ernment upon which reclamation is made. There are instances, however, in which our courts have been clothed with jurisdiction to determine the merits of a claim against a forbetween the United States and France (sec. 1). The court was given jurisdiction to "examine and determine the validity and amount" of such claims, "together with their present ownership," "according to the rules of law, municipal and international, and the treaties of the United States applicable to the same (sec. 3). The court was directed to report its conclusions to Congress for action, and all claims not presented in two years were barred (sec. 6). See also note 2 to § 442, p. 283, ante.

By act of January 17,1887, (24 Stat. at L., p. 358,) Congress conferred jurisdiction on the Court of Claims to hear the claims of three persons for the rent and value of certain buildings in Alaska. The statute recites that these claims had been previously presented to that court and dismissed for want of jurisdiction only. These cases involved the construction of the convention of 1867 with Russia whereby Alaska was ceded to the United States. See also note 2, § 394, p. 157, ante.

Upon the recommendation of the Secretary of State, Congress, by act of December 28, 1892 (27 Stat. at L., p. 409), directed the AttorneyGeneral of the United States to bring suit in the Court of Claims against the La Abra Silver Mining Company "to determine whether the award made by the United States and Mexican Mixed Commission [under the convention of 1868 with Mexico] in respect to the claim of the said La Abra Silver Mining Company was obtained," in full or in part, by fraud (sec. 1). The Court of Claims was given jurisdiction to "hear and determine" this case (sec. 2); and an appeal was allowed to the United States Supreme Court (sec. 3). The President and Secretary of State were authorized to dispose of the funds, previously paid by Mexico on account of this award, in accordance with the final decision of this case. (Secs. 4 and 5.)

Under the same date an identical statute was passed (27 Stat. at L., p. 410), which referred the claim of Benjamin Weil, to an award made by the same commission, to the Court of Claims; and conferred the same powers on that Court and on the President and Secretary of State.

This legislation is remarkable in that it in effect set aside a judicial decision of a commission established by a convention with a foreign nation, and thus not only violated the doctrine of res adjudicata but virtually overruled a treaty by subsequent legislation. For further references to the La Abra and Weil cases, see note 8 to this section, pp. 309 and 310, post.

For compilations of the statutes affecting the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, see the various volumes of the reports and especially: 22 Ct. Claims, pp. ix-xx, 1887, giving the "Tucker Act;" 14 Ct. Claims, pp. xxiii-lxviii, 1879; Digest of Court of Claims Reports from March, 1863, to December, 1875, and of appealed cases in the Supreme Court, by Charles C. Nott and Archibald Hopkins, Washington, D. C., 1876, pp. xliii-lxxxvii; 1 Ct. Claims, pp. xxi-xxxv, 1867.

eign government, but this jurisdiction must be conferred by a special act of Congress as it does not otherwise exist; and no right of appeal exists to a higher court unless the statute specially provides therefor. As a general rule the cases which have been referred to existing courts have been those in which the United States for its own political purposes assumed to pay certain claims of one or more of its citizens against a foreign government. In such cases the court upon which jurisdiction is conferred determines the legal ques

RULES.

Rules of the Court of Claims (United States), adopted January 7, 1895, and of the Supreme Court relating to appeals. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1895. See also the various volumes of the reports, especially: 20 Ct. Claims, pp. ix-xxxii, 1885; 14 Ct. Claims, pp. iii-xxii, 1879; Digest of Court of Claims Reports from March, 1863, to December, 1875, and of appealed cases in the Supreme Court, by Charles C. Nott and Archibald Hopkins, Washington, D. C., 1876, pp. ix-xxv; 1 Ct. Claims, pp. vii-xx, 1867.

For a general account of the Court of Claims, see: History, Jurisdiction and Practice of the Court of Claims of the United States, by William A. Richardson, LL. D, one of the Judges of the Court, 7 So. Law. Rev. N. S. p. 781, February, 1882; 17 Ct. Claims, p. 3.

2 In re Atocha, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1873, 17 Wallace, 439, FIELD, J. The United States attempted to appeal from the decision of the Court of Claims in this case and asked for a mandamus against the court for a certificate of appeal, the court having refused on the ground that its decision was final under the statutes referring the Atocha case to it.

This position was sustained by the Supreme Court and it held that, as the original jurisdiction of the court excluded all claims under treaty stipulations, when jurisdiction over such claims is conferred by special act the authority of that court to hear and determine, and of the Supreme Court to review, is limited and controlled by the special act. In this respect it said: (p. 445.)

"In the present case, no such

general reference was made of the claim of Atocha, nor was any such extended authority over it conferred. The court was directed to make a specific examination into the justice of the claim against Mexico, and whether it was embraced within the treaty; and if the court was of opinion that the claim was a just one and was embraced within the treaty, it was required to fix and determine' its amount, and when so determined, the act declares that the amount shall be paid. The matter was referred to the court to ascertain a particular fact to guide the government in the execution of its treaty stipulations. The court has acted upon the matter, and as no mode is provided for a review of its action, it must be taken and regarded as final."

tions involved according to the principles of international law as the same have been recognized by the Courts of this country, or by international tribunals.

That claims of citizens of the United States against foreign governments do not lose their character of international claims, when adjudicated by United States tribunals specially clothed with jurisdiction thereover, was determined in the French Spoliation cases which have already been referred to, and were decided as though the Court of Claims were an international tribunal.5

The claims of citizens of the United States against foreign governments, assumed by the United States, have been determined either by specially conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Claims or by creating special Commissions for that purpose. A full list of all the commissions created to deter

8 For decisions as to principles of | idem, p. 128) certain judges were international law forming a part of authorized to receive and adjust the law of the United States see: The Paquette Habana, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1900, 175 U. S. 677, 700, GRAY, J. Hilton vs. Guyot, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1895, 159 U. S. 113, 163, GRAY, J. See also § 399, p. 187, et seq., ante.

For a list of French Spoliation cases heard by the Court of Claims and the United States Supreme Court see note 2 to § 442, p. 283, ante.

5 Cushing vs. The United States, U. S. Ct. of Claims, 1886, 22 Ct. Claims, 1, 29, Davis, J.

6 The statute referring the "French Spoliation" claims to the Court of Claims is given in the note on the jurisdiction of that court. See note 1 to this section, p. 299, ante, at p. 301.

these claims, and to report their decisions to the Secretary of the Treasury, who was authorized to pay any award "on being satisfied that the same is just and equitable and within the provisions "of the treaty.

By article XI of this same treaty (U. S. Tr. and Conv. 1889, p. 1020) the United States agreed to pay claims of its own citizens against Spain up to $5,000,000, and to appoint a commission of three to decide upon their amount and validity. A subsequent act of Congress (3 Stat. at L., p. 637) authorized the President of the United States to organize this commission.

By articles XIV and XV of the treaty of 1848 with Mexico (U. S. By article IX of the Treaty of Tr. and Conv. 1889, pp. 687 and 1819 with Spain (U. S. Tr. and 688) the United States discharged Conv. 1889, p. 1019) the United Mexico from claims of American States and Spain mutually relin- citizens, undertook to compensate quished certain claims of their cit them to the amount of $3,250,000, izens upon the other nation. By and agreed to appoint a commisa series of acts of Congress (3 Stat.sion to ascertain the amount and at L., p. 768; 6 idem, p. 569; and 9 validity of such claims. Congress

mine international private claims of citizens of the United States up to the date of its publication will be found in Moore on International Arbitration to which the reader is referred; some of the more important and recent commissions of this character are given in the note. It would be impossible to collate all of the cases in which claims of citizens of the United States against foreign governments have been before Courts and Commissions specially empowered to adjudicate them. Some of these cases have afforded opportunities for our Courts to determine the status of such claims and the rules applicable thereto and a few are referred to in the notes to this section.8 The extracts from

the opinions have been selected with the view of showing that there is a distinction between such claims and claims

circular or letter which issued from | $207,449, which was awarded to the Department of State, during Atocha's administrator. the administration of a predecessor of the Secretary; no binding contract for the payment of interest was thereby created; and the present Secretary" could disregard such letter.

Atocha vs. United States, Court of Claims, 1872, 8 Ct. of Clms. 427, DRAKE, Ch. J.; U. S. Sup. Ct. 1873, 17 Wall. 439, FIELD, J. In 1844, during the existence of the treaty of 1831 with Mexico, Atocha was expelled from Mexico against the remonstrances of the American minister, on account of his personal relations with Santa Anna. treaty of 1848 provided for the payment by Mexico of a fund in gross to cover all claims of American citi

zens.

The

The Government claimed that as the claim had become one against the United States no interest could be allowed; the court held that as the claim had been rejected by the Commission it was not against the United States, but should be treated as a claim against Mexico, and that the claimant was entitled to interest as on a claim against a foreign government because it was not in the nature of moneys retained by the United States on which no interest was allowed.

The Court of Claims followed the precedent set by the Claims Commission, and fixed interest at five per cent.

United States VS. Diekelman, Atocha filed a claim, which U. S. Sup. Ct. 1875, 92 U. S. 520, was dismissed. Subsequently, Feb- WAITE, Ch. J. Reversing Diekelruary, 1865, an act was passed di- man vs. United States, U. S. Ct. of recting the Court of Claims to ex- Claims 1872, 8 Ct. Clms. 371, LORamine Atocha's case, and if just to ING, J.; see also 9 Ct. Clms. 320. make an award which should be This case, which arose from the paid out of the treasury, provided detention of the Essex in the harit did not exceed the balance re- | bor of New Orleans by the United maining from the Mexican fund. States fleet in 1862, when New That court held that his ex- Orleans was captured by the Union pulsion was not only "cause less forces, had been in the Court of but in violation of treaty stipu- Claims and had also been the sublations and, therefore, on both | ject of diplomatic correspondence. grounds wrongful, and it follows that at the time thereof he had a just claim against Mexico;" it also decided that when the treaty of 1848, was ratified his claim was still a just one for $82,201. Interest was allowed for the whole period (28 years), which increased the claim by $121,651, making it in all $207,852.

The balance remaining in the Mexican fund at the time was

Rules of international law and the right of the conquering forces to regulate commerce, and to maintain blockade after capture, were involved.

The court held that, unless treaty stipulations provided otherwise, a merchant vessel of one country visiting the ports of another for the purpose of trade is, so long as she remains, subject to the laws which