National Republican., 1883-06-25

iect of tho other while sheltered by its flag
from damage done by his own sovereign.
Mason and Slidell while under tho protection
OF the British flag were despoiled of their
liberty by vessel of the United States. The
British government demanded their restora-
ti0n, and IL was conceded by the United States.
Had Mason and Slidell at the same time been
despoiled of personal property IL cannot be
doubted that the British government would
have demanded indemnity for its loss also,
and that the United States would have paid
It.
In the case at bar, John Cassidy, born in
ireland, and at tho time unnaturalized and
consequently q subject ofGreat Britain, while
lawfully sailing on the high seas, on board of
tho American bark Golden Rule, was despoiled
of his personal property and wages by the
confederate cruiser Alabama, for whose acts
Great Britain was adjudged TO be responsible.
In every essential particular the two cases
are parallel. Hence Great Britain should
havo been required to indemnify him for his
losses, aud could not without the grossest in
consistency have refused it.. 1t is therefore
reasonable to conclude that the demand made
on Great Britain by the United States was in
tended TO include all such claims as that of
John Cassidy, and that Great Britain SO un-
derstood it. And that congress, in passing
the acts Of June %, 1874 and Juno 5, 1882
directing distribution of part of this money
to the sufferers, so regarded 1t,
The supposition of tho former court, rs set
forth in the opinion cited, that If Congress
had directed the court to distribute this
money among those who had suf-
fered losses by the depredations of rebel
cruisers, other than the Alabama, Florida,
and Shenandoah, Great Britain would have
had cause to complain that sho had been
misled, over reached, and deceived" has,
perhaps beon sufficiently considered. But it
is proper TO mention that the foregoing sug-
eft hxr Ntrary nf nnt do htr
tho former court prior to the passage of the
act of June s. 1882, in which act congress has
done precisely that which, IL was supposed
by the former court, would have justly
afflicted tho sensibilities of Great Britain.
Under this act it appears TO be conceded that
claims for damage dono by confederate
cruisers other than the Alabama, the Florida,
and tho Shenandoah are admissible. Hence
If that consideration exorted controlling
influence on the judgment of tho former
court change of the law in this respect
would justify a change of opinion on tho
question at issue.
The third and last paragraph of the
opinion Of tho former court, which it is
deemed necessary to examine in this con-
nection is in these words, viz:
So far rs the proceedings at Geneva can throw
any light on the subject, there is but one case
mentioned by which we are enabled to judge as
to how the claims of British subjects for damage
done by the insurgent cruisers were regarded and
that case Is very significant as far as IL goes. We
allude to the cuse OfJohn Burns This case on its
first examination SCENE to have been summarily
rejected, or rather refused consideration John
Burns was British subject resident in Manches-
tor, England. Ills claim was on behalf of his son,
who 1t seems had entered as seaman on board
the Lafayette, u United States ship captured by
the rebel cruiser Alabama. Although # does not
Burns presented his claim as heir -at-law of his
son. The record does not state whether the son
had been naturalized In the Unlted States or not.
M etn n f,f
the claim, as given in the report of British com.
mittee appointed by the British board of trade is
as follows: las regards the claim by John Burns
for his deceased son Joseph Burns, 1t will be
enough to observe in the first place that II is ap-
parently adyacbed by British subject" Papers
Sl6.)
1t is proper to observe that this citation of
tho report of the committee appointed by the
British board of trade in relation to the case
of John Burns is imperfect. 1t was objected
to by that committee on three distinct
grounds: First, as above stated secondly, be-
cause the destruction of the Hedaspe Tor
Lafayette, as named by the former COURT
by the Alabama was not approved; thirdly,
because of its indetniteness and its improba-
biliy, the claim being for 1-1S0 part of
catch, aud no claim for the, other 179-1S0 of
catch, or for the vessel, was presented 1t
therefore appears that the committee did not
rely on the first objection as sufficient even
clude the claim.
1t may be observed, in the next place, that
said committee was totally destitute of au-
thority to adjudicate this or any other claim
presented by the United States And, more
over, it does not appear that the claim of John
Burns was ever considered by the Geneva
tribunal of arbtrators, or that they ever ad-
judicated the validity of any specific claim of
private party for damage done to his person
or property. What the arbitrators did ex-
amino and decide was, as hereinbefore stated,
the question of liability on the part of Great
Britain for the depredations of long list of
confederate cruisers They inculpated her
on account of some Of them, and exculpated
her from liability ON account of Others.
Having done this, they were authorized by
the treaty of Washington either to proceed
to award a sum in gross to be paid by Great
Britain to tho United States for all the claims
referred to it," or to report list of the vessels
for whose acts Great Britain should be held liza
BILE, and adjourn. In the latter contingency
the adjudication of the claims in detail would
have devolved on another tribunal, styled in
the treaty II "board of assessors" to consist of
three persons one to be appointed by the
president of the United States, one by her
Britannia majesty, and the third one by the
Italian minister resident at Washington. The
Geneva tribunal of arbitrators however,
adopted the former course, and awarded
BTooa sum- IloW tney uTTlVeu dJ tnO SpcClUC
amount awarded is not known, and probably
nevor will be known. But certainly it was
not by the examination of the validity and
just amount of each If all the claims in de-
tail. This would have required the presence
and examination Of thousands of Witnesses
and nono were called and the consumption
OF years Of time-and such time was not spent
Hence IL is absolutely certain that the Geneva
tribunal of arbitrators never did examine
and reject the claim of John Burns. 1t can
not, therefore, be properly cited as an ex-
preston Of the opinion of that high court on
the pending question.
Constituting the acts Of June 23 1874 and
June g. 1882, together, giving them the inter
probation which their clear and explicit Ian
guage seems to require, in the light of the adj
mitted principles ofinternntional law bearing
on tho question, supported by the published
opinions of both English and American courts
of the highest icharuCter, and in tho absence
OF any such adverse opinion, except only that
of tho former court of commissioners of Ala
bama claims under a statute which has since
been essentially changed by new legislation,
this court, after the most careful examination
and mature reflection, is brought TO the con-
clusiOn tn at subjects Of Great Britain, resid-
ing mt the time within the United States and
sailing on the high seas under the protection
OF its flag, are embraced within the beneficial
provisions of the two acts, on an equal footing
with all other resident aliens.
This conclusion is adopted by the court
with greater satisfaction because IL appears
to be in harmony with the public policy of
the United States, under which emigrants
from all the Christian nations in the world
are made TO feel, as soon as they land on our
shores, that they will be treated as friends
and will enjoy tho equal protection of our