remained within the enemy's country during two years of the war, was one which the United States might lawfully prevent or punish, and that their sending him back into the enemy's country, from which he came, was an act permitted by public law.

The commission disallowed the claim, Mr. Commissioner Gurney dissenting.

In the case of William Ashton, No. 325, the claimant, until then domiciled in the State of South Carolina, in February, 1863, came north through the Federal lines under a pass from the confederate General Lee, and while crossing the Potomac River into the State of Maryland was arrested by the naval patrol, on the 7th February, 1863. He was taken to Washington, there detained until the 11th May, 1863, and then sent back through the lines into the enemy's country.

On the part of the United States it was contended that the case was parallel with that of Bevitt, above reported, and that the arrest, detention, and return of the claimant were lawful acts under the recognized laws of war.

The commission awarded to him the sum of $6,000, Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting.

The undersigned finds difficulty in reconciling the decision of the commission in this case with that in the case of Bevitt. It may be noted, however, that Bevitt was detained but twenty days before being sent back, while Ashton was detained three months and four days.

In the case of Thomas Barry, No. 127, the claimant, domiciled at New Orleans, alleged that, on the 15th March, 1864, he was arrested without any cause or provocation, but arbitrarily and maliciously, by a provostmarshal under the orders of General Banks, then in command of the department; was committed to the parish prison, there confined for ten weeks, and then released on giving a bond conditioned that he should report daily to the provost-marshal in the city of New Orleans. That he continued so to report until the 31st December, 1864, when the bond was cancelled and the claimant fully discharged. He claimed damages $50,000. The proofs showed that he was arrested in the act of clandestinely and in disguise attempting to pass from New Orleans through the lines into the enemy's country, having upon his person letters to residents within the enemy's lines, and carrying confederate money-the use of which was forbidden by the Federal authorities. That only two months before he had perpetrated the same offence in the same disguise; had visited many places within the enemy's lines, and had returned into the Federal lines in the same clandestine manner. Before his arrest he had applied for permits to go within the confederate lines for the alleged purpose of looking up and bringing back cotton alleged to have been owned by him; but such permission had been refused.

The claim was unanimously disallowed.

In the case of Henry Glover, No. 134, the claimant, a resident of the State of Georgia, was, in November, 1864, in company with a companion, in Jones County, Georgia, within the enemy's territory, overtaken by a detachment of cavalry from the corps of General Kilpatrick, forming a part of the flanking force of General Sherman's army in the march from Atlanta to Savannah. His companion fled and was fired upon; claimant waited, was arrested and detained for twenty-four hours, when he was discharged, it appearing that he was a civilian and a British subject.

His claim was disallowed, all the commissioners agreeing.

The case of Thomas H. Facer, No. 203, was similar in character to that of Glover, and was disallowed in like manner.

In the case of the administrators of James Syme, No. 139, it appeared that the decedent had been for many years domiciled at New Orleans, and there carrying on a large trade as a wholesale and retail druggist; that on the 28th August, 1862, he was arrested and taken before MajorGeneral Butler, then in command of the Department of the Gulf, and there arraigned on charges styled in the memorial "false, wicked, and malicious," to the effect that he had aided and abetted the so-called confederates by the shipment of sulphur, drugs, and medicines into their lines, and that he had violated his neutrality. General Butler, being satisfied of the truth of the charges, condemned him, without the intervention of any court or military tribunal, to be imprisoned at Fort Pickens for three years at hard labor with ball and chain; the ball and chain were, however, within a few days, and before the commencement of execution of the order, remitted. He was detained in confinement at New Orleans for about six weeks; then sent under guard to Fort Pickens, in Pensacola Harbor, Florida, and there confined until about the 1st March, 1863, when he was brought back to New Orleans, and there detained during an investigation by a military commission, which reported him not guilty of the charges upon which he was imprisoned. Pending the proceedings of this commission he was discharged from confinement by order of General Banks, who had succeeded General Butler in command, on giving a bond, with surety, in the sum of $20,000, conditioned for his appearance on requirement by the Government. Upon the report of the commission the bond was canceled August 28, 1863. At the same time with his arrest his drug-store and contents, in New Orleans, were seized and appropriated to the use of the United States, and remained in their possession until about the 1st May, 1864, when the store, with so much of the stock of drugs, &c., as had not been used, was surrendered to his possession by order of the War Department.

A large amount of testimony was taken on both sides upon the question of his guilt or innocence of the charges on which he was imprisoned.

On the part of the United States, it was also proved that the decedent, in November, 1861, and again in March, 1862, had accepted commissions as surgeon-first with the rank of captain, and afterwards with the rank of major-in the battalion of the Louisiana State militia designated as the British Fusiliers; that this battalion was a regularly organized portion of the State militia of the rebel State of Louisiana, but was organized under the reservation that its members should be required to serve only within the limits of the city of New Orleans; that, on the acceptance of these commissions, the decedent was required by law to take, and did take, an oath faithfully to discharge the duties of the office to which he had been appointed, and to support, protect, and defend the constitution of the State of Louisiana and of the Confederate States; that at the time of accepting these commissions, respectively, the decedent was above the age of forty-five years, and was exempt by the laws of the State of Louisiana from militia service, by reason of age, even if otherwise liable by reason of nationality or domicile. Evidence was also given on the part of the United States to the effect that Dr. Syme, shortly after the occupation of New Orleans by the Federal forces, refused to sell medical and surgical supplies to medical officers of the United States Army. Dr. Syme died in January, 1872, before the filing of the memorial, leaving a widow and one son entitled to inherit his estate, both born within the United States and always domiciled there. On the part of the United States it was contended that by the acceptance of these commissions and the taking of the oaths above recited, Dr. Syme had deprived himself of the condition of a neutral alien and assumed the character of an enemy of the United States, and was not entitled to a standing as a British subject under the treaty; that the proofs fully sustained the charges upon which he was condemned by General Butler; that if any doubt existed upon the proofs now before the commission as to the truth of those charges, the evidence before General Butler and upon which he acted was certainly sufficient to sustain his finding and to justify the condemnation pronounced by him upon the proofs before him; that as military commander of a captured city within the enemy's country, then strictly and solely under military government, General Butler was vested with full authority to administer military law, either in person or through military courts and tribunals organized under his order; that the offense of which he found Dr. Syme guilty was a crime under military law of a high grade, and justifying the sentence pronounced upon him. The memorial claimed damages for the arrest and imprisonment, $100,000; for the drugs and other property of the decedent taken and appropriated by the United States, (less the value of the amount returned,) and the rent of the store, $166,925; and damages by the breaking up of the business of the decedent, and the loss of profits which he would have derived from the business, $150,000, besides interest.

The commission (Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting) made an award

in favor of the claimants for $116,200. I am advised that this award included nothing for damages for imprisonment, but was made solely in respect of the drugs and other property taken and appropriated by the United States, and the rent of the drug-store while occupied by them. Mr. Commissioner Frazer expressed his views upon the case as follows:

Being over the military age, and exempt from military duty as a druggist also, Dr. Syme took a commission in the British Fusiliers and an oath of office to support the rebel confederacy, and evinced his hostility further, as I deem the weight of the evidence to show, by refusing to sell goods to the United States after New Orleans fell into Federal possession. This made him an actual enemy, and he could have no standing to prosecute a claim before this commission. The beneficiaries-his wife and childhave none, because they are Americans. His condemnation by General Butler was upon what appeared at the time to be satisfactory evidence, though it was subsequently shown before the military commission, organized under the order of General Banks, that he was probably innocent of the charges upon which he was arrested. He was restored to liberty as soon as an investigation could conveniently be had; and what remained unconsumed of his confiscated goods was also restored, together with the possession of his building.

In so much of this opinion of Mr. Commissioner Frazer as relates to the sufficiency of the evidence upon which General Butler acted to sustain his finding and sentence, and as relates to the probable actual innocence of Dr. Syme as appearing before the commission, I am advised that the majority of the commission concurred.

In the case of William B. Booth, No. 143, a claim was made for $56,000 damages for the alleged wrongful arrest of the claimant in the neighborhood of Fort Jackson, Louisiana, and subsequent imprisonment. He was arrested by United States soldiers on the 8th August, 1862, taken to Fort Jackson, and there confined till the 28th August; then sent to Fort Pickens, Pensacola Harbor, and there confined till the 15th August, 1863; then taken back to New Orleans and detained till the 26th August, 1863, when he was unconditionally released.

Previous to his arrest, Dr. Booth, who resided in Louisiana, two miles from the forts and outside the lines of military occupation by the United States, had been on the request of Dr. Gordon, the surgeon of the forts, visiting and prescribing for the prisoners and Federal soldiers at the forts. Gen. Neal Dow, the commander, learning the fact, had notified him that he could not be permitted to visit the forts without taking the oath of allegiance, or giving his parole of honor not to communicate information to the enemy. Dr. Booth declined to do either of these things. After his arrest he still continued his refusal to give the required parole, and, persisting in his refusal, General Dow ordered his transfer to Fort Pickens and his detention there. At this time Forts Jackson and Saint Philip, lying on the opposite banks of the Mississippi some one hundred miles or more below the city of New Orleans, were occupied by a United States force of about six hundred soldiers, and about the same number of liberated slaves, under the command of General Dow. The garrisons were weak, and a

large number of the troops actually there were prostrated by sickness. General Dow deemed it of the utmost importance that a knowledge of the weakness of his garrison should be kept from the enemy. The refusal of Dr. Booth to give the required parole roused the suspicions of General Dow, and when persisted in, led to his sending the claimant to Fort Pickens. During his stay at Fort Pickens, and after his retransfer thence to New Orleans, he still persisted in refusing to give the required parole, and was finally discharged, after a confinement of nearly thirteen months, unconditionally and without parole. Lord Lyons, during his confinement, in a letter to Mr. Coppell, British consul at New Orleans, stated that the required parole was deemed not unreasonable by Her Majesty's government, after consulting the law officers of the Crown.

On the part of the United States it was insisted that the arrest and detention of Dr. Booth were warranted as measures of just military precaution in regard to an enemy by domicile possessed of knowledge, the communication of which to the enemy would be highly dangerous to the United States, and who, by his refusal to give this proper and reasonable pledge, had, in the language of Lord Lyons, entitled the United States to treat him as a suspected person.

The memorial of Dr. Booth also included claims to the amount of $83,890, besides interest, for property of the claimant alleged to have been taken and appropriated by the United States.

The commission (Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting) awarded to the claimant the sum of $24,900, which award was, as I am advised, wholly in respect of property taken, aud included nothing on account of the arrest and imprisonment.

John McCann, No. 173, and John Murta, No. 195, natives of Ireland and domiciled in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, were arrested thereMcCann in September, 1863, and Murta in November, 1863-by United States troops, under authority of a provost-marshal; were taken to Fort Mifflin and there confined, McCann till March and Murta till April, 1864. The proofs showed that at the time of their arrest an organized conspiracy existed in Luzerne County and vicinity to resist the Federal draft for troops; that great violence was used against Federal officers; that open defiance of the Federal authority was made in public meet. ings of the mining population; that loyal citizens sustaining the Government had been assassinated, and measures had been adopted to ambuscade and massacre Federal troops, should they be sent there to enforce the draft; that the principal disturbing element in this conspiracy was the Irish Catholic miners; that not only secret associations were formed, but public meetings were openly held for the avowed purpose of stopping the mines and thus stopping the war; that a large number of persons regarded as the ringleaders and most dangerous persons in this movement were arrested, and among them these two claimants. No proof was made of the complicity of either of the claim