. 650.)

53. An act approved July 8, 1870, directed the Secretary to make the proper payments
to carry into effect the decree of the district court of the United States for the district
of Louisiana, bearing date July 13, 1867, in the case of the British brig Dashing Wave,
and her cargo, illegally seized by a cruiser of the Uuited States, which decree was
made in pursuance of the decision of the Supreme Court, such payments to be made with
interest from the date of the decree. (16 Stat, at L., p. 651.)

An examination of these cases will show that, subsequent to the seizure of these several
vessels, they were each sold by the United States marshal for the district of Louisiana
as prize, and the proceeds of such sales deposited by him in the First National Bank
of New Orleans. The baDk, while the proceeds of these sales were deposited there,
became insolvent. The seizures were held illegal, and the vessels not subject to cap-
ture as prize. But the proceeds of the sales of these vessels aud their cargoes could
not be restored to the owners in accordance with the decrees of the district court, be-
cause the funds had been lost by the insolvency of the bank. In these cases, there-

230 ALIEN CLAIMS.

or by default have right to jndgment, then, and iu snoh case, the justices aforesaid
shall cause judgment to be entered for the principal sum, which, by the laws of this
Commonwealth such plaintiff shall be entitled to recover, and all such interest as ac-
crued thereon before the said 19th day of April, and subsequent to said 20th day of

fore, Congress provided indemnity for losses resulting from the acts of its agents, and
made the indemnity complete by providing for the payment of interest.

Your committee have directed attention to these numerous precedents for the pur-
pose of exposing the utter want of foundation of the often-repeated assumption that
" the Government never pays interest." It will readily be admitted that there is no
statute-law to sustain this position. The idea has grown up from the custom and
usage of the accounting officers and departments refusing to all jw interest generally
in their accounts with disbursing officers, and in the settlement of unliquidated domes-
tic claims arising out of dealings with the Government. It will hardly be pretended,
however, that this custom or usage is so " reasonable," well known, and " certain,"
as to give it the force and effect of law, and to override and trample under foot the law
of nations and also the well-settled practice of the Government itself in its intercourse
with other nations.

11th. Interest was allowed andpaid to the State of Massachusetts, because the United
Statesdelayed the payment of the principal for twenty-two years after the amount due
had been ascertained and determined. The amount appropriated to pay this interest
was $678,382.41, more than the original principal. (16 Sta'.. at L., 198.)

Mr. Sumner, in his report upon the memorial introduced for that purpose, discussing
this question of interest, said :

" It is urged that the payment of this interest would establish a bad precedent. If
the claim is just, the precedent of paying it is one which our Government should
wish to establish. Honesty and justice are not precedents of which either Government
or individuals should be afraid." (Senate Report, 441st Cong., 1st sess., p. 10.)

12th. Interest has always been allowed to the several States for advances made to
the United States for military purposes.

The claims of the several States for advances during the revolutionary war were
adjusted and settled under the provisiou of the acts of Congress of August 5, 1790, and
of May 31, 1794. By these acts iuterest was allowed to the States, whether they had
advanced money on hand iu their treasuries or obrained by loans.

In respect to the advances of States during the war of 1812-'15, a more restricted
rule was adopted, viz : That States should be allowed interest only so far as they had
themselves paid it by borrowing, or had lost it by the sale of interest-bearing funds.

Interest, according to this rule, has been paid to all the States which made advances
during the war of 1812-15, with the exception of Massachusetts. Here aie the cases :
Viiginia, Stats, at L., vol. 4, p. 161 ; Delaware, Stats, at L., vol. 4, p. 175 ; New York,
Stats, at L., vol. 4, p. 192 ; Pennsylvania, Stats, at L., vol. 4, p. 241 ; South Carolina,
Stats, at L., vol. 4, p. 499.

In Indian and other wars ihe same rule had been observed as in the following cases :
Alabama, Stats, at L., vol. 9, p. 344 ; Georgia, Slats, at L., vol. 9, p. G26; Washington
Territory, Stats, at L., vol. 11, p. 429 ; New Hampshire, Stats, at L., vol. 10, p. 1.

13th. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, in the report to which reference has
heretofore been made, speaking of this award and of the obligation of the Unii'ed Stages
to pay interest upon the balance remaining due and unpaid thereon, used the following
language :

"Your committee are of opinion that this sum should be paid them with accrued
interest from the date of said award, deducting therefrom $250,000, paid to them in
money, as directed by the act of March 2, 1861 ; and, therefore, find no sufficient rea-
son for further delay iu carrying into effect that provisiou of the aforenamed act, and
the act of March 3, 1871, by the delivery of the bonds therein, described, with accrued
interest from the date of the act of March 8, 1801."

Your committee have discussed this question with an anxious desre to come to such
a conclusion in regard to it as would do no injustice to that Indian nation whose rights
are involved here, nor establish such a precedent as would be inconsistent with the
practice or duty of the United States in such cases. Therefore your committee have
considered it not only by the light of those principles of the public law — always in
harmony with the highest demands of the most perfect justice — but also in the light
of those numerous precedents which this Government, in its action in like cases, has
furnished for our guidance. Your committee cannot believe that the payment of
interest on the moneys awarded by the Senate to the Choctaw Nation would either
violate any principle of law or establish any precedent which the United States would
not wish to follow in any similar case; and your committee cannot believe that the
United States are prepared to repudiate these principles, or to admit that, because their
obligation is held by a weak and powerless Indian nation, it is any the less sacred or
binding thau if held by a nation able to enforce its payment and secure complete
indemnity under it. Could the United States escape the payment of interest to Great

ALIEN CLAIMS. 231

January ; and execution shall issue accordingly. And if Congress shall hereafter de-
termine that the interest, which might have accrued on any bona-fide debt aforesaid
during the war, ought by the treaty aforesaid to be considered as part of such debt,
then the said courts, respectively, shall proceed to enter a further judgment for the

Britain, if it should refuse or neglect, after the same became due, to pay the amount
awarded in favor of British subjects by the recent joint commission which sat here?
Could we delay payment of the amount awarded by that commission for fifteen years,
and then escape by merely paying the principal? The Choctaw Nation asks the
same measure of justice which we must accord to Great Britain; and your committee
cannot deny that demand unless they shall ignore and set aside those principles of the
public law which it is of the utmost importance to the United States to always main-
tain inviolate.

Your committee are not unmindful that the amount due the Choctaw Nation under
the award of the Senate is large. They are not unmindful, either, that the discredit
of refusing payment is increased in proportion to the amount withheld and the time
during which such refusal has been continued. That the amount to be paid is large is
no fault of the Choctaw Nation. The whole amount was due when, on the 2d day of
March, 1861, Congress authorized the payment, on account of the award, of the sum
of $250,000; and if, at that time, the bonds of the United States had been issued in
satisfaction of the award, the Choctaw Nation would have received interest on them
from that time, and thus derived such advantage as would have resulted, from time to
time, from the payment of semi-annual interest and the sale of the gold which they would
have received in the payment of interest. The bill under consideration provides that
the amount due upon the award of the Senate shall be satisfied and paid (both prin-
cipal and interest) in the bonds of the United States of like character and description
as those authorized to be issued under the act of Congress, entitled "An act authorizing a
loan," approved February 8, 1861. They were bonds of this issue that the Secretary of the
Treasury was required to deliver in part payment of the amount authorized to be p-iid on
account of the said award, under the provisions of the act of March 2, 1861. If this
award had then been wholly satisfied and discharged, it would have been in bonds of
this description. The act of February 8, 1861, authorized the issue of bonds to the
amount of $25,000,000, of which there have been issued $18,485,000. There is, there-
fore, to the credit of this act bonds to the amount of $6,515,000, which may be issued
for any purpose which Congress shall direct. Your committee, bearing in mind that
the moneys so long withheld from the Choctaw Nation are in the nature of trust-funds,
and that the United States had the use of these moneys for so many years before the
making of the award in favor of the Choctaw Nation by the United States Senate, and
that the Choctaw Nation is in a certain sense a ward of the United States, cannot rec-
ommend any other payment to them, except such as will do them perfect justice and
provide for them complete indemnity. This result will be most nearly accomplished
by the issue and delivery to the Choetaw Nation of those bonds which would have been
issued to them had the whole award been paid at the time provision was made for its
part payment, as provided in the act of March 26, 1861 ; and interest on the said award
should be added from the time the same was made by the United States Senate ; and
that for these, both principal and interest, bonds of the United States, of the character
and description of other bonds issued under the act of February 8, 1861, should be
issued for the use and benefit of the Choctaw.Nation.

Your committee believe that this course, and nothing less, will satisfy the demands
of justice, and relieve the United States from the imputation of bad faith and an inex-
cusable disregard of treaty obligations.

The Senate report No. 209, 1st session 43d Congress, March 26, 1874, embodies all the
reports on "the claim of the officers of the [revolutionary] army to the half-pay prom-
ised them by the act of October 21, 1780."

In the House report of March 5, 1858, it is said that the claim to this pay became
a vested right, and the report then makes this statement upon the subject of interest :

" Your committee are of opinion that the contract of half-pay has not been ful-
filled on the part of the Government, nor have the claimants been guilty of laches or
neglect, for they have again and again presented and urged upon Congress the payment
of their just demands. The claimants had no way in which to enforce their rights, and
could only sue for them in the language of solicitation. Their rights may, in fact, he
said to have been suspended by the judiciary act of 1789, and were never restored until
the act of February 24, 1855, organizing the Court of Claims. Since the establishment
of that court the cause of Dr. Baird vs. The United States has been decided, in which
he claimed half-pay for life, under the apt of October, 1780, his commutation of five
years' full pay having been paid by special act of Congress. The court, per Gilchrist,
chief-justice, decided that the petitioner was entitled to the half-pay for life, and that
the acceptance of a less sum than the half-pay by way of commutation was no discharge
of the original contract, the payment of a sum of money not being of itself a discharge
of a debt for a larger amount, and adds : 'A plea of payment of a small sum in satis-

232 ALIEN CLAIMS.

amount of all such last-mentioned interest, without any new process, and issue execu-
tion for such further sum accordingly ; and all attachments made or hail given upon any
action instituted as aforesaid, shall be holdeu to respond the final judgment that may
be given for the amount of such last-mentioned interest.
" Sent down for concurrence.

" SAMUEL ADAMS, President.

" In the house of representatives, November 10, 1784. Eead and concurred.

" SAMUEL A. OTIS, Speaker.

"Approved.

" JOHN HANCOCK.
"A true copy. Attest :

" JOHN AVEEY, Jun.,

" Secretary."

However this resolution may deviate from the treaty, and perhaps from the proper
jurisdiction of the legislature, yet it bears strong marks of fairness and regard to
equal justice. It states their doubts on the construction of the article. It does not
assume the power of deciding those doubts. It refers that question to Congress ; and
although it suspends judgment for interest, yet it does it impartially, and not only iu
cases where British creditors are plaintiffs, but also where they are defendants. It also
provides, that if Congress should decide in favor of interest, then judgment and exe-
cution shall be given accordingly.

Your secretary is nevertheless of opinion that this resolution was an infraction of
the said fourth article :

Because, State legislatures have no cognizance of questions respecting the' construc-
tion of treaties, can with no propriety suspend their operation on account of any fears
or apprehensions which they may entertain of and concerning such questions.

Because, as it appertained to the courts of judicature to decide such questions, the
legislature ought not to have restrained those courts from rendering such judgments
as to them appeared consistent with the treaty and the law. For by restraining the
courts from giving judgment for interest in cases where they would have given such
judgment, unless so restrained, the legislature did certainly interpose a lawful impedi-
ment to the plaintiff's recovering what the courts were ready to adjudge to be his
right under that article of the treaty, and their so doing was, therefore, a violation
of it.

CHAPTEE II.

OF PROPERTY TAKEN, USED, DAMAGED, OR DESTROYED rN THE STATES
PROCLAIMED IN REBELLION.

As to the eleven States proclaimed in rebellion during the period of
flagrant war, it may be said in general terms that the United States, by
the strict rules of international law, incurred no liability whatever for
property taken, used, damaged, or destroyed therein by Government
authority, so far as dictated by the necessary operations of the war, nor
by the operations of the enemy. This is well settled by every writer
on the laws of war.

Halleck says :

War * * makes legal enemies of all the individual members of the hostile states ;

faction of a larger is bad even after verdict,' (2 Parsons on Contracts, 130, and notes.)
The case was conceded not to be within any of the acts of limitation. The court
allowed the demand with interest, and their decision was approved by both Houses of
Cougress, and the money paid at the Treasury. The high character of the Court of
Claims, and action of Congress in carrying their decision into effect, is a judicial and
legislative construction and declaration of the rights of other claimants founded upon
the same contract and governed by the same rules of evidence. Considering, then, the
commutation certificates as not amounting to an accord and satisfaction, the claim of
Dr. Baird and those embraced in the bill are governed by the same principles."

ALIEN CLAIMS. 233

* * it also extends to property, and gives to one belligerent tlieright to deprive the other of every-
thing which might add to his strength and enable him to oarry on hostilities.™

A firm possession is sufficient to establish the captor's title to personal or movable
property ou land, but a different rule applies to immovables or real property. A bel-
ligerent who makes himself master of the provinces, towns, public lands, buildings,
&c, of an enemy, has a perfect right to their possession and use. * * The possession

* * gives a right to its use and its products.*

By modern usage there are, and ought to be, humane limitations on
the ancient right of seizure, which restrict it to what is useful in the
prosecution of the war or necessary to disable the enemy. 81

By General Order No. 100, approved by the President April 24, 1863,
"instructions for the government of the armies" were issued, which
were prepared by the eminent jurist, Francis Lieber, LL. D., embodying
the laws of war as recognized among civilized and Christian nations, in
which it is declared that —

Churches, hospitals, or other establishments of an exclusively charitable character,
establishments of education, museums, &c, * * may be taxed or used when the
public service may require it. 82

The Supreme Court has determined that during the rebellion —

Cotton in the southern rebel districts — constituting, as it did, the chief reliance of
the rebels for means to purchase munitions of war, an element of strength to the
rebellion — was a proper subject of capture by the Government during the rebellion on
general principles of public law relating to war, though private property ; and the legislation
of Congress during the rebellion authorized such captures.

And the court said, as to cotton :

•Being enemy's property, the cotton was liable to capture and confiscation by the
adverse party. It is true that this rule, as to property on land, has received very im-
portant qualifications from usage, from the reasonings of enlightened publicists, and
from judicial decisions. It may now be regarded as substantially restricted " to special
cases, dictated by the necessary operation of the war," and as excluding, in general,
the seizure of the private property of pacific persons for the sake of gain. The com-
manding general may determine in what special cases its more stringent application is
required by military emergencies ; while considerations of public policy, and positive pro-
visions of law, and the general spirit of legislation, must indicate the cases in which its
application may be properly denied to the property of non-combatant enemies.

In the case before us, the capture seems to have been justified by the peculiar char-
acter of the property and by legislation. It is well known that cotton has constituted
the chief reliance of the rebels for means to purchase the munitious of war in Europe.
It is matter of history that, rather than permit it to come into the possession of the
national troops, the rebel government has everywhere devoted it, however owned, to
destruction. The value of that destroyed at New Orleans, just before its capture, has

79 International Law, 446 ; id., 457-460 ; 71 vol. Globe, 300, Sumner's Speech, January
12, 1869; Prize Cases, 2 Black, 671-674; Lawrence's Wheaton, 596. This includes
cotton. The rebels destroyed $80,000,000 in value to prevent it from being captured
by Union forces. (Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wallace, 420.)

s°Halleck, 447 ; Wheaton, Int. Law, pt. 4. ch. 2, 55 5-11 ; 1 Kent, 110 ; Heffert, Droit
International, § 130 ; Martens, Precis du Droit des Gens, § 280 ; Requelme, Derecho Pub.
Int., lib. 1, tit. 1, cap. 12.

si United States v. Klein, 13 Wallace, 138 ; Whiting's War Powers, 48, 52, 53 ; Law-
rence's Wheaton, 630 ; Dana's Wheaton, section 256, note 171 ; Halleck, 448-451 ; Vat-
tel,Law Nat. , 365, book 3, chapter 9; Bynkershoek's Laws of War; Brown v. United
States, 8 Cranch, 122, 228 ; 71 Globe, 383 ; 1 Kent, 92, 93, 120 ; Alexander v. Duke of
Wellington, 2 Russell and Mylne, 35 ; 1 Kent's Com., 357. In United States v. Paddle-
ford, 9 Wallace, 531, the court said : "The rights in private property are not disturbed
by the capture of a district of country or a city or town until the captor signifies by
some declaration or act, and generally by actual seizure, his determination to regard a
particular description of property as not entitled to the immunity usually conceded in
conformity with the humane maxims of the public laws."

Cooledge v. Guthrie, United States circuit court, southern district Ohio, October, 1868,
Appendix 591 to (43d ed., 1871) Whiting's War Powers.

Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wallace, 419 ; 1 Kent, 92, 93 ; United States v. Klein, 13
Wallace, 137.

82 Scott's Digest Military Laws, 446. See McPherson's chapter " The Church and the
Rebellion," History of Rebellion, 460, &c.

234 ALIEN CLAIMS.

been estimated at eighty millions of dollars. The rebels regard it as one of their main
sinews of war; and no principle of equity or just policy required, when the natioual
occupation was itself precarious, that it should be spared from capture and allowed to
remain, in case of the withdrawal of the Union troops, an element of strength to the
rebellion. And the capture was justified by legislation as well as by public policy. 83

Tobacco and other property was also an element of strength, and by
the laws of war might equally with cotton, and upon the same princi-
ciples, be destroyed. 84

83 Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wallace, 419.

84 The commissioners of claims, under the act of March 3, 1871, in their third annual
report of Decetaber 8, 1873, House Mis. Doc. No. 23, 1st sess. 41st Cong., p. 3, say :

" As we now, for the first time, present reports allowing for tobacco taken for Army
use, we desire to state the reasons for such allowances.

" Tobacco was by law never made an Army supply till the act of March 3, 1865, pro-
vided that it might be furnished at cost to those who desired it, and at their expense.
All the claims lor tobacco which have been examined by us are for tobacco taken be-
fore that date.

■' After the capture of Atlanta, in September, 1864, General Sherman found that he
was short of rations for his army, and that the soldiers were subject to many priva-
tions. To make his army contented, and, as far as possible, to make up to them for
their usual rations, of which they were for the time deprived, he issued an order on
the 8th of September, 1864, authorizing the chief commissary of subsistence to take
possession of and issue to the troops all the tobacco in Atlanta, and give certificates
thereof to the owners, to be accounted for in accordance with existing orders.

" Pursuant to this order, tobacco belonging to George J. Stubblefield was taken, and
upon his making claim for payment the Commissary Department recommended, 'As
this tobacco was taken by order of General Sherman and issued to the troops in lieu of
other rations, and as the loyalty of the claimant is clearly established,' that payment
should be made. This was approved by the Secretary of War, Mr. Stanton, and the
claim was paid.

" The payment stands upon the ground that when an army is deprived of its usual
rations the commanding general can, in his judgment, authorize an article not a sup-
ply to be taken and used for the time being as a supply, and in lieu, of other rations ;
and in such case the Government is bound to pay for it. We have strictly followed
this precedent, and have not allowed for tobacco except when taken under this
order."— (3d Genl. Rep. Com. of Claims, art. 6, p. 3.)

The commission of claims, under 12th article of treaty of 8th May, 1871, between tho
United States and Great Britain, adopted the same principle; Hale's report to the
Secretary of State, November 30, 1873, page 45, showing an award only when it was
" allowed as an Army ration."

In Senate Report No. 338, 1st ses. 43d Cong., on a claim for tobacco, General Sher-
man saidjn a letter to the Committee on Claims :

" Headquarters Army of the United States,

" Washington, D. C, April 18, 1874.
" Sir : I have the honor to ackuowledge receipt of your communication of the 16th
instant, inclosing the brief for claimant in the ' claim of N. P. Harben, of Georgia,'
for tobacco seized, at Covington and Oxford, on or about the 22d day of July, 1864.
# * * # # * *

" As a rule I endeavored, as far as circumstances permitted, to check the tendency to
' cause wanton waste,' which is the natural impulse of invading armies, but always
authorized the appropriation of such things as soldiers needed to keep them strong and
contented ; and tobacco is one of those things which, whether authorized or not,
soldiers will have by fair means or foul. I do not wish, however, to be construed as ad-
vocating Mr. Harben's claim, for, whatever his sentiments may have been, he was in
bad company ; his property was lost to him, and our army recovered possession of it,
and were entitled to salvage at the rate of about a hundred per cent.

"W. T. SHERMAN,

" General."

This claim was before the commissioners of claims, and they disposed of it as fol-
lows :

" No. 329. The claim of JV. P. Harben, of Whitfield County, in the State of Georgia.

" This claim is for 342 boxes of tobacco valued at $51,438. Claim rejected.

" This claim is for tobacco taken iu July, 1864, by a party of Union soldiers at Cov-
ington and Oxford, Ga. It was carried off by the soldiers on horseback and in large
quantities in wagons. It was taken to a camp of the Army in the vicinity of Atlanta.
What was then done with it does not appear, but probably most of it, perhaps all, was

ALIEN CLAIMS. 235

Bynkershoek says :

It is a question whether our friends are to be considered as enemies, when they live
among the latter, say in a town which they occupy. Petrinus Bellas de B. Milit., part 2,
tit. 11, note 5, thinks they are not. Zauch, de Jure Fee, part 2, § 8, q. 4, gives no opiu-
iou. For my part, I think that they must also be considered as enemies. * * *
They say that our friends, although they are among our enemies, yet are not hostilely
inclined against us ; for if they are there, it is not from choice, and the quo animo only
is to be considered. But the thing does not depend only on the quo animo; for, even
among the subjects of our enemy there are some, however few they may he, who are
not hostilely inclined against us ; but the matter depends upon the law, because those
goods are with the enemy, and because they are of use to them for our destruction. 85

used by the Army. Tobacco was not an Army supply. The Government has never
paid for tobacco, except in the one single and exceptional case of tobacco taken at
Atlanta under the general order issued by General Sherman on the 8th September,
1864, where it has been paid for as taken in an emergency by an order of the com-
manding general of the army in lieu of other rations. Claim must be rejected.

"A. O. ALMS,
" Commissioner of Claims."

85 Laws of War, 25 ; Manning's Law of Nations, ch. iv, p. 122 ; Thomas Jefferson vin-
dicated the confiscation of property of colonists who adhered to Great Britain during
the Revolution on this principle. Jefferson's Works, vol. 3, p. 369. Sumner's speech,
71 Globe, 380.

On the 30th January, 1866, the House of Representatives passed the following :

" Besolved, That, until otherwise ordered, the Committee of Claims be instructed to
reject all claims referred to them for examination by citizens of any of the States
lately in rebellion, growing out of the destruction or appropriation of or damage to
property by the Army or Navy while engaged in suppressing the rebellion."

(See debates in Globe, vol. 56, pp. 509-512.)
' This resolution was reported from the Committee of Claims by Hon. C. Delano, now
Secretary of the Interior. (See House Rep. No. 10, 1st sess. 39th Cong., January 18,
1866.)

In the debate, Mr. Delano said :

" I do not deem it necessary to go into an argument to show that there is no respon-
sibility resting on Congress to pay those damages that are the result of the necessary
ravages of war."

As to claims for " damages resulting from the appropriation of property by our Army
for subsistence," he said that " an effort to discriminate between the loyal and disloyal
would be an impracticability."

As a question of law, he said, "I am not furnished with any authorities that would
enable me to draw a distinction" between loyal and disloyal claimants.

The nation has power to make a rule, however, and reason and justice, the bases of
all law, would draw a line when necessary or practicable.

Mr. Delano, in the report of the committee unanimously made in favor of that reso-
lution, said :

" The committee are therefore of the opinion that, in view of the magnitude of these
losses, as well as the magnitude of the public debt, and the thousand abuses necessa-
rily resulting from an attempt to satisfy these claims, in the words of Vattel, 'the thing
is utterly impracticable,' and ought not to be encouraged.

" It may be suggested that a distinction should be made between losses arising out
of the destruction of property incident to the ravages of war and damages growing
out of the appropriation of property for the uses of the Army. Without controverting
the propriety of this distinction, so far as citizens of the loyal States are concerned, it
is suggested that it will be dangerous and inexpedient to apply it to claims coming
from States lately in rebellion. It will be difficult to determine with a sufficient de-
gree of certainty the question of individual loyalty ; and, if it be established as a rule
that property taken from loyal citizens in i ebellious States for military supplies shall
be paid for, it may be conceded that every claimant will find some proof to present of
his devotion and suffering in the cause of the Government."

The report also says that in our former history some claims had been allowed " in
cases of doubtful propriety;" but the cases were not such as to impose great burdens
on the nation. And the report says :

"Appeals to our sympathy, humanity, and benevolence are not easily resisted, and it
is a credit to human nature that we are so constituted as to be accessible to such ap-
peals. It is to be remembered, however, that such appeals ought not to induce and can-
not authorize us to levy extraordinary taxation upon our constituents in order to gratify
our charitable impulses. We are not almonera merely for the nation, and have no just
right to impose increased taxation in order to gratify our feelings of benevolence, nor to estab-
lish principles of abstract justice and equity, whi n, there is no rule or law requiring it, and
particularly when the attempt is to be attended with great uncertainty, and be sub-
jected to innumerable impos lions and frauds."

236 ALIEN CLAIMS.

While these are the rights which the Government might lawfully en-
force against all the inhabitants of the seceded States during actual in-
surrection, yet in practice they were wisely and humanely modified by
acts of Congress, and the military authorities in virtue of their general
power in special cases advised departures from strict rules. 86

Congress has also, as a gratuity, provided for the payment —

To those citizens who remained loyal adherents to the cause and the Government of
the United States during the war, for stores or supplies taken or furnished during the
rebellion for the Army and Navy of the United States in States proclaimed as in insur-
rection, including the use and loss of vessels or boats while employed in the military
service of the United States. 87

The right to take property in the insurgent States, by the common laws
of war, remained generally in force, but Congress also provided modes
of taking property in statutory modes.™

86 General Halleck, in his instructions of March 5, 1863, to the commanding officers iu
Tennessee, said :

"The people of the country in which you are likely to operate may be divided into
three classes: " First. The truly loyal, who neither aid nor assist the rebels, except under
compulsion, but who favor or assist the Union forces. Where it can possibly be avoided,
this class of persons should not be subjected to military requisitions, but should re-
ceive the protection of our armies. It may, however, sometimes be necessary to take
their property, either for our own use or to prevent its falling into tho hands of the
enemy. They will be paid at tho time the value of such property ; or, if that he im-
practicable, they will hereafter be fully indemnified. Receipts should be given for all
property so taken without being paid for."

(Lawrence's Wheaton, supplement, p. 40.) This related only to Tennessee, and after
March 5, 180a, the general rule was prescribed, by an order of the War Department,
July 22, 1862, as follows :

" Ordered, that the military commanders within the States of Virginia, Georgia,
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Arkansas, in an orderly manner,
seize and use any property, real or personal, which may be necessary or convenient
for their several commands as supplies or for other military purposes, and while prop-
erty may be destroyed for military objects, none shall be destroyed in wantonness or
malice."

(Lawrence's Wheaton, note, page 625.)

Halleck's International Law and Laws of War, p. 460, § 17, cites Mr. Marcy, Secretary
of War, as giving directions to our commanding generals, during the war with Mexico,
that they might obtain supplies from the enemy :

1. " By buying them in open market at such prices as the enemy might exact ;" (this,
of course, they could do if they saw fit.)

2. They might take the supplies and pay the owners a fair price, without regard to
what they might themselves demand on account of the enhanced value resulting from the pres-
ence of a foreign army. .

3. They might require contributions without paying or engaging to pay.
Halleck says :

" There can be no doubt of the correctness of the rules of war as here announced by
the American Secretary."

He cites many authorities, and the letters from Marcy to Scott and Taylor, &c. (See
Ex. Doc. 60, House Reps., 1 soss. 30 Cong., p. 963.)

As to cotton, &c, act March 12, 1863, 12 Stat., 591 ; act May 18, 1872, 17 Stat., 134 ;
House Ex. Doc. 97, 39 Cong., 2 sess.; Senate Ex. Doc. 37, 2 sess. 39 Cong.; House Ex.
Doc. No. 114, 2 sess. 39 Cong. ; Senate Ex. Doc. No. 22, 2 sess. 40 Cong. ; House Rep.
No. 7, 1 sess. 40 Cong.; Senate Ex. Doc. 56, 2 sess. 40 Cong.; House Ex. Doc. 82, 3 sess.
40 Cong. ; House Ex. Doc. 113, 3 sess. 41 Cong ; House Ex. Doc. , 1 sess. 43 Cong.

87 Act March 3, 1871, 16 Stat., 524; May 11, 1872, 17 Stat., 97; March 3, 1873, 17
Stat., 577. See the peports of Commissioners of Claims, House Mis. Doc. 16, 2 sess. 42
Cong. ; Mis. Doc. 21, Mis. Doc. 213, Mis. Doc. 218, 2 sess. 42 Cong, ; Mis. Doc. 12, 3 sess.
42 Cong. Joint Res. No. 50, 1 sess. 39 Cong., June 18, 1866 : Joint Res. No. 99, 1 sess.
39 Cong., July 28, 1866 : act July 4, 1864, ch. 240, 1 sess. 38 Cong.

88 In United States vs. Klein, (13 Wallace, p. 128,) the court said :

It may be said, in general terms, that property in the insurgent States may be dis-
tributed into four classes : [1.] That which belonged to the hostile organizations, or
was employed in actual hostilities on land ; [2.] That which at sea became lawful sub-
ject of capture and prize ; [3.] That which became the subject of confiscation ; [4.]
A peculiar description, known only in the recent war, called captured and abandoned
property. *

ALIEN CLAIMS. 237

The statutes in relation to captured and abandoned property author-
ized the Secretary of the Treasury to appoint special agents to receive
all abandoned or captured property in the States proclaimed as in in-
surrection, and required the military and naval authorities who took or
received any such abandoned property, or cotton, sugar, rice, or tobacco,
to turn the same over to the Treasury agents, who were required to sell
the same and pay the proceeds into the Treasury. These acts provide,
also, that any person claiming to have been the owner of any such prop-
erty might, at any time within two years after the suppression of the
rebellion, prefer his claim to the proceeds thereof in the Court of Claims,
and, on proof of ownership and loyalty, he shall receive the proceeds,
less costs and expenses. 89

The act of May, 1872, required the Secretary of the Treasury to pay

1. The first of these descriptions of property, like property of other like kind in or-
dinary international wars, became, wherever taken, ipso facto the property of the
United States. (Halleck's Int. Law.)

2. The second of these descriptions comprehends ships and vessels, with their car-
goes, belonging to the insurgents, or employed in aid of them ; but property in these
was not changed by capture alone, but by regular judicial proceeding and sentence.

Accordingly it was provided, in the abandoned and captured property act of March
12, 1863, (12 Stat., p. 820,) that the property to be collected under it " shall not
include any kind or description used, or intended to be used, for carrying on war
against the United States, such as arms, ordnance, ships, steamboats and their furni-
ture, forage, military supplies, or munitions of war."

3. Almost all the property of the people in the insurgent States was included in the
third description, for after sixty days from the date of the President's proclamation of
July 25, 1862, (12 Stat., p. 1266,) ail the estates and property of those who did not
cease to aid, countenance, and abet the rebellion became liable to seizure and confis-
cation, and it was made the duty of the President to cause the same to be seized and
applied, either specifically or in the proceeds thereof, to the support of the Army. (12
Stat., p. 590.) But it is to be observed that tribunals and proceedings were pro-
vided, by which alone such property could be condemned, and without which it re-
mained unaffected in the possession of the proprietors.

It is thus seen that, except to property nsed in actual hostilities, as mentioned in
the first section of the act of March 12, 1863, no titles were divested in the insurgent
States unless in pursuance of a judgment rendered after due legal proceedings. The
Government recognized to the fullest extent the humane maxims of the modern laws
of nations, which exempt private property of non-combatant enemies from capture
as booty of war. Even the law of confiscation was sparingly employed. The cases
were few indeed' in which the property of any not engaged in actual hostilities was
subjected to seizure and sale.

' The spirit which animated the Government received special illustration from the act
under which the present case arose. We have called the property taken into the custody
of public officers under that act a peculiar species, and it was so. There is, so far as
we are aware, no similar legislation mentioned in history.

As to captured and abandoned property, see —

39th Congress, 2d session, House of Representatives. Ex. Doc. No. 97; Captured
and forfeited 'cotton .

39th Congress, 2d session, Senate. Ex. Doc. No. 37. Relative to proceeds of sale of
cotton, &c.

39th Congress, 2d session, House of Representatives. Ex. Doc. No. 114. Relative to
cotton claims.

House Report, No. 7. 1st sessi >n 40th Congress. November 25, 1867.

40fh Congress, 2d session, Senate. Ex. Doc. No. 22. Letter from the Secretary of the
Treasury relative to captured and abandoned property.

40th Congress, 2d session, Senate. Ex. Doc. No. 56. Relative to sales of captured and
abandoned property.

40th Congress, 3d session, House of Representatives. Ex. Doc. No. 82. Letter from
Secretary of Treasury relative to proceeds of captured and abandoned property.

41st Congress, 3d session, House of Representatives. Ex. Doc. No. 113. Sale of cap-
tured vessels, cotton, &.c.

Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wallace, 421.

89 See acts of March 12, 1863, and July 2, 1864. See a compilation of acts of Congress
and rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, concerning com-
mercial intercourse with the States declared in insurrection, and as to captured, aban-
doned, and confiscable property, reprint, 1872.

238 ALIEN CLAIMS.

to the lawful owners who filed, claims within six months the net pro-
ceeds of sales of cotton seized after June 30, 1865, and actually paid
into the Treasury by agents of the Government unlawfully and in viola-
tion of their instructions.

No proof of loyalty was required under this act, and under the prior
acts it was held that a pardon restored loyalty so as to give a right to
recover. 90

The time has expired within which claims can be made for proceeds
of cotton and other captured and abandoned property, and many claim-
ants are now asking that they be permitted to make proof either before
the Court of Claims or the proper committees of Congress, with a view
to receive the proceeds of property which they allege to have been sold
by the Treasury agents.

There are claims also for pay for cotton and other property seized by
the military authorities and used in military operations as breast-works
for defense and otherwise. 9 '

90 It was also held that the Government became a trustee for the benefit of those
whom it should thereafter recognize as entitled. United States vs. Klien, 13 Wallace,
128, the court say :

" That it was not the intention of Congress that the title to these proceeds should be
divested absolutely out of the original owners of the property seems clear upon a com-
parison of different parts of the act.

" We have already seen that those articles which became by the simple fact of cap-
ture the property of the captor, as ordnance, munitions of war, and the like, or in which
third parties acquired rights which might be made absolute by decree, as ships and
other vessels captured as prize, were expressly excepted from the operation of the act ;
and it is reasonable to infer that it was the purpose of Congress that the proceeds of
the property for which the special provision of the act was made should go into the
Treasury without chauge of ownership. Certainly such was the intention in respect
to the property of loyal men. That the same intention prevailed in regard to the prop-
erty of owners who, though then hostile, might subsequently become loyal, appears
probable from the circumstance that no provision is anywhere made for confiscation
of it ; while there is no trace in the statute-book of intention to divest ownership of
private property not excepted from the effect of this act, otherwise than by proceed-
ings for confiscation.

" In the case of Padelford we held that the right to the possession of private property
was not changed until actual seizure by proper military authority, and that actual
seizure by such authority did not divest the title under the provisions of the captured
and abandoned property act. The reasons assigned seem fully to warrant the conclu-
sion. (The Government constituted itself the trustee for those who were by that act
declared entitled to the proceeds of captured and abandoned property,and for those
whom it should thereafter recognize as entitled.) By the act itself it was provided that
any person claiming to have been the owner of such property might prefer his claim to
the proceeds thereof, and, on proof that he had never given aid or comfort to the re-
bellion, receive the amount after deducting expenses.

"This language makes the right to the remedy dependent upon proof of loyalty, but
implies that there may be proof, of ownership without proof of loyalty. The property
of the original owner is in no case absolutely divested. There is, as we have already
observed, no confiscation, but tho proceeds of the property have passed into the posses-
sion of the Government, and restoration of the property is pledged to none except to
those who have continually adhered to the Government. Whether restoration will bo
made to others, or confiscation will be enforced, is left to be determined by considera-
tions of public policy subsequently to be developed."

Carlisle vs. United States, 16 Wallace, 147.

United States vs. Padelford, 9 Wallace, 531.

Planters' Bank vs. Union Bank, 16 Wallace, 496.

For the circular-letter of tho Secretary of the Treasury of June 27, 1865, being in-
structions to officers relative to captured and abandoned property, see the reprint pam-
phlet copy of 1872, of acts, rules, and regulations as to such property. The act of May
18, 1872, was based on the letter of June 27, 1865.

91 The Judge- Advocate-General decided that col ton taken to strengthen fortifications
and so destroyed has been regarded as a •' loss by casualty of war." (Digest of Opin-
ions Judge-Advocate, 97, 98.) (See Opinions, vol' 26, p. 247 ; Parham v. The Justices, 9
Georgia, 341.) The act of February 9, 1867, 14 Stat., 397, indicated the seuse of Con-

ALIEN CLAIMS. 239

On the 12th July, 1862, before the date (March 12, 1863) of this " cap-
tured and abandoned property act," the Union general, Curtis, seized
cotton owned by private citizens at Helena, Ark. This was sold
by the military authorities July 26, 1862. The proceeds were in part
applied to support the starving negro population, and a portion other-
wise appropriated.

This seizure was determined to be lawful.

Since the act of March 12, 1863, cotton has been seized by Union forces
in the insurrectionary States and used in fortifications, and otherwise
disposed of, by virtue of general military authority.

But this was a lawful exercise of power, and created no liability on the
part of the Government. 92

gress by declaring that no payment should be made for property destroyed in the in-
surrectionary States.

The act of June 1, 1870, 16 Stat., 640, authorized payment to Cutler for cotton seized
by General Grant for military purposes, 78 Globe, 3085, April 29, 1870. But Cutler had
raised the cotton by contract with the Government, made under the captured and aban-
doned property act.

The commissioners of claims allowed for cotton used for beds in hospitals; see first
report, Mis. Doc. 16, 2 sess. 42d Cong., p. 7.

92 Coolidge v. Guthrie, Swayne, J., October term, 1868, southern district Ohio, United
States circuit court, Appendix, p. 591 to (43d ed., 1871) Whiting's War-Powers.

The right to seize and destroy cotton, to impair the power of the enemy to carry on
war, and in the " enemy's country," has been much discussed. It was considered before
the commission under twelfth article, treaty of May 8, 1871, between the United States
and Great Britain. (See Hale's report to Secretary of State, November 30, 1873.) Au-
thorities were cited : Vattel, book 3, c. 9, $§ 161. 163, 164 ; Twiss, v. 2, (war,) pp. 122 to
124 ; Rutherford, book 2, c. 9, § 16 ; Mrs. Alexander's cotton, 2 Wall., 404 ; The United '
States vs. Padelford, 9 id., 531 ; The United States vs. O'Keeffe, 11 id., 178 ; 1 Kent's
Com., pp. 92, 93.

Commissioner Frazer in his opinion said :

The capture or destruction of property on land belonging to individual enemies is
justified by the modern law of nations, if there be military reasons for it; in the
absence of good military reasons such captures are geuerally without the support of
the public law. When such reasons do exist, such capture or destruction is, in the
nature of things, quite as proper as the capture or destruction of such property on
the high seas.

The latter is maintained because an enemy's commerce and navigation are " the
sinews of his naval power," to take or destroy which is, therefore, a legitimate act of
war. (Wheat. Int. Law ; Lawrence, 626.)

"The sinews" of his military power on land must, in view of the natural law, be
equally the subject of capture or destruction by an invading army. Cotton was held
to be such by the Supreme Court, in the case of Mrs. Alexander's cotton, (2 Wall.,
404.) The reasoning of the opinion of the Chief-Justice in that case is, I think,
unanswerable.

The war of the American rebellion was a civil war — an immense one, too, and the
Government had all the rights of war which it would have had if its enemy had been
an independent nation. Even the rebel organization was recognized by Her Majesty's
government as a belligerent, i. e., having the rights of war; and certainly that gov-
ernment is thereby estopped from denying, and, indeed, never has denied, that bel-
ligerent rights also belonged to the Government of the United States. Every act of
war recognized as lawful by the public law between independent states at war was,
therefore, lawful on the part of the United States, and involved no cause for reclama-
tion on the part of neutrals. On this ground only, as a lawful belligerent act, could
a blockade be maintained. The subject is discussed very fully by the Supreme Court
in the prize cases, 2 Black ; and I think the reasoning of that court is conclusive.
* * * * # * #

But are we to be told that the Government of the United States is compelled by its
Constitution to pay its rebellious citizens for their property destroyed as a lawful,
belligerent act? Has its Constitution thus tied its hands as against a rebellion?
Might the rebels, without liability, exercise all recognized belligerent rights against
it, including the capture of the property of British subjects found in the loyal States,
and yet it do the like only subject to the duty of making compensation 1

From all this absurdity there is no escape if the belligerent right of capture and
destruction shall be confounded with the sovereign right of eminent domain. And,
indeed, captures on the high seas must then go into the same general category.

240 ALIEN CLAIMS.

The question now arises, whether provision should be made in any
mode, and, if so, what, in behalf of these classes of claimants, or any of
them.

In fine, a constitution provision — the condition of compensation for property taken
for public use — intended only to restrain civil administration, would be held to so
trammel belligerent rights in time of civil war that effective hostilities against rebels
might sometimes be practically impossible.

The commission held that property in the rebel States might lawfully be destroyed
" as a means of weakening the enemy."

The report, p. 49, says :

"Also claims for property available to the enemy for military purposes, or for the
prosecution of the war, and purposely destroyed in the enemy's country as a means
of weakening the enemy, as in the cases of Samuel H. Haddon, No. 107, and John
Murphy, No. 326. Also, for property incidentally involved in the destruction of public
stores, works, and means of transportation of the enemy, as in the cases of John K.
Byrne, No. 200; Charles Black, No. 128, and A. K. McMillan, No. 250. In these claims
for the destruction of property * * * no awards were made against the United
States."

The claim of Henry E. and Alfred Cox, No. 229, was for a saw-mill and its motive-
power, machinery, &c, destroyed by raiding parties from General Sherman's army,
near Meridian, Miss., in February, 1864. The expedition by which the mill was de-'
strayed was sent out by General Sherman for the express purpose of destroying the
confederate mills, supplies, railroads, and means of transportation.

The proofs showed that the saw-mill in question had been actually employed in the
sawing of railroad-ties for the confederate government, and was available for this aud
similar purposes.

On the part of the defense it was claimed that the destruction was a lawful act of
war.

The claim was unanimously disallowed.

The case of William Smythe, No. 333, was a claim for an iron and brass fonndery,
machine-shop, and machinery, fixtures, supplies, &c, for same, destroyed by General
Sherman in Atlanta, after the capture of that city, and before his advance upon Savan-
nah. The establishment had been employed in the manufacture of shot, shell, and
other military supplies for the confederate government.

The claim was unanimously disallowed.

In Mr. Hale's report it is also said, "A large number of claims was brought for cot-'
ton destroyed by the United States forces at various points in the insurrectionary
Slates."

In several of these cases the proof was clear and undisputed that the cotton was de-
stroyed under express orders from the commanding officers, and for the purpose of pre-
venting it from falling into the hands of the enemy, and of weakening the resources
of the enemy.

On the part of the United States it was maintained that a belligerent might lawfully,
in the enemy's country, destroy any property, public or private, the possession or con-
trol of which might in any degree contribute to sustain the enemy aud increase his
ability to carry on the war. That the occasion for such destruction and its extent
must alwnjs be left solely to the discretion of the invading belligerent, who is of ne-
cessity the s^ole judge as to the requirements of his military position, and of the neces-
sity or propriety of the destruct on of property, and of the extent to which such de-
struction shall be carried.

The counsel for the United States, in his arguments, cited the letter from Earl Rus-
sell to Lord Lyons of 31st May, 1862, from the British Blue-Book, relating to the United
States, 1863, vol. 2, p. 33, in which his lordship said :

"Mr. Seward, in his conversation with your lordship, reported in your dispatch of
the 16th instant, appeared to attribute blame to the confederates for destroying cotton
and tobacco in places which they evacuate on the approach qf the Federal forces. But
it appears to be unreasonable to make this a matter of blame to them, for they could
not be expected to leave such articles in warehouses to become prize of war, and to be
sold for the profit of the Federal Government, which would apply the proceeds to the
purchase of arms to be used against the South."

He cited also Vattel, (Am. ed. of 1861,) pp. 364 to 370, §§ 161 to 173; the case of Mrs.
Alexander's cotton in the Supreme Court of the United States, (2 Wall., 404, 420 ;) and
the opinion of Sir Hugh Cairns aud Mr. Eeilly. given in March, 1865, on the applica-
tion of the Canadian government, and published in the " Saint Albans Raid," compiled
by L. N. Benjamin, Montreal, 1865, page 479, as follows :

" Though in the conduct of war on laud the capture by the officers aud soldiers of
one belligerent of the private property of subjects of the other belligerent is not often
in ordinary crisis avowedly practiced, it is yet legitimate."

Her Majesty's counsel cited the case of the United States vs. Klein, in the Supreme

ALIEN CLAIMS. 241

There is no longer any claim resting on any law. Tlie acts of Congress
referred to fixed a limit of time, and said, in effect, that no claim "should
be made beyond it.

Court of the United States, (13 Wall.. 128;) also the case of Mitchell vs. Harmony, in
the same court, (13 How., 115;) also, the case of W. S. Grant vs United States. (1 C.
Cls., 41 ;) also, Brown vs. The United States, (8 Cranch, 110 ;) also, Lawrence's Wheaton,
Part IV, c. 2, pp. 586 to 626, 635k, 640m ; Halleck, p. 546, § 12 ; Calvo, § 434, 436, 443, 444,
550 ; Vattel, pp. 368-9, § 173.

All the claims for cotton destroyed in the enemy's country, with a single exception,
(that of A. E. McDonald, No. 42,) were disallowed by the unanimous voice of the com-
missioners.

In the argument of this case it was said that, by the United States and Mexican
Claims Commission," it has been decided at the date of the 23d of February, 1871,
in the test case of Fayette Andersou and William Thompson vs. Mexico, ^No. 333,)
that governments are entitled, in time of war, and owing to the necessities of war,
to take the property of private citizens, or destroy it, &c, but that this is always done
with the understanding that the government which has taken or destroyed said
property is bound to pay for it. Such is the view held by the American commissioner.

This rule of law has been constantly applied by said commission to claims of Ameri-
can citizens against Mexico, and vice versa.

Furthermore, the United States have recognized the solemn obligation to compensate
for the destruction of property through positive treaty stipulations. Thus, in the
ninth article of the treaty of 1819, between the United States and Spain, it was agreed
between the high contracting parties that they " respectively renounced all claims to
indemnity for any of the recent events or transactions of their respective commanders
and officers in the Floridas," thus releasing both parties from their respective interna-
tional obligations.

But at the same time, inasmuch as extensive destruction of private property had
been the result of the invasion of Florida by the United States forces, the following
provision was inserted in the same article : (

"The United States will cause satisfaction to be made for injuries, if any, which by
process of law shall be established to have been suffered by Spanish officers and in-
dividual Spanish inhabitants by the late operations of the American Army in Florida."
(See treaties and conventions concluded between the United States of America and
other powers, Forty-first Congress, 3d sess., Senate Ex. Doc. No. 36, pp. 791, 792.)

In accordance with this treaty provision, Congress passed an act conferring jurisdic-
tion upon the United Statescourts in Florida, and appropriated money to pay its decrees.

But the practice of this Government is shown to be against this in the case of Per-
rin vs. United States, 4 Court of Claims, 545, and Seward's letter, therein referred to.

In the case of A. R. McDonald, Nos. 42 and 334, the commission made an award in
favor of the claimant, Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting. In that case the cotton
was alleged to have been purchased by the claimant principally in Ashley County, Ar-
kansas, under permits issued by the proper officers of the United States Treasury, un-
der the statutes regulating trade in the insurrectionary States, and the regulations of
the Secretary of the Treasury, made pursuant to said statutes, and to have been de-
stroyed in the same region by United States forces under the command of General Os-
band, in February, 1865. Thesis statutes and regulations only authorized trade in the
insurrectionary States within the lines of military occupancy of the United States
forces ; and it was contended on the part of the claimants that the issuing of such
permits by the Treasury officers was controlling evidence that the region covered by
the permits, and within which the cotton was alleged to have been purchased and
destroyed, was actually within the military lines of the United States.

The entire claim of this claimant amounted, including interest, to over $3,000,000.
The award was for the sum of $197,1^0, including interest. I am advised that, in the
making of this award, the majority of the commission did not intend to depart from
the principle held by them in the other claims for cotton destroyed ; but that they re-
garded the permits as controlling evidence that the region where the cotton was situ-
ated was within the lines of Federal occupancy.

After the capture of Knoxville, Tenn., the cotton of Cowan & Dickinson in a ware-
house was taken by Union military forces for fortifications, to repel the rebel attack of
Longstreet, whose forces beleaguered the city November 17, 1863, and made an assault
upon the defenses November 28. (See Senate Claims Committee report, No. 85, 2d sess.
42d Cong., March 27, 1872.)

As to claim of Cowan & Dickinson, of Knoxville, Tenn., see 93 Globe for January
and February, 1873 ; House proceedings, 93 Globe, 697, 1022,1088, 1196,1200, 1401,1468,
1492 ; Senate, 1039, 1061, 1214, 1360, 1434, 1474, 1477. A bill passed Congress February
19, 1873, to pay for this cotton, but Congress adjourned in less than ten days from the
time the President received it, and it failed for want of his approval.

H. Rep. 134 16

242 ALIEN CLAIMS.

By the common law of war, as bas been sbown, uo claim can be made.

The questions therefore arise, Is it practicable, at, this late day, to do
justice alike to the Government and claimants, and are there reasons
for now admitting claims to be made 1 ?

Congress doubtless prescribed the period of two years after the sup-
pression of the rebellion within which claims should be filed in order
that some end should exist to demands of this class on the Treasury.
And the act of March 30, 1868, required all money arising from cap-
tured and abandoned property to be covered into the Treasury, (15 Stat.,
251.) This was intended to put an end to payments from the Treasury,
except on judgments in pursuance of prior statutes. This policy so
settled should not be changed unless for urgent reasons.

The policy of the law was not to allow claims in favor of those who
had organized or aided rebellion. They had no legal claims on the Gov-
ernment. Nearly tea years have passed since much of this cotton was
seized, and if the time is extended for making claims, very many, if not
most of those who were really disloyal, will be able to assert and prove
loyalty. The evidence of disloyalty will be almost entirely lost. The
Commissioners of Claims, in their first annual report, in December, 1871,
say:

It is easier atrd more profitable to be loyal now than it was during the war, and
much of the proof of disloyalty has perished or been forgotten in the lapse of time.

In their second annual report, December 9, 1872, they say :

Wo find by experience that, to form a correct opinion as to whether a claimant was
or was not loyal during the war, we cannot safely rely upon the mere opinion of witnesses
as to his loyalty, and upon statements at this late day of alleged conversations. 93

The immense number of claims rejected for disloyalty, yet supported
by much of apparent proof of loyalty, shows how unreliable the evidence
is at this late day.

Mr. Delano, with his experience as chairman of the Committee on
Claims in the Thirty-ninth Congress, said in the House of Representa-
tives as to claimants from the States proclaimed in rebellion :

If we go into an inquiry as to the loyalty of these individuals, my word for it every
one of them will give us some evidence of loyalty. You will find that they will be
able to procure ex-parte affidavits or evidence of some sort apparently sufficient for the
establishment of their loyalty. These, and like considerations, have brought the com-
mittee to the conclusion — and that conclusion was unanimous — that an effort to dis-
criminate between the loyal and the disloyal would be an impracticability, and that
the result of it would be to bring this House to the payment of all this class of claims. 9 -'

The net proceeds of captured and abandoned property remaining in
the Treasury February 27, 1874, was $14,410,429. The awards made
by the Court of Claims, and not yet paid, out of this fund are $1,834,011,
and the claims still pendiug in that court aggregate over $20,000,000.
To this are to be added claims now pending before Congress, reaching
some millions.

The cotton captured after June 1, 1865, approximates $5,500,000,
representing about fifty thousand bales, nearly all seized as owned by
the so-called confederate government, which had purchased it of citizens
in exchange for confederate bonds delivered them. Yet, on this fund,
most of it confessedly arising from cotton of this character, claims are
filed before the Secretary of the Treasury by individual claimants, under

93 See Lawrence's House Rep. No. 91, 1 sess. 43 Cong., Feb. 9, 1874, p. 7.
"56 Globe, 509, January 30, 1866.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 243

the act of May 18, 1872, covering 136,000 bales, nearly three times the
amount seized, and aggregating nearly $ 18,000,000. 95

From all this it is apparent that no committee ot Congress could with,
any degree of justice either to the Government or claimants, investigate
separate claims. This could only be done by a body clothed with power
to visit southern localities and ascertain facts by a searching scrutiny
and personal conferences with witnesses. If any provision should be
made in this class of claims it should be in a mode very different than

95 Memorandum.

Treasury Department, February 27, 1874.
Gross proceeds of captured and abandoned cotton,

(including premium on coin proceeds) $21,500,000 00

Expenses of collection, sale, &c 3, 000, 000 00

Net proceeds $18,500,000 00

Gross proceeds of miscellaneous property 1,375,000 00

. Expenses of collection, sale, &c 86, 000 00

Net proceeds 1,289,000 00

Miscellaneous receipts, rents of abandoned houses, &.c 1, 121, 656 44

Total amount covered in from above sources 20, 910, 656 44

Refunded to claimants upon awards of the Court of

Claims under section 3, act of March 12, 1863 6, 300, 463 80

Refunded to claimants upon awards of the Secretary

of the Treasury under section 5, act of May 18, 1872. 97, 734 10

Paid for expenses, &c, under section 3, joint resolution

ofMarch30, 1868 75,000 00

Upon judgments of United States circuit conrt, New

York, under act of July 27, 1868 27,029 37

Amounting in the aggregate to 6, 500, 227 27

The balance of said fund still remaining in the Treasury is 14, 410, 429 17

Additional amount awarded by the Court of Claims, and claims still pending for captured and

abandoned lands.

Awards made by the Court of Claims not yet paid, amount to $1, 834, 011 00

The claims still pending in the Court of Claims uuder the captured and

abandoned property acts aggregate over 20, 000, 000 00

The claims filed before the Secretary of the Treasury, under the act of

May 18, 1872, cover 136,000 bales of cotton ; estimated val ue about . . 18, 000, 000 00
The proceeds of cotton collected after Jane 1, 1855, and paid into the Treasury, ap-
proximate $5,500,000, representing about 50,000 bales, of which over 40,000 bales, it is
estimated, had been sold to the confederate government.

Moneys covered into the Treasury to credit of captured and abandoned property fund.

Proceeds of captured and abandoned property, including premium oa

coin proceeds $20,910,656 44

Profits to Government arising from purchase and resale of products
under section 8, act of July 2, 1864 3,441,548 09

Amount expended from proceeds of captured and abandoned property

and returned 2,465,833 69

Total 26,818,038 22

Deduct premium on coin proceeds of Savannah, Charleston, and Mobile
cotton 2,566,768 29

Amount covered in as proceeds of captured and abandoned property.. 24, 251, 209 93
M. L. NOERR, In charge of captured and abandoned property.

List of executive documents relating to captured and abandoned property, cf-c.

39th Congress, 2d session, House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. No. 97 : Captured and

forfeited cotton.
39th Congress, 2d session, Senate, Ex. Doc. No. 37 : Letter from the Secretary of the

Treasury, relative to the proceeds of sale of cotton, &.c.

244 ALIEN CLAIMS.

that of an examination of claims in detail on ex-parte evidence by a
committee of Congress.

Loyal citizens residing in the loyal States during the rebellion, but
having property, real or personal, in the States proclaimed in insurrec-
tion, can by the strict rules of international law claim for it no immu-
nity. Its local situs imparts to it the character and status of enemy's
property. It may be lawfully used for military purposes, or destroyed
if it will be useful to the enemy. 96

The property situated in tbe enemy's country owned by corporations
existing by virtue of charters granted by foreign governments,' or loyal
States, or rebel States, before or since secession, can claim no protec-
tion beyond that accorded to other enemy's property. A large part of
the property in the insurrectionary States might be held by corpora-
tions, and thus be a means of strength to the rebellion. 97

39th Congress. 2d session, House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. No. 114 : Letter of the

Secretary of the Treasury, relative to cotton-claims.
40th Congress, 2d session, Senate, Ex. Doc. No. 22 : Letter from the Secretary of the

Treasury, relative to captured and abandoned property.
40th Congress, 2d session, Senate, Ex. Doc. No. 56 : Letter of the Secretary of the

Treasury, relative to the sale of captured and abandoned cotton.
40th Congress, 3d session, House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. No. 82 : Letter from the

Secretary of the Treasury, relative to the proceeds of captured and abandoned

property.
41st Congress, 3d session, House of Representatives, Ex. Doc. No. 113 : Letter from th&

Secretary of the Treasury, relative to the sale of captured vessels, cotton, &c.
43d Congress, 2d session, Ex. Doc. No. 23 : Report of Acting Secretary of the Treasury,

February 1, 1875.

96 Lawrence's Wbeaton, 565-576; The Gray Jacket, 5 Wallace, 342-364; Whiting
War Powers, (43d ed., 1872, p. 582;) Attorney-General's opinion, November 24, 1865,
11 Opinions, 405; Elliott's Claim, September 7, 1868, 12 Opinions, 488; Perrin vs.
United States, 4 Court Claims, 543. See note 31, ante.

97 This rule is not changed by the fact that the confiscation acts do not apply to cor-
porate property. Planters' Bank vs. Union Bank, 16 Wallace, 433.

House Rep. 777, 1st sess. 43d Cong., June 22, 1874— Book-agents M. E. Church
South, p. 12, &c.

As to southern railroad companies, see House Report 34, 39th Congress, 2d session,
March 2, 1867 ; House Rep. No. 3, 2d sess. 40th Cong., Dec. 11, 1867 ; Ex. Doc. No. 73,
2d sess. 40th Cong., Jan. 7, 1868; House Rep. No. 15, 2d sess. 40th Cong., Feb. 7, 1868 y
House Rep. No. 78, 2d sess. 41st Cong., June 9, 1870 ; see opinion of Stanton in House
Rep. No. 7, 1st sess. 40th Cong., Nov. 25, 1867.

It must be apparent that a rebellion cannot shield itself behind one or many corpo-
rations, and thus use property for its purposes and deny the right of seizure for loyal
purposes.

And it is the right and duty of military officers to select such property as best suits
the purposes of military operations, and their decision is final— necessarily so.

The Supreme Court, in Mrs. Alexander's Cotton case, asserted the power and duty of
military officers to seize property, and said :

" It is true that this rule, as to property on land, has received very important quali-
fications from usage, from the reasonings of enlightened publicists, and from judicial
decisions. It may now be regarded as substantially restricted ' to special cases, dic-
tated by the necessary operations of war,' and as excluding, in general, the seizure of
private property of pacific persons for the sake of gain. The commanding general may
determine in what special cases its more stringent application is required by military emergen-
cies ; while considerations of public policy, and positive provisions of law, and the
general spirit of legislation must indicate the cases in which its application may be
properly denied to the property of non-combatant enemies."

The right and duty of the Government to seize and occupy the property of corpo-
rations to aid in suppressing the rebellion and in preserving the territorial integrity of
the nation and the unity of its people, are not based on the disloyalty of the owner.
Disloyalty gives strength to the right, and additional ground for refusing to make
compensation. The right and duty rest on the imperative necessity to seize it — an
" overruliug necessity " which admits of no choice or discretion, but compels it, under
penalty of imperiling the cause of the Union, or which renders it reasonably certain
that such seizure is proper. It does not depend on the animus of the person whose
property is seized — his loyalty or disloyalty.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 245

Loyal citizens residing in the loyal States, or in the States proclaimed
In rebellion, can, as a general rule, by the strict rules of law, make no
claim to compensation for use and occupation of real property in the
States proclaimed in insurrection, of buildings or lands, by military
authorities during the rebellion.

As by the laws of war the lawful military authorities might destroy
houses in these States to prevent them from being a means of aid and
comfort to the rebellion, or to hasten its speedy overthrow, so they may
much the more be used without liability to make compensation. 93

Thus Bynkershoek says :

" But the thing does not depend only on the quo animo ; for, even among the subjects
of our enemy, there are some, however few they may be, who are not hostilely inclined
against us ; but the matter depends upon the law, because those goods are with the enemy,
and because they are of use to them for our destruction."

To which may be added, because they are essential to our success.

It is certainly true that the members of a corporation, as such, are incapable of dis-
loyalty, but it is not true in every respect. Both the corporation and its members
may be guilty of disloyal acts, and so disloyal.

A corporation, like a tree, is known by its fruits. A corporation which encourages
men to make war — to convert pruniug-hooks iuto spears, aud plowshares into swords —
is by no means loyal.

There was a time when it was held that a corporation could not commit a trespass.
But that doctrine has long since been exploded. A corporation acts by its agents.
Their authorized acts within the scope of the corporate authority are the acts of the
corporation. The maxim applies, quifacitper alium facit per se. "A corporation may be
guilty of disloyalty.

98 See letter of Quartermaster-General M. C. Meigs, of February 26, 1874, in appendix
to this report.

No claim was made for use and occupation in the insurrectionary States before the
commission held under twelfth article of the treaty between the United States and
Great Britain of May 8, 1871, except " within the loyal portiftns of the United States,
or within those portions of the insurrectionary States permanently reclaimed by the
United States, aud for damages resulting from such use and occupation."

It was conceded that use and occupation should be paid for iu loyal States, and the
only objection made to the consideration of such claims was, that the Court of Claims
had jurisdiction.

In Mr. Hale's report, it is said :

" The counsel cited the letter of Earl Granville to Mr. Stewart, (No. 23 of parliamen-
tary papers, No. 4, on the Franco-German war, 1871, British State Papers ;) Professor
Bernard's "Neutrality of Great Britain," &c, pp. 440, 454 ; also the note of Mr. Abbot
(Lord Tenterden) relating to this identical claim of Mr. Crutchett, id., 456; also, the
case of William Cook before the commissioners under the convention of 1853 between
the United States and Great Britain, (United States Senate Documents, first and second

■ Angel and Amea on Corporations, 9th ed., sections 311, 382, 384.

Union Bank v. McDonough, 5 La., 63 ; and see Ware v. Barrataria Canal Company, 15 La., 168 ; Seers
v. Housatonic Railroad Co., 19 Conn., 566 ; Bradley v. Boston R., 2 Cush., 539 ; Baltimore R. Co. v. Wood-
ruff, 4 Md., 242; Sharrodv. London R. Co., 4 Exoh., 585, 586; Gillenwaterv. Madison R. Co., 5 Ind., 939.

MarlattY. Levee SUam Cotton Press Co., 10 La., 583; and see Memphis v. Lasser, 9 Humph., 757; Duncan
v. Surry Canal, 3 Starke, 50 ; Smith v. Birmingham Gas Co., 1 A. and E., 526, 3 Nov. and M., 771 ; Rex
v. Medley, 6 C. and P., 292, per Denroan, C. J. ; Maund v Monmouthshire Canal Co., 1 Car. and M., 606, 4
Man. and G., 452, 455 ; Regina v. Birmingham R. Co., 2 G-ale and D., 236, 9 C. and P., 469 ; Eastern Counties
R. v. Broom, 6 Exch., 314,2 Eng. L. and Eq., 406; Hawkins v. Ihttchess Steamboat Co., 2 Wend., 452
Beach v. Fulton Bank, 7 Cowen, 485 ; New York v. Bailey, 2 Denio, 433 ; Hay v. Cohoes Co., 3 Barb., 42 .
Watson v. Bennett, 12 Barb., 196 ; Kneass v. Schuylkill Bank, 4 Wash. C. C, 106 ; Lyman v. White River
Bridge Co., 2 Aik., 255 ; Rabassa v. Orleans Nav. Co., 3 La., 461 ; Goodloe v. City of Cincinnati, 4 Ohio, 513
Smithy, same, id.,'4\i; MeCready\. Guardians of the Poor, 9 S. and R., 94; McKim v. Odum, 3 Bland
ch. 421 ; Humes v. Knoxville, 1 Humph., 403 ; Edwards v. Union Bank of Fla., 1 Fla., 136 ; Bank of Ken-
tucky v. Schuylkill Bank, 1 Parsons's Sel. Cas., 251 ; Whiteman v. Wilmington R. Co., 2 Harring., Del., 514
Ten Eyck v. Delaware Canal Co., 3 Harrison, 200 ; Underwood v. Newport Lyceum, 5 B. Mon., 130 ; Ham
ilton County v. Cincinnati T. Co., Wright, 603 ; Town of Akron v. McOomb, 18 Ohio, 229 ; Riddle v. Pro-
prietors, dc, 7 Mass., 187 ; Thayer v. Boston, 19 Piot., 516, 517 ; Carman v. Steubenville R. Co., 4 Ohio.
State, 399 ; Moore v. Fitchburgh R. Corp., 4 Gray, 465 ; McDougald v. Bellamy, 18 Ga., 411.

Chitty on Plead., 68; Fowle v. Common Council of Alexandria, 3 Pet., 409; Bushel v. Commonwealth
Ins. Co., 15 S. and R., 173.

Chestnut Hill T. Co., in error, v. Rutter, 4 S. and R., 6. In this case ranch learning will be found on the
subject and many references to the Year-Books, and other ancient as well as modern authorities. First
Baptist Church V. Schenectady R. Co., 5 Barb., 79 ; see, also, N. Y. T. Co. v. Dryburg, 35 Penn. State,
■298. (c.)

Yarborough v. Bank of England, 16 East, 6 ; Smith v. Birmingham Gas-Light Co., 1 A. and E., 526 ;
Mayor of Lynn v Turner, Oowp., 86; Denton v. Great Northern R. Co., 5 Ellis and B., 860 ; 34 Eng. L. and
Eq., 154 ; see, also, Conger v. Chicago R. Co., 15 III., 366 ; Keegan v. Western R. Co., 4 Seld., 175.

Lee v. Village of Sandy Hill, 40 N. Y., 422 ; Beach v. Fulton Bank, 7 Cowen, 485 ; Brown v. South Ken-
nebec Ag. Soc, 47 Maine, 275 ; N. Y. R. Co. v. Schuyler, 38 Barb., 534 ; 34 IT. Y., 30.

246 ALIEN CLAIMS.

The policy determined on by Congress is clearly expressed in the act
of February 21, 1867, which prohibits " the settlement of any claim for

sessions Thirty-fourth Congress, vol. 15, No. 103, pp. 169, 463;) also the case of the
United States vs. O'Keeffe, in the Supreme Court Of the United States, (11 Wall., 178;)
and the eases of Waters, (4 C. Cls. Rep., 390 ;) Russell, (5 id., 120 ;) Filor vs. United
States, (9 Wall., 45;) also Campbell's ease, (5 C. Cls. Rep., 252,) and Provine's case,
(id., 455.)

On the part of the claimant it was contended that, while the claimant was en-
titled to compensation for the use of his property under the Constitution of the United
States, the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims in the case was taken away by the
act of Congress of July 4, 1864, (13 Stat., 381,) citing Filor vs. United States, (9
Wall., 45.)

An award was made in favor of the claimant for the value of the nse and occupa-
tion, in which all the commissioners joined.

The cases decided by the commission under art. 12, treaty 8th May, 1871, between
United States and Great Britain, hold the same principle. Compensation was only de-
manded by British subjects owning real estate " within the loyal potions of the L'niled
States, or within those portions of the insurrectionary States permanently reclaimed by
the United States, and for damages resulting from such use and occupation." See Hale's
report to Secretary of State, November 30, 1873, p 46. The Government has always
paid for any substantial use and occupation of real property in the loyal States when
voluntarily taken by contract or impressment, and not as a military necessity by reason
of hostile military operations.

This will be seen from the following:

" War Department, Quartermaster-General's Office,
Washington, D. C, February 19, 1874.

" Sir : I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of February 16, 1874, asking
information in regard to the laws under whiuh this Office recommi'nds payment 'for
occupation of real estate during the war,' and ' what has been the usage of the Gov-
ernment in such cases,' &c.

" The fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that private
property shall not be taken for public uses without just compensation.

" The law of March 3, 1813, chapter 513, section 5, authorizes the Secretary of War to
' fix and make reasonable allowances for the store-rent, storage, &c, for the safe keep-
ing of all military stores and supplies.'

" By the 42d Article of Revised Regulations (Authorized and effect. See House
Rep. No. 6, Committee War-Claims, 2d sess. 43d Congress, p. 4) of the Army, August
10, 1861, approved by the President, and published for the information and govern-
ment of the military service, it is made the duty of the Quartermaster's Department
to provide quarters, store-houses, offices, and lands for encampments for the Army.
When public buildings, &e., are not sufficient to quarter troops, authority to hire
private property for such uses is given by said regulations to the commanding officer
of the department, who reports the case, and his orders therein, to the Quartermaster-
General.

" Claims for such rents due and not already paid, arising in loyal States during the
war, when presented for payment, are investigated by the officer of this Department iu
the district wherein the claim originated, and reported to this Office. If they are found,
on examination here, to be correct and just, the claims are forwarded with all the facts
to the Secretary of War with report, and recommendation that authority be given to
transmit the same to the Third Auditor of the Treasury, with recommendation for set-
tlement.

" (The act of March 3, 1817, chapter 218, section 2, for the ' prompt settlement of ac-
counts,' &c, provides that all claims against the United States shall be settled and,
adjusted in the Treasury Department.) /

" If the accounts before referred to are approved by the Third Auditor and Second
Comptroller, they issue a Treasury certificate showing the sum which those officers
consider to be legally due to the claimants, and the appropriation to the credit of the
War Department applicable to the payment of their award.

"The Treasury settlement is returned to this Office for entry, when the Secretary of
War is asked to make a requisition on the Treasury for payment for the amount.

"These are in brief the law and the usage governing the disposition of rent-claims,
arising in loyal States, filed in this Office.

"It has been decided that the law of July 4, 1864, providing for settlement of claims
for quartermaster stores taken during the war, does not apply to claims for rent.
" Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

"M.C.MEIGS,
" Quartermaster-General, Brevet Major-General, U. S. A.

" Hon. William Lawrence, M. C,

" Bouse of Representatives, the Capital, L). C."

ALIEN CLAIMS. 247

the occupation of or injury to real estate when such claim originated
during the war for the suppression of the southern rebellion in a State
or part of a State declared in insurrection." 99

" War Department,
Bureau op Military Justice,

" Washington, D. C, January 4, 1875.

" Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt from you of two communications
of the 29th ultimo: one relating to a claim for the use and occupation of a building
taken and used by the military authorities ia New Orleans in March, 1863; and the
other referring to the matter of the settlement of claims of a similar character arisiug,
however, in a State not in insurrection. To these communications I have to reply as
follows :

" 2. As to the claim for rent of ouilcling taken and used (tvithout contract) for officers' quar-
ters, in Saint Joseph, Mo. In your communication in reference to this claim, while you
recognize the general liability of the United States to pay a claim of this character,
you at the same time inquire as to the point of the practice of the War Department in
the disposition of such claims. You say : ' What I want to know is, whether the naked
power to examine and recommend for paymeut still exists in the War Department.'

" In my judgment claims of this character are strictly excluded from examination
by the War Department. Rent cannot, in my opinion, as heretofore frequently express-
ed, be held to he embraced within the term 'quartermaster's stores' as employed in
the act of July 4, 1864, (see Digest, p. 99, sec. 3,) and I know of no other general statute
empowering the Secretary of War, or any military official, to adjust and settle claims
for the rent of land or buildings used or occupied by military authority, in the absence
of any authorized contradt for the purpose.

"It is understood, however, that claims of this character have sometimes been con-
sidered and reported upon as to their merits at the War Department, on the theory
that they came within the fifth amendment of the Constitution, providing compensa-
tion for property taken for public use; but that even this practice has now been dis-
continued, because the funds which were supposed to be applicable to the payment of
the cost of investigating the claims (which was customarily done through an officer of
the Quartermaster's Department) have all been turned into the Treasury under recent
statutes.

"In my own opinion, the general declaration of the fifth amendment can, pec se, con-
fer no authority whatever upon an Executive Department or officer to adjudicate a
claim of this character. It clearly confers no authority upon such Department or offi-
cer to pay such a claim ; and if the authority m to pay does not exist, to assume (in the
absence of any specific direction by Congress)' to investigate and pass upon the merits
of the claim, would certainly appear to be as extra-official, and uncalled for in fact, as
it would be futile in law.

" Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

"J. HOLT,
"Judge- Advocate-General.

"Hon. Wm. Lawrence,

" Chairman Committee on War-Claims,

"House of Representatives."

» 14 Stat., 397 ; 11 Opinions. Nov. 24, 1865, p. 405 ; 12 Opinions, 486, Sept. 7, 1868, de-
clares that "a claim for use and occupation of real estate in Tennessee by the Army
in January, 1863, cannot be settled by the Executive Department of the Government,
under act July 4, 1864, and February 21, 1867." Filer vs. United States, 9 Wallace,
45 ; Provine's Case, 5 Court of Claims, 455 ; Kimball's Case, Id., 252.

For some time after the passage of the act of July 4, 1864, the Quartermaster-Gene-
ral's Department paid for rents jn certain parts of the rebel States under regulations of
that Department, as follows :

" Proofs required in support of the above classes of claims, (claims for supplies fur-
nished for use of the Army.)

" That the claimant is a citizen of a State not in rebellion. Claims of citizens of the
following States and parts of States, declared by the President of the United States, by
his proclamation of 1st January, 1863, to be in rebellion, will not be considered, viz :
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the parishes of Saint Bernard, Plaquemines, Jef-
ferson, Saint John, Saint Charles, Saint James, Ascension, Assumption, Terre Bonne, La
Fourche, Saint Mary, Saint Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans,)
Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia,
(except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of
Berkeley, Accomack, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk,
including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth.")

See letter of Quartermaster-General M. C. Meigs of February 26, 1874, in appendix
to this report.

248 ALIEN CLAIMS.

A question has been made as to the right of the Government in war
to seize the private houses of citizens. It seems clear that on the prin-

But after the act of February 21, 1867, the regulations were altered as follows :

I. Claims to be submitted to and examined by the quartermaster-general.

All claims of loyal citizens, in States not in rebellion, for " quartermaster's stores "
actually furnished to the Army of the United States, and receipted for by the proper
officer receiving the same, or which may have been taken by such officers without giv-
ing such receipts.

II. Claims to be submitted to and examined by the commissary-general of

SUBSISTENCE.

All claims of loyal citizens, in States not in rebellion, for " subsistence " actually fur-
nished to said Army, and receipted for by the proper officer receiving the same, or
which may have been taken by such officers without giving such receipts.

III. Proofs required in support of the abovb classes of claims.

1st. That the claimant is a loyal citizen of a State not in rebellion. (Claims of cit-
zens of the following States, declared by the President of the United States, by his
proclamation of the first day of July, 1862, to be in insurrection, will not be considered,
viz : Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Caro-
lina, North Carolina, and Virginia.)

2d. Citizenship. — The claimant will be required to show by his own affidavit, sup-
ported by the certificate of the clerk or recorder of the town or county of which he
claims to be a citizen, that said claimant is a citizen of said town or county.

3d. Loyalty. — The claimant will be required to file with his claim the oath of alle-
giance," &c.

Claim of Joseph Segar. — Claim for compensation for use and occupation of his farm
near Fortress Monroe in Virginia, during the late war, by the United States military
forces. For Senate proceedings and debates, see Globe, vol. 89, second session Forty-
second Congress, pages 2261, 2262, 2674, 2675 ; see Senate Report No. 95, second session
Forty-second Congress. For House proceedings and debates, see Globe, vol. 91, page
3844. See Stat., vol. 17, page 670.

The act of June 10, 1872, 17 Stat., 699, paid for damages done to leased premises.

But the general rule of public law is, that the Government is not liable for such un-
authorized damages during the rebellion.

In the report of the Committee on War-Claims, No. 740, 1 sess. 43 Cong., on a claim
for use and occupation of, and damages to, a building used by ihe Government in Alex-
andria, Va., in 1862 and 1864, it was said :

" It is proper to consider first the claim for damages done to the premises by rebel
soldiers confined therein August 31, 1862.

" On the 13th of February, 1863, the Committee on Military Affairs of the House re-
ported in favor of paying $5,044 for these damages. From that time to this Congress
has never made any compensation. (House Report No. 38, 3d session, 37th Congress,
February 13, 1863.) This claim for damages is very different from a claim for use and
occupation. The Government is not liable by any principle of public law to make com-
pensation for wanton damage or depredations committed by rebel soldiers, even when
imprisoned.

" The Government only performed a duty when its forces captured the rebels, and hav-
ing them in custody it had a right to imprison them and to seize the necessary build-
ings for that purpose. And, as a general rule, a government can incur no liability for
performing a duty or exercising a right in flagrant war. An unlawful act by govern-
ment authority might bring liability. All this is shown in the House Report No. 262,
made by the Committee on War-Claims, March 26, 1874.

" In a report made by Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, to the House
of Representatives, November 19, 1792, he stated the rule of law to be —

" That, according to the laws and usages of nations, a state is not obliged to make
compensation for damages done to its citizens by an enemy, or wantonly or un-
authorized by its own troops.

" ' This is a rule adopted in a resolve of the Continental Congress June 3, 1784 ; Jour-
nals, vol. 4,'p. 443. It was re-iterated and approved by a committee of House of Rep-
resentatives March 29, 1822. American State Papers, Claims, 858.'

'• The rule, as thus stated, applies to all damages, whether in battle, or by the seizure
of army supplies, or the wanton destruction of private property on a raid or march, or
otherwise. Undoubtedly it was a duty of the Government officers in charge of the
rebel prisoners to use proper care that they should commit no waste. But it is not
shown that they failed in their duty. It is presumed that they did their duty, and ex-
ercised proper care. This presumption rests on a well-known maxim.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 249

ciples of the laws of war — the generally accepted law of nations — the
Government has a right in. an insurrectionary district, or in "enemy's

" But if this were not so. the Government is not liable to make compensation for in-
juries resulting from the torts, misfeasances, or omissions of duty of its officers. (See
House Rep. No. 262, 1st ses. 43d Cong., p. 46, note 91 ; Gibbons vs. U.S., 8 Wallace, 269.)

" The Government, therefore, is not liable for any part of this claim.

" This is the rule as against even loyal claimants, and in a loyal State."

This subject has been still more fully discussed in other reports of the committee.

The following is given for information on the same subject :

War Department, Washington City, February 24, 1874.

SlK : In reply to your letter of the 16th instant, requesting information, concerning
the practice of the Government in regaid to the payment of war-claims, the Secrerary
of War has the honor to inform yon diat there is nothing in the records of the War
Department illustrating the prac'ice of the Government in that regard duriog the
revolutionary w, or that of 1812.

It may be remarked, however, that those wore wars wir,h foreig l powers, when no
portion of the iubabitauts of rue United Sates occupied the relation of enemies to the
other portioD, and do distinct ion prevailed between loyal and disloyal territory. Atsnch
periods, therefore, there could have arisen none of that class of claims which, during
the late rebellion, grew our of such relation or distinction.

With reference to the three classes of claims originating in loyal States, specified in
your letter, the following remarks are presen'ed, not as exhausting the subject, but as
affording you, without, delay, a general statement of the present usage aud opinion
of this Department. You say : " I wish to know what has been the practice of the
War and Treasury Departments and of the Government duiingthe war of 1812, and the
rebellon, and revolutionary war, in the following cases :

" 1. For damage to crops, fences, &c, by an army in its march, (in loyal States.)

" '2. For temporary oc< upancy of houses and lands necessary (A) on a march, (B) pre-
paratory to a battle, (C) afcer battle. These will be required for officers, hospitals,
stores, &c.

" 3. For cotton-bales, timber, and materials to build a fort or breast-wo'k in war, to
meet or repel an enemy — this in a loyal State. This is aiiferent from the erection of
a fort in time of peace. * * * Now, I want the usage of all our wars. I also want
the law and reference to cases, authorit es, &c. * * * To save time, I respectfully
ask you to send answer direct to me, for if sent to Speaker of House the delay may
be corisiderable."

In regard to claims of the third class mentioned, it is believed to have been the uoi-
foim practice of the War Department to abide by the well-established legal principle
which precludes the executive branch of the Government from allowing claims for
damages to property destroyed or injured in the common defense or due prosecution
of war against a public enemy. This principle is clearly laid down in Parham vs.
Justices of Decatur County, 9 Georgia, 348, 349, cited in Digest of Opinions of the
Judge-Advocate-General, p. 97, and is very fully set forth in "Whiting's War-Powers
under the Constitution," (Boston, 1871,) pp. 331-341, a work, indeed, which may
throughout be found to throw much light upon the questions propounded in your
letter.

The same general principle of law is believed to have been uniformly observed in
practice in regard to claims of the first class mentioned in your letter, for damages to
crops, fences, &c. Cases, indeed, may have occurred where growing crops, fence-tim-
ber, &c, may have been seized f r the use of the Army in loyal States, and claims for the
same may have been legally adjustable by the Quartermaster-General and Commissary-
General of Subsistence, under the act of July 4, 1864, as claims for supplies taken under
an implied contract. But claims of this sort for damages are wholly excluded from
the jurisdiction of the Executive Departments of the Government. (See Whiting, p.
340.)

As to claims of the second class mentioned, (for rent for houses or lands seized and
occupied by the military authorities in loyal States during the rebellion,) where such
occupation is an intrinsic part of active maneuvers, and the damage is clearly inci-
dental to the critical operations of war, it may be unnecessary to say that such a claim,
if presented, could not be allowed by this Department. In other cases of private lands
and buildings, taken for military purposes, the practice is as follows : Claims for rent
due, and not already paid, arising in loyal States during the war, when presented for
payment, are investigated by the officer of the Quartermaster's Department in the
district wherein the claim originated, and reported to the office of the Quartermaster-
General. If they are found on examination there to be correct and just, the claims
are forwarded, with all the facts, to the Secretary of War, with report, and recom-
mendation that authority be given to transmit the same to the Third Auditor of the

250 ALIEN CLAIMS.

country," to take and use whatever may be necessary for the conven-
ience or support of the Army.

Treasury. If approved, they are then transmitted with recommendation for settle-
ment.

This is done by virtue of an implied contract, under the fifth amendment of the
Constitution. An act of March 3, 1813, ch. 513, sec. 5, authorizes the Secretary of War
to " fix and make reasonable allowance for the store-rent, storage, &c, for the safe-
keeping of all military stores and supplies. By the forty-second article of Revised
Regulations of the Army, August 11, 1861, approved bytbe President, and published
for the information and government of the military service, it is made the duty of the
Quartermaster's Department to provide quarters, store-houses, offices, and lands for
encampments for the Army. When public buildings are not sufficient to quarter
troops, authority to hire private property for such uses is given by said regulations to
the commanding officer of the department, who reports the case, aud his orders therein,
to the Quartermaster General.

It must be admitted that the regular mode of providing lands and buildings for the
temporary occupation of the Army is by express contract, and that there is no specific
statutory authority for the allowance of rent-claims on the ground of an implied con-
tract, as there is in the case of quartermaster's stores and subsistence; bnt it is
believed that the practice of the. War Department in this regard is well known to Cou-
gress, and thus far it has met with no mark of disapproval.
Respectfully.

WM. W. BELKNAP, Secretary of War.

Hon. William Lawrence,

Chairman Committee on War-Claims, House of Representatives.

War Department, Quartermaster-General's Office,

Washington, D. C, February 26, 1874.

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 24th instant,
on the subject of this Department paying for rent of property in certain parts of the
rebel States, subsequent to the act of July 4, 1864; aud to invite your attention to the
inclosed printed schedule of proclamations of Presidents Lincoln and Johnson, respect-
ing the condition of the insurrectionary States.

By reference thereto, it will be seen that the proclamation of July 1, 1862, declares,
among other States, Louisiana in rebellion. The proclamation of January 1, 1863, de-
clares Louisiana in rebellion, except certain parishes. The proclamation of April 2,
1863, declares the whole State in rebellion, except the port of New Orleans.

The proclamation of January 1, 1863, shows what States and parts of States were, at
that time, in rebellion.

The act of July 4, 1864, to restrict the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, was made
applicable to all States and parts of States, except such as were excluded by proclama-
tion of January 1, 1863.

On June 18, 1866, Congress extended the benefit of the act (4th July, 1864) to the
counties of Berkeley and Jefferson, West Virginia.

On July 28, 1866, the same benefits were extended to loyal citizens of Tennessee.

The Judge- Advocate-General having held, February 16, 1866, that a claim for sub-
sistence-stores, taken for Army use dmiug the war, in one of the parishes in Louisiana
excepted by the President from the operations of his proclamation of January 1, 1863,
was not within the provisions of the act of July 4, 1864, authorizing the settlement of
such claims, no claim for quartermaster's stores arising in this State was favorably en-
tertained after that date. This decision was also made applicable to the counties of
Berkeley and Jefferson, in West Virginia, until the passage of the act of July 18, 1866.
- New Orleans having been excepted in proclamation of April 2, 1863, claims for rent in
that city were paid, based on certified accounts, and authority of accounting officers of
the Treasury, up to close of war, August 20, 1866.

Since the passage of the act of February 21, 1867, which made it unlawful for the
Executive Departments to favorably entertain any claim arising in any States declared
in rebellion in proclamation of July 1, 1862, none have been recommended by the Quar-
termaster-General for payment.

Bents, arising in Tennessee during the war, were favorably considered up to June 12,
1865, when the Secretary of War made what is known as the " Murfreesborough " de-
cision, (copy inclosed.) Between that date and peace proclamation of August 20, 1866,
none have been recommended by this Office.

Rent-claims arising in counties of West Virginia during the war, including Berkeley
and Jefferson, have been and are now being favorably considered, as no law or orders
have been found adverse thereto.

Under an opinion of the honorable the Attorney-General," that contracts are not

a Opinion, September 2, 1870, vol. 13, p. 314, Opinions Attorneys-General.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 251

These laws are recognized as existing laws, and sanctioned as snch
by the Constitution, art. 1, sec. 8, clause iii; Opinions of Attorneys-
affected by the law of February 21, 1867, it is understood that claims for rent, in which
contracts have been proved to the satisfaction of the accounting-officers, have been
settled by them without regard to locality.

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

M. C. MEIGS,
Quartermaster-General, Bvt. Maj. Gen., 77. S. A
Hon. William Lawrence,

Chairman Committee on War-Claims, House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

Memorandum for government of officers charged with the consideration of claims from hostile

districts.

» Quartbbmaster-General's Office,

Washington, D. C, June 12, 1865.

Murfreesborough hospital.-»-Craim of Mrs. S. D. Willard.

Murfreesborough was a hostile town captured by our troops from an enemy who did
not surrender on terms, but was driven out by force of arms. Everything in it was
prize of war, as at Savannah and Atlanta. Buildings were occupied for shelter of
troops, and for sick and wounded soldiers of the capturing enemy.

It does not appear that the military department should order payment of any rents,
under such circumstances. When active operations of war are over, and peace is re-
stored to the district, the Government will doubtless give up the property which it
does not confiscate as rebel property, or as used against it, or will pay rent from the
time of restoration of peace and re-establishment of civil authority.

Claims for destruction of property, fences, crops, &c, in hostile districts, by the march
or occupation of troops, are on the same footing as claims for rent of buildings in cap-
tured towns.

All these should be left for the consideration of Congress, to be finally disposed of
under such general legislation as may be enacted.

The appropriations for the Quartermaster's Department are not sufficient to provide
for such claims which will be presented.

The claims for fences burned and crops destroyed by the presence, on the march or
in encampments, of the troops, would amount to many millions of dollars.

M. C. MEIGS, Quartermaster-General, Bvt. Maj.-Gen., U. S. A.

August 14, 1865, approved by Secretary of War.

True copy of decision.

M. I. LUDINGTON, Quartermaster, 77. S. A.

Q.M. G.O.,Feb.26,1874.

Barrack and Quarters Branch,
v Quartermaster- General's Office, December 16, 1874.

Case of .

Request of Hon. William Lawreuce for an opinion as to whether the Government is
liable to pay rent, " even under General Buell's proclamation, " for property used by
military authorities at Nashville, Tenn., and for information as to whether " if rent
was paid, was it under contract ? " The claim under consideration being the Southern
Methodist Publishing-House of Nashville, Tenn., stated at $457,150.

In a letter to the Secretary of War, 10th December, 1874, Hon. Mr. Lawrence says :

" In my report from Committee on War-Claims, No. 777, June 22, 1874, (Report No.
777, H. of R., 43d Congress, 1st session, herewith,) I said in substance, that during all the
time of our (military) occupancy of Nashville, the military authorities did seize and
occupy whatever buildings were necessary for military purposes, and the Government
has never recognized a liability to pay for them. (See p. 22 of report.)

" This is controverted, and it is alleged that the Army uniformly paid for the use of
all property occupied by them in Nashville.

" Now, I wish you would inform me if this be true, that the Army uniformly paid
&c. What was the usage ?

" You, of course, know the act of February 21, 1867, prohibits the payment of rent.

"Also, in my Report No. 262, of March 26, 1874, which I inclose herewith, you will see
on pages 75 and 76 the 'Murfreesborough Decision' against paying rent.

" I wish especially to be advised : 1st. What was the usage ? 2d. If rent was paid at
Nashville, was it under contract? 3d. On page 20 of Report 777, you will see a refer-
ence to General Buell's proclamation. Now, I want to know if my construction of
that proclamation in that report is the one adopted by the War Department and the
Judge Advocate-General ?

"I insist the proclamation imposed no duty to pay rent, independent of the act of

252 ' ALIEN CLAIMS.

General, vol. 11, p. 299; Speed's opinion, July, 1865; 1 Opinions, p. 27.
And the Constitution recognizes, and to some extent limits, the right
of military authorities to occupy the houses of private citizens. The
third article of amendments declares that —

No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of
the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law. 100

February 21, 1867. By public law, as decided in the Murfreesborough decision, theGov-
ernment is not liable to pay rent even under Buell's proclamation.

" These are very important questions, and I hope to have an early and well-consid-
ered reply.

" If necessary, please let me have your opinion, and, if proper, that of Judge Holt."

The letter being referred by the Secretary of War to the assistant judge-advocate-
general, it was, December 12, 1874, referred to the Quartermaster-General, " with
request for early report."

1st. "As to the usage."

On examination of the returns of the various quartermasters stationed at Nashville
during 1862, 1863, 1864, and 1865, it is found that they take up a large quantity of prop-
erty, namely, store-houses, hospitals, stables, shops, quarters, and various lots, as hav-
ing been rented by the Quartermaster's Department and rent paid therefor, including
the full year of 1865 ; some of the returns indicating a yearly rental of over $36,000.

2d. "If rent was paid at Nashville, was it under contract ?"

Under the head of " date of agreement, contract, or entry into service," various dates
are given in the reports ; but after a very careful examination of the records, no writ-
ten agreements or contracts covering said rents in Nashville are found on the files of
this Office or at the Treasury. It is reasonable to infer that the agreement was a verbal
one between the officer who certifies t;he report " No. 2" as a " true report of all the
persons and articles employed and hired " by him during the month, and the owner of
the building.

While the Government is not bound by the unauthorized promise of an officer of the
Department, as decided iu the " Filor " case, in December, 1869, the question arises
whether the Government (the accounting officers) had not, previous to that decision,
approved the contract or agreement of the quartermaster by the settlement of his
accounts covering the disbursement of public money under said " contract," " agree-
ment," or " entry into service."

On page 28 (Report No. 262) it is shown that " a contract is an agreement between
competent parties, upon a sufficient consideration, to do or omit some lawful act. Where
the assent of both parties is not given there is no contract."

Is not the assent of the Government given by the action of the accounting officers,
as above stated ? And the assent of the property-owner given when he received the
rent ? The act of renting was " lawful " uader Revised Army Regulations of lb61 and
1863, par. 1071, doubtless.

Does not this bring the payment of rents already made in Nashville within the ex-
ceptional cases marked on page 27 of Report No. 262, for which " the Government, in
honor and in law, is bound to make compensation f "

The attention of the Quartermaster-General is invited to his letters of February 19,
1874, (notes of page 25, Rep. No. 262,) and of February 26, 1874, (p. 74 ibid.) In the
last it is shown that rents arising in Tennessee during the war were favorably consid-
ered up to June 12, 1865, when the Secretary of War made what is known as the Mur-
freesborough decision, (on p. 76.) Between that date and peace proclamation of Au-
gust 20, 1866, none has been recommended by this Office.

No unbound copy of General Order No. 100, Adjutant-General's Office, April 24, 1863,
(" instructions for the government of armies of the United States in the field,") is
found in the inspection branch. The library copy, howeverj is at hand, and attention
is respectfully invited to paragraph 34, p. 7, a portion of which only appears to be
•quoted on page 14 of Report No. 777, with reference to the claim being considered.

Referring to Mr. Lawrence's inquiry, whether his construction of General Buell's
proclamation (given on pp. 20, 21 of Report No. 777) is the one adopted by the War
Department and Judge-Advocate General, attention is also invited to section 8, page
22, of said General Order No. 100, of 1863, relating to "armistice capitulation."

Respectfully submitted to the Quartermaster-General.

M. I. LUDINGTON,
Quartermaster United States Army.
. 1 •

100 It has been said that " no [express] provision has ever been made by statute for
billeting troops upon the citizens of the United States ; but iu time of war, rebellion,
&c, troops have thns been quartered, under the authority of the ' customs of war in
like cases.'" (Scott's Digest Military Laws, p. 24, note 14, edition of 1873.)

ALIEN CLAIMS. 253-

Here is a limitation on the exercise of the right of eminent domain,
in time of peace, to quarter soldiers in the houses of private citizens,
even by virtue of an act of Congress, and with just compensation,
" without the consent of the owners." Here, also, is a recognition or
concession of the prior existing military common-law right, in cases of

Quartermaster-General's Office,

December 22, 1874.

Respectfully returned to the honorable the Secretary of War.

The iutention and rule of the Government in regard to rents in captured towns and
places was first formally declared, I think, in the " Murfreesborough decision," as
printed in Report H. R. No. 262, Forty-third Congress, first session, page 76.

The Qnartermaster-General considered, when his attention was brought to this sub-
ject, that errors had obtained in the practice of disbursing quartermasters, acting
generally under orders or instructions of commanding officers occupying the country,
in paying rent in towns held by troops, Nashville and Murfreesborough being among
them. A considerable claim having been preferred for rent of premises occupied as a
hospital in Murfreesborough, he drew up the memorandum of his views, (page 76 of
the report,) which, having been duly considered at the War Department, was approved
by the Secretary of War and published as a guide for the future.

In cases in which, under a wrong impression of their duties, officers had ordered
payment or had paid rents in Nashville or other towns, the accounting officers of the
Treasury, it is believed, allowed and passed their accounts for such disbursements.

But the Murfreesborough decision was an authoritative decision of the question, and
instructions were given to conform thereto thereafter.

The records of the Quartermaster-General's Office contain much correspondence on
this subject, and the inclosed memoranda, prepared by officer in charge of the claims
branch of this Office, give some information upon the history of the question.

It is not to be doubted that* considerable money was paid for rent in Nashville and
in some other towns, before the practice was corrected by the promulgation of the
Murfreesborough decision.

Whether binding contracts were made is a question to be decided by the written
documents in each case.

The mere fact of issue of a voucher certified by an officer, does not constitute or
prove a contract. A voucher is merely a bill of prices and quantities, with certifi-
cate of the officer who issued it, of his opinion that it is justly due.

Such a voucher, if transmitted to the Quartermaster-General's Office, or finally to the
accounting officers, for settlement, is liable to correction in price, in time, and in every
particular in which it may be shown to be wrong, or in conflict with superior orders of
the central authority of the Executive, through the head of the War Department.

The principles which govern such cases have been sufficiently laid down by the tri-
bunal of last resort, the Supreme Court, in the " Filor" case.

As regards the alleged "proclamation" of General Buell, and "capitulation" of
Nashville, I find no such proclamation, and no such capitulation. If they ever existed,
they should be of record, and be produced.

The proclamation of the disloyal mayor of a disloyal town is not the evidence to
prove, against the Government of the United States, the existence of such important
historical acts or documents.
Respectfullv,

M. C. MEIGS,
Quartermaster-General, Bvt. May. Gen., U. S. A.

War Department, Bureau of Military Justice,

December 30, 1874.

Respectfully returned to the Secretary of War.

The within inquiries of Hon. William Lawrence relate mainly to matters of fact and
usage, of which the evidence is principally contained in the records of the Quartermas-
ter Department, and the same have accordingly been answered from that Department.

As to the action of General Buell, referred to by Mr. Lawrence as a "proclamation,"
but which appears to have been simply a general assurance given prior to the occupa-
tion of Nashville, in February, 1862, that ample protection would be extended to the
persons and property of peaceable citizens by the Army — this, it is clear, is of no sig-
nificance whatever in connection with the subject of war-claims. Even if General
Buell had issued a proclamation or made an order, by which claims of this character
were recognized or their recognition was guaranteed in the future, such action would
have been wholly futile, in the absence of authority or sanction from the Government.

As to the further point, of the effect of a contract, in excepting war-claims from the
operation of the acts of 1864 and 1867, prohibiting their settlement, it is only necessary
to refer to Filer's case in 9 Wallace, which settles the law that no agreement nor promise

254 ALIEN CLAIMS.

military necessity iu time of war, to quarter soldiers iu the houses of
citizens within the theater of military operations.

And this military common-law right is limited by the third article of
amendments, so that in the conditions stated the right can only be
exercised "in a manner to be prescribed by law."

But this limitation only extends to the dwelling-houses, with their
proper appendages, of loyal citizens.

Story says of this provision :

Its plain object is to secure the perfect enjoyment of that great right of the common
law, that a man's house shall be his own castle, privileged against all civil and mili-

for compensation given by an officer of the Army, upon the taking or occupation of prop-
erty for public uses during the war, can amount to a contract, unless the same is author-
ized or sanctioned by the Government, acting through the Secretary of War, the head of
a staff-department, or other properly-accredited superior, immediately representing the
Executive. In the absence of such authority the pretended contract is, as the court
indicates, no more than an agreement of an unauthorized agent and a stranger. More-
over, it is a contract prohibited by the laws of war, whieh, in making every inhabitant
of the rebel States prima facie a public enemy, interdicted all intercourse and commer-
cial relations between such enemies and our own citizens.

J. HOLT,
Judge-Advocate- General.

War Department, January 4, 1875.

The Secretary of War has the honor to transmit to the House of Representatives, in
reply to a communication from the chairman of the Committee on War-Claims, dated
December 10, 1874, inclosing copies of Report No. 777, of June 22, 1874, and No. 262,
of March 26, 1874, from the Committee on War-Claims, and requesting to be advised
as to the usage of the Government in regard to the payment of rent for property oc-
cupied for public uses during the war, at Nashville, Tenn., the inclosed copy of a report
from the Quartermaster-General of the Army on the subject, together with the memo-
randa referred to therein, prepared by the officer in charge of the claims branch of
the Quartermaster-General's Office.

Regarding the " proclamation " of General Buell, referred to by the chairman of the
Committee on War-Claims, and his (the chairman's) request to be informed if his con-
struction of that proclamation (pages 20 and 21 of Report No. 777, 43d Congress 1st
session) is the one adopted by the War Department and the Judge-Advocate-General,
the Secretary of War respectfully invites attention to the inclosed copy of the opinion
of the Judge-Advocate-General, dated December 30, 1874, relative thereto.

WM. W. BELKNAP,

Secretary of War.

War Department,
Bureau op Military Justice,

Washington, D. C, January 6, 1875.
Sir : In reply to your communication of the 5th instant, I have to advise you that I
am unable to recall any case in which rent was, within my knowledge, paid by the
United States for the use of real estate seized and occupied by the military authorities
in the State of Tennessee during the war, and while that State remained iu the atti-
tude of a State in insurrection. Nor am I aware of any general liability to pay such
rent ever having been recognized by the Government. I have always supposed, on the
contrary, that the well-established rule of public law, (indicated or had in view by
me, in opinions cited in Digest, p. 96, § 33, and p. 99, §§ 2, 3,) that a government
was empowered to seize and use the property of an enemy during a war without be-
coming liable to render compensation therefor, had been an axiom with our Govern-
ment during the rebellion, and that the usage had uniformly been in accordance with
this principle. If any exceptions occurred they are not known to me ; but if such
were actually, by inadvertence, will probably be found in the Quartermaster-Gen-
eral's Office, or in the "claims branch" of the War Department ; and to these I would
respectfully refer you.

I would add, specifically, that no information in regard to the cases noted on pages
3 and 4 of the statement of the " Church claim" is to be found in the files of this
Bureau.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

J. HOLT,
J r ndge- Advocate- General.
Hon. Wm. Lawrence,

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 255

tary intrusion. The billeting of soldiers in time of peace upon the people has been a
common resort of arbitrary princes, and is full of inconvenience and peril. lu the
petition of right (4 Charles I) it was declared bv Parliament to be a great grievance.
(2 Story Const., 4 eel., § 1900; 2 Cobbett's Pari. Hist., 375; Eawle on Const., ch. 10, pp.
126, 127 ; 1 Tuck. Blackst. Comm., Appx. 300, 301 ; 2 Lloyd's Debates, 223.)

From all this it is apparent the limitation, in time of war only, ex-
tends to dwellings, as stated, and not to other buildings or lands ; and
it cannot extend to States proclaimed in rebellion by the President, in
pursuance of an act of Congress.

This is so on general principles. The usage of our Government dur-
ing the rebellion, the acts of Congress, and the authority of the courts,
all unite in declaring that, in military parlance, the States proclaimed
in insurrection thereby became "enemy's country," and the inhabitants
subject to the laws of war. The rebellion itself operated to forfeit the
protection to which the inhabitants and property of the insurrectionary
States would otherwise, under the Constitution, be entitled. (House
Eep. No. 262, Com. War-Claims, 1st sess. 43d Congress, March 26, 1874,
pp. 5, 10, 11, 14 ; The Prize Cases, 2 Black, 636; Mrs. Alexander's Cotton
Case, 2 Wallace, 419.)

This article of the Constitution is to be construed with reference to its
evident purpose. The reason of law is the life of the law. The object
of the article was to give protection to the homes of citizens entitled to
protection. It could not have been designed to protect citizens in re-
bellion. It is absurd to suppose provision would be made to protect
those on whom the Government was making war — enemies.

It carinot apply, then, to rebels, nor can it apply to loyal citizens in an
insurrectionary district in time of rebellion. It would be impossible to
execute such an exception. The inquiry in time of war could not be
made. The attempt to do so, or to execute it, might defeat the object of
carrying on a war to suppress rebellion, or render it impracticable. This
must be so for the same reason which induced the Supreme Court to
declare that "all" the inhabitants of an insurrectionary district are to
be " treated as enemies." (2 Black, 636.)

The term " war," then, in this article of the Constitution, must be un-
derstood to refer to war with a foreign power, that war which Congress
has " power to declare." In case of rebellion, Congress does not " de-
clare war," but executes the laws, and carries on war for national exist-
ence and defense.

This amendment of the Constitution applies to the quartering or billet-
ing of soldiers in houses. This was the evil aimed at. A practice had
existed of sending soldiers to the private houses of citizens for shelter
and support. This is a very different affair from taking a house for use
as a hospital or for other military purposes.

The seizure and occupancy of houses for military use may become an
imperative military necessity in a rebellious district. It may be neces-
sary as a means of disabling the enemy as well as providing shelter for
loyal troops.

In case of war with a foreign power this right of impressment may
exist even with no statute to prescribe the mode of its exercise on the
theater of war and among our own citizens.

But soldiers could not be quartered in houses or billeted on citizens
for support, except in pursuance of regulations prescribed by law.

But, in addition to this, the seizure of houses in the insurrectionary
States was authorized "in a manner prescribed by law."

The President was authorized to proclaim States in insurrection, and
he did so. (Act July 13, 1861, § 5, ch. 3; act July 31, 1861, ch. 32; fl.

256 . ALIEN CLAIMS.

Rep. No. 262, Committee on War-Claims, 1st sess. 43d Congress, March
26, 1874, p. 3.)

This by necessary intendment and in effect carried with it all military
common-law rights. The acts of Congress of April 24, 1816, section 9,
(ch. 69, § 9, 3 Stat, at L., 298,) and of May 7, 1822, (3 Stat, at L., 689,}
authorize the President to prescribe "Army regulations" having the
force of law. (Scott's Digest Military Laws, p. 134, § 182 ; U. S. vs. E!ia-
son, 16 Peters, 291 ; U. S. vs. Freeman, 3 How., 566 ; Gratiot vs. U. S., 4
How., 80; Opinions Attorney-General, January 1, 1857, and May 19,
1821 ; Harney vs. IT. S., 3 Nott & H., 42.)

The regulations so prescribed declare that —

The laws of the United States and the general laws of war authorize, in certain
cases, the seizure and conversion of private property for the subsistence, transporta-
tion, and other uses of the Army. * * * All property lawfully taken from the enemy,
or from the inhabitants of an enemy's country, instantly becomes public property, and
must be used and accounted for as such. (Regulations of 1861 ; Appendix to 1863, p.
512, §21.)

The "instructions for the government of the armies of the United
States in the field," approved by the President and published in General
Orders No. 100, Adjutant General's Office, April 24, 1863, only reiterate
what had been done under previous orders. These declare that —

The United States acknowledge and protect, in hostile countries occupied by them,
strictly private property. * » » This rule does not interfere with the right of the
victorious invaders to tax the people or their property, to levy forced loans, to billet
soldiers, or to appropriate property, especially houses, land, boats or ships, and churches,
for temporary and military uses. (Scott's Digest Military Laws, pp. 447 and 1177 ;
House Eep. No. 262, Committee on War-Claims, 1st session 43d Congress, March 26,
1874, p. 14.)

Here, then, is a regulation by law applicable to the States proclaimed
in insurrection. 101

In House report No. 44, 2d session 43d Congress, January 8, 1875, a
question was decided on of an analogous character. During the rebellion,,
on the 8th March, 1864, William P. Mellen, supervising special agent
of the Treasury Department, leased to Hiram W. Love, of Iowa, from
that date to 1st January, 1865, about 88 acres of " abandoned" lands in
Desha County, Arkansas, and Love agreed to pay, as rent, one cent per
pound on all cotton, and a proportionate sum upon all other products
raised by him, to employ freedmen, &c. The land was cultivated by
Love in cotton, which promised a productive crop, but before it was
picked, Brig. Gen. B. S. Dennis, of the United States forces, command-
ing some 15.000 troops, arrived at the mouth of White River, in carry-
ing on military .operations against the enemy, and, after examining the
vicinity to select a proper place of encampment for his forces, issued an
order reciting that —

There being no ground in this vicinity suitable for an encampment excepting this
field of growing cotton, claimed as private property by Major Hiram W. Love, the
troops of this command will at once disembark and go into camp on this field afore-
said, the same being necessary for military purposes.

The forces did so encamp on the land leased to Love, and most of the
crop of cotton was destroyed.
This was discussed May 15, 1874, and, without disposing of the bill,

101 It has been said " that the Executive Departments must necessarily do many things
essential to the proper action of the Government, for which there is no [express] stat-
utory provision ; and it is necessary that they should construe such laws as they are
required to execute. Their construction of a statute when not affecting private rights
is held to he binding in the courts." (Scott's Digest Military Laws, p. 134, § 182, note a,
citing United States is. MacDaniel, 7 Peters, 2 ; United States v. Lytle, 5 McLean, 9.)

ALIEK CLAIMS. 257

the Senate went into executive session, the effect of which was to re-
commit it. (Congressional Record, vol. 2, part 4, 1st session 43d Con-
gress, vol. 5, pp. 3922, 3935.)

The proper inquiry for this committee now is as to the duty or lia-
bility of the Government to make compensation in any form for the
damage which the claimant sustained.

The State of Arkansas was one of those declared by authorized proc-
lamation of the President in insurrection.

At the time of the damage coinplaiued of the State was in insurrec-
tion — war was flagrant.

The encampment which resulted in the damage was an unavoidable
military necessity. The Government, and its military officers, in mak-
ing the encampment, performed an indispensable duty, and the injury com-
plained of was, therefore, the result of acts entirely lawful and proper.

The claimant insists that his crop would have amounted to 154 bales
of cotton, of 500 pounds each, so that the Government would have re-
ceived at this estimate $770 as rent ; but little more probably than the
cost of leasing and managing the abandoned lands, with all the losses,
expenses and risks of collecting.

Yet it is assumed that for this, and the general purposes stated,
Congress consented to incur in this case a liability ranging from $5,000
to $128,170.

It is assumed that Congress ingrafted an exception on public law,
without saying so in any words, which may involve a liability for many
millions.

It is certainly a misfortune that this claimant should suffer ; but it is
equally certain that he and all others having leases would have lost all
but for the marching and encamping and battles of our armies.

On the principles already stated, if the Government had sold and
patented this land to the claimant, either prior to or during the war, he
would have had no claim for the injury he sustained.

In all the insurrectionary States there were very many loyal men who
suffered as much and more than this claimant.

Their land-titles were as sacred as his. This claimant went into an
enterprise, expecting, if successful, to make im mem se profits. He took
the risks of war — of the march of armies. His chances were better
than those in a lottery, but he knew in advance the hazards, and chose
to incur them.

It was forcibly said, in the Senate debate on this claim, that " the
reason that the Government is not responsible for property destroyed in
the crash of battle " is, " that the Government is about its lawful busi-
ness, and that this destruction of property is a necessary consequence
of a lawful act on the part of the Government in defense of itself
and in defense of its citizens." And it was well insisted that " all the
incidents of a campaign are covered by the same principle as the battle-
fields."

We "cannot have battle-fields without having previously had camps,
and marches, and all the conveniences and incidents which enable an
army to reach the battle-field."

This cotton-field in question was occupied during a campaign.

By the general principles of public law, by the usage of nations, this
claimant is entitled to no relief, unless he is for some reason excepted out of
the general doctrines stated.

It has been supposed that he is so excepted because the grounds on
which our military forces encamped were at the time under lease to the
claimant from the Government for the purpose of being cultivated in cotton.
H. Rep. 134 17

258 ALIEN CLAIMS.

No such exception is provided in the act of Congress under which tbe
lease was made, (act July 2, 1864, 13 Stat, at Large, 375.)

None is found in the lease.

None is implied from the purpose Congress had in view in providing
for leases. This was to give loyal men opportunity to grow cotton if
they chose to incur the risks of war. It was to secure employment for
freedmen and furnish the country with cotton.

But these were objects which Congress could not by any rule of con-
struction or reason have designed to carry out at the peril of impairing
the efficiency of the military service.

It is unjust to attribute to Congress a purpose to agree to anything
by mere inference that would seriously interfere with the highest of
ail duties to suppress the rebellion by marches of armies, by battle, and
by all the means requisite to success.

The claim was disallowed.

By the strict rules of law literary institutions are equally subject to
use by the lawful military authorities. But on grounds of public pol-
icy nothing but urgent necessity could justify such use. The proper
military authorities must, as a general rule, be allowed to judge of the
necessity, or military operations could not be successfully carried on.
And certainly when such institutions are a source of strength to the
enemy, or are engaged in actually inculcating the sentiment of rebel-
lion, it may be a -necessity to withdraw them from a work so dangerous
and destructive of public interests. 102

101 In the Senate, January 12, 1869, Mr. Sumner said : " From the beginning of onr
national life Congress has been called to deal with claims for losses by war. Though
new in form, the present case belongs to a long list whose beginning is bidden in revo-
lutionary history. The folio volume of State Papers now before me, entitled ' Claims,'
attests the number and variety. Even amid the struggles of the war, as early as 1779,
the Reverend Dr. Witherspoon was allowed $19,040 for repairs of the college at Prince-
ton damaged by the troops. [Claims, pp. ]97, 198, 6 Stat., 40.] There was afterward
a similar allowance to the academy at Wilmington, in Delaware, [Claims p. — , 6 Stat.,
8,] and also to the college in Rhode Island. These latter were recommended by Mr.
Hamilton while Secretary of ' the Treasury, as 'affecting the interests of literature.'
On this account they were treated as exceptional. It will also be observed that they
concerned claimants within our own jurisdiction."

See Globe, vol. 71, third session Fortieth Congress, page 301, January 12, 1869.

It might be added, they were loyal to the Government. Congress has considered the
subject since the close of the rebellion.

See claim of William and Mary College. Claim for indemnity for destruction of
buildings and property by "disorderly soldiers of the United States during the late
rebellion."

For House proceedings "and debates see Globe, vol. 87, 2d sess. 42d Congress, pages
784, 785, (February 2, 1872,) and vol. 88, pages 934, 940, 941, 942, 943, 1190, 1191, 1192,
1193, 1194, 1195.

The bill was defeated.

See House Report No. 9, 2d sess. 42d Congress, January 29, 1872.

East Tennessee University. — Claims for damages by reason of use and occupation of
buildings by United States troops.

For Senate proceedings in 42d Congress, see Globe, vol. 89, page 2288, 2d sess. 42d
Congress, (April 9, 1872.) For House proceedings, see Globe, vol. 93, page 697, (Jan-
uary 18, 1873.) See Senate Report No. 17, 2d sess. 42d Congress.

No debate in either House.

Vetoed, January 30, 1873.

See SeMate Ex. Doc. 33, 3d sess. 42d Congress.

See Globe, vol. 93, page 991, January 31, 1873.

Kentucky University. — Claim for damages by reason of use and occupation of build-
ings by United States troops.

For Senate proceedings, 41st Congress, see vol. 78, p. 3145, (May 2, 1870,) vol. 80, p..
5538, (July 13, 1870.)

For House proceedings, see Globe, vol. 82, page 480, (January 13, 1871.)

Approved January 17,1871. See Statutes at Large, vol. 16, p. 678.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 259

In the application of the general principles stated there are some rec-
ognized exceptions.

The Government, in honor and in law, is bound to make compensation
for property of citizens used, damaged, or destroyed, when —

1. The commander of an army, under proper authority, or other offi-
cer duly authorized, in advance or at the, time of the use, damage, or
destruction, distinctly agrees with the owner of the property that the
Government shall make compensation, and when, upon the faith of this,
the promise is accepted and the property voluntarily surrendered. 1 " 3

But a contract is not necessarily created by the mere fact that the
highest military authority gives instructions to subordinate officers, or
issues orders to them, advising them that enemies " will be paid at the
time," or that " they will hereafter be fully indemnified." A contract is
an agreement between competent parties, upon a sufficient considera-
tion, to do or omit some lawful act. Where the assent of both parties
is not given there is no contract.

103 Steven vs. United States, 2 Court Claims 95 ; Elliott's Claim, 1-2 Opinions Attorneys-
General, 485 ; Provene vs. United States, 5 Court Claims, 456 ; Kimball vs. United States,
id., 253 ; Waters vs. United States, 4 Court Claims, 390 ; Filor vs. United States, 9 Wal-
lace, 45; Ayres vs. United States, 3 Court Claims.

As to unauthorized contracts see act March 2, 1861, ch. 84, sec. 10, vol. 12, Stat., 220 ;
joint res. No. 8, January 31, 1868, 15 Stat., 246 ; act June 2, 1862, 12 Stat.; 411 ; 4 Court
Claims, 75, 359, 549; 5 Court Claims, 65; 1 Opinions Attorneys-General, 320; 7 Wallace,
666 ; 4 Court Claims, 176, 401, 495 ; 5 Court'Claims, 302 ; 8 Wallace, 7.

The act of February 21, 1867, prohibits payment for occupancy, &c, in the insurrec-
tionary States, but this did ant divest the right to pay for rent arising on an author-
ized contract; this was decided by the Attorney-General, September 2, 1870, vol. 13,
Opinions, pj 314; House Eeport, No. 252, Committee on War-Claims, 1st session 43d
Congress, p. 75.

The acts in relation to public contracts are:

[Acts distinguished by a * have been heretofore repealed.]
Act of 8 May, 1792, chapter 37, section 5, volume 1, page 280 ; act of 16 July, 1798
chapter 85, sections 3, 6, volume 1, page 610 ; act of 21 April, 1808, chapter 48, volume

2, page 484 ; act of 3 March, 1809, ehapter 28, sections 3, 5, volume 2, page 536 ; act of
14 April, 1818, chapter 61, section 7, volume 3, page 427 ; act of 1 May, 1820, chapter 52,
sections 6, 7, volume 3, page 568; resolution of 10 February, 1832, number 1, volume 4,
page 605; act of 3 March, 1835, cha_ptcr 49, section 1, volume 4, page 780 ; act of 23
Augnst, 1842, chapter 186, section 5, volume 5, page 513 ; act of 3 March, 1843, chapter
83, volume 5, page 617 ; resolution of 18 February, 1843, number 2, volume 5, page 648 ;
act of 17 Juue, 1844, ehapter 107, section 2, volume 5, page 703; act of 17 June, 1844,
chapter 107, sections 5, 6, volume 5, p. 703 ; act of 3 March, 1845, chapter 77, sections

3, 12, volumes, pages 794, 795; aet of 10 August, 1846, chapter 176, seetiou 6, volume 9,
page 101; act of 3 Augnst, 1848, chapter 121, section 11, volume 9, page 272; resolution
of 9 May, 1848, number 6, volume 9, page 334 ; aet of 28 September, 1850, chapter 80,
section 1, volume 9, page 513; act of 28 September, 1850, chapter 60, section 1, volume
9, pages 513, 515; act of 3 March, 1851, chapter 34, section 1, volume 9, page 621 ; act of
5 August, 1854, ehapter 268, section 1, volume 10, pages 583, 585 ; resolution of 27 March,
1854, number 8, volume 10, page 592; act of 4 May, 1858, chapter 25, section 4, volume

11, page 269; *act of 23 June, 1860, chapter 205, section 3, volume 12, page 103 ; aet of
21 February, 1861, chapter 49, section 5, volume 12, page 150; act of 2 March, 1861,
chapter 84, section 10, volume 12, page 220 ; act of 2 June, 1862, chapter 93, sections 1, 2,
3, 5, volume 12, page 411 ; act of 14 June, 1862, chapter 164, section 1, volume 12, page 561 ;
act of 17 July, 1862, chapter 200, sections 13, 14, 15, volume 12, page 596; act of 17 July,
1862, chapter 203, volume 12, page 600 ; resolution of 12 July, 1862, number 53, volume

12, page 624 ; resolution of 3 March, 1863, number 32, section 2,' volume 12, page 828 : act
of 4 July, 1864, chapter 252, section 7, volume 13, page 394 ; act of 2 March, 1865, chap-
ter 74, section 7, volume 13, page 467 ; act of 23 Juue, 1866, chapter 138, section 3, vol-
ume 14, page 73 ; act of 13 July, 1866, chapter 176, section 4, volume 14, page 92 ; act of
28 June, 1868, chapter 72, volume 15, page 77 ; act of 25 July, 1868, chapter 233, section
3, volume 15, page 177 ; resolution of 31 January, 1868, number 8, volume 15, page 246 ;
act of 11 July, 1870, chapter 243, volume 16, page 229 ; act of July 15, 1870, chapter 292,
volume 16, pages 291-296 ; act of 3 March, 1871, chapter 117, section 3, volume 16, page
535.

See letter of Quartermaster-General M. C. Meigs, February 26, 1874, in Appendix to
this report.

260 ALIEN CLAIMS.

The Government is not bound, either, by the unauthorized promise of
an officer. 104

The mere fact that a voucher or receipt is given for property taken in
enemy's country by a military officer does not make the Government
liable to pay for it. 105

Military officers frequently organize a " board of survey" or commis-
sion to assess the value of property taken in the enemy's country, or
destroyed on loyal territory. This is done to preserve the history of
military operations, to enable superior officers to hold subordinates to a
proper responsibility in the conduct of war, and in cases where, from
special causes, Congress may deem it advisable to make some compeu-
sation, it may furnish a means of judging of the proper amount. 106

But such assessment is for the benefit of the Government, and im-
poses no liability on it. The liability is determined by the laws of war.

2. When, by the terms of the capitulation of a hostile city or army,
there is a distinct stipulation by the proper officer commanding the
Union Army that rights of person and property shall be respected, this
pledge is to be respected, and a violation of it by military officers
clothed with authority to act in the name of the Government" would
create a liability to repair any damages. This, however, requires some
explanation. The " Instructions for the government of the armies in
■the field," prepared by Francis Lieber, LL. D., promulgated under Gen-
eral Orders No. 100, April 24, 1S63, embody the well-recognized laws of
•civilized 107 warfare as universally understood and in force. These rules
declare (No. 37) that—

The United States acknowledge and protect in hostile countries occupied by them
.-strictly private property. This rule does riot interfere with the right of the victorious
'invader to tax the people, or their property, to levy forced loans, to billet soldiers, o r

,04 In Filor vs. United States, 9 Wallace 45, the court refer to a case, at Key West, of
contract for the use of the Quartermaster's Department, and say it was not " binding
upon the Government until approved by the Quartermaster-General."

Ayres vs. United States, 3 Court Claims, 1 ; Gibbons vs. United States, 8 Wallace, 269.

See letter of Meigs in note 53, ante.

• See the acts relating to the Court of Claims ; act March 3, 1863, 12 Stat., 767, sec-
tion 12, and other acts cited in the volumes of reports of that court.

" The law of agency, as applicable to the United States, is far more strict than to
individuals, for the agent must have actual authority in order to bind the Government."
il Boston American Law Review, section 58.

105 The Revised Army Regulations of 1861, as corrected to June 25, 1863, edition of 1867,
ip. 512, section 22, provides that " all property, public or privaLe, taken from alleged ene-
mies, must be inventoried and duly accounted for. If the property be claimed as pri-
vate, receipts must be given to such claimants or their agents." But this does not
change the laws of war, and give a liability which does not exist by such law. I he laws
of war are prescribed by another power, and cannot be abrogated by Army regula-
tions.

In the report of November 30, 1873, of Hon. R. S. Hale to the Secretary of State, of
claims allowed by the commission under the 12th article of the treaty of 8th May, 1871,
between the United States and Great Britain, it is said :

" In the case of John Kater, No. 19, claimant was allowed for two horses taken by
Sheridan's army on its raid through the valley of Virginia, in August, 1864, all the
commissioners joining in this award, General Sberidaivs order of August 16, 1864, direct-
ing the seizure of mules, horses, and cattle for the use of the Army, having in effect
promised compensation for such property to loyal citizens."

106 Such valuation was made by order of General Jackson, after the battle of New
"Orleans, of certain damages to real estate. American State Papers, class ix, claim 752.
Such boards were frequently organized during the rebellion.

107 These regulations are authorized and have the force of law.
House Rep. Com. War-Claims, No. 6, 2d sess. 43d Congress, p. 4.

The acts of Congress of April 24, 1816, section 9, (ch 69, § 9, 3 Stat, at L., 298,) and of
May 7, 1822, (3 Stat, at L., 689,) authorized the Presideut to prescribe " Army regula-
tions" having the force of law. (Scott's Digest Military Laws, p. 134, § 182 f U. S. vs.
JEliason, 16 Peters, 291 ; U. S. vs. Freemau, 3 How., 566 ; Gratiot vs. U. S., 4 How., 80 ;

ALIEN CLAIMS. 261

to appropriate property, especially homes, land, loafs, or ships and churches, for temporary
and military purposes.

And this is the effect of a proclamation promising "protection of
persons and property." " Protection " implies, that there shall be no
destruction unless imperatively required by military emergencies. It
does not imply that military officers shall refrain from using the means
necessary for their own shelter or protection, or that of the Army, or
those necessary for military operations.

And this is all the more certain, because during all the time of our
occupancy of the States in insurrection the military authorities did
seize and occupy whatever buildings were necessary for military pur-
poses and operations, and the Government has Eever recognized a lia-
bility to pay for them. In the early part of the war this rule was not
strictly adhered to, but the settled doctrine and practice of the Govern-
ment afterward became as stated. It is not to be presumed that military
officers violated pledges, and their conduct is evidence then of what
was understood. It is a contemporaneous construction, and the highest
evidence of the understanding.

In Planters' Bank vs. Union Bank, 16 Wallace, 496, the court held
that such proclamation prohibited the seizure of private property " as
booty of war. v

But " booty of war" is very different from necessary military seizure
for use. And the protection afforded by a promise of protection of per-
sons and property only extends to such enemies as strictly observe
neutrality and the terms of the capitulation, and to property the nature
of which does not take it out of the condition of neutrality 108

Opinions Attorney-General, January 1, 1357, and May 19, 1821 ; Harney vs. U. S., 3 Nott
& H., 42.)

The regulations so prescribed declare that —

" The laws of the United States and the general laws of war authorize, in certain
cases, the seizure and conversion of private property for the subsistence, transporta-
tion, and other uses of the Army. * * * All property lawfully taken from the enemy,
or from the inhabitants of au enemy's country, instantly becomes public property, and
must be used and accounted for as such." (Regulations of 1861 : Appendix to 1863,
p.'512, § 21.)

The " instructions for the government of the armies of the United States in the field,"
approved by the President, and published in General Orders No. 100, Adjutant-Gen-
eral's Office, April 24, 1863, only reiterate what had been done under previous orders.

108 Case of Thorshaven, Edwards, 107; Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wallace, 421; Vattel
book 3, ch. 18. see. 294, p. 425. The Venice, 2 Wallace, 258; Winthrop's Digest Opin-
ions of Judge-Advocate-General, 1862 to 1868, p. 86, (.ed. of 1868, ) vol. xviii, p. 511,
Records of Bureau of Military Justice ; House Rep. 777, 1st sess. 43d Cong., p. 20.

Planters' Bank vs. Union Bank, 16 Wallace, 468.

The commission under the 12th article of the treaty of 8th May, 1871, between the
United States and Great Britain, held substantially thus : The report of Hon. R. S.
Hale shows that where aliens claimed compensation for property used by the United
States troops, taken by proper authority, the commission were unanimous in the allow-
ance of claims for property coming under this head when taken within the loyal
States or within those portions of the insurrectionary States permanently occupied by
the Federal forces, except when something in the nature of the property or in the con-
duct of the claimant took him out of the condition of neutrality. Thus, for instance,
in the case of Robert Davidson, No. 66, the claim was for gun-carriages and other
artillery apparatus, manufactured by the claimant for the use of the confederate gov-
ernment, and remaining in his possession at the surrender of New Orleans, together
■with material for use in the same manufacture, which was taken and appropriated by
the Federal forces, under the orders of General Banks, some months after the capture
of New Orleans. The claim was unanimously disallowed.

In the case of Samuel Brook, No. 99, the claim was for certain tarpaulins taken by
an authorized officer for the use of the United States, at Memphis, Tenn., in June, 1862,
shortly after the capture of that city by the Federal forces.

An award w"as made in favor of the claimant, Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting
upon the question of the sufficiency of proof, but the commissioners all agreeing ^s to
tho principle involved.

262 ALIEN CLAIMS.

And it cannot be an absolute guarantee against unauthorized pillage
or other damages incident to surrounding circumstances.

3. The same rule of protection is extended to persons and property
where there is no capitulation, but an authorized military proclamation
promising it, when a city or district of the enemy is subdued and occu-
pied. 109 This principle will apply generally to duly authorized safe-
guards. 110

A passport may be given which does not amount to a safeguard, and
which will impose less of liability and no absolute guarantee of safety.
But a safeguard for the purpose of protection under a flag of truce may
amount to a guarantee of the safety of persons, and of such property
as may be named, or may reasonably accompany the person, excluding
unnecessary valuables. 111

109 And while the condit'ons of the proclamation are observed by the enemy, and hos-
tilities are not renewed by them, the pledge of protection cannot be revoked by mili-
tary authority. Planters' Bank vs. Union Bank, 16 Wallace, 496. See also act July
13, 1861, sec. 5, (12 Stat., 257.) and President's proclamation, August 16, 1861, (12 Stat,
1262.)

110 See act February 13, 1862, sec. 5; Army Regulations of 1861, revised to June 25,
1863, (ed. of 1867,) pp. 112, 113.

The following is a copy of one issued by General Grant :

Headquakteks Department of the Tennessee,

Vicksbwrgh, Miss., September 18, 1863.
By authority of Maj. Gen. U. S. Grant :

A safeguard is hereby granted to Mrs. Eugenie Bass, her plantations, houses, horses,
cattle, sheep, hogs, poultry, and all other property, real or personal, situated near
Princeton, in the county of Washington, and State of Mississippi.

All officers and soldiers belonging to the armies of the United States are therefore
commanded to respect this safeguard, and to afford, if necessary, protection to the said
Mrs. Eugenie Bass and property.

" Whoever, belonging to the armies of the United States in foreign parts, or at any
place within the United States or their Territories during rebellion against supreme
authority of the United States, shall force a safeguard, shall suffer death." (55 Art.
of War.)
By order of Maj. Gen. U. S. Grant:

JOHN A. RAWLINS,

Brig. Gen, and A. A. A. Gen.

Under this the question has been made whether the award of a military board of
survey for property taken by Union military authorities should be paid, or a less sum
awarded by the Commissioners of Claims. By submitting a claim to the latter there is
an implied agreement to accept their award, subject to revision by Congress. But
without this the Government can determine by law how valuations shall be made.
The loyalty of this claimant was proved to the satisfaction of the commissioners.

111 Chancellor Kent defines the general rule with regard to flags of truce :

''He who promises security by a passport is morally bound to defend it against any
of his subjects or forces, and make good any damages the party might sustain by vio-
lation of the passport. The privilege being so far a dispensation from the legal effects
of war, it is always to be taken strictly, and must be confined to the purpose and place
and time for which it was granted. A safe-conduct generally includes the necessary
baggage and servants of the person to whom it is granted." (1 Kent's Com., 161.)

Also as to the inviolability secured under a flag of truce, Vattel,ch. xvii,p. 416: "A
safe-conduct given to a traveler naturally includes his baggage or his clothes and
other things necessary for his journey." (Id., 417, J 270: Woolsey's International Law,
p. 250.)

" The sovereign can revoke the passport even before the fulfillment of its terms, by
giving to the bearer the liberty of return." (Bello, p. 265.)

"Passports should not be granted for the purpose of attracting persons or effects
with the object of confiscating them afterward by means of revocation, because to act
thus would be a perfidy contrary to the laws." ( 1 Bello, p. 265.)

'■ The violation of the good faith pledged by passports and documents of that char-
acter draws after it the most condign punishment. If it is committed on the part of
the authorities or agents of the government which gives it, its bearer will be amply
indemnified for the consequences that result from the violation ; and the person who
commits the violation will be punished in accordance with the laws of his country."
(Calvo, 2 v., p. 87, edition of 1868.) On the same page, Calvo confirms the principles

ALIEN CLAIMS. 263

4. During the rebellion the ordinary laws of war as to enemy's country
■were by the general policy of the Government, sanctioned by Congress
and the President's proclamation of August 16, 1861, so far modified
that in such parts of the rebel States as were permanently occupied and
controlled by the Union military forces, and where rebellion had ceased
and was no longer probable, the Government assumed to interfere no
further with the rights of person and property of the enemy than should
be required by necessary subjection to military government. 112

But this immunity would only extend to those who were loyal, or
who ceased to engage in or aid or encourage rebellion.

stated by a citation of the most distinguished writers on the laws of Dations of all civ-
ilized countries from the time of Grotius to the present.

In 1863, while General Banks was iu command at New Orleans, Mrs. Flora A. Darling,
intending to go nortli, was received through the enemy's lines from Mobile, on a flag
of truce ^oat at New Orleans, with baggage, including a trunk containing, as alleged,
confederate bonds. She claimed to have a passport, or safe-conduct, and alleged that
while on the boat she was arrested, her baggage taken, including money and confed-
erate bonds, and never returned to her. Several years after this she applied to the
War Department for redress for money taken. The War Department found it impos-
sible to ascertain the iacts as to the alleged loss. The Judge-Advocate-General, as to
this case, among other things, said :

"In regard to the merits of such claim, it need only be said that as far as the rebel
securities are concerned the seizure was clearly authorized.

"No flag of truce could protect such bonds — which have invariably heretofore been
held as illegal and disloyal publications, intended to give aid and comfort to the ene-
my—from confiscation and destruction. On the contrary, a party availing himself uf
a flag of truce to bring such securities within our lines would be guilty of a violation
of the truce, and become amenable to trial and punishment.

" It was probably the discovery of these bonds in Mrs. Darling's baggage whioh led
to her subsequent detention by the military authorities."

113 The Venice, 2 Wallace, 259 ; Planters' Bank vs. Union Bank, 16 Wallace, 483 ; Mrs.
Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wallace, 419; Prize Cases, 2 Black, 674 ; Senator'Carpenter in
Cong. Record, March 20, 1874, p. 22. See letter of February 26, 1874, of Quartermaster-
General M. C. Meigs, in appendix to this report ; Senate Claims Committee's Report,
No. 85, 2d sess. 42d Cong., March 27, 1872. In the claim of Cowan & Dickinson, referred
to in this report, it was insisted that Knoxville, Tenn,, was not " enemy's country,"
Early in September, 1863, General Bnrnside occupied Knoxville with Union forces. The
city was beleaguered by the rebel General Longstreet on the 17th November, and his
forces made an assault upon the defenses on the 28th. In this assault three brigades
of assailants lost about 800 men, and the Union forces about 100. The cotton of Cowan
& Dickinson was seized on the nights of the 17th and 18th November, by order of Gen-
eral Burnside, for fortifications. The siege of the city was raised on the 5th of Decem-
ber, and the enemy left that part of Tennessee. This report asserts that Knoxville was
not "enemy's country" at the time the cotton was seized. The authority relied on is
the case of' The Venice, 2 Wallace, 259. The report was made March 27, 1872. But
afterward, in December, 1872, the Supreme Court decided the case of Planters' Bank vs.
Union Bank, 16 Wallace, 495. That case will give some idea as to what is such " per-
manent occupancy and control by Union forces" as will show that a district is no
longer enemy's country. In that case the court, referring to the exeroise of military
authority ordering a seizure on the 17th of August, 1863, say : " Then the city of New-
Orleans was in quiet possession of the United States. It bad been captured more than fif-
teen months before that time, and undisturbed possession was maintained ever after its
capture. Hence the order was no attempt to seize property 'flagrante hello.' "

But this described a very different condition of affairs than existed at Knoxville.
There was no " undisturbed possession." There the seizure was flagrante hello. In this
case the Judge-Advocate-General, in an opinion to the War Department, December 4,
1867, said : "The cotton was seized in the enemy's country, and on the theater of the
war, and was appropriated to the strengthening of one of our forts, then threatened
with an attack by an advancing column of rebel forces. For this act of legitimate
warfare the Government incurred no responsibility."

The following letter from Hon. B. F. Butler, late major-general, is appended for
information :

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C, December 22, 1874.

Sir : I have the honor to reply to your letter of December 16, asking certain op in
ions in matters of law.

The proposition you state to me is, " that I occupied the buildings sometimes of

264 ALIEN CLAIMS.

And this is true so long as the proclamation continued in force and
as to the places covered by its exceptions.

The President's proclamation of August 16, 1861, declared the inhab-
itants of Tennessee and other States "in a state of insurrection against
the United States." (12 Stat, at L., 1262.) But it excepted " such parts
of States as may maintain a loyal adhesion to the Union and the Con-
stitution, or may be, from time to time, occupied and controlled by
forces of the United States engaged in the dispersion of said insur-
gents."

The proclamation of July 1, 1862, (12 Stat., 1266,) declared eleven
States in insurrection, and excepted only certain counties of Virginia.

loyal citizens for the use of the officers of the Army." That I never did. All the
buildings that I occupied while in New Orleans were buildings belonging to the Govern-
ment, or were those of officers in the confederate army who had deserted New Orleans.
By the proclamation made at or about the first day of-May, all private property was to
be held "inviolate." Of course that referred to the property of those who were present
in the city, and who should remain under the authority of the United States, and con-
duct themselves in a quiet and peaceable manner, obedient to the laws of the United
States ; and no such man's property was occupied by me. In Algiers, opposite New
Orleans, certain buildings, the property of those who, whether loyal or not, were ab-
sent from the city and left their property unprotected, were taken down by the negroes
-for the purpose of making themselves shanties. That was cot done by the order of
the military authorities, nor was there permission — but it would have been permitted
if it had been asked — and under no circumstances could the United States be held
liable for that unauthorized act of trespass. There was no authorization of or con-
tracts under which by the negroes or by others any buildings were occupied.

The law governing all this master seems to be simply this — I speak, of course, with-
out examination of authorities : that where an army occupies and garrisons a town in
time of actual war, the occupation of such buildings as are necessary to the use of the
army and those depending upon them, with all the costs and damages, is an incident
of war, for -vjhich the government is in no sense responsible, and ought not to be so
held or considered. Au army cannot hold a city without occupying some portion of
it ; and if they do do so, that is one of the incidents of war, and gives no contract,
explicit or implied, against the government of the occupying army.

This is the law, and fully understood in Europe, where the capture and occupation
of a city or capital of one nation by the army of another is frequently the case, and
no reclamation would ever be made under those circumstances against the government
of the conquering army, and none can be made here.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your friend and servant, .

BENJ. F. BUTLER.

Hon. Wm. Lawrence, Chairman Committee on War-Claims,

Souse of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

The law-officer of the War Department holds that the proclamation of April 2, 1863,
did not give even loyal citizens in New Orleans during the rebellion a right to demand
compensation for rent of buildings used as a military necessity. This is shown in the
following:'

War Department, Bureau op Military Justice,

Washington, D. C, January 4, 1875.

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt from you of two communications
of the 29th ultimo: one relating to a claim for the use aud occupation of a building
taken and used by the military authorities in New Orleans in March, 1863 ; and the
other referring to the matter of the settlement of claims of a similar character, arising,
however, in a, State not in insurrection. To these communications I have to reply as
follows :

1. As to claim for rent of building taken in New Orleans. In your note in regard to
this claim, while recognizing the general principle that the United States cannot
be held liable for the use of property taken and used in rebel territory pending
the late war, you, however, suggest that "the President's proclamation of April 2,
li*53, seems to put New Orleans on the footing of loyal territory, just as Ohio or
Pennsylvania would be;" and you conclude with the inquiry, "whether a loyal
owner of property in New Orleans is entitled to pay for use and occupation after
April 2, 1863," (the date of the proclamation,) " where the occupancy was a mili-
tary necessity, during 1863 aud 1864. Or was there such a state of war that the
Government was excused from paying?"

The very question raised by you, viz, that of the proper construction of the term

ALIEN CLAIMS. 265

And it may well be maintained that this latter proclamation withdrew
the exceptions contained in the former.

The exceptions made in the proclamation of August 16, 1861, inter-
fered with the enforcement of the act of July 13, 1861, regulating trade
and intercourse, (12 Stat., 257,) and the President issued a proclamation,
April 2, 1863, (13 Stat., 731,) revolting the exceptions contained in the
former proclamation, but again making or continuing certain local ex-
ceptions, but Nashville was not one of them.

Culver vs. United States, N. and H., Court Claims E., 418 ; S. C. on
appeal in Supreme Court ; The Venice, 2 Wallace, 258 ; Planters' Bank
vs. Union Bank, 16 Wallace, 493 ; Ouachita Cotton, 6 Wallace, 531.

But where there has been no hostile military operations, it must be
remembered that by the laws of nations war, either foreign or civil, may
exist where no battle has been or is being fought. 113

No nation in the world's history ever failed to seize any property and
occupy it where its armies were surrounded with great perils.

" port of New Orleans," as employed in the proclamation referred to, was fully con-
sidered by me in a report addressed to the Secretary of War in 1866. The substance
of this report is very fully presented in the following abstract, published in the Digest
of Opinions of the Judge-Advocates-General, p. 95, section 29 :

" Held, That the President's proclamation of April 2, 1863, by which the 'port of
New Orleans ' was excepted from the declaration of places in insurrection and the
operation of the prohibition of commercial intercourse, did not alter the status of
real estate occupied by our military forces during the war, or authorize the pay-
ment of rent therefor, for the period of occupation subsequent to the date of such
proclamation; that the object of this proclamation, which revoked the exceptions
of that of Angnst 16, 1861, as too general, and substituted others which were pre-
cise and definite, was more effectnally to prevent an illegal commercial intercourse
with insurrectionary districts by restricting such intercourse to certain few locali-
ties specified ; that it was the Executive intent to exempt from the status and pen-
alties of rebellion the port of New Orleans as a harbor, to remove the ban of non-
intercourse from it, ns such,, and not to relieve the people of the city from the legal
condition of insurrection in which they had been formerly declared to be, nor to
modify in any manner their political relations; that, had it been the design of the Ex-
ecutive to rehabilitate the oitizens of New Orleans by this proclamation in all those
rights of which they had been restrained by an antecedent solemn decree, it would
have been easy so to decree, and clear and positive language would have been employed
for the purpose; and that, in view of the general rule of interpretation, that a law,
whether statutory or otherwise, which repeals or restricts the scope of a previously
existing provision, is to be strictly construed, the use of the specific word 'port,' in
connection with New Orleans, must be regarded as limiting the operation of the ex-
ception to the port alone as such."

This opinion (which is still entertained) appears to me to cover your inquiry.

In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the prise-cases, that all the inhabit-
ants of the States in rebellion became public enemies upon the inauguration of the
civil war, I scarcely need add that the personal loyalty of the claimant in the instance
mentioned by you, (however much it might commend bis claim to Congress as proper
to be excepted from the general rule of exclusion,) cannot, of course, affect the legal
aspect of the case.

J. HOLT, Judge-Advocate-General.

Hon. William Lawkence, Chairman Committee on War-Claims,

Souse of Representatives.

(See House Eeport 740, p. 5, and No. 748, p, 2, and No. 777, p. 24, all at 1st session 43d
Congress. Cutner w. U. S., 6 Court Claims JR., 418.)

ll3 Const., art. 3, sec. 3, clause 3; Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wallace, 121, 140, 142; Luther
v. Borden ; Grant v. United States, 1 Nott & Hopkins, Court Claims, 41 ; S. C, 2 id, 551 ;
Whiting's War-Powers, 43 ; Ex parte Milligan, 127. The court say to justify martial
law " the necessity must be actual and present ; " Paschal, Aunotated Const., 212, note
215 ; Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, 126 ; United States v. Burr, 4 Cranch, 469-503 ; Ser-
geant, Const., ch. 30, [32;] People v, Lynch, 1 Johns., 553.

266 ALIEN CLAIMS.

CHAPTBK III.

OF DAMAGES DONE BY THE ENEMY.

Wheil private property is destroyed by the unlawful acts of individu-
als, governments seek to give redress by civil action, or to punish for
acts which are criminal. But they do not indemnify the parties who
may lose by such depredations.

If a loss is sustained by arson, burglary, theft, robbery, or by an act
which constitutes only a trespass, governments do not make good the
loss. And this is so whether the illegal acts are done by one or many
persons.

Nations apply the same rule when their citizens suffer losses by a for-
eign or domestic enemy. , They are no more bound to repair the losses
of citizens by the ravages of war than to indemnify them against losses
by arson, or other individual crimes, or the destruction of flocks by
wolves.

In a report made by Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury,
to the House of Representatives, November 19, 1792, he stated the rule
of law to be —

That according to the laws and usages of nations, a state is not obliged to make
compensation for damages done to its citizens by an enemy, or wantonly or unauthor-
ized, by its own troops. 114

The rule, as thus stated, applies to all damages, whether in battle, or
by the seizure of army supplies, or the wanton destruction of private
property on a raid or march.

This was declared to be the law as to property destroyed in battle,
and not controverted, in the Senate of the United States on the 4th of
January, 1871, in these words:

" I admit that it is the law of nations, it is a principle of universal
law, that property destroyed in the course of a fight, in the progress of
a fight as it is going on, is not to be paid for by even the United States
where it is a party to such conflict. I admit that the Constitution of
the United States does not bear the interpretation that property de-
stroyed under such circumstances should be paid for by the. United
States." 115

Vattel says :

There are damages caused by inevitable necessity ; as, for instnnee, the destruction
caused by the artillery in retaking a town from the enemy. These are merely acci-
dents. They are misfortuues, which chance deals out to the proprietors on whom they
happen to fall.

The sovereign, indeed, ought to show an equitable regard for the sufferers, if the
situation of his affairs will admit of it ; but no action lies against the state for misfor-
tunes of this nature — for losses which she has occasioned, not willfully, but through
necessity and by mere accident, in the exertion of her rights. The same may be said
of damages caused by the enemy. All the subjects are exposed to such damages ; and
woe to him on whom they fall ! The members of a society may well encounter such
risk of property, since they encounter a similar risk of life itself. Were the state
strictly to indemnify all those whose property is injured in this manuer, the public

114 American State Papers, class ix, vol. 1 of Claims, p. 55; Pitcher vs. United States,
1 Court Claims R., 9 ; Mitchell )>«. Harmory, 13 Howard, p. 115.

This is the rule adopted in a resolve of the Continental Congress June 3, 1784, Jour-
nals, vol. 4, p. 443. It was re-iterated and approved by a committee of House of Rep-
resentatives March 29, 1822, American State PaperSj Claims, 858.

115 Senator Davis, January 4, 1871, 82 Globe, p. 297. His State of Kentucky was largely
interested in insisting on the liability of the United States wherever the laws of na-
tions, or the Constitution, would admit.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 267

finances would soon be exhausted ; and every individual in the state would be obliged
to contribute his share in due proportion — a thing utterly impracticable. Besides,
these indemnifications would be liable to a thousand abuses, and there would be no
end of the particulars. It is therefore to be presumed that no such thing was ever
intended by those who united to form a society. 116

The same rule of law was adopted in England when, during the Amer-
ican Bevolution, the property of British loyalists in the colonies was
destroyed.

Mr. Pitt said in Parliament:

The American loyalists could not call upon the House to make compensation for their
losses as a matter of strict justice ; but they most undoubtedly have strong claims on
their generosity and compassion. 117 "
_________ ______________

117 Hansard's Parliamentary History, vol. 27, p. 610-618, June 3, 1788; Sumner's speech
January 12, 1869, 71 Globe, 301. He shows that the British loyalists at the close of the
war appealed to Parliament. The number of their claims was 5,072 ; the amount
claimed £8,026,045, of which commissioners appointed allowed not quite half.

This subject was discussed before the American-British Claims Commission, under
the twelfth article of the treaty of May 8, 1871, between the United States and Great
Britaiu.

Mr. Hale, in his report, says :

AMERICAN-BRITISH CLAIMS COMMISSION.

3. — Claims for property alleged to have been destroyed by the rebels.

In the case of John H. Hanna, No. 2, the memorial alleged in effect that the c.aimant
was the owner of 819 bales of cotton, situated within the rebel States of Louisiana and
Mississippi, and that " without fault of petitioner, against his consent, and by force
and arms, said cotton was destroyed by rebels in arms against the Government of the
United States prior to the year 1863." By the schedules annexed to his memorial, and
made a part of the same, it appeared that the cotton in' question was destroyed by order
of the authorities of the Confederate States and of the rebel State of Louisiana, for
the purpose of preventing the same from falling into the hands of the Federal forces.

A demurrer to the memorial was interposed on behalf of the United States.

On the argument of the demurrer it was contended by Her Majesty's counsel, ou be-
half of the claimant, that the acts of destruction alleged iu the memorial appearing to
have been deliberately committed under the orders of the commander of the forces of
the Confederate States, and with the concurrent authority of the governor of the State
of Louisiana and commander of the troops of that State, reclamation must lie on behalf
of the British government, in the interest of the claimant as a subject of that govern-
ment, against the United States as representing and including the State of Louisiana,
as well as all the other States forming the so-called Confederate States ; that the per-
sons engaged in these acts of destruction were not liable, either civilly or criminally,
either for reparation or punishment in respect of those acts, they haviug been commit-
ted in the course of military operations under the authority of the existing government,
whether lawful or usurped.

That for the wrongful acts of the several States in respect to foreign nations or their
subjects, reclamation could be made only against the United States, to the Government
of which, by its Constitution, was reserved the power of making treaties, declaring
war, and making peace, and all international powers generally, the same being denitd
to the individual States ; that no foreign nation could negotiate with or make demand
upon individual States in respect of such acts, but could deal only with the Govern-
ment of the United States ; that in case of wrongs committed by any State upon for-
eign nations, in regard to which that State, if wholly independent and not a member of
the Federal Union, would be liable to reclamation, and to be called to account in the
.mode practiced between nations — by treaty or by war — these remedies against such
State being denied to foreign powers by the Constitution of the United States, the
liability for reparation devolved upon the United States, and the Federal Government
must be held to answer as well for the acts of the authorities of its several constituent
States as for those of the Federal Government.

That the so-called secession of the State of Louisiana and the other States forming
the so-called Confederate States did not extinguish or suspend the liability of the
United States for wrongful acts committed by said States.

That by the treaties of 1794, 1815, and 1827, the United States had stipulated with
Great Britain for the protection of her subjects in the State of Louisiana as well as in
all other territory of the United States; that the United States not haviug allowed
the claim of Louisiana to be released from her constitutional obligations and restric-

268 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Nations sometimes do grant relief even for ravages of war, not as a

tions, but having held her to her constitutional obligations, and having insisted that
their political relations with foreign powers were in no wise affected by the insurrec-
tion in the Southern States, and that the Government of the United States was right-
fully supreme in Louisiana and the other States in rebellion, and having finally main-
tained its authority over those States, its liability to Great Britain for violation of
these treaties by those respective States remained precisely as if there had been no
insurrection or civil war.

Her Majesty's counsel further contended that, as a principle of international law, if
the rightful government of a country be displaced and the usurping government becomes
liable for wrongs done, such liability remains, and devolves on the rightful government
when restored; that this principle equally applied when the usnpation was only par-
tial ; that the restored and loyal government of Louisiana was liable for wrongs done
by the insurrectionary government of the same State; and that it was only by the
provisions of the Constitution of the United States that the State of Louisiana was
prevented from being compelled to discharge that liability toward foreign govern-
ments, and that on this ground the Government of the United States must be held
responsible for the acts of the State of Louisiana.

He cited in support of these propositions the treaties of 1815 and 1827 between the
United States and Great Britain, (8 Stat., p. 228, art. 1; id., 361, art. 1 ;) Phillimdre,
vol. 1, pp. 86, 94, 139 ; Wheaton, p. 77; Constitution of the United States, art, 1, sec.
10 ; Works of Daniel Webster, vol. 3, p. 321 ; id., vol. 6, pp. 209, 253, 265 ; U. S. Att. Gen.
Op., vol. 1, p. 392 ; The United States vs. Palmer, 3 Wheat. Sup. Ct. E., 210 ; The Col-
lector vs. Day, 1 1 id., 113, 124 to 126 ; The Prize Cases, 2 Black, 636 ; the treaty between
the United States and Great Britain of August 9. 1842, (8 Stat., 575, art. 5;) and the
acts of Congress of December 22, 1869, (16 Stat., 59, 60,) and of April 20, 1871, (17 id.,
13 to 15.)

The argument on behalf of the United States was summed up as follows :

" First. That whatever may be the relations of the separate States of the Union to
the Government of the United States, it is manifest that no responsibility can attach
to the United States for the destruction of the claimant's property under color of the
authority of the State of Louisiana, because its destruction was not authorized by any
officials representing or authorized to represent or act for the State of Louisiana under
the Constitution and laws of the United States. There can be no legitimate officers of
a State to constitute its government, except such as have taken an oath to support the
Constitution of the United States. All others are usurpers and pretenders. But, far-
ther, a State of the Union has no political existence which can be or has been recog-
nized by Great Britain, except as a part of the United States, in subordination to the
National Government. The rebels, who, by usurpation, undertook to act for the State
of Louisiana, declared their aotion to be in behalf' of the State, which they claimed as
a component part of another and hostile nation

" Secondly. The destruction of the claimant's cotton was done under the order of
the commander of a military force engaged in hostilities against the United States,
and whose acts Great Britain had recognized as those of a lawful belligerent, having
all the rights of war against the United States that any foreign invader could have
had. The men professing to act as the local authorities, in concurring in the order of
destruction, acted as the assistants and allies of the hostile and belligerent power,
and subject to its control. It is as absurd to hold the United States responsible in the
ease of Hanna, as it would be to hold France responsible for the destruction of the
property of a British subject in the part of France held by the German armies in the late
war, on the ground that a French official, at the head of some arrandiasement or com-
mune, might have joined in the order of the German forces for its being done, he hav-
ing been put in office or retained there by the German forces for the very purpose, and
having first renounced his allegiance to France and taken an oath of allegiance to Ger-
many."

The commission unanimously sustained the demurrer in the following award :

" The claim is made for the loss sustained by the destruction of cotton belonging to
the claiment by men who are described by the claimaut as rebels in arms against the
Government of the United States.

"The commissioners are of opinion that the United States cannot be held liable for
injuries caused by the acts of rebels over whom they could exercise ho control, and
■which acts they had no power to prevent.

" Upon this ground, and without giving any opiniou upon the other points raised in
the case, which will be considered hereafter in other cases, the claim of John Holmes
Hanna is, therefore, disallowed."

Mr. Commissioner Frazer read an opinion, whioh will be found in the appendix H.

This was among the earliest of the decisions of the commission, and it is understood
that in consequence of it a large number of claims of similar character awaiting pre-
sentation were never presented to the commission.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 269

matter of strict right by principles of international law, but as a gra-
tuitous act of benignity. 118

Opinion of Mr. Commissioner Frazer, in the case of John H. Sauna vs. The United States

No. 2, {Seep. 58, ante.)

This is a claim for the destruction of 819 bales of cottou belonging to the claimant by
rebels in arms against the United States. The property was destroyed in Louisiana ami
Mississippi iu 1862 by the confederate forces, with the concurrence of the rebel author-
ities of Louisiana, one of the Confederate States so called. Her Britannic Majesty had
recognized the co-called Confederate States as a belligerent, and the contest of arms
then prevailing as a public war. After such recognition by the sovereign, the subject
of such sovereign caunot, iu his character as such subject, aver that the fact was not
so. The act of his government in that regard is conclusive upon him.

Aside from this recognition by Her Majesty, it is public history, of which this com-
mission will take notice without averment or proof, that the confederate forces were
engaged at the time in a formidable rebellion against the Government of the United
States. It may not be important to the question in hand, therefore, that Her Majesty
had taken the action already stated.

It should be further observed that the particular "State of Louisiana" which cou-
curred aud participated in the destruction of the claimant's property was a rebel organ-
ization, existing and acting as much in hostility to the Government of the United
States as was the Confederate States so called. It was in form and fact a creature un-
known to the Constitution of the United States, and acting iu hostility to it. It was an
instrumentality of the rebellion. Its agency, therefore, in the spoliation of this cotton
cannot be likened to the act of a State of the American Union claiming to exist under
the Constitution ; and any argument tending to show that under international law the
National Government is liable to answer for wrongs committed by such a State upon
the subjects of a foreign power, can have no application to the matter now uuder con-
sideration. The question presented is simply whether the Government of the United
States is liable to answer to a neutral for the acts of chose in rebellion against it, under
the circumstances stated, who never succeeded in establishing a government. It is not
deemed necessary in this case to inquire whether the claimant, having a commercial
domicile in Louisiana at the time, is to be deemed a British " subject of Her Britannic
Majesty" in the sense of Article XII of the treaty which creates this commission.
That question is argued by counsel, but it is thought better to meet the question above
stated for the reason that the case will thereby be determined more distinctly upon its
merits.

The statement of the question would seem to render it unnecessary to discuss it. It
is not the case of a government established de facto displacing the government de jure;
but it is the case merely of an unsuccessful effort in that direction, which, for the time
being, interrupted the course of lawful government without the fault of the latter.

Its acts were lawless and criminal, and could result in no liability on the part of the
Government of the United States.

118 Senator Howe, in Senate Report No. 412, third session Forty-second Congress,
February 7, 1873, said :

"In September, 1871, immediately upon the close of the Franco-German war, France,
although defeated and subjected to the payment of a fine of 3,000,000,000 of francs to
her conquerors, did not ask to avoid the obligation of making compensation to her
despoiled subjects. Accordingly, the national assembly provided not only for tte pay-
ment of all private damages inflicted by the French authorities, but also provided for
the repayment of all exactions made upon French subjects in the name of taxes by
the German authorities. The same decree appropriated 100,000,000 of francs, to be
placed at once in the hands of the ministers of the interior and of finauce, to be appor-
tioned between the most necessitous victims of the war, and appropriated a further
sum of 6,000,000 of francs to be distributed by the same ministers ' among those who
suffered the most in the operations attending the attack made by the French army to
gain entrance into Paris.' A translation of the whole decree is appended to this
report."

[Official journal of the French republic, Versailles, September 11, 1871.]

The National Assembly has adopted — the President of the French Republic promulgates the
law, the tenor of which is as follows :

Considering that, during the 1 ite war, the portion of the territory invaded by the
enemy bore exactions and suffered devastations without number; that the sense of
patriotism which animates the heart of the French people enjoins upon the govern-
ment the duty of indemnifying those who have, in the common conflict, undergone
these exceptional privations, the Natonal Assembly, without intending to depart from
the principles laid down in the law of July 10, 1791, and the decree of August 10, 1853,
decree :

270 ALIEN CLAIMS.

In the discussions which preceded the "Provisional Articles" of
November 30, 1782, (8 Stat., 54,) and the " definitive treaty of peace,"

Article 1. An indemnification will be allowed to all those who have home, during
the invasion, the contributions of war-requisitions, either iu nioney or in kind, fines,
and material damages.

Aht. 2. These contributions, requisitions, fines, and damages will be verified and
estimated by the cantonal commissions who act for the time being under the direction
of the minister of the interior. A departmental commission will revise the labor of
the cantonal commissions and fix the definite sum-total of the losses proven. This
commission will be composed of the prefet, president, four counsellors-general, desig-
nated by the council-general, and of four representative? of the ministers of the interior
and finances.

Art. 3. When the extent of the losses shall have been thus verified, <i law will fix
the sum the state of the public treasury will permit to be appropriated for their indem-
nification, and determine the distribution of the same.

A sum of one hundred millions will be immediately placed at the disposition of the
minister of the interior and of the minister of finances, and apportioned between the
departments pro rata, according to the losses respectively proven, to be distributed by
the prtfet, assisted by a commission appointed by the council-general and taken from
its number, between the most necessitous victims of the war, and the' communes the
most involved in debt. This first allowance will be part of the sum-total assigned to
each department to be distributed among all the claimants.

Art. 4. A sum of six million francs is placed equally at the disposition of the minis-
ters of the finances and of the interior, to be, without further legislative enactment,
distributed among those who snffered the most in the operations attending the attack
made by the French army to gain re-entrance into Paris.

Art. 5. Independently of the preceding provisions the contributions in money col-
lected under the title of taxes by the German authorities will be settled as follows :

Section 1. The communes that have paid any sums under the title of taxes will be
re-imbursed their advances by the treasury.

Sec. 2. The tax-payers who will prove payment of any sum under the same title,
either into the hands of the Germans or to the French municipal authorities, will be
permitted to apply the whole sum on account of their contributions for 1870 and 1871.
They will be required to produce their vouchers within the period of a month.

Sec. 3. The settlement specified above will comprise :

1. The' whole sum of the French direct tax.

2. The double of that tax, as showing the indirect taxes levied by the Prussians. All
that which in the payments will exceed the direct tax doubled will be considered as
simple contribution of war, and governed by the principles laid down iu the preceding
article.

Deliberated in public sessions, at Versailles, July 3, August 8, and September 6, 1871.
President :

JULES GREVY.
Secretaries :

PAUL BETHMONT.

VISCOMPTE de MEAUX.

PAUL de REMUSAT.

BARON de BARANTE.

MARQUIS de CASTELLANA.

N. JOHNSTON.
President of the, republic :

A. THIERS.
Minister of the inteiHor :

F. LAMBRECHT.

By the act of March 30, 1862, 2 Stat., 143, the United States, subject to certain
limitations, "guarantee to the party injured an eventual indemnification in respect to "
certain property "taken, stolen, or destroyed" by Indians, under certain circumstances.
The act of June 30, 1834, 4 Stat., 731, does the same. But these look to reclamation from
Indian tribes. (S. Rep, of Committee of Glaims, No. 12, 1st session 43d Cone., January
19, 1874.

And see act February 28, 1859, sec. 8, 11 Stat., 401 ; joint resolution June 25, 1860, 12
Stat., 120; act July 15, 1870, sec. 4, 16 Stat., 360; act May 29, 1872, sec. 7, 17 Stat., 190;
and see as to Indians H. Rep. No. 780, 1st session 43d Cong., Committee on Indian
Affairs on claim of Fletcher.

Certain other statntes secure compensation for damage done by the enemy: Act
April 9, 1816,3 Stat., 26S, sec. 9. (See as to this American State Papers, Claims, 486,
Report December 17, 1816.) Act March 3, 1817, 3 Stat., 397, sec. 1, injury to military de-

ALIEN CLAIMS. 271

of September ' 3, 1783, (8 Stat., 80,) between Great Britain and the
United States, the subject of indemnity for war-damages was considered.

posits. Act March 3, 1849, oh. 129, sec. 2, 9 Stat., 414, loss or destruction of property
iu service by contract or impressment.

The argument on behalf of Frederick City, in H. Eep., Committee on War-Claims, 1st
session 43d Cong., June 22, 1874, says:

"Among other instances in which compensation for injuries inflicted by the public
enemy has been granted by Cougress, without specially distinguishing the particular
case in exercising its bounty, we would mention the following acts, the body of which
we quote, and which, it will be seen, suggest no reasons for affording the relief but the
bare statement of the loss sustained. Possibly, the evidence on which these acts were
based may have disclosed some grounds of discrimination ; but as these are omitted in
the laws themselves, while in other acts of a kindred character they have been ex-
pressed, it would seem that, in the cases in question, Congress did not consider itself
oound to confine its generosity within limitations suggestive of legal responsibility, and
thus indicated the policy of extending relief whenever a citizen had been subjected to
a greatly disproportionate share of loss in a common struggle, even at the hands of
those with whom we are at war."

The precedents indicated are as follows : Act of 1822, chap. 65 : William Henderson
compensated " for value of his property destroyed by the enemy during the late war,
at Monday's Point, Virginia;" act of 1832, chap. 271: John Brunson, "for houBe and
store in the village of Buffalo, N. Y., destroyed by the enemy ;" act of 1832, chap. 292 :
Augustine Taney, " for destruction by fire of buildings on Soller's Point, near Balti-
more, by the enemy during the late war ;" act of 1836, chap. 33 : Legal representatives
of Thomas Beacham, " for the value of a barn in Northumberland County, Virginia,
burned by the British in the late war ;" act of 1836, chap. .241 : Heirs of William Forbes,
"for certain houses which were destroyed at Kinsella, Virginia, by the enemy in the
late war with Great Britain;'' act of i836, chap. .307: Charles Cattell, "for tobacco
destroyed by British or American troops in Maryland;" act of 1838, chap. 43: James
Pattison, " for his house and property on the Patuxent, destroyed by British troops;"
act of 1838, chap. 49 : William Eadres, "for his house burned by the British at Sodus,
New York;" act of 1842, chap. 212: John King, "for dwelling-house burned by the
British in Richmond County, Virginia, during the late war."

This list might be extended, but is probably sufficient for illustration. These cases,
with many similar ones, may be found in United States Statutes at Large, vol. 6,
Private Laws, to which reference is made.

Act June 25, 1864, 13 Stat., 182, horses of military persons surrendered by order of
superior officers. See Senate Eep. 137, 1st sess. 34th Cong., April 18, 1856, in favor of pay-
ing for personal property destroyed by the enemy in the war of 1812. The committee
held that where property was used by the Government, and the enemy destroyed it in
consequence of that use, it should be paid for. Congress did not paes the bill recom-
mended by the committee.

The legislature of Ohio, by act of March 30, 1864, (61 Ohio Laws, 85,) provided for a
commission "to examine claims of citizens of this State for property taken, destroyed,
or injured by rebels or Union forces within this State during the Morgan raid in 1863."

Tbis act makes three classes of claims :

1. For property taken, destroyed, or injured by rebels.

2. By Union forces under command of United States officers.

3. By Union forces not under command of United States officers.

On the 15th December, 1864, the commissioners made their report to the governor,
showing claims made, $678,915.03, on which was allowed $576,225. This consisted of
" damages by the rebels," $428,168 ; " damages by Union forces under command of United
States officers," $141,855; and " damages by Union forces not under command of United
States officers," $6,202. The report does not distinguish between property taken and
that damaged or destroyed.

The act of April 27, 1872, (69 Laws, 176,) authorized a re-examination of these claims.

The act of May 5,1873, appropriates $11,539.56 to pay claims under class three, as
classified under the act of April 27, 1872, (70 Laws, 260.) The same act (p. 265) re-
quires the governor to appoint a commissioner to proceed to Washington to urge upon
the proper officers of the Government or Congress the payment of all just claims of the
people of Ohio growing out of the Morgan raid.

The legislature of Pennsylvania also made provision for indemnifying citizens of
Chambersburgh for property destroyed by the rebel invasion.

See act approved April 9, 1868, No. 39, laws of 1868, p. 74. This act provides for the
appointment of commissioners to investigate claims of citizens in counties invaded by
rebel forces " for the amount of their losses in the late war." *

The preamble to this act recites that" during the late war to suppress the rebellion
several of the southern counties of this State were several times invaded by the rebels
in great force," and that " there was occasioned great destruction, devastation, and

272 ALIEN CLAIMS.

There is a brief account of these in " The works of John Adams,
second President of the United States, with a life of the author,
notes and illustrations by his grandson, Charles Francis Adams. Vol.
1. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1856;" The writer says, (page 387, &c.:)

One other obstacle had been in the way, the more difficult to remove, that it rested
on a point of honor in the British heart. Those individuals who had taken the side of
the mother country iu the colonies, and who, for doing so, had been subjected to the
mortification, disasters, and personal losses consequent upon a failure to re-establish
her authority, naturally looked to her to protect their rights, in any and every attempt
that might be made at accommodation. And this was a valid claim on her, in spite of
the fact of the difficulties into which the mother country had fallen were mainly
owing to the interested misrepresentations made by leading persons of this class in
America. On this point, the instructions to obtain an acknowledgment of their claims
to indemnity had been most positive. But the American commissioners, on their side
well knowing the impossibility of reconciling their countrymen to the acknowledg-
ment of such odious pretensions, and little disposed themselves to recognize their va-
lidity, manifested no inclination to concede anything beyond what the strict rule of
justice would demand. Here Dr. Franklin took the lead; finding that the British
were about to urge their views on this subject and the fisheries together, he prepared an
article, making, by way of set-off, a counter-claim of, compensation for the severe and
not unfrequently wanton injuries inflicted upon the patriots by the British troops.
Neither did this lose force by its reference to the voluntary acts of those very adherents
to the British cause, whose pretensions were set up for consideration. The fact that
this contest had, in many of its parts, been marked with the most painful character-
istics of civil convulsion, in the course of which the parties had suffered shocking
outrages from each other, was too well known to be denied ; and the wounds were too
fresh to permit the supposition that the victorious side would be prepared at once to
replace in their former position those of their brethren who had not only forfeited
their confidence by joining the oppressor, but had been guilty of the greatest barbari-
ties in conducting the struggle. The earnest and strenuous resistance of Dr. Frank-
lin, re-inforced by the representations of the other commissioners, at last produced an
effect in convincing the British envoys that further urgency in their behalf was useless.
To prolong the war a single day only for their sakes, without prospect of a better result,
was obviously a waste of means, which might be better employed in supplying the
very remuneration which was now iu agitation. The good sense of Mr. Fitzherbert,
confirming that of Mr. Oswald, prevailed, aud this troublesome discussion was finally
terminated by the preparation of two articles to which all agreed, providing that fur-
ther hostilities to the tories should cease, and that Congress should earnestly recom-
mend to the States the restitution of their estates to such persons as could be proved to
be real British subjects, and such Americans as had not borne arms against the United
States.

loss of property of citizens," and " these losses were sustained in the common cause,
and for the general welfare of the whole people of this Commonwealth, and it is reason-
able and proper that citizens who have thus suffered should receive generous considei-ation
and active relief from this great Commonwealth," &c.
The governor of Pennsylvania has furnished the following :

Executive Chamber, Harrisourgh, Pa., March — , 1874.

Statement of war-claims.

Adams County $489,438 99

Fulton County 56,544 98

Franklin County, burning of Chambersburg'h 1, 625, 435 55

Franklin County, other claims 846,053 30

Cumberland County 211,778 95J

York County 214,720 05

Bedford County 6,818 03

Somerset County J 20 00

3, 450, 909 85i
Amounts paid.

Under act of August 20, 1864 flOO, 000

Under act of February 15, 1866 500,000

Underact of May 27,1871 300,000

Commission to re-examine and re-adjudicate was raised under act of May 22, 1871.
(P. L. 1871, p. 272.)

It will be seen that this act does not put the claims upon the ground of a legal right
to demand compensation, but on the ground of generositi/.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 273

>

There is a work entitled the Diplomatic Correspondence of the Ameri-
can Revolution, being the letters of Benjamin Franklin, Silas Deane,
John Adams, John Jay, Arthur Lee, Wm. Lee, Ralph Izard, Francis
Dana, Wm. Carmichael, Henry Laurens, M. De Lafayette, M. Dumas,
and others, concerning the foreign relations of the United States during
the whole Revolution, together with the letters in reply from the Secret
Committee of Congress and the secretary of foreign affairs; also the
entire correspondence of the French ministers, Gerard and Luzerne, with
Congress. Published under the direction of the President of the United
States from the original manuscripts in the Department of State, con-
formably to a resolution of Congress of March 27, 1818. Edited by Jared
Sparks. Volume X. Boston : Nathan Hale and Gray & Brown ; 1830.

The proposed article will be found in this work (p. 106, &c.,) as follows :

Article proposed and read to the commissioners before signing the preliminary articles.

It iB agreed that His Britannic Majesty will earnestly recommend" it to bis Parliament
to provide for and make a compensation to the merchants and shop-keepers of Bos-
ton, whose goods and merchandise were seized and taken out of their stores, ware-
houses, and shops, by order of General Gage and others of his commanders, and officers
there, and also to the inhabitants of Philadelphia, for the goods taken away by his
army there, and to make compensation also for the tobacco, rice, indigo, and negroes,
&c, seized and carried off by his armies under Generals Arnold, Cornwallis, and others,
from the States of Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia, and also for all
vessels and cargoes belonging to the inhabitants of the said United States, which were
stopped, seized, or taken, either in the ports, or on the seas, by his governors, or by his
ships of war, before the declaration of war against the said States.

FACTS.

There existed a free commerce, upon mutual faith between Great Britain and Amer-
ica. The merchants of the former credited the merchants and planters of the latter
with great quantities of goods, on the common expectation that the merchants having
sold the goods, would make the accustomed remittance; that the planters would do
the same ' by the labor of their negroes, and the produce of that labor, tobacco, rice,
indigo, &c.

England, before the goods were sold in America, sends an armed force, seizes those
goods in the stores — some even in the ships that brought them — and carries them off;
seizes, also, and carries off the tobacco, rice, and indigo provided by the planters to
make returns, and even the negroes, from whose labor they might hope to raise other
produce for that purpose.

Britain now demands that the debts shall, nevertheless, be paid.

Will she, can she, justly refuse making compensation for such seizures ?

If a draper, who had sold a piece of linen to a neighbor on credit, should follow him,
take the linen from him by force, and then send a bailiff to arrest him for the debt, would
any court of equity award the payment of the debt without ordering a restitution of
the cloth?

Will not the debtors in America cry out that, if this compensation be not made, they
were betrayed by the pretended credit, and are now doubly ruined ; first by the enemy,
and then by the negotiators at Paris, the goods and negroes sold them being taken
from them, with all they had besides, and they are now to be obliged to pay for what
they have been robbed off?

But the article was not agreed on.

There is in the fourth volume of the secret journals of the Congress
of the Confederation, prior to the treaty of peace, much information on
this subject. The result of all is that, on principles of international
law, nations do not recognize a liability to indemnify citizens who suffer
osses from acts of the public enemy in war.

There is a class of cases which may be said in some sense to form an
exception to this rule.

A receiver of public money js not accountable for funds in his hands
which were forcibly seized by the rebel authorities during the rebellion,,
against his will and without fault or negligence on his part. (United
States v. Thomas, 15 Wallace, 337.)

But in such case he is not protected if he has neglected to promptly
H. Rep. 134 18

■274 ALIEN CLAIMS.

disburse or pay money into the Treasury as his duty requires. .(Bevans
v. United States, 13 Wallace, 56 ; Halliburton v. United States, 13 Wal-
lace, 63. See, also, the report of the Committee on War-Claims in
House of Eepresentatives, second session Forty-third Congress, as to
the so-called Saint Albans raid, and report of Senate Committee on
Claims as to the claim of the First National Bank of Saint Albans to
be indemnified for loss of Government bonds in the bank seized and
carried away by the rebel raiders.)

There is another class of cases in which compensation is sometimes
provided for damages inflicted by the enemy. During tbe rebellion in
the United States the rebels frequently made raids on loyal citizens in
the insurrectionary States and carried away and destroyed their prop-
erty. In such cases the Union military authorities sometimes made and
collected assessments on disloyal citizens in the vicinity of the 'raids,
and with it indemnified the parties suffering loss. One object of this
was to give indemnity and protection to loyal citizens, and another was
to discourage such raids and to make disloyal citizens earnest in oppos-
ing them. The indemnity-money in such cases was generally paid by
the military authorities directly to the parties injured. If for any cause
they were absent or could not be found, the money was used by the
Army or paid iuto the Treasury. When so used or paid the Govern-
ment lias deemed it just to pay, on proper application and proof, by
special act of Congress. 119

CHAPTEE IV.

PROPERTY DESTROYED OR DAMAGED IN BATTLE BY THE GOVERNMENT
FORCES, OR WANTONLY, OR UNAUTHORIZED BY ITS OWN TROOPS.

The American rule of international law was early adopted, that the
Government was under no obligation to compensate its citizens for
property destroyed or damages done in battle or by necessary military
operations in repelling an invading enemy. 120

To this rule Alexander Hamilton added that —

According to the laws and usages of nations a state is not obliged to make com-
pensation for damages done to its citizens * * wantonly or unauthorized by its own
troops. 121

This is the general rule which is recognized now. 122

119 This subject is discussed in the debate in the House of Representatives Febru-
ary 12, 1875, on a bill for the relief of John Aldridge.

120 Arnerican State Papers, Claims, 199, February 15, 1797 : A committee of the House
of Representatives made a report on a claim for "compensation for a dwelling-house
burned in Massachusetts, in March, 1776, by order of General Sullivan, commanding
the American troops. The house was in possession of Britisb troops, and for the pur-
pose of dislodging them General Sullivan sent troops with orders to set fire to the
building, which was done."

The committee say : "The loss of houses, and other sufferings by the general ravages
of war, have never been compensated by this or any other government. In the history
of our Revolution sundry decisions of Congress against claims of this nature may bo
found. Government has not adopted a general rule to compensate individuals who
have suffered in a similar manner."

121 Report to Congress, November 19, 1792 ; American State Papers, Claims, 55.

1 " In the report made November 30, 1873, by Hon . Robert S. Hale, counsel of the United
States before the commission of claims under the 12th article of treaty of 8th May,
1871, between the United States and Great Britain, is a statement of claims made by
citizens of Great Britain against the United States, and the decision thereon as follows :

"In the case of Thomas Stirling, No. 12, were included as well claims for property

ALIEN CLAIMS. 275

It has been said, agaiu, that —

No government, but for a special favor, has ever paid for property even of its own
citizens, destroyed in its own country, on attacking or defending itself against a com-
mon public enemy, much less is any government obliged to pay for property belonging
to neutrals domiciled in the country of its enemy which may possibly bo destroyed by
its forces in their operations against such enemy. 123

Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, said, in relation to a claim made upon
the United States by a French subject for property destroyed by the
bombardment of Greytown, in July, 1854, that —

The British government, upon the advice of the law-officers of the Crown, declared
to Parliament its inability to prosecute similar claims. In 1857 Lord Palmerston ap-
plied the decision in the case of Greytown as a precedent for refusing compensation to
British merchants whose property in a Russian port had been destroyed by a British
squadron during the Crimean war. (See note in Lawrence's Wheaton, p. 145.)

The governments of Austria and Russia have applied the doctrine involved in the
Greytown case to the claims of British subjects injured by belligerent' operations in
Italy in 1849 and 1850. (See note p. 49, vol. 2, of Vattel, Guilaumin & Co.'s edition,
1863.)

"We have applied the same principle in declining to make reclamations for citizens
of the United States whose property was destroyed in the bombardment of Valparaiso
by a Spanish fleet, and in resisting the claims of subjects of neutral powers who sus-
tained injury from our military operations in the Southern States during the recent
rebellion. It will probably be found a sufficient answer to the reclamations of many
of our citizens who have sustained losses from belligerent operations on both sides dur-
ing the recent occupation of Mexico by French troops. 124

destroyed by the United States Army in its marches and encampments in the State of
Virginia, as for horses, carriages, cattle, hogs, flour, corn, and bacon alleged to have
been taken and carried off by the soldiers. The proofs showed nothing beyond the dis-
appearance of the property in the presence of the United States Army. The decision
of the commission, in which all the commissioners joined, was made in the following
words :

" The acts done upon which this claim is based seem to have been the ordinary results
incident to the march of an invading army in a hostile territory, with possibly some
unauthorized acts of destruction and pillage by the soldiery, with no proof of appro-
priation by the United States. Under such circumstances there is ground for a valid
claim against the United States. The claim is, therefore, disallowed."

" Iu tfee case of the Misses Hayes, No. 100, milliners, at Jackson, Miss., a claim was
made for a stock of millinery goods and like property, alleged to have been taken by
soldiers of the United States Army on the first capture of Jackson, in May, 1863. The
acts complained of appeared, if committed by United States soldiers, to have been acts
of pillage merely, and the claim was unanimously disallowed."

■" In the cases of Michael Grace, No. 132, Elizabeth Bostock, No. 133, Thomas McMahon,
No. 136, and others, at Savannah, being claims for property alleged to have been taken
and appropriated by United States soldiers, the same appeared to have been by acts of
unauthorized pillage, and were rejected."

And Mr. Hale says, again, as to property taken, " where the property was in its nature
not a proper subject of military use, or, being such, was not applied to military use, or
where the taking appeared to be mere acts of unauthorized pillage or marauding, the
claims were disallowed."

And again, page 50 :

"In several cases there were allegations of the wanton destruction of property by
United States troops, and in some cases satisfactory proof was made of the fact of such
destruction by soldiers without command or authority of their commanding officers
and in defiance of orders.

" Iu the case of Anthony Barclay, No. 5, allegations were made of wanton destruction
of property, including valuable furniture, china, pictures, and other works of art,
books, &c. The proof was conflicting as to whether the injuries alleged were com-
mitted by soldiers or not ; but if committed by soldiers, it was plainly not only with-
out authority, but iu direct violation of the orders of General Sherman. In the award
•made in favor of Mr. Barclay, I am advised that nothing was included for property
alleged to have been destroyed.

" For property alleged to have been wantonly and without provocation or military
necessity destroyed or injured in the enemy's country, as in the cases of Anthony
Barclay, No. 5 ; Godfrey Barnsley, No. 162, and in the Columia cases."

The claims were not allowed.

123 Perrin vs. U.S., 4 Court Claims, 547.

124 Letter to Hon. Charles Sumner, February 26, 1888, 4 Court Claims R., 548.

276 ALIEN CLAIMS.

This is the rule recognized by Vattel, who says : " Bat there are other
damages caused by inevitable necessity ; as, for instance, the destruc-
tion caused by the artillery in retaking a town from the enemy. These
are merely accidents. They are misfortunes, which chance deals out to
the proprietors on whom they happen to fall. * * No action
lies against the state for misfortunes of this nature ; for losses which
she has occasioned, not willfully, but through necessity and by mere ac-
cident in the exertion of her rights." 125

These principles are generally recognized, and any departure from
them rests on mere gratuity or other exceptional reasons. 126

CHAPTER V.

TEMPORARY OCCUPATION OF, INJURIES TO, AND DESTRUCTION OF
PROPERTY CAUSED BY ACTUAL AND NECESSARY GOVERNMENT
MILITARY OPERATIONS TO REPEL A THREATENED ATTACK OF, OR
IN ADVANCING- TO MEET, AN ENEMY IN FLAGRANT WAR. 127

By the principles of universal law recognized anterior to the Consti-
tution, in force when it was adopted, and never abrogated, every civil-
ized nation is in duty bound to pay for army supplies taken from its
loyal citizens, and for all property voluntarily taken for or devoted to
" public use."

But there is a class of cases in which property, real or personal, of
loyal citizens may be temporarily occupied or injured, or even destroyed,
on the theater of and by military operations, either in a loyal State or
in enemy's country, in time of war, as a military necessity. The ad-
vance or retreat of an army may necessarily destroy roads, bridges,
fences, and growing crops.

In self-defense an army may, of necessity, erect forts, construct em-
bankments, and seize cotton-bales, timber, or stone, to make barricades.

In battle or immediately after, and when It may be impossible to pro-
cure property in any regular mode by contract or impressment, self-pres-
ervation and humanity may require the temporary occupancy of houses
for hospitals for wounded soldiers, or for the shelter of troops, and for
necessary military operations which admit of neither choice nor delay.

In these and similar cases the question arises whether there is a de-
liberate voluntary taking of property for public use requiring compen-
sation, or whether these acts arise from and are governed by the law of
overruling military necessity — mere accidents of war inevitably and
unavoidably incidental to its operations — and which by international
law impose no obligation to make recompense. It seems quite clear that
they are of this latter class.

This is so upon reason, authority, and the usage of nations.

126 Vattel, book 3, ch. xv, § 232, p. 403.

126 In report of Hon. R. S. Hale to Secretary of State, Nov. 30, 1873, of the proceed-
ings of the commission under 12 art., treaty of 8 May, 1871, between United States
and Great Britaiu, it is said, " In the case of Watkins and Donnelly, administrators,
No. 329, an award was made against the United States, in which all the commissioners
joined, for property pillaged by United States soldiers in the night from a country
store in Missouri, a State not in insurrection, upon proof showing great neglect of dis-
cipline on the part of Colonel Jennison, the commanding officer, and his neglect and
refusal to take any steps for the surrender of the stolen property or the punishment of
the offenders wheu notified of tho facts, and that a part, at least, of the stolen property
was then in possession of his troops."

127 See this subject discussed somewhat in notes 53-64.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 277

'Most of the considerations applicable to the destruction of property
in battle, or to prevent it from falling into the hands of the enemy, are
equally appropriate here. Some of these have been and others will
hereafter be more fully stated. And if property may be so destroyed
without incurring liability, why may not property temporarily occupied
or even damaged, when the purpose is the same, to prevent it from being
useful to the enemy ? The greater includes the less. These cases rest on
principles entirely distinct from those which relate to and govern ordi-
nary army supplies. There is no reason why one citizen should furnish
quartermaster's or commissary supplies rather than another. The Gov-
ernment can, as to these, exercise a discretion ; it can buy from any who
may have to sell, or select those from whom it will impress. Here is a
deliberate voluntary taking for public use.

But an army advancing to meet an enemy has no discretion in select-
ing its route. The public safety compels it to pursue that which is most
practicable.

If crops stand in the way, their destruction by the march may be
inevitable and unavoidable, a mere accident and incident of military
operations, as much so as the destruction caused by battle.

On principle, the Government cannot be liable to make restitution for
the damage, unless it has assumed to do so by an implied contract or
has been guilty of a wrong.

There is in such case no contract, for this implies consent, deliberation,
choice. It implies that what is done is not done as of right or by lawful
authority, but by consent of all parties in interest. "If a man is
assaulted, he may (lawfully) fly through another's close," and he does
not thereby become a party to a contract to pay any damage he does, 128
because his act is lawful. It is the exercise of a legal right.

So a nation, on the same principle, makes no implied promise to pay
when its army retreats from a pursuing enemy or advances to prevent
his blow.

Nor is a nation in such case liable as a trespasser or wrong-doer. "A
trespass * * from the very nature of the term transgressio imports to
go beyond what is right." 129 An army in its march performs an imperative
duty — justified by the law of nations — required by the public safety.

The rule has been thus stated by the late solicitor of the War Depart-
ment:

If one of our armies marches across a corn-field, and so destroys a growing crop, or
fires a building which conceals or protects the enemy, or cuts down timber to open a
passage for troops through a forest, the owner of such property, citizen or alien, has no
legal claim to have his losses made up to him by the United States. Misfortunes like
these must he borne wherever they fall. If any government is obliged to guarantee
its subjects against losses by casualties of public war, such obligations must be
founded upon some constitutional or statute law. Thus far no such obligations have
been recognized in our system of congressional legislation. (Whiting's War-Powers,
43d ed., 1871, p. 340.)

Damages done by the erection of forts, the seizure of timber or mate-
rials for barricades, under pressure of military necessity, give no legal
right to compensation.

" In time of war," said the supreme court of Pennsylvania, " bulwarks

1-28 5 Bacon, Abr., 183; Eespublica v. Sparhawk, 1 Dallas, Pa., 362.

139 5 Bacon, Abr., 150 ; Eespublica v. Sparhawk, 1 Dallas, 362.

In Perrin v. United States, 4 C. of Cls. E., 547, where a French subject made a claim
against the Government for property destroyed by the bombardment of Greytown, the
court said:

" The claimant's case must necessarily rest upon the assumption that the bombard-
ment and destruction of Greytown was illegal, and not justified by the law of nations."

278 ALIEN CLAIMS.

may be built on private ground, and the reason assigned is * * because
it is for the public safety." 130

It is a lawful act, imposing no liability on the Government, which is
guilty of no wrong, and which makes no promise by the act.

In principle it can make no difference whether a forest or cotton-bales
are destroyed by cannonading in battle, in case an army seeks shelter
behind them, or seizes them in advance to throw up breastworks for
safety." 1 Yet all writers agree that a nation is not bound to make
compensation in such cases as these.

The same position has been judicially assumed. The supreme court
of Georgia has said :

It is not to be doubted but that there are cases in which private property may be
taken for a public use without the consent of the owner, and without compensation^
and without any provision of law for making compensation. There are cases of urgent
public necessity, which no law has anticipated, and which cannot await the action of
the legislature. In such cases the injured individual has no redress at law — those who
seize the property are not trespassers — and there is no relief for him but by petition
to the legislature : for example, the pulling down of houses and raising bulwarks for
the defense of the State against an enemy, seizing corn and other provisions for the
sustenance of an army in time of war, or taking cotton-bags, as General Jackson did
at New Orleans, to build ramparts against an invading foe. 13i

130 Eespublica v. Sparhawk, 1 Dallas, 362; Dyer, 8; Brook's Trespass, 213 ; 5 Bacou,
Abr., 175; 20 Viner, Abr., (Trespass,) B, a, sec. 4, ib. 476.

131 The report of Hon. E. S. Hale to the Secretary of State, November 30, 1873, as to
claims of British subjects before the American-British claims commission, under article
12, treaty of May 8, 1871, shows that claims of this character were unauimously rejected
The report says, p. 49 :

"2. — Claims for property alleged to have been wrongfully injured or destroyed by the forces of

the United States.

"These claims were also numerous, and involved alarge variety of questions. They
included claims for property injured or destroyed by the bombardment of towns of the
enemy, as in the case ot Charles Cleworth, No. 48 ; and in other ordinary operations of
war, such as the passage of armies, the erection of fortifications, as in the case of Trook,
administrator, No. 58, &c.

"Also, for timber felled iu front of forts aud batteries to give clear range for the
guns and deprive the enemy of cover, as in the cases of Trook, administrator, Xo. 56,
and of William B. Booth, No. 143.

" In these claims for destruction of property, it may be stated generally that, with
very few exceptions, and those mostly insignificant, no awards were made against the
United States.

" The claims for injuries by bombardment, the passage of armies, the cutting of tim-
ber to clear away obstructions, the erection of fortifications, &c, in the enemy's coun-
try, were all disallowed by the unanimous voice of the commissioners.

" The same may be said of the incidental destruction of innocent property involved
in the destruction of public stores aud works of the enemy." Tnese were in the States
proclaimed in insurrection aud they asked compensation for property damaged or
destroyed in battle.

133 1." Parham vs. The Justices, &c, 9 Georgia E., 341. See report, November 30, 1S73,
of Hon. E. S. Hale to Secretary of State, of claims decided by commission under 12th
article of treaty of May 8, 1871, between United States and Great Britain, pages 44-235.
Commissioner Frazer said, as to cotton seized by the United States military forces under
orders of General Banks, in Louisiana, and used for fortifications, " No citizen of the
United States could, under like circumstances, claim compensation." He adds :

" 2. The cotton was the property of an enemy of the United States, so recognized by
every writer upon international law and so held by all tribunals, both American and
British, as well as continental, in every reported case involving the question. The
mixed commission, constituted under the convention of 1853, between the two countries,
so held in Laurent's case. Indeed, it went further, and held that an unnaturalized
Englishman voluntatily domiciled in a country at war with the United States was not
even to be regarded as a British, subject ; thus going a little too far, as I think.

" The property of Henderson was as liable to capture as the property of Jetf. Davis
himself, or any rebel in arms. I believe this is not questioned. That the property
itself was a proper subject of capture on land under the modern rules by which civil
ized nations govern themselves iu war, seems to me to be quite as clear.

" The legislation and the known practice of the rebel authorities made it so. They

ALIEN CLAIMS. 279'

The same principle was stated in a report made by the Committee on
Claims to the House of Eepresentatives December 11, 1820. From this-
report it appeared that a claimant alleged that —

She was possessed of a plantation, with sundry buildings, situated below New
Orleans, and that during the invasion by the enemy in December, 1814, and subse-
quently, her dwell ing-hou se was occupied' as quarters for some of the officers and a
hospital for the sick and wounded, and, while so occupied, her house, outhouses, fences,
&c., were damaged.

She claimed compensation for use and occupation aud for damages.

The committee in their report say, in effect, that' compensation can-
not be claimed by virtue of the constitutional provision as to taking
" private property for public use," because this provision —

Seems to imply a voluntary act on the part of the Government, which in the present
case could hardly be alleged, particularly as it respects a large portion of it. * * *
There are no known rides or established usage of the Government which would seem to
authorize au allowance in a case thus involved'in obscurity. 133

The Government has always paid loyal citizens for the use and occu-
pation of buildings and grounds in loyal States! when used for officers'
quarters, regular recruiting camps, and in cases where tbe occupation
was voluntary and the result of choice, superinduced by no overruling
military necessity, and for this the law provides. 134

made cotton the basis of their public credit by a policy which aimed to deal largely in
it on Government account, to. purchase it even before it was grown, and hypothecate
it as security for the payment of loans, with the proceeds of which they did, to a large
extent, supply themselves with arms and munitions of war, and with a fleet of armed
vessels to infest the ocean and destroy American commerce. They committed it to the
flames, whether owned by friend or foe, rather than permit it to reach the markets of
the world otherwise than through their own ports ; thus endeavoring by warlike opera-
tions to secure to themselves a monopoly in supplying the foreign demand, that they
might thereby constrain nations abroad to aid them in their struggle. In short, cot-
ton was a special and formidable foundation of the rebel military power. It was more
important than arms or ships of war, for it supplied these and all else beside. It was
more potent than gold, for it not only commanded gold, but it largely enlisted in be-
half of the rebels the interests of foreigners whose manufacturing industry was in a
measure paralyzed because this staple was needed to keep it in motion. The necessities
and purposes of war, therefore, required its capture at every opportunity more imper-
atively than the capture of munitions and implements of war ; indeed, that necessity
was quite as pressing and certainly as humane as the killing of men in battle ; for it
was no less efficient as a means of accomplishing the subjugation of the rebel armies,
and re-establishing the national authority. It is to me astonishing if there is a differ-
ence of opinion upon this subject. •

"The Supreme Court of the United States, recognizing to the fullest extent all the
limitations which the practice of nations has lately engrafted upon the right of capture
upon land, so held in the case of a loyal American widow. (See the case of Mrs. Alex-
ander's cotton, 2 Black.) This is high authority, especially when it is remembered ,
that that august tribunal has certainly exhibited no tendency whatever to give undue
license to military authority or warlike operations. Complaint, if any, has been alto-
gether in the other direction. But I would be quite content, in the absence of any
authority, to trust the question with the common sense of all civilized nations so long
as war iu any form shall be recognized as a lawful method of deciding differences. If
the capture was rightful by laws of war, it would be a novelty in international law
that its exercise involves an obligation to make compensation."

The commission allowed the claim, a voucher having been given by military officer, " by
order of Col. S. B. Holabird, for the United States Government."

133 But the report concludes that "in a case of such extreme apparent hardship, it
would best comport with the dictates of sound policy that in the exercise of the discre-
tion of Congress some relief should bo granted." (American State Papers, Claims, class
ix, p. 753. Here the relief is put on the ground of a discretion, not law.) (See act
March 2, 1821, 6 Stat., 258.)

134 House Ex. Doc. No. 124, 1st sess. 43d Congress ; see letter of Quartermaster-General
M. C. Meigs, February 19, 1874, in part 2 of this report, and letter February 26, 1874, in
appendix to this report; act July 16, 1798, sec. 3, ch. 85 ; act May 8, 1792, sec. 5.; act
March 3, 1799, sec. 24, ch. 48 ; United States vs. Speed, 8 Wallace, 83 ; Stevens vs. United
States, 2 N. & H. Court Claims, 101 ; Crowell's case, id.", 501; McKenney vs. United
States, 4 N. & H. Court Claims, 540 ; Wentworth vs. United States, 5 Court Claims, 309 ;
Scott's Digest Military Laws, 1873, p. 102, sec. 98, &c.

'2.80 ALIEN CLAIMS.

But a temporary occupancy of real estate imposed by overruling
necessity — an occupancy continued daring the actual existence of such
impending necessity — or the application of materials to purposes of
defense in an emergency, has not, by the usage of the Government, been
regarded as giving any claim for compensation.

This has been the uniform usage of the War Department, founded
on the opinion not only of the Solicitor, but also of the Jiidge-Advocate-
General. 135

The Executive Department of the Government has laid down certain
rules of law in relation to some questions growing out of the war of the
rebellion.

The President, in his message of June 1, 1873, said :

It is a general principle of both international and municipal law that all property is
held subject not only to be taken by the Government for public uses, in which case,
under the Constitution of the United States, the owner is entitled to just compensa-
tion, but also subject to be temporarily occupied, or even actually destroyed, in times of
great public danger and when the public safety demands it ; and in this latter case govern-
ments do not admit a legal obligation on their part to compensate the owner. The

136 See opinions of Judge-Advocates-General,vol. 20, pp. 598-525 ; vol. 26, pp. 52, 242, 247;
id., 27, p. 304 ; Digest of Opinions of Judge-Advocates, 1868, pp. 97, 98. As an example,
the following is presented :

War Department, Bureau op Military Justice,

August 4, 1866.
To the Secretary of War :

Dr. W. P. Jones claims $35,000 for damages sustained by the erection by the United
States of a fort upon his land near Nashville.

Major-General Thomas reports that he is thoroughly loyal, and recommends allowance
of the claim.

In the case of N. Viguie, this Bureau, under date of May 7, 186S, submitted the fol-
lowing remarks :

"A clear distinction has always been recognized between the taking of real estate
or personal property for such purposes, and the taking of the same for the ordinary
uses of peace."

(Here follows a reference to Whiting's War-Powers, 340, and to 9 Georgia K., 341.)

Entertaining the conclusions pointed to by the two foregoing citations, this Bureau
is of opinion that the claim under consideration, and others of like description, for
compensation for the use of land taken and occupied by the forces of the United States
for the sites of forts or other works of defense against the public enemy, must be
rejected by the War Department, and all parties making such claims must be referred
to Congress for relief, if they shall be deemed entitled to any under the general prin-
ciples of the law of war.

If the above views are approved by the Department, this case, notwithstanding the
loyaltv of the claimant, must be referred to Congress.

W. WINTHROP,
Brevet Colonel and Judge- Advocate, in the absence of the Judge- Advocate-General .

Official copy, for the Hon. William Lawrence, M. C.

J. HOLT, Judge- Advocate-General.

The same principles have been reiterated since, (Digest of Opinions of Judge-Advo-
cates-Geueral,97,) as follows:

" So held in the, case of a claim arising in Tennessee during the war, for alleged
damages sustained by the claimant in the erection by the military authorities of a fort
upon his land. XXII, 304. So held in the case of the claim of an alleged Spanish sub-
ject for indemnity for the destruction of buildings and other property in Louisiana, in
the course of the erection of fortifications by our forces. XX, 525. So held in the case
of a claim for the value of certain buildings (with their contents) burned by our troops
in West Virginia, in January, 1863, by way of a ruse to deceive and divert the enemy —
a legitimate act of ordinary warfare — the loss incurred being one of those casualties
for which the Government does not become liable to the individual injured. XXVI,
242. And see XXVI, 247, for a case of a claim (preferred subsequently to the passage
of the act of February 19, 1867, and eo expressly precluded from settlement) for tne
value of cotton seized at Knoxville, Tenn., in the enemy's country and on the theater
of war, and used for strengthening a fort threatened with attack by the rebel forces.
XXVI, 247."

ALIEN CLAIMS. 281

temporary occupation of, injuries to, and destruction of property caused by actual and
necessary military operations are generally considered to fall within -the last-mentioned
principle. If a government wakes compensation under such circumstances, it is a
matter of bounty rather than of strict legal right. 136

CHAPTER VI.

PROPERTY ¥HICH MAY BE USEFUL TO THE ENEMY SEIZED AND DE-
STROYED OR DAMAGED TO PREVENT IT FROM FALLING INTO THEIR
HANDS.

The question now to be considered is, whether the Government is
liable to make compensation for the property of a loyal citizen in a loyal
State seized and destroyed or damaged by competent military author-
ity — ; flagrante hello — to prevent it from falling into the hands of the
enemy, as au element of strength where warlike operations are in prog-
ress, or where the approach of the enemy is prospectively imminent.

The same law prevails when our territory is invaded by a foreign
enemy or a loyal State by a rebel invading force.

It has been asserted with great emphasis that the duty to make com-
pensation in such cases as have frequently arisen in each House of Con-
gress —

Is a principle not recognized by public law, by the law of nations, or any other code
of law or morals known to the civilized world. It has never been applied by our own
Government, by the government of Great Britain, or any other civilized government
iu the world.' 37

It has been said, on the contrary, with equal earnestness, that there
has never been —

One single instance in the whole history of this Government since the Constitution
was adopted where a claimant of this kind has been turned from the doors of Congress
unsatisfied. 133

136 Senate Ex. Doc. 85, 2 sess. 42 Cong., veto bill for relief of J. Milton Best.

In Senate Rep. 412, 3 sess. 42 Cong., it is said of this statement of the law by the
President :

" The committee has not found any such general principle affirmed either in interna-
tional or municipal law, but has found the very reverse of that to be affirmed by all
law, international and municipal."

Among the text-writers, Vattel discusses the very question, " Is the state bound to
indemnify individuals for the damage they have sustained in war V But the report
omits to quote the next sentence in Vattel, in which he says :

" We may learn from Grotius that authors are divided on this question." Vattel then
says :

" The damages under consideration are to be distinguished into two kiuds — those
done by the state itself or the sovereign, and those done by the' enemy. Of the first
kind some are done deliberately and by way of precaution, as when a field, a house, a
garden, belonging to a private person, is taken for the purpose of erecting on the spot
* a town-rampart, or any other piece of fortification, or when his standing corn or his
store-houses are destroyed to prevent their being of use to the enemy. Such damages
are to be made good to the individual, who should hear only his quota of the loss." But there
are oiher damages caused by inevitable necessity ; as, for instance, the destruction
caused by the artillery in retaking a town from the enemy. These are merely acci-
dents. They are misfortunes, which chance deals out to the proprietors on whom they
happen to fall. (Vattel, 6th Am. ed., 403. ■)

The rule stated by Vattel is elsewhere hereafter referred to, and it is shown that its
correctness has been denied in a note to the American edition of 1872, referring to 4th
Term R., 382, and by Grotius and many other authorities.

137 Roscoe Conkling in Senate, December 14, 1870, 82 Globe, 98, on claim of J. Milton
Best ; see President's veto-message, June I, 1872.

138 Senator Howe, January 4, 1871, 82 Globe, 302, referring to the claim of J. Milton
Best.

282 ALIEN CLAIMS.

In this conflict of opinion it becomes necessary to consider the ques-
tion somewhat elaborately.

There are five modes in which the Government has a right to take or
use private property :

1. By taxation. 139

2. As punishment for crime under judicial sentence, or by sentence of
a court-martial. 110

3. In virtue of the right of eminent domain for public use, with just
compensation. 141

4. By the law of " overruling necessity]' which Lord Hale calls the lex
temporis et loci, and which is both a war and peace power. 142

5. By the war-power on the theater of military operations, flagrante
hello, for military purposes. 143

The power to take in these several modes must have for each an appro-
priate sphere of operation ; they all stand in pari materia, and the right
in no one can be so omnipresent or exclusive as to enroach upon or de-
stroy the other. These are axiomatic principles, universally admitted.

The right to take property in the first, second, and fourth class of
cases named exists without any duty to make "just compensation " in
money.

The question of the liability of the Government to make compensa-
tion for property taken and damaged, or destroyed to prevent it from
falling into the hands of an enemy, must be determined by a considera-
tion of the character of the power exercised, and the purpose or reason
of the seizure.

This question, as was very well said by the supreme court of Pennsyl-
vania in September, 1788, in the case of Respublica v. Sparhaick, 1 Dallas,
362, is to be governed —

By reason, Tjy the law of nations, and by precedents analogous to the subject before us.

First, then, on principles of reason, should the Government be liable
to make compensation ? This may be considered with reference to the
reason as applied to citizens, and as applied to the Government. Upon
the plainest principles of right and propriety, a military officer, even in
flagrant war, would not be justified in seizing and destroying the prop-
erty of a private citizen to prevent it from falling into the hands of
the enemy, unless the " danger be immediate and impending," or be
reasonably certain to happen during hostile military operations ; for if
this be not so, the officer acting without necessity or excuse would be-
come a trespasser, and his act would be one of lawless violence, for
which he would, and the nation would not, be liable in damages. 144

139 Constitution, art. 1, sec. 8, clause 1, (ante,) Clark r. Mayor, 13 Barb., N. Y. S. C. E.,
35. This is not an exercise of the right of eminent domain, Gilman v. Sherloygan, 2
Black R., 510 ; see Steubenville and lud. R. R. Co.;<\ Tascarance Co., 6 Pittsburgh Legal
Journal, 68, cited in Brightley's Federal Digest, 158, sec. 4, O. C; Hallenback r. Hahn,
2 Nebraska, 400 ; People v. Mayor, 4 Comst., N. Y., 424; Hanson v. Vernon, 27 Iowa,
28 ; Booth v. Woodbury, 5 Am. Law. Regr., N. S., 212 ; Commissioners v. Miller, 7
Kansas ; McCullough v. Maryland, 4 Wheat., 425.

140 Constitution, art. 3, sec. 1, clause 3, &c; amendments, art. v, vi, viii. Grotius, b. 2,
ch. 14, see. 7.

141 Constitution', art. v, amendments. "Eminent domain is a civil right." Grant r. TJ. S.,
1 Court Claims, 45 ; American Print- Works v. Lawrence, 1 Zabriskie, 258. Grotius, b.
2, ch. 14, sec. 7 ; id., b. 3, ch. 20, sec. 7 ; 2 Nebraska, 400, note 113 post.

142 Sale v. Lawrence, 3 Zabriskie, 728-'9 ; Grant v. U. S., 1 Court Claims, 45 ; Respub-
lica «. Sparhawk, 1 Dallas, p. 362.

143 13 Howard, 140 ; Whiting's War-Powors, 26.

144 Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 Howard. 115 ; Grant v. U. S., 1 Nott & H., Court of Claims ,
45, 47, 48 ; American State Papers, part ix, Claims, vol. 1, p. 55 ; Pitcher )•. U. S., 1 Court
of Claims, 9 ; Gibbons r. U. S., 8 Wallace, 269.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 283

It has been determined, also, that under certain circumstances the
officer is not the sole judge of the necessity of seizing and destroying. 143,

Now, as a matter of common sense and reason, the owner of property
is no more injured if it is destroyed by. our own Government than if by
the enemy. The loss to him is the same in either case.

Yet no statesman or writer on the laws of nations ever claimed that
a Government is bound by any principle or rule of law to make com-
pensation for property taken or destroyed by the enemy iu time of war, u&
nor by its own military forces in actual battle. 147

It has been said, with a force of reason which hasnotyetbeen answered,
that where property is taken to prevent it from falling into the hands
of the enemy, the position of property so situated is the owner's mis-
fortune.

He is not to bo relieved of it at the cost of the United States, for they are not re-
sponsible to him for the circumstances that created it. 148

To require the Government to pay where it is guilty of no wrong, no
omission of duty, iu the exercise of both a right recognized by the
civilized world and enjoined by the highest duty and for the common
good, would be the harshest rule that could be recognized. If the
property of a citizen is in a position where it is reasonably certain he
will lose it by the seizure of an enemy, he cannot be said to be in any
worse position because it is seized by his own government.

. All writers agree that the government incurs no liability by destroy-
ing it in battle, or for destroying it in an attempt to recapture it from
an enemy. Byukershoek says of the property of loyal citizens :

Those goods may be properly taken by us, by the laws of war, if they have been before
taken by onr enemies." 9

What difference can it make to the owner whether his property is de-
stroyed immediately in advance of a battle, or iu the conflict, or in an
effort to recapture? To say that a nation is not liable if it applies the
match and blows up a house a moment after the enemy gets in ir, but
is liable for doing the same thing a momeut before, would seem a very
rtidnctio ad absurdum, 150

145 Mitchell v. Harmony, 13 Howard, 115, perhaps does not necessarily so decide. In
that case, property was taken, not from " necessity," but " for the purpose of insuring
the success of a distant .expedition," thereafter to be prosecuted. The property was
not destroyed. See Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wallace, 2 ; Martin v. Mott, 19 Wheat., 19 ;.
Whiting's War Powers, 67 ; Luther v. Borden, 7 Howard, 45 ; American Print- Works v .
Lawrence, 1 Zabriskie, 260, and cases cited. A ratification by the Government of an
. act done by military authority relieves the officer from liability ; Baron v. Denman, 2
Exchequer, 189. This modifies a case found in vol. ix, p. 404, of Niles Register, March,
1816, in which it is said martial law cannot be declared but Subsequent to an act of
the legislature authorizing it, and that a British farmer in Upper Cauada recovered
damages from a commissary for taking 100 bushels of wheat under martial law. See
Milligan v. Hovey, 3 Bissell, U. S. Circuit Court R., 13 American Law Register, N. S., 122 ;
Stevens v. U. S., 2 Court Claims, 95. See Linds v. Rodney, 2 Douglass, 613 ; Elphin-
tone v. Bedreechund, 1 Knapp's P. C. R., 300 ; Coolidge v. Guthrie, Swayne, J., U. S.
circuit court, S. district Ohio, Oct., 1868, in appendix to (43d ed., 1871) Whiting's War
Powers, 591. In Report No. 600, House Reps., 1 sess. 36 Congress, May 26, 1860, Mr.
Stanton, of the Committee on Military Affairs, in a case similar to that of Mitchell v.
Harmony, said the officer " was the proper judge." See Ex parte Milligan, '4 Wallace,
2 ; Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheaton, 19; Whiting's War Powers, 67; Luther v. Borden, 7
Howard, 45.

146 Senator Davis, January 4, 1871,82 Globe, 297; Alexander Hamilton, Nov. 19,1792,.
American State Papers, part ix, vol. 1, Claims, p. 55.

147 Vattel, ch. xv, p. 402, and authorities heretofore cited.
I48 Loring, J., dissentiente, Grant's case, 2 Court Claims, 552 ; 1 Id., 41.
143 1 Laws of War, ch. v.

150 See President Grant's veto-message, February 12, 1872, Senate Ex. Doc. 42, 3d sess.
42d Cong., as to Manchester, Ky., salt-works.

■284' ALIEN CLAIMS.

It may be said the Government should be liable for destroying a
house when its seizure by the enemy might be only for the purpose
of temporary occupancy, but not with a purpose to destroy it.

But if the enemy occupy a house the Government may in battle de-
stroy it to dislodge him, and in such case incur no liability. It can
make no difference to the owner whether it be destroyed a moment be-
fore or a moment after the enemy enter it. The destruction is an acci-
dent of war growing out of the situation of the house with reference to
the conflict.

In such case, too, the reason of the rule mentioned by Grotius, which
exempts a nation from liability for damage done by the enemy, may
well apply, " in order to make every man more careful to defend his
own."

To hold the Government liable under such circumstances would fur-
nish an inducement to owners of property in times of danger to magnify
it in order to induce the Government to destroy it and so become an
insurer against peril ; it would remove the inducement of citizens to
throw obstacles in the way of the enemy's approach ; it might encour-
age citizens rather to invite or aid it ; it would diminish the motive to
furnish supplies and aid to our Army in advancing to anticipate or de-
feat the approach of the enemy, and in all these modes disregard the
maxim salus populi suprema lex. This overpowering and relentless rule
of the supreme law of public safety is one which the stern necessities
of war can neither safely omit nor mitigate.

A rule which would hold the Government liable might sometimes
furnish an excuse for treacherous officers to omit necessary destruction
of property, or induce a nation financially embarrassed to desist from
the only means of preserving its existence. These considerations, so
immeasurably important, should never be left to turn the hesitatingscale
in a moment of peril.

A nation should not be liable for property taken to prevent it
from falling into the hands of an enemy, because it is impossible to
establish any just measure of damages. What is the value of property
liable to the imminent impending danger of being taken or destroyed
by rebels ? Why should the Government pay when the markets of the
world could not supply another purchaser?

There are other considerations of public policy connected with this
subject which cannot be overlooked.

Vattel, in assigning reasons why an invaded nation is not liable to its
citizens for the ravages of war, says, " the. public finances would be ex- ,
hausted," and " these indemnifications would be liable to a thousand
abuses."

Now, all these reasons apply with very great if not equal force to the
damages now under consideration. 151

151 See 2 Greeley's American Conflict, 611 ; Sumner's Speech, January 12, 1869, 71 Globe,
301 ; Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wallace, 420 ; Senator Conkling, December 14, 1870, 82
Globe, 98 ; Senator Chaudler, December 14, 1870, 82 Globe, 100 ; Senator Howe. Janu-
ary 4, 1871, 82 Globe, 303 ; Whiting's Opinion, January 15, 1864, in Globe, May 20, 1864,
vol. 52, p. 2390.
The President, in his annual message, December, 1873, says to Congress :
"Your careful attention is invited to the subject of claims against the Government,
and to the facilities afforded by existing laws for their prosecution. Each of the De-
partments of State, Treasury, and War have demands for many millions of dollars
upon their files, and they are rapidly accumulating. To these may be added those now
pending before Congress, the Court of Claims, and the southern claims commission,
making, in the aggregate, an immense sum. Most of these grow out of the rebellion,
and are intended to indemnify persons on both sides for their losses during the war ;
and not a few of them are fabricated and supported by false testimony. Projects are

ALIEN CLAIMS. 285

This question involves to some extent the theory .and nature of gov-
ernment.
The preamble to the Constitution declares that it was ordained —

To form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, pro-
Tide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of
liberty.

A government organized to insure domestic tranquillity and the com-
mon defense is ex necessitate clothed with the power to employ the nec-
essary means to secure the end. But it is not necessary to invoke the
aid of this well-known rule. The Constitution, in recognizing the laws
of nations and the war-power, gives the Government a right to employ
the means which it may declare necessary, or which nations usually em-
ploy, to make the common defense. These laws give the power and create
the duty to seize property in time of war to prevent it from falling into
the hands of an enemy. Where a nation exercises a lawful power in a
lawful mode in the performance of an absolute duty, it would reverse
every precept of reason, justice, and the whole logic of the common
law, to hold it liable and guilty as a trespasser or a tortfeasor. Nor is
there any principle on which to rest an express or implied contract to
pay in the class of cases under consideration. ISo act of Congress has-
created any such liability.

It cannot grow out of any obligation of the Government, for no prin-
ciple of law, no writer, has ever declared it an insurer of the safety of
its citizens from the perils which exist in all wars. On the contrary,
the Constitution, by recognizing and conferring war-powers, admon-
ishes all who share the privileges of Government of the dangers and
perils of war.

There is no constitutional obligation to make compensation in this
class of cases, unless it be found in the last clause of the fifth amend-
ment to the Constitution, which, after reciting certain principles, most
of which relate to rights of person and property in a state of peace and
by civil administration, concludes by saying :

Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

This can have no reference to the war seizure and destruction o
property, unless —

1, This clause relates to war-measures and the exercise of military
powers ; nor unless —

2. The destruction indicated is a " public use."

This constitutional provision does relate to jiroperty in time of peace.
It does relate to property not in the " enemy's country," and not in the

on foot, it is believed, to induce Congress to provide for new classes of claims, and to
revive old ones through the repeal or modification of the statute of limitations, by which
they are now barred. I presume these schemes, if proposed, will be received with
little favor by Congress, and I recommend that persons having claims against the United
States cognizable by any tribunal or department thereof, be required to present them
at an early day, and that legislation be directed as far as practicable to the defeat of
unfounded and unjust demands upon the Government ; and I would suggest, as a
means of preventing fraud, that witnesses be called upon to appear in person to testify
bafbre those tribunals having said claims before them for adjudication. Probably the
largest saving to the national Treasury can be secured by timely legislation on these
subjects of any of the economic measures that will be proposed."

On the 11th March, 1818, a report was made to the House of Representatives as to
war-claims, under the act of April 9, 1816, in which it is said the documents from the
commissioners of claims " develop the fact that on the frontiers of New York a system
of fraud, forgery, and perhaps perjury, has been in operation, which the committee be-
lieve has never been witnessed in this country. It may well be questioned whether, in
a national point of view, it would not have been better that the law of April, 1816,

286 ALIEN CLAIMS.

immediate theater where armies are operating or war is flagrant, and
battle in progress or imminent, in loyal territory. In such cases the
laws of peace prevail. By its very terms, and upon the maxim, noscitur
a sociis, this provision applies wherever the laws of peace prevail. That
a provision confessedly so applicable can be ubiquitous or operative in
a double capacity in peace, and concurrently with the laws of war, ope-
rating differently at the same time, in different places, may be more
difficult to conceive.

That it does admit the right of eminent domain is clear, but that it
does not extend such right to the cases of property seized by military
authority and destroyed in war, upon principles of overruling military

had never been passed. It is the duty of a good government to attend to the morals
of the people as an affair of primary concern."

There are now pending before the commissioners of claims, under the act of March
3, 1871, 17,048 claims, amounting to $50,000,000.

In a speech in the House of Representatives, February 7, 1874, Mr. Lowndes said :

"By reference to the Quartermaster-General's report for 1871, we find that from
1864 to 1871 there were filed in his department 28,039 claims. Out of that number
4,950 were approved, and claims allowed amounting to the sum of $2,078,083.05. There
were 12,923 claims rejected, which amounted to $8,308,254.07 ; and 6,231 were sus-
pended, amounting to $2,663,036.35 ; and only 3,935 claims remained to be acted upon,
representing the sum of $3,884,094.45.

"A great many of the claims marked suspended are virtually rejected, as they have
been laid aside on account of insufficiency of proof; which insufficiency or deficiency
can never be given or supplied.

"Since the report of 1871 there has been filed in the Department 3,087 claims, repre-
senting $3,508,039.34 ; and during the same time 1,905 claims, representing $2,232,340.59
have been acted upon, leaving about 5,116 claims, amounting to $5,159,793.20, still
pending, requiring action by the Department."

See also House Executive Document No. 121, tirst session Forty-third Congress ;
report Quartermaster-General, page 225, of Executive Document No. 1, part 2, House
of Representatives, Forty-second Congress, second session.

The following statement of the amount of claims, as made and as allowed by the
commissioners of claims under the act of March 3, 1871, in their first three annual
reports, will illustrate this subject also :

Claimed. Allowed.

Alabama $533,803 91 $143,529 30

Arkansas 696,539 31 154,566 48

Florida 48,313 19 21, 168 00

Georgia 1,057,204 66 84,142 29

Louisiana 1,478,326 85 274,659 51

Mississippi , 1,306,469 48 208,715 46

North Carolina 576,332 17 99,853 76

South Carolina 592,901 30 30,173 43

Tennessee 1,253,988 55 257,635 19

Texas 77,460 19 46,926 11

Virginia 2,834,728 63 524,885 47

West Virginia 29, 054 60 6,632 00

10,485,122 84 1,852,887 00

See remarks of Mr. Delano (now Secretary of the Interior) in the House of Repre-
sentatives, January 30, 1866, 56 Globe, 509-512 ; and in the report he made from the
Committee of Claims, January, 1866, House of Representatives, No. 10, first session
Thirty-niuth Congress. In the debate he said that tho magnitude of the ravages of
war were such that it would be an act of injustice to the people to heap upon the Gov-
ernment the liability resulting from their assumption. He added : " It would result,
I think, in shaking the credit of the nation. It would place us in a condition of liabil-
ity, I imagine, vastly beyond oar capacity of endurance."

As to criminal liability for making fraudulent claims on the Government, see act 2
March, 1S63, ch. 67, 12 Stat., 696, sees. 1-3 ; act 2 March, 1867, ch. 169, 14 Stat., 484, sec.
30 ; Scott's Analytical Digest Military Laws, sec. 78.

See Garfield's speech in Congressional Record of June 29, 1874. Senator Davis's
speech in Senate, May 13, 1874, estimates claims $88,527,121 before Congress — Commis-
sioners of Claims, Commissary, and Quartermaster-General.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 287

necessity analogous to the " belligerent right of capture and destruction
of enemy's property in enemy's country," 152 has been often affirmed.

But there is a law of u overruling necessity," entirely distinct
from the right of eminent domain. Clark v. Mayor, la Barbour, N. Y. S.
C. E., 35.

The Constitution, as originally made, contained no provision requir-
ing just compensation for private property taken for public use. It was
silent as to that. But the principle that such compensation should be
made, as Story says,

Is founded on natural equity, aud is laid down by jurists as a principle of universal
law. > 53

This principle antedates the Constitution, existed when it was adopt-
ed, is not abrogated by it, and was therefore in force without the fifth
amendment, which only affirms it, but makes no new law in this re-
spect. So the law of overruling necessity antedated the Constitution,
existed when it was adopted, is not abrogated by it, therefore admits it,
and has through our whole history been recognized in courts, both
under national and State authority.

■ It is a law, too, for peace and war, aud may be exercised by civil and
military authorities.

And, unlike the right of eminent domain, whatever power is exercised
in virtue of the law of overruling necessity, does not generally create
a claim for compensation or damages on the citizens or Government

152 Senator Carpenter, January 4, 1871, 82 Globe, 300. Senator Edmunds, January 5,
1871, 82 Globe, 311. Grant vs. United States, 1 Court of Claims, 45.

Vattel says : " No action lies against the state for losses which sue lias occasioned,
not willfully but through necessity." (Ch. xv, p. 403.1

Ou the 11th December, 1820, the Committee on Claims of the House of Representa-
tives made a report on a claim for use and occupation of houses, and damages thereto, by
General Jackson's officers, and for hospitals, during the invasion of the British at New
Orleans in 1814, in which it is said, referring to the demand as based on the fifth amend-
ment to the Constitution, that " the taking of ' private property for public use ' would
seem to imply a voluntary act on the part of the Government, which in the present case
could hardly be alleged." (American State Papers, Class ix, Claims, vol. 1, p. 753.)

This is possibly more doubtful than the question whether property destroyed as a mil-
itary necessity is taken for a «se. Such property is not used. All writers agree that
the destruction of property in a battle is not a taking for public use within the meaning
of the Constitution. Then how is a destruction for war purposes just before a battle a
use of the property 1 It cannot be so. The Government does not use, but destroys, to
prevent the enemy from using. A destruction of property is very different from an ordi-
nary taking for the public use. This belligerent right of destruction is distinct from and
should not be confounded with the right of eminent domain. It is agreed by writers
that this clause of the fifth amendment recognizes and affirms the right of eminent do-
main, and that is a peace power — " a civil right." a

Undoubtedly even in time of war Congress may, by law, authorize the exercise ot
the right of eminent domain in aid of military operations. But this is a, peace power. It
operates by or in pursuance of a statute. It employs judicial process.

But the war power may act without statute, aud in flagrant war may seize supplies
where needed. But in time of peace, or in time of war, but away from the theater of
war, the war power is as powerless as is the peace power in the conflict of battle.

It was in reference to this supremacy of the laws of peace over military power in time
of peace that enabled Lord Chatham to' illustrate the celebrated maxim of the English
law, that " every man's house is his castle," by a brilliant eulogy, in which he said of it :

■" The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It
may be frail, its roof may shake, the wind may blow through it. the storm may enter,
the rain may enter, but the King of England cannot enter ; all his forces dare not cross
the threshold of the ruined tenement."

153 2 Story Const., (4th ed.,) sec. 1790 ; 2 Kent Com., Lect. 24, pp. 275, 276, (2d ed., 339,
340 ;) 3 Wils. Law Lee, 203 ; Ware vs. Hylton, 3 Dallas, 194, 235 ; 1 Blackst. Com., 133-
140 ; Parham vs. The Justices, 9 Georgia, 348.

■ Grant vs. United States, 1 Court Claims, 45 ; " is a civil rigbt; " Halleok, Int. Law, 124 ; 6 Cranch, 145.

288 ALIEN CLAIMS.

rightfully using it in a case proper for its exercise. It is law as sacred,
valid, and operative as a statute or the Constitution itself.

The exercise of the right of eminent domain admits of a discretion —
the choice to condemn in pursuance of a statute one or another location
for a post-office, " for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-
yards, and other needful buildings," roads and other works for " public
use." The law of necessity, the " lex instantis" on the contrary, admits
of neither delay nor choice.

The existence of these two independent rights, and the distinction
between them, is fully recognized by the authorities*

Yattel recognizes the law of necessity in time of war thus :

But there are other damages caused by inevitable necessity ; as, for instance, the
destruction caused by the artillery in retaking a town from the enemy. These are
merely accidents. They are misfortunes, which chance deals out to the proprietors on
■whom they happen to fall. 154

The supreme court of Pennsylvania recognized this law of necessity
in time of war, as distinct from the civil right of eminent domain, by
saying :

Many tilings are lawful in that season (flagrante hello) which would not be permitted
in time of peace. * * * The rights of necessity form a part of our law. 155

The supreme court of Georgia recognizes this same law of necessity
both in peace and tear :

There are eases of urgent public necessity, which no law has anticipated, and which
cannot await the action of the legislature ; those who seize the property are not tres-
passers, and there is no relief but by petition to the legislature. * * * For example,
the pulling down houses and raising bulwarks for the defense of the state against an
enemy ; seizing corn and other provisions, for the sustenance of an army, in time of
war ; or taking cotton-bags, as General Jackson did at New Orleans, to build ramparts
against an invading foe.

These cases illustrate the maxim, Salm populi suprema lex. Plate-
Glass Co. vs. Meredith, 4 T. E., 797 ; Noys' Maxims, 9 ed., 36 ; Dyer,
60 b ; Broom's Maxims, 1 ; 2 Bulst, 61 ; 12 Coke, 13, the Prerogative case;
id., 63; 2 Kent, 33S; 1 Blackst. Com., 101, note 18, by Chitty. Extreme
necessity alone can justify these cases. 156

The supreme court of New Jersey recognize the distinction :

It is true that by many writers of high authority, the grounds of justification of au
act done for the public good and of an act committed through necessity are not accu-
rately distinguished. They are both spoken of as grounded on necessity, and they
doubtless are so. But the oue is a State the other an individual necessity, though often-
times resulting in a public or general good. The one is a civil the other a natural right.
The one is founded on property, and is an exercise of sovereignty ; the other has no
connection with the one or the other. 157.

And again, contrasting the right of eminent domain with the law of
necessity, the court say :

They are both spoken of sometimes as grounded "on necessity, and they doubtless are
so. But the latter stands strongly distinguised from that urgent necessity which, for
immediate preservation, imperatively demands immediate action. His case who should
throw up trenches upon his neighbors' laud for the protection of a town from imme-
diate hostile attack, as regards his justification, would certainly stand on a very differ-

' 54 Ch. xv, p. 403. In Knssell vs. Mayor, 2 Denio, 486, it was said : " The first case on
the subject was the celebrated saltpeter case. The Government asserted the arbitrary
right to provide munitions of war from private property, under pretext of overruling
necessity, and all the justices sustained it. 12 Co., 12."

16S Respublica v», Sparhawk, 1 Dallas, 362, Sept., 1788.

iwParham vs. The Justices, &.C., 9 Georgia, 348, the court fall into the error of refer-
ring the seizure to a. public ttse, but in effect correct it so as to show it is not a "public
use " within the meaning of the fifth amendment, by declaring that the taking is
" without compensation, ami without any provision of law for making compensation."

167 American Print- Works vs. Lawrence, 1 Zauriskie, 258.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 289

ent footing from one who, under the authority of law, should do the same act in order
to guard the town from prospective and merely possible future harm. 168

Again it has been said :

The right arising out of extreme necessity is a naturalright older than States. * * It
is the right of self-defense, of self-preservation, and has no connection whatever with the
super-eminent right (eminent domain) of the State. The one [eminent domain] may be
fettered by constitutional limitations ; the other is beyond the reach of constitutions. 159

There are many cases where the law of overruling necessity has been
applied in time of peace for individual benefit. 160

One reason for bearing in mind tbe clear distinction between the right
of eminent domain and tihelaw of necessity is, that where property is taken
by virtue of the former, ''just compensation" is to be made, while under
the latter, neither individuals on common-law principles nor the Gov-
ernment on principles of public law incur any such liability.

The cases of individuals are numerous.

No well-considered case has determined that where a building is
destroyed to arrest the progress of a Are that any liability to make com-
pensation is thereby incurred.

The Government is not liable if by its command property is destroyed
to arrest the hostile march of an enemy. This has already been shown
from reason as applied to the Government, and to those whose property
may be taken.

The courts, elementary writers, and usage of Government lead to the
same result. 101

During the revolutionary war, in April, 1777, the Pennsylvania board
of war, acting by authority of the legislature, took possession of certain
provisions owned by private individuals, in Philadelphia, to prevent them
falling into the hands of the enemy, then approaching that city, but
with a pledge to the owners that this was not designed to divest the
property in the articles, but " that the same should be liable to the order

168 Sale vs. Lawrence, 3 Zabriskie, 605.

159 Grant vs. United States, 1 Court Claims, 45.

160 American Print-Works vs. Lawrence, 1 Zabriskie, 248, 3 Zabriskie, 591, 615 ; Hale vs.
Lawrence, 1 Zabriskie, 728 ; Russell vs. Mayor New York, 2 Denio, 473 ; 82 vol. Globe, 300 ;
Bespublica vs. Sparhawk, 1 Dallas, Pa., 362.

All these cases conceded that at common law this law of " overruling necessity " is
separate and distinct from the right of eminent domain, and that the exercise of the right
conferred by the former creates no liability. In New York it is held, also, that a statute
which regulates the law of overruling necessity is not an exercise of eminent domain,
but only a regulation of the law of necessity. In New Jersey it was at firs't held that
when a statute authorizes the destruction of property to arrest a fire, that is an exercise
of the right of eminent domain. But this was overruled, and the doctrine of the New
York court adopted. That which is not a " public use " at common law does not become
so because a statutory regulation is made as to it.

161 Eespublica vs. Sparhawk. 1 Dallas, p. 372, Sept., 1788 ; 9 Georgia, 341 ; Wiggins vs.
U. S., 1 Nott & H. Court Claims, 182 ; 2 id., 345. The doctrine of non-liability is ap-
proved in 2 Story Const., (4th ed..) sec. 1790, note 6, saying :

" There may be cases of extreme necessity, as the pulling down of houses and raisiug
bulwarks for the public defense, seizing private provisions for the army in time of war,
when the owner has no redress. (See 9 Georgia E., 341 ; Mitchell vs. Harmony, 13 How-
ard S. C. R. 115 E. H. B.) (Whether the Government is liable for the destruction of
property by a naval officer in the course of hostilities, may depend upon the time aud
circumstances and the necessity of the act ; it will generally be a question of fact.
Wiggins vs. United States, 1 Court of Claims Report, 182.) 2 id., 345."

Whiting says :

" If one of our armies marches across a corn-field, and so destroys a growing crop, or
fires a building which conceals or protects the enemy, or cuts down timber to open a
passage for troops through a forest, the owner of snch property has no legal claim
against the Government for his losses." War-Powers, 43 ed., p. 340.

No record has beon found to show that the Russian goverutneut compensated the
owners of the buildings burned in Moscow to defeat the object of the invasion by
Napoleon.

H. Eep. 134 19

290 ALIEN CLAIMS.

of the owners, provided they were not exposed to be taken by the
enemy." They were captured by the enemy. The statute provided for
payment by the State "for services performed, moneys advanced, or
articles furnished.? The proper accounting-officer refusing to pay, the
owner of the property brought suit. The supreme court of Pennsylva-
nia held that these were not " articles furnished ;" in other words, that
the taking was not for "public use;" that the articles were taken by the
law of " overruling necessity."
The syllabus of the case is :

During the war of the Revolution, Congress had a right to direct the removal of any
articles that were necessary to the Continental Army, or useful to the enemy, and in
danger of falling into their hands; and one whose property, so removed, was after-
ward captured by the enemy, was held not to be entitled to compensation from the
commonwealth. 162

The proclamation of emancipation was declared to be" warranted by the Constitution
upon military necessity." (12 Stat., 1267-1269.) It concludes thus : "And upon this act,
sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military
necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of
Almighty God."

See the subject fully discussed in "Whiting's War-Powers and the authorities quoted.
Unless the theory of the Constitution is correct, and but for the XIII aud XIV Amend-
ments, the Government wonld be bound to make compensation for slaves. But their
liberation was not a taking for public use; it was the destruction of a private right, if
so it can be called, to prevent it from giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Chief-Justice McKean, in delivering the unanimous opinion of the
court, said:

The transaction, it must be remembered, happened flagrante bello ; and many things
are lawful in that season which would not be permitted in time of peace. The seizure
of the property in quesdon, can, indeed, only be justified under this distinction; for
otherwise it would clearly have been a trespass ; which, from the very nature of the
term, iransgressio, imporrs to go beyond what is right. (5 Bac. Abr., 150.) It is. a rule,
however, that it is better to suffer a private mischief than a public inconvenience ; and
the rights of necessity form a part of our law.

Of this principle, there are many striking illustrations. If a road be out of repair,
a passenger may lawfully go through a private iuclosnre. (2 Black. Com., 36.) So, if a
man is assaulted, he may fly through another's close. (5 Bac. Abr., 173.) In time of
war, bulwarks may be built on private ground. (Dytr cf Brook, Trespass, 213; 5 Bac.
Abr., 175.) And the reason assigned is particularly applicable to the present case, be-
cause it is for the public safety. (20 Tin. Abr., trespass, B'a sec. 4, fo. 476.) Thus, also,
every man may, of common right, justify the going of his servants or horses, upon the
banks of navigable rivers, for towing bargeB, &c, to whomsoever the right of thesoil
belongs, (1 Ld. Raymond, 725.) The pursuit of foxes through another's ground is al-
lowed, because the destruction of such animals is for the public good. (2 Buls. 62 ; Cro.
1 I, 321.) And as the safety of the people is a la«- above all others, it is lawful to part
affrayers in the house of another man. {Keyl., 46; 5 Bac. Abr., 177; 20 Fin. Abr., fo.
407, sec. 14.) Houses maybe razed to prevent, the spreading of fire, because for the
public good. (Dyer, 36; Eeed, L. and E., 312; see Puff., lib. 2, c. sec. 8; Hutch Mor.
Philos.,lib. 2, c. 16.) We find, indeed, a memorable instance of folly recorded in the
third volume of Clarendon's History, where it is mentioned that the lord mayor of
London, in 1666, when that city was on fire, would not give directions for, or consent
to, the pulling down forty wooden houses, or to the removing of the furniture, &c, be-
longing to the lawyers of the temple, then on the circuit, for fear he should be answer-
able for a trespass ; and in consequence of this conduct half that great city was
burned. We are clearly of'opinion that Congress might lawfully direct the removal of
any articles that were necessary to the maintenance of the Continental Army or useful
to the enemy and in danger of falling into their hands, for they were vested with the
powers of peace and war, to which this was a natural and necessary incident. And
having done it lawfully, there is nothing in the circumstances of the case which we
think entitles the appellant to a compensation for the consequent loss.

This case is especially valuable. It was decided by one of the ablest
courts of that period. It gives construction to what is a public use.

168 Kespublica vs. Sparhawk, 1 Dallas, 362.

ALIEN CLAIMS 291

It shows when a taking is referable to the laic of necessity and when by
the law of public use. It draws the line between these two laws. In.
view of that construction,, the fifth amendment to the Constitution was
afterward adopted, and with a knowledge that the destruction of private
property for the purpose indicated was not a taking for public use, the
Constitution made no provision for such ease.

It was made in view of the known rule of international law on the
subject, and of the impossibility of making payment, and of the fact
that no nation had ever done so. 163

lra In Senate Rep. 412, 3d sess. 42d Cong., it is said :
. " The war of the Revolution was fought before we had any constitutional prohibition
against taking private property for public use without compensation. The troops for
that war were furnished by the several States. Congress did not assume the obliga-
tion of making compensation for property taken by the military authority ; but it
clearly recognized the principle that compensation should be made. Accordingly, in
1784, a resolution was adopted from which the following is an extract :

" 'That it be referred to the several States, at their own expense, to grant such relief
to their citizens, who may have been injured as aforesaid, as they may think requisite,
and if it shall hereafter appear reasonable that the United States should make any
allowance to any particular State, which may be burdened much beyond others, that
the allowance ought to be determined by Congress.'

"In accordance with that resolution, when, iul818, Mary Brower and others petitioned
for compensation to be made to them for property burned and destroyed on Long Island
by the American Army on the advance of the British forces in August, 1776, the Com-
mittee on Revolutionary Claims of the Honso denied the prayer, not upon the ground
that compensation should not be made, but upon the express ground that the sufferers
ought to have appealed to the State of New York for such compensation." (American
State Papers, Claims, 608.)

It is proper to notice this and to say :

,1. There was of coarse no national constitutional prohibition against taking private
property. But the principles of Magna Charta were in force here as fully as if adopted
in the Constitution.

In Perham vs. The Justices, 9 Georgia R., 349, the court, referring to the provision of
Magna Charta, that no person should be deprived of property " but by the law of the
land and by judgment of his peers," said :

"This great rule of right and liberty was the law of this State at the adoption of the
Constitution. It is not therefore necessary to go to the Federal Constitution for it. It
came to us with the common law ; it is part and parcel of our social polity ; it is inhe-
rent in ours as well as every other free government. At common law the legislature
can-compel the use of private property, but not arbitrarily. It treats with the citizen
as owner for the purchase, and while he cannot withhold it upon offer of compensa-
tion, they cannot seize it without such tender."

The authorities are collected on page 350.

And see 2 Story, Constitution, (fourth edition,) sections 1784, 1790. Story says the
fifth amendment of our Constitution "is an affirmance of a great doctrine established
by the common law."

2. The Senate report 412, above referred to, treats of the claim of J. Milton Best.
This was for compensation for his house, destroyed at Padncah, Ky., March, 1864, by
Union military authorities, " in anticipation of auother attack " from the rebels —
"destroyed by order of a commanding officer to save his imperiled army." It was
destroyed to prevent it from falling into the hands of the enemy to be used by them.
(Senate report No. 69, Forty-first Congress, second session.)

The Senate report No. 134, above referred to, asserts that the Continental Congress by
resolution of [June 3] 1784, " clearly recognized the principle that compensation should
be made for property taken by the military authority." That is, for property taken as
was that of J. Milton Best, and under similar circumstances. It is said, this " principle "
is found in the resolution of 1784.

But it is clear the resolution asserts no such " principle " as law.

The journals of the Continental Congress show the following proceedings :

In Continental Congress June 3, 1784, the following proceedings were had :

"On the report of a committee consisting of Mr. Spaight, Mr. Gerry, Mr. Lee, Mr.
Beatty, and Mr. Sherman, to whom was referred a report of a committee, on a report
of the superintendent of finance, dated the 5th of November, 1783, in answer to ques-
tions proposed by the commissioner for settling the accounts of the State of Pennsyl-
vania with the United States," it was

"Resolved, That the commissioners make re."»60D able allowance for the use of stores, and

292 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Another case will illustrate this law of " overruling necessity " where
property had been destroyed to arrest the progress of a lire, and it was
claimed to be a taking for " the public use," within the meaning of the
constitution of New York. 164

The court says :

But I apprehend that the assumption of the plaintiff, that this was a case of the
exercise of the right of eminent domain, will prove a fallacy. I have arrived at this con-
clusion after a patienc examination of all the authorities, and after adverting to the
usual indicia that distinguish such a grant from the powers that are frequently granted
to municipal corporations. The destruction of this property was authorized by the law
of overruling necessity ; it was the exercise of a natural right belouging to every indi-
vidual ; not conferred by law, but tacitly excepted from all human codes. The best ele-
mentary writers lay down the principle, and adjudications upon adjudications have for
centuries sustained, sanctioned, and upheld it. that in a case of actual necessity, to prevent
the spreading of a fire, the ravages of a pestilence, or any other great public calamity,
the private property of any individual may be lawfully destroyed for the relief, pro-
tection, or safety of the many without subjecting the actors to personal responsibility
for the damages which the owner has sustained. (See 2 Kent's Com., 4th ed., 338 ; 15
Vin., tit. Necessity, p. 8 ; Malevener to. Spink, 1 Dyer, 36, b ; 17 Wendell, 297 ; 18 id.,
129; 20 id., 144; 25 id., 162, 163, 174; Eespublica vs. Sparhawk, 1 Dallas, 357.) The
latter case goes very fully into the discussion of the nature and extent of the natural
right arising from pressing and inevitable necessity ; and the great fire which occurred
in London in 1666 is referred to, when the lord mayor of London refused to destroy
about forty wooden houses, and also certain tenements occupied by lawyers, in con-
sequence of which the fire spread and threatened the destruction of the whole city.

other buildings hired for the use of the United States by persons having authority to
contract for the same; but that rent be not allowed for buildings which, being aban-
doned by the owners, were occupied by the troops of the United States. Thatsuch com-
pensation as tho commissioner may think reasonable be made for wood, forage, or other
property of individuals taken by order of any proper officer, or applied to, or used for
the benefit of the Army of the United States, upon producing to him satisfactory evi-
dence thereof, by the testimony of one or more disinterested witnesses.

" That, according to the laws and usages of nations, a State is not obliged to make
compensation for damages done to its citizeus by an enemy, or wantonly and unau-
thorized by its own troops ; yet humanity requires that some relief should be granted to
persons who, by such losses, are reduced to indigence and want; and,~as the circum-
stances of such sufferers are best known to the State to which they belong, it is the
opinion of the committee that it be referred to the several States (at their own ex-
pense) to grant such relief to their citizens, who have been injured as aforesaid, as they
may think requisite ; and if it shall hereafter appear reasonable that the United
States should make any allowance to any particular States who may be burdened
much beyond others, that the allowance ought to be determined by Congress ; but that
no allowance be made by the commissioners for settling accounts for any charges of
that kind against the United States." (See Journals of Congress, vol. 4, from 1782 to
1788, page 443.)

Now, from these proceedings of Cougress it will be seen that the only principle of
law asserted is that " a State is not obliged to make compensation for damage done to
its citizeus by au enemy, or wantonly and unauthorized by its own troops."

3. The Senate report asserts that " in accordance with that resolution " (of the Con-
gress of 1784,) the Congress of 1818 denied the claim of Mary Brower, (similar to that
of J. Milton Best,) " not upon the ground that compensation should not be made, but
upon the express ground that the sufferers ought to have appealed to the State of New
York for such compensation."

The report of the committee of the House on the case of Mary Brower is in Ameri-
can State Papers, Claims, 608, November 30, 1818. It asserts that " Congress have not
made any general provision assuming to compensate and pay for claims of this descrip-
tion which may have originated in the revolutionary war." It refers to the resolution
of the Congress of 1784, and says the claimants " ought, if they did not, to have made
. applicatiou to the State of New York."

But the resolution of 1784 expressly refers to no such case as Mary Brewer's. Aud if it
• did, it only suggested that the States make compensation not as a legal duty, but be-
cause " humanity requires some relief should be granted to persons who, by such losses, are
reduced to indigence and want."

The States never did make such compensation. Their usage settled the law against
such claims.

'6i Russell vs. The Mayor, &c, of New York, 2 Denio, 473.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 293

There are some unauthoritative dicta, and perhaps a single decided
case, apparently in conflct with these views. 165

The Judge- Advocate-General held, in the case of a claim for the value
of certaiu buildings, with their contents, burned by Union troops in
West Virginia, a loyal State, in January, 1S63, by way of a ruse to de-

^ House Rep. No. 43, 42d Cong, 3dsess.; 13 Wend., 372; Vattel, ch. xv, p. 403;
Whiting, War-Powers, 15. In Grant vs. United States, 1 N. & H., Court., Claims, 41, it was
held that "the taking of private property for destruction by a military officer [in a
state of war, to prevent it from falling into the hands of the enemy] is an exercise of
the right of eminent domain." That '-there is no discrimination to be made between
property taken, to be used and property taken to be destroyed," and that a right of action
against the Government as upon an implied contract, arises in favor of the party whose
property is destroyed.

So far as this holds that military officers by right of common military law exercised
a power of eminent domain, it is contradicted in the same case, which declares that
"eminent domain is a civil right," and it is contradicted by many reliable authorities.

If the seizure was in fact a military necessity in a state of war, the officer was not
liable. Buron vs. Denman, 2 Exchequer, 189 ; "Mitchell vs. Harmony, 13 Howard, 134.

If it was not a necessity, the act was unauthorized and the Government is not liable.
(Am. State Papers, Claims, 55 ; 13 Howard, 115 ; Pes. Cont. Cong., June 3. 1781, Journal,
vol. 4, p. 443 ; Gibbons vs. U. S., 8 Wallace, 269 )

So far as it holds the Government liable it is contradicted by the authorities already
cited. It is practically overruled in the same court by the learned Chief-Justice Casey,
and the court in Wiggins vs. United States, 1 Court Claims, 182. The case of Grant'vs.
United States goes the extreme length of declaring that a seizure for destruction is a
taking for " public use." If this be so, why is not property destroyed in a battle taken
for the public use? Where is the difference in principle? Yet no writer can be found
to declare that destruction by battle is a takiug for public use.

Senator Davis, of Kentucky, a conceded strict constructionist, declared that property
so destroyed, even by the Union military forces, was not taken for public use. (In SenT
ate, January 4, 1871 ; Globe, vol. 82, p. 297.)

The case of Grant vs. United States is in principle overruled by the able opinion of
the learned Chief-Justice of the Court of Claims, who, in Perrin vs. United States, 4
Court of Claims, 546, said of a claim for compensation for property destroyed in the
bombardment of Greytown : "The claimant's case must necessarily rest upon the as-
sumption that the bombardment and destruction of Greytown was illegal, and not
justified by the law of nations." (Gibbons vs. U. S., 8 Wallace, 269, overrules Grant's
case.)

If the destruction was legal, the act was not wrong ; and if not wrong, no action .
would lie for it. An action is only given to redress a wrong. No action lies for doing
what is right. And it is remarkable that no lawyer has ever since brought a suit in
that court on any one of the many cases since of a similar character.

Congress by act of July 4, 1864, prohibited the Court of Claims from taking jurisdic-
tion of " any claim against the United States growing out of the destruction, or appro-
priation of, or damage to property by the Army or Navy engaged in the suppression of
the rebellion, from the commencement to the close thereof."

It is to be presumed Congress would not deny any claim justified by the laws of na-
tions.

In Mitchell vs. Harmony, 13 Howard, 134, the court said, not as authority, but on a
mere obiter dictum, that —

" There are, without doubt, occasions in which private property may lawfully be
taken possession of or destroyed to prevent it from falling into the hands of the public
enemy ; and also, where a military officer charged with a particular duty may impress
private property into the public service or take it for public use. Unquestionably in
such cases the Government is bound to make full compensation to the owner." (13
How., 134 ; and see numerous authorities cited infra.) United States v. Russell, 13 Wal-
lace. 627. In this case there was a military impressment, and the court cited, with ap-
proval, the case of Mitchell v. Harmony. But this was a seizure not on the theater of
war, and where the laws of peace were prevailing.

Unquestionably, by the law of nations, where the private property of citizens is by
common international military authority impressed into the public service, it is, by
virtue of the same law, generally to be paid for independently of any constitutional pro-
vision ; but this is not at all so when property is lawfully taken to prevent it from fall-
o ing into the hands of an enemy. That is an exercise of the law of overruling neces-
sity, as has been shown.

In Russell v. The Mayor, &c, 2 Denio, 484, it was said by one of the judges that—

"A vessel may in time of war be taken from the owner, when the interests of the
public demand' it, or it may be destroyed to prevent its falling iuto the hands of an
enemy, and thereby increase its power of aggression or resistance, and the owner

294 ALIEN CLAIMS.

ceive and divert the enemy, a legitimate act of ordinary warfare, that
the loss incurred was one of those accidents of war for which the Gov
eminent does not become liable to individuals. 166

The opinions of elementary writers have not been entirely uniform.

Grotius seems to assert that the government is not liable to make
compensation, by saying :

This also may be constituted by the civil law, that no action may be brought against
such a citv for damages by war, in order to make every man more careful to defend his
own. 167

Vattel admits the law of overruling necessity by saying :
But there are other damages caused by inevitable necessity ; as, for instance, the de-
struction caused by the artillery in retaking a town from the enemy. These are merely
accidents. They are misfortunes, which chance deals out to the proprietors on whom
they happen to fall. 6S

But he differs with Grotius, by saying :

Of the damages done by the state or the sovereign, some are done deliberately and
by way of precaution, as when a field, a house, or a garden belonging to a private per-
son is taken for the purpose of erecting on the spot a town, a rampart, or any other
piece of fortification, or when his standing corn or store-houses are destroyed to pre-
vent their being of use to the enemy. Such damages are to be made good to the indi-
vidual, who should bear only his quota of the loss.

In the edition of 1872 there is a note to this, as follows :

It is legal to take possession of these for the benefit of the community, and no action

lies, that is, no claim for compensation, nor is any recoverable, unless given by act of

Parliament. (4 Term. R., 382.)

And he says :

No action — claim for damages— lies against the state for misfortunes of this nature
for losses which she has occasioned, not willfully, out through necessity, and by mere acci-
dent, in the exertion of her rights.

The principle here stated applies to the necessary destruction of prop-
erty to prevent it from falling into an enemy's hands, when his approach
is imminent.

Notwithstanding anything elsewhere said, the right to compensation
finds no sanction by the usage of the Government.

During the revolutionary war property was often destroyed to prevent
it from falling into the hands of the enemy.

It was determined by the courts in Pennsylvania that in such cases
there was no claim for redress.

Congress never made provision for paying any such claims. 169

The States made no such compensation.

During the war of 1812 with Great Britain property was destroyed
by the military authorities of the United States to prevent it from fall-
ing into the hands of the enemy. But no general provision was made
by act of Congress for paying for such loss.

Congress did, by act of April 9, 1816, provide for paying for horses
killed while in service, and for paying —

Any person who * * sustained damage by the destruction of his or her house
or building by the enemy while the same was occupied as a military deposits under the
authority of an officer or agent of the United States. 170

would be entitled upon this principle of the Constitution to be paid a just compensa-
tion. In these cases private property is taken for public use. The right of eminent do-
main is here asserted."

This is merely oMter, and the same remarks apply as to the cases above noticed. (See
note 88, ante; see Clark v. Mayor, 13 Barbour, N. Y. S. C. R., 35.)

166 See Opinions of Judge-Advocate-General, vol. 26, p. 242. See Digest of Opinions
of Jndge-Advoeate-General from September, 1862, to Julv, 1868, (3d ed.,) p. 93.

167 Book 3, ch. xx, sec. 8.

168 Ch. xv, p. 402.

169 See American State Papers, class ix, vol. 1, Claims, passim.

170 3 Stat, at L., p. 263, sec. 9 ; 3 Stat, at L., p. 397, sec. 1.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 295

So the act of 3 March, 1849, (ch. 129, sec. 2,) and March 3, 1863, (ch. 78, sec. 5,) pro-
vided compensation for the loss or destruction of property in the service by impressment
or contract. (Scott's Digest Military Laws, 1874, p. 112, sec. 115,116.) Ami the act
of June 25, 1864, (13 Stat, at L., p. 182,) secures compensation to any officer, non-
commissioned officer, or private, during the rebellion, who surrendered horses to the
enemy by order of superior officer. •

But this was, by act of March 8, 1817, limited to—

Houses or buildings occupied as a place of deposit for military or naval stores, or as
barracks for military forces of the United States." 1

But it was said by a committee of Congress that, so far as this related
to houses destroyed by the enemy, it was enacted by Congress as—

A law originating in its benignity and aimed gratuitously for the benefit of a suffer-
ing portion of the community. 172

They declared it —

A law originating in the benign and charitable disposition of the Government.

The original act barred all claims not exhibited within two years
from its date, and Congress refused to extend the time.

But claims for compensation for property destroyed to prevent it
from falling into the hands of the enemy are so rare as to show them
entirely exceptional. 173

171 See Eeports of Court of Claims to Congress, vol. 1, 1857-58; Rep. No. 96, 1st. sess.
35th Cong., sec. 15, 1857 ; House Rep. 746, 1st sess. 43d Cong., June 22, 1874, p. 2 ; note
Frederick City Claim.

In the case of Joseph Loranger to. The United States, Judge Blackford, delivering
the opinion of the Court of Claims, used the following language :

" We consider the law to be. that, if the Government, by its authorized agents, takes
possession of a private building and make use of it as a military depot or as barracks,
and the enemy, in consequence of such possession and use, destroy the builiiing while
it is so used, the Government would be liable to the owner for the value of the build-
ing. There would be reason for saying in such case that the Government had given a
character to the property which, by the usage of civilized warfare, would justify the
enemy in destroying it." (See Report No. 96, 1st session 35th Congress, December 15,
1857, Reports Court of Claims, vol. 1, 1857-'58. See, also, sec. 9 of the act of April 9,
1816, 3 Stats, at Large, 263 ; also, act of March 3, 1817, 3 Stats, at Large, 397.)

172 American State Papers, class ix, vol. 1, Claims, 590. See letter No. 150 of Secretary.
of War to House of Representatives, February 20, 1818, in Ex. Doc. vol. 4, for 1817-'18,
1st sess. 15th Congress.

i73 William H. Washington was paid for a honse blown up in August, 1814, by order
of our military officers. (6 Stat, at L., 151 ; American State Papers, Claims, 446.) But
this was a case which came within the principle of the act of April 9, 1816. The Gov-
ernment placed stores in the house and blew up the house to destroy the stores, to pre-
vent them from falling into the hands of the enemy.

On February 5, 1817, a report was made to the House of Representatives recommend-
ing the payment of a precisely similar claim for damages done at Valley Forge, in 1777,
but Congress did not give the relief. (Claims, vol. 1, p. 522.)

So a rope-walk, destroyed September, 1814, at Baltimore, to prevent it from falling
into the hands of the enemy, was paid for, but this is clearly exceptional. (Am. St.
Papers, Claims, 444 ; 6 Stat, at L., p. 150.)

A report made February 14, 1816, states a liberal view, by saying " that indemnity is
due to all those whose losses have arisen from the acts of our own Government, or
those acting under its authority, while losses produced by the conduct of the enemy
are to be classed among the unavoidable calamities of. war, aud do not entitle the
sufferers to indemnification bv the Government." (Claims, vol. 1, 462 ; Sumner's speech,
71 Globe, 301, January 12, 1869.)

But a very different rule of law was subsequently stated by a committee, December
11, 1820, (Claims, vol. — , 752,) as to property taken at New Orleans. The report says :

" There have been thousands of instances during the late war * * * where the
loss to the owners can be traced, directly or indirectly, to the acts of the Government.
* * * There are no hhown rules or established usages of the Government which
would seem to authorize an allowance in a case thus involved in obscurity."

Mr. Sumner, in an elaborate and masterly speech in the Senate, January 12, 1869, (71
Globe, 300,) gives a summary, thus :

"After the battle of New Orleans, the question was presented repeatedly. In one

296 ALIEN CLAIMS.

The usage of the Government during and since the rebellion is a clear
denial of all liability in this class of cases.

No general provision has been made for paying them. This undoubt-
edly would have beeu done if there had been any admitted liability.

On the contrary, Congress, while providing for the payment of quar-
termaster's and commissary supplies taken in the loyal States, by the act
of July 4, 1864, has made a provision applicable everywhere :

That the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims shall not extend to or include any claim
against the United States growing out of the destruction or appropriation of or dam-
age to property by the Army or kavy, or any part of the Army or Navy engaged in
the suppression of the rebellion, from the commencement to the close thereof.

Even where provision has been made for special reasons in excep-
tional cases, the policy of this has generally been denied by the execu-
tive branch of the Government, and the broad rule of international law
contained in the act of 1864 has beeu re-asserted by the President. 174

Where compensation has been made it has been for exceptional
reasons. 175

The rule of law as stated is that recognized by the executive branch
of the Government. The President, in his message of February 12,

case a claim for ' a quantity of fencing,' used as fuel by troops of General Jackson,
was paid by Congress; so also was a claim for damages to a plantation ' upon which
public works for the defense of the country were erected;' also a claim for ' an ele-
gant and well-farnished house,' which afforded shelter to the British army, and was,
therefore, fired on with hot shot ; also a claim for damage to a house and plantation
on which a battery was erected by our troops." (American State Papers, Claims, p.
521.)

' ' There was also another case where Congress seems to have acted on a different prin-
ciple. On the landing of the enemy near New Orleans, the levee was cut, in order to
annoy him. As a consequence the plantation of the claimant was inundated, and suf-
fered damages estimated at $19,250. But the claim was rejected on the ground that
' the injury was done in the necessary operations of war.' " (Ibid., p. 835.)

174 See veto messages of June 1, 1872; Senate Ex. Doc. 8, 2d sess. 42d Cong., 'act for
relief of J. Milton Best; June 7, 1872, Senate Ex. Doc. 86, 2d sess. 42d Cong., act for
relief of Thomas B. Wallace; January 31, 1873, Senate Ex. Doc. 33, 3d sess. 42d Cong.,
act for relief of East Tennessee University ; February 12, 1873, Senate Ex. Doc. 42, 3d
stss. 42d Cong., bill for relief for destruction of Manchester, Ky., Salt- Works.

On the 27th November, 1864, General Sheridau issued an order, which was executed,
to destroy all "forage and subsistence, burn all barns, mills, and their contents, and
drive off all stock in Loudoun County, Va." (See Seuate Report No. 80, second session
Forty-second Congress, Court of Claims.) The stock was used by the Army, in part,
and the residue driven into Pennsylvania and sold, and the proceeds paid into the
Treasury. Much of the property so used or destroyed belonged to men whose loyalty
had never been questioned, many of them members of the Society of Friends. The
Senate committee reported in favor of paying not only for property of loyal citizens
so destroyed, but for cattle and supplies so used and sold. Congress, by act of Janu-
ary 23, 1873, authorized payment to "loyal citizens of Loudoun County, Va., for their
live-stock partly slaughtered and used and partly sold, and the proceeds paid into the
Treasury." (17 Stat., 713.) The House refused to pass any bill to pay for property
destroyed.

175 Claim of Josiah 0. Amies. — Act of January 31, 1867, provides for paying f>9,500
'• in consequence of the burning of his buildings at Annandale, Fairfax County, Va.,
by United States troops." (See 14 Stat., page 617 ; see, also, Senate Report No. 112,
second session Thirty-ninth Congress; also, vol. 62, pages 758, 759, second session
Thirty-ninth Congress.) The' report shows that the house was burned "to prevent its
being used by the enemy as a stronghold." For House proceedings and debates in
Thirty-eighth Congress, see Globe, vol. 50, pages 313, 758, 759 ; vol. 51, pages 1286, 2388.
For Senate proceedings and debates, see Globe, vol. 54, page 547 ; vol. 55, pages 1273,
1274, 1275, 1388. For Senate proceedings and debates in Thirty-ninth Congress, see
vol. 56, pages 7, 134, 147, 162 ; vol. 60, page 3873. For House proceedings and debates,
see Globe, vol. 56, page 148 ; vol. 60, page 3907 ; vol. 61, pages 414, 755, 758, 759, 760, 76i

But this case is exceptional, and seems to have beeu a reward made in consideration
that "Armes was of service to our troops in giving information of the movement and
situation of the rebels," and that his wife " came in one dark night at the risk of her
life" to give information to the Uuion military authorities.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 297

1873, says, in relation to the Kentucky salt-works destroyed by order of
General Craft, commanding Union military forces :

I understand him to say, in effect, that the salt-works were captured from the rebels,
that it was impracticable to hold them, and that they were demolished so as to be of
no further use to the enemy.

I cannot agree that the owners of property destroyed under such circumstances are
entitled to compensation therefor from the United States. Whatever other view may
be taken of the subject, it is incontrovertible that these salt-works were destroyed by
the Union Army while engaged in regular military operations, and that the sole object
of their destruction was to weaken, cripple, or defeat the armies of the so-called
southern confederacy.

I am greatly apprehensive that the allowance of this claim could and would be con-
strued into the recognition of a principle binding the United States to pay for all prop-
erty which their military forces destroyed in the late war for the Union. No liability
by the Government to pay for property destroyed by the Union forces in conducting
a battle or siege has yet been claimed ; hut the precedent proposed by this hill leads
directly and strongly in that direction ; for it is difficult upon any ground of reason or
justice to distinguish between a case of that kind and the one under consideration.
Had General Craft and his command destroyed the salt-works by shelling out the
enemy found in their actual occupancy, the case would not have been different in prin-
ciple from the one presented in this bill. What possible difference can it make in the
Tights of owners or the obligations of the Government, whether the destruction was
in driving the enemy out, or in keeping them out, of the possession of the salt-works ?

This bill does not present a case where private property is taken for public use, in
any sense of the Constitution. It was not taken from the owners, but from the enemy;
and it was not then used by the Government, but destroyed. Its destruction was one
of the casualties of war ; and though not happening in actual conflict, was perhaps as
disastrous to the rebels as would have been a victory in battle.

Owners of property destroyed to prevent the spread of a conflagration, as a general
rule, are not entitled to compensation therefor , and, for reasons equally strong, the
necessary destruction of property found in the hands of the public enemy, and consti-
tuting a part "of their military supplies, does not entitle the owner to indemnity from
the Government for damages to him in that way. 176

CHAPTER VII.

CLAIMS IN THE DEPARTMENTS OP THE GOVERNMENT.

Upon this subject the following information has been transmitted to
the House of Representatives :

War Department,

February 6, 1874.
The Secretary of War has the honor to transmit to the House of
Representatives, for the information of the Committee on War-Claims,

176 Veto message February 12, 1873, Senate Ex. Doc. 42, 3d sess. 42d Congress.

Claim of Dr. J. Milton Best, of Paducah, Ky. Claim for compensation of his dwell-
ing-house, taken by United States military authority, and destroyed by order of United
States officer as a military necessity, March 26, 1862.

Forty-first Congress, Senate proceedings and debates, for which see Globe, vol. 82,
pp. 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304,
311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319.

See Senate Eep. No. 69, 2d sess. 41st Cong. For House proceedings and debates see
vol. 84, p. 1934.

Senate proceedings and debates for 42d Cong. See Globe, vol. 89, pp. 2252, 2253,
(April 8, 1872 ;) vol. 91, pp. 4156, 4157, (June 1, 1872.) See, also, Senate Rep. No. 9, 2d
sess. 42d Cong.

For House proceedings and debates see Globe, vol. 91, pp. 3621, 3622, 3623, 3624. See
veto message, June 1, 1872, Senate Ex. Doc. 85, 2d sess. 42d Cong.

Kentucky salt-works. Claim for indemnity be reason of destruction of salt-works
near Manchester, Ky., by order of Major-General Buell as a military necessity.

298 ALIEN CLAIMS.

reports of the Quartermaster-General and Commissary- General of Sub-
sistence, giving their views upon certain classes of claims growing oat
of the late war.

These reports to accompany letter of the 24th ultimo, transmitting to
the House a copy of General Orders No. 100, dated April 24, 1863, pub-
lishing "instructions for the government of armies of the United States
in the field."

WM. W. BELKNAP,

Secretary of War.

War Depaetment,
Quartermaster-General's Office,

Washington, D. C, January 30, 1874.
Sir : I have the honor to return herewith the communication of the
Committee on War-Claims, House of Representatives, (by its clerk,)
requesting "a copy of the report or rules prepared by Or. Francis
Lieber in regard to, or regulating intercourse with, rebel States," which
was referred to the Quartermaster-General for any suggestions he may
desire to make thereon in connection with the subject of claims for
quartermaster's stores which originated during the war.

For Senate proceedings and debates see Globe, vol. 89, pp. 2258,2259,. 2d sess. 42d
Cong., (April 8, 1872 ;) also Globe, vol 93, p. 1288, (February 12, 1873 ;) Senate Rep. 50,
2d sess. 4;2d Cong.

For House proceedings and debates see Globe, vol. 93, pp. 694, 695, 696, 697, (January
18, 1873.)

See veto message, Senate Ex. Doc. 42, 3d sess. 42d Cong.

The Committee on War-Claims was organized at the opening of the 43d Congress.

There were before the Committee on War-Claims of the House of Representatives
fourteen hundred and twenty claims up to date of February 22, 1875. Some of these
claims, however, propose relief to numerous persons. The clerk of the committee has
made an estimate of claims, as follows:

Amount (estimated) of claims of the following classes pending before committees of
the House of Eepresentatives of the 43d Congress, March 1, 1874 :

Quartermaster's and commissary stores $4, 600, 000

Tobacco 450,000

Cotton 1,850,000

Steamboats, barges, &c, use of and damages 650, 000

Use of railroads and damages to same 2, 000, 000

Eents and use of, and damage to, real estate (rebel States) 3, 000, 000

Rents and use of, and damage to, real estate (loyal States) 700, 000

Property taken, occupied, and destroyed by the United States as a military

necessity in the rebel States 6, 000, 000

Property taken, occupied, and destroyed by the United States as a military

necessity in the loyal States 3,000,000

Property destroyed by enemy on account of military occupation by the

United States 5,800,000

Property captured by enemy while in possession or employ of the United

States 500,000

Claims of officers, soldiers, &c, for additional pay, bounty, &.o 400, 000

28, 950, 000

Many of these are doubtless test claims ; that is, they are presented, and, if success-
ful, others of like character will follow when once Congress shall be committed to the
payment of any particular class.

The claim of J. Milton Best has been before Congress some years. Its success would

ALIEN CLAIMS. 299

Claims for quartermaster's stores taken and used during the war in
certain States and districts are investigated by the Quartermaster-Gen-
eral, under the law of July 4, 1864. The law makes it his duty to re-
port each case, when certain conditions are satisfied, to the Third Aud-
itor, with a 1 recommendation for settlement.

The Quartermaster-General has done this so far as the clerical and
other force at his command has permitted. He has always himself held
that his action is confined to a report with recommendation, and that
if any error appears in his conclusion, his report and recommendation
are properly, like all other matters of account or settlement of which
he takes official cognizance, subject to revision and correction by the
accounting-officers, viz, the Third Auditor and Second Comptroller of
the Treasury.

Paymeut is made, finally, only upon a statement and settlement of
the account, approved by these officers.

Over 30,000 of these claims have been filed in the Quartermaster-
General's Office. About 12,000 are still on file, which may be considered
as not definitely settled or disposed of. It is not possible for the Quar-
termaster-General to definitely and absolutely reject a claim. Under
the law, it is his duty to examine it, and, when convinced that it is just

secure, on the same principle, the payment of other claims arising at the same place,
called " the Paducah claims," only recently presented, to the amount of $300,000. And
claims of like character would arise from very many localities, amounting to very many
millions. And the same may be said of other classes of claims.

If the ordinary rules of law on these subjects are not adhered to, the war-claims
growing out of the rebellion will probably reach $500,000,000, without including pay
for emancipated slaves or debts contracted in aid of rebellion, which are excluded
from payment by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.

In addition to these, there are before the Committee on War-Claims the allowed and
rejected claims reported to the House by the commissioners of claims, and referred to
the committee, and the claims reported to the House under section 2 of the act of June
16, 1874.

But it will be seen the claims from Pennsylvania and Ohio alone for damages
done by the enemy largely exceed the estimate for all the loyal Sates. The real
damages done in all the loyal States by the enemy during the rebellion could not
be compensated, probably, by $50,000,000, or possibly $100,000,000. There are also
before the Senate Committees on Claims and Military Affairs over one thousand war-
claims, involing over $20,000,000, and also claims of religious and educational institu-
tions in Southern States, not before the House of Representatives.

There were before the Committee on War-Claims of the House of Representatives of
the Forty-third Congress 1,420 claims up to date of February 22, 1875.

Of this number 216 have been reported upon to the House, of which number 148 were
reported adversely and 68 favorably.

The cases reported favorably covered appropriations specifically of $300,000, most of
the cases being referred to the Court of Claims or Commissioners of Claims, where the
amount cannot be determined.

Of the number reported favorably, 33 were claims of officers and soldiers of Union
Army; the cases reported adversely coveriug over $4,000,000.

Of the number reported favorably, 21 became laws, of which 11 were for relief of
officers and soldiers of Union Army during lare war; the amount appropriated being
$75,000. At this date (February 25, 1875) Congress has not acted on all the reports of
the committee.

The committee also examined and considered the third and fourth annual reports of
the Commissioners of Claims. The third report of the commissioners embraced 2,465
cases, of which 1,092 were allowed and 1,373 disallowed.

The amount allowed was $643,713.04, and amount disallowed $4,074,174.25.

The amount appropriated in the bill reported by the committee was $676,274.03. The
fourth report of the commissioners embraced 2,407 cases, of which 1,163 were allowed
and 1,244 disallowed.

The amount allowed was $740,409.72, and amount disallowed over $4,400,000.

The amount appropriated by the bill reported by the committee was $748,296.39, five
cases being added by the committee of cases reported allowed in former reports, but
suspended for further examination.

The bill now pending making approprintions for claims allowed and reported, as
required by section 2 of the act of J une 16, 1874, proposes to pay $112,729.56.

300 ALIEN CLAIMS.

and right, to report it with recommendation. Hence, if at auy time
not so convinced, he can only lay it aside and decline to make a report
and recommendation, and the claimant is able and has a right to call it
up again upon the, production of additional evidence, or upon new argu-
ment addressed to the merits of the case.

Certain claims, apparently fraudulent, have been reported to the
Auditor, with suggestion that the parties be prosecuted under the law
relative to attempts to collect fraudulent claims against the United
States. The Quartermaster-General, himself, has no authority to insti-
tute criminal proceedings. Such proceedings are for the Department
of Justice, upon request of the Treasury.

The Quartermaster-General has several times advised members of

The committee reported adversely four claims, involving nearly $2,500,000, viz :

Publishing House, Methodist Episcopal Church South, $457,000; invasion of Pennsyl-
vania by Lee's array, $553,000 ; J. and T. Green, $982,201.75 ; Marie P. Evans, $495,355.

There are sundry claims before committees of both Houses of Congress for use and
occupation of church, college, and school buildings, for injuries to them, or for destruc-
tion thereof. If Congress shall provide for their payment in whole or in part, either in
detail or by some general scheme as a gratuity, there will of course be very many more •
which will doubtless be presented.

The claims of this character now before the House Committee on War-Claims are as
follows :

METHODIST CHURCHES.

Methodist Episcopal Church, Alexandria, Va $11, 000

Methodist Episcopal Church, Charlestown, W. Va 10,000

Methodist Episcopal Church, Decatur, Ala 12, 000

Methodist Episcopal Church, Huntsville, Ala 13,354

Methodist Episcopal Church, Harper's Ferry, W. Wa 3, 000'

Methodist Episcopal Church, Martinsburgb, W. Wa 1,886

Methodist Episcopal Church, Old Town, W. Va 1,200

Book-Agents' Publishing-House, Methodist Episcopal Church South 457, 150

Methodist Episcopal Church Parsonage, Newtown, Va 5,000

EPISCOPAL CHURCHES.

Saint Paul's Episcopal Church, Selma, Ala 12, 000

Saint Paul's Episcopal Church, Sharpsburgh, Md 3,500

Saint George's Episcopal Church, Accomac, Va 5,000

Saint Philip's Episcopal Church, Atlanta, Ga ." 5,000

Saint Mary's Episcopal Church, Fredericksburgb, Va 725

CHRISTIAN CHURCHES.

Christian Church, Woodsville, Kv ) n c nn

Christian Church, Danville, Ky { <s ' ouu

UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES, &C.

Alabama University 250, 000

East Tennessee University 18,500

Jackson College, Tennessee 11,092

Alleghany College, West Virginia 8,000

Madison Female Academy, Richmond, Va 10,300

Male Academy, Athens, Ga ' 5, 000

Strawberry Plains High School, Tennessee 8, 65Q

Seaman's Friend Society, Charleston, S. C 2, 500

Cypress Lodge F. and A. M., Florence. Ala 15,000

Columbia Lodge F. and A. M., No. 31, Tennessee 11,000

The following papers are now before the committee :

Office Post-Quartermaster,

Atlanta, Georgia, July 14, 1865.

General : I have the honor to state that, in compliance with instructions contained
in your communication of the 7th instant, herewith inclosed, I instituted a careful in-
vestigation into the amount of damage done to Saint Luke's Church, in this city, its
parsonage aud fencing, and caused an estimate to be made by Mr. Frank Day, an
architect of this city, of the necessary expense of repairing the same. I found that the

ALIEN CLAIMS.

301

Congress calling upon him on business of their constituents in relation to
these claims, that, in his opinion, the preferable method of disposing of
them would be to institute commissions to visit the various districts of
country, give public notice that they would receive claims between cer-
tain dates, and then at proper times hear and examine witnesses, and
thus close up and determine the claims before the lapse of time makes
it impossible to ascertain the facts for or against the justice of the

church, parsonage, and fencing had been entirely destroyed by our forces at the evacua-
tion of this place by General Sherman, and that the probable cost of rebuilding the
same, as estimated by the mechanic above named, is as follows :

Saint Luke's Church $2, 500

Parsonage and out-buildings 2,250

Fencing 150

And that the earthworks on the lot belonging to Saint Philip's Church could be leveled
at a cost of $150.

I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,

ALONZO CLARK,
Captain Fourth Iowa Cavalry, and A. A. Q. M.
Bvt. Brig. Gen. J. L. Donaldson,

Chief Quartermaster Military Division of the Tennessee.

[Copy of indorsement.]

Headquartees op the Army,

Washington, D. C, January 21, 1873.

I have not the least doubt this paper contains a fair and truthful account of the loss,
to this church in Atlanta. But instead of appealing to the Congress of the United
States for indemnification, I advise the pastor of the church to appeal to the charitable
members of the Episcopal Church for aid to rebuild their church and parsonage.

W. T. SHERMAN, General.

The following is extracted from speech of Hon. Henry G. Davis, of West Virginia,
in United States Senate May 13, 1874, on the subject of war-claims. This table is
subject to corrections elsewhere noted":

No. of

claims

presented.

Amount.

Number
allowed.

Amount.

Commissary-General

Quartermaster-General, (up to close of fiscal year

of 1874)

Quartermaster-General, (since beginning of above

fiscal year)

Commissioners of Claims

Senate of United States

House of Representatives

Yet to be presented

6,096

31 126

1,000

22,298

104

500

$3, 312, 757 68

21,319,180 02

700, 000 00

60, 258, ISO 44

3, 500, 000 00

16, 300, 000 00

10, OuO, 000 00

1,406
6,257

Total.

115, 390, 088 14

$317, 448 54
2, 741, 961 67

1, 794, 580 55

4, 853, 990 76

Number
rejected.

Number
pending.

Amount.

Commissary-General

Quartermaster-General, (up to close of fiscal year

of 1874)

Quartermaster-General, (since beginning of above

fiscal year)

Commissioners of Claims

Senate of United States

House of Kepresentatives

Yet to be presented

4,443
13, 522

$2, 682, 644 18
9, 048, 044 57

11, 347

1,000

17, 044

104

500

Total .

11, 73D, 688 75

$190,527 44

7, 822, 829 55

700, 000 00
50, 033, 764 12
3, 500, 000 00
16, 300, 600 00
10,000,000 00

, 547, 121 11

But the claims are largely more than stated by Mr, Davis.

302 ALIEN CLAIMS.

claim made. This, in his opinion, would secure a speedier settlement
than he is able to afford, and would enable the United States to fix a
time after which no claim should be entertained by any other authority
than that of Congress itself.

Other claims against the Quartermaster's Department arise out of the
occupation of real estate, lands, and buildings, by the Army. Others
are for services not paid for when rendered. In fact, a claim may arise
out of any unpaid obligation of the military service through the Quar-
termaster's Department. Excepting the claims to which the law of July
4, 1864, applies, all claims presented to this Office are examined, and, if
believed to be just, settled ; under the general authority and duty of
the Executive to pay the debts of the Government for the War Depart-
ment, by reference to the Secretary of War with report and recom-
mendation, and then by payment either by a disbursing-officer, subject
to subsequent revision and settlement by the accounting-officers of the
Treasury, or, if the claim be for a liability of some standing, generally
by reference to the Third Auditor, who examines all the evidence, and
the report and action of the Qnartermaster-General, and of the Secretary
of War, and submits his report thereon to the Second Comptroller. If
that'officer approve, a settlement is made, which is transmitted to the
War Department for request and requisition, and with these returned
to the Treasury, when warrants and drafts are issued, and the debt is
finally paid.

All these claims for old debts are settled out of the balance of appro-
priations made during and since the war, which have not yet been
carried to the surplus fund. As there are many claims, (seeEeport of
Quartermaster-General, page 225 of Ex. Doc. 1, part 2, House of Rep-
resentatives, 42d Congress, 2d session,) they are in constant course of
settlement, and many drafts are thus made every day upon these appro-
priations, which are by law to go to the surplus-fund only when no
drafts have been made upon them for two years. If these balances are
now, as proposed by House bill 1009, carried to the surplus-fund, the
War Department will have no fund out of which to pay any old debt,
.however just and meritorious, and some provision should be made to do
justice in cases which are not the less just because the debts were not
paid when first due.

The labor of examining these claims, whether under the law of 1864
or under general laws, is very great, and it occupies a large part of the
time of the Quartermaster-General and other officers of the War Depart-
ment; and also costs a considerable sum in hire of clerks and agents to
make the necessary investigation, and prepare the papers so as to enable
the Quartermaster-General and the Secretary of War to act under-
standing^.

If any other tribunal, or means of settling all just claims can be
devised, the Quartermaster-General will feel personally relieved from a
heavy responsibility and laborious duty, but this is not a reason which
would justify him in making any recommendation on the subject.
Whatever the law imposes upon him, he is ready to perform to the best
of his ability.

A copy of General Orders No. 59, Quartermaster-General's Office,
series of 1867, publishing the act of July 4, 1864, and the regulations
thereunder, is inclosed.

Very respectfully, vour obedient servant,

M. C. MEIGS,
Quartermaster- General. United States Army.

The Hon. Secretary of War,

Washington, D. C.

alien claims. 303

Office Commissary-General of Subsistence,

Washington City, February 3. 1874.

Sir : I have the honor to return herewith the letter of the 30th of
January last, by its clerk, of the House of Representatives Committee
on War-Claims, asking for a copy of certain rules and regulations con-
cerning intercourse with rebel States during the war of the rebellion,
&c, which was referred to the Commissary-General of Subsistence for
such suggestions as he may wish to make concerning the general bill re-
ferred to in the letter as being considered covering the various classes of
claims growing out of the war, and would respectfully suggest simply
that, if practicable, in any future bill for the adjustment of claims for pro-
visions or subsistence stores furnished, received, or taken for public use
by the United States Army during the war of the rebellion, provision
be made for the receipt and examination of such claims from all parts
of the country alike, without regard to the place of their origin, whether
in a loyal or an insurrectionary State, and that a reasonably early day
be fixed, prior to which every such claim must be filed, complete in de-
tail of items and evidence, to entitle it to examination, and any claim
not so filed prior to that date to be barred, and, if presented thereafter,
returned without examination ; and, in any case, claims once examined
and decided not to be re-opened.

Now, under the 3d section of the act of July 4, 1864, claims of loyal
citizens of non-insurrectionary States come before this Office " for sub-
sistence actually furnished to said [United States] Army, and receipted
for by the proper officer receiving the same, or which may have been
taken by such officer without giving such receipt," whileclaims " for stores
or supplies taken or furnished during the rebellion for the use of the
Army of the United States in States proclaimed as in insurrection,"
come before the commissioners of claims for examination, and by
special statutes like claims for subsistence from the State of Tennessee,
and from the counties of Jefferson and Berkeley, West Virginia, came
before this Office prior to March 3, 1871, the date of the act establish-
ing the commission of claims, and before that commission since, so
that claimants from Tennessee, and the two West Virginia counties
named, have had the benefit of both these acts ; while claimants from
the insurrectionary States in general, by the more liberal or less re-
stricted terms of the act under which the commission is authorized than
the section governing the action- of this Office, may perhaps be con-
sidered to have somewhat the advantage over claimants in the loyal
States. It is known, too, that the same claimants in not a few instances
have presented claims to this Office, and also to the commission of
claims, and it is believed for about the same stores. The propriety of
the law being general and uniform is therefore suggested. And that
justice may be done uniformly to claimants and the Government alike,
it is deemed highly desirable, if practicable, that all claims of the char-
acter under consideration be submitted to and examined by one juris-
diction or authority.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

A. B. EATON,

Commissary- General.

Hon. W. W. Belknap,

Secretary of War.

304 ALIEN CLAIMS.

So far as any citizen furnished quartermaster's stores or commissary-
supplies during the rebellion, or so far as these were taken for the Union
military forces, ample provision is made by law for their adjudication by
application to the War Department. 177

The laws and regulations as to claims are as follows :

[General Orders No. 59.]

Quartermaster-General's Office,

Washington, B. C, October 11, 1867.
The following joint resolutions and acts of Congress, with rules and
regulations established thereon to govern in the submission and exam-
ination of claims to be presented to the Quartermaster-General and to
the Commissary-General of Subsistence, respectively, are published for
the information and guidance of officers and agents of the Qurtermas-
ter's Department.

D. H. EUCKER,
Acting Quartermaster- General, Brevet Major-Oeneral, U. S. A.

Chapter 240, First Session 38th Congress.

AN ACT to restrict the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, and to provide for the
payment of certain demands for quartermaster's stores and subsistence supplies fur-
nished to the Army of the United States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 'Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That the jurisdiction of the
Court of Claims shall not extend to or include any claim against the
United States growing out of the destruction or appropriation of or
damage to property by the Army or Navy, or any part of the Army or
Navy, engaged in the suppression of the rebellion, from the commence-
ment to the close thereof.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all claims of loyal citizens in
States not in rebellion for quartermaster's stores actually furnished to
the Army of the United States, and receipted for by the proper officer
receiving the same, or which may have been taken by such officers with-
out giving such receipt, maybe submitted to the Quartermaster-General
of the United States, accompanied with such proofs as each claimant can
present of the facts in his case ; and it shall be the duty of the Quarter-
master-General to cause such claim to be examined, and if convinced
that it is just, and of the loyalty of the claimant, and that the stores
have been actually received or taken for the use of and used by said
Army, then to report each case to the Third Auditor of the Treasury,
with a recommendation for settlement.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That all claims of loyal citizens in
States not in rebellion for subsistence actually furnished to said Army,
and receipted for by the proper officer receiving the same, or which may

177 See House Report No. 262, of Committee on War-Claims, 1st session 43d Congress,
March 26, 1874, pp. 25-74 ; also, report No. 754, June 22, 1854 ; act of March 3, 1813, ch.
513, sec. 5 ; art. 42, Revised Army Regulations, August 11, 1861, authorized by act of
April 24, 1816, sec. 9, (eh. 69, 3 Stat, at L., 298,) and act May 7, 1822, (3 Stat, at L.,
689 ;) Scott's Digest Military Laws, p. 134, sec. 182 ; United States vs. Eliasou, 16 Peters,
291 ; United States vs. Freeman, 3 How., 566 ; Gratiot vs. United States, 4 Howard, 80 ;
Harney vs. United States, 3 Nott & H., 42; Opinions Attorneys-General, May 19, 1821,
and January 1, 1857 ; House Ex. Doc. No. 121, 1st session 43d Congress ; act July 4,
1864, ch. 240.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 305

have been taken by such officer without giving such receipt, may be
submitted to the Commissary-General of Subsistence, accompanied with
such proofs as each claimant may have to offer; and it shall be the duty
of the Commissary-General of Subsistence to cause each claim to be ex-
amined, and if convinced that it is just, and of the loyalty of the
claimant, and that the stores have been received or taken actually for
the use of and used by said Army, then to report each case for payment
to the Third Auditor of the Treasury, with a recommendation for settle-
ment.
Approved July 4, 1864.

To extend to the counties of Berkeley and Jefferson, of West Virginia, the provisions
of the preceding act, as follows :

Joint Eesoltjtion No'. 50, First Session 39th Congress.

Be it re&olved by the Senate and House of Representatives of tlie United
States of America in Congress assembled, That the provisions of the act
of Congress of July 4, 1864, entitled "An act to restrict the- jurisdiction
of the Court of Claims, and for other purposes," be, and the same are
hereby, construed to extend to the counties of Berkeley and Jefferson,
of the State of West Virginia.

Approved June 18, 1866.

To extend the provisions of the act of July 4, 1864, limiting the jurisdiction of the
Court of Claims, to the loyal citizens of Tennessee, as follows :

Joint Eesoltjtion No. 99, First Session 39th Congress.

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That the provisions of the act
of the 4th of July, 1864, entitled " An act to limit the jurisdiction of the
Court of Claims," is hereby extended to the loyal citizens of the State of
Tennessee.

Approved July 28, 1866.

Chapter 57, Second Session 39th Congress.

AN ACT to declare the sense of an act entitled "An act to restrict the jurisdiction of
the Court of Claims, and to provide for the payment of certain demands for quarter-
master's stores and subsistence supplies furnished to the Army of the United States,"
as follows :

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That the provisions cf chapter
240 of the acts of the Thirty-eighth Congress, first session, approved
July 4, 1864, shall not be construed to authorize the settlement of any
claim for supplies or stores taken or furnished for the use of or used by
the armies of the United States, nor for the occupation of or injury to
real estate, nor for the consumption, appropriation, or destruction of or
damage to personal property by the military authorities or troops of the
United States, when such claim originated during the war for the sup-
pression of the southern rebellion, in a State, or part of a State, declared
iu insurrection by the proclamation of the President of the United
States', dated July first, 1862, or in a State which, by an ordinance of
H. Eep. 134 20

306 ALIEN CLAIMS.

secession, attempted to withdraw from the United States Government :
Provided, That nothing herein contained shall repeal or modify the
effects of any act or joint resolution extending the provisions of the
said act of July 4. 1864, to the loyal citizens of the State of Tennessee, or
to the State of West Virginia, or any county thereof.

Indorsed by the President: " Received February 9, 1867."
[Note by the State Department: The foregoing act having been,pre-
sented to the President of the United States for his approval, and not
having been returned by him to the House of Congress in which it
originated witbin the time prescribed by the Constitution of the United
States, has become a law without his approval.]

To extend the provision of section two of the act of July 4, 1864, limiting the juris-
diction of the Court of Claims to cases of quartermaster's stores furnished to the
forces of Major-General Lewis Wallace during the Morgan raid through the States
of Indiana aud Ohio in the summer of 1863, as follows:

Joint Resolution No. 50, Second Session 39th Congress.

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That the provisions of section
two of the above-entitled act be, and they are hereby, extended to cover
all cases where quartermaster's stores were actually furnished to the
forces under the command of Major-General Lewis Wallace, and duly
receipted for by persons acting under his authority, and whose authority
shall be. proven to the satisfaction of the accounting-officers, during the
Morgan raid through the States of Indiana and Ohio, in the summer ot
eighteen hundred and sixty-three, and for the purpose of giving such
receipts for property so applied the said persons shall be held to be
proper officers of the Government.

Approved March 2, 1867.

The following rules and regulations, to govern in the submission and
examination of claims to be presented to the Quartermaster-General and
to the Commissary-General of Subsistence, respectively, under the act
of July 4, 1864, (and the several acts and joint resolutions amendatory
and explanatory thereof, as herein published,) entitled "An act to restrict
the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, and to provide for the payment
of certain demands for quartermaster's stores and subsistence supplies
furnished to the Army of the United States," aud the evidence of proofs
which must accompany them, are hereby established :

i— .claims to be submitted to and examined by the QUARTER-
MASTER-GENERAL.

All claims of loyal citizens in States not in rebellion for "quartermas-
ter's stores" actually furnished to the Army of the United States, and
receipted for by the proper officer receiving the same, or which may
have been taken by such officers without giving such receipts.

II. — CLAIMS TO BE SUBMITTED TO AND EXAMINED BY THE COMMIS-
SARY-GENERAL OP SUBSISTENCE.

All claims of loyal citizens in States not in rebellion for "subsistence,
actually furnished to said Army, and receipted for by the pxoper officer
receiving the same, or which may have been taken by such officers with-
out giving such receipts. *

ALIEN CLAIMS. 307

III.— PROOFS REQUIRED IN SUPPORT OP THE ABOVE CLASSES OP

CLAIMS.

1st. That the claimant is a loyal citizen of a State not in rebellion.
(Claims of citizens of the following States, declared by the President of
the United States, by his proclamation of the 1st day of July, 1862, to
be iu insurrection, will not be considered, viz : Arkansas, Texas, Louis-
iana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North
Carolina, and Virginia.)

2d. Citizenship. — The claimant will be required to show, by his own
affidavit, supported by the certificate of the clerk or recorder of the town
or county of which he claims to be a citizen, that said claimant is a citi-
zen of said town or county.

3d. Loyalty. — The claimant will be required to file with his claim
the oath of allegiance to the Government of the United States, as pre-
scribed by the President's proclamation of the 8th of December, 1863,
supported by the certificate of a United States officer, civil or military,
that the said claimant was, at the date his claim originated, and has
been ever since, loyal to the United States, or the sworn statement of
the same facts of at least two witnesses, whose loyalty and credibility
shall be vouched for by the certificate of the officers before mentioned.

4th. Claims arising under this act must be presented by the claim-
ant or his authorized attorney ; and, in the latter case, it must be shown
by the certificate of the assessor or collector of his district that he has
been duly licensed and authorized to act as a claim-agent.

IV. — VALIDITY OF CLAIMS.

1st. When quartermaster's stores or subsistence supplies have been
taken by officers and receipted for, all of such receipts or vouchers must
be filed; or their absence, in any case, must be fully and satisfactorily
explained by proper evidence. 178

2d. When such stores or supplies have been taken by officers without
giving such receipts, the claim must set forth the kinds and quantity of
stores or supplies, when, where, and by what officer taken, the price or
value thereof, and must be supported by the affidavit of the claimant as
to the correctness of the claim ; that the articles named in the claim
were actually delivered to or taken by said officer for the use of the
Army; that no receipt or voucher has been received therefor ; that no
payment has been made or compensation received, in any way or from
any source whatever, for the whole or any part of said claim ; that it
has not been transferred to any person or persons whomsoever; and that
the rates or prices charged are reasonable and just, and do not exceed
the market-rate or price of the article at the time and place stated.

3d. In all cases, whether or not receipts have been given for the
stores or supplies, the affidavit required by 4 the next preceding para-
graph must be supported by such additional affidavits,^ other proofs,
in relation to the facts stated, as may be attainable. The credibility of
the claimant arid of the witnesses must be vouched for by the certificate
of an officer of the United States, civil or military. If receipts have
been given, the affidavit above referred to will be modified, so far as it

178 By "receipts or vouchers" is meant each and every copy of any and all documents —
in whatever form, whether in ink or pencil — given by or bearing the signature of any officer
in the service of the United States (or by any enlisted man in such service, acting under
proper authority) for or relating to the whole or any portion of the stores for which
payment is claimed. The attention of agents and attorneys is particularly called to a
strict compliance with this requirement in presenting claims.

308 ALIEN CLAIMS.

relates to receipts or vouchers, substantially as follows : That all of the
receipts or vouchers given for such stores or supplies are hereto annexed.

4th. Proof must he furnished, as far as attainable, that the quarter-
master's stores or subsistence supplies mentioned have been actually
used by the Army of the United States. This proof should, whenever
practicable, consist of the certificate or affidavit of the officer who took
the stores, or who ordered them taken, or who, after such taking, took
them in charge, setting forthithe fact of such taking, to what use the
stores were applied, and whether or not they have been accounted for
as required by the Regulations of the Army; and if accounted for, upon
what returns, or, if not, the reason for failing to account for the same ;
or, in case the above proof is not attainable, the certificates of other offi-
cers, or the affidavit of a soldier, or some other credible witnesses, know-
ing the facts, setting forth by whom and for what purpose the property
was taken, and to what use it was applied.

5th. Claims for damages or for losses sustained by thefts or depre-
dations committed by troops, or so much of a charge for stores or sup-
plies as is an element of damages, will not be considered under these
acts and joint resolutions.

6th. Powers of attorney, legally executed by claimants to agents,
(bearing properly affixed and canceled internal-revenue stamps,) must
accompany claims presented by agents.

7th. The general allegation that stores, for which payment is claimed,
were taken by the officer in command of a large body of troops, for
whose subsistence or use the property was applied, or by his order, is
not sufficient to establish a claim under this act. Such officers seldom,
if ever, personally receive stores, (that duty devolving upon subordinate
officers,) and though issuing orders authorizing the taking of the prop-
erty as a military necessity, seldom have any knowledge whatever of
the particular cases affected by the execution of such orders on the part
of their subordinates, except, perhaps, in some few cases arising under
peculiar Circumstances. Therefore, to facilitate the examination of
claims, and to enable the officers deciding them to comply with that
clause of the law requiring them, before recommending claims for pay-
ment, to be " convinced" that the property was taken in the manner and
for the purpose therein set forth, (as distinguished from thefts and dep-
redations, by whomsoever committed,) claimants are required to furnish
the following information (or so much of it as they reasonably may) as
a part of their sworn declaration in each case, viz :

1. The name, rank, regiment, and, when known, the post-office ad-
dress of each officer who took any portion of the stores.

2. Immediately after each officer's name and designation, state the
articles and quantities (with their prices) taken by him, together with
the exact date when, and locality where, taken.

3. Name the brigade, division, and corps with which, or the station
or post at which, each officer was serving ; the name and official desig-
nation of the commissary or acting commissary of subsistence of that
brigade, station, or post, and that of the officer in immediate command
thereof at the time; and add thereto such attendant facts and circum-
stances as transpired at the time in any way bearing upon the case.

4. State the exact locality of claimant's present residence; if in a
city, give street and number; if in the country, the nearest post-office.

5. The claims must be legibly written ; and particular care should
be taken in the " declarations" of claimants, and in the affidavits of wit-
nesses, to correctly state the month and year in which the transaction;
occurred.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 309

8th. Claimants will be required to prove the genuineness of the sig-
natures to the receipts filed in support of claims submitted under joint
resolution No. 50, of March 2, 1867, and to furnish evidence that the
persons executing such receipts were acting under the authority of
Major-General Wallace.

D. H. EUCKEE,
Brevet Major- General and Acting Quartermaster- General.

A. B. EATON,
Brevet Major- General and Commissary-General of Subsistence.
Approved October 10, 1867.

TJ. S. GEANT,

Secretary of War ad int.

The following forms also have been prescribed :

Claim, Form L.

War Department,
Quartermaster-General's Office,

Washington, D. G., , 187-.

To : ' '

Sir: In the claim of , a citizen of , it is alleged

that were taken from him, on or about , by .

The evidence presented is not sufficient to enable the Quartermas-
ter-General to certify that he is convinced that the claim is just, and
that the stores were actually received or taken for the use of, and used
by, the United States Army, as required by the act of July 4, 1864, be-
fore recommending it to the Third Auditor for settlement.

In the absence of receipts, or other official evidence given at the time the
stores are alleged to have been taken, there is required the testimony of some
officer, soldier, or person employed by the Government, personally cognizant
of the alleged, appropriation, detailing in full the circumstances attendant
thereon, and setting forth, of his own knowledge, the details of the seizure,
the quantities and values, and the use to which the property was applied,
and tlie regiment, company, detachment, or other military body, to the use of
ichich the stores were appropriated.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

By order of the Quartermaster-General,

Form No. 13.— (Voucher to Abstract B.)
The United States,

To

, Dr.

Place, and date.

Dolls.

Cts.

I certify that the above account is correct and just ; that the services
were rendered as stated ; that they were necessary for the public ser-

310

ALIEN CLAIMS.

vice, and are borne on my report of persons, &c, for the month of
, 18-.

the

day of

Eeceived, at —
quartermaster —
and cents, in fall of the above account.

18—, of

United States Army, the sum

of

dollars

(Signed in duplicate.)

Indorsed as follows:

Form No. 13. Voucher No. — , Abstract B.
. Dollars, T7T77 . Paid ,18 — .

18—.

Amount, $-

Depository.

Check : No. — . Date,
[To be in duplicate;

one copy to be retained by the officer, the other to be forwarded to the
Quartermaster-General with Abstract B. This form is used for pay-
ment of services not entered on the receipt-rolls, for rent of buildings,
and for other miscellaneous disbursements. When a man is discharged
without being paid, his account will be stated on this form, certified,
and given to him. It may sometimes be used as a voucher to Abstract
C]

Form No. 9. — (Voucher to Abstract A.)

The United States,

To

>

Dr.

Place and date
of purchase.

Dolls.

Cts.

I certify that the above account is correct and just, and that the
articles have been accounted for on my property-return for the quarter
ending on the of , 187-.

Eeceived, at-
termaster

, the-

of

187.

Quartermaster
-,0f ■

in full of the above account.

U. S. Army, the sum of •

dollars and

, quar-
- cents,

(Signed in duplicate.)

Indorsed as follows :
Form No. 9. Voucher

Dollars,

— . Amount, $-

No.

Date:

-, Abstract
Paid

A.

187-

Depository,

187-

Check: No. — .
. To be made in

duplicate ; one copy to be retained by the officer, one to be forwarded
to the Quartermaster-General with Abstract A. The authority for
making a purchase and a statement of the object and necessity for the
same must accompany the voucher. If such authority has already been
filed, it should be referred to in all subsequent vouchers for purchases
under it. If the purchase is made under a contract, the name of the
contractor, and its object, should be given, as per example : Under con-
tract of John Smith, for forage, Nov. 17, 18— No reference should be

ALTEN CLAIMS. 311

made to any agreement not in writing, and not transmitted to the Quar-
termaster-General's Office for file.

The act of July 4, 1864, ouly applied to " quartermaster's stores" and
" subsistence."

This did not cover rent, or use and occupation. But these were au-
thorized to be paid by prior acts.

The acts of July 4, 1864, and February 21, 1867, prohibited the ex-
ecutive officers of the Government from paying for stores, supplies, use
and occupation, or rent, in the States proclaimed in insurrection.

But the act of February 21, 1867, did not exclude payment where the
claim arose on contract.

This was decided by the Attorney-General September 2, 1870 ; vol.
13, Opinions, p. 314. (See House Beport No. 262, Committee on War-
Claims, 1st session 43d Congress, p. 75.)

Tbis opinion of the Attorney-General has a valuable review of the
legislation on the subject.

Since then the mode of providing for the payment of claims arising
under the act of July 4, 3864, and the amendatory acts, has been
changed, as will be seen from the following :

[General Orders No. 58.]

'•' War Department, Adjutant-General's Office,

" Washington, June 18, 1874.
The following act of Congress is published for the information and
government of all concerned :

AN ACT making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year
ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-five, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums be, and
the same are hereby, appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury
not otherwise appropriated, for the support of the Army for the year
ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy -five, as follows :

Then the appropriations follow.

Sec. 2. That all balances of appropriations, for whatever account,
made for the service of the Department of the Quartermaster-General
and of the Commissary -General of Subsistence prior to July first, eighteen
hundred and seventy-two, which, on the thirtieth day of June, eighteen hun-
dred and seventy-four, shall remain on the books of the Treasury, shall
be carried to the surplus fund, except such as the Auditor of the Treasury,
whose duty it is to settle accounts against such appropriations, shall
Certify to the Secretary of the Treasury to be necessary in the settlement
of such accounts as have been reported to him for payment by the
Quartermaster's and Commissary Departments pending in his office.
And the Quartermaster- General, Commissary-General, and Third Auditor
of the Treasury shall continue to receive, examine, and consider the justice
and validity of such claims as shall be brought before them under the act of
July fourth, eighteen hundred and sixty-four, and the acts amendatory there-
of ; and the Secretary of the Treasury shall make report of each claim al-
lowed by them, at the commencement of each session of Congress, to the Speaker
of the Souse of Representatives, who shall lay the same before Congress for
consideration.
■. Approved June 17, 1874.

By order of the Secretary ,of War :

E. D. TOWjSTSEND,

Official: Adjutant- General.

Assistant Adjutant-General.

312 ALIEN CLAIMS.

The annual report of the Quartermaster General, dated October 10,
1874, page 26, contains the following :

CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS.

By section 2 of the act making appropriations for the support of the
Army for the year ending 30th June, 1875, the Quartermaster-General
is directed to continue to receive and investigate claims for quartermas-
ter's stores under the act of July 4, 1864, and the acts amendatory thereof,
and to report them as heretofore, in order that the Secretary of the
Treasury may report those recommended for allowance to the Speaker
of the House of Eepresentatives at the commencement of each session
of Congress.

The legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation act of June 20,
1874, (Laws, p. 110,) directed all unexpended balances of appropriations,
which have remained on the books of the Treasury for more than two
fiscal years, to be carried to the surplus fund and covered into the
Treasury. The operation of this law concluded the payment by the
Treasury of claims and debts of the United States incurred more than
two years before the time of proof and acknowledgment.

There were in this Office, unsettled, on 1st July, 1873, 11,347 claims
under the act of 4th July, 1864, amounting, as claimed, to $7,822,829.55.
There were filed during the year 2,606, for $3,144,572.34. Total, .13,953,
for $10,967,401.89. Of these, 881, claiming $1,032,484.88, have been re-
ported, recommending allowance of $495,234.38, areduction of $537,280.47:
528, claiming the sum of $694,152.19, have been reported unfavorably.
Thus 1,409 claims have been disposed of, amounting, as presented, to
$1,726,637.04, and there remained at the end of the year 12,544 claims,
for $9,240,764.85.

CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS CONNECTED WITH THE SEEVICE OF TRANS-
PORTATION OF THE ARMY.

Two hundred and twelve accounts for transportation, amounting to
$613,393.72, were on file on 1st July, 1S73. Eight hundred and eighty-
five accounts, for $767,876.32, and 448 claims, for $897,008.80, were filed
during the year. Total, 1,545, for $2,278,278.84. Of these 1,310 have
been disposed of; their amount is $1,664,952.75. Ninety-five, amount-
ing to $400,016.19, were rejected. Seventy-five, amounting to $117,935.41,
were suspended. The remainder were either reported for settlement or
transferred to other Departments to which they properly pertained.
There remained on 30th June, 1874, 235 accounts and claims for trans-
portation, amounting to $613,326.11.

MISCELLANEOUS CLAIMS AND ACCOUNTS.

Fourteen thousand and forty-six claims, amounting to $7,475,120.87,
were on file at beginning of fiscal year ; 12,246 were received during the
year, amounting to $1,745,024.29. Total, 26,292 claims and accounts,
for $9,220,145.16.

Five thousand and forty claims were approved, for $738,950.73,
being a reduction in the amount as presented of $269,916.37; 540,
amounting to $271,992.79, were rejected ; 53, amounting to $5,703.25,
were referred to other Departments to which they pertained ; 6,180
accounts were approved, for $442,956.93, being a reduction in the ac-
counts as presented of $4,682.01 ; 35 accounts were rejected, amounting

ALIEN CLAIMS. 313

to $7,935.42 ; total disposed of, 11,848 accounts and claims, amounting,
as presented, to $1,742,147.50. Thirteen thousand five hundred and
ninety-seven miscellaneous claims and 847 accounts remain on file,
amounting to $7,477,997.66.

The annual report of the Commissary-General of Subsistence, dated
October 10, 1874, p. 4, says :

Under the third section of the act of July 4, 1864, 310 claims,
amounting to $235,956.85, for subsistence supplies alleged to have been
used by the Army or taken by officers for the use of the Army, in the
late war, in States not in rebellion, were filed in this office for examina-
tion; 73 claims, amounting to $66,712.93, were examined and recom-
mended to the Third Auditor of the Treasury for payment ; aud 109
claims, amounting to $129,327.49, were examined and rejected.

Under the joint resolution of Congress of July 25, 1860, and sectioq
3 of the act of March 2, 1867, 175 certificates for commutation of
rations to Union soldiers while prisoners of war were received and paid
to the claimants or their legal heirs. These payments amounted to
$5,739.75.

And see report of Third Auditor.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE COURT OP CLAIMS.

• The law of Congress organizing the Court of Claims and defining its
jurisdiction is, as found in the Revised Statutes of the United States,
as follows :

ORGANIZATION AND SESSIONS.

Sec.

1055. Clerk's bond.

1056. Contingent fund.

1057. Keports to Congress, copies for De-

partments, &c.

1058. Members of Congress not to practice

in the court.

Sec.

1049. Judges.

1050. Seal.

1051. Court-rooms, &c, how provided.

1052. Sessions, quorum.

1053. Officers of the court.

1054. Salaries of clerks, bailiff, and mes-

senger.

Sec 1049. The Court of Claims, established by the act of Judges.
February twenty-four, eighteen hundred and fifty-five, shall 94 Feb., isds.c.
be continued. It shall consist of a chief-justice and four J?| s - 1,v- 10, p-
judges, who shall be appointed by the President, by aud s Mar., isbj, o.
with the advice and consent of the Senate, and hold their p.Ws'. '
offices during good behavior. Each of them shall take an 14 ® M ;f.J 8 ^' °-
oath to support the Constitution of the United States, andss.' ■ • • • ■
to discharge faithfully the duties of his office, aud shall be
entitled to receive an annual salary of four thousand five
hundred dollars, payable quarterly from the Treasury.

Sec 1050. The Court of Claims shall have a seal, with Seal.
such device as it may order. 3 Mar., 1863, c.

9-2, 8. 4, v. 12, p.
766.

Sec. 1051. It shall be the duty of the Speaker of the &c Cou h r ^ °™£:
House of Representatives to appropriate such rooms in theded.
Capitol, at Washington, for the -use of the Court of Claims, 24 Feb. isss, 0.
as may be necessary for their accommodation, unless it ap- jsa, s. 10, v. 10, p.
pears to him that such rooms cannot be so appropriated
without interfering with the business of Congress. In that

314 ALIEN CLAIMS.

case, the court shall procure, at the city of Washington,
such rooms as may be necessary for the transaction of their
business.
sessions, quo- Sec. 1052. The Court of Claims shall hold one annual

rnm - session, at the city of Washington, beginning on the first

24 Feb., 1855, c.Monday in December, and continuing as long as may be

eu! *" ' v ' ' p ' necessary for the prompt disposition of the business of the

si'sYf'ii 856 * court. And any two of the judges of said court shall con-

'niiar., 1866, e. stitute a quorum, and may hold a court for the transaction

19,s.2, v. 14, p.9. n f hnsinps«
3 Mar., 1863, e. 0I OUSlUeSS.
92, s. 13, v. 12, p.

768..

Officers of the Sec. 1053. The said court shall appoint a chief clerk, an

court - assistant clerk, if deemed necessary, a bailiff, and a messen-

24 reb., 1855, c. ger. The clerks shall take an oath for the faithful dis-

122.S.H, v. io, p. c j iar g e f fh e j r duties, and shall be under the direction of

^3 Mar., 1863, c. the court in the performance thereof ; and for misconduct

765. 8 ' ' v ' 12, p ' or incapacity they may be removed by it from office ; but

the court shall report such removals, with the cause

tbereof, to Congress, if in session, or, if not, at the next

session. The bailiff shall hold his office for a term of four

years, unless sooner removed by the court for cause.

salaries of Sec. 1054. The salary of the chief clerk shall be three

and'm'esseD^er*' thousand dollars a year, of the assistant clerk two thousand

— — dollars a year, of the bailiff fifteen hundred dollars a year,

122! ^n/v 55 !^ anc ^ °f the messenger eight hundred and forty dollars a
p. 6i4.' ' ' year, payable quarterly from the Treasury.

92, s. 4, v. 12, p.
765.

7 June, 1870, c.
124, v. 16, p. 148.

12 July, 1870, c.
251, s. 3,' v. 16, p.
250.

8 Mav, 1872, c.
140, 8. 1, v. 17, p.
82.

cierk's bond. Sec. 1055. The chief clerk shall give bond to the United

6 Aug., 1856, States in such amount, in such form, and with such secu-

si, s.3,T.'iip.3o. r ity as shall be approved by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Contingent fund. Sec. 1056. The said clerk shall have authority, when he

■ 6A " has given bond as provided in the preceding section, to dis-

81, B.vvlu.'p.' 36 burse, under the direction of the court, the contingent fund

which may from time to time be appropriated for its use ;

and his accounts shall be settled by the proper accounting

officers of the Treasury in the same way as the accounts of

other disbursing agents of the Government are settled.

Report to Con- Sec. 1057. On the first day of every December session of

Departments &c r Congress, the clerk of the Court of Claims shall transmit to

'■ — : Congress a full and complete statement of all the judgments

7Vs.^ , v°i5, 8 p 8 77: rendered by the court during the previous year, stating the
17 jiar., 18G6, c. amounts thereof and the parties in whose favor they were
' 8 ' ' T ' * ' p ' ' rendered, together with a brief synopsis of the nature of the
claims upon which they were rendered. And at the end of
every term of the court he shall transmit a copy of its de-
cisions to the heads of Departments ; to the Solicitor, the
Comptrollers, and the Auditors of the Treasury; to the
Commissioners of the General Land-Office and of Indian

ALIEN CLAIMS.

315

Affairs; to the chiefs of Bureaus, and to other officers
charged with the adjustment of claims against the United
States.

Sec. 1058. Members of either House of Congress shall
not practice in the Court of Claims.

Members of
Congress not to
practice in the
court.

3 Mar.. 1863, c.
92. s. 4, v. 12, p.
765.

JURISDICTION, POWERS, AND PROCEDURE.

Sec.

1059. Jurisdiction.

1060. Private claims in Congress, when

transmitted to Court of Claims.
. 1061. Judgment for set-off or counter-
claim, how enforced.

1062. Decree on account of paymasters,

&c.

1063. Claims referred by Departments.

1064. Procedure in cases transmitted by

Departments.

1065. Judgments in cases transmitted by

Departments, how paid.

1066. Claims growing out of treaties not

cognizable therein.

1067. Claims pending iu other courts notto

be prosecuted in Court of Claims.

1068. Aliens.

1069. Limitation.

1070. Rules of practice ; contempts.

1071. Oaths and acknowledgments.

1072. Petition.

1073. Petition dismissed if issue found

against claimant as to allegiance,
&c.

1074. Burden of proof and evidence as to

loyalty.

Sec.

1075. Commissioner to take testimony.

1076. Power to call upon Departments for

information.

1077. When testimony not to be taken.

1078. Witnesses not excluded on account

of color.

1079. Parties and persons interested ex-

cluded as witnesses.

1080. Examination of claimant.

1081. Testimony taken where deponent

resides.

1082. Witnesses, how compelled to attend

before commissiouers.

1083. Cross-examination.

1084. Witnesses, how sworn.

1085. Fees of commissioner, by whom paid.

1086. Claims forfeited for fraud.

1087. New trial on motion of claimant.

1088. New trial on motion of United

States.

1089. Payment of judgments.

1090. Interest.

1091. Interest on claims.

1092. Payment of judgment a full dis-

charge, &c.

1093. Final judgments a bar.

Seo. 1059. The Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction to
hear and determine the following matters:

First. All claims founded upon any law of Congress, or
upon any regulation of an Executive Department, or upon
any contract, expressed or implied, with the Go% T ernmeut
of the United States, and all claims which may be referred
to it by either House of Congress.

Jurisdiction.

Claims founded
on statutes or
contracts, or re-
ferred by Con-
gress.

24 Feb., 1855, c.
122, s. 1, v. 10, p.
612. — Nichols vs.
U.S., 7 Wall., 129;
Dorsheimer vs. TJ.
S. 7 Wall., 166;
1 Bonner us. TJ. S.,

9 Wall., 156.

Second. All set-offs, counter-claims, claims for damages, coun e t t e r° ( .f a s iln l ' , t-
whether liquidated or unliquidated, or other demands what- umted states.
soever, on the part of the Government of the United States 3 Mar., i8<>3 : e!
against any person making claim against the Government ^^,^12, p.
in said court. s, 13 wail., 38 \

TJ. S., vs. Russell,
13 Wall., 623.

Third. The claim of any paymaster, quartermaster, com- Disbursing offi-

missary of subsistence, or other disbursing officer of the °f!!!:

United States, or of his administrators or executors, for 9 M »y. ie jJ °-
relief from responsibility onCocount of capture or otherwise, u. 3 ' ' T ' ' p "

316 ALIEN CLAIMS.

while in the line of his duty, of Government funds, vouchers,

records, or papers in his charge, and for which such officer

was and is held responsible.
claims for cap- Fourth. Of all claims for the proceeds of captured or
done* property! 1 " abandoned property, as provided by the act of March 12,
3 eighteen hundred and sixty-three, chapter one hundred and
i2o,e. H'v. 12,'p! twenty, entitled "An act to provide for the collection of
8S 2'juiv 1864 c abandoned property and for the prevention of frauds in in-
225, ss. a,' s, v.13,' surrectionary districts within the United States," or by the
rP 27 3 juiy 76 i868, c. ac t °* J' 1 ^ tw0 ) eighteen hundred and sixty-four, chapter
— s. 3, v. i5,'p- two hundred aud twenty-live, being an act in addition

thereto : Provided, That the remedy given in cases of seizure

276
243.

n'fwaiF'se- UDaer the said acts, by preferring claim in the Court of

son, 9 Wall., 56 ;

Puih us. u."s., 13 Claims, shall be exclusive, precluding the owner of any

Wall , 633; U. S. „„„„„„«.„ <-„!,„„ K„„„^„(-„ „,f rt,„ rr\„„„„,, r .„ Ti™ n *.t-, „„,*«■ „„.

kimbaii , ia j property taken by agents of the Treasury Department as
waii.. 636; tr.s. abandoned or captured property in virtue or under color of
wan.™ 8 * 6 siaw! said acts from suit at common law, or any other mode of
™ "'• ,y- s - redress whatever, before any court other than said Court of
Claims.
Private claims Sec. 1060. All petitions and bills praying or providing
in congress when f or the satisfaction of private claims against the Govern-

transmitted to ... , , ^ , „._ °

court of claims, ment, founded upon any law of Congress, or upon any reg-
ulation of an Executive Department, or upon any contract,

92, s. 2, v. i2,' p! expressed or implied, with the Government of the United

765 - States, shall, unless otherwise ordered by resolution of the

House in which they are introduced, be transmitted by the
Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the House of Rep-
resentatives, with all the accompanying documents, to the
Court of Claims.
judgments for Sec. 1061. Upon the trial of any cause in which any set-

^im! how Ilt en>off, counter- claim, claim for damages, or other demand is

*' orced -, set up on the part of the Government against auy person

3 Mar., is63, c. making claim against, the Government in said court, the

?6b. s ' 3 ' v ' 12, p eourt shall hear and determine such claim or demand both
„ — =— - for and against the Government and claimant; and if upon

17 wail., 207.' ' the whole case it finds that the claimant is indebted to the
Government, it shall render judgment to that effect, aud
such judgment shall be final, with the right of appeal, as in
other cases provided for by law. Any transcript of such
judgment, filed in the clerk's office of any district or circuit
court, shall be entered upon the records thereof, and shall
thereby become and be a judgment of such court aud be
enforced as other judgments in such courts are enforced.
Decree on ao- Sec. 1062. Whenever the Court of Claims ascertains the

counts of pay- „ „ , ,

masters, &c. facts or any loss by any paymaster, quartermaster, com-
9 May, 1866, c. missary of subsistence, or other disbursing officer, in the
75, s. 2, V. H,' p. cases hereinbefore provided, to have been without fault
or negligence on the part of such officer, it shall make a
decree setting forth the amount thereof, and upon such de-
cree the proper accounting officers of the Treasury shall
allow to such officer the amount so decreed, as a credit in
the settlement of his accounts.
claims referred Sec. 1063. Whenever any claim is made against any Ex-
iiy Departments ecu tjye Department, involving disputed facts or contro-
25june, iho8, o. verted questions of law, where the amount in controversy
7i,s 7,v. is, p. 76. excee( j s three thousand dollars, or where the decision will

ALIEN CLAIMS. 317

affect a class of cases, or furnish a precedent for the future
action of any Executive Department in the adjustment of a
class of cases, without regard to the amount involved in the
particular case, or where any authority, right, privilege, or
exemption is claimed or denied under the Constitution of
the United States, the head of such Department may cause
such claim, with all the vouchers, papers, proofs, and doc-
uments pertaining thereto, to be transmitted to the Court
of Claims, and the same shall be there proceeded in as if
originally commenced by the voluntary action of the claim-
ant; and the Secretary of the Treasury may, upon the cer-
tificate of any Auditor or Comptroller of the Treasury,
direct any account, matter, or claim of the char: cter, amouur,
or class described in this section, to be transmitted, with
all the vouchers, papers, documents, and proofs pertaining
thereto, to the said court, for trial and adjudication: Pro-
vided, That no case shall be referred by any head of a De-
partment unless it belongs to one of the several classes of
cases which, by reason of the subject-matter and character,
the said court might, under existing laws, take jurisdiction
of on such voluntary action of the claimant.

Sec. 1064. All cases transmitted by the head of any De- ca s e r s oce tp" r n e 8 ni« n
partment, or upon the certificate of any Auditor or Comp-ted by Depart-

trailer, according to the provisions of the preceding section, menta -

shall be proceeded in as other cases pendiug in the Court of *s June, i868,
Claims, and shall, in all respects, be subject to the same™. ' "' ,T ' ,p '
rules and regulations. " clvde „ s n- s

13 Wall., 38.

Sec. 1065. The amount of any final judgment or decree judgments in
rendered in favor of the claimant, in any case transmitted Hf s h tr D " 8 ™ r £
to the Court of Claims under the two preceding sections, menta, Low paid.
shall be paid out of any specific appropriation applicable to 25June 1868 c
the case, if any such there be ; and where no such appropri- 7i,s.7,v.i5,p.7e.'
ation exists, the judgment or decree shall be paid in the same
manner as other judgments of the said court.

Sec. 1066. The jurisdiction of the said court shall not claims growing
extend to an j' claim against the Government not pending n l V f cognizVwe
therein on December one, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, therein. °

growing out of or dependent on anv treaty stipulation en- 3 Mar.. 1863

92. ■■ ■
767.

tered into with foreign nations or with the Indian tribes. -?■■- s ' 9 ' v - 12 ' p -

Ex parte Ato-
eha, 17 Wall., 439.

Sec. 1067. No person shall file or prosecute in the Court, ciaimspending
of Claims, or in the Supreme Court on appeal therefrom, ,\°t°to e be p°ose S
any claim for or in respect to which he or any assignee of ™ted in court of

his has pending in any other court any suit or process

against an y person who, at the time when the cause of action 7 if 5 s J ™ v/i^'p!
alleged in such suit or process arose, was, in respect thereto, ft-
acting or professing to act, mediately or immediately, under
the authority of the United States.

Sec. 1068. Aliens, who are citizens or subjects of any Aliens.
government which accords to citizens of the United States 37 Ju i y , i 86S? .
the right to prosecute claims against such government in|je, s.2,'v. i5,'p.

its courts, shall have the privilege of prosecuting claims t_J

against the .United States in the Court of Claims, whereof n% v ^ K ^'.
such court, by reason of their subject-matter and character, Carlisle mi.'rr. s.|
might take jurisdiction. wwaii., 147.

318 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Limitation. Sec. 1069. Every claim against the United States, cog-.

3 Mar., 1863, o. nizable by the Court of Claims, shall be forever barred un-
9-^ a. io, V. i2,' p. less the petition setting forth a statement thereof is filed in
the court, or transmitted to it by the Secretary of the Senate
or the Clerk of the House of Eepresentatives as provided by
law, within six years after the claim first accrues : Provided,
That the claims of married women first accrued during mar-
riage, of persons under the age of twenty-one years first
accrued during minority, and of idiots, lunatics, insane per-
sons, and persons beyond the seas at the time the claim
accrued, entitled to tlie claim, shall not be barred if the
petition be filed in the court or transmitted, as aforesaid,
within three years after the disability has ceased ; but no
other disability than those enumerated shall prevent any
claim from being barred, nor shall any of the said disabili-
ties operate cumulatively.
Euies of prac- 8ec. 1070. The said court shall have power to establish
tice ; contempts. ru ] es f or j(.g government and for the regulation of practice
iaa 4 a F 3 b v 'io 5, °' ^ nere ^ n 7 an d ^ ma .y punish for contempt in the manner pre-,
sis. 8 ' ,v ' ' P ' scribed by the common law, may appoint commissioners,
9% s^fVilf'p.' au( l Ina .y exercise such powers as are necessary to carry into
765. ' effect the powers granted to it by law.

oaths and ac- Sec. 1071. The judges and clerks of said court may admin-
knowiedgments. j s< . pr oatus ant i affirmations, take acknowledgments of in-
3 Mar., 1863, c. struments in writing, and give certificates of the same.

92, s. 4, v, 12, p. »7 e>

765.

Petition. Sec. 1072. The claimant shall, in all cases, fully set forth

24 Feb. 1855 o. * n n * s petition the claim, the action thereon in Congress, or
122, s. i, v. io,' p! by any of the Departments, if such action has been had ;
6L 3Mar., 1863, o. what persons are owners thereof or interested therein, when
92, s. is, v. 12,'p. and upon what consideration such persons became so inter-
ested ; that no assignment or transfer of said claim, or of any
part thereof or interest therein, has been made, except as
stated in the petition; that said claimaut is justly entitled
to the amount therein claimed from the United States,
after allowing all just credits and offsets; that the claim-
ant, and, where the claim has been assigned, the original
and every prior owner thereof, if a citizen, has at all times
borne true allegiance to the Government of the United
States, and, whether a citizen or not, has not in any way
voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebel-
lion against the said Government, and that he believes the
facts as stated in said petition to be true. And the said
petition shall be verified by the affidavit of the claimant,
his agent, or attorney.
Petition dis- Sec. 1073. The said allegations as to true allegiance and
found "a g ail) st voluntary aiding, abetting, or giving encouragement to re-
Siaifoe'&V 021 'hellion against the Government maybe traversed by the

~ ■ — '- — Government, and if on the trial such issues shall be decided

92^ M iXv! B i 6 l,'p.' a e a i' lst tlie claimant, his petition shall be dismissed.

767. '

Burden of proof s EC . 1074. Whenever it is material in anv claim to ascer-

and evidence as , . . ,, , . , , . , . . ,

to loyalty. tain whether any person did or did not give any aid or com-
25june,ic6ci o f° rt k° tne late rebellion, the claimant asserting the loyalty
7i, s.3,v.i5,p.75!of any such person to the United States during such rebel-
lion shall be required to prove affirmatively that such per-
son did, dining said rebel-lion, consistently adhere to the

ALIEN CLAIMS. 319

United States; and did give no aid or comfort to persons
engaged in such rebellion ; and the voluntary residence of
any such person in any place where, at any time during such
residence, the rebel force or organization held sway, shall be
prima-facie evidence that such person did give aid and com-
fort to said rebellion and to the persons engaged therein.

Sec. 1075. The Court of Claims shall have power to ap- Commissioners
point commissioners to take testimony to be used in the in-mony ke t68tl "
vestigation of claims which come before it ; to prescribe the a4 Feb 1855 c
fees which they shall receive for their services, and to issue 122, s.Vv. 10, 'v-
commissions for the taking of such testimony, whether 61 3 Mar i 803 c
taken at the instance of the claimant or of the United 92 , s. 4,'V. 12,' p.
States. 765 - .

Sec. 1076. The said court shall have power to call upon any Power to can
of the Departments for any information or papers it may deem ° p e ™ 8 : S,? P iSfor-
necessary, and shall have the use of all recorded and printed matioo.
reports made by the committees of each House of Congress, 24 Feb., 1855, 0.
when deemed necessary in the prosecution of its business. J^.s. 11, V. 10,' p.
But the head of any Department may refuse and omit to com-
ply with any call for information or papers when, in his opin-
ion, such compliance would be injurious to the public interest.

Sec. 1077. When it appears to the court in any case that when testi-
the facts set forth in the petition of the claimant do not fur- ££"5. DOt t0 be
nish any ground for relief, it shall not be the duty of the 24]Feb lg55 —
court to authorize the taking of any testimony therein. 122, s. 4, v. 10,' p.

613.

Sec. 1078. No witness shall be excluded in any suit in witnesses not
the Court of Claims on account of color. counTof color." '

2 July, 1864, c.
210, s. 3, v. 13, p.
351.
* 2 Mar., 1867, c.

166, s. 2, v. 14, p.
457.

25 June, 1868,
c. 71, 8.4, v. 15, p.
75.

Sec. 1079. No claimant, nor any person from or through ^ Parties ana P er-
whom any such claimant derives his alleged title, claim, or excluded aVwit-
right against the United States, nor any person interested Desaes -

in any such title, claim, or right, shall be a competent 25June.i868,c.
witness in the Court of Claims in supporting the same, and 7 ^ 8 -^; 1 ^^;
no testimony given by such claimant or person shall be^ s. 8, v. 12,'p.
used except as provided in the next section.
Sec. 1080. The court may, attheiustance of the attorney cl ^™j nation of

or solicitor appearing in behalf of the United States, make

an order in any case pending therein, directing any claimant g2 3 ^- v ]^ i ' £
in such case to appear, upon reasonable notice, before any tc6. ^ ^ '
commissioner of the court, and be examined on oath touch- 7^ ^""."is, p. 75'.
ing any or all matters pertaining to said claim. Such exam-
ination shall be reduced to writing by the said commissioner,
and be returned to and filed in the court, and may, at the
discretion of the attorney or solicitor of the Uuited States
appearing in the case, be read and used as evidence on the
trial thereof. And if any claimant, after such order is made,
and due and reasonable notice thereof is given to him, fails
to appear, or refuses to testify or answer iully as to all mat-
ters within his knowledge material to the issue, the court
may, in its discretion, order that the said cause shall not be

320 ALIEN CLAIMS.

brought forward for trial until he shall have fully complied
with the order of the court in the premises.

Testimony Sec. 1081. The testimony in cases pending before the
poutnt W r h esidea. e " Court of Claims shall be taken in the county where the

„, „ . ,„„ witness resides, when the same can be conveniently done.

24 Feb., 1855, c. ' "

122, s. 3, V. 10, p.
613.

witnesses, how Sec. 1082. The Court of Claims may issue subpoenas to
te^Llore com- require the attendance of witnesses in order to be examined
missioners. before any person commissioned to take testimony therein,
24 Feb., less, can d such subpoenas shall have the same force as if issued
6il' *" 3 ' v ' 10 ' p ' f rom a district court, and compliance therewith shall be com-
pelled under such rules and orders as the court shall establish.
cross examina- Sec. 1083. In taking testimony to be used in support of

tl011, any claim, opportunity shall he given to the United States

24 Feb., 1855, o. to file interrogatories, or by attorney to examine witnesses,

122, s. 5, v. io, p. UDC j er snca regulations as said court shall prescribe ; and

like opportunity shall be afforded the claimant, in cases

where testimony is taken on behalf of the United States,

under like regulations.

witnesses, bow Sec 1084. The commissioner taking testimony to be used

m " >TU - in the Court of Claims shall administer an oath or affirma-

24 Feb., 1855, c, tion to the witnesses brought before him for examination.

122, s. 3, v. 10, p. °

613.

Feesof commis- Sec. 1085. When testimony is taken for the claimant, the
paid! r ' y w ° m fees of the commissioner before whom it is taken, and the
24 Feb. 1855 c. cost °f * ne commission and notice, shall be paid by such
122, s. 3, v.io.'p. claimant; and when it is taken at the instance of the Gov-
6I ?' eminent, such fees, together with all postage inc urred by

the Assistant Attorney-General, shall be paid out of the
contingent fund provided for the Court of Claims, or other
appropriation made by Congress for that purpose.
claims forfeit- Sec. 1086. Any person who corruptly practices or attempts
ed for fraud. to p ract | ce anv f rau( i against the United States in the proof,
3 Mar., 1863, c. statement, establishment, or allowance of any claim, or of
767. ' ' any part of any claim against the United States, shall ipso

facto forfeit the same to the Government ; and it shall be
the duty of the Court of Claims, in such cases, to find specif-
ically that such fraud was practiced or attempted to be prac-
ticed, and thereupon to give judgment that such claim is
forfeited to the Government, and that the claimant be for-
ever barred from prosecuting the same.
New trial on Seo. 1087. When judgment is rendered against any claim-
ant 10 " ° f claim 'ant, the court may grant a new trial for any reason which,

24 Feb 1855 c k Y tDe ru l es 0I common law or chancery in suits between
122, s. 9, v. io,'p! individuals, would furnish sufficient ground for granting a
eu - new trial.

New trial on Sec. 1088. The Court of Claims, at any time while any
st ate°s nofDmted c l a i m is pending before it, or on appeal from it, or within

25 June 1868 c two vears nex * after the final disposition of such claim, may,
7i, s. 2, v. is, p. 75! on motion on behalf of the United States, grant a new trial

ex arte Eus' an( * sta y tne l )a y me nt of any judgment therein, upon such
seii.mfaii, 664 'evidence, cumulative or otherwise, as shall satisfy the court
of^nnite^s'tatl^ tnat an y f iaucJ > wrong, or injusticejin the premises has been
io wall., 699. ' done to the United States ; but until an. order is made stay-
ing the payment of a judgment, the same shall be payable
and paid as now provided by law.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 621

Sec. 1089. In all cases of final judgments by the Court of . u £ a m y e £ 3 ent of

Claims, or, on appeal, by the Supreme Court, where the jn gm — '■

same are affirmed in favor of the claimant, the sum due there- 92 f 8 M " V, 18 if 'p.'
by shall be paid out of any general appropriation made by «b.
law for the payment and satisfaction of private claims, on
presentation to the Secretary of the Treasury of a copy of
said judgment, certified by the clerk of the Court of Claims,
and signed by the chief justice, or, in his absence, by the
presiding judge of said court.

Sec. 1090. In cases where the judgment appealed from is Intere3t -
in favor of the claimant, and the same is affirmed by the s Mar., isra, -J
Supreme Court, interest thereon at the rate of five per cen- 7 6 (;, s ' '' v ' ' p '
turn shall be allowed from the date of its presentation to the
Secretary of the Treasury for payment as aforesaid, but no
interest shall be allowed subsequent to the affirmance, un-
less presented for payment to the Secretary of the Treasury
as aforesaid.

SEp. 1091. JSTo interest shall be allowed on any claim up cl ^* erest on
to the time of the rendition of judgment thereon by the — — —
Court of Claims, unless upon a contract expressly stipulat- 92, a. "v. 12,' p".
ing for the payment of interest. 706 -

Sec. 1092. The payment of the amount due by any judg- ■na^e^a'fu'u
ment of the Court of Claims and of any interest thereon al-SaSge, &o. u
lowed by law, as hereinbefore provided, shall be a full dis- 3 Mar-i 1863> _
charge to the United States of all claim and demand touch- 92, a. 1, v. is,' p.
ing any of the matters involved in the controversy.

Sec. 1093. Any final judgment against the claimant on m J n t 9 n a a b , ar ' iuag "

any claim prosecuted as provided in this chapter shall for : —

ever bar any further claim or demand against the United 92 ^ ^"v!*?!; p*.
States arising out of the matters involved in the contra-™,
versy.

CHAPTER IX.

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CLAIMS.

The following are the acts of Congress under which the commissioners
of claims are organized and their jurisdiction defined. This tribunal
is popularly, but erroneously, called the "Southern Claims Commis-
sion."

AN ACT making appropriations for the support of the Army for the year ending June
thirty, eighteen hundred and seventy-two, and for other purposes.

* * # * * * #

Sec 2. That the President of the United States shall be, and ho is
hereby, authorized to nominate, and, by and with the advice and con-
sent of the Senate, appoint a board of commissioners, to be designated
as commissioners of claims, to consist of three, commissioners, who shall
be commissioned for two years, and whose duty it shall be to receive,
examine, and consider the justice and validity of such claims as shall
be brought before them, of those citizens who remained loyal adherents
to the cause and the Government of the United States during the war,
for stores or supplies taken or furnished during the rebellion for the
H. Rep. 134—21

•322 ALIEN CLAIMS.

-use of the Army of the United States, in States proclaimed as in insur-
rection against the United States, including- the use and loss of vessels
or boats while employed in the military service of the United States.
And the said commissioners in considering said claim shall be satisfied
irom the testimony of witnesses under oath, or from other sufficient
■evidence, which shall accompany each claim, taken under such rules
and regulations as the commissioners may adopt, of the loyalty and
adherence of the claimant to the cause and the Government of the United
States before and at the time of tbe taking or furnishing of the property
for which any claim shall be made, and of the quantity, quality, and
value of the property alleged to have been taking or furnished, and the
time, place, and material circumstances of the taking or furnishing of
the same. And upon satisfactory evidence of the justice and validity
of any claim, the commissioners shall report their opinion in writing in
eich case, and shall certify the nature, amount, and value of the prop-
erty taken, furnished, or used as aforesaid. And each claim which
shall be considered, and rejected as unjust and invalid, shall likewise
be reported, with the reasons therefor; and no claimant shall withdraw
any material evidence submitted in support of any claim.

Sec. 3. That said commissioners shall each take the oath of office
provided by law to be taken by all officers of the United States, and
shall proceed without delay to discharge their duties under tbis act.
The President of the United States shall designate in his appointment
one of said commissioners to be president of the board, and shall be
authorized to fill any vacancy which may occur, by reason of death or
resignation, in said board ; and each commissioner shall have authority
to administer oaths and affirmations, and to take the depositions of
witnesses in all matters pertaining to their duties. The said, commis-
sioners shall meet and organize said board and hold their sessions at;
Washington. Two members of the board shall constitute a quorum for
the transaction of business, and the agreement of two shall decide all
questions in controversy. The said commissioners shall have authority
to make and publish rules for their procedure, not inconsistent with this
act, and shall publish notice of their sessions. They shall keep a journal
of their proceedings, to be signed by the president of the board, and a
register of all claims brought before the board, showing the date of
presentation, number, name, and residence of claimant, subject-matter
■and amount of claim, and the amount, if any allowed ; which records
shall be open to the inspection of the President and Attorney-Gene»al
of the United States, or of such officer as the President may designate.

Sec. 4. That said commissioners shall make report of their proceed-
ings, and of each claim considered by them, at the commencement of
each session of Congress, to the Speaker of the House of Representa-
tives, who shall lay the same before Congress for consideration ; and
all claims within this act and not presented to said board shall be
barred, and shall not be entertained by any department of the Govern-
ment without further authority of Congress.

Sce. 5. That the commissioners of claims shall be paid quarterly under
this act, at the rate of five thousand dollars per annum each, and they
shall have authority to appoint one clerk and one short-hand reporter,
to be paid quarterly at the rate of two thousand five hundred dollars
per annum each, and one messenger, to be paid at the rate of one thou-
sand two hundred dollars per annum, who shall perform the services
required of them respectively, and said board shall be further allowed
the necessary actual expenses of office-rent, furniture, fuel, stationery,

ALIEN CLAIMS. 323

and printing, to be certified by the president of the board, and to be
audited on vouchers, and paid as other judicial expenses are.

Sec. 6. That a sufficient appropriation to carry this act into effect is
hereby made out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro-
priated.

Approved March 3, 1871.

(See Statutes at Large, vol. 16, page 524.)

AN ACT to authorize the commissioners of claims to appoint special commissioners to
take testimony, and for other purposes.

Section 1. Be it enacted, <fec. That the commissioners of claims shall
have authority to appoint special commissioners to take testimony, to
be used in cases pending before them, who shall have authority to ad-
minister oaths and affirmations, and to take the depositions of witnesses:
Provided, The claimants shall pay the fees of such special commis-
sioners for taking the depositions of witnesses called by them ; but such
fees shall in no case exceed ten cents per folio if the claim is less than
one thousand dollars.

Sec. 2. That any person who shall knowingly and willfully swear
falsely before the said commissioners of claims, or either of them, or be-
fore any special commissioner appointed by virtue of this act, in any
matter or claim pending before said commissioners, shall be deemed
guilty of perjury, and on conviction thereof, shall be punished in the
same mauner prescribed by law in cases of willful and corrupt perjury.

Sec. 3. That the commissioners of claims may appoint and employ
agents, but not more than three at any time, whose duty it shall be, un-
der the direction and authority of said commissioners; to investigate
claims pending before them, to procure evidence, to secure the attend-
ance of wituesses on behalf of the Government, and to examine the same,
and to cross-examine the witnesses produced by claimants, and to per-
form such other duties as may be required of them by said commissioners,
who may discharge them at any time; The said agents shall be allowed
their actual and necessary traveling expenses, the expenses paid out in
investigating claims, procuring witnesses, and taking testimony, and six
dollars a day while employed in the discharge of their duties; of all
which, at the end of each month, they shall make a statement in detail,
specifying the amounts by them paid out, to whom paid, when and where
and for what purpose, and the number of days employed in their duties,
and shall transmit the same, duly certified, to the commissioners. But no
claim where the amount exceeds ten thousand dollars shall be examined,
decided, and reported by the commissioners to Congress, except the tes-
timony on behalf of the claimant in such case shall have beeu taken
orally before the commissioners or some one of them personally, or shall
have been taken previous to the third day March, eighteen hundred and
seventy-one, to be used in the Court of Claims, or before some Depart-
ment of the Government.

Sec. 4. That the commissioners may employ three additional clerks
at a salary of one thousand two hundred dollars per year ; and may em-
ploy, at the usual rates, such assistance for the short-hand reporter as
may be necessary, from time to time, in reporting, copying, and prepar-
ing for Congress the oral testimony taken in cases before the said com-
missioners.

Sec: 5. That all the expenses incurred under the provisions of this

324 ALIEN CLAIMS.

act shall be allowed and paid in the same manner, and out of the same
appropriation provided for in tbe act organizing the said commissioners
of claims, being an act entitled "An act making appropriations for the
support of the Army for the year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred
and seventy-two, and for other purposes," approved March third, eighteen
hundred and seventy-one.

Sec. 6. That it shall be the duty of the said commissioners of claims to
receive, examine, and consider the justice and validity of such claims as
shall be brought before them of those citizens who remained loyal adher-
ents to the cause and Government of the United States during the war,
for stores or supplies taken or furnished during the rebellion for the use
of the Navy of the United States, in the same manner and with the like
effect as they are now required by law to do in the case of stores or
supplies taken or furnished for the use of the Army.

Approved May 11, 1872.

(See Statutes at Large, vol. 17, page 97.)

AN ACT to extend for four years the act establishing the board of commissioners of
claims, and the acts relating thereto.

Be it enacted by the Senate and Souse of Representatives of the United
States in Congress assembled, That the second, third, fourth, fifth, and
sixth sections of the act entitled "An act making appropriations for
the support of the Army for the year ending June thirtieth, eighteen
hundred and seventy-two, and for other purposes," approved March
third, eighteen hundred and seventy-one ; and the act entitled "An act
to authorize the commissioners of claims to appoint special commission-
ers to take testimony, and for other purposes," approved May eleventh,
eighteen hundred and seventy-two, be and the same are hereby extended
and continued in force for four years from the tenth day of March, anno
Domini eighteen hundred and seventy- three.

Sec. 2. That the commissioners of claims shall not receive any peti-
tion for the allowance of any claim or claims, unless such petition shall
be presented to and filed with them on or before the third day of March,
eighteen hundred and seventy-three ; and all claims not so presented
shall be deemed to be barred forever thereafter.

Approved March 3, 1873,

(See Statutes at Large, vol. 17, page 577.)

These commissioners have made four annual reports, which are given
as follows :

FIRST GENERAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF CLAIMS.

To the honorable the Speaker of the Souse of Representatives :

Sir : The undersigned, commissioners of claims under the act of Con-
gress of March 3, 1871, respectfully report :

Upon receiving our commissions we took the oath of office and ap-
pointed Charles F. Benjamin clerk, James L. Audam short-hand re-
porter, and Thomas Phipps messenger.

On the 20th of March we published a notice that our sessions for ex-
amining claims and hearing the testimony of witnesses would begin on
th&10th April, 1871, at our office in Washington.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 325

We adopted rules prescribing the form of petitions for the allowance
of claims, the necessary averments, and the oath of verification. These
and subsequent rules and regulations are annexed to this report.

EXTENT OP JURISDICTION.

Questions at once arose as to the extent of the jurisdiction conferred
by the act of Congress. The words of the act conferring jurisdiction
are as follows :

" Sec. 2. That the President of the United States shall be, and he is
hereby, authorized to nominate and, by and with the advice and con-
sent of the Senate, appoint a board of commissioners, to be designated
as commissioners of claims, to consist of three commissioners, who shall
be commissioned for two years, and whose duty it shall be to receive,
examine, and consider the justice and validity of such claims as shall
be brought before them, of those citizens who remained loyal adherents
to the cause and the Government of the United States during the war,
for stores or supplies taken or furnished during the rebellion for the use
of the Army of the United States in States proclaimed as in insurrec-
tion against the United States, including the use and loss of vessels or
boats while employed in the military service of the United States."

I. Who are " citizens " within the meaning of the act f

Claims were presented by foreigners not naturalized, but domiciled
in this country, and who had resided here during the rebellion. The
case of Peter Klaine, a French subject, was of this kind ; and we refer
to the brief of his counsel, Mr. Dur'ant, to show the grounds upon which
such claims were urged.

As this commission is created by act of Congress, and its jurisdiction
limited by the statute, as it is only to examine and report to Congress,
and has not the authority or functions of a court, its jurisdiction must
be kept within the very terms of the statute.

The word "citizen," when used to express the relation of the individ-
ual to the Government, ordinarily means " one owing paramount alle-
giance to the state." It is so used in distinction from the word "inhab-
itant," which is employed to denote a foreigner domiciled in the country
and owing a minor and qualified allegiauce. This ordinary meaning
should be given to it as used in the statute. Deeming the act intended
to apply to matters of municipal legislation, and not to affect rights
standing upon international law, we do not follow the decisions cited
from the prize courts, which seem in some cases to extend its meaning.
The context, " citizens who remained loyal adherents to the cause and
Government of the United States," indicates that those persons are
meant of whom "loyalty " could be required " during the war." Loyalty
during the war cannot reasonably be interpreted as meaning less than
that relation from which the Government might have required military
ssrvice. But the Government uniformly directed that foreigners should
be discharged from military service whenever they claimed exemption
on that ground. Loyalty was not required of a foreigner. He was
deemed to do his whole duty if he kept strictly neutral. But neutrality
during the war in a citizen of the United States was not loyalty.

Itis urged that foreigners domiciled and remaining here during the war
have no right to require their own governments to interfere in their be-
half to obtain compensation for losses sustained from military opera-
tions, and therefore ought to have the same rights and remedies as cit-
izens. But in their cases other considerations arise, such as the law of
domicile, the right, though only neutral and not loyal, to demand com-

326 ALIEN CLAIMS.

pensation, and other questions growing out of their relations as foreign-
ers. We think Congress intended to reserve exclusively to itself the
consideration of the rights of foreigners to compensation.

We have, therefore, held that foreigners domiciled here are not " citi-
zens" within the meaning of the act.

We have also held that where the claimant was an alien when the
claim accrued, his naturalization since the war does not remove his dis-
ability.

II. Loyalty and the proof of it.

Many questions have arisen as to wh at was loyalty, and how it may
be proved. We have held —

1. That the party claiming to be loyal must prove his loyalty. It is a
fact to be established by proof, and is not to be presumed.

2. Voluntary residence in an insurrectionary State during the war is
prima-facie evidence of disloyalty, and must be rebutted by satisfactory
evidence.

3. Claims have come before us of persons who have served in the rebel
army. They claim that they were really loyal at heart, but acted under
duress — " moral duress ;" that they could not get away, and would have
been taken by force if they had not gone without force, and therefore
they yielded and went into the rebel service, apparently but not really of
their free will. We have held that such personal service in the rebel
army is proof of disloyalty, and that the duress to excuse it must be
actual force used against the claimant, or imminent danger of immediate,
forcible, and serious injury. The claimant must prove fully and in detail
the facts which he claims to have constituted the duress ; and opinions
and general statements of danger will not suffice. Furnishing a substi-
tute to the rebel army stands upon the same ground as personal service.

4. Voting for the ordinance of secession, holding civil or military
office under the confederacy, furnishing aid or supplies to the rebel ser-
vice, or to persons about to enter it, giving information to aid the rebels
in their military operations, and engaging in a business whose object
was to supply munitions of war or army supplies to the coufederate gov-
ernment, we regard as acts of disloyalty.

5. Neutrality of one residing in an insurrectionary State is not suffi-
cient to establish "loyal adherence to the cause and Government of the
United States."

Beyond these we have not had occasion to lay down any general tests
of loyalty. The cases vary so greatly that it is difficult to apply any gen-
eral and absolute rule. Truly loyal persons in the rebellious States, ex-
cept when within the lines of the Union Army, or in special localities,
were obliged to be silent, to say nothing and do nothing for the Union
cause. Expulsion from their homes, confiscation of property, imprison-
ment and death by law or lawless violence, were the penalties that hung
over the heads of active and outspoken friends of the Union. Hence
the difficulty of proving OA r ert acts of loyalty. On the other hand, we
must bear in mind that it is easier and more profitable to be loyal now
than it was during the war, and that much of the proof of disloyalty
has perished, or been forgotten in the lapse of time. Hence false evi-
dence of loyalty is more readily manufactured and more easily escapes
detection.

An examination of the interrogatories to be put to claimants, as to
their loyalty, (a copy of which is annexed to this report,) will show the
general tenor of our inquiries.

Where there has been a doubt or difference of opinion as to the loy-
alty of the claimant, we have suspended the case for further inquiry.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 32?

III. Stores and supplies.

What is the extent of the term " stores or supplies," as used in the
act?

1. The act of July 4, 1864, by which the Quartermaster-General antl
the Commissary General of Subsistence were authorized to examine the
claims of loyal citizens, in States not in rebellion, uses the terms " claims
for quartermaster's stores," and " claims for subsistence."

The act of March 3, 1871, uses the words " stores or supplies," with-
out any words of restriction. We think it was the intent of Congress
not to confine the act to quartermasters' and commissary stores, but to
extend it to all stores and supplies for the use of the Army, and thus
to include medical and hospital stores, aud supplies for the Engineer
Department.

2. But stores and supplies taken for the use of the Navy are not in-
cluded, and a claim of that kind has been rejected for that reason.

3. Claims for rent and the use of real estate have been urged for al-
lowance as quartermasters' supplies.

If rent be included in quartermasters' supplies, then claims for rent
by loyal citizens in the States not in rebellion should have been allowed
under the act of July 4, 1864 ; but the uniform usage of the Depart-
ment under that act has been to reject them as not being quartermasters"
supplies. The opinions of the Judge- Advocate-General to this effect
are abundant and decisive. (See Decisions of the Judge- Advocate-Gen-
eral, in his Bureau ; case of Thomas C. Elliott, vol. 16, p. 51 ; also vol.
18, p. 506 % . See Digest of his Opinions, p. 99.)

We think this usage must have been well known to Congress, and
that the terms were used in the sense of their settled construction.
However just claims for rent and the occupation of land may be, if it
had been intended to submit them to this board, they would have been
named in express words in the act. Claims of loyal citizens at the
North aud the South must stand on the same basis, and be governed
by the same rules of construction.

4. The destruction of or damage to buildings, growing crops, and per-
sonal property is not embraced within stores and supplies. Military
necessity sometimes requires the destruction of buildings, because they
shelter the enemy or obstruct the range of guns ; but the buildings do
not thereby become supplies. Armies, in marching through a country,
cannot be kept within the lines of the highways, but necessarily pass
through fields of grass and growing crops, and are often obliged to en-
camp upon them. The grass and crops are thus trampled down and
destroyed ; but they are not supplies taken for the use of the Army.

When buildings are torn down, if the materials are taken to erect
other buildings for the use of the Army, such materials thereby become
supplies, and their value, as materials for the purpose for which they are,
used, is paid to the owner. It is a very inadequate compensation to
him. But this rule, which allows only for the materials as supplies, and
nothing for damage to the building from which they are obtained, has.
been acted upon uniformly for many years, and is regarded as an estab-
lished usage not to be departed from. So where fields of grass or grow-
ing crops are partly trampled down and destroyed, and partly used for-
forage or pasturage, the latter is paid for, but the former is not. . In
such cases we have found great difficulty in determining how much is
destroyed and how much taken for Army use. It would have beea
difficult at the time ; how much more so after the lapse of many years.

Nothing in the act of March 3, 1871, authorizes us to allow claims for
the damage or destruction of property ; and in allowing for supplies w&

328 ALIEN CLAIMS.

follow the long-settled rules of the Quartermaster's Department. By
adopting this rule, the claims of loyal citizens North and South are
treated alike.

In some cases boards of survey, appointed by military commanders
according to the usages of war, have allowed for such damage and de-
struction as well as for forage and other Army use. When their awards
have been brought before us as evidence, we have felt restricted by the
act from following their allowances in this particular, and have de-
ducted from them what we have believed to be mere damage.

5. Articles taken by the soldiers, without lawful authority or real
necessity, we have not allowed. The strictest discipline could not pre-
vent acts of lawless depredation. Whatever was deemed better than
their regular rations, pigs, poultry, &c, would be seized and used by the
soldiers. The ready excuse was that their supplies had not come up,
and they had orders to get their subsistence where they could find.it ;
when, in fact, they were supplied with their regular rations.

But where a real necessity existed for the taking of subsistence, and
it was used in lieu of regular rations, there compensation should be
given. In military operations where rapidity of movement is necessary
and the troops unable to carry their supplies with them, they must get
their subsistence where they can ; in hasty retreats, where disorder ex-
ists and provisions are not at hand; in times of difficult transportation,
when supply-trains fall behind ; in such and similar cases the seizure of
subsistence is necessary, and we have allowed claims for property so
taken.

6. Articles not on the list of commissary supplies Ave reject, unless
furnished to the hospitals for the refreshment and cure of the sick, when
we allow for them.

IV. The act provides that the commissioners " shall be satisfied from the
testimony of witnesses under oath, or from other sufficient evidence, taken
under such rules and regulations as the commissioners may adopt," of the
loyalty of the claimant and the validity of the claim.

1. We have deemed it our duty to examine witnesses orally in all
cases where it was practicable. The advantage, by oral examination,
of hearing the witness, of observing his appearance on the stand, of
judging of his intelligence, fairness, and honesty, and by cross-examina-
tion, of ascertaining his means of knowledge and testing his credibility
is very great. Where the witnesses were so near Washington that it
was reasonable for them to come before us and testify, we have required
them to do so. Most of such claims have come from Virginia. Jn some
cases of larger amount, the claimants and their witnesses have come from
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, and Louisiana.

2. Where the claims are small, the claimants poor, and they and their
witnesses live remote from Washington, it would amount to a denial of
justice to require them to come here. In aid of such claimants, and
under the authority given to the commissioners to adopt rules and reg-
ulations for the taking of evidence, we decided to allow claimants, whose
claims did not exceed $3,000, to have the depositions of themselves and
their witnesses taken by special commissioners, to be designated by us.
We limited this right to claims not exceeding $3,000 because most of
the claims are under that amount, and we believed that attempts to de-
fraud the Government would generally be aimed at larger sums. With
this limitation the cases have been numerous enough to employ all the
time of the special commissioners, and to furnish us with more cases
than we have bad time to examine and decide.

A list of the special commissioners, the instructions we have given
them, and the questions we have directed them to put, arc annexed to

ALIEN CLAIMS. 329

this report. We have sought to make the examination something bet-
ter than an ex-parte proceeding. But questions prepared beforehand,
and necessarily for all witnesses, and without any knowledge of what
the particular witness will swear to, cannot be expected to elicit facts
as a personal examination on the spot would do. . Much, of course, de-
pends on the skill and thoroughness of the special commissioners. They
have generally shown a disposition to be thorough and faithful in their
examinations ; yet, after all, on reading the depositions, one cannot but
feel that the results would have been far more satisfactory if some com-
petent person on behalf of the Government had investigated the claims
and been present to examine the witnesses. Under the existing law we
do not see what more can be done than we have done to avoid the evil
of ex-parte depositions. We have been strongly urged to allow deposi-
tions to be taken in the larger cases ; but have decided to retain the
limitation as it is, at $3,000, until Congress should have the opportunity
to prescribe some more thorough mode of inquiry and examination as to
the larger claims. In the larger cases which are yet to come before us,
in some of which hundreds of thousands of dollars are demanded, the
temptation and opportunity to procure the allowance of unjust claims
exist; and high ability, ingenuity, and skill in procuring and present-
ing evidence to sustain them may be expected. In such cases, if persons
could be designated by proper authority to investigate the claims on the
spot where they arose, and to inquire in regard to them of those officers
or other persons who must at the time have known about them, it would
greatly aid in guarding against disloyal and fictitious claims.

In designating special commissioners to take testimony, we have been
confined to persons already appointed as United States commissioners,
or to notaries and magistrates authorized to administer oaths and take
depositions under State laws, as the act of Congress does not authorize
this board to confer such powers. A list of the special commissioners
so designated is appended to this report.

3. Where claims have heretofore been brought before the Court of
Claims or any other tribunal or Department of the Government, and evi-
dence has been filed and used either for or against them, we have treated
all such evidence as admissible, when the same claims have been brought
before us. We require that all the papers pertaining to a claim should
be furnished us, and have often found evidence in the papers thus sent
to us from the Departments of great use in the examination of claims.

4. Letters and papers from the archive office have also been furnished
us, very useful and often decisive upon the question of loyalty.

V. When claims have been heretofore presented to any Department of the
Government having jurisdiction of them, and have been fully considered and
decided upon their merits, we do not open them for examination, if brought
before us, unless new and material evidence has been found, and such as
would induce the former tribunal to hear them again.

When a claim is presented which is also pending before some other
tribunal or Department, we decline to examine it, unless tbe Depart-
ment before which it is pending signify to us that it is withdrawn by con-
sent in order to have it come before us.

VI. Value of property.

In estimating the value of property we have been guided not only by
the evidence on behalf of the particular claimant, but by the knowledge of
prices which we obtain in examining the numerous cases before us, and by
the tables of prices furnished by the Commissary and Quartermaster's De-
partments. The report of the Commissary-General, showing the prices
paid by the Department for all the leading articles of subsistence for

330 ALIEN CLAIMS.

each month during the war at all the principal markets of the Union,
has been of great service. By adding to the price at the nearest mar-
ket the cost of transportation to the place where the claim accrued, we
get a fair measure of the value of the property claimed.

Similar tables of prices have been furnished by the Quartermaster-
General. They have been of much use in reducing the inflated and ex-
aggerated estimates which claimants generally put upon their property.
The natural tendency of men to overestimate the value of their property
(especially when compensation is expected from the Government) is
well illustrated by the compensation asked for the " superior and elegant"
horses, the " best" mules, the " remarkably fine and fat " cattle, and the
''new ? ' rails which the Army seems always to have found wherever
it went. We have endeavored to ascertain the fair market-price, and
not to allow for an enhanced value occasioned by the temporary pres-
ence of the Army.

There are some articles of which particular notice should be taken.

Fence-rails. — These were usually taken for fuel. We have allowed for
them as wood, at the rate of 100 rails per cord, (the rule adopted by the
Quartermaster's Department, and which is believed to be just for the
average of farm fences,) and at the price usually of $2 per cord, the
average common price of wood when taken upon the farms to be hauled
to the camp or the market. The damage to the owner is more than
this, for rails are worth more than wood, and without fences the farmer
loses to a great extent the use of his land ; and the country being de-
nuded of wood, he has to pay an increased price to replace them. But
we are precluded from estimating the damage, and, in conformity to the
usage as to supplies, can only allow for the rails as fuel.

Cotton. — This seems to have been taken in some instances to strengthen
fortifications, but probably only in cases of emergency. It has never
been paid for by the Government when so used, but has been regarded as
" loss by the casualty of war." (See Digest of the Opinions of the
Judge-Advocate-General, pp. 97 and 98, and cases there cited.) When
taken for beds in hospitals it has been paid for as hospital stores.

Tobacco. — Until the act of March 3, . 1865, tobacco was not furnished
to the Army. Under that act it has been issued to those who use it,
and charged to them on the pay-rolls.

In the claims that have come before us, tobacco has not usually been
regarded as a supply, and therefore has been disallowed.

Claims for tobacco alleged to have been taken and issued to the troops
at Atlanta, Ga., under the order of General Sherman, of September 8,
1864, are pending before us. The examination of them is still going on,
and they will be reported upon hereafter.

VII. The icJiole number of claims presented for allowance up to the end of
November, 1871, is ten thousand and ninety-nine.

The whole amount claimed is $26,509,123.91.

The monthly receipts of claims have been as follows :

March, (last few days) 17

April - .. 550

Mav 1,221

June 1, 562

July 1, 539

August 1, 261

September 1, 762

October 1, 206

November 9S1

Total 10, 099

ALIEN CLAIMS. 331

The number not exceeding in amount $3,000 is 8,800 ; number that
exceeds $3,000 is 1,299. The 8,800 claims (averaging about $1,350
each) amount to about $11,880,000. The 1,299 larger claims amount to
about $14,629,000.

, We transmit herewith our reports in five hundred and eighty-eight
cases, which we have examined and decided. They are accompanied
by the testimony taken orally before us, and all the papers and evidence
pertaining to such cases which we have received from any Department
of the Government. Congress thus becomes the custodian of all the
evidence, vouchers, and papers pertaining to these claims.

it may be noted that the act of March 3, 1871, provides that " no
claimant shall withdraw any material evidence submitted in support of
any claim."

Annexed to this report is a list of the cases so decided and reported,
with the number of the claim, the name of the claimant, and the amounts
claimed, allowed, and disallowed.

The number disallowed for want of satisfactory proof of " loyal adher-
ence to the cause and the Government of the United States" is about
two hundred and thirty. Some have been rejected for want of jurisdic-
tion, and some for insufficient proof upon other material points. The
whole number rejected is two huudred and fifty-six.

The claims examined by us in the months of April, May, and June,,
were chiefly from the counties in Virginia near Washington. The wit-
nesses came before us and were examined orally. These claimants
mostly resided within the Union lines. Many of them were originally
from New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the North. They were generally
loyal, and could prove their loyalty by overt acts, or by the testimony
of Federal officers and well-known loyal men.

In the cases more recently examined by ns, which come from regions
more decidedly hostile to the Government, and to which the Union
forces did not penetrate till toward the close of the war, we have found
the proportion of claims in which loyalty is not satisfactorily proved to
be considerably larger.

Of the claimants found loyal, many (about forty) have actually served
in the Union Army, many have aided our military operations as scouts
and guides, and in other ways. Some have been arrested, imprisoned,
and cruelly treated by the rebels. The evidence on behalf of some of
these claimants in Virginia, the mountain-regions of Tennessee, Georgia,
and Alabama, and other portions of the South, furnishes instances of
peril, hardship, sacrifice, and suffering, of steadfast courage and patri-
otic devotion to the Union, which do them honor and entitle them to the
grateful consideration of the Government.

Among those whose claims have been disallowed, about forty have
served in the rebel army, and some as guards at Andersonville ; others
have held civil office under the confederacy, or furnished supplies to
the rebel army, or voted for the ordinance of secession, or sworn alle-
giance to the confederate government, or have otherwise given aid and
comfort to the rebellion.

In the cases decided and herewith reported the amount claimed is
$1,656,357.98; the amount allowed is $314,168.20; the amount disal-
lowed is $1,312,189.78.

We have not considered the "Loudoun County claims," so called.
They are numerous ; are chiefly for property taken by military necessity
under the order to General Sheridan of November 27, 1864. The claims
for property taken for the use of the Army are so intermingled with
those in which the property was sold and the proceeds put into the

332 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Treasury that it is almost impossible to separate them. As large herds
of horses, cattle, and sheep were driven off together, the claimants can-
not trace their separate property to Army use. We have therefore
declined examining them, thinking Congress may make some special
provision in regard to their examination and settlement.

Lists of the cases presented to us for allowance have been published
and distributed through the country, that public attention might be
called to the loyalty of the claimants and the justice of their claims.
The publication of these lists and of the questions as to tbe loyalty of
claimants has had the effect, it is believed, of deterring many from
pressing disloyal and unjust claims.

The large number of claims presented, the extensive correspondence
to be kept up, and other necessary official business, have thrown a great
burden of duty upon the clerk, and one which could not have been per-
formed but for the aid of the clerks kindly furnished to us from the
Departments of War and the Treasury. Four clerks have been spared
from those Departments for the time being to help this commission ;
but, as they can be spared no longer, and must soon be withdrawn, it is
obvious that a considerable addition ought soon to be made to the cleri-
cal force of this commission.

The stenographer has taken the testimony of nearly one thousand
witnesses. The transcription of his minutes for the use of this board
and of Congress imposes upon him a great labor, in which he ought to
have some aid. Without it the important work of the commission in
examining claimants and witnesses orally will be hindered. A month's
labor is now required to enable him to transcribe the minutes of testi-
mony taken in the months of October and November.

About forty cases have been examined by us which we have sus-
pended for further inquiry and examination. It has been suggested
that loyal persons have sometimes been used to cover with their names
the claims of the disloyal, sometimes persons formerly slaves endeavor-
ing, from friendship, to help their former masters, and we have felt it
our duty to carefully investigate claims in which such suspicions might
be justly entertained.

Respectfully submitted.

ASA OWEN ALOIS,
J. B. HOWELL,
ORAM3-E FERRISS,
Commissioners of Claims.

Washington, D. O, December 11, 1871.

SECOND GENERAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF CLAIMS.

Washington, D. 0., December G, 1872.
To the honorable the Speaker of the House of Representatives :

Sir : The commissioners of claims herewith respectfully present their
second general report.

Our views as to the jurisdiction conferred by the act establishing this
commission, as to loyalty, and the proof of it; as to the meaning of the
terms. "stores and supplies;" as to the rules and regulations for taking
evidence, and as to the nature of the claims which we could and could
not allow, were so fully set forth in our first general report, made De-
cember 11, 1871, that we do not deem it necessary here to repeat them.
A few new questions have arisen to which we shall refer ; and on some

ALIEN CLAIMS.

333

points, where our views do not seem to have been regarded by claim-
ants, and further elucidation seems desirable, we may make some far-
ther suggestions.

I.— NUMBER AND AMOUNT OF CLAIMS.

By referring to our first general report, made December 11, 1871, it
will be seen that the number of claims presented for allowance up to the

end of November, 1871, was 10, 09$

The number presented since, up to the end of November, 1872,

is . 7,001

Whole number presented 17, 700

The monthly receipts of claims during the past year have been as fol-
lows:

July 540'

August 694

September G49

October 56a

November 413-

December, 1871 693

January, 1872 665

February 507

March 741

April 858

May 742

June 536

Total . .

7,601

The amount of claims presented, up to the end of

November, 1871, was $26, 509, 123 91

The amount of claims presented since, to the end of
November, 1872, is 18, 494, 980 57

Total amount of claims presented'*. 45, 004, 104 48-

With our first general report we presented to Congress special reports
in 580 cases, which we had examiued and decided.

We herewith transmit to Congress special reports in 2,209 cases, which
we have examined and decided during the past year.

Whole number reported to Congress, 2.789.

Of the claims herewith reported there are from —

Alabama 345

Arkansas 184

Florida 3

Georgia 174

Louisiana 27

Mississippi 213

North Carolina 272

South Carolina 41

Tennessee 397

Texas 8

Virginia 545

Total 2, 209*

Of these cases we have allowed, in whole or in part, 1,061; we have
wholly rejected 1,148.

Of those allowed, 122 were the claims of persons who had served as
soldiers in the Union Army, or had been otherwise employed in the
military service of the United States. A still greater number is of per-
sons who had sons in the Union Army.

Of those rejected —

There had been in the military service of the confederacy, or ha<l

furnished substitutes 227

Voted for secession, or taken oath of allegiance to the confederacy . . 154

Total 381

334 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Of the 2,209 claims herewith reported —

The whole amount claimed is $3, 850, 141 05

The amount allowed is 806, 699 31

The amount disallowed is 3, 043, 541 74

Our reports are accompanied with all the evidence and papers belong-
ing to the reported cases.

Anuexed to this report is a list of the cases decided during the year,
with the number of the claim, name of the claimant, and the amounts
claimed, allowed, and disallowed.

Besides the 2,209 cases which we have thus examined and decided
daring the year, and herewith report, we have thus examined about 700
more cases which, for various reasons, we have been obliged to suspend
for further investigation ; although, in many of them, reports have been
drawn, and in all the chief part of the work has been done. Of this last
class many appear so meritorious that we are not willing to reject them,
and yet, from lack of proof, or other cause, require further investigation.
It has been impossible for us, with only three agents, to fully investigate
all the large cases already heard.

Many of the largest claims are in this list of suspended cases, the
whole amounting to about $2,500,000. They have taken much time in
hearing and examining the evidence. They ought not to be decided till
our agents have thoroughly investigated them.

We regret that our agent has not been able to make a final report
upon many important cases in Georgia, and especially upon the tobacco
cases of Atlanta, to which we referred in our last report.

The time for presenting claims expires on the 3d of March, 1873.
The number, by that time, will probably be about 19,000, and the prob-
able amount about $50,000,000. This estimate is made upon the suppo-
sition that the claims will continue to be presented at the rate at which
they are now coming in.

II. — JURISDICTION.

Since our last report a question has arisen as to the construction of
the words used in the act of March 3, 1871, " the claims of those citizens
who remained loyal adherents to the cause and Government of the
United States during the war."

The original owner of the property for which compensation is now
asked was loyal and living when it was taken. He has since died. If
he were living his claim would be allowed. His heirs now present the
claim. They were disloyal during the war. The act authorizes us to
consider only " the claims of those citizens who remained loyal adherents
to the cause and Government of the United States during the war."

We construe the act to mean that the claimants who present the
claim before us, that is, the heirs, must prove their loyalty — that it is not
enough that the ancestor was loyal.

When the claim is presented by one who is a mere representative of
others, and who has no beneficial interest, such as an executor or an ad-
ministrator, we do not require him to prove his loyalty, but he must
prove the loyalty of those he represents— that is, the legatees or heirs.

When it appears that the heirs are the real owners of the claim, and
that some or all of them were disloyal during the war, we reject so
much as would go to the disloyal and allow what should go to the loyal
ones.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 335

nr.

The act of Congress of May 11, 1872, authorized us to employ three
agents to investigate claims. We immediately appointed three agents,
and directed them, in the first instance, to proceed to Virginia, where
the number and urgency of the claims seemed especially to require their
employment. Since then they have also been to Tennessee, Georgia, and
Alabama. We have been urgently requested to send them to other
States to speed the examination of claims there. As yet we have not
been able to comply with these requests, but recently have sent one to
Mississippi.

The employment of these agents has, so far, proved very useful. We
have directed them to inquire and report alike whether claims are just
or unjust, and whether the claimants were loyal or disloyal, and to in-
quire as to all claims, so far as time, expense, and opportunity make
investigation reasonable. Their attention is, of course, more especially
directed to the large and doubtful cases, and they cannot reasonably be
expected to investigate the multitude of little claims.

Now that we can examine cases through these agents, whenever we
have reason to doubt as to their allowance we have authorized the
special commissioners to take depositions in all cases not exceeding
$5,000.

. We have directed the agents to examine all claims between $5,000 and
$10,000, to correspond with the special commissioners to whom such cases
are assigned, and with the claimants as to the time and place of taking
the evidence, and to be present and cross-examine the witnesses when-
ever they think it expedient, or to advise the special commissioner as
to questions which he should put on behalf of the Government.

In investigating claims we have directed them to pursue the course
which the agents of the Departments have been accustomed to pursue ;
to inquire in the vicinity of the claimants, of respectable and credible
witnesses, and ascertain the truth as to the loyalty of the claimant and
the justice and validity of the claim, and to report to us the evidence,
the names of witnesses, and all facts that may throw light upon the
case. We do not require them to take the depositions of witnesses, or
to confine themselves to strict legal evidence ; but as this commission
allows the same latitude of inquiry in its oral hearings that the commit-
tees of the Senate and House allow, and admit any evidence that they
think will reasonably aid their inquiries, we require these agents to do
the same.

In all cases the claimants are allowed to see the reports of the agents
filed in the case, and, if they wish, to rebut the evidence contained in
them.

IV. — LOYALTY, AND THE PROOF OF IT.

In our first general report we stated very fully our views as to " loy-
alty, and the proof of it." Some further suggestions on this topic may
not be amiss.

Loyalty is a fact to be proved. Claims are not unfrequently disal-
lowed not because there is positive proof of disloyalty, but because the
proof of loyalty is not satisfactory. Where the evidence leads us to
think that the party may have been really loyal, and that the want of
proof can be supplied, we suspend the case for further inquiry.

We find, by experience, that to form a correct opinion as to whether
a claimant was or was not loyal during the war, we cannot safely rely
upon the mere opinion of witnesses as to his loyalty, and upon state-

336 ALIEN CLAIMS.

ments, at this late day, of alleged conversations. We must rather look
to his surroundings — to the vicinity where he lived ; the pressure that
bore upon hiin ; the opportunity he had to show his loyalty by aiding
the Union cause; his acts and his omissions to act; whether he was
threatened, molested, or injured in person, family, or property; whether
he rendered any aid to the confederate cause; whether he had sons in
the confederate service ; in short, to all the circumstances of the case.
It is not difficult for a claimant to select witnesses from his acquaint-
ances who will testify in general terms, " I knew the claimant ; he was
a Union man ; I so regarded him. I think he was so regarded by his
Union neighbors. I have often heard him express Union sentiments.
He was bitterly opposed to secession." These are common phrases, and
constantly repeated.

How little such testimony is worth appears from the fact that such or
similar phrases are constantly used in support of the loyalty of the
claimants, who have served, sometimes, for three years in the rebel
army, or who are otherwise clearly shown to be disloyal. We deem
such evidence much weaker than the proof derived from surrounding
circumstances.

We have been led, by our experience in examining the proofs in these
cases, to another opinion, not fully appreciated by us at first. It is
this : that the proof to excuse disloyal acts, such as voting for seces-
sion, holding civil office under the confederacy, furnishing a substitute,
&c, is rarely of actual force, or of danger from the action of the con-
stituted authorities. These existed and are sometimes proved. But the
real, imminent danger of injury was from another quarter: There was,
in certaiu districts, so much of terrorism and intimidation that loyal
men felt a constant and oppressive apprehension of lawless violence.
There was real danger to life, family, and property from the lawless vio-
lence of individuals and from the fury of the mob. To escape these
perils, men who were at heart true friends of the Union felt compelled
to appear friendly to the confederate cause and to do disloyal acts.
Where such facts are satisfactorily proved, and the whole tenor of the
claimants conduct before and after shows him to have been really loyal,
where, perhaps, the suffering and losses he was afterward subjected to
by the rebels show that they regarded him as an enemy, we think it our
duty to regard the disloyal act as springing from duress, and find the
claimant loyal. In weighing such evidence we do not forget that many
pretend to have acted under duress where none existed.

V.— STOKES AND SUPPLIES.

In our first general report we stated that till stores and supplies for
the use of the Army might be included in the claims presented to us for
allowance. Since then the act of May 11, 1872, has extended our juris-
diction to stores and supplies taken for the use of the Navy.

We also stated that rent, damage, and destruction of property, losses
by lawless depredations, property taken by soldiers without authority
or real necessity, and articles of luxury, wines, liquors, tobacco, and
cotton, (unless used in hospitals,) were not included in the term " stores
and supplies" for the use of the Army, and would not be allowed. We
regret to see that such items still continue to be embraced in claims, and
that the sum-total of the claims is thereby increased to a great amount.

VI. — VALUE OF PROPERTY ; PRICES ; THE PROOF OF TAKING ; DEPRE-
DATIONS.

In our first report we said :

" In estimating the value of property, we have been guided not only

ALIEN CLAIMS. 337

by the evidence on behalf of the particular claimant, but by the knowl-
edge of prices which we obtain in examining the numerous cases before
us, and by the table of prices furnished by the C6mmissary and Quar-
termaster's Departments. The report of the Commissary-General,
showing the prices paid by the Department for all the leading articles
of subsistence for each month during the war, at all the principal mar-
kets of the Union, has been of great service. By adding to the price
at the nearest market the cost of transportation to the place where the
claim accrued, we get a fair measure of the value of the property
claimed.

" Similar tables of prices have been furnished by the Quartermaster-
General. They have been of much use in reducing the iiifiated and exag-
gerated estimates which claimants generally put upon their property."

We deem it proper to add, in reference to the report of the Commissary-
General above referred to, that it was made not long after the close of
the war, with great care, for the use of the Government, from bills,
vouchers, and data of actual purchases made by the Government during
each month of the war ; was published with the report of the Com missary-
General, and may be regarded as the highest authority for the price of
commissary supplies during the war.

So the prices from the Quartermaster-General stand upon similar data,
and are equally reliable. We refer to these authorities (which differ so
widely from the prices set forth in the petitions of claimants) because
claimants and their counsel sometimes seem to think that the evidence
they present in each particular case should be the rule of the case.

We not only find the prices claimed in the petitions are generally
greatly exaggerated, but that sometimes both prices and amounts in-
crease with the lapse of time. Some claims presented to the Departments
soon after the close of the war now appear before us much increased in
amount and price.

Horses and mules appear to be of very uncertain value, ranging in the
claims from $50 to $6,000. We allow for them as animals of average
value, for Army use, according to the quartermaster's prices at the time,
unless the evidence clearly shows a higher value. There was no kind of
property so much the object of theft and depredation, so frequently and
so lawlessly taken for private gain, under the pretense of Army use, as
horses and mules.

PROOF OP TAKING.

Claimants seem to think that if soldiers took property, pretending to
have authority, and promising it should be paid for, that the Government
is thereby bound to pay for it. But such pretenses were frequently used
by the lawless, and for private gain, as well as by those really having
authority. Such artifices must not be allowed to prevail. We must
look beyond them, at all the circumstances connected with the taking, in
order to discriminate between lawful taking and lawless depredation.
The Government is not bound to pay for theft or pillage. Hence it is not
enough for witnesses to say, " The property was taken by soldiers." All
the facts connected with the taking should be stated, and, if possible, in
the natural order of narrative.

If not so narrated, questions should be put as to the number of soldiers,
whether only one or two, whether officers were with them, and ordered
or knew of the taking, the hour of the day, the distance from the main
body or the camp; what and all that was said and done; whether threats
of violence were used; whether there was other property taken, and
especially household articles or valuables; whether application was made
H. Eep. 134 22

338 ALIEN CLAIMS.

for the restoration of the property to officers, and what was said and done
in reply, and all the attending circumstances.

Our instructions to the special commissioners are positive that the
questions on all these points must be put and answers insisted upon. It
is their duty to enforce these directions, to have them obeyed, or the
refusal noted in the body of the depositions. If claimants or their coun-
sel allow witnesses to omit answering, or to evade the questions, the
result must be that the claim is not proved, or is seriously discredited.

Til. — AS TO QUANTITIES TAKEN.

Where a receipt or voucher was given at the time, we follow it, and
have no difficulty in ascertaining the quantity taken. But where the
testimony depends on the testimony of witnesses testifying eight or ten
years after the property was taken, the quantity becomes uncertain.
Witnesses rarely furnish any certain data. Their attention was not
called, at the time, to the amount taken. They swear in round numbers,
or to the " property claimed in the petition," but rarely show any means
of knowledge. In perhaps a majority of cases, proof of the amount de-
pends on the evidence of the claimant, or his wife or minor children, or
of some colored dependent once his slave. When we reflect upon the
lapse of time since the claims accrued, and the facilities with which the
memories of such interested or easily influenced witnesses may be man-
ufactured, it is obvious that we must receive such evidence with cau-
tion.

Still, in most of these cases, there was some property taken, and it
would be UDj'usfc to wholly reject the claim. No other evidence than
such as the claimant offers can usually be had, and that is subject to the
serious objections above alluded to. Hence, in such cases, it is extremely
difficult to make any satisfactory decision.

Till. — REBEL ARCHIVES.

The rebel archives in the possession of the Secretary of the Treasury
and of the Secretary of War have been most obligingly opened for our
use. They contain written contemporary evidence of the position of
thousands of persons in the service of, or having dealings with, the con-
federacy. They are thus evidence of the highest value. Already they
have furnished proof for the rejection of claims to a large amount. The
knowledge that such papers are in the hands of the Government doubt-
less deters others from being presented.

The Secretary of the Treasury has occasionally, when it was needful
and convenient, allowed us the aid of agents in investigating claims.

The Secretary of War has also, when the duties of the service will
permit, very kindly directed officers of the Army to examine claims iu
the vicinity where they were stationed. This has been of great utility.
In one case satisfactory proof was obtained for the rejection of a claim
of about $100,000.

IX. — OF THE UNFINISHED WORK.

As this commission, by the limitation of the act of Congress which
created it, will expire in March' next, we deem it our duty to report
upon the amount of unfinished work before it, and the time required to
finish it.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 339

The whole number of claims presented for allowance by March 3, 1873,
will probably be about 19,000.

We reported at the last session of Congress 580 cases ; herewith we
send reports in 2,209 cases. We have examined about 700 other cases,
which we have suspended for further iuvestigation, but in which the
work is chiefly done. By the 3d of March next we shall probably have
examined and disposed of at least 500 more. There will remain, there-
fore, on the 3d of March next, about 15,000 cases to be examined and
decided.

Perplexing questions having been settled, the labors of the commis-
sion systematized, and all employed having / become familiar with their
duties, and having acquired facility in the dispatch of business, it is
reasonable to conclude that the work will hereafter progress with more
rapidity. From the rate of progress now being made, we think the re-
maining work can be finished in four years. When it is considered that
the evidence iu all cases over $10,000 must be taken orally before the
commissioners, or some one of them, and that the depositions taken by
the special commissioners are in some cases quite voluminous, and re-
quire long and laborious examination, it is plain that it will require
diligence and industry to do the work in that time.

ASA OWEN ALDIS,
J. B. HOWELL,
ORANGE FERRISS,

Commissioners of Claims.
The Hon. the Speaker

Of the House of Representatives.

THIRD GENERAL REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF CLAIMS.

To the honorable the Speaker of the House of Representatives :

Sir : The commissioners of claims respectfully present their third
general report.

The first and second general reports, presented in December, 1871 and
1872, contain a full statement of the rules as to presenting and proving
claims, and of the principles upon which we allow or reject them. We
deem it sufficient to refer to those reports.

I. The time for presenting claims to this commission expired on the
3d of March, 1873. By referring to our last general report it will be seen
that the whole number of ciaims presented up to the end of November,
1872, was 17,700, and the aggregate amount claimed $45,004,104.48.

The monthly receipts of claims since, up to the 3d March, 1873, have
been as follows :

December, 1872 658

January, 1873 804

February, 1873 1,621

March, (the first three days) 1, 515

Total 4,598

The amount of the above claims was $15,254,045.96.

The whole number of claims presented to the commissioners is 22,298.

The gross amount of all the claims filed is $60,258,150.44.

340 ALIEN CLAIMS.

The number disposed of in our —

First report was 580

Second report was 2, 209

(This) third report is 2, 465

Total 5,254

The aggregate amount of the claims so passed upon is $10,224,386.32.
There remain, therefore, 17,044 claims, amounting to $50,033,764.12,
yet to be disposed of.

II. The act of Congress of May 11, 1872, requires that in all cases ex-
ceeding $10,000 the witnesses for the claimaut must be examined orally
before us. This obliges the claimant to bring his witnesses to Wash-
ington, for there is no provision in the law authorizing us to take the
testimony of claimants elsewhere than at Washington, and providing
for the expense thereby iucurred.

Annexed is a table of the claims, showing the amounts by tens of
thousands. From this it appears that 949 claims exceeding $10,000 each
have been presented; of this number 50 claims exceed $100,000, and 145
exceed $50,000. Some of these have been reduced below $10,000 by the
voluntary act of the claimants. About 138 have been disposed of in
this and former reports.

III. We present herewith special reports in 2,465 cases. Of this num-
ber there are —

Wholly disallowed 1,373

Allowed in whole or in part 1, 092

Total 2, 465

Of the number disallowed, 249 are claimants who have served in the
confederate army or furnished a substitute ; and 56 are of persons who
were in the civil service of the confederacy, or who took the oath of
allegiance to the confederacy.

Of the number allowed, 164 are persons who served in the United
States Army.

The aggregate amount claimed in these 2,465 cases is $4,717,887.29.

Amount allowed $643, 713 04

Amount disallowed 4, 074, 174 25

Total 4, 717, 887 29

Many cases, especially from Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, re-
main in our hands, heard, partly examined, but not finished, because
our special agents have not been able to find time to examine them and
report to us. This has been owing partially to their necessary investi-
gation of claims in other States, and in part (in Mississippi and Louisi-
ana) to the prevailing sickness which interrupted their work.

It is but justice to the special agents to say that they have worked
industriously, and that their services have been of great value.

IV. The numerous disallowances of claims in which the testimony
offered did not satisfy us of the loyalty of the claimant, or of the jus-
tice and validity of the claim, have been followed by efforts on the part
of claimants to get their cases reconsidered. Our only action upon the
matter so far has been to receive petitions for the rehearing of claims,

ALIEN CLAIMS. 341

whenever the claimant sets forth specifically, over bis own signature,
and upon oath or affirmation, what new and material facts he relies
upon to prove the disallowance to be erroneous, what witnesses are to
prove the alleged facts, and why the proposed new evidence was not
produced on the original examination. We also require the affidavits
of the intended witnesses to be filed, embracing all the matters upon
which they will testify. Until somewhat relieved from the pressure of
unreported cases, it will be impracticable to take up any disallowed claims
for reconsideration.

V. In consequence of frequent applications from volunteer officers
and other adherents of the Union cause who had served or resided, or
now live in the insurrectionary States, for information concerning the
claims brought before the commissioners, measures were taken, as soon
as all the claims had been filed, to prepare a printed list, giving the
name of each claimant, the State and county in which he resides, or in
which his property was taken, and the number and amount of his claim.
In the preface to the list explanation is made of the facts that the names
were those of professed adherents to the cause and Government of the
United States during the rebellion, the amounts charged, and the value
of the personal property taken for the necessary and proper use of the
Union Army. This list, containing the recorded particulars of nearly
23,000 claims, has been extensively circulated and distributed wherever
it has been thought probable that information serviceable to the just
determination of claims might be obtained, and it is intended to con-
tinue the distribution as long as such a measure is deemed advisable.

VI. Tobacco. — As we now, for the first time, present reports allowing
for tobacco taken for Army use, we desire to state the reasons for such
allowances.

Tobacco was never by law made an Army supply till the act of March 3,.
1865, provided that it might be furnished at cost to those who desired
it, and at their expense. All the claims for tobacco which have been,
examined by us are for tobacco taken before that date.

After the capture of Atlanta, in September, 1864, General Sherman
found that he was short of rations for his army, and that the soldiers
were subject to many privations. To make his army contented, and, as
far as possible, to make up to them for their usual rations, of which they
were for the time deprived, he issued an order on the 8th of September,
1864, authorizing the chief commissary of subsistence to take possession
of and issue to the troops all the tobacco in Atlanta, and give certificates
thereof to the owners, to be accounted for in accordance with existing
orders.

Pursuant to this order, tobacco belonging to George J. Stubblefield
was taken, and upon his making claim for payment, the Commissary
Department recommended, "as this tobacco was taken by order of Gen-
eral Sherman and issued to the troops in lieu of other rations, and as the
loyalty of the claimant is clearly established," that payment should be
made. This was approved by the Secretary of War, Mr. Stanton, and
the claim was paid.

The payment stands upon the ground that, when an army is deprived
of its usual rations, the commanding general can, in his judgment, au-
thorize an article not a supply to be taken and used for the time being
as a supply and in lieu of other rations; and in such case the Govern-
ment is bound to pay for it. We have strictly followed this precedent,
. and have not allowed for tobacco except when taken under this order.

VII. We have heretofore set forth the necessity that exists for more

342 ALIEN CLAIMS.

clerks in order to dispatch with reasonable speed the business of the
commission. We again respectfully request attention to this subject.

It is a great hardship for a loyal and honest claimant to be delayed
year after year in the examination and payment of his just claim. But
it would be unjust to the Government to allow claims without thoroughly
and carefully examining all reasonable sources of information, in order
to determine whether the claimant is loyal and the claim just.

A thorough examination of the rebel archives, and of the papers pur-
chased, as furnishing evidence in claims against the Government, is very
essential. In this we have been greatly aided by the Secretary of the
Treasury, the Secretary of War, and the Adjutant- General, and the
subordinate officers of these Departments and Bureaus having the cus-
tody of these papers. But there is much in the examination of these
papers that we cannot reasonably ask them to do, and for which we have
no clerks to spare.

So, too, in preparing summaries of the evidence taken by special com-
missioners, of papers, often long and bulky, received from the Depart-
ments, and heretofore used on behalf of claimants, in examining papers
received from the Treasury and War Departments, and making copies of
them for Congress, and in giving directions to agents in examining
claims, there is a great amount of work to be done which might well be
done by clerks under the instruction of the commissioners.

A moderate increase in the number of clerks would greatly relieve the
commissioners, and enable them to devote more time to the decision of
cases, and thus aid in the work of the commission.

ASA OWEN ALDIS,
J. B. HOWELL,
ORANGE FERRISS,

Commissioners of Claims.

Washington, D. C, December 6, 1S73.

FOURTH GENERAL REPORT OP THE COMMISSIONERS OF CLAIMS.

, Washington, D. C, December 14, 1874.
To the honorable the Speaker of the House of Representatives :

Sir : The commissioners of claims respectfully present their fourth
general report.

I. The time for presenting claims to this commission expired on the
3d of March, 1873. A bill for extending the time for presenting claims
was passed by the House of Representatives at the last session, but
was not acted upon by the Senate. No claims have, therefore, been
received by us during the last year.

The whole number of claims presented for allowance is 22,298.

The number disposed of in our first report was 580

Second report was . 2, 209

Third report was 2, 465

Fourth (this) report is 2, 407

Whole number disposed of is 7, 661

Remaining not disposed of 14, 637

Total , 22, 298

ALIEN CLAIMS. 343

II. Of the unfinished- business. — Of this number of 14,637 cases yet in
our hands, a large number have been examined, and have been sus
pended for further investigation by our special agents.

About fifteen hundred doubtful cases are thus awaiting examination.
It is proper to add that the work done during the year is not to be
measured by the number of reported cases. These suspended cases,
difficult and doubtful, and frequently involving large sums, consume a
great portion of our time.

In twelve of the larger cases so being investigated, the claims amount
to $3,035,000. In many of the large cases our agents have made re-
ports. These are shown to the claimants, or their attorneys, that they
• may, if they see fit, produce rebutting testimony. This leads to delay;
for in almost every case so suspended and reported upon by our agents,
the claimants have requested further time to put in their rebutting evi-
dence.

The number. of agents which we are authorized to employ for the
investigation of cases in all the Southern States is limited by law to
three. We would again respectfully suggest that this number is wholly
inadequate for doing, with reasonable dispatch, the work that is to be
done. The claims we refer to the agents are numerous, large, and diffi-
cult of investigation. Eeluctance of witnesses to give testimony against
their neighbors, opposition in various and unexpected forms, and other
unavoidable causes of delay constantly meet them, and hinder their
work.

The employment of such agents is of great utility and advantage to
honest claimants, and to the Government. They often report favorably
in cases which, upon the evidence filed in their favor, appear doubtful,
or deserving of rejection. In other cases, often involving large amounts,
they find facts establishing disloyalty, fraud, or other sufficient cause
for rejection, and thus save large sums to the Government.

The case of Whitty M. Sasser for $100,498, which was referred back
to us by Congress at its last session for further examination, is now in
the hands of an agent for investigation. We have not been able to
include it in this report.

In the case of Sarah Polk, for $2,040, the papers having been sent
to the House of Representatives, at its request, we have not felt at lib-
erty to further examine and report upon the claim until the pleasure
of the Souse should be manifested, either by taking jurisdiction of and
acting upon the claim, or by returning it to us for examination.

A large portion of our time has heretofore been taken up with the oial
examination of witnesses. We think that the number of cases in which
witnesses will be thus brought before us is diminishing, and that we
shall soon have more time for the examination of the other cases, in
which the evidence is taken by the special commissioners. This will
materially aid us in disposing of the unfinished business.

III. We present herewith special reports in 2,407 cases. They are
distributed among the States, as follows :

Alabama 299

Arkansas 277

Florida 7

Georgia 210

Louisiana 59

Mississippi 180

North Carolina , 273

South Carolina 34

Tennessee 554

344 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Texas - . . . 7

Virginia , 475

West Virginia 32

2,407

Of this number, there are wholly disallowed 1,244

Allowed in whole or in part 1, 163

Of the number disallowed, 150 are claimants who served in the con-
federate army or sent a substitute, and 89 are persons who were in the
civil service of the confederacy or voluntarily voted for secession. '

Of the number allowed, 120 are persons who served in the Army of
the United States.

The whole amount claimed in the 2,407 cases included in
this report is $5,242,706 40

. Amount allowed 770, 911 37

Amount disallowed 4,471,995 09

Total 5, 242, 706 46

The number and amount of disallowed cases is somewhat increased
by claims not within the jurisdiction of the commission, and therefore
reported as disallowed without reference to their merits.

IV. In many cases where we had disallowed claims, the claimants
filed petitions to us for new hearings. Our action in receiving these
petitions was fully set forth in our last report. Doubts having been ex-
pressed whether we had any jurisdiction of cases to grant rehearings
and hear them anew after having reported them to Congress, we ad-
dressed notes to the Committees on Claims of the Senate and War-Claims
of the House, asking for their judgment upon the question. They re-
plied that, in their judgment, we had no jurisdiction of cases reported
to Congress, and therefore that we could not grant rehearings in such
cases. Being fully satisfied of the correctness of this decision of the
committees, we have since refused to receive such petitions.

V. Of citizenship. — We have held that aliens who had only declared
their intention of becoming citizens, but who were not actually admitted
to American citizenship, and had not renounced their foreign allegiance,
were not citizens within the meaning of the act of Congress establish-
ing this commission.

This, we believe, is in consonance with the practice of the Govern-
ment during the war, and with the recent decision of the mixed com-
mission on British and American claims.

VI. Some misapprehension still seems to exist as to what in our judg-
ment constitutes the proof of loyalty and disloyalty. It is thought
that we hold that service in the rebel army, furnishing a substitute,
holding civil office under the confederacy, furnishing munitions of war,
supplies, cotton, or money, to aid the confederacy, are disloyal acts on
the part of the claimant, which necessarily and in all cases require us
to reject the claim. This is a mistake. They are prima-facie disloyal
acts which require the rejection of the claim unless explained and shown
to be not the voluntary acts of the claimants, but done under duress,
from necessity, or through personal fear of danger to life, family, or
property. The proof that they were not voluntary acts is always re-
ceived and considered. In our present report there are many cases

ALIEN CLAIMS. 345

of claimants who have served in the confederate army whose claims have
been allowed ; but the proof that such service was involuntary has been
ample, as, for instance, that they were loyal, were conscripted, served
for a short time, deserted at the first opportunity, enlisted in the Union
Army, served one, two, or three years, and were honorable discharged.
Such proof — and it is found in quite a number of cases — must satisfy
every fair mind that the service in the confederate army was not volun-
tary, and that the party was really loyal to the Union cause.

The principle applies to all cases where the disloyal act appears. But
no two cases are alike. It is impossible to lay dow'n a general rule as
to the weight of evidence, and what is and what is not satisfactory
proof that the disloyal act was done voluntarily or not. The circum-
stances are all to be weighed ; the whole evidence is to be considered ;
and it is only by so doing that a reasonable judgment can be formed.

VII. Bankruptcy. — After the war numerous claimants availed them-
selves of the benefit of the bankrupt law. In every such case the claim
passed to the assignee in bankruptcy. Counsel have strenuously urged
that, as there was no liability on the part of the Government to make
payment to any one, and no tribunal before which claims could be adju-
dicated or enforced, they were mere naked, intangible rights, invested
with no attributes of property, and not the subject of assignment or
transfer. If this is true, we have erred in recommending payment to
heirs and legatees. We have never doubted that these claims were the
subject of inheritance and bequest. If they pass by will, then assuredly
they pass in bankruptcy. The fourteenth section of the bankrupt law
defines the property that goes to the assignee, and includes not only
all real and personal property and choses in action, but in terms " all
rights in equity."

The act of March 3, 1871, does not create claims. It recognizes their
existence, and provides a tribunal for their adjudication and settlement.
At the beginning of the war they were paid through the proper account-
ing officers, and it required affirmative legislation to suspend payment.
If a regular voucher was given for stores or supplies, no matter where
taken, the proper officers of the Government always have been author-
ized to make payment. They refuse it because the highest evidence is
not produced. Yet the character of the evidence to establish it neither
creates, enlarges, nor diminishes the claim.

ASA OWEN ALDIS,
J. B. HOWELL,
OEANGE FEEEISS,
Commissioners of Claims.

The following are the regulations for taking testimony in support of
claims pending before the commissioners of claims at Washington.
(Bevised and re-issued July 1, 1874.)

ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE.

1. Admissible evidence consists only of oral testimony given before
the commissioners of claims or one of them, personally ; or of testimony
taken previous to March 3, 1871, to be used in the Court of Claims, or
before some Department of the Government ; or of depositions taken
under the rules and authority of the commissioners of claims in cases
not exceeding $10,000 in amount; or of papers used in evidence before
any Department of the Government prior to March 3, 1871, in the con-
sideration of any claim not now exceeding $10,000 in amount.

346 ALIEN CLAIMS.

AUTHORITY OP SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS.

2. Special commissioners appointed by the commissioners of claims
are authorized to administer oaths and affirmations ; to take the depo-
sitions of witnesses in any case not exceeding $5,000 in amount, upon
application of the claimant or attorney, and to take the depositions of
witnesses in any case not exceeding $10,000 in amount when so ordered
by the commissioners.

DELEGATION OP AUTHORITY PROHIBITED.

3. Special commissioners must themselves administer all oaths and
affirmations, examine all witnesses, write down all testimony, and fill
up and sign all certificates. No part of their authority or duty can be
delegated.

MODE OF TAKING DEPOSITIONS.

4. Depositions must be written in presence of the witnesses and while
they are testifying, and the record must be as closely as possible in the
words spoken by the witnesses, who must sign their depositions after
hearing them read.

The testimony must be written on legal-cap paper, and on both sides
of the sheets. Testimony concerning loyalty should be separately re-
corded from testimony concerning property, so that all the depositions
affecting loyalty may be brought together before the several pages are
fastened and the certificate appended.

CERTIFYING AND INDORSING DEPOSITIONS.

5. All depositions taken at one time and in the same case should be
securely fastened together and covered by a certificate of the form fur-
nished by the commissioners ; each signature being also attested by the
special commissioner. The depositions should be then folded, and so
indorsed as to exhibit, without unfolding, the number of the case, the
name and residence of the claimant, the amount of the claim, the names
of the deponents, the name of the special commissioner, the amount of
fees and expenses actually charged, and the name and address of the
attorney at "Washington, if there be any such attorney.

SWEARING OP WITNESSES.

6. Every deponent, before testifying, must be duly and properly sworn
or affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
concerning the matters under examination, and each deponent so swear-
ing should be informed that false testimony, knowingly given before any
special commissioner, is punishable as in cases of willful and corrupt
perjury.

EXAMINATION OP WITESSES BY SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS.

7. Claimants, or the heirs or legatees of deceased claimants, are to be
first examined when present ; the other witnesses in any order that may
be arranged. When a claimant, or a witness, is testifying, the other
witnesses must not be present ; but a claimant, or other beneficiary, or
a claimant's counsel, is entitled to be present during the examination of
all the witnesses.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 347

The special commissioner will begin the examination of each depo-
nent by putting, one after another, the printed questions prescribed for
such a witness, reading each question deliberately, and repeating and.
explaining it, if necessary, and being careful to obtain and to write
down a direct and explicit answer to every part of it. Printed ques-.
tions are neither to be written down as questions, nor their contents re-
peated in the answers, but they will be mentioned only by numbers ac-
cording to the following form: " To question numbered , the witness
answers :"

After putting each printed question, or after putting all the printed
questions, if he so prefers, the special commissioner will put such ques-
tions of his own as will draw out all the facts, whether they be favor-
able or unfavorable to the claim ; also, such as will disclose the means •
of knowledge possessed by the witness, distinguish between what he
actually knows and what he only believes, or thinks, or has heard, clear
up what is obscure and indefinite, and test the bias, the accuracy, the
memory, and the honesty of the witness.

A witness under examination should be reminded, by frequent ques-
tions, of the necessity of giving times, places, names, and particular '
circumstances connected with the more important facts to which he tes-
tifies, and, if careless or reluctant, should be informed that omissions to
answer questions or parts of questions, or evasive answers, or uncer-
tainties in the testimony, throw injurious doubts upon the merits of the
claim and jeopardize its success.

A witness should be permitted to tell all that he desires, and induced
by searching questions to tell all that he knows ; yet the special com-
missioner must not permit a witness to ramble in his statements, but
cause him to fully answer one question, or testify on one topic, before
passing to another.

EXAMINATION BY CLAIMANTS OR COUNSEL.

8. When the special commissioner has completed his examination of
a witness, the claimant or counsel can put such questions as may tend
to draw out additional facts, but must not be allowed, either ignorantly
or through design, to put " leading questions," or questions liable to inr
duce the witness to state as facts what he does not positively know or
remember; and if any such question is insisted upon by claimant or
counsel, the special commissioner will write it down as part of the
record.

RE-EXAMINATTON BY SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS.

9. After a witness has been examined by the claimant or counsel, the
special commissioner should put any further questions suggested by the
questions and answers that have just passed between claimant or coun-
sel and the witness, using, as before, his best efforts to bring out both
sides of the case and free it from doubt and obscurity.

QUESTIONS NOT TO BE RECORDED.

10. None of the questions put to witnesses by special commissioners,
claimants, or counsel, need be written in the depositions, unless they be
" leading questions," as already mentioned, or their appearance in the
record is necessary to a proper understanding of the answers.

SPECIAL TESTIMONY CONCERNING- DECEASED CLAIMANTS.

11. Where the original claimant is dead, the questions that would be
put to such claimant, if living, should be answered by the nearest or

348 ALIEN CLAIMS.

most intimate relative, but the answers must contain only actual per-
sonal knowledge, and not mere belief, hearsay, or supposition; and the
means of knowledge must be stated in every answer where knowledge
is professed.

REFRESHMENT OF THE MEMORY OP WITNESSES.

12. Witnesses are not to be permitted to refresh their memory during
their examination by referring for information to either persons or
papers, excepting to memoranda made by themselves on the spot and
at the time of the transactions to which they relate ; and any such
memoranda, used to refresh the memory, must be put into the record
as evidence. In other respects, they are to testify from their own
recollection, especially when testifying to number or quantity in con-
nection with the items of a claim.

TESTIMONY TO BE TAKEN ON FORMAL APPLICATIONS.

13. Before proceeding to take testimony, a special commissioner must
have before him a formal application containing the record number,
title, and amount of the claim, and the list of items corresponding with
the items in the petition filed at Washington.

The application on which testimony is taken should be attached
firmly to the deposition as part of the record, and should be inserted
just before the depositions relating to the property.

MODE AND TIME OP FORWARDING TESTIMONY.

14. Depositions must be forwarded direct to the commissioners at
Washington by the special commissioner, by mail or express, with post-
age or expressage prepaid, and as soon as possible after the proper costs
are paid or secured.

FEES AND EXPENSES.

15. The fees of a special commissioner for taking, certifying, and for-
warding depositions in support of a claim not exceeding one thousand
dollars in amount, are limited by law to ten cents per folio ; a folio
being construed to be one hundred words, and the words to be counted
being those in the certificate, head-lines, testimony, and indorsement.

In cases above one thousand dollars in amount, the authorized fees
are twenty cents per folio, with an attendance-fee of three dollars for
each day of actual service, divided among all the claimants served in
one day, but not more than one day's attendance-fee to be collected in
any one case.

Copies of depositions may be furnished to claimants who desire them,
at the rate of ten cents per folio.

By special agreement, previously made, a special commissioner may
receive from claimants or their agents the amount of his actual travel-
ing expenses, including the necessary cost of board and lodging, for
the actual distance traveled and the actual time consumed in their
service.

Any agreement for fixing the cost of taking testimony in any other
way than herein provided, must, if made, be made in writing and
signed by the claimant or his attorney, and the writing forwarded to
the commissioners, to be filed and preserved, subject to the uses of
■either party, but the agreement must not be in excess of the legal fees.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 349

The actual or estimated amount of postage may be collected by a
special commissioner on each set of depositions, and used to pay the
cost of forwarding such depositions.

Claimants are not entitled to have their depositions forwarded or con-
sidered till the authorized costs are paid or secured, but a special com-
missioner must accept no promise or security that would give him a
pecuniary interest in the success of a claim.

STANDING- INTERROGATORIES.

The following questions will be put to every person who gives testi-
mony':

1. What is your name, your age, your residence, and how long has it
been such, and your occupation I

2. If you are not the claimant, in what manner, if any, are you re-
lated to the claimant or interested in the success of the claim?

The following questions will be put to every claimant, except claim-
ants who were slaves at the beginning of the war :

[Note. — If the original claimant be dead, these questions are to be
answered by each of the heirs or legatees who were not less than six-
teen years of age when the war closed.]

3. Where were you born? If not born in the United States, when
and where were you naturalized? Produce your naturalization-papers,,
if you can.

4. Where were you residing and what was your business for six
months before the outbreak of the rebellion, and where did you reside
and what was your business from the beginning to the end of the war ?
And if you changed your residence or business, state how many times,
and why such changes were made.

5. On which side were your sympathies during the war, and were
they on the same side from beginning to end ?

6. Did you ever do anything or say anything against the Union cause ;
and if so, what did you do and say, and why?

7. Were you at all times during the war willing and ready to do
whatever you could in aid of the Union cause?

8. Did you ever do anything for the Union cause or its advocates or
defenders ? If so, state what you did, giving times, places, names of
persons aided, and particulars. Were the persons aided your relations ?

9. Had you any near relatives in the Union Army or Navy; if so, in
what company and regiment, or on what vessel, when and where did each
one enter service, and when and how did he leave service ? If he was
a son, produce his discharge-paper, in order that its contents may be
noted in this deposition, or state why it cannot be produced.

10. Were you in the service or employment of the United States
Government at any time during the war; if so, in what service, when,
where, or how long, under what officers, and when and how did you
leave such service or employment ?

11. Did you ever voluntarily contribute money, property, or services
to the Union cause; and if so, when, where, to whom, and what did
you contribute ?

12. Which side did you take while the insurgent States were seceding
from the Union in 1860 and 1861, and what did you do to show on which
side you stood ?

13. Did you adhere to the Union cause after the States had passed
into rebellion, or did you go with your State ?

350 ALIEN CLAIMS.

14. What were your feelings concerning the battle of Bull Bun or
Manassas, the capture of New Orleans, the fall of Vicksburgh, and the
final surrender of the confederate forces'?

15. What favors, privileges, or protections were ever granted you in
recognition of your loyalty during the war, and when and by whom
granted ?

16. Have you ever taken the so-called " iron-clad oath " since the war,
and when and on what occasions ?

17. Who were the leading and best-known Unionists of your vicinity
during the war ? Are any of them called to testify to your loyalty ;
and if not, why not?

18. Were you ever threatened with damage or injury to your person,
family, or property on account of your Union sentiments, or were you
actually molested or injured on account of your Union sentiments ? If
so, when, where, by whom, and in what particular way were you injured
or threatened with injury?

19. Were you ever arrested by any confederate officer, soldier, sailor,
or other person professing to act for the confederate government, or for
any State in rebellion ? If so, when, where, by whom, for what cause ;
how long were you kept under arrest ; how did you obtain your release;
did you take any oath or give any bond to effect your release ; and if
so, what was the nature of the oath or bond ?

20. Was any of your property taken by confederate officers or sol-
diers, or any rebel authority? If so, what property, when, where, by
whom ; were you ever paid therefor, and did you ever present an ac-
count therefor to the confederate government, or any rebel officer ?

21. Was any of your property ever confiscated by rebel authority, on
the ground that you were an enemy to the rebel cause ? If so, give all
the particulars, and state if the property was subsequently released or
compensation made therefor.

22. Did you ever do anything for the confederate cause, or render
any aid or comfort to the rebellion? If so, give the times, places, per-
sons, and other particulars connected with each transaction.

23. What force, compulsion, or influence was used to make you do
anything against the Union cause? If any, give all the particulars
demanded in the last question.

24. Were you in any service, business, or employment, for the con-
federacy, or for any rebel authority ? If so, give the same particulars
as before required.

25. Were you in the civil, military, or naval service of the confeder-
acy, or any rebel State, in any capacity whatsoever ? If so, state fully
in respect to each occasion and service.

26. Did you ever take any oath to the so-called Confederate States
while in any rebel service or employment ?

27. Did you ever have charge of any stores, or other property, for the
confederacy, or did you ever sell or furnish any supplies to the so-called
Confederate States, or any State in rebellion ; or did you have any
share or interest in contracts or manufactures in aid of the rebellion ?

28. Were you engaged in blockade-running, or running through the
lines, or interested in the risks or profits of such ventures?

29. Were you in any way interested in any vessel navigating the
waters of the confederacy, or entering or leaving any confederate port?
If so, what vessel, when and where employed, in what business, and
had any rebel authority any direct or indirect interest in vessel or cargo ?

30. Did you ever subscribe to any loan of the so-called Confederate
. States, or of any rebel State; or own confederate bonds or securities, or

ALIEN CLAIMS. 351

the bonds or securities of any rebel State issued between 1861 and 1865 ?
Did you sell, or agree to sell, cotton or produce to the confederate gov-
ernment, or to any rebel State, or to any rebel officer or agent ; and it
so, did you receive or agree to receive confederate or State bonds or
securities in payment ; and if so, to what amount, and for what kind
and amount of property ?

31. Did you contribute to the raising, equipment, or support of tooops,
or the building of gunboats in aid of the rebellion ; or to military hos-
pitals or invalids, or to relief-funds or subscriptions for the families of
persons serving against the United States ?

32. Did you ever give information to any person in aid of military or
naval operations against the United States ?

33. Were you at any time a member of any society or organization
for equipping volunteers or conscripts, or for aiding the rebellion in any
other manner ?

34. Did you ever take an oath of allegiance to the'so-called Confed-
erate States ? If so, state how often, when, where, for what purpose,
and the nature of the oath, or affirmation.

35. Did you ever receive a pass from rebel authority ? If so, state
when, where, for what purpose, on what conditions, and how the pass
was used.

36. Had you any near relatives in the confederate army, or in any
military or naval service hostile to the United States'? If so, give names,
ages on entering service, present residence, if living, what influence you
exerted, if any, against their entering the service, and in what way you
contributed to their outfit and support.

37. Have you been under the disabilities imposed by the fourteenth
amendment to the Constitution ? Have your disabilities been removed
by Congress?

38. Have you been specially pardoned by the President for participa-
tion in the rebellion ?

39. Did you take any amnesty oath during the war, or after its close ?
If so, when, where, and why did you take it?

40. Were you ever a prisoner to the United States authorities, or on
parole, or under bonds to do nothing against the Union cause? If so,
state all the particulars.

41. Were you ever arrested by the authorities of the United States
during the war ? If so, when, where, by whom, on what grounds, and
when and how did you obtain your release ?

42. Were there any fines or assessments levied upon you by the au-
thorities of the United States because of your supposed sympathy for
the rebellion ? If so, state all the facts.

43. Was any of your property taken into possession or sold by the
United States under the laws relating to confiscation, or to captured and
abandoned property?

The following questions will be put to all male claimants or beneficia-
ries who were not less than sixteen years of age when the war closed :

44. After the presidential election of 1860, if of age, did you vote for
any candidate or on any questions, during the war, and how did you
vote ? Did you vote for or against candidates favoring secession ? Did
you vote for or against the ratification of the ordinance of secession, or
for or against separation in your State ?

45. Did you belong to any vigilance committee, or committee of safety,
home-guard, or any other form of organization or combination designed
to suppress Union sentiment in your vicinity ?

46. Were you in the confederate army, State militia, or any military

352 ALIEN CLAIMS.

or naval organization hostile to the United States ? If so, state when,
"where, in what organizations, how and why you entered, how long you
remained each time, and when and how you left. If you claim that you
were conscripted, when and where was it, how did you receive notice,
and from whom, and what was the precise manner in which the conscrip-
tion was enforced against you ? If you were never in the rebel army or
other hostile organization, explain how you escaped service. If you
furnished a substitute, when and why did you furnish one, and what is
his name, and his present address, if living '?

47. Were you in any way connected with or employed in the confed-
erate quartermaster, commissary, ordinance, engineer, or medical de-
partment, or any other department, or employed on any railroad trans-
porting troops or supplies for the confederacy, or otherwise engaged in
transportation of men and supplies for the confederacy ? If so, state
how employed, when, where, for how long, under whose direction, and
why such employment was not giving " aid and comfort " to the rebel-
lion.

48. Did you at any time have charge of trains, teams, wagons, ves-
sels, boats, or military supplies or property of any kind for the confed-
erate government ? If so, give all the facts as in previous questions.

49. "Were you employed in saltpeter-works, in tanning or milling for
the confederate goverment, or making clothing, boots, shoes, saddles,
harness, arms, ammunition, accouterments, or any other kind of muni-
tions of war for the confederacy ? If so, give all the particulars of
time, place, and nature of service or supplies.

50. Were you ever engaged in holding in custody, directly or indi-
rectly, any persons taken by the rebel government as prisoners of war,
or any person imprisoned or confined by the confederate government, or
the authorities of any rebel State, for political causes f If so, when,,
where, under what circumstances, in what capacity were you engaged,
and what was the name and rank of your principal ?

51. Were you ever in the Union Army or ]Savy, or in any service con-
nected therewith f If so, when, where, in what capacity, under whose
command or authority, for what period of time, and when and how did
you leave service ? Produce your discharge-papers, so that their con-
tents may be noted herein.

The following questions will be put to every person testifying to the
loyalty of claimants or beneficiaries :

52. In whose favor are you here to testify?

53. How long have you known that person altogether, and what part
of that time have you intimately known him ?

54. Did you live near him during the war, and how far away 1

55. Did you meet him often, and about how often, during the war?

56. Did you converse with the claimant about the war, its causes, its
progress, and its results ? If so, try to remember the more important
occasions on which you so conversed, beginning with the first occasion,
and state with respect to each, when it was, where it was, who were
present, what caused the conversation, and what the claimant said, in
substance, if you cannot remember his words.

57. Do you know of anything done by the claimant that showed him
to be loyal to the Union cause during the war? It you do, state what
he did, when, where, and what was the particular cause or occasion of
his doing it. Give the same information about each thing he did that
showed him to be loyal.

58. Do you know of anything said or done by the claimant that was
against the Union cause? If so, please state, with respect to each

ALIEN CLAIMS. 353

thing said or done, what it was, when it was, where it was, and what
particular compulsion or influence caused him to say or do it.

59. It you have heard of anythiug said or done by the claimant, either
for the Union cause or against it, state from whom you heard it, when
you heard it, and what you heard.

60. What was the public reputation of the claimant for loyalty or
disloyalty to the United States during the war? If you profess to
know his public reputation, explain fully how you know it, whom you
heard speak of it, and give the names of other persons who were neigh-
bors during the war that could testify to his public reputation.

61. Who were the known and prominent Union people of the neigh-
borhood during the war, and do you know tbat such persons could
testify to the claimant's loyalty?

62. Were you, yourself, an adherent of the Union cause during the
war"? If so, did the claimant know you to be such, and how did he
know it ?

63. Do you know of any threats, molestations, or injury inflicted
upon the claimant or his family, or his property, on account of his
adherence to the Union cause ? If so, give all the particulars.

64. Do you know of any act done or language used by the claimant
that would have prevented him from establishing his loyalty to the
confederacy ? If so, what act or what language ?

65. Can you state any other facts within your own knowledge in proof
of the claimant's loyalty during the war"? If so, state all the facts and
give all the particulars.

The following questions concerning the ownership of property charged
in claims will be put to all claimants, or the representatives of deceased
claimants:

66. Who was the owner of the property charged in this claim when it
was taken, and how did such person become owner?

67. If any of the property was taken from a farm or plantation,
where was such farm or plantation situated, what was its size, how
much was cultivated, how much was woodland, and how much was
waste-land ?

68. Has the person who owned the property when taken since filed a,
petition in bankruptcy, or been declared a bankrupt I

The following questions will be put to female claimants :

69. Are you married or single? If married, when were you married?
Was your husband loyal to the cause and Government of the United
States throughout the war? Where does he now reside, and why is he
not joined with you in the petition ? How many children have you ?
Give their names and ages. Were any of them in the confederate
service during the war ? If you claim that the property named in your
petition is your sole and separate property, state how you came to own
it separately from your husband ; how your title was derived ; when
your ownership of it began. Did it ever belong to your husband ? If
the property for which you ask pay is wood, timber, rails, or the prod-
ucts of a farm, how did you get title to the farm ? If by deed, can you
file copies of the deeds? If single, have you been married? If a
widow, when did your husband die? Was he in the confederate army ?
Was he in the civil service of the confederacy ? Was he loyal to the
United States Government throughout £he war? Did he leave any
children? How many? Are any now living? Give their names and
ages. Are they not interested in this claim ? If they are not joined iu
this petition, why not? State fully how your title to the property
specified in the petition was obtained. Did you ever belong to any

H. Eep. 134 23

354 ALIEN CLAIMS.

sewing-society organized to make clothing for confederate soldiers or
their families, or did you assist in making any such clothing, or making
flags or other military equipments, or preparing or furnishing delica-
cies or supplies for the confederate hospitals or soldiers?
The following questions will be put to colored claimants :

70. Were you a slave or free at the beginning of the war? If ever a
slave, when did you become free f What business did you follow after
obtaining your freedom ? Did you own this property before or after
you became free ? When did you get it ? How did you become owner,
and from whom did you obtain if? Where did you get the means to
pay for it f What was the name and resideuce of your master, and is he
still living? Is he a witness for you ; and if not, why not? Are you
in his employ now, or do you live on his laud or on land bought from
him? Are you in his debt? What other person beside yourself has
any interest in this claim ?

The following questions will be put to all colored witnesses in behalf
of white claimants :

71. Were you formerly the slave of the claimant ? Are you now in
his service or employment ? Do you live on his land ? Are you in his
debt? Are you in any way to share in this claim, if allowed?

The following questions will be put to claimants and witnesses who
testify to the talking of property, omitting in the case of each claimant
or witness any questions that are clearly unnecessary :

72. Were you present when any of the property charged in this claim
was taken ? Did you actually see any taken ? If so, specify what you
saw taken.

73. Was any of the property taken in the night-time, or was any taken
secretly, so that you did not know of it at the time ?

74. Was any complaint made to any officer of the taking of any of
the property ? If so, give the name, rank, and regiment of the officer,
and state who made the complaint to him; what he said and did in con-
sequence; and what was the result of the complaint.

75. Were any vouchers or receipts asked for or given ? If given,
where are the vouchers or receipts? If lost, state fully how lost. If
as^ked and not given, by whom were they asked ; who was asked to
give them, and why were they refused or not given ? State very fully
in regard to the failure to ask or obtain receipts.

76. Has any payment ever been made for any property charged in
this claim ? Has any payment been made for any property taken at the
same times as the property charged in this claim ? Has any payment
been made for any property taken from the same claimant during the
war ; and if so, when, by whom, for what property and to what amount?
Has this property, or any part of it, been included in any claim hereto-
fore presented to Congress, or any court, Department, or officer of the
United States, or to any board of survey, military commission, State
commission or officer, or any other authority ? If so, when and to what
tribunal or officers was the claim presented? Was it larger or smaller
in amount than this claim ; and how is the difference explained ; and
what was the decision, if any, of the tribunal to which it was presented?

77. Was the property charged in this claim taken by troops en-
camped in the vicinity, or were they on the march ; or were tbey on a
raid or expedition ; or had there been any recent battle or skirmish ?

78. You will please listen attentively while the list of items, but not
the quantities, is read to you, and as each kind of property is called off,
say whether you saw any such property taken.

79. Begin now with the first item of property you have just said you

ALIEN CLAIMS. 355

saw taken, and give the following information about it: First. Describe
its exact condition — as, for instance, if corn, whether green or ripe,
standing or harvested, in shuck or husked or shelled ; if lumber,
whether new or old, in buildings or piled; if grain , whether growing
or cut, &c. Second. State where it was. Third. What was the quan-
tity 1 ? Explain fully how you know the quantity; and if estimated,
describe your method of making the estimate. Fourth. Describe the
quality, to your best judgment. Fifth. State as nearly as you can the
market-value of such property at the time in United States money.
Sixth. Say when the property was taken. Seventh. Give the name of
the detachment, regiment, brigade, division, corps, or army taking the
property, and the names of any officers belonging to the command.
Eighth. Describe the precise manner in which the property was taken
into possession by the troops, and the manner in which it was removed.
Ninth, State as closely as you can how many men, aniinals,wagons, or
other means of transport, were engaged in the removal; how long they
were occupied, and to what place they removed the property. Tenth.
State if any officers were present ; how you knew them to be officers ;
what they said or did in relation to the property, and give the
names of any, if you can. Eleventh. Give any reasons that you may
have for believing that the taking of the property was authorized by
the proper officers, or that it was for the necessary use of the Army.

80. Now take the next item of property you saw taken, and give the
same information, and so proceed to the end of the list of items.

CHAPTER X.

MIXED COMMISSIONS UNDER TREATIES.

Since the organization of the Government there have been many
mixed commissions under treaties for the adjustment of claims between
this and foreign powers.

It would be impracticable to give a history of these now. The join
commission of the United States and Mexico under the convention of
July 4, 1868, is now in session in Washington. The treaty which pro-
Tided for this and the rules and orders thereof are as follows :

By the President of the United States of America.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas a convention between the United States of America and the
republic of Mexico, providing for the adjustment of the claims of citi-
zens of either country against the other, was concluded and signed by
their respective plenipotentiaries, at the city of Washington, on the
fourth day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred
and sixty-eight, which convention, being in the English and Spanish
languages, is word for word as follows :

Whereas it is desirable to main- Consideraudo que es conveniente
tain and increase the friendly feel- mantener y ensanchar los senti-
ings between the United States and mientos amistosos enta, la repu-

356

ALIEN CLAIMS.

the Mexican republic, and so to
strengthen the system and princi-
ciples of republican government
on the American continent; and
whereas since the signature of the
treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, of the
2d of February, 1848, claims and
complaints have been made by cit-
izens of the United States, on ac-
count of injuries to their persons
and their property by authorities
of that republic, and similar claims
and complaints have been made on
account of injuries to the persons
and property of Mexican citizens
by authorities of the United States;
the President of the United States
of America and the President of
the Mexican republic have resolved
to conclude a convention for the
adjustment of the said claims and
complaints, and have named as
their plenipotentiaries — the Presi-
dent of the United States, William
H. Seward, Secretary of State ; and
the President of the Mexican re-
public, Matias Eomero, accredited
as envoy extraordinary and min-
ister plenipotentiary of the Mexi-
can republic to the United States ;
who, after having communicated to
each other their respective full
powers, found in good and due
form, have agreed to the following
articles :

Article I.

blica Mexicana y los Estados Uni-
dos, y afianzar asi el sistem a y princi-
pios de gobierno republicano en el
continente Americano; y conside-
rando que con posterioridad a la
celebracion del tratado de Guada-
lupe Hidalgo, de 2 de Febrero de
1848, ciudadanos de la republica
Mexicana han hecho reclamacio-
nes y presentado quejas con
motivo de perjuicios sufridos en
sus personas 6. sus propiedades,
por autoridades de los Estados
Unidos, y reclamaciones y quejas
semejautes se han hecho y presen-
tado con motivo de perjuicios sufri-
dos por ciudadanos de los Estados
Unidos, en sus personas 6 sus pro-
piedades, por autoridades de la
republica Mexicana ; el Presidente
de la republica Mexicana y el Pre-
sidente de los Estados Unidos de
America han determinado concluir
una convencion para el arreglo de
dichas reclamaciones y quejas, y han
nombrado sus plenipotenciarios ; el
Presidente de.la republica Mexi
cana, a Matias Eomero, acreditado
como euviado extraordinario ymi-
nistro plenipotenciario de la repu-
blica Mexicana en los Estados Uni-
dos ; y el Presidente de los Estados
Unidos, 4 William H. Seward, Se-
cretario de Estado, quienes despues
de haberse mostrado sus respec-
tivos plenos poderes y encontra-
dolos en buena y debida forma, han
convenido en los articulos siguien-
tes :

ARTfcULO I.

All claims on the part of corpo-
rations, companies, or private in-
dividuals, citizens of the United
States, upon the government of the
Mexican republic arising from inju-
ries to their persons or property by
authorities of the Mexican republic,
and all claims on the part of corpo-
rations, companies, or private indi-
viduals, citizens of the Mexican re-
public, upon the Government of the
United States, arising from injuries
to their persons or property by au-
thorities of the United States,which
may have been presented to either

Todas las reclamaciones hechas
por corporacioues, companias 6 in-
dividnos particulares, ciudadanos
de la republica Mexicana, proce-
dentes de perjuicios sufridos en
sus personas 6 en sus propiedades,
por autoridades de los Estados
Unidos, y todas las reclamaciones
hechas por corporaciones, compa-
ilias 6 individuos particulares, ciu-
dadanos de los Estados Unidos,
procedentes de perjuicios sufridos
en sus personas 6 en sus propie-
dades, por autoridades de la repu-
blica Mexicana, que hay an sido pre-

ALIEN CLAIMS.

357

government for its interposition
with the other since the signature
of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
between the United States and the
Mexican republic of the 2d of Feb-
ruary 1848, and which yet remain
unsettled, as well as any other such
claims Which may be presented
within the time hereinafter speci-
fied, shall be referred to two com-
missioners, one to be appoiuted by
the President of the United States,
by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate, and one by the Pres-
ident of the Mexican republic. In
case of the death, absence, or inca-
pacity of either commissioner, or in
the event of either commissioner
omitting or ceasing to act as such,
the President of the United States
or the President of the Mexican re-
public, respectively, shall forthwith
name another person to act as com-
missioner in the place or stead of
the commissioner originally named.

The commissioners so named shall
meet at Washington within six
months after the exchange of the
ratifications of this convention, and
shall, before proceeding to business,
make and subscribe a solemn dec-
laration that they will impartially
and carefully examine and decide,
to the best of their judgment, and
according to publiclaw, justice, and
equity, without fear, favor, or affec-
tion to their own country, upon all
such claims above specified as shall
be laid before them on the part of
the governments of the United
States and of the Mexican Republic,
respectively; and such declaration
shall be entered on the record of
their proceedings.

The commissioners shall then
name some third person to act as
an umpire in any case or cases on
which they may themselves differ in
opinion. If they should not be able
toagreeupon thenameof such third
person, they shall each name a per-

sentadas a cualquiera de los dos
gobiernos, solicitando la interposi-
cion para con el otro, con poste-
rioridad a la celebracion del tratado
de Guadalupe Hidalgo entre la
Republica Mexicana y los Estados
Unidos, de 2 de Febrero de 1848, y
que aun permanecen pendientes, de
la misma manera que cualesquiera
otras reclamaciones que se presen-
taren dentro del tiempo que mas
adelante se especificara, se referi-
ran a dos comisionados, uno de los
cuales sera nombrado por el Presi-
dente de la republica Mexicana y
el otro por el Presidente de los
Estados Unidos, con el consejo y
aprobaciou del Senado. En caso
de muerte, ausencia 6 incapacidad
de alguno de los comisionados, 6
en caso de que alguno de los co-
misionados cese de funcionar como
tal, 6 suspenda el ejercicio de sus
funciones, el Presidente de la re-
publica Mexicana 6 el Presidente
de los Estados Unidos, respectiva-
mente, nombraran desde luego otra
persona que haga de comisionado
en lugar del que originalmente fu6
nombrado.

Los comisionados nombrados de
esta manera, se reuniran en Wash-
ington dentro de seis meses, des-
pues de cangeadas las ratiticaciones
de esta convencion, y autes de de-
sempenar sus funciones, haran y
suscribiran una declaracion so-
lemne de que examinaran y decidi-
ran imparcial y cuidadosamente,
segun su mejor saber, y conforme
con el derecho publico, la justicia y
equidad, y sin temor 6 afeccion a
su respectivo pais, sobre todas las
reclamaciones antes especificadas,
que se les sometan por los gobiernos
de la republica Mexicana y de los
Estados Unidos, respectivamente,
y dicha declaracion se asentara en
la acta de sus procedimientos.

Los comisionados procederan en-
tonces a nombrar una tercera per-
sona que hara de arbitro en el caso
6 casos en que difieran de opinion.
Si no pudieren convenir en el
nombre de esta tercera persona,
cada uno de ellos nombrara una

358

ALIEN CLAIMS.

son, and in each and every case in
which the commissioners may differ
in opinion as to the decision which
they ought to give, it shall be de-
termined by lot which of the two
persons so named shall be umpire
in that particular case. The person
or persons so to be chosen to be
umpire shall, before proceeding to
act as such in any case, make and
subscribe a solemn declaration in
a form similar to that which shall
already have been made and sub-
scribed by the commissioners, which
shall be entered on the record of
their proceedings. In the event of
the death, absence, or incapacity of
such person or persons, or of his or
their omitting, ov declining, or ceas-
ing to act as such umpire, another
and different person shall be named,
as aforesaid, to act as such umpire,
in the place of the person so origi-
nally named, as aforesaid, and shall
make and subscribe such declara-
tion as aforesaid.

persona, y en todos y cada uno de
los casos en que los comisiouados
difleran de opinion respecto de la
decision que deban dar, se deter-
minarA por suerte quien de las dos
personas asi nombradas har& de
arbitro en ese caso particular. La
persona 6 personas que se eligieren
de esa manera, para ser arbitros,
harau y suscribiran Antes de obrar
como tales, en cualquier caso, una
declaration solemne en una forma,
semejante a la que deberd haber
sido ya hecha y suscrita por los
comisionados, lo cual se asentara-
tambien en la acta de los procedi-
mientos. En caso de muerte, au-
sencia 6 incapacidad de la persona
6 personas nombrados Arbitros, 6
en caso de que suspendau el ejerci-
cio de sus funciones, se rehusen k
desempenarlas 6 cesen en ellas,
otra persona seranombrado arbitro
de la manera que qneda dicha, en
lugar de la persona originalmente
nombrada, y hara y suscnbir4 la
declaration antes mencionada.

Article II.

Artictjlo II.

The commissioners shall then cou-
jointly proceed to the investigation
and decision of the claims which
shall be presented to their notice,
in such order and in such manner
as they may conjointly think proper,
but upon such evidence or informa-
tion only as shall be furnished by
or on behalf of their respective gov-
ernments. They shall be bound to
receive and peruse all written docu-
ments or statements which may be
presented to them by or on behalf
of their respective governments in
supportof or in answer to any claim,
and to hear, if required, one person
on each side on behalf of each gov-
ernment on each and every separate
claim. Should they fail to agree in
opinion upon any individual claim,
they shall call to their assistance
the umpire whom they may have
agreed to name, or who may be de-
termined by lot, as the case may
be; and such umpire, after having
examined the evidence adduced for

En seguida proceder&n junta-
mente los comisionadas a la inves-
tigation y decision de las reclama-
ciones que se les presenten, en el
orden y dela manera que de comun
acuerdo creyeren conveniente, pero
recibiendo solamente las pruebas 6
informes que se les ministren por
los respectivos gobiernos 6 en su
nombre. Tendran obligation de
recibir y leer todas las manifesta-
ciones 6 documeutos escritos que
se le presenten por sus gobiernos
respectivos, 6 en su nombre, en
apoyo 6 respuesta :k cualquiera
reclamation, y de oir, si se les pi-
diere, & una persona por cada lado,
en nombre de cada gobieruo, eu
todas y cada una de las reclatna-
ciones separadamente. Si dejaren
de convenir sobre alguua reclama
cion particular, llamarau en su au-
silio al arbitro que hayau nombrado
de comun acuerdo, 6 k quien la
suerte haya designado, segun fuere
el caso, y el arbitro, despues de

ALIEN CLAIMS.

359

and against the claim, aud after
having heard, if required, one per-
son on each side as aforesaid, and
consulted with the commissioners,
shall decide thereupon finally and
without appeal. The decision of the
commissioners and of the umpire
shall be given upon each claim in
writing, shall designate whether any
snm which may be allowed shall be
payable in gold or in the currency
of the United States, and shall be
signed by them respectively. It
shall be competent for each govern-
ment to name one person to attend
the commissioners as agent on its
behalf, to present and support clai m s
on its behalf, and to answer claims
made upon it, and to represent it
generally in all matters connected
with the investigation and decision
thereof.

The President of theUnited States
of Am erica and the President of the
Mexican Eepublic hereby solemnly
and sincerely en gage to consider the
decision of the commissioners con-
jointly or of the umpire, as the case
may be, as absolutely final and con-
clusive upon each claim decided
upon by them or him respectively,
and to give full effect to such decis-
ions without any objection, evasion,
or delay whatsoever. It is agreed
that no claim arising out of a trans-
action of a date prior to the 2d of
February, 1848, shall be admissible
under this convention.

haber examinado las pruebas pro-
ducidas en favor y en contra de la
reclamacion y despues de haber
oido, si se le pidiere, a una persona
por cada lado, como queda dicho, y
consultado con los comisionados,
decidira sobre ella finalmente y sin
apelacion. La decision de los comi-
sionados y del arbitro se dara en
cada reclamacion por escrito, espe-
cificara si la suma que se conce-
diere se pagara en oro 6 en moneda
corriente de los Bstados Unidos, y
sera firmada por ellos respectiva-
meute. Oada gobierno podra nom-
brar una persona que concurra a la
comision en nombre del gobierno
respectivo, como agente; que pre-
senta 6 defienda las reclamaciones
en nombre del mismo gobierno, y
que responda a las reclamaciones
hechas contra 61, y que le repre-
sente en general en todos los nego-
cios que tengan relacion con la in-
vestigation y decision de reclama-
ciones.

El Presidente de la republica
Mexicana y el Presidente de los
Estados Unidos de America se com-
prometen solemne y sinceramente
en esta convencion, a, considerar la
decision de los comisionados de
acuerdo, \i del arbitro, seguu fuere
el caso, como absolutamente final
y definitiva, respecto de cada una
de las reclamaciones falladas por
los comisionados 6 el arbitro respec-
tivameute. y 4 dar entero cumpli-
miento 4 tales decisiones sin obje-
cion, evasion ni dilacion ninguna.
Si conviene que ninguna reclama-
cion que emane de acontecimieutos
de fecha anterior al 2 de Febrero de
1848, se admitira con arreglo a esta
convencion.

Article III.

Aeticulo III.

Every claim shall be presented
to the commissioners within eight
months from the day of their first
meeting, unless in any case where
reasons for delay shall be estab-
lished to the satisfaction of the com-
missioners, or of the umpire in the
event of thecommissioners differing

Todas las reclamaciones se pre-
sentaran a los comisionados dentro
de ocho meses contados desde el
dia de su primera reunion, a no ser
en las casos enquese manifieste
qne haya habido razones para di-
latarlas, siendo 6stas satisfactorias
para los comisionados 6 para el

3.30

ALIEN CLAIMS.

in opiuiou thereupon, and tben and
in any such case the period for pre-
senting the claim may be extended
to any time not exceeding three
months longer.

The commissioners shall be bound
to examine and decide upon every
claim within two years and six
months from the day of their first
meeting. It shall be competent for
the commissioners conjointly, or for
the umpire if they differ, to decide
in each case whether any claim has
or has not been duly made, pre-
ferred, and laid before them, either
wholly or to any and what extent,
according to the true intent and
meaning of this convention.

arbitro, si los comisionados no se
convinieren, y en ese y otros casos
semejantes, el periodo para la pre-
sentacion de las reclamaciones po-
dra estenderse por un plazo que no
exceda de tres meses.

Los comisionados tendran la obli-
gacion de examinar y decidir todas
las reclamaciones dentro de dos
anos y seis meses, eontados desde
el dia de su primera reunion. Los
comisionados de comun acuerdo
6 el arbitro, si ellos difirieren, po-
dran decidir en cada caso, si una
reclamation ha sido 6 no debida-
mente hecha, comunicada y some-
tida a la comision, ya sea en su
totalidad 6 en parte y cual sea esta,
con arreglo al verdadero espiritu y
a letra de esta convencion.

Article IV.

Articulo IV.

When decisions shall have been
made by the commissioners and the
arbiter iu every case which shall
have been laid before them, the total
amount awarded in all the cases
•decided in favor of the citizens of
theone party shall be deducted from
the total amount awarded to the
citizens of the other party, and the
balance, to the amount of three
hundred thousand dollars, shall be
paid at the city of Mexico, or at the
city of Washington, in gold or its
equivalent, within twelve mouths
from the close of the commission,
t<5 the government in favorof whose
citizens the greater amount may
have been awarded, without inter-
est or any other deduction than that
specified in Article VI of this con-
vention. The residue of the said
balance shall be paid in annual in-
stallments to an amount not exceed-
ingthree hundred thousand dollars,
in gold or its equivalent, in any one
yearuntil thewhole shall have been
paid.

Article V.

Cuando los comisionados y el
arbitro hayan decidido todos los
casos que les hayan sido debida-
mente sometidos, la suma total fa-,
llada en todos los casos decididos
en favor de los ciudadanos de una
parte, se deducira de la suma total
fallada en favor de los ciudadanos
de la otra parte, y la diferencia
hasta la cantidad de trescieutos mil
pesos en oro, 6 su equivalente, se
pagara en la ciudad de Mexico 6
en la ciudad de Washington, al
gobierno en favor decuyos ciudada-
nos se haya fallado la mayor canti-
dad, sin interes, ni otra deduccion
que laespecificada en el Articulo VI
de esta convencion. Bl resto de
dicha diferencia se pagara en abonos
anuales que no excedau de tres-
cientos mil pesos en oro, 6 su equiva-
lente, hasta que se haya pagado el
total de la diferencia.

Articulo V.

The high contracting parties
agree to consider the result of the
proceedings of this commission as

Las altas partes contratantes
convienen en considerar el resul-
tado de los procedimientos de esta

ALIEN CLAIMS.

361

a full, perfect, and final settlement
of every claim upon either govern-
ment arising out of any transaction
of a date prior to the exchange of
the ratifiations of the present con-
vention ; and further engage that
every such claim, whether or not
• the same may have been presented
to the notice of, made, preferred, or
laid before the said commission,
shall, from and after the conclusion
of the proceedings of the said com-
mission, be considered and treated
as finally settled, barred, and thence-
forth inadmissible.

Article VI.

The commissioners and the um-
pire shall keep an accurate record
and correct minutes of their pro-
ceedings,' with the dates. For that
purpose they shall appoint two sec-
retaries versed in the language of
both countries to assist them in the
transaction of the business of the
commission. Each government
shall pay to its commissioner an
amount of salary uot exceeding
forty-five hundred dollars a year in
the currency of the United States,
which amount shall be the same for
both governments. The amount of
compensation to be paid to the um-
pire shall be determined by mutual
consent at the close of the commis-
sion, but necessary and reasonable
advances may be made by each gov-
ernment upon the joint recommen-
dation of the commission. The
salary of the secretaries shall not
exceed the sum of twenty-five hun-
dred dollars a year in the currency
of the United States. The whole
expenses of the commission, includ-
ing contingent expenses, shall be
defrayed by a ratable deduction on
the amount of the sums awarded by
the commission, provided always
that such deduction shall not ex-
ceed five per cent, on the sums so
awarded. The deficiency, if any,
shall be defrayed in moieties by the
two governments.

comision, como arreglo completo,
perfecto y final, de toda reclama-
cion contra cualquiera gobierno,
que proceda de acontecimientos de
fecha anterior al canje de las rati-
ficaciones de la presente conven-
cion; y se comprometeu ademas &
que toda reclamacion, ya sea que
se haya preseutado 6 no a la refe-
rida comision, sera consideradaytra-
tada, concluidos los procedimientos
dedicha comision, como finalmente
arreglada, desechada y para siem-
pre inadmisible.

Articulo V I.-
Los comisionados y el arbitro
llevaran una relacion fiel y actas
esactas de sus procedimientos con
especificacion de las fechas; con
este objeto nombraran dos secreta-
ries versados en las lenguas de am-
bos parses, para que lesayuden en el
arreglo de los asuntos de la comision.
Oada gobierno pagara a su comi-
sionado un sueldo que no exceda
de cuatro mil quinientos pesos al
a no, en moneda corriente de los
Estados Unidos, cuya cantidad
sera la misma para ambos gobier-
nos. La compensacion que haya
de pagarse al arbitro se determi-
nara por consentimiento mutuo, al
terminarse la comision; pero po-
dran hacerse por cada gobierno
adelantos necesarios y razonables
en virtud de larecommendacion de
los dos comisionados. El sueldo de
los secretaries no excedera de la
suma de dos mil quinientos pesos al
ano, en moneda corriente de los Es-.
tados Unidos. Los gastos todos de
la comision, incluyendo los contin-
gentes, se pagaran con una reduccion
proporcional de la cantidad total fa-
llada por los comisionados, siempre
que tal deduccion no exceda del cinco
por ciento de las cantidades falladas.
Si hubiere algun deficiente, lo cu-
briran umbos gobiernos por mitad.

362 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Article VII. ArtIculo VII.

The present convention shall be La presente convencion sera ra-
ratified by the President of the tiflcada por el Presidente de la re-
United States, by and with the publica Mexicana, con aprobacion
advice and consent of the Senate del Congreso de la misma, y por el
thereof, and by the President of the Presidente de los Estados Uni-
Mexican Eepublic, with the appro- dos, con el consejo y aprobacion
bation of the Congress of that re- del Senado de los misinos, y las
public, and the ratifications shall ratificaciones se cangearan en
be exchanged at Washington within Washington dentro de nueve meses
nine months from the date hereof, contados desde la fecha de la Con-
or sooner, if possible. vendor), 6 antes, si fuere posible.

In witness whereof the respective En fe" de lo cual, los respectivos

plenipotentiaries have signed the plenipotenciarios la hemos firmado

same and have affixed thereto the y sellado con nuestros sellos respec-

seals of their arms. tivos.

Done at Washington, the fourth Hecho en Washington el dia

day of July, in the year of our Lord cuatro de Julio del ano del Senor

one thousand eight hundred and mil ochocientos sesenta y ocho.
sixty-eight.

WILLIAM H. SEWAHD. [l. S.] M. ROMERO, [l. s.

M. EOMERO. |L. s.J WILLIAM H. SEWARD, [l.s.

And whereas the said convention has been duly ratified on both parts,
and the respective ratifications of the same have this day been exchanged :

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the
United States of America, have caused the said convention to be made
public, to the end that the same, and every clause and article thereof,
may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United States and
the citizens thereof.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the
seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington this first day of February, in the year
of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine, and of the inde-
pendence of the United States of America the ninety-third.

[SEAL. J ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President :

William H. Seward, Secretary of State.

CONVENTION 1 BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE MEX-
ICAN REPUBLIC FOR THE FURTHER EXTENSION OF THE DURATION OF
THE JOINT COMMISSION RESPECTING CLAIMS, ORIGINALLY FIXED BY
THE CONVENTION OF JULY 4, 1868. CONCLUDED NOVEMBER 20, 1874;
RATIFICATION ADVISED BY SENATE JANUARY 20, 1875; RATIFIED BY
PRESIDENT JANUARY 22, 1875 ; RATIFIED BY PRESIDENT OF MEXICO
DECEMBER 21, 1874 ; RATIFICATIONS EXCHANGED AT WASHINGTON JAN-
UARY 28, 1875 ; PROCLAIMED JANUARY 29, 1875.

By the President of the United States of America.

A PROCLAMATION.

Whereas a convention between the United States of America and
the Mexican Republic for further extending the time originally fixed
by the convention between the same parties of the 4th of July, 1868,

ALIEN CLAIMS.

363

and extended by those of the 19th of April, 1871, and of the 27th of
Ncveinber, 1872, for the duration of the joint commission on the subject
of claims, was concluded and signed by their respective plenipotentiaries
at Washington on the 20th day of November, 1874, the original of
which convention, being in the English and Spanish languages^ is word
for word as follows :

Convention between the United States
of America and the Mexican Re-
public.

Whereas, pursuant to the con-
vention between the United States
and the Mexican Eepublic of the
19th day of April, 1871, the func-
tions of the joint commission under
the convention between the same
parties of the 4th of July, 1868, were
extended for a term not exceeding
one year from the day on which they
were to terminate according to the
convention last named ;

And whereas, pursuant to the
first article of the convention be-
tween the same parties, of the twen-
ty-seventh day of November, one
thousand eight hundred and seven-
ty-two, the joint commission above
referred to was revived and again
extended for a term not exceeding
two years from the day on which
the functions of the said commis-
sion would terminate pursuant to
the said convention of the nine-
teenth day of April, 1871 ; but
whereas the said extensions have
not proved sufficient for the dis-
posal of the business before the said
commission, the said parties being
equally animated by a desire that
all that business should be closed,
as originally contemplated, the
President of the United States has
for this purpose conferred full pow-
ers on Hamilton Fish, Secretary
of State, and the President of the
Mexican Eepublic has conferred like
powers on Don Ignacio Mariscal,
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister
Plenipotentiary of that republic to
the United States ; and the said
Plenipotentiarieshavingexchanged
their full powers, which were found
to be in due form, have agreed upon
the following articles :

Convencion entre la Bepublica Mexi-
cana y los Estados Unidos de
America.

Gonsiderando : Que, conforme a
la convencion celebrada entre la
Bepublica Mexicana v los Estados
Unidos el 19 de Abri'l de 1871, las
funciones de la comision mista
establecida por la convencion entre
las mismas partes, del 4 de Julio de
1868, fueron prorogadas por un
t6rmino que no excediera de un ana
contado desde el dia en que debian
terminar con arreglo a la conven-
cion ultimamente citada :

Y que, si bien conforme al artf-
culo primero de la convencion entre
las mismas partes, del veintisiete
de Noviembre de mil ochocientos
setenta y dos, la referida comision
mista fue revivida y de nuevo pro-
rogada por un te>mino que no ex-
cediese de dos anos contados desde
el dia en que las funciones de dicha
comision habian de terminar segun
la citada convencion del diez y
nueve de Abril de 1871, dichas pro-
rogas no han sido suflcientes para
el despacho de los negocios pen-
dientes ante dicha comision, ha-
llandose las referidas partes igual-
mente animadas del deseo de que
todos esos negocios queden con-
clnidos corao se estipulo original-
mente, el Presidente de la Bepub-
lica Mexicana ha conferido con este
fin plenos poderes a Don Ignacio
Mariscal, EuviadoExtraordinario y
Ministro Pleuipotenciario de dicha
Bepublica en los Estados Unidos,
y el Presidente de los P]stados Uni-
dos ha conferido iguales poderes a,
Hamilton Fish, Secretario de Esta-
doi Y estos Plenipotentiaries, ha-
biendo cangeado suspoderes plenos^
queseencontraron en debida forma,
han convenido en los articnlos si-
guientes :

564

ALIEN CLAIMS.

Article I.

Articulo I.

The high contracting parties
agree that the said commission
shall again be extended, and that
the time now fixed for its duration
shall be prolonged for one year from
the time when it would have ex-
pired pursuant to the convention
of the twenty-seventh of Novem-
ber, 1872 ; that is to say, until the
thirty-first day of January, in tbe
year one thousand eight hundred
and seventy-six.

It is, however, agreed that noth-
ing contained in this article shall
in any wise alter or extend the time
•originally fixed by the convention
of the 4th July, 1868, aforesaid, for
the presentation of claims to the
commission.

Las altas partes contratantes
convicnen en que el termino ahora
fijado para la duracion de la co-
mision mencionada se extienda de
nuevo, prorogandose por un aiio
contado desde el tiempo en que
espiraria con arreglo a la conveu-
cion del veintisiete de Noviembre
de mil ochocientos setenta y dos:
es decir, hasta el treinta y uno de
Enero de mil ochocientos setenta y
seis.

Queda sin embargo convenido
que nada de lo que contieue este
articulo alterara 6 extended de
modo alguno el t6rmino original-
meute fijado por la convencion del
cuatro de Julio de mil ochocientos
sesenta y ocho, ya referida, para
presentar reclamaciones ante la
comision.

Article II.

Articulo II.

It is further agreed that, if at the
•expiration of the time when, pur-
suant to the first article of this con-
vention, the functions of the com-
missioners will terminate, the um-
pire under the convention should
not have decided all the -cases
which may then have been referred
to him, he shall be allowed a fur-
ther period of not more than six
months for that purpose.

Article III.

Se convieue ademas en que, si al
espirar el tiempo en que conforme
al articulo primero de la presente
convencion terminen las funciones
de los comisionados, el arbitro es-
tablecido por la convencion no
hubiese decidido todos los casos que
se le hubieren sometido hasta en-
tonces, quedara facultado para ha-
cerlo eu uu nuevo periodo que no
exceda de seis meses.

Articulo III.

All cases which have been de-
cided by the commissioners or by
the umpire heretofore, or which
shall be decided prior to. the ex-
change of the ratifications of this .
convention, shall from the date of
such exchange be regarded as defi-
nitively disposed of, and shall be
considered and treated as finally
settled, barred, and thenceforth in-
admissible. And, pursuant to the
stipulation contained in the fourth
article of the convention of the
fourth day of July, one thousand
eight hundred and sixty-eight, the
total amount awarded in cases

Todas las reclamaciones que han
sido sentenciadas por los comisio-
nados 6 por el arbitro hasta la pre-
sente fecha, 6 que sean sentencia-
das 4ntes del cange de las ratifica-
ciones de esta convencion, seraa
consideradas desde la fecha de ese
cange como definitivamente resuel-
tas, y se consideraran y trataran
como finalmente arregladas y en lo
futuro inadmisibles. Y, conforme
a la estipulacion contenida en el
articulo cuarto de la convencion
del cuatro de Julio de 1868, la suma
total fallada en casos ya decididos,
y que se decidan antes del cange

ALIEN CLAIMS.

365

already decided, aud which may be
decided before the exchange of rati-
fications of this convention, and in
all cases which shall be decided
within the times in this convention
respectively named for that pur-
pose, either by the commissioners
or by the umpire, in favor of citi-
zens of the one party, shall be de-
ducted from the total amount
awarded to the citizens of the other
party, and the balance, to the
amount of three hundred thousand
dollars, shall be paid at the city of
Mexico, or at the city of Washing-
ton, in gold or its equivalent, with-
in twelve months from the 31st day
of January, one thousand eight
hundred and seventy-six, to the
government in favor of whose citi-
zens the greater amount may have
been awarded, without interest or
any other deduction than that spe-
, cifled in article VI of that conven-
tion. The residue of the said bal-
ance shall be paid in annual install-
ments, to an amount not exceeding
three hundred thousand dollars, in
gold or its equivalent, in any one
year, until the whole shall have
been paid.

Article IV.

de ratificaciones de esta conven-
cion, y en todos los casos que estu-
vieren decididos dentro de los pla-
zos respectivamente fijados con tal
fin en la conveucion preseute, ya
sea por los comisionados 6 por el
arbitro, en favor cle ciudadanos de
una de las partes, sera deducida
de la suma total fallada en favor
de los ciudadanos de la otra parte,
y la diferencia hasta la cantidad
de trescientos mil pesos, se pagara
eu la ciudad de Mexico 6 en la de
Washington, en oro 6 su equiva-
lente, dentro de doce meses con-
tados desde el 31 de Enero de mil
ochocientos setenta y seis, al gobier-
no en favor de cuyos ciudadanos se
hubiere fallado la mayor cantidad,
sin interes, ni otra deduccion que
la especificada en el articulo VI de
aquella convencion. El resto de
dicha diferencia se pagara en
abonos anuales que no excedan de
trescientos mil pesos en oro, 6 su
equivalente, hasta que se haya
pagado el total de la diferencia.

Articulo IV.

The present convention shall be
ratified, and the ratifications shall
be exchanged at Washington, as
soon as possible.

In witness whereof the above-
named Plenipotentiaries have
signed the same and affixed thereto
their respective seals.

Done in Washington the twen-
tieth day of November, in the year
one thousand eight hundred and
seventy-four.

[SEAL.

[SEAL, "

HAMILTON PISH.
1GNO. MARISCAL.

La presente convencion serarati-
ficada y las ratificaciones se can-
gearan en Washington a la breve-
dad posible.

En testimonio de lo cual, los
Plenipotenciarios antes menciona-
dos firmaron la presente y le pusi6-
ron sus respectivos sellos.

Hecho en Washington el dia
veinte de Noviembre del ano mil
ochocientos setenta y cuatro.

SELLO.
SELLO.

IGNO. MAEISCAL.
HAMILTON PISH.

And whereas the said convention has been duly ratified on both parts,
and the respective ratifications were exchanged in this city on the 28th
instant :

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Ulysses S. Grant, President of
the United States of America, have caused the said convention to be
made public, to the end that the same, and every clause and article

366 ALIEN CLAIMS.

thereof, may be observed and fulfilled with good faith by the United
States and the citizens thereof.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal
of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this twenty-ninth day of January,
in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy -
[seal.] five, and of the Independence of the United States the ninety-
ninth.

U. S. GRANT.
By the President :

Hamilton Fish,

Secretary of State.

RULES AND ORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICAN JOINT COM-
MISSION.

JOINT COMMISSION OF THE UNITED STATES OP AMERICA AND THE
UNITED STATES OP MEXICO.

Ordered, That the commission adopts and prescribes the following
rules for the regulation of the business of the commission, namely :

Rules and regulations of the commissioners appointed under the convention
between the United States of America and the United States of Mexico, of
July 4, 1868, as adopted August the 10th, 1869, and amended by order of
the 23d of December, 1869.

1. All claims filed with the commission by the respective governments
shall be entered iu duplicate dockets, one kept by each of the two sec-
retaries, in his respective language, in the order in which they are
referred.

Separate dockets shall be kept for the claims, respectively, of citizens
of the United States and for those of citizens of the Mexicau Republic.

Duplicate records shall be kept in like manner of all the proceedings
of the commissioners.

2. All claims provided for by the convention shall be presented
through the respective governments on or before the 31st day of March,
1870, unless at a later day, for special cause shown to the satisfaction of
the commissioners.

3. All persons having claims shall file memorials of the same with the
respective secretaries.

Every memorial shall be signed and verified by the claimant, or, in
his absence from the District of Columbia, by his attorney in fact, such
absence being averred by such attorney, and it shall be subscribed by
his solicitor or counsel.

It shall set forth particularly the origin, nature, and amount of the
claim, with other circumstances, as follows :

(a.) The amount of the claim ; the time when and place where it arose;
the kind or kinds and amount of property lost or injured ; the facts and
circumstances attending the loss or injury out of which the claim arises ;
and all the facts upon which the claim is founded.
-(b.) For and on behalf of whom the claim is preferred.

(c.) Whether the claimant is now a citizen of the United States or of
the Mexican Republic, as the case may require ; and, if so, whether he

ALIEN CLAIMS. 367

is a native or naturalized citizen, and where is now his domicile ; and if
he claims in his own right, then whether he was a citizen when the
claim had its origin, and where was then his domicile ; and if he claims
in the right of another, then whether such other was a citizen when the
claim had its origin, and where was then, an'd where is now, his domi-
cile ; and if in either case the domicile of the claimant, at the time the
claim had its origin, was in any foreign country, then whether such
claimant was then a subject of the government of such country, or had
taken any oath of allegiance thereto,

(d.) Whether the entire amount of the claim does now, and did at the
time when it had its origin, belong solely and absolutely to the claim-
ant, and if any other person is or has been interested therein or in any
part thereof, then who is such other person, and what is or was the na-
ture and extent of his interest ; and how, when, and by what means,
and for what consideration, the transfer of rights or interests, if any
such was made, took place between the parties.

(e.) Whether the claimant, or any other who may at any time have
been entitled to the amount claimed, or any part thereof, had ever re-
ceived any, and, if any, what sum of money, or other equivalent or indem-
nification for the whole or any part of the loss or injury upon which the
claim is founded ; and, if so, when and from whom the same was re-
ceived.

(/.) Whether the claim was presented prior to the 1st of February,
1869, to the department of state of either government, or to the minis-
ter of the United States at Mexico, or that of the Mexican Republic at
Washington, and to which and at what time.

4. All motions and arguments addressed to the commissioners shall
be made in writing and filed with the secretaries, who shall note thereon
the time when they are received.

Brief verbal explanations may be made after the opening of each day's
session, by or in behalf of the agents of the respective governments.

5. Of all memorials, twenty printed -copies in quarto form iu English,
and twenty in Spanish, shall be filed with the respective secretaries.

Citizens of the United States may file their documents and proofs in
English, and citizens of the Mexican Eepublic may file theirs in Span-
ish, and in both cases in manuscript, subject to the further order of the
commissioners in this respect.

6. When a claimant shall have filed his proofs in chief and argument
in support thereof, the adverse proofs and argument on the part of the
United States, or of the Mexican Eepublic, shall be filed within the term
of four months; but, upon good cause shown on either side, this period
may be extended in particular cases.

By order of the commissioners :

GEOEGE G. GAITaEEE,
J. CAELOS MEXIA,

Secretaries.

ADDITIONAL ORDERS.
On the 12th of August, 1869, the commission adopted the following

ORDER.

That the secretaries of this commission take charge of all the papers
belonging to the commission, and not allow them to be withdrawn from

368 ALIEN CLAIMS.

the office, but furnish parties interested or their counsel all convenient
opportunities, in the office and in presence of either of the secretaries,
of examining and making extracts from the same.

On the 29th of Decern be'r, 1869, the commission adopted the following

OEDBE.

That the secretaries keep a book, to be called the " notice docket."

(a.) A claim is prepared in chief whenever a memorial, with the proofs
and argument relied on iu support thereof, shall be filed. Such claim
shall be entered, by direction of the agent representing it, on the notice
docket, the secretaries noting the date of the entry on the docket.

(b.) Such entry shall be notice, under the rules, to the government
against whom such claim is preferred, that the claimant is ready; there-
upon proofs and arguments in answer thereto (if any are insisted on) must
be filed in four months from the date of such entry, unless, for cause
shown, further time is allowed.

(c.) Eebutting proofs and argument iu support of the claim maybe
afterwards filed or waived, and in either case the claim shall be entered
" heard" by the commissioners.

On the 21st of January, 1870, the commission adopted the following

OEDEE.

Every claimant purporting to be a citizen of either country, party to
this convention, shall disclose the facts upon which he bases his citizen-
ship, either in his memorial or by affidavit. If a native, he shall, so far
as in his power, disclose the time and place of his birth ; if naturalized,
he shall file a copy of his naturalization papers, in all cases where it is
in his power, and if not in his power to do so, he shall show why : Pro-
vided, The affidavit above required may be put in at any time before a
hearing, on such terms as may be deemed proper.

On the 20th of June, 1870, the commission adopted the following

OEDEES.

1. That all claims presented to the commission since the adjourn-
ment 179 be received and entered upon the dockets for preparation, inves-
tigation, and decision, as in other cases.

2. That the time for filing claims before this commission be extended
from the 31st day of March last to the 30th of June, instant, and includ-
ing the latter day, after which time no further claims will be received.

3. That further time be granted to all claimants whose cases are or
may hereafter be entered on the dockets of this commission, to file me-
morials of the same until the 1st day of January, 1871.

On the 13th of July, 1870, the commission adopted the following

OEDEE.

All claimants who have heretofore filed memorials, as required by the
rules, and have not prepared their claims for hearing, must make prep-
aration on or before the 1st of November next, at which date the secre-

179 The adjournment referred to was from January 31, 1870, to June 1, 1870.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 369

taries of this Commission are directed to enter such claims npon the
notice-docket ; and all other claims not now ready must be prepared by
claimants on or before the 1st of January next, at which period the
secretaries are directed to place them, also, upon the said docket ; and
claims thus placed will be disposed of under the rules applicable to
other cases on that docket.
The foregoing orders are truly copied from the originals of record.

EANDOLPH COTLE,
J. OAELOS MBXIA,

Secretaries.

IN THE JOINT COMMISSION OP THE UNITED STATES AND MEXrCO, UNDEK
THE CONVENTION OF JULY 4, 1868.

Saturday, January 20, 1872.
The Commissioners now give notice that all claims by the United
States vs. Mexico, and all claims by the latter governments*, the former,
not disposed of before that date, will, on the first day of April next, be
entered " heard ;" whereupon the Commission will proceed immediately
to dispose of them, in obedience to the requirements of the convention.
True copy from the record,

RANDOLPH COYLE,
J. CAELOS MEXIA,

Secretaries.
H. Eep. 134 24

ADDENDA.

" The following is inserted because the books are referred to in the
matter furnished by foreign governments :

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,
Washington, February 23, 1875.
In behalf of the Joint Committee of both. Houses of Congress on the
Library, the undersigned has the honor to acknowledge the reception
of Oesterreich Gesetze, 4 vols., 12mo ; Turkey, Legislation ottomane,
2 vols.^ Italy, Codice civile, 2 vols.; Italy, Legge per l'unificazioni del
Eegno, 1 vol.; Danemark, Constitution du Boyaume, 1 vol.; France, Bul-
letin des Lois, and Journal omciel, 3 pamphlets, presented by yourself
to the Library of Congress.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

A. E. SPOFFOED,
Librarian of Congress.
To Hon. Wm, Lawrence,

Chairman Committee on War -Claims.

P. S. — The above works are placed ia the law department of the
Library, in the chapter of national codes and statute law.

THE ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

The act of Congress of February 26, 1853, (10 Statutes, 170,) which
seems to be an enlargement of the act of July 29, 1846, (9 Statutes, 41,)
prohibits the assignment of claims against the United States. See
Eevised Statutes, § 3477. On this subject see Painter vs. Drum, 40
Penn. E., 467 ; Child vs. Trist, 1 Washington Law Eeporter, 1 ; Sines
vs. The United States, 1 Nott & H., 12; Peirce vs. United States,
1 N. & H., 270.

OF CONTRACTS TO PROCURE LEGISLATION FOR THE PAYMENT OF

CLAIMS.

This subject was discussed before the Supreme Court of the United
States in February, 1875, in the case of Nicholas P. Trist vs. Linus M.
Child. The report of that case will doubtless show much learning on
the subject.

Among the questions discussed were these :

Is a contract to secure the passage of a bill through Congress to pay
a claim void as against public policy ?

If not, can the claimant be enjoined from collecting the money from
the Treasury appropriated by such act without paying for such services !

Can a lien be created on the money so appropriated ?

If the lien can exist, is the holder of it entitled to interest on the
amount 1

On these questions see —

As to public policy — Marshall vs. Baltimore E. E., 16 Howard, 314 ;
Tool Company vs. Norris, 2 Wallace, 54 ; Harris vs. Eoof, 10 Barbour,
489; Hunt vs. Test, 8 Alabama, 713; Paschal's Case, 10 Wallace, 483 ;
Mills vs. Mills, 36 Barbour, 474.

ALIEN CLAIMS. 371

As to lien — Vice-Chancellor Malins, Bank of Hindustan, L. E., ch. 7,
p. 126, note I ; Mercer vs. Greaves, L. E., 7 Queen's B., 503 ; Brunsdon
vs. Allard, 2 E. and E., 19 vol., 105 C. L. B ; Jenkins vs. Hooker, 19 Bar-
bour, 435.

As to the practice in England — A statement of the English parliament-
ary practice will be found in Eiddell's Eailway Parliamentary Practice,
London, 1846.

See, also, Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 1859 ; List of
Charges for Parliamentary Agents, Attorneys, Solicitors, and others,
prepared by the Clerk of Parliament, 1867.

For interesting statistics of private bills, see Parliamentary Acts and
Papers, 1862, vol. 44 : Eeturns relating to private bills.

A large mass of valuable testimony concerning the method, cost, &c,
of prosecuting private bills in Parliament will be found in the Parlia-
mentary Reports from Committees, vol. 14, 1857-8.

In this last will be found the testimony of Mr. T. Coates, who is the
parliamentary agent referred to in the brief.

OTHBE QUESTIONS.

Various other questions as to claims will be found referred to in
Brightley's Federal Digest, title "Public Accounts*" 714, and in the
supplement, p. 308.

CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT OF JULY 4, 1864, &C.

The following opinion of the Attorney-General is given for informa
tion :

Department of Justice,

Apr.il 6, 1871.
Hon. George S. Boutweix,

/Secretary of the Treasury:

Sir : I have received your letter of the 21st ultimo, requesting niy opinion upon cer-
tain questions arising under the act making appropriations for the support of the Army
for the year ending June 30, 1672, and for other purposes, approved March 3, 1871.

The second section of that act provides for the appointment of a board of commis-
sioners, " whose duty it shall be to receive, examine, and consider the justice and valid-
ity of such claims as shall be brought before them of those citizens who remained loyal
adherents to the cause and the Government of the United States during the war, for
stores or supplies taken or furnished during the rebellion for the use of the Army
of the United States in States proclaimed as in insurrection against the United States;
including the use or loss of vessels or boats while employed in the military service of
the United States. * * * *. And upon satisfactory evidence of the justice and
validity of any claim, the commissioners shall report their opinion, in writing, in each
case, and shall certify the nature, amount, and value of the property taken, furnished,
or used, as aforesaid."

The fourth section is in these words : " That said commissioners shall make report of
their proceedings, and of each claim considered by them, at the commencement of each
session of Congress to the Speaker of the House of RepreBen fcati ves, who shall lay the
same before Congress for consideration ; and all claims within this act, and not pre-
sented to said board, shall be barred, and shall not be entertained by any Department
of the Government, without further authority of Congress.''

On the 16th day of August, in the year 1861, President Lincoln issued a proclama-
tion declaring the inhabitants of the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North
Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida,
("except the inhabitants of that part of the State of Virginia lying west of the Alle-
ghany Mountains, and of such other parts of that State and the other States hereinbe-
fore named, as may mainiain a loyal adhesion to the Union and the Constitution, or
may be from time to time occupied and controlled by forces of the United States
engaged in the dispersion of said insurgents,") to be in a state of insurrection against
he United States. (12 U. S. Stats., p. 1262.)

372 ALIEN CLAIMS.

The act of June 7, 1862, section 2, directs, " That, on or before the 1st day of July-
next, the President, by his proclamation, shall declare in what States and parts of
States said insurrection exists." In accordance with this act, President Lincoln, on
the 1st day of July, 1862, issued his proclamation declaring that the States of South
Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennes-
see, North Carolina, and the State of Virginia, except thirty-nine named counties, all
in what was then the western part of that State, were in insurrection and rebellion.
(12 U. S. Stats., p. 1266.) The counties of Berkeley and Jefferson are not among the
counties named.

The act of July 4, 1864, provided that all claims of loyal citizens in States not in
rebellion, for quartermaster's stores and subsistence actually furnished to the Army of
the United States, and receipted for by the proper officers receiving the same, or which
might have been taken by such officers without giving such receipt, should be submit-
ted to the Quartermaster-General of the United States, or the Commissary-General of
Subsistence, (as the case may be,) accompanied with the proofs presented by the claim-
ant ; and these officers were required to cause each claim to be examined, and, if con-
vinced that it was just, and of the loyalty of the claimant, and that the stores had been
actually received or taken for the use of, and used by, the Army, then to report each
case to the Third Auditor of the Treasury, with a recommendation for settlement.
(13 U. S. Stats., pp. 381, 382.)

The joint resolution of June 18, 1866, extends the provisions of this act to the conn-
ties of Berkeley and Jefferson, which had become part of the State of West Virginia.
(14 U. S. Statutes, 360.) The joint resolution of July 28, 1866, extends the provisions
of the same act to loyal citizens of the State of Tennessee. (14 U. S. Statutes, 370.)

The act of February 21 , 1867, declares that the act above cited, of July 4, 1864, " shall
not be construed to authorize the settlement of any claim for supplies or stores taken
or furnished for the use of, or used by, the armies of the United States, nor for the occu-
pation of or injury to real estate, nor for the consumption, appropriation, or destruc-
tion of, or damage to, personal property by the military authorities or troops of the
United States, where such claim originated during the war for the suppression of the
southern rebellion, in a State, or part of a State, declared in insurrection by the procla-
mation of the President of the United States, dated July first, eighteen hundred and
sixty-two, or in a State which by an ordinance of secession attempted to withdraw
from the United States Government : Provided, That nothing herein contained shall
repeal or modify the effect of aDy act or joint resolution extending the provisions of
the said act of July fourth, eighteen hundred and sixty-four, to the loyal citizens of the
State of Tennessee, or of the State of West Virginia, or to any county thereiD. (14 U.
S. Stats., 397.)

Your first question is this: Does the act of March 3, 1871, repeal, displace, or super-
sede, so far as the State of Tennessee, and the counties of Berkeley and Jefferson, in
West Virginia, are concerned, the acts of July 4, 1864, and February 21, 1867, and the
joint resolutions of Juue 18 and July 28, 1866?

If there had been no previous legislation on the subject of claims arising in Tennes-
see, and the counties of Berkeley and Jefferson in West Virginia, the act of March 3,
1871, would undoubtedly have been construed to embrace such claims. It sends to the
board such claims of the defined classes as originated in States (including, by fair
construction, parts of States) proclaimed in insurrection. Tennessee and the part of
Virginia then embraciug said counties were so proclaimed.

But the act contains no express words of repeal ; and are its provisions so repugnant
to the prior legislation in relation to that State and those counties, as to work a repeal
by implication ? Repeal by implication is not favored ; and a later act does not repeal
a prior act by implication unless there is a positive repugnance between the two. —
(Dwaris on Statutes, p. 533 ; Dr. Foster's Case, Rep., Pt. II, pp. 62-64 ; Wood vs. The
United States, 16 Pet. Rep., p. 342; Bowen us. Lease, 5 Hill's Rep., p. 221.)

The act of July 4, 1864, as extended by the resolutions of June and July, 1866, pro-
vided for settling in the Departments claimB of the defined classes arising in said State
and counties. The act of March 3, 1871, provides that all claims considered by the board
shall be reported to the Speaker of the House for submission to Congress, a provision
which would be nugatory if the claims might meanwhile be settled elsewhere. It
shuts out from any Department all claims within the act which but for this prohibi-
tion some Department would entertain. *•

What claims can these be except claims from Tennessee and the said counties ?
Claims from the loyal States are not within the act. Claims of the classes in question
from the disloyal States, except from Tennessee and said counties, are never entertained
by any Department ; hence these words of exclusion can have no operation except
upon claims from said State and counties.

Here, then, is found the repugnancy between the act of March 3, 1871, and the prior
legislation in relation to Tennessee aud said counties, which the rule requires in order
to work a repeal by implication.

An additional argument in support of the same construction is derivable from the act

ALIEN CLAIMS. 373

of February 21, 1867, above quoted. la that act Congress placed a restricted construc-
tion upon the act of July 4, 1864 ; and having used general language, which would ex-
tend this restriction to Tennessee and the counties in question, took care to reserve
said State and counties from the operation of this general language by special provis-
ion. In passing the act of March 3, 1871, Congress must have had in mind all the leg-
islation upon the general subject, aud the omission to make, in favor of that State and
those counties, the exception which was made in the act of 1867 signifies that such ex-
ception was not intended.

I am therefore of opinion that the act of March 3, 1871, repeals the act of July 4,
1864, and the joint resolution of June 18 and July 28, 1866, so far as Tennessee and
•said counties are concerned, and places that State and those counties upon the same
footing, in respect to these claims, as other insurrectionary States.

Your second question is as follows : If the first question be answered in the affirma-
tive, when did or.will such chan ge in the law become operative, and how will such
claims from the said State and co unties submitted under the former law of March 3,
1871, be affected thereby 1

The act of March 3, 1871, as to the matter under consideration, taking effect imme-
diately, all such claims have been improperly submitted to the Departments since the
3d day of March, 1871.

The additional question which your letter presents relates to a supposed distinction
between property " taken " and property "furnished," as those words are used in the
act of Maroh 3, 1871.

These words are not new in statutes upon this subject. They are found in the act of
July 4, 1864, and also in the act of February 21, 1867.

The act of July 4, 1864, indicates the different senses in which these words were used
by Congress. The property for which the proper officers gave receipts is described as
" furnished " to the Army, and that for which the officers did not give receipts is de-
scribed as "taken." In the latter part of the second and third sections of the same
act the word " received " seems to be substituted for the word " furnished," but refer-
ring to the same transactions, the former word describing the act of the officer and the
latter the act of the owner who delivered the property.

The difference intended by Congress between " taken " and " furnished " seems to be
this : that while both words signify such appropriations as were essentially involun-
tary on the part of the owners, there was an exertion of force in cases of taking which
•did not exist in cases of furnishing. The giving of receipts in the latter, and the fail-
ure to give receipts in the former, indicates, in the one case, a ready submission by the
owner to the caption of his property which is wanting in the other.

Attorney-General Evarts construed these acts (of July 4, 1864, and February 21,
1867) not to comprehend accounts founded upon express contracts for the purchase of
■supplies for the Army made by the proper agent of the Government within the scope of
the Army appropriation acts. (12 Opins., 439.)

Following that opinion, which I believe to be sound, I think that none of the acts
which I have cited forbids the payment of such accounts.

The claim of John T. Lee, to which your letter refers, is reported as a case of appro-
priation by the officers, and not of ordinary contract between the Government agents
and Mr. Lee.

Hence I am of opinion that it falls within the scope of the act of March 3, 1871, and
must go before the board of commissioners, for which that act provides.
Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

A. T. AKERMAN,

Attorney- General.

This was followed by the act of April 20, 1871, (17 Statutes, 12,) which
•contains these provisions :

That the jurisdiction conferred by the joint resolution of June eighteen, eighteen
hundred and sixty-six, in regard to claims from the counties of Berkeley and Jeffer-
son, in the State of West Virginia, and by the joint resolution of July twenty-eight,
eighteen hundred and sixty-six, in regard to claims from the State of Tennessee, and
by the joint resolution of December twenty-three, eighteen hundred and sixty-nine,
as amended by the act of March three, eighteen hundred and seventy-one, in regard to
steamboats and other vessels, shall not be withdrawn or impaired by any construction
of the law creating commissioners of claims to examine claims arising in States pro-
claimed to be in insurrection, and the jurisdiction upon all claims presented by loyal
•citizens from said State of Tennessee, and from said counties of Berkeley and Jeffer-
son, to the proper Department before the third of March, eighteen hundred and sev-
enty-one, shall remain as before the passage of said act creating said commissioners of
•claims.

This gave construction to section 4 of the act of March 3, 1871, chap-
ter 116, section 2, (which is found on page 322 of the foregoing report.)

374 ALIEN CLAIMS.

Under these laws the Quartermaster's Department held that it had juris-
diction to receive, examine, and report to the Third Auditor of the Treas-
ury, claims for quartermaster's stores originating under the act of July
4, 1864, and acts amendatory thereof. The Commissary-General held
otherwise, and took no jurisdiction until in June, 1874, when a new
Commissary-General took jurisdiction of and paid the famous Sugg
Fort claim, for which see the report of the Committee on War-Claims
made in the House of Representatives, March, 1875.

It is proper to say, however, that this was after the act of June 16,
1874, which is found on page 311 of this report, where it is by a typo-
graphical error inserted as "Approved June 17, 1874;" it should be June
16, 1874.

THE PROPER MODE OF EXAMINING CLAIMS.

This subject was elaborately discussed at the 2d session of the 30th
Congress. (Globe, vol. 20, pp. 38, 139, 144, 159, 172, 178, 188, 198, 203,
302, 303, 307, 378, 492, 543.) The discussion also refers to a valuable
report made on the subject during that Congress, which shows a large
proportion of all claims presented to Congress without merit.

THE ACT OF CONGRESS OF APRIL 9, 1816.

For a discussion of this act, and for a report of proceedings under ic
see Annals of Congress, 14th Congress, 2d session, 1816-1817, pp. 245>
299, 462, 1028, 1035, 1040, 1051, 1211 ; debates on pp. 382-426 ; Senate
proceedings, pp. 20, 65, 67, 78, 89, 96, 106.

In the House debates, Mr. Clay discussed the duty of the Govern-
ment to repair losses by the ravages of war. Mr. Calhoun declared the
Government was not liable for damages inflicted by the enemy; that
the Government was not an insurer; that if it would become such " the
enemy would make war on you in that way which will most affect your
Treasury ;" that it would invite the enemy to destroy property of
citizens, &c.

INTEREST.,

Cases in which allowed on revolutionary claims, Annals of Con-
gress, 2d session, 14th Congress, 1816-1817, pp. 1250-1254, &c.

CLAIMS FOR COTTON CAPTURED AND SOLD BY UNITED STATES GOV-
ERNMENT DURING THE REBELLION.

The United States Supreme Court, in Sprott vs. United States, at Octo-
ber term, 1874, held that a purchaser of cotton from the Confederate
States, who knew that the money he paid for it went to sustain the
rebellion, cannot, in the Court of Claims, recover the proceeds, when it
has been captured and sold, under the captured and abandoned property
act. The cotton was sold to the claimant by an agent of the confederate
government for the purpose of raising funds to purchase munitions of
war, and the cotton was understood by the claimant to be the property
of the confederate government. The claimant was a resident of Clai-
borne County, Mississippi, in March, 1865, the date of the purchase, and
the cotton was captured in May, 1865, by the Federal forces, and after-
ward sold by the Government. Miller, J., who delivered the opinion,,
said : "The claimant now asserts a right to this money on the ground
that he was the owner of the cotton when it was captured. This claim
of right or ownership he must prove in the Court of Claims. He attempts-

ALIEN CLAIMS. 375

to do so by showing that he purchased it of the confederate government
and paid them for it in money. In doing this he gave aid and assistance
to the rebellion in the most efficient manner he possibly, could. * * *
A clearer case of turpitude in the consideration of a contract can hardly
be imagined, unless treason be taken out of the catalogue of crimes.
The case is not relieved of its harsh features by the finding of the court
that the claimant did not intend to aid the rebellion, but only to make
money. It might as well be said that the man who would sell for a sum
far beyond its value, to a lunatic, a weapon with which he knew the latter
would kill himself, only intended to make money and did not intend to
aid the lunatic in his fatal purpose. This court, in Hanaver vs. Doane, 12
Wall., 342, speaking of one who. set up the same defense, says : ' He
voluntarily aids treason. He cannot be permitted to stand on the nice
metaphysical distinction that, although he knows that the purchaser
buys the goods for the purpose of aiding the rebellion, he does not sell
them for that purpose. The consequences of his acts are too serious to
admit of such a plea. He must be taken to intend the consequences of
his voluntary acts.' This case, and the succeeding one of Hanaver vs.
Woodruff, 15 Wall., 349, are directly in point in support of our view of
the case before us."

Field, J., delivered an elaborate opinion, dissenting from the view of
the majority of the court, aDd maintaining that the claimant had the
benefit of the proclamation of pardon and amnesty made by the Presi-
dent in December, 1868. He said : "That pardon and amnesty did not,
of course, and could not, change the actual fact of previous disloyalty, if
it existed, but, as was said in Carlisle vs. United States, 16 Wall., 151,
they forever close the eyes of the court to the perception of that fact as
an element in its judgment, no rights of third parties having intervened.
In legal contemplation the executive pardon not merely releases an
offender from the punishment prescribed for his offense, but it obliterates
the offense itself. * * * And I submit respectfully that the eloquent
denunciation of the wickedness of the rebellion contained in the opinion
of the majority is no legal answer to the demand of the claimant for the
proceeds of his property seized and sold by our Goverument, when that
Government long since pardoned the only offense of which the claimant
was guilty, and this gave him the assurance that he should stand in the
courts of his country in as good plight and condition as any citizen who
had never sinned against its authority."

TABLE OF CASES CITED

I^DEX.

TABLE OF CASES CITED.

A.

Page.
Alexander's, Mrs. . .209, 211, 217, 218, 233, 234, 237, 238, 239, 240, 244, 255, 261, 263, 279, 284

Alexander v. Duke of Wellington 233

Allen v. United States 316

American Print-Works v* Lawrence 282,283,288,289

Anderson & Thompson v. Mexico 241

Armes, Josiah O 296

Atocha, ex parte 317

Ayresv. United States 259,260'

B.

Bairdr. The United States 231

Baltimore R. Company ». Woodruff 245

Bank of Kentucky v. Schuylkill Bank * 245

Barclay, Anthony 275

■ Barnsley, Godfrey '. 275

Baron v. Denman 283

Beach v. Fulton Bank 245

Beacham, Thomas 271

Bedford, ex parte 17

Beers ti. Housatonic Railroad Company 245

Bevans v. United States 274

Bollman, ex parte 210,265

Bonner v. United States 315

Booth B.Woodbury 282-

Booth, William B 278

Bostock, Elizabeth 275

Bowen v. Lease 372

Bradley v. Boston Railroad Company 245

Brook, Samuel 261

Brown's 10,11,12,13,205

Brown v. South Kennebec Agricultural Society 245

Brown v. The United States 12,218,233,241

Brunsdoni*. AUard , 371

Brunson, John 271

Buron v. Denman 295

Bushel v. Commonwealth Insurance Company 245

C.

Campbell's 246

Canterbury v. Attorney-General 193

Carlisle v. The United States 12,206,238,317

Carman v. Steubenville Railroad Company 245

Cattell, Charles 271

Chestnut Hill Turnpike Company v. Rutter 245

Child w.Trist * 370

Church claim .: 254

Churchward v. The Queen 193

Clark v. Mayor 282,287,294

Cleworth, Charles 278

Clyde i). United States 315-317

Collectors, the, v. Day 268

Comegys v. Vasse 222

Commissioners v. Miller 282

Conger v. Chicago R. Company 245

Cook, William 245

Coolidge v. Guthrie 209,233,239,283

Coppell tJ.Hall 20S>

380 TABLE OP CASES CITED.

Page.

Cowan & Dickinson 241,263

Cross D.Harrison 208,209

Crutchett, Mr 245

Culver v. United States 265

Cummings v. Missouri 209

Cutner v. Uuited States 265

D.

Dashing Wave, the brig 229

Davenport v. Wood 17

Davidson, Kobert 261

Davis, Charles J 13

Davis.John . 13

Dauphin's 11,205

DeBode's 193

DeGives's 11,205

Denton v. Great Northern K. Company - 245

Dorsheimeru. United States.. 315

Duncan v. Surry Canal .. 245

E.

Eadres, William 271

Eastern Counties E. u. Broom 245

Edwards v. Union Bank of Florida 245

Elliott, Thomas C 327

Elphinstone i>. Bedreeohund , 209,283

Evans, Marie P 300

F.

Feather v. The Queen 193

Fichera v. The United States 10,205

Filor v. United States 246,247,252,259,260

First Baptist Church v. Schenectady E. Company 245

Fisher v. Florida Indians 17

Flemings. Page 208

Forbes, William 271

Fort's, Sugg 18,374

Foster's, Dr : 372

Fowle v. Common Council of Alexandria 245

G.

Garland, ex parte 209

Gibbons v. United States 260,282,293

Gillenwater v. Madison E. Company 245

Gilman v. Sherloygan 282

Goodloe v. City of Cincinnati 245

Grace, Michael 275

Grant v. United States 210,216,217,241,265,282,283,287,289,293

Gratiot v. United States 256,260,304

Gray Jacket, the 217,244

Green, J. &T , 300

•Grossmeyer v. The United States 208

H.

Hale v. Lawrence 282,289

Hallenback v. Hahn 282

Halliburton v. United States 274

Hamilton Company v. Cincinnati T. Company 245

Hanger v. Abbott 209

Hanna, John H 267,268

Hanna v. United States 269

Hanson v. Vernon 282

Harvey v. United States , 256,261,304

Harris v. Eoof 370

Hawkins v. Dutchess Steamboat Company 245

TABLE OF CASES CITED. 381

Hay v. Cohoes Company 245

Hayes, Misses 275

Henderson, William 271

Holdenc. Javis 17

Humes v. Knoxville 245

Humphrey, Letitia 222

Hunt i). Test 370

J-

Jecker v. Montgomery 211

Jenkins v. Hooker 371

Jones v. Perry 17

K.

Kater, John 260

Keegan v. Western Railroad Company 245

Keith's 218

Kimball's 247

Kimball v. United States 259

King, John 271

Kneass v. Schuylkill Bank 245

L.

Lane v. Dorman 17

Laurent's case 278

Lee v. Village of Sandy Hill 245

Lewis v. Webb 17

Linds w.Rodney 283

Lobsigert 10,12,205

Lorenger v. United States 295

Luther v. Borden 210,265,283

Lyman v. White River Bridge Company 245

M.

Malevener v. Spink 292

Mansan v. The Insurance Company 209

Marlatt v. Levee Steam Cotton-Press Company 245

Marshall v. Baltimore Railroad Company 370

Martinv. Mott 208,283

Mayor of Lynnw. Turner 245

McCready v. Guardians of the Poor 245

McCullough v. Maryland 282

McDougald v. Bellamy 245

McKee v. The United States 209

McKim v. Gdum.... 245

McKenney v. United States 279

McMahon, Thomas 275

Meade's , 13

Memphis v. Lasser 245

Mercer v. Greaves 371

Mexico v. The United States 369

Milligan, exparte 210,211,212,216,265,283

Milligan v. Hovey 283

Mills v.Mills 370

Mississippi v. Johnson 209

Mitchell v. Harmony 241,266,282,283,289,293

Molina's 11,205

Moore v. Fitehburgh Railroad Company 245

Muller's 12

Murphy, Sue - , 211

N.

New York v. Bailey 345

Nioholls v. United States < 315

New York Railroad Company v. Schuyler 245

N. Y.T. C. v. Drybnrg 245

382 TABLE OF CASES CITED.

O.

Page.
Ouachita cotton, the : 209, 265

Painter v. Drum 370

Parham v. The Justices 238,249,278,287,288,291

Paschal's , 370

Peirce r. The United States 370

People u. Lynch 210,265

People v. Mayor 282

Perrin v. The United States 12,206,241,244,275,277,293

Peterhoff.the 211

Patttson, James 271

Picquet's appeal - 17

Pitcher v. United States : 265,282

Planters' Bank v. Union Bank 13,218,238,244,261,262,263,265

Plate-glass Company v. Meredith 288

Polk, Sarah 343

Prerogative case, the 288

Prize-cases, the 207, 209, 210, 211, 217, 233, 239, 255, 263, 268

Protector v. The United States 208

Provene v. The United States 259

Provine's 246,247

Pugh v. United States 316

Rabassa v. Orleans Navigation Company 245

Redfield, J., opinion in Brown's case 13

Regina v. Birmingham Railroad Compan v 245

Respublica v. Sparhawk '. 277,278,283,288,289,290,292

Rex v. Medley 245

Riddle t>. Proprietors, &c 245

Russell, ex parte 320

Russell's i 246

Russell v. Mayor 288,269,292,293

S.

Santarnecchi, M 127

Sasser, Whitty M 343

Science, the bark 229

Sharrod v. London R. Company 245

Simmons 103

Slawson v. United States 316

Smith v. Birmingham Gas Company 245

Smith v. City of Cincinnati 245

Sones v. The United States 370

Steubenville and Indiana Railroad Company 8. Tascarance County 282

Steven v. United States 259,279,283

Stewart;;. State 209

Stirling, Thomas 274

T.

Taney, Augustine 271

Ten Eyok v. Delaware Canal Company 245

Thayer v. Boston 245

The Amy Warwick 12,206

TheBaigorn 209

The Bankers 193

The Betsey 224

The Circassian 209

The Hoop 12,206

The Venice ,. 208,209,261,263,265

The Venus 12,206

Thomas v. The Queen 193

Thorshaven's 261

Tobin v. The Queen 193

- TABLE OF CASES CITED. 383

Page.

Todd's 218

Tool Company v. Norris 370

Town of Akron v. MoComb '. » 245

Traversi, Antona 127

Tripodo, M 127

Trist, Nicholas P., v. Linus M. Child 370

Trook, administrator 278

U.

Underwood v. Newport Lyceum 245

Union Bank v. MeDonough - • 245

United States, ex parte, in matter of - 320

United States v. Anderson 208,211,316

United States v. Burr 210,265

United States v. Crussell 316

United States v. Eliason 256,260,304

United States v. Freeman 256,260,304

United States v. Grossmeyer ^, 209

United States v. Kimball 316

United States v. Klein 217,233,236,240

United States v. Lytle 256

United States v. MacDaniel 256

United States v. Mexico 369

United States v. O'Ke'efe 12,206,239,246,317

United States v. Paddleford 233,238,239

United States v. Palmer 268

United States v. Russell 217,293,315

United States v. Speed 279

United States v. Thomas 273

V.

Vallandigham's 209

Volant, the brig ' 229

Von Frantzius, Carl , ., 193

W.

Ware v. Barrataria Canal Company 245

W are v. Hylton 287

Waters's , 246

Waters v. United States 259

Watson v. Bennett 245

Watkins & Donnelly 276

Wentworth v. United States 279

Whiteman v. Wilmington E. Co.. 245

Wiggins v. United States 289,293

Woodu. The United States 372

Worcester v. The State of Georgia 222

Y.
Yarborongh v. Bank of England 245

IISTDEX.

A.

Page.
Abuses m prosecution of claims,

bill to prevent 21

Acts of Congress cited,

1789. The judiciary act 331

1790. August 5, State claims 230

1792. May 8, as to contracts 259,279

1793. January 14, Christopher Green's claim 225

1794. May 31, Arthur St. Clair's claim 225,230

1795. February 27, Angus McLean's claim 225

1797. March 3, debts due by or to the United States 207

1 798. February 23, General Kosciusko's claim 225

June 6, debts due by or to the United States 207

July 16, as to contracts 259,279

1799. March 3, as to contracts 279

1802. May 3, Fulwar Skipwith's claim 225

1804. January 14, John Coles's claim 225

1807. March 3, Oliver Pollock's claim 225

Stephen Sayre's claim 225

1808. April 21, as to contracts 259

1809. March 3, as to contracts 259

1?10. April 25, Moses Young's claim 226

May 1, P. C. L'Enfant's claim 226

1812. January 10, John Burnham's claim 226

July 1, John Durkee's claim 226

1813. February 25, Lucy Dixon's claim 226

John Murray's claim 226

March 3, Samuel Lapsley's claim 226

as to property 246,250

1814. April 13, Joseph Brevard's claim 226

April 18, Dennis Clark's claim 226

1815. February 2, William Arnold's claim 226

*1816. April 9, as to damages 270,285

April 24, as to the Army 256

April 26, Joseph Wheaton's claim 226

Alexander Roxburgh's claim 226

1817. March 3, debts due by or to the United States 207, 246, 270, 295

May 13, as to property 295

1818. April 14, John Thompson's claim 226

as to contracts 226

1820. May 1, as to contracts 259

May 11, Samuel Beall's claim 227

May 15, Thomas Leiper's claim 227

1821. March 2, as to property 279

1822. William Henderson's claim 271

May 7, John Guthry's claim 227

as to the Army ; 256

1823. March 3, James McClung's claim 227

Daniel Seward's claim 227

1824. March 3, Stephen Arnold's claim 227

David Jenks's claim 227

* The Act op April 9, 1816.— For a discussion of this, and for report of proceedings under it see
Annals of Congress, 14th Congress, 2d session, 1816-'17, pp. 245, 299, 462, 1028, 1035, 1040, 1051, 1211 •
Debates on, 382-426 ; Senate proceedings, pp. 20, 65, 67, 78, 89, 96, 106. In the House debates, Henry Clay
discussed the duty of the Government to repair losses by the ravages of war. Mr. Calhoun declared
Tthe Government was not liable for property destroyed by the enemy. He said the Government did not
become an insurer, and that if the Government would " the enemy will make war on you in that way
■which will most affect your Treasury." It would be an invitation to the enemy to destroy property.
^See foregoing report, 285.)

H. Eep. 134 25

386 INDEX.

Paste.
Acts of Congress died — Continued.

1824. March 3, George Jenks's claim 227

May 5, Amasa Stetson's claim 227

1826 May 20, John Stemman's claim 227

Ann D. Taylor's claim 227

1827. March 3, B. J. V. Valkenberg's claim 227

1828. May 19, Patience Gordon's claim 227

1830. May 29, Benjamin Wells's claim 227

1832. John Branson's claim 271

Augustine Taney's claim 271

May 19, Eichard G. Morris's claim 227

July 4, Aaron Snow's claim 228

W. P. Gibbs's claim 228

July 14, E. L. Warren's claim 228

Hartwell Vick's claim 228

1833. February 19, debts due by or to the United States 207

1834. June 18, Martha Bailey's claim 228

June 30, William C. H. Waddell's claim 228

debts due by or to the United States 207,270

1835. March 3, as to contracts 259

1836. Thomas Beacham's claim 271

William Forbes's claim 271

Charles Cattell's claim 271

February 17, Marinus W. Gilbert's claim 228

Charles Wilkins's claim 228

July 2, David Caldwell's claim - 228

Don Carlos Delossus's claim 228

1837. January 18, debts due by or to the United States 207

October 14, debts due by or to the United States 207

1838. James Pattison's claim 271

William Eadres's claim 271

July 7, debts due by or to the United States -. 207

Rich ard Harrison's claim 229

1839. March 3, debts due by or to the United States 207

1841. February 27, debts due by or to the United States 207

1842. John King's claim 271

August 11, John Johnson's claim 229

August 23, debts due by or to the United States 207,259

1843. March 3, debts due by or to the United States 207, 259

1844. June 15, debts due by or to the United States 207,259

June 17, as to contracts 259

1845. March 3, as to contracts 259

1846. July 29, debts due by or to the United States 207,370

August 3, Abraham Horbach's claim 229

August 6, debts due by or to the United States 207

August 10, as to contracts 259

1847. March 2, debts due by or to the United States 207

Bank of Metropolis claim 229

1848. August 3, as to contracts 259

1849. March 3, debts due by or to the United States 207,271,295

1850. .September 28, as to contracts 259

1851. March 3, as to contracts 259

1852. July 20, James C. Watson's claim 229

August 31, debts due by or to the United States 207

1853. February 26, debts due by or to the United States 207,370

1854. July 29, John C. Fremont's claim 229

August 5, as to contracts 259

1855. February 24, creating the Court of Claims 231

/1858. May 4, as to contracts 259

1859. February 5, Thomas Laurent's claim 229

February 28, as to property 270

1860. June 23, as to contracts 259

1861. February 8, authorizing a loan 231

February 24, as to contracts 259

March 2, as to unauthorized contracts and Indians 221 , 230, 259

March 8, as to unauthorized contracts and Indians 230

March 26, as to Indians 231

July 13, as to the rebellion 207,255

July 31, as to the rebellion 255

INDEX. 387

Acts of Congress cited — Continued.

1862. March 1, debts due by or to the United States 207

March 2, as to contracts 259

March 17, as to contracts 207

March 30, as to property 207

June 2, as to contracts 259

June 7, as to war 372

June 14, as to contracts - 259

July 17, debts due by or to the United States 207, 259

1863. March 3, contracts, torts, aliens 13,17,207,295

March 12, as to cotton 217,236,237,239

1864. March 30, war-damages 271

June 25, contracts, torts, aliens 207,271,295

July 2, as to claims 237, 258

July 4, contracts, claims, torts, aliens.. 13,207,217,236,246,247,249,250, 259,

302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 311, 312, 327, 372, 373, 374

1865. March 2. as to contracts 259

March 3, as to tobacco 330

1866. May 11, contracts, torts, aliens 13

June 18, contracts, torts, aliens 250,372,373

June 23, as to contracts 259

July 13, as to contracts 259

July 28, debts due by or to the United States 207,250,372,373

1867. January 21 , Josiah O. Armes's claim 296

February 9, as to claims 238, 306

February 21, contracts, torts, aliens. 13, 246, 248, 250, 252, 259, 296, 311, 372, 373
March 2, reconstruction 208,209,306,309

1868. March 30, captured and abandoned property 242

April 9, as to claims 271

June 28, as to contracts 259 .

July 25, as to contracts 259

July 27, as to rights of aliens 11,12,13,205,206

1870. June 1, Cutler's claim 239

July 8, claims of owners of barks Volant and Science, and brig Dash-
ing Wave 229

July 11, as to contracts. 259

July 15, as to contracts 259, 270

1871. March 3, creating the Commissioners of Claims. . .8, 20, 217, 230, 232, 236, 259,

324,327,331,334,372,373
April 20, Tennessee and West Virginia war-claims 373

1872. April 27, war-damages 271

May 11, claims of loyal citizens 217,236,335,336

May 18, as to cotton 217,236

May 29, as to property , 270

June 10, war-damages .' 248

1873. January 23, loyal citizens of Loudoun County, Virginia 296

March 3, claims of loyal citizens 217, 236

May 5, as to claims 271

1874. June 16, war-claims 299,311,374

Army appropriations 312

June 20, legislative, executive, and judicial appropriations 312

Adams, Charles Francis 272

Adams, John 272,273

Adams, Samuel 232

Addenda, see 370-374

implied powers of 256

Agency,

agent of Government must have actual authority 260

personally responsible for unauthorized acts 282

Ahrens, M 126,127

AJcerman, A. T., Attorney-General,

opinion on the act of July 4, 1864 , A 371-373

Alabama, ,

date of secession 208

vote of the people on 215

amount of claims presented, and allowed from 286

ordinance of secession passed by convention of 212

388 INDEX.

I
Page.
Aldis, A. 0.,

relative to Harben's claim 234, 332, 339, 342, 345

Aldridge, John 274

A liens,

adjudication of the claims of 1,7

bill for the 1,7

claims of, not within jurisdiction of Commissioners of Claims 8

claims of, passed on by special tribunals 8

remedy of, in England 12

may prosecute and recover in Prussia 13

claims of, not proper for committee of Congress to examine 206

expatriation of 205

by civil law may sue Government 206

remedy of, by petition of right in England 206

Hanover 13

Bavaria 13

Belgium 30

Austria-Hungary .> 69,70

Turkey 72

France 76

Ecuador 99

United States of Colombia 103

Liberia 117

Central America 118

Venezuela 119

Norway 122

Sweden 123

Italy 128,205

Great Britain ~.. 193

the Argentine Republic 195

Denmark 200

rule of House of Representatives relative to claims of 207

of Senate relative to claims of 207

when compensation allowed to, under treaty of Washington 261

Allegiance,

change of 205

Ambrose, Des ..: 183,188

Amelioration of laws of war,

by Congress 217

by military commanders 236

inexpediency of 235,236

acts relating to 217

Halleck's order relating to ". 236

American and British claims,

expenses of commission to settle 3

American and Mexican commission,

expenses of 4

President's proclamation concerning 355

Andam, James L 324

Anderson, Elbert 228

Andrew, John A 218

Andrews, C. C,

letter of, and inclosures, to Hon. H. Fish 27,120,122

to General Bjornstjerna 121

Appeal,

from decisions of Court of Claims 1,5,67

Archibald, Justice 193

Argentine liepuhlic,

citizens and aliens may prosecute claims against 195

mode of procedure in claims against ■ 195

Arkansas,

ordinance of secession passed by convention 213

vote of the people on 215

■ amount of claims presented from, and allowed 286

Armn Regulations.

the power to prescribe 256, 260

require officers to give vouchers r 252, 260, 279

do not make contract by giving voucher ; this is done to charge the

officers .'.. 252,260,279

INDEX. 389

Page.
drmy Regulations — Continued.

have the force of law 260

Dr. Lieber's rules for armies in the field 217, 261

authorize contracts for rent 246,252

Arnold, General 273

Arnold, Stephen 227

Arnold, William 226

Attorney-General,

must assent to appeal by the United States 6

opinion of, on the act of July 4,1864 371-373

Austria,

not liable to citizens for property destroyed in war 275

Austria-Hungary,

laws of, relative to claims 69

any citizen may prosecute claims against 70

rights of aliens 70

Avery, John,jr 232

Azuero, M. Plata 114

15.

Bailey, Martha 228

Baird, Dr 231,232

Banks. General N. P 261,263,278

Barente, Bon De 77,78,270

Bass, Eugenie: 262

Battle, i

property destroyed or damaged in 274-276

Bavaria,

protection of subjects by 12

aliens may recover in 10, 13

Beall, Samuel L 227

Beatty, Mr 291

mode of procedure in claims against 29

provisions of the constitution of, relative to claims ■ 29

for the examinations of claims in 30

fees of attorneys and barristers in 31

length of suits in 31

Belknap, Hon. TV. W.,

letter of, to Hon. William Lawrence relative to' settlement of war-claims, 249, 254,

297
transmits to the House of Representatives reports of the Quartermaster-
General and Commissary -General 297

Belligerents, (see American Law Register, March, 1875.)

rights of the Government toward 211

Chase, Chief- Justice, on 211

rights of 233

rights of, granted rebel States by Great Britain 239

belonged to United States during the rebellion 239

may destroy any property iu enemy's country 240

Benjamin, Charles F 324

Benjamin, L. N 240

Bernard, Professor 245

Best, J. Milton, claim of 281,291,292,296,297,298

Bethmont, Paul - 77,78,270

Beule,M 86,87,91,92

Biddle, Thomas, (note 1) 2

Bjornstjerna, 0. H.,

letter of, and inclosure, to C. C. Audrews 121

Black, Charles , 240

Blackford, Judge 295

Blaine, James G 20

Blanco, Dr. Jesus Ma 119

Blockade,

of certain ports declared 208,209

Bluntschli, M 127

Board of survey, (see Army Begulations as to,)

•why organized 260

390 INDEX.

Page.
Boker, George S.,

letters of, and inclosures, to Hon. H. Fish 27,70

Bombardment,

rule in losses by 275

Bombonnel, Charles 206

Boutwell, George S.,

letter to, from A. T. Akerman 371,372,373

Bo ville, Justice 193

Brevard, Joseph 226

Briosa, M.,

letter to George Williamson 118

British-American,

commerce, magnitude of „ 6

mixed commission, claims presented to 7

awards made by • 7

Broglie, M 93,95

Brower, Mary 291,292

Brown, Albert G., jr 218

Brown, Sevellon A 211

Browne, Albert G., jr 218

Bruzzo, M 183

Buell, Major-General 251,253,254,297

Buffet, L 80,85,96

Biilow, M. Von 123

Bur'nham, John 226

Burnside, General 263

Bustamante, Pablo 101

Butler, B. F.,

letter to Hon. W. Lawrence relative to war-claims 263

Bynktrshoek,

opinion of, on enemies 211, 235, 245

on taking property of loyal citizens 283

Byrne, John K 240

C.

Cabella, M 127

Cadwalader, John L.,

letter of, to Hon. William Lawrence 25

Cairns, Sir Hugh 240

Caldwell, David 228

Caldwell, Elias B 226

Calhoun,

opinion of, as to duty to pay for ravages of war, (see Annals of Congress.
1816-'17, [2d sess. 14th Cong.,] pp. 382, 426.)
Capitulation,

rule of protection where there is no 262

Calvo, M 262

Captured and abandoned property, (see Property, Cotton, Tobacco.) 236,243

Carmichael, William 273

Carpenter, Senator M. H 217

Casey, Chief-Justice 293

Castellana, Marquis de 77,270

Cavallini, M 179

Cavour, Count 127

Cazenove de Pradive, E. de „ 80, 85, 96

Central America,

mode of procedure in relation to claims against - 118

aliens may prosecute claims against 118

Ceresole, M,,

letter of, to Horace Eublee 33

Cevallos, Pedro Ferniin 101

Chandler, Z . 284

Chase, Chief-Justice S.P 211,212,216

Chatham, Loral,

on the supremacy of the laws of peace 287

Cheves, Langdon 223

Choctaw Indians,

report on claim of 220-232

INDEX. 391

Page.
Chronicle, The Washington,

extracts from, relative to private claims before Congress 18, 19

letter of Hon. William Lawrence in reply to above " 19

Churches,

the laws of war as to 233,258

Methodist, amount of olaims for damages 300

Episcopal, of similar import 300

Christian, of similar import 300

their connection with rebellion 233

Ciceiv,

on laws of -war 126

Cissey, General E. De 96

Citizens,

American, rights of, before foreign courts 16

-when to be regarded as enemies 211

expatriation of 205

naturalization of 205

Civil law,

allows citizens and aliens to sue Government 205

Claimants, (see the names of, under proper letter of alphabet.)
Claims,

amount of, presented to American-British mixed commission 6

of the United States against the United States of Colombia 2

bill limiting time for allowance of '. 15

investigation of, a judicial duty 16

may limit time for investigating 16

extracts from speech of Hon. William Lawrence relative to 17

House Committee on, Forty -third Congress, resolution of 18

list of, note on 205

classes of 218

the tribunals having jurisdiction of , 204,246

amount of, before Congress 286,298,301

private, before Congress, extract from Washington Chronicle 18, 19, 20

how effectually disposed of 19

bill to prevent abuses in the prosecution of 21

on foreign governments, the law of 23

mode of adjusting 23

against the United States 17, 203

law of, in the United States 203,205,232

officers and tribunals having jurisdiction to investigate 204,297,313,321

classes of, and geueral principles of 205

duty of United States to hear and pass upon 206

Florida, opinion of Webster on 222

letter of Quartermaster-General relative to 246

to be submitted to and examined by the Quartermaster-General 248

Commissary-General of Subsistence 246

proof required in support of the last two classes 248

in the Departments of the Government 246, 248, 297, 298, 301

of Christian churches, for damages, amount of 300

of Episcopal churches, for damages, amount of 300

of Methodist churches, for damages, amount of -300

rules governing presentation of, to Quartermaster-General and Commissary-
General of Subistence 306-309

forms prescribed for the above 309

Commissioners of, laws of Congress relative to 321,322,323,324

Court of, laws of Congress relating to 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320

regulations for taking testimony in support of, before the Commissioners

of Claims 345

admissible evidence 345

authority of special commissioners 346

delegation of authority prohibited 346

mode of taking depositions 346

certifying and indorsing depositions 346

swearing by witnesses 346

examination of witnesses by special commissioners 346

examination by claimants or counsel 347

re-examination by special commissioners 347

questions not to be recorded 347

special testimony concerning deceased claimants 347

392 INDEX.

Claims — Continued.

refreshment of the memory of witnesses 348

testimony to be taken on formal applications 348

mode and time of forwarding testimony 348

fees and expenses 348

standing interrogatories 349-355

still pending for captured and abandoned property 243

still pending in the Court of Claims 243

amount of, tiled before the Secretary of the Treasury ...../. 243

policy of Congress relative to 246

for rent not allowed 246,264,250,251,252,253,254,287

letter of the Judge- Advocate-General relative to 247

of British loyalists for damages presented to Parliament 267

number of, and amount claimed and allowed 267

for property alleged to have been destroyed by the rebels 267

for losses of houses, decisions of Congress against 274

for property alleged to have been wrongfully destroyed or injured by

the forces of the United States 278

recommendations of the President relative to 285

Court of Claims forbidden to adjudicate certain 293

against the United States, assignment of 370

of contracts to procure legislation for the payment of 370

is such contract void as against public policy 370, 371

from the State of Tennessee : - 373

fer quartermaster's stores under act of July 4, 18G4 374

Claims of aliens,

bill for adjudication of 1

Court of Claims given jurisdiction of r 1

British 1,246

and war-claims, hill to establish a court of 7

necessity of providing for settlement of 19

neglect of Congress to act on 19

passed upon by special tribunals 8

Clark, Alonzo 301

Clark, Dennis -. 326

Clay, Henry,

opinion of, as to ravages of war damages, (see Annals of Congress, 1816-17,

2dsess. 14th Cong.) 382-426

Cole, John 225

Colleges,

the laws of war as to 233,258,261

exceptions in favor of loyal owners 258

veto of the bill to pay for, in rebel States 296

amount of claims for damages to 300

Colombia, United States of,

cost of settling claims against 2

mode of procedure in settling claims against 102

Colunje, Jil 114

Commissary- General of Subsistence,

claims to be submitted and examined by the 248, 374

proofs required in support of the above 248, 306

rules for presenting claims to 306-309

forms prescribed for above 309

Commissary stores, (see Stores, Siqiplies.)

Commissioners of Claims,

no jurisdiction over alien claims 7,8

false claims presented to 13

bill relating to 13,371

should be converted into a court, with proper counsel for the Government. 14

how valuable evidence is secured by the 18

acts relating to, &c ' 14,15,321,323,324

extending time for presenting claims to , 14

resolution concerning 18

statement of, concerning publication of claims 18, 242

number of claims allowed by 20

duties and powers 204

acts of Congress organizing the 321-324

first general report of 324-332

second general report of 332-339

third general report of „ 339-342

INDEX. 393.

Page..
C ommtsstoners of Claims — Continued.

regulations for taking testimony in support of claims before 345

rules for taking testimony in support of claims before the 345

admissible evidence 345

authority of special commissioners 346-

delegation of authority prohibited . 346

mode of taking depositions 346.

certifying and indorsing depositions 346

swearing of witnesses 346

examination of witnesses by special commissioners 346

examination by claimants or counsel ' 347

re-examination by special commissioners 347

questions not to be recorded „• 347

special testimony concerning deceased claimants 347

refreshment of the memory of witnesses 348

testimony to be taken on formal applications 348

mode and time of forwarding testimony 348

fees and expenses 348

standing interrogatories 349'

Commissions,

mixed, under treaties 335

expenses of 2

court preferable to 9

Fish, Secretary of State, on 4

President as to 1

Committees of Congress,

not a suitable tribunal to examine claims 17, 19, 20, 243-

(On this subject see Globe, vol. 20, pp. 38, 139, 144, 159, 172, 178, 188, 198, 203,
302, 303, 307, 378, 492, 543 ; also report made in House of Representa-
tives, 30th Congress, 2d session, on bill discussed in Globe, vol. 20 ; see
also Annals of Congress, 1816-'17, [14th Cong., 2d sess.,] pp. 245, 299,
382,426,462,1028,1035,1040,1051,1211.)

examine claims in the United States 204

cannot properly examine alien claims 206

Common law of war, (see Amelioration, Constitution,)

existed prior to and recognized in Constitution 217, 25L

not repealed by acts of Congress authorizing seizure of property. 218, 236, 238, 239
Compensation, (see Liability,)

expediency of making, as a gratuity 205,217,236

another vie w of this 284

Calhoun's opinion, (see Annals of Congress, 1816-'17, [14th Cong., 2d sess.,]

pp. 382, 426.)
Clay's opinion, (see same.)
Confiscation,

Thomas Jefferson as to 235

discussed 236

certain estates and property liable to 237

lightly used in the rebellion 237

property of loyalists not subject to 236

Conforti.K 134

Congress,

should create court of alien claims, (note 2) 4

notice to be given to, of judgments 11

act of, relative to Court of Claims 12

act of, making certain requirements of alien claimants 1£

fraudulent claims presented to 13

Commissioners of Claims to report to 13

claim of Charles J. Davis, passed by 13

action of Forty-third, relating to claims 13

claims acted on by committees of 14,17

petitions to, for payment of claims 16

power to summon witnesses 17

power to appropriate money 17

■why it created a Court of Claims 17

resolution adopted by House Committee on Claims in Forty-third 18

private claims before, Washington Chronicle on 18

letter of Hon. William Lawrence in reply to above 19

committees of, unsafe for adj udication of claims 19, 20

neglect of, to act on claims 19-

394 INDEX.

Page.

Congress — Continued.

testimony before committees of, ex parte 19

demands upon the time of 19

has not generally entertained alien claims 206

reconstruction acts of, why passed ■. 209

duty of, in certain cases 209

opinion of Senate committee on allowing interest on claims 230

powers conferred on, by the Constitution 216

provision by, for payment of loyal claimants in disloyal States 236

for taking property, in statutory modes 236

loyal claimants always compensated by 281

resolution of, relative to compensation for property taken 291, 292

horses killed in service paid for by order of 294

amount of claims ponding in House committees 298

Thirty-eighth, first session, act of, restricting jurisdiction of the Court of

Claims 304

Thirty-ninth, first session, joint resolutions extending the preceding act.. 305

second session, act explanatory of the preceding act 305

joint resolution extending the provisions of the preceding act.. 306

act of, appropriating money for the Army, for the year euding June 30,

1875 311

law of, organizing the Court of Claims * 313-321

acts of, organizing the Commissioners of Claims 321-324

forbidden to make certain laws 16

power of, to make rules concerning captures on land .. 218

prescribed time for presentation of claims 242

policy of, relative to claims 246

cannot declare war in case of rebellion 255

may revise awards of boards of survey 262

decisions of, relative to claims for loss of houses 274

in war, right of eminent domain may be exercised by 287

resolution adopted in 1784 relative to property 291,292

Court of Claims forbidden to adj udicate certain claims by 293

Congress, Librarian of,

acknowledges ■ to Hon. "William Lawrence the receipt of specified foreign

law- works 370

Conkling, Eoscoe \ 281,284

Constitution,

proposed amendment to 18

principles of law recognized anterior to its adoption 276

right of petition guaranteed by 16

provision of, relative to judicial power 17

Paschal's Annotated, on rights of citizens 206

safeguards of, withdrawn from District of Columbia 211

provides for military as well as civil government 212

three kinds of military jurisdiction under 212

recognizes rights and remedies of person and property 215

confers certain war-powers on Congress 216

recognizes the law of nations 216, 285

requirements of the fifth amendment to the 247, 285, 291

evident purpose of the last-mentioned 255

declarations of the preamble to '. 285

recognizes the war-power 217, 285

principles of the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments to 290

Justice Story on the principles of the 291

Constitutional law, (see Eminent domain,)

the fifth amendment 215

construed as to public use 215,216,261,276,285,287,290,297

the right of petition cannot be abridged on claims 16

houses of citizens subject to seizure 248, 287, 256, 274

war-power not limited by fifth amendment 212

due process of law defined 215

the right to occupy houses of citizens in war 252

war as defined in the Constitution 255

the power to prescribe Army regulations 256

the power to levy taxes on the enemy 256, 274

power of each House of Congress to punish contempts 17, 217

•destruction of property in war not a " public use " 212, 285, 297

the power to declare martial law, by what authority 283

INDEX. 395

Page.

Constitutional law— Continued.

recognizes the rights and remedies of citizens 215

power of Congress to declare war 216

laws of war independent of, but recognized by the 212, 217, 285

right to take life in war 214,215

Construction,

of the acts of July 4, 1864 r 371

statutes do not repeal common law of war by implication 218,236,238,239

Contempt,

power of each House of Congress to punish 17, 217

Contracts, (see Sent,)

by military officers, when binding 259

unauthorized, not binding 259

acts of Congress relating to public 259

consent of both parties necessary to bind 259

for rent require assent of Quartermaster-General 260

no implied contract on a voucher 252,280,279

ratification of 252

Controversies, celebrated,

by Ferdinand Vasquez 126

Corn wallis, Lord 273

Corporations,

not liable to confiscation act 244

foreign, not entitled to immunity 244

rebellion cannot shield itself behind . . f 244

right and duty of the Government to seize and occupy property of. .^ 244

and members thereof may be disloyal 245

can commit trespass 245

Cotton,

a proper subject of capture 233

chief reliance of the rebels 233, 279

value of that destroyed at New Orleans 233

capture of, justified by public policy and legislation 234

acts of Congress relating to „ 236

paid for in certain cases - 238

, used as breastworks for defense 238

Treasury to receive proceeds from sale of 238

seized at Helena by General Curtis 239

used in beds and hospitals, claims allowed for 239

destroyed by United States forces in rebel States 240

captured in Knoxville 241, 263

why time for presenting claims for, should not be extended 242

amount of, captured after June 1, 1865 242, 243

gross proceeds of captured and abandoned 243

Hiram W. Love's agreement to pay rent on 256

used by soldiers 256

John H. Hanna's claim for 267

used for fortifications 278, 288

Mrs. Alexander's, (see Table of Cases.)

claims for , 330

reports to Congress on 237, 243

Cowan & Dickinson's claim for 241

acts of Congress as to 236

Courts,

are the judges whethes war-power is operating 217

are the sole judges of the time and place where the law of military neces-
sity operates 283

Court of alien and war claims,

recommended by President 1

by Secretary of State 4

bill to establish 8

powers and government of 9, 10, 11

Court of Claims,

alien claims referred to the 1,7

when it shall have jurisdiction : „..' 1

rules and practice of, to be observed in alien claims 1

appeals may be taken from 1,5

agency in securing peace, (note 2) = . 5

decisions of, revised by Supreme Court, (note 2) 6

396 INDEX.

Page.
Court of Claims — Continued.

no jurisdiction over torts, (note a) 7

jurisdiction of, (note 3) 12,13,204

limited 13,204

false claims presented to 13,244

bill relating to parties in 16

why established by Congress 17

claims pending before the 286

awards made by , 244,286

act to restrict the jurisdiction of 304

joint resolutions extending the preceding act 305

act declaratory of the sense of the preceding act 305

act extending the provisions of the above 306

law organizing the 313

judges of, how appointed ; seal 313

sessions of; quorum ; salaries of officers 314

clerk's bond ; contingent fund ; report to Congress, copies for Departments- 314

members of Congress not to practice in the 315

jurisdiction, powers, and procedure 315

claims for captured and abandoned property 316

private claims in Congress, when transmitted to . . , 316

judgments for set-off or counter-claim, how enforced 316

decree on account of payments, &c 316

claims referred to, by Departments „ 316

procedure in cases transmitted by Departments 317

judgments in foregoing cases, how paid 317

claims growing out of treaties not cognizable therein 317

claims pending in other courts not to be prosecuted in . 317

rights of aliens before the 317

limitation of claims 318

rules of practice; contempts 318

oaths and acknowledgments; petition 318

petition dismissed if issue found against claimant 318

burden of proof and evidence as to loyalty 318

commissioners to take testimony 319

may call on Departments for information 319

when testimony not to be taken, 319

witnesses not excluded on account of color 319

witnesses excluded if interested ; examination of claimant 319

testimony taken where deponent resides 320

witnesses, how compelled to attend 320

cross-examination of . 320

how witnesses sworn 320

fees of commissioners, by whom paid 320

claims forfeited for fraud 320

new trial on motion of claimant 3J0

new trial before, on motion of the United States 320

payment of judgment ; interest 321

a full discharge

final judgment a bar 321

regulations for taking testimony in cases before the 345

amount awarded by the 243,286

claims still pending in the 243, 286

forbidden by Congress to adj udicate certain claims 293, 296

Cowan & Dickinson 241

Cox, Alfred 240

Cox, Henry E 240

Cox/f.C 3

Covle, Randolph 4,369

Craft, General 297

Cramer, M. J.,

letter of, and inclosuresto Hon. H. Fish 198

letter to O. D. Kosenorn-Lehn 200

Crops, (see Liability,)

if in the way of an army may be destroyed 277

Government not liable therefor \ 277

army may destroy corn-fields 289

Government not liable therefor 289

destroyed by an army do not create liability 277

INDEX. 397

D.

Page.

Dalloz,M 127

Damages done by the enemy, (see Enemy, )

rule of law of '. 266

opinion of Alexander Hamilton as to law of 266

opinion of Vattel on the same 266

opinion of Pitt ou the same 5266

opinion of Calhoun, see Annals of Congress, [14th Cong., 2d sess.,] pp.382,

426, debates,
opinion of Clay, (see same.)

opinion of Delano 235,242,286

Dana, Francis 273

Darling, Flora A 263

Davis, Charles W., (note 1) 2

Davis, Garrett 266,268,283,293

Davis, Henry G 301

Davis, J 278

Davis,J.C.B 25,26,27,31,123

transmits schedule of inquiries 27, 28

letter of, and inclosures, to Hon. H. Fish 123

Davis, W.M 116

Day, Frank 300

Dean, G 2

Deane, Silas 273

Decazes, Duke,

letter of, to Mr. Washbume 74-77

De Engstein, Count 224

Delano, C,

opinion as to war-claims 235,242,286

Delaplaine, J. F.,

letter of, and inclosures, to Hon. H. Fish 27, 69

Delossus, Don Carlos 228

Denmark,

mode of procedure in relation to claims against 199

citizens may recover in suits against 2U0

aliens may recover in suits against 201

Dennis, General E. S 256

Denormandie, M • , 74

Departments of the Government,

claims in the * 297

claims, how adjusted in 246,248,297,298,301

Derby, Earl of,

letter of, and inclosures, to Hon. Robert C. Schenck 191, 192

Deseilligny, M 95

Desjardins, Albert 80,85

Diplomatic correspondence,

of American Revolution 273

District of Columbia,

never in insurrection 211

commencement and continuance of martial law in 211

laws of war prevailed in 217

Dixon, John '. 226

Dixon, Lucy 226

Domat, M.,

on the law of interest 222,223

Donaldson, J. L 301

Druey, H 49

Due process of law,

the meaning of 215

Dufaure, J 77

Dumas, M 273

Dunscomb, Andrew 226

Durant, T. C 325

Durkee, John 226

E.
Eaton, A. B.,

letter of, relating to war-claims 303

regulations concerning claims 3C6-309

398 INDEX.

Ecuador,

mode of procedure in claims against 98-101

relative to claims of citizens against 99

aliens against 100

Edmunds, Senator 287

Ela, H 219

Emancipation,

proclamation of, date of 208, 290

Emanuele, Vittorio 130

Eminent domain,

limitation on the exercise of 253

Government may use private property on the right of 282

right of admitted by the fifth amendment to the Constitution 286,287

overruling necessity unlike the law of 287, 289

in military operations, Congress may exercise the right of 287

discretion admitted in the exercise of 288

constitutional limitations may fetter 289

compensation to be made for property taken under 289

New York law of 289

military seizure not an exercise of 293

New Jersey law of 289

a civil right 215,287,293.

property taken for destruction by army to prevent it falling into the ene-
my's hands not an exercise of. 293

Enemies,

alien, power of Government over 211

■within what boundaries citizens are 211

Bynkershoek on 235, 245-

property of alleged, must be inventoried 260

Enemy,

of damages done by the 266

rule of the law of 266.

of injuries, occupation, and destruction of property caused by necessary

military operations to repel attack of 276-281

property useful to, may be damaged or destroyed 281-297

property taken from, becomes public property 256, 261

when persons and property of, protected 262:

right to seize and destroy cotton in country of 239

England,

mode of prosecuting claims against 17

Eepinosa, Janvier 101

Europe,

law of the nations of modern 126

Evans, Daniel 22S

Evarts, W. M 373

Expenses,

of United States and Spanish claims commission 2

and United StateB of Colombia commission 2

of carrying into effect convention with Venezuela 2

of commission to adjust claims of United States against New Grenada and

Costa Rica 3

of commission to carry into effect treaty between United States and Hud-
son Bay and Puget Sound Agricultural Company 3

of commissiononAmerican and British claims 3

of American and Mexican commission

r.

Farini, M 171

Feer-Herzog, M 55,56

Ferdinand and Isabella,

independence of courts maintained by, (note 3) 12

Ferriss, Orange 332,339,342,345

Ferry, M 174

Filor case,

Court of Claims decide that contract for rent requires approval of Quarter-
master-General 252, 260

Fiscus,

when, how, and by whom sued 12

judgment against, satisfied in the usual way 12

INDEX. 399

Fish, Hon. Hamilton,

letter of, to Hon. W. Lawrence relative to the bill establishing a court

of alien claims 7,26,27

documents transmitted by 25

letter to, and inclosures, from Henry A. Peirce 25

J. K. Jones 28

Horace Rublee 32

J. F. Delaplaine 69

George H. Boker 70

Wickham Hoffman 74

Rurnsey Wing , 98

Charles T. Gorliam 101

William L. Scruggs 102

J. Milton Turner 115

George William-son 118

Thomas Eussell 118

C. C. Andrews 120

J. C. B.Davis 123

George P. Marsh , 124

Robert C. Schenck 191

O.H. Lewis 194

Thomas O. Osborn 195

M. J. Cramer , 198

letter of, to Hon. William Lawrence, inclosing letter and inclosures from

C. H. Lewis 193

inclosing letter and inclosures from Thomas O. Osborn 195

inclosing letter and inclosures from M. J. Cramer 198

relative to presentation of alien claims to Congress 206, 365

Fitzherbert, Mr 272

Flag of truce, (see Safeguard.)
Florida,

amount of claims presented from, and allowed 286

depredations of Indians in 17

result of the invasion of 241

ordinance of secession passed by convention in 213

voted on by the people 215

habeas corpus suspended in 208

Foreign governments,

the law of claims on 23

mode of procedure ., 23

adjusting claims against 23

Forts,

armies may erect 276,277,280

France,

means of redress in, (note 3) 12

mode of procedure in, in claims against 74-97

method of examination and settlement of claims against 76

any citizen may prosecute claim against 76

rights of aliens in the courts of 76

laws relative to claims against 77-97

claims made upon private citizens 77

contributions, requisitions, &c, to be paid by 78

appropriating money for invaded departments 79, 83

indemnitee pour dommages de guerre 80

bases de la repartition de l'indemnite - entre les departements 81

6tat ge'ue'ral des pertes 81

repartition entre les interesse's 82

payement des indemnitee 83

report to the President of .' 85,89

number of titles 85

exemption from duties and from the income-tax 85

form of the bonds 86

delivery of the bonds 86

methods of amortization and times of payment 86

sum left over and above the amortization 86

expense of the operation 86

decrees 87,91,92,94

amount to be paid Paris for losses 88

amount to be paid departments for losses 92.

400 INDEX.

Page.
France — Continued.

distribution of the last mentioned 93

law to indemnify sufferers by war-losses 95

law of August 30, 1830 96

Maw of December 24, 1851 97

kind of offenses for which communes are responsible 97

of civil damages and redress 97

Franklin, Benjamin 272,273

Fraudulent claims,

presented to Departments 21

criminal liability for presenting, to Departments w 286

presented to Commissioners of Claims 13, 286, 331, 344

presented to Court of Claims 13, 242

presented to British- American Mixed Commission 4, 241

the President's opinion as to 13,284

opinion of Delano on 235,242,286

•opinion of Lowndes 286

opinion of Vattel 284

■cotton-claims 242,243

as to claims under act of April 9, 1816 • 285

((See Annals of Congress, 1816-'17, [14th Cong., 2d sess.,] pp. 20, 65, 67, 78, 89, 96, 106,
245,299,382,426,462,1028,1035,1040,1051,1211; and see Globe, vol. 20, pp. 38,
139, 144, 159, 172, 178, 188, 198, 203, 302, 303, 307, 378, 492, 543 ; see also report
made in House on bill discussed 30th Congress, Globe, vol. 20.)

Frazer, Commissioner, James S 3, 239, 241, 261, 268, 269, 278

Fremont, John C 229

G.

Gage, General 273

Gaither, George G 364

Gaither, George H 4

Garfield, General J. A 286

Georgia,

decision of supreme court of, relative to use of private property for

public purposes 278

amount of claims presented from, and allowed 286

supreme court of, on law of necessity 288

ordinance of secession passed by con ven tion of 213

voted on by the people 215

Gerard, M 273

Gericke,L 102

Germany, Empire of,

protection of individuals by 12

mode of procedure in relation to claims 123

citizens may prosecute claims against 123

aliens may prosecute claims against 123

<}erra, M 177

■Gerry, Elbridge 291

Ghent, treaty of,

contents of its articles 223

■Gibbs.W.P 228

Gilbert, Marinus W 228

Gilchrist, C. J., •

opinion in Baird's case 231

Gordon, Patience 227

Gore, Mr 224

Gorham, Charles T.,

letter of, and inclosures, to Hon. H. Fish 27, 101, 102

Goulard, E.De ' 80,83,85,89

Government,

not a guarantor against damage from public enemy 266

not liable for unauthorized act of agent 293

claims in the Departments of the 297

rebel States owe supreme allegiance to the national 210

national rights of, over rebellious subjects 211

right of, to seize private houses of citizens 248,252

liability of, to payment never recognized 254

Grant, President, U. S 211,239,262,283,355,365,366

Granville, Earl 245

INDEX. 401

Page.

Gratuity, (see Damages done by the enemy,)

Government has provided for paying for Army supplies as a 236

captured and abandoned property acts are 237

policy of 205,217,284,236

(See Calhoun.)

Gray & Brown 273

Great Britain,

claims of citizens of. 1

mode of procedure in relation to claims against - 17, 191

legal opinion of the home department relative to.... 192

citizens may" prosecute claims against 193

aliens may prosecute claims against 193

rebellious States recognized by 239

Green, William L 26

Gre"vy, Jules 77,78,270

Grivart.L 80,85

Grotim, M.,

on liability of an invaded city to make compensation 214

on the inviolability of a flag of truce 263

on indemnifying individuals for war-losses 281,284,294

on the exemption of a nation from liability for damage done by the enemy . 264
on the liability of government for property destroyed by the army to deceive

an enemy 294

on eminent domain 282

Guthry, John 227

H.

*Habeas corpus,

suspended in Florida ■ • 208

power of each House of Congress to imprison 217

Tallandigham's case • 209

effect of war on 212,216

Haddon, Samuel H 240

Hale, Lord 282

Hale, Nathan 273

Hale, R. S 3, 205, 219, 240, 245, 246, 260, 261, 267, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278

Halleck,H. W., General 236

Hamburg, free city of,

righto of aliens in courts of 11

Hamilton, Alexander 248,258,266,274

Hancock, John - 232

Hanna, John Holmes 267,268

Hanover,

protection of subjects by, (note 3) 12

rights of aliens to recover in 10, 13

Hanseatic Provinces,

liability of, to citizens 12

rights of aliens in courts of 10

Harben, N. P 234

Harris, Governor I. G.,

proclaims vote of Tennessee on seceding 214

Harrison, Richard ". 229

Heffter.M 126,127

History of London, Lord Clarendqn's,

relative to the great fire of 1666 290

Hoar, E. R 3

Hoffman, Wickham,

letter of, and inclosures, to Hon. H. Fish 27,74

Holabird,S. B - 279

Holland,

legal liability of, to citizens, (note 3) - 12

rights of aliens in courts of 10

Holt, J.,

letter to Hon. William Lawrence relative to settlement for use of property

during the war 247,252,253

*In the debate in House of Representatives on the bill to provide for the security of elections, Feb-
ruary 27, 1875, General Butler argued that war ipso facta suspends the writ of habeas corpus. He stated
generally the effect of suspending it.

H. Rep. 134 26

402 INDEX.

Page.
Holt, J. — Continued.

letter to Hon. W. Lawrence relative to payment of rent 254, 264

relative to payment of rent for use of land 280

Hopkinson, Francis 226

Horbach, Abraham '. 289

Horses,

paid for -when surrendered by order 271

of citizens stolen by Indians 270

of citizens captured while in service 270

Hou/te of Berpresentatives,

rule of, relative to alien claims 207

substance of war-claims report to, in 1818 285

Secretary of War transmits documents to 297

amount of claims pending before committees of 298

committee of, on Valley Forge claims : 295

Howe, Senator 269,281,284

Howell, J. B 332,339,342,345

Hudson Bay and Puget Sound Agricultural Company,

expenses of commission to carry into effect treaty with, and United States,

(notel) 3

I.

Ianigro, M 178

Indiana,

act of Congress relative to Morgan's raid in 306

Choctaw, claim of 220-232

indemnification by United States for property taken by 270

Cherokee, allowed interest ou their claim 225

Creek, paid for slaves captured 229

Seminole, slaves captured from 229

rule of interest observed in wars with certain , 230

Inquiries,

schedule of, to foreign ministers, from J. C. B. Davis, relative to the mode -

of procedure in settlement of claims 28

Insurrectionary States,

proclamations respecting 208

Interest, (see Annals of Congress, 1816, [2d sess. 14th Cong.,] pp. 1250-1254,)

when allowed on claims 218,219,221,224

under ordinary claims, Government not liable for 218

obligation of United States to pay, on Choctaw Indian claims 223

allowed by American-British mixed commission undertreaty of May 8, 1871 219

allowed by the American-Mexican commission 224

United States in dealing with Indians 225

United States in fifty-three cited cases 225-229

resolution of the Massachusetts senate relating to 226

opinion of Senate committee on allowing 230

Houbb committee on allowing j 231

Senator Sumner on allowing 230

upon advances for States in certain wars 218,219,220

in what volumes discussed 219

relating to payment of, to British creditors 219

only three cases in which it can be demanded 219

allowed Virginia and other States 219

not allowed Massachusetts 219

Domat on the law of 223

Pothier on the law of 223

Chancellor Kent on the law of 223

al lowed under the treaty of 1794 between the United States and Great Britain 223

under treaty of 1795 between the Uni ted States and Spain 224

under convention with Mexico of 1839 224

under convention with Mexico of 1848 224

under convention with Colombia of 1864 — 224

under convention with Venezuela , 224

by the mixed American and Mexican commission 224

as damages for delays of pay meut 225

by the United States to the Cherokee Nation 225

by the United States to the State of Massachusetts 230

in A. R. McDonald's claim 241

INDEX. . 403

Page.
Intei' national law, (see Constitutional law, Laws of war,)

alien claims decided in accordance with principles of 1, 6

magnitude of claims arising under 2

relief granted under, for war losses 268

under it nations not liable to indemnify losses of citizens who suffer from

acts of the enemy 273, 274

no settled pnuciples of, furnished by special tribunals 8

United States not liable to rebellious States under 232

loyalists having property in rebellious States cannot claim immunity there-
for under . 244

principles of 268,274,280,291

under its principles nations are not liable to indemnify citizens for losses

by the public enemy in war 273

exceptions to the forgoing rule 272,273

early adoption of the American rule of 274

rule of, as contained in the act of 1864 296

recognized by the Constitution 216,251,291

Investigation of claims against the United States,

mode of procedure adopted 203

officers and tribunals having jurisdiction 204

Irvin, John 227

Irwin, Richard B .- 217

Italy,

civil code of, establishes liability ■. 11

mode of procedure in relation to claims against 124

may American citizens maintain action against government of 10, 205

bills relating to war-damages 128

opinion of the council of state of, relative to war-damages 129

laws of, relating to claims —

dell'instituzione, e composizione della corte dei conti 130

delle attribuzioni della corte dei conti 131

del riscontro delle spese 132

della vigilanza sulla riscossione delle entrate e sui valori in denaro o

in materie 132

della vigilanza della corte in ordine alle cauzioni 132

dell'esame dei conti dei ministri 132

del giudizio sui conti 133

disposizioni generali e transitorie 134

tabella degli stipendi 135

indennitaper danni di guerra 135,145

progetto di legge 135, 139

la relazioue ministeriale e il suo progetto di legge 147

l'allegato alia relazioue ministeriale 148

continua la storia 148

la commissione e il suo mandato 148

i principii della commissione 149

turn certare odiis, turn res rapuisse licebit 152

le applicazioniall'allegatodei principii della commissione 155

il progetto di legge della commissione 166

la fine 168

progetto del ministero 168

progetto della giunta 169

decreto del Granduca di Toscana del 3 novembre 1850 sulle spese per le

truppe ausiliari 169

circolare delministro dell'interno ai signori governatori provinciali ed
intendenti generali pei danni e requisizioni della guerra 1859 : 16

agosto 1860 170

istruzioni 3 agosto 1861 diramate dall'Austria per la liquidazlone delle
domande di compenso sui danni provenienti della guerra del 1859

nelle provincie- venete 172

notificazioue del governo austriaco sull'approvvi gionamento dell'ar-

mata mobile del 25giugno 1866 173

circolare alle onorevoU congregazioni provinciali, agli II. RR. commis-
sari distrettuali ed alle congregazioni municipal! e deputazioni

comunali - 174

J. R. Luogotenenza in Trieste 174

ministero dell'interno 175, 178

consigliodi stato 177,179,180,182

estratto del decreto 184

catalogo delle petizioni intorno ai danni di guerra 188

Izard, Ralph 273

404 INDEX.

J.

Page.

Jackson, General , t 260,287,288,296

Jay, John 273

Jefferson, Thomas 235

Jenks, David 227

Jenks, George 227

Jenhison, Colonel 276

Johnson, Andrew,

proclamations of, concerning insurrectionary States 208,250

proclamation of, concerning treaty with Mexico 355,362

Johnson, Herschel V 213

Johnson, John 229

Johnston, N 72,270

Joint commission,

rules and orders governing between United States and Mexico 366

Jones, Dr. W. P 280

Jones, J. E., letter to Hon. Hamilton Fish 27, 28

Jottrand, L.,per£, letter to J. E. Jones 28

Journal, The Louisville,

on secession in Tennessee 214

Judgment,

against Spain by an American 12

K.

Kapp, Frederick ll,20fr

Kent, Chancellor 223,262

Kentucky,

message of the President relative to the destruction of salt-works in 297

Kern,Dr 48

King, Mr 224

Klaine, Peter 325

Enoxville, Tenn.,

was enemy's country during rebellion 263

Kcechlin,Mr 55,56

Kopp, A 67,68

Kosciusko, General „ 225

L.

Lafayette, M. de 1 273

Lambrecht.F 77,270

Lapsley, Samuel 226

Laurens, Henry 273

Laurent, Thomas 229

Law of overruling necessity, (see Overruling necessity.)
Law of claims, the,

on foreign governments 23

in the United States : 203,205

classes of war-claims „ 205

general principles of 205

Law of the Nations of Modern Europe,

byHeffter 126

Law, Ph ilosophy of,

by Ahrens 126

Lawrence, Son. William,

letter to, from F. A. Sawyer, inclosing amended statement of expenses of

certain mixed commissions, (note 1) 2

letter to, from Hon. Hamilton Fish, relative to the bill to establish a court

of alien claims, (note 2) : 4

letter of, relating to limitation of claims . 16

extract from speech of, relative to 16, 17

letter of, in reply to the Washington Chronicle, on private claims before

Congress 19

bill of, to prevent abuses in prosecution of claims 21

letter and inclosures to, from J. L. Cadwalader '. 25

Hamilton Fish 26,193,195,198

letter to, from Hon. H. Fish, relative to presentation of alien claims to Con-
gress 206

INDEX. 405

Page.
Lawrence, Hon. William— Continued.

letter to, from M. C. Meigs, relative to settlement for occupation of real

estate during the war 246,250

Hon. J. Holt, relative to use of property during the war . . 247, 253, 254, 264, 280

Hon. W. W. Belknap, relative to settlement of war-claims 249

Hon. M. C. Meigs, of similar import 250

Hon. B F. Butler, of similar import 263

A. E. Spofford, Librarian of Congress, acknowledging the receipt of

specified foreign law-works 370

Laws of war, (see War, International law,)

existed prior to Constitution and recognized by it 217,251,287,291

where prevailing during rebellion 216

prevailed when no battles being fought 210

test of their prevalence 216

summary of, by Francis Leiber 217

modified by Congress during rebellion.... 217,236,263

modified by military commanders 126, 216

the policy of ameliorating 126,217,235,294

Dr. Leiber's rules modified 126,209,217,233,260,298

many opinions as to . 181

. courts cannot ameliorate 211, 216

effect of proclamations on, promising " protection of person and prop-
erty" 252,253,261,263,264

Lex loci,

as affecting rights of property in rebel States 217, 245

situs of property affected by 244

Lee, Arthur 273

Lee, John T 373

Lee, Mr 291,373

Lee, William J 273

L'Enfant.P.C 226

Leiber, Francis 126,209,217,233,260,298

Leiper, Thomas 227

Leon, Francisco Janvier 98,99

Leopold, M , 170

Letamendi, Jose" 101

Letcher, Governor 214

Letters to Son. Hamilton Msh relating to the adjustment of war-claims in foreign
countries,

from Hawaii, and inclosures, by Henry A. Peirce 25,26

Belgium, and inclosures, by J. E.Jones 28

Switzerland, and inclosures, by Horace Eublee 32

Austria-Hungary, and inclosures, by J. F. Delaplaine 69

Turkey, and inclosures, by George H. Boker 70

France, and inclosures, by Wickham Hoffman 74-97

Ecuador, and inclosures, by Eumsey Wing 98

United States of Colombia, and inclosures, by W. L. Scruggs 102

Liberia, and inclosures, by J. Milton Turner 115

Central America, and inclosures, by George Williamson 118

Venezuela, and inclosures, by Thomas Eussell 118

Sweden and Norway, and inclosures, by C. C. Andrews 120

German Empire, and inclosures, by J. C. B. Davis 123

Italy, and inclosures, by George P. Marsh 124

Great Britain, and inclosures, by Eobert C. Schenck 191

Portugal, and inclosures, by C.H. Cramer 194

Argentine Eepublic, and inclosures, by Thomas O. Osborn 195

Lewis, C. H., letter of, and inclosures, to Hon. H. Fish 94

Lewis, John 3

Lewis, Moses - 3

Liability of government,

in Italy 205

in Bombonnel's case 206

in foreign war of invasion 210

in America 217,267

not liable for interest unless by contract 218

as in Todd's and Keith's cases 218

to rebellious States 232

lawful exercise of power does not create 239

when performing a duty 248

406 . INDEX.

Page

Inability of government — Continued.

for injuries resulting from torts of its officers 249

to pay rent never recognized 254

to indemnify Hiram W. Love 257

in cases cited 259, 260

for unauthorized promise of an officer 260

determined by law of war r . 260

of the United States not suspended by secession of a State 267

not liable for acts of rebels 268

of France to its subjects 269

crops destroyed by army does not create 277

to compensate for property destroyed to keep it from falling into tbe

enemy's hands 282,283,284

under the law of overruling necessity 289

to compensate for emancipated slaves 290

property destroyed as aruse does not create a , 294

Grotius on tbe law of 294

usage of, since the rebellion, a denial in certain cases of all 296

Liberia, '

mode of procedure iu claims against 115

citizens may prosecute claims against tbe government of 117

aliens may prosecute claims in the courts of 117

letter of the Attorney-General relative to claims in 117

Librarian of Congress,

acknowledges to Hon. William Lawrence the receipt of specified foreign

law-works 370

Limitation, (see Fraudulent claims, )

of actions in the Court of Claims 318

before Commissioners of Claims 324

expediency of, discussed 18, 242

under capture and abandoned property act 238,242

opinion of President 13

subject discussed, (see Preface.)

Lincoln, President Abraham,

proclamation by, concerning insurrectionary States 208, 250, 371

Literary institutions,

liable to seizure in war 258

but only urgent necessity can justify it 258

at Princeton , N. J. , alio wed compensation for damages 258

at Wilmington, Del., allowed for the same 258

claim of William and Mary College 258

East Tennessee University 258, 296

Kentucky University 258

London,

folly of the lord mayor of, iu 1666 290

Longstreet, General 263

Loring, J 283

Loudoun County, Virginia,

claims in, paid 296

Louisiana,

date of secession 213

amount of claims presented from, and allowed 286

vote of the people on secession 215

Love, Hiram W 256

Loyalty,

presumpton of 211

proof of 242,307

in Court of Claims 318

before Commissioners of Claims ... 326

Lowndes, Lloyd 286

Loyal citizens, (see Enemies,)

resident iu loyal States having property in rebel States 217, 245

Ludington, M. I '. 251,252

Lutscher, J. L 55,56,67,68

Luzerne, M 273

Lyons, Lord 240

M.

Macado, J. W 2

MacMahon, Marshal de 87,93,95,96

INDEX. 407

Page.
Magna Charta,

when principles of, were in force 217,251,287,291

Magne, P 86,87

Malius, Vice-Chancellor 371

Mantillini, M 168,191

Marcy, W. L 236

Mariscal, Igno 365

Marsh, George P.,

letter of, and inclosures, to Hon. H. Pish 27,124

Martial law,

in District of Columbia 211

courts cannot modify 211, 216,217, 236,263

when justified 265

authorities relating to 209,210, 212,283

legislative power over 1 283

right of officers to decide on existence of 216,244,283

Massachusetts,

interest on advances not allowed to 219

allowed to 330

McClung, James 127

McDonald, A. R 241

McKean, Chief-Justice 290

McLean, Angus 225

McMillan, A. K 240

McPherson, Edward,

History of the Kebellion 209,233

Reconstruction 209

Meaux, Vte.de : 77,78,270

Meigs, M. C,

letter to Hon. William Lawrence explaining mode of settlement for occu-
pation of real estate during the war 208, 245, 246, 247, 250, 259, 263, 279

letter of, relative to war-claims , 298-302

Meigs, Return J 225,251,253

Mellen, William P 256

Message, (see President, Veto.)
Methodist Publishing House at Nashville,

the claim of, for use and occupation and for damages rejected 251

Mexia, J. Carlos 367,369

Mexico,

settlement of claims between United States and, (note) 4

proclamation of President relative to treaty with United States and 355, 362

Military necessity, (see Overruling necessity,)

cases in which property of loyalists may be occupied as a 276

Military occupation,

wheu permanent, may change enemy to friend 245, 263

Military operations, ■

temporary occupation of, injuries to, and destruction of property while

conducting necessary 276-281

Military orders, (see Orders.)
Militia,

seventy-five thousand called out 208

amount of claims presented from, and allowed 286

ordin ance of secession passed by convention 213

voted on, by the people 215

Mixed commissions,

value of 2

decisions sometimes contradictory 2

award of, final 2

expenses of, paid by the United States 2

expenses of United States and Spanish 2

United States of Colombia , 2

New Grenada and Costa Rica, (note 1) 3

Hudson Bay and Puget Sound Agricultural Company 3

Great Britain 3

Mexican 4, 355

proclamation relating to United States and Mexican 355, 369

American-British, results of, (note 2) 6,267,219

amount of claims presented to 6

408 INDEX.

Page.
Mixed commissions — Continued.

American-British, expenses of printing, how borne 6

awards by 7

jurisdiction of, in the United States 204

under treaties.... 355-^370

between the United States and Mexico 355-370

Monoayo, Pedro 101

Monroe, President James 218

Montesquieu, M 126

Moore, J. E.,

letter of, to J. Milton Turner 116,118

Morgan, John 217,271,306

Morgan raid,

law of Congress relative to damages by 306

action of Ohio legislature on 271

Morris, Richard G 228

Murillo, M 114

Murphy, John 240

Murray, Henry £26

Murray, John 226

N.

Napoleon, Louis ± 289

Nashville,

military occupation of 251

no proclamation for military protection 252

Government not liable to pay for use and occupation in, during rebellion. . 252

Nation, Cherokee,

interest allowed by United States to 225

Nations of Modern Europe, law of,

by Beflter 126

Neira, J. M. Maldomado 114

Nelson, Samuel J - 3,211

opinion in the prize-oases £11

Netherlands,

liability of, to citizens 12

mode of procedure in claims against 101,102

rights of aliens in courts of ,. 10, 102

New Granada and Costa Biea,

expenses of commission of, with the United States, (note 1) 3

New Jersey,

supreme court of, on the law of necessity and eminent domain 288

Nicholl, Dr 224

Nicholl, Sir John 224

Niles's Register,

case in, as to martial law 283

Noerr, M. L.,

memorandum of captured and abandoned property 243

North Carolina,

amount of claims presented from, and allowed 286

ordinance of secession passed by 213

voted on, by the people 215

Norway,

mode of procedure in, relative to claims in 122

citizens m.iy prosecute claims against 123

aliens may prosecute claims against 123

Nott, J.,

opinion of, in Brown v. United States 12

Fichera v. United States 10,205

O.
Officers,

action of military, subject to review by court ^ . . 216

when decision of, conclusive on courts 244

right of, to judge of military seizure 216,244,283

ratification by Government, of act of release from liability 283

ratification of act of, equivalent to original authority 252

INDEX. 409

Page.
Ohio,

commission appointed to examine claims of citizens of 271

act of Congress relative to Morgan's raid in 306

Orange, William I, of 30

Orders, military,

general military, No. 100 233

as to tobacco 234

as to Tennessee 236

general, as to property 236

Osltand, General 241

Oswald, Mr 272

Otero, Jose" Maria Quijano 114

Otis, Samuel A 232

Ottoman Umpire,

laws of, relating to war-claims 79

all citizens may prosecute claims against 72

rights of aliens in courts of 72

testimony purchased in courts of - 73

Overruling necessity,

justified proclamation of emancipation 208, 290

right and duty of government under 244, 286

cases in which it exists 276, 293, 294

on the temporary occupancy of real estate by 280

government may take or use private property by the law of 282

distinct from the right of eminent domain 287

law of, antedated the Constitution 287, 291

decision of New York courts in 288

law of, applied in peace for individual benefit 289

separate and distinct from emineut domain 289

Pennsylvania supreme court on the law of 290

the case of Russell ». Mayor of New York exemplifies the law of *. . - 292

P.

Paducah claims 299

Palmerston, Lord,

opinion of American tribunals 7, 275

Pardon,

effect of, on the right to recover under the captured and abandoned prop-
erty act 375

Parker, I. C,

report of, on claim of Choctaw Indians i 220

Parliamentary Practice,

Eiddell's railway 371

Parliament,

appeal to, by British loyalists for relief 267

may punish for contempt • 17

Paschal, Mr.... 215,265

Passport, (see Safeguard.)
Peirce, Henry A.,

letter of, to Hon. H. Fish 25,26

Peiroleri, M.,

letter of, and inclosures, to George P. Marsh 125

Pennsylvania,

supreme court of, on the law of necessity in time ofwar 278,288,282

action of board of war of, in taking private property 289

indemnifies citizens of Chambersburgh for war damages 271

Perez, Julio E 1*4

Petition of right,

is a common-law remedy in England '. 192,206

statute of Victoria regulates 192,206

Philipsborn, V - 123

Philosophy of law,

by Ahreus 126

Phipps, Thomas 324

Pickering, Timothy 228

Pierce, John 226

Pillage,

Government not liable for 248,266,275

Government may be liable for, if it sanction 276

410 INDEX.

Page.

Pinckney, Mr 224

Pitchlynn, P. P 219

Political questions, (see Constitutional law,)

courts cannot interfere with 209

martial law, how far such 211,216

Pollock, Oliver 225

Population, in 1860, of States declared in rebellion,

Alahama 215

Arkansas 215

Florida 215

Georgia 215

Louisiana 215

Mississippi 215

North Carolina 215

South Carolina 215

Tennessee 215

Texas 215

Virginia 215

Portugal,

mode of procedure in claims against 194

PotMer, M.,

on the law of interest 223

Pratt, Senator, (see Cowan 4- Dickinson,)

report of, on claim of Cowan & Dickinson reviewed 263, 241

President of the United States, (see Proclamations,)

extract from message of, December, 1873, favoring settlement of alien

claims 1

cites result of treaty of Washington, (note 2) 4

extract from message of December, 1873, on false claims 13

recommendations to Congress relative to false claims 13

extract from message of June 1, 1873, relative to use, occupancy, or de-
struction of private property in war 280

extract from message of February 12, 1873, relative to destruction of Ken-
tucky salt-works 297

proclamation respecting the American-Mexican commission 355

Procedure,

in adjusting claims against the United States Government 203

Proclamations, presidential,

schedule of, respecting the insurrectionary States 208, 371

fixing commencement of the American internal war 207, 37 1

of emancipation 208

declaring insurrection ended in the States of South Carolina, Georgia,
Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Virginia, North Carolina,

Tennessee, and Arkansas 209

of General Butler at New Orleans 264

President's, as to New Orleans 265

none by General Buell at Nashville 252, 253

effect of a, promising protection of person and property 252, 261, 264

as to martial law in District of Columbia 212

Property,

Government not liable for damages to 248

exceptions when not to be taken for public use 215, 216

what, may be used in war - 210

taken, used, damaged, or destroyed in States declared in rebellion 232-265

title to, seized in enemy 's country vested in Govern ment 256

memorandum of captured and abandoned 243

destroyed or damaged in battle by troops 274-276

occupation of, injuries to, and destruction of, caused by actual and neces-
sary Government military operations to repel a threatened attack of

or in advancing to meet an enemy in open war 218, 276-281

civilized nations bound to pay for all, taken from loyal citizens 276

exceptions to this rule 276

in war, Government may use, occupy, or destroy 280

useful to enemy, may be taken, damaged, or destroyed 281-297

five modes in which Government has a right to take or use 282

resolution of Congress relative to, taken 291, 292

in horses, paid for by Congress 294

how laws of war affect 218

INDEX. 411

Page.

Property — Continued.

several classes of 218,236,237

Hon. C. Delano on damages for 235

the right to take, in insurgent State 236,241

of what kind to be paid for 236

commanders in certain States ordered to seize 236

provisions of statutes in relation to captured or abandoned 237, 241

claimants seeking payment for 238

of loyal owners not liable to confiscation 238

when destruction of, justified , 239

may be destroyed by belligerents in enemy's country 240

destruction of, in Florida . 241

captured and abandoned, proceeds of 242,243

in enemy's country, held by virtue of charters granted by foreign govern-
ments, can claim no protection beyond other enemy's property 244, 245

right and duty of military officers in selecting. 244

taken from the enemy becomes public 256,261

private, protected in hostile countries 260

taken from alleged enemies must be inventoried 260

letter of General B. F. Butler on the rights of, &c 264

private, when destroyed, governments seek to give redress 266

Alexander Hamilton on this rule - 266

destroyed in battle, Senator Davis's speech on 266

Mr. Pitt on war-losses of 267

alleged to have been destroyed by rebels, claim for 267

destroyed during the Morgan raid, action of Ohio legislature on 271

destroyed at Chambersburgh, Pa., legislature indemnifies losers 271

stolen by Colonel Jennison's troops 276

supreme court of Pi 'nnsylvania on the rights of 277

Georgia on t lie rights of 278

private, for public use 279

Government has five modes in which to take private 282

destruction of private, in battle is not taking for public use 287

Chief-Justice McKean on the seizure of 290

resolution adopted by Congress in 1784 relating to 291,292

case of Mary Brown, arising under the above 291

taken under military authority should be paid for 291,293

often destroyed during the revolutionary war to prevent it falling into

the hands of the enemy 294

supreme court of Pennsylvania decided there was no redress 294

Congress never paid for it, nor did the States 294

destroyed in the war of 1812 to prevent it falling into the hands of the

enemy 294,295

Congress never paid for it 294

Congress provided for paying for horses killed in service 294

losers of, at Valley Forge were not compensated 295

claims for damage or destruction of 327

"taken" and "furnished" 273

taken in Tennessee 373

Protection,

effect of proclamation promising 261

Prussia,

rights of subjects of 12

aliens may recover in courts of 10, 13

Public use, (see Constitutional law.)

Q.

Quartermaster-General, (see Siores,\

claims to be submitted to and examined by the 248, 306

proofs required in support of the above 248,299,307

validity of claims 307

forms prescribed for presenting claims 309

act relating to 311

report of the, for 1874 312

claims and accounts in the Office of 312

character of claims against 302

cost of investigating claims against 302

right of, to examine claims originating under the act of July 4, 1864 374

412 INDEX.

Page.
R.

Maid,

Morgan's, relative to 217, 271

quartermaster's stores furnished during 306

Saint Albans, report of committee on 274

on loyal citizens in insurrectionary States 274

rebel raids on loyal citizens, when paid for 274

Lee's, in Pennsylvania 277

Railroads, (see Corporations,)

action of Government as to, in rebel States 244

Ratification, (see Officer,)

by Government of act of officer relieves him from liability 283

of contract for rent equivalent to an original authority 252

Rawlins, John A 262

Rebellion, (see Pardon,)

commencement of the American 206,208,209

President's proclamation relating to 206, 208, 209, 371

of property taken, used, or damaged in the States declared in 232-265

citizens in, forfeit all constitutional rights 216

McPherson's History of the 209,233

raids on loyal citizens during the 274

when it terminated 209

cases decided relating to 209,212

Rebels, (see Philadelphia American Law Register, March, 1875,)

subject to sovereign and belligerent rights of Government 211,239

in civil war not entitled to privileges of foreign enemies 211

Reconstruction,

power of Congress to pass acts of 209

McPherson's History of 209

Redfield, Judge 13

Reeside, James 229

Regulations, (see Army Regulations,)

for taking testimony in support of claims before the Commissioners of

Claims 345

governing commissioners under the treaty between the United States and

Mexico 366

Reilly, Mr 240

Remusat, Paul de 77,78,270

Rent, (see Use and occupation, Filor case,)

claims and allowances for 246,250,251,252,253,254,264,287

in Tennessee 250,254

" Murfreesborough decision " as to 251

at New Orleans 262,265

in Missouri 247

statute of 1867 as to 246

authority to contract for 246

contracts for, not affected by act of February 21, 1867 250

Report of the Commissioners of Claims,

first general 324-332

second general 332-339

third general 339-342

fourth general 342-345

Reports, (see War-Claims Committee reports 43d Congress.)

Revertera, Count 69

Revolution, American,

diplomatic correspondence of 273

Rive, Francisque 96

Roads,

government not liable for military use of ordinary 276

Romero, M 356,362

Rosenbrn-Lehn, O. D.,

letter to, from M.J.Cramer 199

Roxburgh, Alexander .' 226

Rublee, Horace,

letter of, to Hon. Hamilton Fish 27, 31

president of the Swiss Confederation 32

Rucker.D. H 304,306-309

Rules and regulations,

for taking testimony before the Commissioners of Claims 345

INDEX. 413

Page.
Rules and regulations — Continued.

governing commissioners under the treaty between the United States and

Mexico 366

Russell, Earl 240

Bussell, Thomas,

letter of, and inclosures, to Hon. H. Fish 27,118,224

Bussia,

not amenable, in matters of property, to the law 12,275,289

decision of Emperor of, relative to indemnification of United States for

property destroyed by British forces 223

Ruttimann, J 48

S.
Safeguard,

what it amounts to and includes 262

granted by General Grant to Mrs. Eugenie Bass 262

whoever forces, to suffer death 262

giver of, to protect the bearer 262

Chancellor Kent on the rule of 262

Vattel on the inviolability of 262

sovereign can revoke 262

Calvo on the rule of '. 262

when the bearer guilty of violating 263

Grotius on the inviolability of a 263

Santarnecchi, M 127

Sappa, M 130,180,182

Sawyer, F. A.,

letter of, to Hon. William Lawrence giving expenses of mixed commissions 2

Sayre, Stephen 225

Schenck, Robert C,

letter of, and inclosures, to Hon. H. Pish 27,56,69,191

letter to, from the Earl of Derby 192,193

SeMess, M.,

letter of, to Horace Rublee, &c 33,48,49,55,56,67,68,69

Scott, Sir William 224

Scott, General Winfield 236

Scruggs, William L.,

letter of, and inclosures, to Hon. H. Fish 27, 102, 104

Secession,

ordinance of, passed by Alabama convention 212

Arkansas convention 213

Florida convention 213

Georgia convention 213

Louisiana convention 213

Mississippi convention 213

North Carolina convention 213

South Carolina convention 213

Tennessee convention 214

Texas convention 213

Virginia convention 214

West Virginia, seceding from Virginia 214

how carried in most of the States 212, 213

Louisville Journal on the spirit of, in Tennessee 214

vote of Virginia on 214

vote of the people on, in Alabama . 215

Arkansas 215

Florida 215

Georgia 215

Louisiana 215

Mississippi 215

North Carolina 215

South Carolina r 215

Tennessee 215

East Tennessee 214

Middle Tennessee 214

West Tennessee * 214

Military Camps 214

Texas 215

Virginia 215

414 INDEX.

Page.
Secretary of State,

to refer alien claims to Court of Claims 1, 5, 6

opinion as to necessity of Court of Claims 4

letter of, to Hon. W. Lawrence relative to establishing a court of alien

claims 4

reasons why such court should be created 4

reasons for the provisions of the proposed act 5

reasons why a favorable result may be looked for 6

reasons why judgments of such courts would probably be accepted by

other governments 6

information given by, relative to mode of adjudicating claims by foreign

governments 13

documents transmitted by 25

opinion of, on alien claims 206

Sedgwick,

on construction of statutes 218

Segar, Joseph 248

Segur, Louis de 96

Seizure,

limitations on the ancient right of 233

military, necessary to vest title 233

right to make military 239, 261

military, is different from " booty" 261

when decision of officer conclusive in courts 216, 244, 283

power of, exercised during revolutionary war 290, 291

■Self-defense,

right of 209,276,277

Sella, Quintino 134,135

Seward, Daniel 227

Seward, William H ' 356-362

Sheridan, General 260,296

Sherman, Mr 291

Shei-man, W. T -• 240,275,301,330

letter of, relating to Haiben's claim 234

Skipwith, Fulman 275

Smith, Henry H 18,211

Smythe, William 240

Snow, Aaron 228

South Carolina,

ordinance of secession passed by convention 213

vote of the people on 215

amount of claims presented from, and allowed 286

Southern Claims Commission,

suggestions as to its jurisdiction, (note 2) 5

erroneously so called 321

Spaight.Mr 291

restrictions of courts in certain proceedings, (note 3) : 12

judgment against, by an American citizen, (note 3) 12

Spanish Claims Commission,

expense of, (note 1) 2

Sparks, Jared 273

Spofford, A. B.,

letter of, to Hon. William Lawrence acknowedging receipt of certain law-
works 370

Stanley, R. H 26

Stanton, Edwin M 234,341

States in rebellion,

of property taken, used, or damaged in 232-365

proceedings in certain 212-215

Government not liable for damages to 232

recognized by England 239

became " enemy's country" 255

President authorized to declare certain 255

St. Clair, Arthur 225

Stemman, John 127

Stephens, Alexander H 213

Stetson, Amasa 227

•Stones, (see Forts, Timber.)

INDEX. 415

Page.
Stores,

tobacco, may be destroyed 235

quartermaster and commissary, paid for by Government 235-250

General Halleck's order relative to 238

cotton seized aud used as 239

quartermaster's, claims for 374

Government pays for quartermaster and commissary 234, 277

the act of March 3, 1871, for payment for, in rebel States a gratuity 236

the captured and abandoned property acts a gratuity 237

tobacco is not "stores" or "supplies" 235

orders to take, in rebel States 236

cotton used for hospitals is a "supply" within the act of March 3, 1871. .. 239

tobacco may be made Army supply by special order 235

Stubblefield, George J 234,341

Sullivan, General 274

Sumner, Senator Charles,

extracts from speeches of 219, 258, 267, 275, 284, 295

Supplies, (see Stores, Tobacco.)
Supreme Court of the United States,

appe'als may be. made to, from Court of Claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 11

decisions of Court of Claims revived by 6

in cases of Springbok and Volant sustained 7

when it may order argument 11

declares who are to be treated as enemies 255

opinion in Mrs. Alexander's case 279

appeals to, from Court of Claims 2,5,6,8

revise decisions of Court of Claims 6

opinions of Chief-Justice Taney 7

of Chief-Justice Chase 211, 212, 216

of Justice Clifford 7

of Justice Swayne 209 239

of Justice Nelson 7, 211

of Justice Catron 7

opinion of, as to capture of property on land 279

Survey, boards of,

why organized '. 260

frequently organized during the rebellion 260

payments under the awards of 262

Congress may revise awards of 262

Swabey.Dr 224

Swayne, J 239

Sweden,

mode of procedure in claims against 120

citizens and aliens may prosecute claims against .- 122

Swiss Confederation,

letter of Horace Eubleeto the President of 32

Switzerland,

jurisdiction of federal tribunal 12

rights of aliens in courts of 10

constitution and laws of, relating to war-claims 33-69

letter of Federal Council of, to Horace Rublee 32

mode of procedure relative to claims against —

dispositions ge'ne'rales 33, 49, 56

fonctions des juges 33

des parties 34

d^bat collectif 34

participation d'un tiers au proces 34

denonciation d'instance 34

intervention accessoire 34

intervention principale 35

droits et devoirs des parties 35

des personnes adjointes aux parties 35

principes generaux de la procedure 36

interdiction de provocation a former une demaude 36

cumulation de demandes 36

production simultan^e des moyens de la demande et de la defense 36

modification de la plainte 36

de la fixation du temps dans le proces 37

jours fixes 37

416 INDEX.

Page.

Switzerland — Continued.

mode of procedure, &c. —

des delais 38

restitution des parties dans le cas d'expiration des jours fixes ou des

deiais 38

jours fenfe 38

suspension du proces 38

desist^ment 38

de la forme du audiences du tribunal 39

introduction du proces 39

partie speciale 39

procedure preparatoire 40

fixation des faits 40

procedure probatoire 41

moyen de preu ve 41

l'aveu 41

documents 41

des descentes sur les lieux et expertises 42

temoins 42

du serment de'fe're' 44

de la preuve complexe 44

du serment suppietoire et du serment purgatoire 44

dispositions generates 33,44,56

procedure probatoire 44

introduction de la preuve 44

debat pre"alable 45

admission de la preu ye 45

preuve a futur 45

fin de la procedure preparatoire 45

procedure principale 46

de l'exe"cntion - 47

de la revision 47

de ^interpretation du jugement 48

mesures provisionelles 48

l'assembiee federale Suisse, arrSte 48, 49, 56

le conseil federal Suisse 48

1' assembled federale de la confederation Suisse 49, 56, 67

administration de la justice civile 51

administration de la justice p6nale 52

des contestations de droit public 54

dispositions finales 55

le conseil federal arrete 56,69

arrete federale concernant le siege du tribunal federal 56

constitution federale de la confederation Suisse 56

autorites federales 62

assemble federale 62

conseil national 63

conseil des etats 63

attributions de l'assembiee federale. 63

conseil federal 64

chancellerie federale 65

tribunal federal 65

dispositions di verses 66

revision de la constitution federate 66

dispositions transitoires 67

declare ce qui suit 68

T.

Table of contents I, n

Talmage, D. M 2

Taylor, Ann D 227

Taylor, General 236

Tax,

conquering army may tax the vanquished 260

may tax disloyal to pay depredations by rebels 274

Tennessee,

ordinance of secession passed the convention 213

vote on secession by the people of 214

amount of claims presen ted from, and allowed 273, 286

Tenterden, Lord '245

INDEX. 417

Page.

Testimony,

regulations for taking, in cases before the Commissioners of Claims 345

Texas,

amount of claims presented from, and allowed 286

Thiers, A 77,78,80,85,270

Thomas, Major-Geueral 280

Thompson, John 226

Timber,

claims for 276, 278

may be destroyed by armies 289

cut down to open passage for troops 277

• Title,

to property of enemy seized by military authority vested in Government. 256

Tobacco, (see Stores, Supplies,)

may be destroyed in time of war 234

when first made an army supply 234

letter of General Sherman on Harbeu's clai m for 234

soldiers will have, by fair means or foul ,. 234

claims for 330, 341

Toggenburg, M 173

Torts,

Court of Claims no jurisdiction over 7

of officers, Government not liable for 249

Townsend, E. D 311

Treaties,

mixed commissions under 355

Treaty of Ghent,

contents of 223

Ireaty of Washington,

claims of British subjects arising under , 1

some provisions of, (note 2) 4, 6,245,261

number of vessels adjudicated on UDder, (note 2) 6

fixes date of commencement of the rebellion 207

Tribunals,

to investigate claims 204

Tribune, Chicago,

letter to, from Hon. William Lawrence relating to limitation of claims 16

Troops,

property destroyed or damaged in battle by 274-276

Truce, flag of,

effect of 263

Tudor, Mr 224

Turner, J. Milton,

letter of, and inclosures, to Hon. H. Fish 27, 115

to J. E. Moore, secretary of Liberia 118

TJ.
United States,

claims of aliens against, how disposed of 1, 18

and Spanish claims commission, expenses of 2

cost of settling claims of, against the United States of Colombia 2

against New Granada and Costa Eica ,. 3

carrying into effect treaty between, and Hudson Bay and Puget Sound

Agricultural Company 3

amount paid by, to British claimants 4

awards against, by British-American mixed commission 7

independence of tribunals of ' 7

opinions of Chief-Justice Taney 7

Chief-Justice Chase 211,212,216

Justice Clifford 7

Justice Swayne 209,239

Justice Nelson - 7,211

Justice Catron - 7

claims of citizens and aliens 8, 18

legal redress of a citizen of, against the 12

proposed amendment to Constitution of 18

procedure in adjusting claims against the 203

law of claims in the 203

debts due by or to , 207

H. Eep. 134 27

41 8 INDEX.

Page.
United States — Continued.

citizens in rebel States owe supreme allegiance to 210

status of citizens in the rebellious States of the 211

authority of, over rebellions citizens 211

proceedings in certain rebellious States 212-215

prevalence of laws of war in 217

under obligation to pay interest on Choctaw claim 221

allowed interest in fifty-three cited cases 225-229-

foreign relations of, during the Revolution : 273

treaty between Mexico and 355

and Mexico, rules governing commissioners under the treaty between 366

entitled to indemnification from Great Britain 223

not liable to rebellious States for damages 232

death the penalty of forcing a safeguard of the 262.

claims for property wrongfully destroyed by the forces of the 278

assignment of claims against 370

United States of Colombia,

cost of settling claims against the 2

mode of procedure in claims against 102

all citizens may prosecute claims against 103

certain aliens may prosecute claims against 103

law of, relative to claims against —

extracts from the fiscal code of 1873 104

judicial code of 1872 — witnesses 104

adicioDal i reformatoria del ccidigo judicial de la union 108

atribuciones de los consejos deguerra 109

procedimiento para declarar que se ha perdido o recobrado el earacter

de colombiano 113

Universities,

amount of claims for damage to 300

claim of East Tennessee 258

Kentucky 258

Princeton, N. J 258

William and Mary 258

Urbina, Jose' Maria 101

Use and occupation, (see Bents,)

provision of the act of February 21, 1867 246,259

July 4, 1864 247

rents paid for, on authorized contracts 246,259

when remuneration is made for 260

loyal citizens in loyal States paid for 279

rents sometimes allowed and at others not 250

the Murfreesborough decision 250,251

letter of General Butler on * 263

Joseph Segar's claim for, paid 248

of churches, hospitals, &c 233,251,261,280

many opinions as to 246,263

opinion of Congress 246

opinion of the President 280

Valkenburg, B. J.V 227

Valley Forge,

the, claims in revolutionary war 285

Valparaiso,

citizens of United States did not recover for losses in bombardment of. . . 275

Vasquez, Ferdinand,

celebrated controversies of 126

Vattel, M.,

on war-damages 126, 127, 211,235, 239, 240,261, 266,276

liability of a city for damages of war 215

the inviolability of a flag of truce 263

damages by the state and damages by the enemy 281

no liability of government to compensate for property taken or de-
stroyed by the enemy in time of war, nor by its own forces in actual

battle 267,283

necessary losses 266,287

the exerciseB of the rights of eminent domain 293

INDEX. 41 J>

Page.

Vallel, M. — Continued.

liability of invaded nations for damages of war 284

the law of necessity ,288

on the liability of government for property destroyed by the army to de-
ceive the enemy 294

Venezuela,

expenses of carrying into effect convention with , 2

mode of procedure in claims against 118

citizens and aliens have same rights in courts of 119

laws of, relative to claims against 120

Ver "Walter, I. and E 70

Vessels,

Government, as a gratuity, pays for vessels of loyal citizens seized in rebel

States 236

Veto messages of the President,

Junel, 1872, case of J. Milton Best 210,211,281,296,297,298

June 7, 1872, case of Thomas B. Wallace 211,296

January 80, 1873, case of East Tennessee University 258, 296

February 12,1873, case of Kentucky salt-works 211,283,297

December, 1873 284

proceedings of Congress on 258

Vick, Hartwell 228

Yignie, N 280-

Virginia,

vote of the people of, on secession 215

amount of claims presented from, and allowed 286-

date of secession of t 214

population of, at the time of seceding 215

interest on advances allowed to 219

Voison, Felix 80.85,96

Von Moos, N 48

Vote on secession,

in Alabama 215

in Arkansas 215

in Florida 215

in Georgia 215

in Louisiana 215

in Mississippi 215

in North Carolina 215

in South Carolina 215

in Tennessee 215

East Tennessee 214

Middle Tennessee '. 214

West Tennessee 214

Military camps 214

in Texas 215

in Virginia 215

Vouchers,

do not create Government liability 260

given for certain kinds of property ,. 260

sometimes create a contract 279

given by Army officers 373

required by Army Eegulations 260

W.

Waddell, "William C. H 228

Wait, Thomas B 219

Wallace, General Lewis 306

Wallace, Thomas B 296

War, (see Laws of war,)

United States exercised acts of, after April 9, 1865 4

bill to establish a court alien and war claims 7

when the American internal, began 207

prevalence of laws of, in rebellious States 217

memorandum of captured and abandoned property during the 243

mode of settlement for occupation of real estate during the 246

right of Government duriDg, to seize private houses 248

relief for losses by, granted under international law 268

420 INDEX.

JJ'ar — Continued.

nation not liable to indemnify citizens for losses during 273

temporary occupation of, injuries to, or destruction of property while

repelling or advancing to meet an enemy in 276-281

rights of Government to use, occupy, or destroy property in time of 280

length of duration of, in insurrectionary States 208"*

may exist where no battle has been or is being fought 210

when District of Columbia subject to laws of 211

certain rights determined by the laws of 216

protection promised by the laws of 217

who are made enemies by 232

cannot be declared by Congress in case of rebellion 255

risks of 257

liability of Government determined by laws of 260

War- Claims,

committee on, number of claims pending in 17, 20

number of claims reported on by 20

documents transmitted to, by Secretary of State 25

when organized 298

number of claims presented to 298,299

liability of the Government for 207

letter of Hon. J. Holt relative to settlement of 247

M. C. Meigs, of similar import 246, 250

W. W. Belknap, of similar import 249

B. F. Butler, of similar import 263

M. C. Meigs, relating to 253,298-302

A. B. Eaton, relating to 303

M. I. Ludington, relating to 251

statement of Pennsylvania 272

amount paid by Pennsylvania 272

a gratuity 272

"Warren, Ebenezer L 228

"Washburne, E. B 77

"Washington, William H 295

Watson, James C 229

Webster, Daniel 222,268

"Wells, Benjamin 227

West Virginia,

amount of claims presented from, and allowed 286

Wheaton, Joseph 226

■Wheaion, Mr.,

opinion of, on allowing interest on claims 222

Wilkins, Charles 228

Willard, Mrs. S. D 251

Williams, G.H 3

Williamson, George,

letter of, and inclosures, to Hon. H. Fish 27, 118

Wing, Rwmsey,

letter of, and inclosures, to Hon. H. Fish 27,98

Winthrop, W 280

Witherspoon, Be v. Dr 258

Witnesses,

Government may summon and cause to testify 17

Warn, C. F.,

letter of, and inclosures to C. C. Andrews 122

Wnrts, Mr 124

Y.

"Young, Anna 226

Toung, Moses .' 226

Toungs, George .-. 226

Z.

2iegler,M 67,68

APPENDIX.

House Executive Document No. 100. Forty-third Congress, first session.

GOVERNMENT OF UNITED STATES ARMIES IN THE FIELD.

Letter from the Secretary of War, relative to " Instructions for the Government of Armies of the
United Statesin the Field." January29, 187 i.— Referred to the Committee on War-Claims,
and ordered to be printed.

War Department, January 24, 1874.
The Secretary of War has the honor to transmit to the House of Representatives, for the
information of the Committee on War-Claims, in reply to letter of said committee ( by its
clerk) of the 19th instant, a copy of General Orders No. 100, dated April 24, 1863, from this
Department, publishing " Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in
the Field," prepared by Francis Leiber, LL. D., and revised by a board of officers, of which
Maj. Gen. E. A. Hitchcock was president.

The suggestions regarding the same, desired by the committee, will be submitted in a
future communication, the matter being now under consideration.

WM. W. BELKNAP,

Secretary of War.

[{Jeneral Orders No. 100.1

War Department,
Adjutant-General's Office,

Washington, April 24, 1863.
The following " Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the
Field," prepared by Francis Lieber, LL. D., and revised by a board of officers, of which
Maj. Gen. E. A. Hitchcock is president, having been approved by the President of the United
States, he commands that they be published for the information of all concerned.
By order of the Secretary of War.

E. D. TOWNSEND,
Assistant Adjutant-General.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES

IN THE FIELD.

Section I.

Martial law — Military jurisdiction — Military necessities — Retaliation.

1. A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occu-
pation, under the martial law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation
declaring martial law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not.
Martial law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation and con-
quest.

The presence of a hostile army proclaims its martial law.

2. Martial law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation,
ordered by the commander-in-chief; or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding
the war when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace
as one of the conditions of the same.

3. Martial law in a hostile country consists in the suspension, b}' the occupying military
authority, of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government
in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the

H. Rep. 134 28

42'2 APPENDIX.

same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this
suspension, substitution, or dictation.

The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal
law shall continue, either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by
the military authority.

4. Martial law is simply military authority exercised in accordance with the laws and
■usages of war. Military oppression is not martial law ; it is the abuse of the power which
that law confers. As martial law is executed by military force, it is incumbent upon those
who administer it to be strictly guided by the principles of justice, honor, and humanity —
virtues adorning a soldier even more than other men, for the very reason that he possesses
the power of his arms against the unarmed.

5. Martial law should be less stringent in places and countries fully occupied and fairly
conquered-. Much greater severity maj r bejexercised in places or regions where actual hos--
tilities exist, or are expected and must be prepared for. Its most complete sway is allowed —
even in the commander's own country — when face to face with the enemy, because of the
absolute necessities of the case, and of the paramount duty to defend the country against
invasion.

To save the country is paramount to all other considerations.

6. All civil and penal law shall continue to take its usual course in the enemy's places
and territories under martial law, unless interrupted or stopped by order of the occupying
military power; but all the functions of the hostile government — legislative, executive, or
administrative — whether of a general, provincial, or local character, cease under martial
law, or continue only with the sanction, or, if deemed necessary, the participation of the
occupier or invader.

7. Martial law extends to property, and to persons, whether they are subjects of the enemy
or aliens to that government.

8. Consuls, among American and European nations, are not diplomatic agents. Never-
theless, their offices and persons will be subjected to martial law in cases of urgent necessity
only : their property and business are not exempted. Any delinquency they commit against
the established military rule may be punished as in the case of any other inhabitant, and
such punishment furnishes no reasonable ground for international complaint.

9. The functions of embassadors, ministers, or other diplomatic agents, accredited by
neutral powers'to the hostile government cease, so far as regards the displaced government ;
but the conquering or occupying power usually recognizes them as temporarily accredited
to itself.

10. Martial law affects chiefly the police and collection of public revenue and taxes, whether
imposed by the expelled government or by the invader, and refers mainly to the support and
efficiency of the army, its safety, aud the safety of its operations.

11. The law of war does not only disclaim all cruelty and bad faith concerning engage-
ments concluded with the enemy during the war, but also the breaking of stipulations
solemnly contracted by the belligerents in time of peace, and avowedly intended to remain
in force in case of war between the contracting powers.

It disclaims all extortions and other transactions for individual gain ; all acts of private
revenge, or connivance at such acts.

Offenses to the contrary shall be severely punished, and especially so if committed by
officers.

12. Whenever feasible, martial law is carried out in cases of individual offenders by mili-
iary courts; but sentences of death shall be executed only with the approval of the chief
executive, provided the urgency of the case does not require a speedier execution, and
then only with the approval of the chief commander.

13. Military jurisdiction is of two kinds : First, that which is conferred and defined by
statute ; second, that which is derived from the common law of war. Military offenses under
the statute law must be tried in the manner therein directed ; but military offenses which do
not come within the statute must be tried and punished under the common law of war. The
eharactcr of the courts which exercise these jurisdictions depends upon the local laws of each
particular country.

In the armies of the United States the first is exercised by courts-martial ; while cases
which do not come within the "Rules and Articles of "War," or the jurisdiction conferred by .
statute on courts-martial, are tried by military commissions.

14. Military necessity, as understood by modern civilized nations, consists in the necessity
of those measures which are indispensable for securing the ends of the war, aud which are
lawful according to the modern law and usages of war.

15. Military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of armed enemies, and
of other persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable in the armed contests of the
war ; it allows of the capturing of every armed enemy, and every enemy of importance to
Jhe hostile government, or of peculiar danger to the captor ; it allows of all destruction of
property and obstruction of the ways and channels of traffic, travel, or communication, and
of all withholding of sustenance or means of life from the enemy; of the appropriation of
whatever an enemy's country affords necessary for the subsistence and safety of the army, and
ef such deception as docs not involve the breaking of good faith, either positively pledged,

APPENDIX. 423

regarding agreements entered into during the war, or supposed by the modern law of war to
exist. Men who take up arms against one another in public war.do not cease on this account
to be moral beings, responsible to one another, and to God.

16. Military necessity does not admit of cruelty ; that is, the infliction of suffering for the
sake of suffering or for revenge, nor ot maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture
to extort confessions. It does not admit of the use of poison in any way, nor of the wanton
devastation of a district. It admits of deception, but disclaims acts of perfidy ; and, in gen-
eral, military necessity does not include any act of hostility which makes the return to peace
unnecessarily difficult.

17. War is not carried on by arms alone. It is lawful to starve the hostile belligerent,
armed or unarmed, so that it leads to the speedier subjection of the enemy.

18. When the commander of a besieged place expels the non-combatants, in order to
lessen the number of those who consume his stock of provisions, it is lawful, though an
extreme measure, to drive them back, so as to hasten on the surrender.

19. Commanders, whenever admissible, inform the enemy of their intention to bombard
a place, so that the non-combatants, and especially the women and children, may be re-
moved before the bombardment commences ; but it is no infraction of the common law of
war to omit thus to inform the enemy. Surprise may be a necessity.

20. Public war is a state of armed hostility between sovereign nations or governments-
It is a law and requisite of civilized existence that men live in political, continuous socie-
ties, forming organized units, called states or nations, whose constituents bear, enjoy, and
suffer, advance and retrograde together, in peace and in war.

2J. The citizen or native of a hostile country is thus an enemy, as one of the constituents
of the hostile state or nation, and as such is subjected to the hardships of the war.

22. Nevertheless, as civilization has advanced during the last centuries, so has likewise
steadily advanced, especially in war on land, the distinction between the private individual
belonging to a hostile country and the hostile country itself, with its men in arms. The
principle has been more and more acknowledged that the unarmed citizen is to be spared in
person, property, and honor, as much as the exigencies of war will admit.

23. Private citizens are no longer murdered, enslaved, or carried off to distant parts, and
tbe inoffensive individual is as little disturbed in his private relations as the commander of
the hostile troops can afford to grant in the overruling demands of a vigorous war.

24. The almost universal rule in remote times was, and continues to be with barbarous
armies, that the private individual of the hostile country is destined to suffer every priva-
tion of liberty and protection, and every disruption of family ties. Protection was, and
still is with uncivilized people, the exception.

25. In modern regular wars of the Europeans, and their descendants in other portions of
the globe, protection of the inoffensive citizen of the hostile country is the rule ; privation
and disturbance of private relations are the exceptions.

26. Commanding generals may cause the magistrates and civil officers of the hostile
country to take the oath of temporary allegiance or an oath of fidelity to their own victori
ous government or rulers, and they may expel every one who declines to do so. But
whether they do so or not, the people and their civil officers owe strict obedience to them as
long as they hold sway over the district or country, at the peril of their lives.

27. The law of war can no more wholly dispense with retaliation than can the law of
nations, of which it is a branch. Yet, civilized nations acknowledge retaliation as the

* sternest feature of war. A reckless enemy often leaves to his opponent no other means of
securing himself against the repetition of barbarous outrage.

28. Retaliation will, therefore, never be resorted to as a measure of mere revenge, but only
as a means of protective retribution, and, moreover, cautiously and unavoidably; that is to
say, retaliation shall only be resorted to after careful inquiry into the real occurrence and
the character of the misdeeds that may demand retribution.

Unjust or inconsiderate retaliation removes the belligerents farther and farther from the
mitigation rules of a regular war, and by rapid steps leads them nearer to the internecine
wars of savages.

29. Modern times are distinguished from earlier ages by the existence, at one and the
same time, of many nations and great governments related to one another in close inter-
course.

Peace is their normal condition ; war is the exception. The ultimate object of all modern
war is a renewed state of peace.

The more vigorously wars are pursued, the better it is for humanity. Sharp wars are
brief.

30. Ever since the formation and co-existence of modern nations, and ever since wars have
become great national wars, war has come to be acknowledged not to be its own end, but the
means to obtain great ends of state, or to consist in defense against wrong ; and no con-
ventional restriction of the modes adopted to injure the enemy is any longer admitted ; but
the law of war imposes many limitations and restrictions on principles of justice, faith, and
honor.

424 APPENDIX.

Section II.
i
Public and private property of the enemy — Protection of persons, and especially women ; of
religion, the arts, and sciences — Punishment of crimes against the inhabitants of hostile
countries.

31. A victorious army appropriates all public money, seizes all public movable property
until further direction by its government, and sequesters for its own benefit or that of its
government all the revenues of real property belonging to the hostile government or nation.
The title to such real property remains in abeyance during military occupation, and until the
conquest is made complete.

32. A victorious army, by the martial power inherent in the same, may suspend, change,
or abolish, as far as the martial power extends, the relations which arise from the services
due, accordjngto the existing laws of theinvaded country, from one citizen, subject or native,
of the same to another.

The commander of the army must leave it to the ultimate treaty of peace to settle the per-
manency of this change.

33. It is no longer considered lawful— on the contrary, it is held to be a serious breach of
the law of war — to force the subjects of the enemy into the service of the victorious govern-
ment, except the latter should proclaim, after a fair and complete conquest of the hostile
country or district, that it is resolved to keep the country, district, or place permanently as
its own, and make it a portion of its own country.

34. As a general rule, the property belonging to churches, to hospitals, or other establish-
ments of an exclusively charitable character, to establishments of education, or foundations
for the promotion of knowledge, whether public schools, universities, academies of learning,
or observatories, museums of the fine arts, or of a scientific character, such property is not
to be considered public property in the sense of paragraph 31 ; but it may be taxed or used
when the public service may require it.

35. Classical work of art, libraries, scientific collections, or precious instruments, such
as astronomical telescopes, as well as hospitals, must be secured against all avoidable in-
jury, even when they are contained in fortified places while besieged or bombarded.

36. If such works of art, libraries, collections, or instruments, belonging to a hostile
nation or government, can be removed without injury, the ruler of the conquering state or
nation may order them to be seized and removed for the benefit of the said nation. The
ultimate ownership is to be settled by the ensuing treaty of peace.

In no case shall they be sold or given away, if captured by the armies of the United
States, nor shall they ever be privately appropriated, or wantonly destroyed or injured.

37. The United States acknowledge and protect, in hostile countries occupied by them,
religion and morality ; strictly private property ; the persons of the inhabitants, especially
those of women ; and the sacredness of domestic relations. Offenses to the contrary shall
be rigorously punished.

This rule does not interfere with the right of the victorious invader to tax the people or
their property, to levy forced loans, to billet soldiers, or to appropriate property, especially
houses, land, boats, or ships, and churches, for temporary and military uses.

38. Private property, unless forfeited by crimes or by offenses of the owner, can be seized
only by way of military necessity for the support or other benefit of the Army or of the
United States.

If the owner has not fled, the commanding officer will cause receipts to be given, which
will serve the spoliated owner to obtain indemnity.

39. The salaries of civil officers of the hostile-government who remain in the invaded ter-
ritory, and continue the work of their office, and can continue it according to the circum-
stances arising out of the war — such as judges, administrative or police officers, officers of
city or communal governments — are paid from the public revenue of the invaded territory
until the military government has reason wholly or partially to discontinue it. Salaries or
incomes connected with purely honorary titles are always stopped.

40. There exists no law or body of authoritative rules of action between hostile armies, ex-
cept that branch of the law of nature and nations which is called the law and usages of war
on land.

41. All municipal law of the ground on which the armies stand, or of the countries to
which they belong, is silent and of no effect between armies in the field.

42. Slavery, complicating and confounding the ideas of property (that is, of a thing) and
of personality, (that is, of humanity,) exists according to municipal or local law only. The
law of nature and nations has never acknowledged it. The digest of the Roman law enacts
the early dictum of the pagan jurist, that, "so far as the law of nature is concerned, all
men are equal." Fugitives escaping from a country in which they were slaves, villians, or
serfs, into another country, have, for centuries past, been held free and acknowledged free
by judicial decisions of European countries, even though the municipal law of the country
in which the slave had taken refuge acknowledged slavery within its own dominions.

43. Therefore, in a war between the United States and a belligerent which admits of
slavery, if a person held in bondage by that belligerent be captured by or come as.a fugitive

APPENDIX. 425

under the protection of the military forces of the United States, such person is immediately-
entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman. To return such person into slavery would
amount to enslaving a free person, and neither the United States nor any officer under their
authority can enslave any human being. Moreover, a person so made free by the law of
war is under the shield of the law of nations, and the former owner or state can have, by
the law of postliminy, no belligerent lien or claim of service.

44. AH wanton violence committed against persons in the invaded country, all destruction
of property not commanded by the authorized officer, all robbery, all pillage or sacking,
even after taking a place by main force, all rape, wounding, maiming, or killing of such
inhabitants, are prohibited under the penalty of death, or such other severe punishment as
may seem adequate for the gravity of the offense.

A soldier, officer, or private, in the act of committing such violence, and disobeying a
superior ordering him to abstain from it, may be lawfully killed on the spot by such supe-
rior.

45. All captures and booty belong, according to the modern law of war, primarily to the
government of the captor.

Prize-money, whether on sea or land, can now only be claimed under local law.

46. Neither officers nor soldiers are allowed to make use of their position or power in the
hostile country for private gain, not even for commercial transactions otherwise legitimate.
Offenses to the contrary committed by commissioned officers will be punished with cashier-
ing or such other punishment as the nature of the offense may require ; if by soldiers, they
shall be punished according to the nature of the offense.

47. Crimes punishable by all penal codes, such as arson, murder, maiming, assaults,
highway robbery, theft, burglary, fraud, forgery, and rape, if committed by an American
soldier in a hostile country against its inhabitants, are not only punishable as at home, but
in all cases in which death is not inflicted the severer punishment shall be preferred.

Section III.

Deserters — Prisoners of tear — Hostages — Booty on the battle-field.

48. Deserters from the American Army, having entered the service of the enemy, suffer
death if they fall again into the hands of the United States, whether by capture or being
delivered up to the American Army ; and if a deserter from the enemy, having taken service
in the Army of the United States, is captured by the enemy, and punished by them with
death or otherwise, it is not a breach against the law and usages of war requiring redress or
retaliation.

4t). A prisoner of war is a public enemy, armed or attached to the hostile army for active
aid, who has fal'en into the hands of the captor, either fighting or wounded, on the field or
in the hospital, by individual surrender or by fapitulation.

All soldiers, of whatever species of arms ; all men who belong to the rising en masse of
the hostile country ; all those who are attached to the army for its efficiency, and promote
directly the object of the war, except such as are hereinafter provided for ; all disabled men
or officers on the field or elsewhere, if captured ; all enemies who have thrown away their
arms and ask for quarter, are prisoners of war, and, as such, exposed to the inconveniences
as well as entitled to the privileges of a prisoner of war.

50. Moreover, citizens who accompany an army for whatever purpose, such as sutlers,
editors, or reporters of journals, or contractors, if captured, may be made prisoners of war,
and be detained as such.

The monarch and members of the hostile reigning family, male or female, the chief, and
chief officers of the hostile government, its diplomatic agents, and all persons who are of
particular and singular use and benefit to the hostile army or its government, are, if cap-
tured on belligerent ground, and if unprovided with a safe-conduct granted by the captor's
government, prisoners of war.

51. If the people of that portion of an invaded country which is not yet occupied by the
enemy, or of the whole country, at the approach of a hostile army, rise, under a duly-au-
thorized levy, en masse, to resist the invader, they are now treated as public enemies, and,
if captured, are prisoners of war.

52. No belligerent has the right to declare that he will treat every captured man in arms
of a levy en masse as a brigand or a bandit.

If, however, the people of a country, or any portion of the same, already occupied by an
army, rise against it, they are violators of the laws of war, and are not entitled to their
protection.

53. The enemy's chaplains, officers of the medical staff, apothecaries, hospital nurses and
servants, if they fall into the hands of the American Army, are not prisoners of war, unless
the commander has reasons to retain them. In this latter case, or if, at their own desire,
they are allowed to remain with their captured companions, they are treated as prisoners of
war, and may be exchanged if the commander see fit.

54. A hostage is a person accepted as a pledge for the fulfillment of an agreement con-

426 APPENDIX.

eluded between belligerents during tbe war, or in consequence of war. Hostages are rare in
the present age.

55. If a hostage is accepted, he is treated like a prisoner of war, according to rank
and condition, as circumstances may admit.

56. A prisoner of war is subject to no punishment for being a public enemy, nor is any
revenge wreaked upon him by the intentional infliction of any suffering, or disgrace, by cruel
imprisonment, want of food, by mutilation, death, or any other barbarity.

57. So soon as a man is armed by a sovereign government, and takes the soldier's oath of
fidelity, he is a belligerent ; his killing, wounding, or other warlike acts are no individual
crimes or offenses. No belligerent has a right to declare that enemies of a certain class,
color, or condition, when properly organized as soldiers, will not be treated by him as public
enemies.

58. The law of nations knows of no distinction of color, and, if an euemy of the United
States should enslave and sell any captured persons of their Army, it would be a case for
the severest retaliation, if not redressed upon complaint.

The United States cannot retaliate by enslavement ; therefore death, must be the retaliation
for this crime against the law of nations.

59. A prisoner of war remains answerable for his crimes committed against the captor's
-army or people, committed before he was captured, and for which he has not been punished

by his own authorities.

All prisoners of war are liable to the infliction of retaliatory measures.

60. It is against the usage of modern war to resolve, in hatred and revenge, to give no
quarter. No body of troops has the right to declare that it will not give, and therefore will
not expect, quarter ; but a commander is permitted to direct his troops to give no quarter,
in great straits, when his own salvation makes it impossible to cumber himself with
prisoners.

61. Troops that give no quarter have no right to kill enemies already disabled on the
ground, or prisoners captured by other troops.

62. All troops of the enemy known or discovered to give no quarter in general, or to any
portion of the army, receive none.

63. Troops who fight in the uniform of their enemies, without any plain, striking, and
uniform mark of distinction of their own, can expect no quarter.

64. If American troops capture a train containing uniforms of the enemy, and the com-
mander considers it advisable to distribute them for use among his men, some striking mark
or sign must be adopted to distinguish the American soldier from the enemy.

65. The use of the enemy's national standard, flag, or other emblem of nationality, for the
purpose of deceiving the enemy in battle, is an act of perfidy by which they lose all claim
to the protection of the laws of war.

66. Quarter having been given to ah enemy by American troops, under a misapprehension
of his true character, he may, nevertheless, be ordered to suffer death if, within three days
after the battle, it be discovered that he belongs to a corps which gives no quarter.

67. The law of nations allows every sovereign government to make war upon another sov-
ereign state, and, therefore, admits of no rules or laws different from those of regular war-
fare, regarding the treatment of prisoners of war, although they may belong to the army of
a government which the captor may consider as a wanton and unjust assailant.

68. Modern wars are not internecine wars, in which the killing of the enemy is the object.
The destruction of the enemy in modern war, and, indeed, modern war itself, are means to
obtain that object of the belligerent which lies beyond the war.

Unnecessary or revengeful destruction of life is not lawful.

69. Outposts, sentinels, oi"pickets are not to be fired upon, except to drive them in, or
when a positive order, special or general, has been issued to that effect.

70. The use of poison in any manner, be it to poison wells, or food, or arms, is wholly
excluded from modern warfare. He that uses it puts himself out of the pale of the law and
usages of war.

7J. Whoever intentionally inflicts additional wounds on an enemy already wholly dis-
abled, or kills such an enemy, or who orders or encourages soldiers to do so, shall suffer
death, if duly convicted, whether he belongs to the Army of the United States, oris an enemy
captured after having committed his misdeed.

72. Money and other valuables on the person of a prisoner, such as watches or jew-
elry, as well as extra clothing, are regarded by the American Army as the private property
of the prisoner, and the appropriation of such valuables or money is considered dishonora-
ble, and is prohibited.

Nevertheless, \l large sums are found upon the persons of prisoners, or in their possession,
they shall be taken from them, and the surplus, after providing for their own support, ap-
propriated for the use of the Army, under the direction of the commander, unless otherwise
ordered by the Government. Nor can prisoners claim, as private, property, large sums found
and captured in their train, although they had been placed in the private luggage of the
prisoners.

73. All officers, when captured, must surrender their side-arms to the captor. They may
be restored to the prisoner in marked cases, by the commander, to signalize admiration of

APPENDIX. 427

his distinguished bravery, or approbation of his humane treatment of prisoners before his
capture. The captured officer to whom they may be restored cannot wear them during cap-
tivity.

74. A prisoner of war, being a public enemy, is the prisoner of the Government, and not
of the captor. No ransom can be paid by a prisoner of war to his individual captor, or to
any officer in command. The Government alone releases captives, according to rules pre-
scribed by itself.

75. Prisoners of war are subject to confinement or imprisonment such as maybe deemed
necessary on account of safety, but they are to be subjected to no other intentional suffering
or indignity. The confinement and mode of treating a prisoner may be varied during his
captivity according to the demands of safety.

76. Prisoners of war shall be fed upcn plain and wholesome food whenever practicable,
and treated with humanity.

They may be required to work for the benefit of the captor's government, according to
their rank and condition.

77. A prisoner of war who escapes may be shot, or otherwise killed in his flight, but
neither death nor any other punishmeut shall be inflicted upon him simply for his attempt to
escape, which the law of war does not consider a crime. Stricter means of security shall be
used after an unsuccessful attempt at escape.

If, however, a conspiracy is discovered, the purpose of which is a united or general
escape, the conspirators may be rigorously punished, even with death ; and capital punish-
ment may also be inflicted upon prisoners of war discovered to have plotted rebellion against
the authorities of the captors, whether in union with fellow-prisoners or other persons.

78. If prisoners of war, having given no pledge, nor made any promise on their honor,
forcibly or otherwise escape, and are captured again in battle, after having rejoined their
own army, they shall not be punished for their escape, but shall be treated as simple pris-
oners of war, although they will be subjected to stricter confinement.

79. Every captured wounded enemy shall be medically treated according to the ability of
the medical staff.

80. Honorable men, when captured, will abstain from giving to the enemy information
concerning their own army, and the modern law of war permits no longer the use of any
violence against prisoners, in order to extort the desired information, or to punish them for
having given false information.

Section IV.

Partisans — Arme.l enemies not belonging to the hostile army — Scouts — Armed, prowlers — War-

nhels.

81. Partisans are soldiers armed and weariug the uniform of their army, but belonging to
a corps which acts detached from the main body, for the purpose of making inroads into
the territory occupied by the euemy. If captured, they are entitled to all the privileges of
the prisoner of war.

82. Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or inroads for
destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind without commission, without being part
and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war,
but who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the occasional
assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or
appearance of soldiers — such men or squads of men are not public enemies, and, therefore,
if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated sum-
marily as highway robbers or pirates.

83. Scouts or single soldiers, if disguised in the dress of the country, or in the uniform of
the army hostile to their own, employed in obtaining information, if found within or lurking
about the lines of the captor, are treated as spies, and suffer death.

84. Armed prowlers, by whatever names they may be called, or persons of the enemy's
territory who steal within the lines of a hostile armyifor the purpose of robbing, killing, or of
destroying bridges, roads, or canals, or of robbing or destroying the mail, or of cutting the
telegraph wires, are not entitled to the privileges of the prisoner of war.

85. War-rebels are persons within an occupied territory who rise in arms against the
occupying or conquering army, or against the authorities established by the same. If cap-
tured, they may suffer death, whether they rise singly, in small or large bands, and whether
called upon to do so by their own, but expelled, government or not. They are not prisoners
of war ; nor are they, if discovered and secured before their conspiracy has matured to an
actual rising, or to armed violence.

Section V.

Safe-conluct — Spies — War-traitors — Captured messengers — Abuse of the flag of truce.

86. All intercourse between the territories occupied by belligerent armies, whether by
traffic, by letter, by travel, or in any other way, ceases. This is the general rule, to be
observed without special proclamation.

428 APPENDIX.

Exceptions to this rule, whether by safe-conduct or permission to trade on a small or
large scale, or by exchanging mails, or by travel from one territory into the other, can take
place only according to agreement approved by the government, or by the highest military
authority.

Contraventions of this rule are highly punishable.

87. Embassadors, and all other diplomatic agents of neutral powers, accredited to the
enemy, may receive safe-conducts through the territories occupied by the belligerents, unless
there are military reasons to the contrary, and unless they may reach the place of their des-
tination conveniently by another route. It implies no international affront if the safe-con-
duct is declined. Such passes are usually given by the supreme authority of the state, and
not by subordinate officers.

88. A spy is a person who secretly, in disguise or under false pretense, seeks information
with the intention of communicating it to the enemy.

The spy is punishable with death by hanging by the neck, whether or not he succeeded
in obtaining the information or in conveying it to the enemy.

89. If a citizen of the United States obtains information in a legitimate manner and betrays
it to the enemy, be he a military or civil officer or a private citizen, he shall suffer death.

90. A traitor, under the law of war, or a war-traitor, is a person in a place or district under
martial law who, unauthorized by the military commander, gives information of any kind
to the enemy, or holds intercourse with him.

91. The war-traitor is always severely punished. If his offense consists in betraying to
the enemy anything concerning the condition, safety, operations, or plans of the troops hold-
ing or occupying the place or district, his punishment is death.

92. If the citizen or subject of a country or place invaded or conquered gives information
to his own government, from which he is separated by the hostile army, or to the army of
his governmant, he is a war-traitor, and death is the penalty of his offense.

93. All armies in the field stand in need of guides, and impress them if they cannot ob-
tain them otherwise.

94. No person having been forced by the enemy to serve as a guide is punishable for hav-
ing done so.

95. If a citizen of a hostile and invaded district voluntarily serves as a guide to the
enemy, or offers to do so, he is deemed a war-traitor, and shall suffer death.

96. A citizen serving voluntarily as a guide against his own country commits treason,
and will be dealt with according to the law of his country.

97. Guides, when it is clearly proved that they have misled intentionally, may be put to
death.

98. All unauthorized or secret communication with the enemy is considered treasonable
by the law of war.

Foreign residents in an invaded or occupied territory, or foreign visitors in the same, can
claim no immunity from this law. They may communicate with foreign parts, or with the
inhabitants of the hostile country, so far as the military authority permits, but no further.
Instant expulsion from the occupied territory would be the very least punishment for the in-
fraction of this rule.

99. A messenger carrying written dispatches or verbal messages from one portion of the
army, or from a besieged place, to another portion of the same army, or its government, if
armed, and in the uniform of his army, and if captured, while doing so, in the territory oc-
cupied by the enemy, is treated by the captor as a prisoner of war ; if not in uniform, nor a
soldier, the circumstances connected with his capture must determine the disposition that
shall be made of him.

100. A messenger or agent who attempts to steal through the territory occupied by the
enemy, to further, in any manner, the interests of the enemy, if captured, is not entitled to
the privileges of the prisoner or war, and may be dealt with according to the circumstances
of the case.

101. While deception in war is admitted as a just and necessary means of hostility, and
is consistent with honorable warfare, the common law of war allows even capital punish-
ment for clandestine or treacherous attempts to injure an enemy, because they are so dan-
gerous, and it is so difficult to guard against them.

102. The law of war, like the criminal law regarding other offenses, makes no difference,
on account of the difference of sexes, concerning the spy, the war-traitor, or the war-rebel.

103. Spies, war-traitors, and war-rebels are not exchanged according to the common law
of war. ' The exchange of such persons would require a special cartel, authorized by the
government, or, at a great distance from it, by the chief commander of the army in the
field.

104. A successful spy or war-traitor, safely returned to his own army, and afterward cap-
tured es an enemy, is not subject to punishment for' his acts as a spy or war-traitor, but he
may be held in closer custody as a person individually dangerous.

APPENDIX. 429

Section VI.
Exchange of prisoners — Flags of truce — Flags of protection.

105. Exchanges of prisoners take place number for number, rank for rank, wounded for
wounded, with added condition for added condition, such, for instance, as not to serve for a
certain period.

106\ In exchanging prisoners of war, such numbers of persons of inferior rank may be
substituted as an equivalent for one of superior rank as may be agreed upon by cartel,
which requires the sanction of the government, or of the commander of the army in the
field.

107. A prisoner of war is in honor bound truly to state to the captor his rank ; and he is
not to assume a lower rank than belongs to him, in order to cause a more advantageous ex-
change ; nor a higher rank, for the purpose of obtaining better treatment.

Offenses to the contrary have been justly published by the commanders of released pris-
oners, and may be good cause for refusing to release such prisoners.

108. The surplus number of prisoners of war remaining after an exchange has taken
place is sometimes released either for the payment of a stipulated sum of money, or, in urgent
cases, of provision, clothing, or other necessaries.

Such arrangement, however, requires the sanction of the highest authority.

109. The exchange of prisoners of war is an act of convenience to both belligerents. If
no general cartel has been concluded, it cannot be demanded by either of them. No belliger-
ent is obliged to exchange prisoners of war.

A cartel is voidable so soon as either party has violated it.

110. No exchange of prisoners shall be made except after complete capture, and after an
accurate account of them, and a list of the captured officers has been taken.

111. The bearer of a flag of truce cannot insist upon being admitted. He must always be
admitted with great caution. Unnecessary frequency is carefully to be avoided.

112. If the bearer of a flag of truce offer himself during an engagement, he can be ad-
mitted as a very rare exception only. It is no breach of good faith to retain such a flag of
truce, if admitted during the engagement. Firing is not required to cease on the appear-
ance of a flag of truce in battle.

J 13. If the bearer of a flag of trace, presenting himself during an engagement, is killed
or wounded, it furnishes no ground of complaint whatever.

114. If it be discovered, and fairly proved, that a flag of truce has been abused for sur-
reptitiously obtaining military knowledge, the bearer of the flag thus abusing his sacred
character is deemed a spy.

So sacred is the character of a flag of truce, and so necessary is its sacredness, that while
its abuse is an especially heinous offense, great caution is requisite, on the other hand, in
convicting the bearer of a flag of truce as a spy.

115. It is customary to designate, by certain flags, (usually yellow,) the hospitals in places
which are shelled, so that the besieging enemy may avoid firing on them. The same has
been done in battles, when hospitals are situated within the field of the engagement.

116. Honorable belligerents often request that the hospitals within the territory of the
enemy may be designated, so that they may be spared.

An honorable belligerent allows himself to be guided by flags or signals of protection as
much as the contingencies and the necessities of the fight will permit.

117. It is justly considered an act of bad faith, of infamy or fiendishness, to deceive the
enemy by flags of protection. Such act of bad fuith may be good cause for refusing to
respect such flags.

118. The besieging belligerent has sometimes requested the besieged to designate the build-
ings containing collections of works of art, scientific museums, astronomical observatories,
or precious libraries, so that their destruction may be avoided as much as possible.

Section VII.
The Parole.

119. Prisoners of war may be released from captivity by exchange, and, under certain
circumstances, also by parole.

120. The term parole designates the pledge of individual good faith and honor to do, or
to omit doing, certain acts after he who gives his parole shall have been dismissed, wholly 1
or partially, from the power of the captor.

121. The pledge of the parole is always an individual, but not a private, act.

122. The parole applies chiefly to prisoners of war whom the captor allows to return to
their country, or to live in greater freedom within the captor's country or territory, on con-
ditions stated in the parole.

123. Release of prisoners of war by exchange is the general rule : release by parole is
the exception.

124. Breaking the parole is punished with death when the person breaking the parole is
captured again.

H. Kep. 134 29

430 APPENDIX.

Accurate lists, therefore, of the paroled persons must be kept by the belligerents.

125. When paroles are given and received there must be an exchange of two written
documents, in which the name and rank of the paroled individuals are accurately and truth-
fully stated.

126. Commissioned officers only are allowed to give their parole, and they can give it
only with the permission of their superior, as long as a superior in rank is within reach.

127. No non-commissioned officer or private can give his parole except through an officer.
Individual paroles not given through an officer are not only void , but subject the individual
giving them to the punishment of death as deserters. The only admissible exception is
where individuals, properly separated from their commands, have suffered long confinement
without the possibility of being paroled through an officer.

128. No paroling on the battle-field ; no paroling of entire bodies of troops after a battle ;
and no dismissal of large numbers of prisoners, with a general declaration that they are
paroled, is permitted, or of any value.

129. In capitulations for the surrender of strong places or fortified camps the commanding
officer, in cases of urgent necessity, may agree that the troops under his command shall not
fight again during the war, unless exchanged.

1 30. The usual pledge given in the parole is, not to serve during the existing war unless
exchanged.

This pledge refers only to the active service in the field, against the paroling belligerent
or his allies actively engaged in the same war. These cases of breaking the parole are
patent acts, and can be visited with the punishment of death ; but the pledge does not refer
to internal service, such as recruiting or drilling the recruits, fortifying places not besieged,
quelling civil commotions, fighting against belligerents unconnected with the paroling bel-
ligerents, or to civil or diplomatic service for which the paroled officer may be employed.

131. If the government does not approve of the parole, the paroled officer must return into
captivity, and, should the enemy refuse to receive him, he is free of his parole.

132. A belligerent government may declare, by general order, whether it will allow parol-
ing, and on what conditions it will allow it. Such order is communicated to the enemy.

133. No prisoner of war can be forced by the hostile government to parole himself, and
no government is obliged to parole prisoners of war, or to parole all captured officers, if it
paroles any. As the pledging of the parole is an individual act, so is paroling, on the other
hand, an act of choice on the part of the belligerent.

134. The commander of an occupying army may require of the civil officers of the enemy,
and of its citizens, any pledge he may consider necessary for the safety or security of his
army, and upon their failure to give it he may arrest, confine, or detain them.

Section VIII.
Armistice — Capitulation.

135. An armistice is the cessation of active hostilities for a period agreed upon between
belligerents. It must be agreed upon in writing, and duly ratified by the highest authori-
ties of the contending parties.

136. If an armistice be declared without conditions, it extends no further than to require
a lotal cessation of hostilities along the front of both belligerents.

If conditions be agreed upon, they should be clearly expressed, and must be rigidly
adhered to by both parties. If either party violates any express condition, the armistice
may be declared null and void by the other.

137. An armistice may be general, and valid for all points and lines of the belligerents ;
or special, that is, referring to certain troops or certain localities only.

An armistice may be concluded for a definite time, or for an indefinite time, during which
either belligerent may resume hostilities on giving the notice agreed upon to the other.

138. The motives which induce the one or the other belligerent to conclude an armistice,
whether it be expected to be preliminary to a treaty of peace or to prepare during the ar-
mistice for a more vigorous prosecution of the war, does in no way affect the character of
the armistice itself. .

139. An armistice is binding upon the belligerents from the day of the agreed commence-
ment, but the officers of the armies are responsible from the day only when they receive
official information of its existence.

140. Commanding officers have the right to conclude armistices binding on the district
over which their command extends, but such armistice is subject to the ratification of the
superior authority, and ceases so soon as it is made known to the enemy that the armistice
is not ratified, even if a certain time for the elapsing between giving notioe of cessation and
the resumption of hostilities should have been stipulated for.

141. It is incumbent upon the contracting parties of an armistice to stipulate what inter-
course of persons or traffic between the inhabitants of the territories occupied by the hos-
tile armies shall be allowed, if any.

If nothing is stipulated, the intercourse remains suspended, as during actual hostilities.

142. An armistice is not a partial or temporary peace ; it is only the suspension of mili-
tary operations to the extent agreed upon by the parties.

APPENDIX. 431

143. When an armistice is concluded between a fortified place and the army besieging it,
it is agreed by all the authorities on this subject that the besieger must cease all extension,
perfection, or advance of his attacking works, as much so as from attacks by main force.

But as there is a difference of opinion among martial jurists, whether the besieged have
the right to repair breaches or to erect new works of defense within the place during an
armistice, this point should be determined by express agreement between the parties.

144. So soon as a capitulation is signed the capitulator has no right to demolish, destroy,
or injure the works, arms, stores, or ammunition in his possession during the time which
elapses between the signing and the execution of the capitulation, unless otherwise stipulated
in the same. ,

145. When an armistice is clearly broken by one of the parties, the other party is released
from all obligation to observe it.

146. Prisoners taken in the act of breaking an armistice must be treated as prisoners of
war, the officer alone being responsible who gives the order for such a violation of an armis-
tice. The highest authority of the belligerent aggrieved may demand redress for the infrac-
tion of an armistice.

147. Belligerents sometimes conclude an armistice while their plenipotentiaries are met to
discuss the conditions of a treaty of peace ; but plenipotentiaries may meet without a pre-
liminary armistice. In the latter case the war is carried on without any abatement.

Section IX.

Assassination.

148. The law of war does not allow proclaiming either an individual belonging to the hos-
tile army, or a citizen, or a subject of the hostile government, an outlaw, who may be slain
without trial by any captor, any more than the' modern law of peace allows such interna-
tional outlawry ; on the contrary, it abhors such outrage. The sternest retaliation should
follow the murder committed in consequence of such proclamation, made by whatever
authority. Civilized nations look with horror upon offers of rewards for the assassination
of enemies as relapses into barbarism.

Section X.
Insurrec lion — Civil war — Rebellion.

149. Insurrection is the rising of people in arms against their government, or a portion of
it, or against one or more of its laws, or against an officer or officers of the government. It
may be confined to mere armed resistance or it may have greater ends in view.

150. Civil war is war between two or more portions of a country or state, each contend-
ing for the mastery of the whole, and each claiming to be the legitimate government. The
term is also sometimes applied to war of rebellion, when the rebellious provinces or portions
of the state are contiguous to those containing the seat of government.

151. The term rebellion is applied to an insurrection of large extent, and is usually a war
between the legitimate government of a country and portions or provinces of the same who
seek to throw off their allegiance to it and set up a government of their own.

152. When humanity induces the adoption of the rules of regular war toward rebels,
whether the adoption is partial or entire, it does in no way whatever imply a partial or com-
plete acknowledgment of their government, if they have feet up one, or of them as an in-
dependent or sovereign power. Neutrals have no right to make the adoption of the rules
of war by the assailed government toward rebels the ground of their own acknowledgment
of the revolted people as an independent power.

153. Treating captured rebels as prisoners of war, exchanging them, concluding of cartels,
capitulations, or other warlike agreements with them ; addressing officers of a rebel army
by the rank they may have in the same ; accepting flags of truce ; or, on the other hand,
proclaiming martial law in their territory, or levying war-taxes or forced loans, or doing any
other act sanctioned or demanded by the law and usages of public war between sovereign
belligerents, neither proves nor establishes an acknowledgment of the rebellious people, or of
the government which they may have erected, as a public or sovereign power. Nor does
the adoption of the rules of war toward rebels imply an engagement with them extending
beyond the limits of these rules. It is victory in the field that ends the strife and settles
the future relations between the contending parties.

154. Treating, in the field, the rebellious enemy according to the law and usages of war
has never prevented the legitimate government from trying the leaders of the rebellion or
chief rebels for high treason, and from treating them accordingly, unless they are included
in a general amnesty.

155. All enemies in regular war are divided into two general classes ; that is to say, into
combatants and non-combatants, or unarmed citizens of the hostile government.

The military commander of the legitimate government, in a war of rebellion, distinguishes

432 APPENDIX.

between the loyal citizen in the revolted portion of the country and the disloyal citizen. The
disloyal citizens may further be classified into those citizens known to sympathize with the
rebellion, without positively aiding it, and those who, without taking up arms, give positive
aid and comfort to the rebellious enemy, without being bodily forced thereto.

156. Common justice and plain expediency require that the military commander protect
the manifestly loyal citizens, in revolted territories; against the hardships of the war as
much as the common misfortune of all war admits.

The commander will throw the burden of the war, as much as lies within his power, on
the disloyal citizens of the revolted portion or province, subjecting them to a stricter police
than the non-combatant enemies have to suffer in regular war ; and, if he deems it appro-
priate, or if his government demands of him that every citizen shall, by an oath of alle-
giance, or by some other manifest act, declare his fidelity to the legitimate government, he
may expel, transfer, imprison, or fine the revolted citizens who refuse to pledge themselves
anew as citizens obedient to the law and loyal to the government.

Whether it is expedient to do so, and whether reliance can be placed upon such oaths, the
commander or his government have the right to decide.

157. Armed or unarmed resistance by citizens of the United States against the lawful
movements of their troops is levying war against the United States, and is therefore trea-
son.

* n WSHHfflH*S*?w»-*

KF 591^ A2 1875

Author Vol

U.S. Congress. House. Com on
Titwar claims.

Copy

Law of claims v. governments

Date

Borrower's Name

or c

rcsc <i

or << <C

r' fear - <3.< «C

■ -CO «ci

3S<3

<K«7 tt C «CT' <5.G
' «C.« <: ■

"? <.--<3S&^J&«

.<:< >. <: c?"

C «£. «*.-■

tstfx-cic.^

c «c-'«s.«..

i«?C: ' < <T : <L>

<.c'«sr «*t

•' <;<£,<■ «c <~

,< «5L_ « 1

_iS«S .<:*c~".«s

«^_ <m^I_ «&*.>

~**?c < <: <;

Lj wtT <t^_ « C

«OC te<T<£?''

<«cl ^ET"*'*

CG c<T C/

<C *<KZZTs^-

cgc< <s^

*c ^tn^^

■ g«2 r<_ «EV..

' ^c - ^ § cc

nvrc c<r_ <Sj -■

i <*£. *^E^ '

S<<<. <s

*c itl " r '

kc c*^\~<r«.'

f<3C <JC~ C-

=T* '^ — *■ — clT* 1 '

r i

c. - cwt^s^

»-

~ii--

. ■. .

■y " <jC'

■X «.'

-' ^-^5=-- ^ j

4

CT '-<2« <XJ(K

<

L

= ~~> r

<

tr ot

c '■*:*

.<- i -_^Jt=' r - ^

4

C : " C«"CJ t«5:

4

d

■ V?55S= m :-« «fer «

~ , ,-■

4

f — ' ClitT

'■'<. »c<

"f ^^ '' : ii'- "■'*'

4

t o<<: *s

■J

<
<

c

5^-^-^^.Sil «

r'- '

4
<

E^ oc 7

-'■ <t^

4

<

§• ,j^- <j '* <C " *-

-.-,-

c
c

' cr

. «..<

<

;"- c<vC. "-C*

rid

— -^

•75- S"" C" ? ''«C'«C ' *

c

CC

'- *---_'

«

- <m.c_ -*d*-.

^

r ^"^^' Vi -«c «c- *

4

^ ^ < - '

■ jp

l^^llJS

i

■•<i

c

El

c
<

CC'
cc

cj<CL_ -r -- '■".■<

; i

*r" ct<r- *s=~

r*"«TT*— •*^. , m& ^L_

* — :

c <I«S""

. * «*

<^-^<^—~-J0^v : ,,y

<r «c<- ■' - S=-

. ',. ■ '4

■^^rer^K^t

C3 *

C" CKS1''

•c "*«,

^ \

■ . «c"«k'- ■*-" ; ;

GC

^ or
c^

-S 'V ■■•

^*^—. ->^ LS — j j-^z~~ . '■

•£■<■*

^^

-i^Vr" -* ■

■'..' '^Kir <-.^<j? j*5=^-

■

^sr««r <3 <S*S--

'&!£

C Mm

. ^C~. .5"t'<-' _JF- ■ ■

\ '-0E" fee -.</ <*% -a

Ci<

-- 5^" '

C c

c «:

^ :

<A *s c - l

',.

--,-'^CLC5''C .'r^L -

" c <

c «: '

*&f c ;

*J

■ • -■^* t ,-- v -^- -'""^5^"

^t^-^ ^ ,f £• «

*"C.<

c «r.

<<

a^s&akat

«se: etc .t»i ■ « ,g ■■ S

- i-SP- ;

c

«cr.'-*r .««■•*:,•.

5

'-■- 5fc=^ ^y--- >

c

r:c

C 4^^ —

<;

--, * ^-*. '.

f

^^tT< C -^^By

. c

.«r«r ec c ' <- v ^

<iC

■■L_-,_

c c <■_ ' ;

;<

■ ■•- .^ — 5 v '^f'S r

x

ETc<

1 «*CT-

v «L^f' C<«C

ijif j--- ""i. •fflgisli

<'

c

tit":

.fc- ; V

?1 C

^

-^Xk ^- '■?

HC7...

«KWL«'

<.

, '«rTl «CT' -«

«C

dec

^CT

- < c

r.C

r.C

C<CCCC< g ">-'■': 2
. ,- rw rv « S.C*-. '*

«3<

. 4C."

c

r -

C^'JB

r '.

"«cH<L ^

s

-

3q"!

: x

- J

«