upon Spain for losses suffered from this cause, and also for maritime spoliations before the peace of Amiens." Davis, Notes, Treaty Vol. (1776-1887), 1383. Article II. "The United States have never claimed any part of the territory included in the States of Mississippi or Alabama under any treaty with Spain, although she claimed at different periods a considerable portion of the territory in both of those States. By the treaty between the United States and Spain, signed at San Lorenzo el Real, on the 27th of October, 1795, the high contracting parties declare and agree, that the line between the United States and East and West Florida, shall be designated by a line, beginning on the River Mississippi, at the northernmost part of the thirty-first degree of north latitude, which from thence shall be drawn due east to the middle of the Chatahuchee River, &c. This treaty declares and agrees, that the line which was described in the treaty of peace between Great Britain and the United States, as their southern boundary, shall be the line which divides their territory from East and West Florida. The article does not import to be a cession of territory, but the adjustment of a controversy between the two nations." McKinley, J., Pollard's Lessee v. Hagan, 3 How. 212, 225. See Hickey's The treaty between the United States and Spain of 1795 ascertained and After the outbreak of the Cuban insurrection of 1868 the Spanish government issued decrees embargoing the property Article VII. of certain citizens of the United States, and prohibiting the alienation of such property. The government of the United States complained of this and other oppressive actions as violating the 7th article of the treaty of 1795. The result was the reference of the questions involved to a mixed commission. Senate Ex. Doc. 108, 41 Cong. 2 sess. 243. For the history of the mixed commission, and a digest of the decisions thereunder, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 1019 et seq. Whether or not the first clause of art. 7, wherein it is agreed that the subjects and citizens of each nation, their vessels or effects, shall not be liable to any embargo or detention on the part of the other for any military expedition, or other public or private purpose whatever, "was originally intended to embrace real estate and personal property on land as well as vessels and their cargoes, the same has been so construed by the United States, and this construction has been concurred in by Spain; and therefore the commission will adhere to such construction in making its decision." Statement of Spanish Treaty Claims Commission, April 28, 1903, concurred in by all the Commissioners except Mr. Chandler. The commissioners, except Messrs. Chambers and Maury, also concurred in holding that neither the first clause of art. 7, nor any other clause of the treaty, rendered either nation, while endeavoring to suppress an insurrection that had got beyond its control, "liable for damages done to the persons or property of the citizens of the other nation when found in the track of war, or for damages resulting from military movements unless the same were unnecessarily and wantonly inflicted." Article IX. In June, 1839, the schooner Amistad, the property of Spanish subjects, cleared from one Cuban port to another, having on board a number of negroes in charge of certain Spanish subjects, who claimed them as their property. When from seven to ten leagues from shore the negroes killed the captain and mate of the schooner and took possession of her. On August 26, 1839, she was discovered within a mile and a half of Montauk Point, Long Island, by the U. S. S. Washington, commanded by Lieutenant Gedney, and by him was taken and brought into the port of New London, Connecticut. The Spanish minister demanded the restoration of the vessel and cargo and also of the negroes, under Article IX. of the treaty between the United States and Spain of 1795, which provides that "all ships and merchandise, of what nature soever, which shall be rescued out of the hands of any pirates or robbers on the high seas, shall be brought into some port of either state, and shall be delivered to the custody of the officers of that port, in order to be taken care of, and restored entire to the true proprietor, as soon as due and sufficient proof shall be made concerning the property thereof." Mr. Grundy, who was then Attorney-General, advised that the case fell within the provisions of the treaty, and that the President should order the delivery of the vessel, cargo, and negroes to such persons as might be designated by the Spanish minister to receive them. But, before this opinion was given, the vessel, cargo, and negroes were libelled by Lieutenant Gedney and certain other persons in the United States district court for salvage. Libels were also filed by two of the Spanish claimants, praying for restitution; and an information or libel was also filed by the United States district attorney, setting forth the demand of the Spanish minister and praying the court, on proof of the facts alleged in the demand, to issue such order for the disposal of the vessel, cargo, and slaves as would best enable the United States to comply with their treaty stipulations; but, if it should appear that the negroes were not lawfully held as slaves, but were transported from Africa in violation of law, to order their removal to the coast. of Africa, in conformity with the act of Congress of March 3, 1819, 3 Stat. 532. The negroes, with one exception, filed an answer denying that they were slaves and alleging that they were native-born Africans, unlawfully kidnapped in Africa and brought to Cuba in violation of the Spanish law. January 23, 1840, the district court rendered a decree awarding the vessel and cargo to their lawful owners, subject to claims of salvage of one-third their value, and directing that the negroes, with one exception, be delivered to the President of the United States to be transported to Africa. This decree was affirmed by the circuit court pro forma. On appeal the Supreme Court, whose opinion was delivered by Mr. Justice Story, Mr. Justice Baldwin dissenting, held that, in order to bring the case within Article IX. it must be shown (1) that the negroes fell within the description of merchandise; (2) that there had been a rescue of them on the high seas out of the hands of pirates or robbers, and (3) that the asserted proprietors were the true owners. The court said that negroes lawfully held as slaves under the laws of Spain, on board of a Spanish vessel, might be deemed merchandise, but not so native Africans, unlawfully kidnapped, as in the present case, and imported into a Spanish colony contrary to the laws of Spain. The decree of the circuit court was accordingly affirmed, except that the Supreme Court held that the act of 1819 had not been contravened, and directed the negroes to be set at liberty. It seems, however, that the vessel was sold in 1840 under the decree of the district court, probably to satisfy the claims of the salvors. After the case was decided by the Supreme Court the Spanish minister demanded indemnification for the vessel and cargo, including the negroes found on board. This claim Mr. Webster, then Secretary of State, refused to admit. The minister also demanded the surrender of the negroes as criminals. This claim, too, was refused. February 27, 1843, President Tyler, in a message to the House of Representatives, suggested that the amount allowed as salvage should be refunded, “ as a proof of the entire good faith of the Government and of its disposition to fulfill all its treaty stipulations, to their full extent, under a fair and liberal construction." March 19, 1846, Mr. Buchanan, Secretary of State, advised the payment of an indemnity, and President Polk, in his annual message of December 7, 1847, recommended that an appropriation be made for that purpose. President Fillmore, in a message to the Senate and House of Representatives of January 17, 1853, stated that in a letter to the Spanish minister of September 1, 1841, the opinion was confidently maintained by Mr. Webster that the claim was unfounded, but added that "the administration of President Polk took a different view of the matter." that "the justice of the claim was recognized in a letter from the Department of State to the Spanish minister, of the 19th of March, 1847," and that "in his annual message of the same year the President recommended its payment." Under the circumstances, the attention of Congress was again invited to the subject. President Pierce, in his annual message of December 5, 1853, expressed the opinion that good faith required the prompt adjustment of the claim, and recommended it to the early and favorable consideration of Congress. A similar recommendation was made by President Buchanan, in his annual messages of December 8, 1857, December 6, 1858, and December 19, 1859. March 5, 1860, a convention was concluded at Madrid, by which the Spanish government agreed to pay what were known as the "Cuban claims," while it was stipulated that the Amistad claim should be submitted to arbitration. The Senate, on June 27, 1860, declined to advise and consent to the exchange of the ratifications of the convention. The claim thus remained unsettled. United States v. Amistad, 15 Pet. 518; opinion of Mr. Grundy, At. Gen., For correspondence and reports, see message of President Van Buren, Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, IV. 232, 551; V. 184, 209, 446, 511, 561, 641. The treaty of 1795 with Spain prohibited citizens of the United States from taking commissions to cruise in a privateer against the commerce of Spain, but not from serving in a public armed vessel of a belligerent nation. Article XIV. The Santissima Trinidad, 7 Wheat. 283. "The seventeenth article of the treaty with Spain, which provides for certain passports and certificates, as evidence of property on board of the ships of both states, is, in its terms, applicable only to cases where either of the parties is engaged Article XVII. in a war. This article required a certain form of passport to be agreed upon by the parties, and annexed to the treaty. It never was annexed; and, therefore, in the case of the Amiable Isabella, 6 Wheaton, 1, it was held inoperative." United States v. Schooner Amistad, 15 Pet. 518, 595. "The form of passport referred to in article 17 of the treaty of 1795 is not annexed either to the original treaty signed by the negotiators, or to the copy bearing the ratification of the King of Spain on file in the Department of State. It is remarkable, however, that to the Spanish version, appearing in vol. 2, p. 429, of Coleccion de los Tratados de Paz,' &c., published at Madrid in 1800, two forms of passports in Spanish are annexed-one for ships navigating European seas, and the other for those navigating American seas. These forms are found in 6 Wheat. 97. No explanation has been discovered of these facts. It is stated, however, in a letter from Jacob Wagner to Mr. Monroe, dated November 3, 1814, that a form was agreed on." (Cadwalader's Digest (1877), 257.) The 20th article of the treaty with Spain of 1795 does not extend the jurisdiction of our courts to offenses committed Article XX. in Spain, nor vice versa, and, according to the common law, the commandant of the island of Amelia is not liable to any public prosecution before any of our courts for his transactions in Florida. Lee, At. Gen., 1797, 1 Op. 68. "The XXth article of the treaty of 1795 between the United States and Spain secures to the citizens of each country in the other the same rights and privileges in regard to judicial proceedings that may be held or enjoyed by the citizens of such other country; but, even in civil jurisprudence, neither this stipulation nor any known rule of international law confers on the government of the foreign country any right to interfere in the modes of procedure or administration of the reasonable local municipal laws of the other country." Mr. Frelinghuysen, Sec. of State, to Mr. Valera, Span. min., March 15, 1884, MS. Notes to Spain, X. 291. For the history of art. 21 of the treaty of 1795, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, II. 991 et seq. 2. TREATY OF FEBRUARY 22, 1819. § 884. See Moore, Int. Arbitrations, V. 4487-4531. Spain in ceding the Floridas to the United States, by the treaty of February 22, 1819, ceded only so much thereof ast belonged to her, and hence did not cede the territory lying between the Mississippi and Perdido rivers, which territory. Articles II., III., IV. |