New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1856-03-25

The CASE OF THE BRIG GEN. ARMsTRoNG.-This
case, with the history Of which everybody is familiar
has been decided by the Court of Claims, at Wash
ington in favor Of the claimants The Union of the
18th says: --..p. .. =l ~
Judge Gilchrst, the presiding justice of the Court
of Claims, yesterday delivered the opinion of the
Court in this Important and interesting case The
opinion is said to be, by the learned counsel who
heard it read, one of the most marked ability and
profound legal research 1t settles the ongdsctlssed
opinions of the rights and duties of neutral nations
reviews the rights of our citizens, and the obligations
OF our Government towards the-discusses the cues
ton of arbitration by the Government of questions
involving rights Of citizens, and the responsibility of
this Government towards its citizens in cases coming
within this class OF claims. more interesting case
at this time to the people of France, Portugal Eng
land and our citizens generally, could not be given
to the public.
The points involved in the case were substantially.
these
LIST. That the evidence proved that in the engage
ment between the boats of the British squadron and
the American brig at the battle of Fayal in 1914, the
British were the aggressprs.
I'd. That Portugal, being neutral in the war be-
tween the United States and Great Britain as she
claimed the rights so she was bound by the obliga-
tons of neutral
Sd. That where's vessel belonging to a bellinerent
is destroyed by another belBgerent in neutral port,
the neutral bound to protect her neutrality by all
means at her disposal.
4th. That the Portuguese governor used no means
whatever to protect the neutrality of her port excep
by eXpostulation with the British commander al
though to considerable extent, he had means at his
disposal. a4
5th. That even if neutral be unable at any partc-
uar point to resist successfully the forces of one of
the begerens, she is, nevertheless bound to redress
the injury sustained by the other belligerent by MAX
ing compensation for the injuries sustained.
9th. That by the law of nations all independent
powers stand upon an equality asregards their rights
and duties, whether they be relatively weak or rea-
| lively powerful.
7th. That in the circumstances of this case there
was no call upon the United States to submit this
claim to arbitration
Sth. That the United States have the right to sub
nit to arbitration the claim of of their citizens
upon foreign government, either with or without
his assent but they are bound to see that in the sub
mission his rights are carefully protected, and that lie
has a full and fair opportunity of being heard.
9th That it is principle of universal application
that no one shall be condemned unheard and that
every citizen however humble, has right to be heard
in defence of his rights and that if lie is not per-
mtted hearing accordingly before the tribunal that
is to pass Judgment upon his rights the Judgment of
such tribunal cannot be held to be valid
10Th That when the United States submits the
claim OF citizen to arbitration, if he is not permitted
hearing or to be represented before the arbter and
heard in defence of his rights, and the award s ad-
verse to him, the United States becomes responsible
| to the claimant for the damages he has sustained.
1lth That whether the question in the present case
question of law, or mixed question of law and
fact the claimants had right to be heard before the
arbitrator.
18th That even if it were doubtful which party was
the aggressor, and even if it were doubtful question
whether he had claim on Portugal he had equallya
right to be heard
18th That the United States having made treaty,
which by their construction precluded the claimant
from being heard, and having refused their sanction
and authority to him to appear and present his case
before the arbter and the award having been against
him under these circumstances the United States are
bound in damages