An award was made in favor of the claimant for $1,540, in which all the commissioners joined.

In the case of Susan B. Jackson, No. 255, the claimant, in behalf of herself and her four minor children, claimed damages for the arrest of John Jackson, the husband of the claimant, at Kuoxville, Tenn., and his banishment within the enemy's lines, with his family, in January, 1864. It appeared that Dr. Jackson, the husband, had been a resident of Knoxville for some years and until after the breaking out of the war; that he had sent his family to England in August, 1861, and himself followed them in June, 1862; that he returned to New York in October, 1862, and in January, 1863, having obtained the proper permission, returned to Knoxville for the alleged purpose of disposing of his property there. Instead of disposing of his property he remained at Knoxville, and there entered into trade. Both before his departure for England and after his return, in 1863, he had been an open and active sympathizer with the rebellion, denouncing the United States Government and encouraging and aiding the rebels down to the surrender of Knoxville to the United States forces in September, 1863. Evidence was also given on the part of the United States showing conduct evincing a hostile spirit toward the United States Government. On the 29th January, 1864, the following notice was addressed to him by General Foster's provost-marshal:

Owing to your persistent disloyalty to the Government of the United States, it has been decided to send you and your family south of the Federal lines. You will, therefore, be prepared to start on receiving further notice.

The further notice was served on the 30th January, requiring him to be ready to depart on the 3d February, on which day Jackson and his family were sent through the rebel lines under a flag of truce.

An award was made in favor of the claimant in respect of property of her own appropriated to the use of the United States, but including nothing by reason of the arrest and banishment complained of.

Joseph M. P. Nolan, No. 272, was arrested by the military provostmarshal at Saint Louis, Mo., in October, 1861, on the charge of disloy alty to the United States, and of having written a letter to an alleged. enemy of the United States in Canada, giving information as to military movements. He was detained in prison at Saint Louis till June, 1862, then transferred to the military prison at Alton, Ill., and there detained till August, 1863, when he was finally discharged. His release was offered him in December, 1861, and on one or two other occasions, on his giving his parole to do no act unfriendly to the United States. This parole he refused to give. Great and unnecessary hardships in connection with his confinement were alleged on the part of the claimant; and the proof conclusively showed that the prison in which he was confined at Alton was wholly unfit in its appointments and sanitary

condition for the confinement of prisoners, especially for the large num ber there confined; and that at times the treatment of the prisoners, including the claimant, was harsh and cruel.

An award was made in favor of the claimant for $8,000, all the com mission joining. I am advised that the majority of the commission, at least, held the original arrest of the claimant and his reasonable detention justified; but that his long confinement and improper treatment during it were not justified.

In the case of Mary Nolan, No. 273, the claimant alleged that she was arrested at Saint Louis by a detective in the employ of the United States authorities in September, 1864; taken before the provost-marshal at Saint Louis, and committed by him to the Chestnut-street prison, where she was detained for an entire day; and that she was there subjected to improper treatment. She claimed damages $10,000. The evidence in her case showed that she was brought before the provost-marshal, apparently upon a subpoena, to testify in a case before him; that she refused to testify, and defied and insulted the officer, who committed her to the city prison, where she was detained for nine or ten hours. Her allegations of improper treatment were not sustained. The com. mission unanimously disallowed her claim.

In the case of John F. Parr, No. 285, the claimant, a resident of Nash ville, Tenn., then in possession of the rebel forces, passed through the lines into Indiana, and thence to Buffalo, N. Y., in October, 1861. He went thence to New York City, where he bought some clothing, shoes, medicines, and other goods, and returned thence to Buffalo, where he was arrested immediately on his arrival, on the 20th of October; he was taken to Fort Lafayette in New York Harbor, there confined for about four months, and was finally discharged in February, 1862, without a trial.

An award was made in his favor for $4,800, in which all the commissioners joined. I am advised that the award proceeded on the ground that though his original arrest and reasonable detention were lawful, his detention for four months without trial was held not justified.

In the case of Richard Hall, No. 318, the claimant was arrested in Marylaud, on the 6th of March, 1864; was brought before a military commission on the charge of having unlawfully passed from the loyal States through the Federal and confederate military lines into the State of Virginia, and there held illegal intercourse with the enemies of the United States, and then returned through the lines in the same manner. The military commission found him guilty of the offence charged, and sentenced him to imprisonment in Fort McHenry, Maryland, for the term of four months, and to pay a fine of $6,000, and to be imprisoned until the fine should be paid. He was accordingly imprisoned for the four months, and for twenty days thereafter, when he paid the $6,000 and was released.

On the part of the claimant it was alleged that his visit to Virginia was without unlawful intent and for innocent and social purposes. This allegation was answered on the part of the United States by proof that the claimant took orders from the confederate military authorities at Richmond for military supplies, which he undertook to purchase for them, and that he returned through the lines with the purpose of executing such orders. The counsel for the claimant claimed that the military commission was without jurisdiction, citing the case of Milligan, (4 Wall., 2.) The counsel of the United States claimed that the offence was purely a military one and cognizable by the military tribunals under the Articles of War.

The commission (Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting) made an award in favor of the claimant for $2,981. I am advised that this amount was made up of the sum of $5,000, part of the fine of $6,000 imposed, which the commission deemed excessive, reduced from United States currency in which it was paid to gold, and interest added to make up the amount of the award.

In the case of Llewellyn Crowther, No. 362, the claimant was arrested in Baltimore in July, 1863, taken before Colonel Fish, then provost marshal there, and detained in confinement at the Gilmore House for about eight hours. The arrest grew out of a quarrel between the claimant and two other persons at a hotel in Baltimore, of which complaint was made to Colonel Fish, and the claimant was charged with using seditious and disloyal language. He alleged that Colonel Fish, on the arraignment of the claimant before him, used language abusively and indecently violent toward him and toward his country and Queen. He claimed damages $10,000, and the commission unanimously awarded him the sum of $100.

In the case of John M. Vernon, No. 364, the claimant alleged that he had always been domiciled in England, the country of his nativity. It appeared, however, that he had resided in the United States most of the time since 1849, and had been there engaged in trade. He was in Europe at the breaking out of the war, but returned to the United States in June, 1851, and thence passed into the confederacy, remaining there, with the exception of a temporary absence in the latter part of 1861, till January, 1863.

He alleged that he had always maintained his neutrality between the United States and the confederate government; that in January, 1863, he sailed from the port of Charleston in the steamer Huntress, owned by himself and laden with cotton, principally owned by himself, for Nassau, N. P.; succeeded in passing out through the blockade, but on the day after his departure, and upon the high seas between Charleston and Nassau, the steamer took fire and was destroyed, the claimant with the master and crew escaping in two ship's boats. These boats were picked up by a

United States war-vessel on the ocean, on the 18th Jauuary, and the claimant was carried to Hilton Head, S. C., there transferred to another vessel, carried to New York, examined before the United States marshal there, and committed to Fort Lafayette, in New York Harbor, in which fort, and afterwards in Fort Warren, Boston Harbor, he was kept confined till October, 1865, when he was released upon his written pledge that be would "sail from Boston, Mass., by the earliest opportunity, and leave the United States of America, not to return without the special permission of the President thereof."

He alleged large losses resulting from his imprisonment, by the waste and destruction of his property in the Southern States during his imprisonment, and in consequence of his business being deprived of his personal attention; and claimed damages, in all, to the amount of £338,133. The proofs on the part of the United States showed that, up to his departure from Charleston, in July, 1863, he had been largely and actively engaged in rendering aid to the confederate government in its war against the United States; that he individually, and as a partner in the firms of Vernon & Co., and Vernon, James & Co., had entered into large contracts with the confederate government for the supply of arms, ammunition, and military supplies, including twelve large rifled cannon, and large quantities of gun-barrels, rifles, pistols, powder, army clothing, shoes, blankets, &c.; that he had been engaged in the manufacture of arms during the war, at Wilmington, N. C., for the benefit of the confederate government. At the time of his capture some of his contracts were found upon him; these contracts also granting to his firm, on the part of the confederate government, certain privileges of purchasing cotton and tobacco, and transporting the same without hindrance, and exporting them to all ports except those of the United States, with convoy if desired. Correspondence ensued between Lord Lyons, Her Majesty's minister at Washington, and Mr. Seward, the Secretary of State of the United States; and upon submission to Her Majesty's legation of the proofs found upon the person of the claimant further intervention in his behalf was declined.

Mr. Stuart, then Her Majesty's acting minister at Washington, on the 23d September, 1863, addressed to Mr. Vernon the following letter:

SIR: I beg to inform you, in reply to your letter of the 19th instant, that I lately received a dispatch from Earl Russell, stating that your case had been fully considered by Her Majesty's government in communication with the law advisers of the Crown. It appears to Her Majesty's government, judging by the evidence produced, that you are a born British subject, and it does not appear that you have obtained naturalization in the United States, or exercised political privileges as a citizen.

But taking other circumstances into consideration, and more particularly that you have identified yourself in the strongest manner with the fortunes of the so-called Confederate States, and that you were, when taken, actually engaged in rendering material assistance to the government of these States, although deriving a commercial profit from so doing, Her Majesty's government are of opinion that the United States Government are justified in treating you as a de facto belligerent.

The evidence, moreover, shows that although, during a residence of twenty-three

years in the Southern States, you paid occasional visits to England, you had no intention of returning to permanent residence in your native country, and that you were practically and de facto a willing citizen of the Confederate States, engaged in equip

ping their army.

Her Majesty's government, therefore, consider, under the circumstances, your release cannot be claimed as a matter of right merely because you were born a British subject, but Earl Russell desires that Her Majesty's legation should, nevertheless, endeavor to persuade the United States Government to mitigate or shorten your captivity.

I accordingly represented to the Secretary of State, on the 10th instaut, that it would be a gratification to Her Majesty's government to learn that your captivity had been mitigated or shortened through the clemency of the United States Government, and your case is consequently again under consideration.

From that time forth Her Majesty's government uniformly and consistently declined any international interference for the protection of Mr. Vernon, and disclaimed all pretence of right to intervene in his behalf. Sir Frederick Bruce, then Her Majesty's minister at Washington, as late as 24th October, 1865, said in a letter to Mr. Vernon, in response to an application from him: "My instructions prohibit my interfering in your behalf."

A labored argument was filed on behalf of the claimant, by which it was contended that the imprisonment of the claimant without trial was utterly unjustifiable; that it was prolonged in a manner never contemplated by the British authorities; that while under restraint his treatment was inde fensible, and that the order of banishment from the United States, and the subsequent refusal to revoke it, were outrages against all law and justice. That the decision of Her Majesty's government, justifying the treatment of the claimant by the United States Government as a de facto belligerent, was erroneous; that the condition of the claimant, at the time of his capture, was that of a neutral alien engaged in commercial transactions only with the confederate government, and that such transactions were not criminal and did not deprive him of his neutral character. That even if he had previously been an enemy by domicile, he had, when he embarked from Charleston on the Huntress, left the country of his former domicile without the intention of returning, and his native domicile, native allegiance, and native status had thereupon instantly reverted to him, and that the decision of Her Majesty's gov ernment, justifying his detention by the United States, and refusing to intervene in his behalf, could not be taken as prejudicing the claimant's individual right to reclamation under the rules of international law. The counsel for the claimant cited, in support of these propositions, the following authorities: 4 Blackstone's Com., 76; Halleck's Law of War, c. 29, § 3, p. 695; 2 Kent's Com., 49; Inglis v. The Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet., 99; Vattel, lib. 1, c. 12, § 218; 2 Brown Civ. & Adm. law, c. 7, p. 327; The Venus, 8 Cranch, 278; The cases of Adlam, No. 40; Doyle, No. 46, and Tongue, No. 49, decided by this commission; Calvin's case, 7 Coke; Gardner's Inst. Int. Law, pp. 448, 489; Livingston v. Maryland Ins. Co., 1 Cranch, 542; Wheaton's Elements, part 4, c. 1, pp. 561 to