The New York herald., 1871-12-17
THE MIXED COMMISSION.
What Constitutes National
Allegiance.
Decisions Rendered by the British and Amert
can Commission on Claims Arising Out
Of British Property Des royed
During tn, War.

QWAu8 t0S Wbts
WASHINGTON. Dec. 16. 1871.
The United States and British Mixed Commission
to-day decided on the demurrer in the case OF An
thony Barclay VS.. The United states.
The statement OF the case is as follows-The
claimant alleges-himself q native subject OF Her
Britannia Majesty, resident In the United
States for many years prior to tho
year 1858, for the greater part Of
OF that time was engaged in Her Majesty's SER
vice. and from 1912 to 1856 was Her Majesty's Con-
sui at New York city. That in the year 1863 he
took up his residence In Georgia. and there engaged
in planting and carrying on three separate planta-
tions within the State Of Georgia, two owned BY tho
caiman; and devoted to the culture OF Sea Island
cotton and the other TO products and on which
the claimant resided, and the other plantation 70
the culture Of rice. The third plantation is alleged
to have been held by the claimant under lease, and
TO have been occupied and cultivated BY MIN. Tho
claimant alleges tnat, in taking up his residence in
Georgia. he did not mean or interd to change
his nationality Or his allegiance to tho
Queen OF Great Britain. but relied on the
faith OF existing treaties, authorizing and
assuring his rights as British subject to reside In
the United states. He alleges also, that he alb
stained from all intermedding in the lnsurrectiOu
and civil war, conformed to the Queens proclama-
tiOn OF neutrality and IN all respects conducted
himself as faithfully towards the United
states as any loyal citizen could have
done without taking an actual part In
war. The claimant sets up the Presidents
proclamation OF blockade In 1851 and the act Of Con
gress Of July, 1861 conflscating property which
should be found passing from the insurrectionary
into the loyal states and alleges that was at no
time possible for him 10 withdraw his effects from
the scene OF the insurfectiOn. He does not alloge
any attempt on his part so to withdraw. any move.
m ment In that direction, or even any intention Of
removal. He alleges various acts OF plumber and
devastation on all the three plantations, committed
by the United States forces under General Sherman.
on or about December 1884 and he alleges also tho
occupation and appropriation Of two OF
his plantations by the military forces Of
the United States and by emancpated NO
groes under General Snerman's special field
orders No. 49, dated headquarters Military
Division OF the MISSISSIPPI IN the field, Savannah.
Ga January 49, 1861" For these injuries to hin
real and personal property. and Tor the occupation
OF said pl antatons Aforesaid, he claims damages
to the amount OF $27a,O0O ard upwards.
To his memorial the United states demur, on
the ground that the acts alleged do nos
constitute valid claim against the United
States under the treaty that they are not such acts
as the United States are responsible for, and that
the claimant by mis- domcile is not entitled to claim
the position OF a subject OF Her Britannia Majesty
within the treaty. The facts stated IN this claim
make the strongest case Imaginable or permanene
absolute domlcile Under all the circumstances, N
cannot be said the claimant was deslrOus to leave
the territory and was prevented from doing 80 oy
any act OF the United states.
The counsel for British claims on the demurrer O.
the United States maintained that the wantOn ana
malicious destruction OF tne property OF sucn per
nor nor JUSTIFIED % by the the laws Of nations Ths is en-
t!rely independent OF the question OF what REDRESS
case Such acts are condemned by the modern
law OF nations and II this be so then It seems nm, nm
proper subject OF reclamation In the case Of neu-
trail Admitting that the CLAIMANT by his residence
the sense OF the international law, and
owed a temporary allegiance thereto, and had
follows that ne did not continue to be subject OF
Her Britannlc Majesty It Is perfectly well settled
sovereign and a permanent allegiance to another.
ana so well is this understood tnat where the tive
obligations conflict the former gives way to the
latter.
be decided Is whether me CommsslSners Saes nave we
claimant Is, within the meaning OF the treaty.
British subject. Tnat ne is, IN fact, British sub,
thar being domciled in % the Vnlled ,nad.S states
term, 1t Is undoubtedly true, as appears from
cired in the argument that the subjecs
quires In some respects privileges and incun
Liabilities distinct from those possessed in righs
the the State to which ne originally belonged.
ten,on Of either government to put the limited
meaning on the words contended for In the argu-
from from our jurisdict,on NJ British subject who has
never renounced his original allegiance.
T5e Fl been fact se in other ssSs SSny
domicile IN one OF the Confederate States will.
OF course have material bearing on the point also
rni nj in no n
ants property to seizure and destruction by the
federal army. It IS difficult to lay down general
rule applicable in all to the rights OF an invad
Ing army; nor In this particular is that neces-
sary The statements contained IN the memorial arc.
true. One OF the statements In the memorial Is that
part OF the claimant's property was taken posses
necessity, convenience, provocation or inducement,
and plundered, ana ,olll .ha. part :. was
true, we are not PREPARED to say that
some liability might not be established S %
marrer nrtsr is, therefore dsaiowed but the United
states government Will be at liberty, II they THINK
nt. TO take issue upon The facts alleged In the me-
The next case decided on demurrer was that OF
James Cru5che against ihe United ed. states state the
subject and came to Washington in ls42,
and has since resided n'e for sss tns last
became largely engaged in manufacturing In
large building known as Mount Vernon Factory on
up the same with machinery motive power. tools,
material, &C., for the manurac ture OF articles Of
peculiarly American character, interest and value
from timber previously purchased by INN from the
Mount Vernon estate, and intended as memorials OF
General Washington. The factory, he alleges, was,
shortly after the breaking out OF the late civil war,
taken possession oil by the United states for military
purposes, and possession retained by Them for many
years for the same uses. He admits payment ~
the United States to him for the use OF THIS pro-
perty to the amount OF $3,0l6, ana a further
sum OF $1,000 fot repairs, put alleges this
was an inadequate and insufficient compensation
claimant presents claim for balance against the
United states OF Sl73,5sl. The United States ON
demurrer, maintained the point that Crutchell was
within the rules of International law, to be consid-
cred citizen and subject OF the United States, ior
ali International questions OF war and peace can
admit OF no doubt: and submitted that no clamanS
can nave standing for nearing before this tribunal
to enforce a claim for the vndicarOu OF which Iull
and ample means are Afforded through the municE
pal tribunals oil the country which are always opon
to him without possibility OF exclusion. CounseL
tor tchn n ar IN B0rCaya