New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-12-27
NETWORK TRIBUNE.
The Board of Commissioners ON Claims
against Mexico.

The BOARD of Cenmtssioners on obaAms
against Mexico.
To he Editor Of The Tribune
II has been too much the usage to pay little at
scDtion to the proceedings Of Boards of Commits
sioners appointed to decide upon claims of oar
citizens agains. foreign countries. This probably
has arisen from the fact that they are consiaefoo
to be Judicial in their character and the claimants
rnerely as private parties to SUIT atIa", III ~
the public are not particularly lntetesseo' ~
sometimes happens that questions oil Tue "'e'0''
consequence in principle are passed upon SoiiAo "
them Involving rights Which have peeh 'no SUI
iecsa of labored diplomatic correspondence oe-
.,o,, o,r ovn and Foreign Governments.-
Nny,,Ar oJ.;ros which have been asserted By our
e3oyerDanent in behalf OF It's citizens are hnaAy
hroupht before domestic tribunal, 1t Is Of some
;n,n6rtence that regard should be had to the prln
oiules eontended for by their Government l Is the
r;eAt of the citizen to have the same law ad-
mInistered which has been insisted upon against
foreign nations. Any departure theretrom viii be
n precedent for future Boards OF similar charac-
tcr and may in time by repeated adiudicatlons
have an influence upon the foreign policy OF our
Government in respect TO claims Of its citizens
put when we bear in mind that the decisions OF
she Board as it is usually constituted are hnal-
that there is no redress for any wrong winch may
be done by mistake Of judgment or otherwise we
have a right to require that those decisions shoIi9
be made with the utmost dellberatloh ana Ie5@iu
Cor private rights -.
In this view it is matter OF some public inter-
est what decisions are made, and will justify q
few remarks upon q late decision MADE oy Tue
Board Of Commissioners now sitting st w ashlh9-
ton upon claims against Mexico. The clrGum-
stances Of the case were these: A citizen oil the
United States went to Lavaca 10 Texas as trad
or shortly before the revolutionary movement
taking with him stock of goods which he was
selling at the time of Santa Annals invasion, and
taking no part in the instruction. According to
the Mexican mode of warfare the store and goods
were destroyed without pretense OF any lust'il-
cation by the ordinary law OF war. bnt Simply
upon the ground that the property was found IN
the enemy's territory.
The claim for indemnity founded upon these
facts has been rejected by the Commissioners.
They say in deciding the case THE residence OF
the claimant at the time Of the Injury complained
Of subjected him to the law OF war then existing
between Mexico and Texas. 1t was such war
az by the public law other nations were bound to
yield to such party in its prosecution all the rights
of war One of such rights is to consider the
property of neutral merchants resident IN an enc
nys country subject to the same rules as the pro-
perty Of the enemy
According to this doctrine then, it appears that
American merchants residing abroad Tor purposes
of trade are be subject to all the incidents OF
war in which the countries OF their residence may
be involved The Government OF the United
States will have no authority to Interfere IN be-
half of its citizens to enforce respect Tor their
property as being neutral. Our commerce, when
now extends to every part OF the world, Is TO be
subject to be preyed upon at every outbreak be-
tween different Governments. Is this the foreign
policy which our Government has heretofore sub
seribed to? If so, it is time that another should
be substituted more befittng the enlightened
views of the present age and the vast interests OF
our commercial relations with other countries. Is ut
- he Ihpl To QcS
ted to such rule of international law
II is MS much at variance with the practice oil our
government MS with established principles regula-
ting the intercourse of nations, that our cltzens
peacably trading in foreign lands should oe lelC "
the undiscrminating prescription OF herce oelL8
erents. Protection is coeXtenslye win alleS'Hnce
and we have instance OF the searching applica
sion of the principle in the stern requlsltion re-
gently made by the British government the most
enlightened of all existing governments IN us
foreign policy upon Greece in behalf OF the Por-
tugaese Consul,o on the ground OF his being BTU
ish subject by his birth at Gibraltar. Ihls pre-
oedent is of the more consequence as 1t was not
demand npon the weak sovereignty OF Greece
merely, bat an assertion of the right against sew
eral OF the principal powers oil Europe VINO haa
united with her in the guarantee OF the lndepend-
ence of that country.
Neutral property upon land has always been
distinguished from an enemys property Adlnef-
ent rule tcsome extent has been admitted IN Prize
Courts in respect to property captured at sea on
VOYAGE to or from a belligerent port But the
distinction has been clearly marked by writers on
National Law, and it would be almost dlsrespect,
ful to our Board of Commission to suppose 1t had
been overlooked by them.
The Commissioners appear to entertain an
opinion equally novel in respect to the liability OF
pfipdte property TO be destroyed IN war; even sup
p'''"6 ~ " '''00 CIVIS AMEuCANUS