ants with the actual resistance to the draft or violation of law; but Murta was shown to have been a member of the organization known as the "Knights of the Golden Circle," created to oppose the draft and aid the rebellion. Neither of the claimants was ever brought to trial. In the case of McCann an award was made in favor of the claimant for $3,000, in which all the commissioners joined. In the case of Murta an award was made for $1,200, Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting.

In the case of Thomas Riley, No. 192, the claimant, a resident of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, was drafted into the United States military service in November, 1863, was taken to Philadelphia and there held in the United States military barracks for about six weeks, when he was taken sick and sent to the hospital, and there remained confined by disease till the 6th of April, 1864, when he was discharged by the War Department, through the intervention of Lord Lyons, as being a subject of Great Britain, having received his pay as a soldier for the time during which he was held.

On the part of the United States it was contended that he was held simply in consequence of his failure to comply with the regulations of the provost-marshal's department in regard to showing proof of alienage. The case showed, however, that the proofs of his alienage were submitted by Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward in November, 1863, within a few days after his arrest, and his discharge was not ordered till about four months after.

The commission unanimously awarded him the sum of $500.

Edward McCabe, No. 197, was drafted into the military service of the United States in Queens County, New York, in September, 1863. He appeared before the enrolling-board and claimed exemption; was informed of the regulation prescribing the method of making the necessary proof; was given time to file it, but failing to do so was arrested by order of the provost-marshal and detained for two days, when, having furnished the necessary proof, he was discharged.

The commission unanimously disallowed his claim.

Patrick J. O'Mulligan, No. 476, was drafted in Cayuga County, New York, in October, 1863. He appeared before the board of enrollment. and claimed exemption as a British subject, but failed to comply with the regulations for the proof of alienage. He was detained for twentyfour hours, and on physical examination by the surgeon was found unfit for military service and was discharged. For these grievances he claimed the sum of $800,000, besides interest.

His claim was unanimously disallowed.

In the case of Mary Sophia Hill, No. 198, the claimant, a native of Ireland, was domiciled during the rebellion and for many years before in New Orleans. At the time of the capture of New Orleans by the

Federal forces in 1862, she was in attendance on the confederate hospitals in Virginia, but shortly after returned to New Orleans under a proper pass. In 1863 she went to Ireland, and returned to New Orleans, taking the oath of neutrality on landing. She again left New Orleans in the fall of 1863 under a pass and went to Virginia, where she remained for five months "rendering assistance in the hospitals and to prisoners by means of flags of truce." In 1864 she returned to New Orleans, and having no pass was arrested and detained in prison for two days; when, having satisfied the provost-marshal that she was a British subject, she was released on bail. After her discharge and while sick she alleged that she was called upon by a woman who gave the name of Ellen Williams, and gave her a note purporting to be from Gen. Tom Taylor, an officer of the confederate service commanding a post within the confederate lines in Louisiana. This woman informed claimant that she was going through the lines into the confederacy if she could get a pass from General Banks, and offered to take letters from the claimant. Claimant gave to her a letter to General Taylor, acknowledging the receipt of his letter, and saying to him, "Communicate and state what you require, and I will do all in my power; I will be here until the end of July." She also gave to her a letter addressed to her brother, a soldier in the confederate service in Virginia, in which she denounced the "Yankees;" and said, among other things, "We have accounts of the battles in Richmond, but so hashed up to suit northern palates you can make neither head nor tail of the affair; but through my spectacles I see General Grant and his well-whipped army with their faces toward Washington and their backs to the hated city of Richmond, except those who take their summer residence at Libby. Tell the boys Banks has made a splendid commissary to Dick Taylor's army, and they were so ungrateful as also to whip him, and very badly." She also gave this woman another letter of similar character, addressed to Mrs. Graham, a person living in Montgomery, Alabama, within the lines of the confederacy.

These letters were delivered on the 20th May, 1864; and within a few days after she was arrested by an officer of the provost-marshal's bureau, committed to prison, and there detained until July, when she was brought before a military commission and tried on the charge of "holding correspondence with and giving intelligence to the enemy, in violation of the Fifty-seventh Article of War," the specifications being the written letters above named. She was found guilty of the charge except the words "and giving intelligence to ;" and was sentenced to "be confined during the war, at such place as the commanding general may direct." The proceedings and findings of the commission were approved by Major-General Hurlbut, then in command; but the sentence was so modified as to direct the claimant to be sent into the so-called confederacy as an enemy; and the provost-marshal-general was charged with the execution of the order.

At the time of her trial New Orleans was still under military government, but the United States district court had been reorganized under Judge Durell, and was in operation in that city. No State tribunals were in operation, nor any local tribunals, except under authority and permission of the military commander.

On the part of the claimant it was contended, first, that the claimant was not amenable to military jurisdiction, but must be tried, if at all, before the civil tribunals; second, that if amenable to military jurisdiction, the commission before which she was tried was not a competent tribunal; that by the Fifty-Seventh Article of War (2 Stat. at L., 366) the only military tribunal having cognizance of such an offence was a courtmartial, a tribunal distinct and different from a military commission; third, that the finding of the military commission that she was guilty of the charge except the words "and giving intelligence to," was in fact an acquittal, correspondence with the enemy without giving him intelligence not being a military offence or a violation of the article above referred to; fourth, that the commanding officer had no authority to change the punishment directed by the sentence of the court, and substitute banishment into the confederacy for imprisonment; that this substitution was not with the consent of the claimant, and was not a mitigation of punishment; fifth, that the letters were not in fact sent into the confederacy, but were delivered by the messenger to the United States military authorities in New Orleans, and that the evidence tended to prove that the pretended messenger to whom they were delivered was in fact a spy and agent of the United States.

On the part of the United States it was contended that the offence charged against the claimant was a military offence purely, not cognizable by the civil tribunals; that the claimant, domiciled in a city within the enemy's country and recently captured from the enemy, held by military power only, and governed only by military authority, was amenable to military jurisdiction; that the tribunal before which she was tried was a competent military tribunal, organized under sufficient military authority, and having jurisdiction both of the subject-matter and of the person of the claimant; that irrespective of the proceedings, finding, or sentence of the commission, the commanding general had ull authority to expel the claimant from the city and send her within the enemy's lines, on satisfactory evidence of her active sympathy with the rebellion, and of her attempt merely to communicate with the enemy, and that the modification and mitigation by the commanding general of the punishment decreed by the military tribunal was one of lawful power, and was not a matter of which the claimant could rightfully complain.

The commission gave an award in favor of the claimant for $1,560, Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting. This claimant was the same person whose original memorial (No. 8) was dismissed by the commission on account of its improper and indecorous language.

The case of Colin J. Nicolson, No. 253, may properly be reported in connection with that of Miss Hill. Nicolson, a native of Scotland, had been domiciled in New Orleans since 1852. He was arrested in that city on the 15th of September, 1864; was detained in prison till the 22d of November, 1864, when he was brought before a general courtmartial in that city and tried on the charges, first, of relieving the enemy with money, by investing money in bonds of the Confederate States and transmitting the same to England for sale there; and, second, of holding correspondence with the enemy by letters passing between himself and one Violett, an enemy of the United States, resident at Mobile; and in and by such correspondence devising means for bringing cotton out of the confederacy, and disposing of it for the joint benefit of himself and Violett, and for negotiating and selling bonds of The Confederate States. He was convicted on both charges, and was sentenced to imprisonment at Fort Jefferson, Fla., or at such other place as the commanding general should direct, for five years. The sentence was approved by General Canby, commanding, and the claimant was committed to con finement at Fort Jefferson, where he remained for about nine months, when he was pardoned by the President of the United States.

The questious involved and the doctrines maintained by the respective counsel in the case of Miss Hill were urged upon the commission in this case. The counsel for the claimant further contended that the dealing in bonds of the enemy in New Orleans and transmitting them thence to England for sale was not a "relieving of the enemy with money," or in any manner a giving of aid to the enemy, and that the correspondence of the claimant with Violett involved no aid or comfort to the enemy, gave no information to them, and constituted no military offence. He cited the first article of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain of 3d July, 1865, (8 Stat. at L.;) also Milligan's case, (4 Wall., 2;) Egan's case, (5 Blatchford, C. C. R., 320;) the Venus, (2 Wall., 259;) the Circassian, (id., 158;) the Ouachita cotton, (6 id., 531;) Coppell vs. Hall, (7 id., 542;) Thorington vs. Smith, (8 id., 12;) the Grapeshot (9 id., 129.)

The memorial claimed $500,000 damages. The claim was disallowed by the commission, Mr. Commissioner Gurney dissenting.

In the case of James McVey, No. 208, the claimant alleged that he was twice arrested. It appeared that the first arrest was within the enemy's lines, when he was detained for some four weeks to prevent his communication with the enemy. The second time he was arrested while in the act of carrying goods across the lines from the enemy's country, and was held in confinement several weeks. His claim was unanimously disallowed.

Substantially similar to this last case, in regard to the character of the arrest, were the cases of Isaac Milner, No. 207, in which an award

was made in favor of the claimant for property, but including nothing for the alleged arrest; of Samuel Simpson, No. 217, which was unanimously disallowed; of John Carew, No. 224, which was disallowed, Mr. Commissioner Gurney dissenting; of Henry F. White, No. 233, which was unanimously disallowed; and of John Gale, No. 247, in which there was an award for property, but including nothing on account of the arrest or imprisonment.

In the case of Joseph W. Scott, No. 226, the claimant, domiciled at Jacksonville, Fla., was there arrested by order of the commanding officer in November, 1864, on the charge of disloyalty, and detained in confinement for some three months. Jacksonville was an inland town, on the Saint John's River, which came into the hands of the United States forces in February, 1864, and from that time to the close of the war was occupied by them; but the rebel forces, most of the time, were within its immediate vicinity.

On the part of the United States it was insisted that the military commander was necessarily invested with absolute power for the control of the city; and that it was his duty to take such measures as should prevent inhabitants disloyally disposed from communicating with the enemy; and that nothing in the case of Mr. Scott showed an abuse of this authority.

An award was made in favor of the claimant in respect of property taken by the United States troops, but it included nothing for imprisonment.

In the case of James T. Munroe, No. 235, claimant had embarked at New Orleans in August, 1864, on board a steamer for Matamoras, Mexico, with the machinery for erecting a saw-mill at that place. The steamer was stopped at Fort Jackson on the charge of having contraband goods on board intended for Texas, brought back to New Orleans, and the claimant was there detained by the military authorities for two days on board the steamer, and for twelve hours in the military prison at that city. It appeared that, while he was in confinement, his trunk on board the steamer was broken open, either by the provostguard or in consequence of their negligence, and money, wearing ap parel, and other articles were stolen from it. On complaint made to Major-General Canby, in command of the city, an order was made by him declaring these transactions, if true, to be exceedingly discreditable to the guards, and directing the provost-marshal to take measures to bring the offenders to justice. An investigation was ordered, but the offenders did not appear to have been discovered, and no reparation was made to the claimant.

On the part of the United States it was urged that the arrest and detention were lawful and reasonable for the purpose of inquiry as to the character of the vessel, and that the United States were not liable to reclamation for the theft of the claimant's property.