The New York herald., 1871-12-15
THE APpoRTIoNMEN1 BILL PASSED.
Exhibit Of the Altered Representation in
the Several States.
Darrett's Rebel Cotton Loan Claim
Thrown Cut BY the Commission.
Ex-senator Williams Appointed
Attorney General.

Report Of the Southern Claims
Commission.
WASHINGTON, Dec. IA, 1871.
The BFitish and American Claims Censusis.
sion.-Thc ssBIarsted Britishers' - Invest.
0eat In rho Confederate Lonn-Robert 3.
Hnlc,s Dcmurrer-Barrett's Claim Dis
MISSED.
the session OF the British American Claims Com
mission TO-DAY was devoted to the case OF EDWARD
Albert Barrett against the United States. This
European gentleman, who resides In London, and
never did anything In the naturalization way.
alleges In his memorial that he purchased bond Of
The face value OF f2oo sterling In the cotton loan OF
the Confederate States OF America on which he was
70 receive seven cent interest till the bond was
redeemed at par. He complains that In 1865 the
United States seized all the assets OF the cOnederacy
especially very large quantity Of cotton hypothe-
Gated by the confederate government for the
payment Of this and similar bonds, and thus pre-
vcnted the payment OF the bondholders besides
stopping the intel est for six and half years. He
therefore demands nom the United States the sum
- A2ei sterling n satisfaction OF his claim, under
article twelve Of tho Treaty OF Washington. In be-
hAlf Of tho United States Counsellor Robert s. Hale
0ouuurs to the Jurisdiction OF the mixed commis-
ION, on the ground that by the twelfth article OF
the 1esy the claims against the United
0saees submitted to the adjudication OF the
cOUmtssi0n are those Of subjects OF Her Britannia
Majesty arising out OF acts committed against the
pessons Or properly OF subjects OF Her Britannia
najesU. during the time United by that article.
xAis language y plain and unambiguous. IL limits
she claims 70 those teohbioally known as storts.n
and those torts" committed against the persons or
property OF the claimants It could not be contended
that the claims 70 submitted would include claim
On c0ntract against the United States though
founded directly on contract duly executed by an
authorised ofnoer Of that government and plainly
violated by that government Much less can 1t be held
70 inean1ea contract executed By and In the name Of
a insurrectionaTy organization in violation Of the
constitution ana lava Of the United States seeking
he snbversion OF that government, levying war
upoa u and finally suppressed oy its power Not
Wltnstanding the specioue attempts to dtsguise The
10e naturO Of this claim under allegation OF the
desSuesaen ~ the United States In war OF property
AypOthecAtod By the so-caliod Confederate States
Tor the security OF their debta n really neither
moro nor less than claim to hold the United StaIes
liable for the debts OF those lately In rebellion
against them contracted In the very course OF
such rebellion, In aid Of IT, and from which
Il drew It's chief support To believe for moment
nat the United States ever intended TO submit such
= question 70 arbitration would be, at the same
me, to do violence to the language OF the treaty
and 10 falay the history Of that government by i'm
putting TO II pusillantmlty wholly unwarranted by
anything IN Its past career or present condition. It
would be to believe that the United States have
deliberately sign1ed their Willingness at the award
Of this commission to pay debts contracted by their
defeated enemies for the sole purpose OF the
nismemberment Of their government and
the destruction OF their iiberties-dcbts held
IN the deepest adherence by the unanimous
consent Of their loyal people, and debts, the
assumption or payment OF which, In any form, by
the United states, or any one OF their constituent
States, has been prohibited by solemn constitutional
enactment, by that fundamental law TO which all
treaties, as wen as all statues. are subject. when
the government and people Of the United States
shau acknowledge that in their recent successful
struggle with rebellion they were wholly In the
wrong and the rebels wholly In the right when they
shall determine to compensate the rebels themselves
Tor their losses In person and property by the war,
70 pension their widows and orphans and
70 ropudiate the debt nf the federal gov
eminent contracted for the suppression Of
the rebellion, then, and not till then will
thcy consider the question of paying the mercenary
foreign subscribers to the rebel oans, criminal
In their eyes, or, aG least, sharing more OF their
abhorrence than any participants In the gigantic
crime. The language OF the treaty itself Is believed
the character Of that in question. II any ambiguity
could be found In that language 1t would be fully
removed by reference to the protocols Of confer
ence Of the Joint High Commissioners ana to facts
Of universal c0gntzance In connection with
them. BY the thirty-sixth protocol, under the
head OF "artcles IL to H." it appears that
the American Commissioners, when Invited by
their British colleagues to include within the terms
OF the treaty another class OF claims BY Her Ma.
testy's subjects against the United States, declined
50 70 do, saying 'that In their view, the subject
was not embraced in the scope OF the correspond
ence between Sir Edward Thornton and Mr. Fish.
under either Of the letters Of the former, and that
they DID not feel justified IN entering upon the
sderatt0n Of any class OF claims not contemplated
~ tho time OF the creation OF the present com.
miseion;n and on referring to the correspondence
between Sir Edward Thornton and Mr. FISH,
named In the protocol, It win bo found that
the nrst mention OF or reference 10 the claims COW
sred by tho twelfth article is contained In the letter
OF Sir EDWARD to Mr.. Fish, under date or February
I, ls71 and that In that letter he desgnates them
~ claims 'aristng out OF acts commtted"-the
same language which was subsequently copied into
the treaty, and with the addition 10y way OF giving
greater point and accuracy OF the further words
sgainst the persons or property OF subec OF Her
Britannia Majesty" II must be borne In MIND
tnat at the time OF this correspondence, as well
a at tho time Of the conclusion ana
ratification Of the treaty, the constitution OF
che United States contained an express prohibition
Of the assumption or payment OF these debts by
che United States. BY any state; that every officer
of the United States. executive, legislative and
judicial was thus bound by the supreme law OF the
hand and by his oath OF once to treat as utterly
null any provision Of any treaty or statute In con-
sravenuon Of that constitutional prohibition, under
penalty OF impeachment or Its equivalent. That
she existence of this constitutional provision was
well known, not only 10 the Secretary OF State
he Commissioner the Chief Executive and the
senate OF tho United States, all parties on
the part OF tho United States TO the treaty
. 70 W. preliminary VesyeDendenea put va