"No. 13. Santiago Cobb Montjoy, for losses suffered in consequence of the act of the local authorities at Lambayeque in maliciously cutting off the water from his rice plantation. Montjoy was at the time a United States consul. "No. 15. Charles Weile, for wrongful arrest and imprisonment. Weile, while United States consul at Tumbez, interfered to aid or protect a Peruvian woman who was fighting with her husband, and, as Peru alleged, dealt the husband a nearly fatal blow with his cane. For this act Weile was arrested and imprisoned, but he escaped before his trial was finished, and fled the country. It was alleged on the part of the United States that the wound on the husband's head was inflicted by the wife; that Weile's arrest was illegal and without a warrant, and that the consular office was broken into in order to effect it. The Peruvian Commissioner was opposed to awarding a large sum, though he was willing to allow something. The United States Commissioner "insisted on the importance of giving a decision which would, by the magnitude of the award, show the local authorities how wrong it is for them to act in a hasty manner when the liberty and honor of the consul of a friendly power are concerned." "Case of Ruden & Co. In October, 1869, Alexander Ruden, a citizen of the United States and a partner in the firm of Ruden & Co., of Paita, presented to the Commission, as a partner in, and a representative of the firm, a claim for indemnity for the burning and destruction of the plantation of Errepon, in the department of Lambayeque, by an armed mob, January 14, 1868. Upon the merits of the claim the Commissioners differed. The United States Commissioner thought that the claim should be allowed in full. The Peruvian Commissioner thought that it should be dismissed; but that, if it should be held to be well founded, only so much of it should be allowed as represented the interest of Alexander Ruden in the firm, the other members of which were not citizens of the United States. The umpire in the Ruden case awarded the claimant (as above noted) $7,099.18. "Case of George Hill. George Hill, an American citizen, worked as a carpenter at Chiclayo, Peru, in the establishment of a Mr. Solf, by whom he was employed. In December, 1867, the village, which had been seized by a revolutionary party, was besieged by government forces. On the night of January 6, 1868, Hill, fearing the vengeance of those who charged him with being in sympathy with the besiegers, set out with a few friends to a neighboring village, when he was fired on by a company of cavalry belonging to the revolutionary forces, and brought back as a prisoner to Chiclayo. Here he was thrown into prison for three days, without food or medical attendance. The house of Mr. Solf, in which there were $2000 in gold belonging to Hill, was robbed by the revolutionary party and then destroyed. The Commissioners disagreed as to the responsibility of the government of Peru for the acts of the revolutionary party, which subsequently became the ruling party. The umpire, Mr. Valenzuela, decided that Peru was not responsible for the loss of the $2000, but awarded the claimant 6000 Peruvian silver soles for personal ill treatment and loss of health and work. "Case of R. T. Johnson. Richard T. Johnson, a citizen of the United States, claimed 23,000 soles from Peru for the destruction of his property, an attempt to murder him, and blows and ill treatment causing permanent injuries. The acts complained of were committed on January 13, 1868, in the province of Lambayeque. The Commissioners differed as to liability of the Peruvian government, and the case was referred to the umpire, Mr. Elmore. "Mr. Elmore, in rendering his decision, said that the only question in the case was whether Peru was responsible for what had occurred. The occurrences in Lambayeque were notorious, and the supreme government had declared them to be infamous. Mr. Johnson was one of the victims of that 'whirlwind of destruction.' The Constitution of Peru declared life and property inviolable, and Mr. Johnson reposed in that guaranty. Yet his property was destroyed, and he was personally and permanently injured by armed bands headed by the governors of adjacent towns, instigated by the superior authorities of the province, who were dependent upon and immediately represented the supreme government. The supreme government issued a decree to the effect that the injuries should be redressed; but nothing substantial was done, nor were any of the malefactors punished. The Peruvian Commissioner had contended that it was necessary that Johnson should have had recourse to the courts and have been denied justice. But it was known that the judges of the province of Lambayeque were menaced and controlled by the mob, and, if not in sympathy with them, in a panic; and that it would have been useless to appeal to them. Mr. Elmore declared, however, that there had been an actual denial of justice. By the circular of the minister of justice of Peru of September 13, 1853, the judges were forbidden to receive expedientes affecting the law of December 25, 1851, closing the consolidation of the public debt. By that circular the courts were closed against the sufferers at Lambayeque. Mr. Elmore cited two cases of the actual denial of petitions of persons injured in Lambayeque on the ground of the circular referred to. One of these was the case of Ruden & Co., who applied April 2, 1868, to the judge of Lambayeque and were denied a remedy on that ground. The claimants were thus without hope. If they applied to the courts, they were told they had no remedy. If they applied to the Commission, they were told that they must apply to the courts. Mr. Elmore therefore awarded the claimant the sum of 11,480 Peruvian silver soles." On the whole, the work of this Commission was clearly far superior to that of the average international mixed commission. Some of the cases that it disallowed were doubtless entitled to relief, but others possessed only doubtful standing. If other commissions administered justice as efficiently as this one did, there would be fewer grounds for complaint. XIII. CONVENTIONS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND VENEZUELA, The earlier of these arbitration conventions embraced a large number of claims of long standing against Venezuela. The United States Commissioner was David M. Talmage of New York; the representative of Venezuela was J. G. Villafane; and the umpire, nominated by the Russian minister in Washington, was Juan N. Machado, a Venezuelan. The Commission met in Caracas on August 30, 1867, and held its final session on August 3, 1868. It passed upon forty-nine claims; of these it rejected twenty-five. The total amounts awarded aggregated $1,253,310.30. Soon after the award Venezuela impeached the proceedings on the ground of fraud. It was alleged that between Thomas N. Stilwell (American minister at Caracas), Commissioner Talmage, and Umpire Machado had been plotted a conspiracy through whose machinations they were to receive from forty to sixty per cent of the sums awarded. The Congress of the United States took up the matter, and endless discussion about it ensued. Whether there was any truth in these charges it is hard to say, but Venezuela made out rather a strong circumstantial case. After an extended interchange of views between the two governments, the convention of 1888 was signed, creating a new commission to revise in toto the awards of the preceding (and now discredited) board. This Commission consisted of John Little, of Xenia, Ohio, representing the United States, José Andrade, representing Venezuela, and John V. L. Findlay, of Baltimore, Maryland, third Commissioner. It was organized on September 3, 1889, and concluded its labors on September 2, 1890. It considered sixty-three cases, fortynine of which had been also considered by the old Commission. The new Commission disallowed thirty-seven claims on lack of merit, and dismissed twelve for technical reasons. The claims before it totalled $9,529,499.29; it allowed but about ten per cent thereof, namely, $980,572.60. CHAPTER XXI ARBITRATIONS WITH PERU, BRAZIL, CHILI, HAITI, AND VENEZUELA I. CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND PERU, U MARCH 17, 1841 NDER this convention, entered into with reference to the settlement of claims aggregating $1,200,000, Peru agreed to pay the United States $300,000 "on account of seizures, captures, detentions, sequestrations, and confiscations of their vessels, or for the damage and destruction of them, of their cargoes, or other property, at sea, and in the ports and territories of Peru, by order of said government of Peru, or under its authority." The money paid by Peru was distributed by the United States government, acting through the Attorney-General. Here follow some of the awards: Ship Providence: for detention six days, and extortion of $3000 by the Peruvian naval authorities, $3840. Ship Esther: seized by soldiers at Callao, December 28, 1822, condemned and fitted out as a war-ship, $28,110.10. (Other items awarded to persons interested in cargo.) Ship General Brown: seizure of vessel and confiscation of cargo, $201,768.18; amount claimed, $600,000. Ship Friendship, of Salem: detention thirty-six days, and sequestration of goods, $4600. Brig Elizabeth Ann: unlawful detention, and other damages, $3950. Loss of cargo of Elizabeth Ann, claim by Joseph A. Clay, administrator of estate of Charles G. Swett, $4435.56. Ship Catharine: exaction of double duties, $1575. Schooner Henry: unlawful detention, and confiscation of property, $8800. Ship Flying Fish and Schooner Wasp: nominal amounts. Bark Peru of Salem: detention and sequestration of the bark, and property stolen by soldiers, $1008.63. Ship China: unlawful detention, and damages sustained through a twenty-four pound shot, $2710. Schooner Robinson Crusoe: seized and destroyed, $10,000. Brig Macedonian: vessel and cargo condemned and used by the government, $91,287.50. Other awards brought up the total to $421,432.41. As the amount for distribution was but $300,000, the awards were subjected in payment to a pro rata deduction. For the illegal arrest of Henry D. Tracy and damages to his commercial establishment nothing was awarded. II. CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND BRAZIL, JANUARY 24, 1849 Under this convention Brazil agreed to pay to the United States in settlement of all claims of American citizens, the sum of $530,000, milreis. In 1850 Mr. George P. Fisher, of Delaware, was appointed by President Taylor, under the act of Congress for carrying into effect the convention of 1849, Commissioner to pass upon the claims and distribute the fund amongst those entitled thereto. As the amount of the fund proved too small to pay the awards in full, a proportionate division of it became necessary. The Commissioner began to hear claims on July 1, 1850. The following is a summary of findings and payments: 1. Bark Sarah and Esther, of Boston: amount claimed, $17,732.30; disallowed as presented too late. 2. Hayes, Engerer, & Co., amount claimed, Rs. 86, 329,732, and $160,000; disallowed on same ground as No. 1. 3. Brig Toucan, of Boston: amount claimed, $24,220.58; sum awarded, $19,453.83, of which claimant received, as its ratable proportion of the award, $15,008.19. 4. Sloop Morning Star, of Philadelphia: amount claimed, $10,728; disallowed on same ground as No. 1. 5. Bark Yeoman: amount claimed, $31,397; disallowed on same ground as No. 1. 6. Schooner Shilleleh, of Baltimore: amount claimed, $79,847.17; sum awarded, $74,302.69. 7. Ship Shamrock; amount claimed, $77,298; awarded, $26,977.50; proportion paid, $20,973.96. 8. Schooner John S. Bryan, of Boston: amount claimed, $11,270.25; awarded, $3249.17; paid, $2506.90. (Vessel seized in the province of Pará in June, 1836.) 9. Ship Shamrock, of Beverly, Massachusetts: $57,587.73; awarded, $23,777.80; paid, $18,344.12. amount claimed, 10. Brig Sally Dana, of Philadelphia: amount claimed, $13,023.72; disallowed on the ground "that, according to the principles of international law as uniformly acknowledged and acted upon by the government of the United States, it cannot enforce or demand any claim arising out of a mere contract between one of its citizens and a foreign government. 99 The learned Commissioner did not state the source of his knowledge of this marvellous "principle." Other men (perhaps not so wise as Commissioner Fisher) have an impression, possibly erroneous, that |