The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-06-23
ALABAMA CLAIMS.
AN IMPORTANT DECISION BY THE COURT or
CORRESPONDENTS RIGHTS or NoE-REsI-
DENT ALIENS UNDER THE GENEVA AWARD.


coMMIssIoNERs-THE RIGHTS OF HoE-REsI-
DENT ALIENS UNDER THE GENEVA AWARD.
wAsHixGroS, June p, 1876.
In the Court Of Commissioners Of Alabama Claims
yesterday the following Judgments announced for
loss OF personal effects and wages by the destruction OF
various vessels Case 1.466, Frank Morris, Albion,
Cal, $4So Case ,4U7 Joseph costar San Francisco,
$780, Case 400. Antonio Jason, Mendcino Cal, slsS
Case l,470. Emanuel Y. Garcia Santa Barbara, $3.50
Case 1853 Joseph Thomas California; $575 Case 49l,
Christian Lopez. San Francisco, Cal, S234 So Case
1,57S Joaquin Jose New Bedford Mass, 1924 60 Case
1.os2, James NJ Fabee, Vineyard Haven, Mass.
$128 o. Case 1885, Joaquin Jose Manchester, Mass,
$500. Case 1,776. Wendell H. Cobb, administrator,
New Bedford, Mass, $500. Case 1852, Emanuel Hun
nous, New Bedford, Mass, $4O0 Case, Lie, James
Lyon. New Bedford, Mass, 1922. Case 1900, Free
man K johnson, Philadelphia, $751;
AN IMPORTANT DECISION
The opinion Of the majority OF the Court in the case
of Frederick Schneider and Arnold Otto The United
States delivered by Judge Jewell This is very
important and the opinion Of the Court has been
awaited with great interest involves points which
have probably arisen before any court In the
world The argued by Frank W. Hackett, Of
this city, and Charles G Beaman, Jr., Of New York,
for the claimants and John A. Creswe, Tor the gov
crnmenI The following are
The American ship Texan STAR owned by Americans,
arrived at Mauman. British India, IN November 1862
search Of freight In lew days she had contracted
with Abraham Cohen 10 carry cargo OF rice from
Maumain to Singapore under charter party Twenty
board the master and Cohen arranged nominal
change OF title and nanc oil tho ship to that oil Marta
ban After the cargo on board the master signed
bill OF lading making the cargo deliverable TO tho or
der OF Cohen, who indorsed the and forwarded II
70 Benn Meyer Co., the claimants ~ SINGAPORE
was in accordance with their manner Of dealing.
Tho Aaraban was captured after sailing and burned
by the Alabama, December ~, 1862 which day and
before tho hour Of tho destruction OF the vessel the
claimants had accepted Cohens draft and had received
the bill OF ladng which he Endorsed. The draft
paid In Mexican silver was the custom. The claim
seek the value lin currency OF tho draft That
they had the legal title to the cargo was settled ID the
case OF Homer II Spraguo vs. Tho United States oplnon
of Judge Rayner Tho great question ~ tho case IS on
tho right OF these claimants beng non resident aliens
to prosecute this claim under the present law. Tho
claimants OF tho cargo lawfully aboard
American ship, which cargo was destroyed with the
vessel Tho owners have recovered Tor tho loss OF the
vessel and freight Can these claimants, being aliens
who have never resided within tho United States, re-
cover Tor tho loss Of that cargos
The Judge expresses the opinion tho value of the
cargo well tho vessel and freight, was taken into
consideration at Geneva and included In the award,
and that tho owners, as British residents, mado
claim Tor compensation Tor this loss on both
the India government and the British Foreign Once,
the ground that tho Martaban at the time OF de-
struction carrying the British lag, and so her
cargo was under British protection. Their claim was
ernor General of India that their proofs showed
that at the limo their rice was loaded on board the
Martaban she was an American ship Alter referring
The probable connection OF the claim 70 the proceed
ings al Geneva, the Judge says
1t however to base decisions what
place shese We are to look into the NC. d Congress
The case Of these alma rs w,n H.
Of that paid by Great Britain and was now
After referring the fact that the Court has already
adjudged the Martaban TO have boon American ves
sell notwithstanding her Disguise the opinion states
that cargo placed her before assuming tho
disguise and then that the claimants are
titled to recover unless something in their personal
condition excludes them under the terms or !"
Referring the exclusions and resolutions OF sec ion
IL OF the the opinion points to tho fact that tho
opinion Of Judge Raynor IN the case 81, Benjamin
West vs. United States, passed upon tho question
whence the demurrer OF tho counsel OF the United
States overrued and the right OF unnaturalzed
foreigner protection In tho premises and to recover
for any sustained and proved fully stated In
the sy llabus IS was heidi
That the provision ssction I'D embraced all Persons
or except subjects OF Great Britain who
he'd to be excluded on other grounds
The opinion then refers ut length in complimentary
terms to reasoning the former OPINION delivered
by Judge Raynor IN the West case, and says
since that decision. which WAS pronounced at very
Sse passed. upon in which the claimants we're of
birth not na.aranea and in every case this Court
showed loss under tho provisions Of tho act except
No after the place resi-
i hs on !"
destroyed by the cruisers, have given him judy
be showed that did during the rebellion
sistent with the true allegiance.
The case OF 10 Vols United States was also
fcrred to. Le Vols born In France; was member
OF \ firm in New Orleans; never was naturaized had
that tnic resided In Paris; associated with one
vidol and atterward with one Nation, IN business III
New orleans during tho rebellion and during which tho
house made shipment OF goods TO New Orleans, which
were deslroyed by one OF the Confederate cruisers
Nation bong dead, Ie vois made claim as surviving
mariner the case was heard aud first dismissed on
The ground that the disoya OF his partner vdo
impusble to him. rohcaring and further proof
showed that lie vois did no disoyai act and that lac
responsible Tor the acts OF Vdo and the Court
acting upon the doctrine IN the case OF West gave him
judgment
recognizes difference Restatng the view taken OF
the exclusions OF the twelfth section the Court says
The claimant is excluded unless he was at the time Of
the premises and all times during the rsoe
lion ALLEGIANCE TO the United States
Alter further celebrating upon the restrictions against
British Subjects contained IN the twelfth section, the
opinion says
Constituting this clause connection with the part that
shall be made In favor OF VINO was not snttled 70
me Il British 70 a' II and asn. 81 the
ay and that he entitled 80 such protection
Il be At any time turing the rebellion was guilty any
breach Of true TO the United states he shall NOS
recover in this court
The opinion then proceeds TO show that Meyer
not British subject. that he never naturazcd IN
England that the quaned naturalization which hc OBJ
tanned British India only entitled him TO certain priv
icges that colony, and that he did not resume his
allegiance In his native country.
the opnlon then cites Chief Justice Cockburn AZ 10
She effects of naturalization In the British Dominions.
showing that IN Meyers case, upon his return 70 h's
country his original nationality would waive, and
that in OF he might bear arms against Her
Majesty mourning the quit o. treason. Quot
ing rom the result OF the deliberations OF commits
appointed by Parliament composed Of sucn learned
pubcists Sir Robert PhcIlmore, Sir Rounded Pal
fncr and Montague Bernard the opinion says colonial
naturalization coners rights OF nationality beyond
the units OF the colony granting NATURALIZATION" and
closes a lolows:-
These citations fully sustain tho foregoing eoncu
legal Of Meyer ana do not think
within the principle upon which have dcemed
British subjects excluded from the benefits Of
ths hich We therefore OF tue opn-
entitled the loss which
they have proved.
Judgments the claimants for $24 7S6 40. with in
terest from December ~, 1868
A DISSENTING OPINION
Judge Raynor disseuts from the opinion OF the
Court with considerable sharpness and determined
reasoning, and takes the ground that tho west