The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-06-07

him as their agent for all Injury which has directly or
indirectly, arisen from these onss and for the unjust
delay 81 nparaton Of them To- the present time.
In coming to this result II u with deep regret Ind
have not the FUN concurrence Of my assoests Comwis
soner o. TO the extent Of redress these claimants
remain unadusted to abide the nai de siaon Of the
pire r. Bates) appointed under this commission, to
whom II IL ordered 10 be committed.
CLAIM OF NEssRs. LAURENT.
This was claim presented on the part OF the
British government, in favor Of the Messrs. Lau-
rent, residents Of Mexico, who claim indemnify
from the United States for the confscaton as prlze
of war, of debt owing by them to the government
of Mexico. These claimants represent tnat they are
resident merchants and traders in the city Of
Mexico. and that they had been established there
eighteen years in that capacity previous to lsi7.
During that year they further state that law was
passed by the Mexican Congress, authorizing the
raising OF fifteen millions of dollars by the hypothe-
cation or sale of church property. Afterwards, in
the same year. the Congress, by law, gave extraor-
binary powers to the executive authority to raise
Immediately five millions, by the sale Of the said
property. The house occupied by the claimants be-
onged to the church, and they, being notified that
it was to be sold, determined to purchase it. The
Mexican government accepted their proposal, and
an agreement was drawn up, by which the claim
ants undertook to pay specified amount in differ
ent payments for which the government was to
transfer to them the ownership Of the house, with
the proper muniments of title. The government
ordered the contract to be properly drawn up and
finally signed by the claimants, and the money de-
posted in the hands OF banker, to await the exc
cution OF the contract by the government; but,
in consequence of some inattention OF those
charged with this duty, it was not executed by the
government. In this state of the matter revou-
ton occurred, aud the new President authorized
to annul the laws for the sale OF church property
which he did. Remonstrances were made by the
claimants against this proceeding, and while nego
tiations upon this subject going on, the tenan
of the house, under whom claimants were sub
tenants, commenced q suit against them for rent
and they set up their purchase from the govern
ment in defence, and satisfactory arrangement
confidently expected, when the city of Mexico was
taken by the United States forces. Not long after
that event the military secretary of the commanding
general notified the claimants that the general would
confisCate this debt owing by them, as prize OF war
it being property belonging to the Mexican govern
ment, and this was done accordingly.
The General gave them q certificate that this
money was contscated as prize, put them in pos
session of the house, and received the money They
continued to enjoy unmoested possession OF this
property during the occupation Of the country by
the United States forces. After peace was made,
and the government had been surrendered to the
Mexican authorities, the church then claimed this
property, and commenced suit for it in the Next
can courts, which, by appeal, these claimants car
red up to the highest tribunal where it was decided
that Mexico would not acknowledge the acts OF the
ing general and the claimants were dispossessed Of
their property. They now seek remuneration for
their losses from the United States.
In this case we have only received the argument
Of John Addison Thomas, counsel and agent Of
claims for the United States, before the Commits
sion. 1t presents an elaborate treatise on inter-
national law. The grounds upon which the learned
counsel opposes the claims Of the Messrs. Laurent
are founded on the principle that international law
regards every person as belonging to- and citizen
subject Of that country where he has his domcil
He contends that British born subject living in
Mexico, and engaged there In trade during the war
between the United States and that country, had
considered British subject" within the meaning
Of these terms used in the convention providing
for the settlement Of claims Of British subects'
upon the government of the United States, and that
the Messrs. Laurent, being, therefore, citizens of
Mexico, the Commission had no jurisdiction in the
case. No decision in this matter has as yet been
given.