Mexican constitution of 1824, on suspicion alone. To this it is replied that Rice's acts were 'public and notorious, multifarious and proved,' and did not require any specified charge of offenses; but it will be observed that notorious and public acts,' though they be notorious, form no substitute for that habeas corpus principle, as it may be called for brevity's sake, which among other requisites demands a statement of the reason of the arrest, issued by lawful authority. * After much

weighing and careful comparing, I have come to the following award, that the Republic of Mexico pay to the United States of America the sum of $4,000 in United States currency, no interest."

Lieber, umpire, April 10, 1872, Francis W. Rice v. Mexico, No. 7, convention of July 4, 1868, MS. Op. II. 471.

Atwood's Case.

mares.

Claimant endeavored in 1857 to export from Mexico a lot of live stock, including some At the time, the exportation of mares was forbidden by law, and in consequence claimant was on several occasions detained by the authorities, though finally, by some arrangement with them, he was permitted to pass with all the animals into Texas. The commissioners held that he could not make a claim for detention, as the business in which he was engaged was illegal, and the arrangement finally made with the authorities, whatever it was, unlawful.

John W. Atwood v. Mexico No. 128, convention of July 4, 1868, MS. Op. III. 101.

Claimant had some goods in the store of Bennett's Case. one Milmo, at Piedras Negras. Milmo, being charged with crime, was arrested, and an embargo placed on all the property in his store. Claimant asked damages for alleged losses by depreciation in value of the goods from the time of their seizure till their restitution, for the expenses incurred in obtaining their restitution, and for the abstraction of some of the goods and damage done to others while they were in the possession of the Mexican authorities. The umpire said:

"The umpire is of opinion that, considering that the embargo of Milmo's goods was made by a judicial order, the authorities had a right to seize everything that was found on his premises, and that the burden of proof that a part of it belonged to the claimant was upon the latter. It was his misfortune that the consignee of his goods was accused of a crime, and it was a part of that misfortune that he was obliged to go to some

expense to prove that the property belonged to him. But the umpire does not think that the Mexican Government can be made responsible for his expenses on that account."

The evidences of unreasonable detention of the goods before restitution were deficient, as well as of damage and abstraction while they were in the possession of the Mexican Government. The umpire therefore dismissed the claim.

Thornton, umpire, William M. Bennett v. Mexico, No. 557, convention of July 4, 1868, MS. Op. III. 217, IV. 616.

Cramer's Case.

"In the case of John D. Cramer v. Mexico No. 950, the umpire is of opinion that the charges made against the Mexican authorities are not sufficiently proved to justify his condemning the Mexican Government to make compensation to the claimant. It must be remembered that at the time of the claimant's arrest the guaranties of the constitution were suspended, and a simple order by a military or civil authority was a sufficient warrant of arrest. It is clear that there was a suspicion that the claimant was implicated in an attempt at revolution against the government, and the authorities were justified in detaining the prisoner for the purpose of inquiring into the grounds of that suspicion, especially as an American citizen with whom the claimant had had communications had at the time attempted to raise a revolution against the Mexican Government. Nor does the umpire think that thirty-five days was an unreasonable time for making these inquiries, considering that it was not unlikely that they were partially made in the United States. Anyone who carefully reads the evidence of the three witnesses, one of whom was the United States consul, will acquire the conviction that it was obtained principally from hearsay. In the claimant's memorial it is stated 'that he was finally able to get his case to the ear of the American consul at Mazatlan,' but Mr. Sisson himself gives his evidence as if he had well known the circumstances of the case from the moment of the arrest. With regard to the ill treatment complained of in prison, not one of the witnesses, not even Ellert, who was in the same prison with the claimant, asserts that he saw the claimant beaten. They say that they knew it, but do not say how they knew it. The statements as to losses suffered by the claimant in consequence of his imprisonment are utterly devoid of proof and are merely unfounded opinions of the witnesses, who must have derived

those opinions from information furnished by the claimant. Neither did the claimant avail himself of his right to bring an action for damages against the prefect, nor even to report the case to the Mexican Government. It is still more remarkable that neither the claimant nor the United States consul appears to have registered any written protest or to have made any representations to their own government, although the affair is alleged to have involved a loss to the claimant of $250,000. The umpire is of opinion that the Mexican Government can not be called upon to pay compensation in this case.”

Thornton, umpire, July 22, 1876, John D. Cramer v. Mexico, No. 950, convention of July 4, 1868, MS. Op. VI. 501.

Jonan's Case.

Claimant was arrested and had his papers taken from him by order of Alvarez, dictator of Guerrero. He was held in prison for long periods in 1853 and 1854, on charges not within the jurisdiction of the courts. The following decision was made:

"It appears to the umpire that the arrest of the claimant in December 1853 was illegal in form; that almost the whole of the accusations against him were not within the jurisdiction of the Mexican courts *; that the fact of their trying claimant upon accusations over which they had no jurisdiction prolonged the proceedings most unjustly toward the claimant; that from the beginning to the end of the proceedings the forms of law were infringed to the prejudice of the accused; that the legation of the United States at Mexico called the attention of the Mexican Government to the want of jurisdiction of the tribunals over the questions at issue, and that the Mexican Government having been thus warned, and having abstained from attempting to prevent these illegal acts, which it had full power to do, assumed the responsibility of those acts."

Thornton, umpire, November 20, 1875, Augustus Jonan v. Mexico, No. 70, convention of July 4, 1868, MS. Op. IV. 91, VII. 355. An award was made to the claimant of $35,000 Mexican gold, with interest.

Case of the " "Emily
Banning."

The bark Emily Banning, having arrived at Acapulco in distress, was detained and her captain and crew imprisoned on suspicion of being fillibusters. The detention was long and the imprisonment harsh. The umpire held that the whole proceeding was unjustifiable and made an award in favor of claimants.

Thornton, umpire, Nautilus Submarine Pearl Fishing Co., owner of the bark, v. Mexico, No. 136, convention of July 4, 1868, MS. Op. III. 14, 334; Martha E. Thatcher, widow and administratrix of Anthony Thatcher, captain of the bark, No. 137, MS. Op. III. 22, 336.

5627-VOL. 4- -2

Pierce's Case.

Claimant was arbitrarily arrested by an officer of local police in Mexico and kept all night a prisoner in a house. It appeared that the authorities had proceeded against this official, fined and reprimanded him, and dismissed him from office. It was held that the claimant was not, under the circumstances, entitled to an award against the Mexican Government.

John R. Pierce v. Mexico, No. 806, convention of July 4, 1868, MS. Op. VII. 28.

Brito's Case.

"The arrest of the claimant in the city of Havana having been effected in violation of the stipulations of treaty, and his health having been injured by imprisonment, he has a right to recover damages to the amount of $600, with interest at 6 per cent a year, since the 12th of February 1869, to this day."

M. Bartholdi, umpire, November 14, 1874, José Vicente Brito v. Spain, No. 23, Spanish Claims Commission, agreement between the United States and Spain of February 11-12, 1871.

Griffin's Case.

The claimant demanded $25,000 damages, on the ground that he was without probable cause, and maliciously and oppressively, arrested and imprisoned. It appeared that on April 4, 1871, he was master of an American brig, then lying at Sagua la Grande in Cuba. On the day when the vessel was ready to sail, a slave belonging to the charterers was discovered secreted in the hold, and was taken out by their agent, who reported the circumstance to the authorities. The authorities ordered the arrest of the claimant on the charge of attempting to aid a slave to escape, and he was imprisoned from the 4th of April till the 13th of the following month, when he was discharged on nominal bail. He claimed damages for costs and charges incurred by reason of his imprisonment, for losses and damages suffered, for damage to vessel and cargo, etc. The commission awarded him $500 in American gold.

Joseph Griffin v. Spain, No. 87, April 10, 1875, Spanish Claims Commission, agreement of February 11-12, 1871.

Moliere's Case.

"In the case of Pedro Moliere v. Spain, No. 4, it is my opinion that the claimant has no right to recover damages from the Spanish Government for the injuries he received in a private quarrel on the 30th of August 1870. But inasmuch as the claimant was subsequently arrested, and though it is not possible to decide

from the testimony brought before the commission if his arrest was or was not ordered upon sufficient ground, as there is no doubt that he was not tried, as he ought to have been, before a competent tribunal, and that after sixteen days of imprisonment, it was only owing to the exertions of the consul-general of the United States that he was released, it is my opinion that the claimant has a right to recover damages to the amount of $3,000, with interest at 6 per cent per annum, from the 1st of September 1870 to the day of payment."

M. Bartholdi, umpire, October 25, 1875, Pedro Moliere v. Spain, No. 4, Spanish Claims Commission, agreement of February 11-12, 1871.

Case of Cabias.

In the brief of the advocate for Spain it was stated that the wrongs of which the claim ant complained were that he was arrested on the 15th of January 1869, conducted to Havana, confined in a dark cell for fifty-five days, tried upon a charge of complicity in a political riot in which two policemen were shot, and condemned, though on appeal he was acquitted; that he was then, March 12, removed from the dark cell and placed in the stocks, and kept there for fifteen days and nights; that he was then, about March 27, taken from the stocks and placed in the gallery of the prison, and there detained until July 21, when he was released and taken by two policemen to a steamer bound for Key West, on which he was forced to sail, being furnished with a passport for that island; that during his imprisonment he was tried upon charges of being a Freemason, of vagrancy, and of insolence and defiance of Spanish authority.

The evidence showed that the claimant was acquitted on the charge of complicity in the insurrection, but when he was expelled the charge of vagrancy was still pending. He claimed damages to the amount of $187,363.25 for imprisonment, loss of health, expenses, etc. The arbitrators awarded him $3,000, with interest at 6 per cent from January 15, 1869, till final payment of the award.

Teodoro Cabias v. Spain, No. 10, March 17, 1877, Spanish Claims Commission, agreement of February 11-12, 1871.

Jones's Case.

The claimant, who was the master of an American brig, was on August 8, 1871, arrested at Santiago de Cuba on the charge of having aided a revenue accountant who had stolen public money and stamps to escape from Cuba, by conveying him in