Upon this question Mr. Commissioner Frazer held that any provision made for the payment of such claims to citizens was not in discharge of an obligation imposed by the public law, but was a matter of favor, and could carry with it no obligation on the part of the Government of the United States to extend like compensation to others not embraced within the class which it had selected.

In the case, however, of John Kater, No. 19, claimant was allowed for two horses taken by Sheridan's army on its raid through the valley of Virginia in August, 1864, all the commissioners joining in this award, General Sheridan's order of August 16,1864, directing the seizure of mules, horses, and cattle for the use of the Army, having in effect promised compensation for such property to loyal citizens.

In the case of Henry Henderson, No. 41, the claim was for 112 bales of cotton seized by the United States military forces under orders of General Banks, on plantations in the State of Louisiana, outside of the Federal lines, carried to Port Hudson, and there used in the breast works of the besieging army of General Banks for the reduction of that post. On the part of the United States it was claimed that this was a taking of enemy's property within the enemy's country for strictly military use, justified by the laws of war, and for which the United States were not liable to make compensation, the claimant being permanently domiciled in the enemy's country, and subject to the same treatment as other enemies. The claim was allowed by the majority of the commission, Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting and placing on the records of the commission a dissenting opinion, a copy of which will be found in the appendix, F.

c. Claims for property alleged to have been taken and appropriated by the United States forces within the enemy's country, not appearing to have been taken under any regular requisition or order for military use, or by command of any authorized officer.

These claims were numerous and of great variety in regard to the circumstances of the alleged taking. It is somewhat difficult to draw the precise line of distinction by which the majority of the commission were guided in their decisions. It may, perhaps, be said generally that the commission (Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting) made awards in favor of the claimant whenever it appeared by satisfactory evidence that the property so taken was a legitimate subject of military use and was actually applied to military uses, even though such application was not made through the regular and ordinary channels. On the other hand, where the property was in its nature not a proper subject of military use, or, being such, was not applied to military use, or where the taking appeared to be mere acts of unauthorized pillage or marauding, the claims were disallowed.

In the case of Thomas Stirling, No. 12, were included as well claims for property destroyed by the United States Army in its marches and encampments in the State of Virginia, as for horses, carriages, cattle, hogs, flour, corn, and bacon alleged to have been taken and carried off by the soldiers. The proofs showed nothing beyond the disappearance of the property in the presence of the United States Army. The decision of the commission, in which all the commissioners joined, was made in the following words:

The acts done upon which this claim is based seem to have been the ordinary results incident to the march of an invading army in a hostile territory, with possibly some unauthorized acts of destruction and pillage by the soldiery, with no proof of appropriation by the United States. Under such circumstances there is no ground for a valid claim against the United States. The claim is, therefore, disallowed.

In the case of the Misses Hayes, No. 100, milliners, at Jackson, Miss., a claim was made for a stock of millinery goods and like property, alleged to have been taken by soldiers of the United States Army on the first capture of Jackson, in May, 1863. The acts complained of appeared, if committed by United States soldiers, to have been acts of pillage merely, and the claim was unanimously disallowed.

In the cases of Michael Grace, No. 132, Elizabeth Bostock, No. 133, Thomas McMahon, No. 136, and others, at Savannah, being claims for property alleged to have been taken and appropriated by United States soldiers, the same appeared to have been by acts of unauthorized pillage, and were rejected.

In the cases of Bridget Lavell, No. 130, Ann O'Hara, No. 135, William H. Bennett, No. 137, and William Cleary, No. 220, at Savannah, awards were made, Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting, for property taken by the United States forces, though without proof of the intervention of an authorized officer, the property being in the nature of commissary's and quartermaster's supplies, applicable to the proper use of the Army, and actually, though perhaps irregularly, appropriated to Army use.

In the case of David Jacobs, No. 236, large claims were made for watches, jewelry, silks, and other valuable goods, liquors and tobacco, alleged to have been taken by General Sherman's army at Columbia, on the capture of that city, as well as for the destruction of other property by the burning of that city.

An award was made, Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting, for the tobacco taken from this claimant, on proof that it was carried off in Army wagons, tobacco being allowed as an Army ration. All the other claims for property taken from this claimant were disallowed.

In the case of Watkins and Donnelly, administrators, No. 329, an award was made against the United States, in which all the commis

sioners joined, for property pillaged by United States soldiers in the night from a country store in Missouri, a State not in insurrection, upon proof showing great neglect of discipline on the part of Colonel Jennison, the commanding officer, and his neglect and refusal to take any steps for the surrender of the stolen property or the punishment of the offenders when notified of the facts, and that a part, at least, of the stolen property was then in possession of his troops.

d. Claims for the use and occupation of lands and buildings within the loyal portions of the United States, or within those portions of the insurrectionary States permanently reclaimed by the United States, and for damages resulting from such use and occupation.

In the case of James Crutchett, No. 4, claim was made for the use and occupation of a factory building of the claimant in the city of Washington, which was from July, 1861, to the end of the war, occupied by the United States as barracks, quarters, and offices for troops and officers, and also for large resulting damages to the claimant's business by this occupation of the buildings and removal of the machinery, &c.

The proofs showed that the premises were taken possession of by the United States under the right of eminent domain for military use, and that partial payments of the rent had been made to the claimant, who had been for many years domiciled in the city of Washington.

The counsel of the United States filed a demurrer to the memorial, specifying, among other grounds, that the claimant and his property, thus domiciled and situated, were subject to the exercise of the right of eminent domain over the property by the United States; and that for the exercise of such right and the occupation of the property, full compensation could be had by the claimant under the municipal laws and authority of the United States; and that such acts were, therefore, not the subject of international reclamation.

On the argument of the demurrer the counsel for the United States contended that the claimant, domiciled within the United States, was subject to all the burdens and liabilities of other inhabitants of those States, and could claim no better position or superior rights in regard to the United States than a native-born or naturalized citizen of those States. That for the occupation of his premises he was entitled, under the Constitution of the United States, to compensation, and that the Court of Claims had full jurisdiction of the case, and could have afforded him full redress.

The counsel cited the letter of Earl Granville to Mr. Stewart, (No. 23 of parliamentary papers, No. 4, on the Franco-German war, 1871, British state papers;) Professor Bernard's "Neutrality of Great Britain," &c., pp. 440, 454; also, the note of Mr. Abbott (Lord Tenterden) relating to this identical claim of Mr. Crutchett, id., 456; also, the case of William

Cook before the commissioners under the convention of 1853 between the United States and Great Britain, (United States Senate documents, first and second sessions Thirty-fourth Congress, vol. 15, No. 103, pp. 169, 463;) also, the case of the United States vs. O'Keeffe, in the Supreme Court of the United States, (11 Wall., 178;) and the cases of Waters, (4 C. Cls. Rep., 390;) Russell, (5 id., 120;) Filor vs. United States, (9 Wall., 45;) also, Campbell's case, (5 C. Cls. Rep., 252;) and Provine's case, (id., 455.)

On the part of the claimant it was contended that, while the claimant was entitled to compensation for the use of his property under the Constitution of the United States, the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims in the case was taken away by the act of Congress of July 4, 1864, (13 Stat at L., 381,) citing Filor vs. United States, (9 Wall., 45.)

The demurrer was overruled, and an award was subsequently made in favor of the claimant for the value of the use and occupation, in which all the commissioners joined.

The case of William H. Lane, No. 9, was a claim for occupation by the United States of a building of the claimant in Memphis, in 1864; that of Eleanor W. Turner, No. 34, was a claim for like occupation of a house in New Orleans by the United States military authorities; and that of Eliza B. Nelson, No. 140, was a claim for like occupation of a building at Helena, Ark; all said occupations being while the respect. ive places were permanently held by the United States. Awards were made in favor of the claimant in each case, Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting in Nos. 34 and 140.

e. Claims for property taken under the abandoned and captured property act of March 12, 1863, (12 Stat. at L., 820.)

This act provided in effect for the turning over of property captured or seized as abandoned by the military and naval authorities of the United States to agents, to be appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury, for the sale of such property, and the yment of the proceeds into the Treasury; and provided that the owner of such property might, within two years after the suppression of the rebellion, bring suit for the pro. ceeds in the Court of Claims, and, on proof of his ownership and right to the proceeds, and that he had never given aid or comfort to the rebellion, should be entitled to recover the net proceeds. The act was undoubtedly intended to apply particularly to cotton and the other staple products of the Southern States. To such products only it was in practice applied.

Many claims were brought before the commission for property, principally cotton, taken under this act. Most of the claims thus brought had been prosecuted in the Court of Claims, some of which were still pending in that court; some were pending on appeal in the

Supreme Court; in some the Court of Claims had given judgment in favor of the claimants for the net proceeds, the claimants now claiming here that such amount was less than the full value of their property, to which they claimed themselves entitled; and in some judgment had gone against the claimant in the Court of Claims, and no appeal had been taken. In some cases the claimants were domiciled within the insurrectionary States, and in others within the British dominions. In a few cases no suit had been prosecuted in the Court of Claims. The agent of the United States interposed demurrers in several cases, including all the different classes above named.

On the argument it was contended for the United States that the right of capture, by a belligerent, of private enemy's property on land was permitted by the laws of war; that that right was specially applicable to the case of a great staple like cotton, upon which the enemy principally depended for his military and naval supplies, and for his credit and means to carry on the war; that by the abandoned and captured property act of 12th March, 1863, the United States had in no respect abandoned or waived this right, but that that act constituted merely an act of grace in favor of individuals who might show themselves personally free from complicity with the rebellion; that under that act neutral aliens stood upon the same footing with loyal citizens, and were entitled to the same rights given to such citizens by the act, and subject only to the same disabilities; that the owner of property thus captured within the enemy's country had no right of reclamation against the United States, except that given by the act, and that that remedy must be pursued in the form given, and before the tribunal specified in the act.

He cited Vattel, book 3, c. 9, §§ 161, 163, 164; Twiss, vol. 2, (war,) pp. 122 to 124; Rutherforth, book 2, c. 9, § 16; Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wall., 404; the United States vs. Padelford, 9 id., 531; the United States vs. O'Keeffe, 11 id., 178; 1 Kent's Com., pp. 92, 93.

On the part of Her Majesty's counsel representing the claimants, it was contended

1. That the personal property of the inhabitants of the insurrectionary States whether citizens or aliens, neither by its locality nor by its character as product of the soil, was the lawful subject of capture as prize and booty of war.

2. That in this respect the article of cotton is not distinguishable from other property. 3. That the Government of the United States has never claimed or asserted title to such personal property as prize and booty of war, but, on the contrary, by legislation has impliedly disclaimed such title.

4. That the property for the destruction or appropriation of which these claimants demand indemnity never ceased to be their property, but continued such, notwithstanding the fact of war and the fact of seizure or appropriation by the military authorities of the United States.

5. That their right to be indemnified for such seizure or appropriation does not depend in any degree upon any municipal legislation of the United States either recognizing the right or providing a remedy complete or partial, but rests upon principles of the public law, recognized as well by the United States as by all other civilized nations.