oath that the matters contained in the annexed printed statement are true, to the best of his knowledge and belief.

SAM C. REID, JR.

Sworn and subscribed before me this 13th day of July, A.D. 1855. W. P. WILLIAMS, Notary Public.

MR. REID here proceeded to read to the Court the following documents as evidence in support of this case. [See Appendix.]

Monday November 18th, 1855.

MR. REID, on offering in evidence the letter of Mr. Chas. W. Dabney, U. S. Consul at Fayal, to Mr. Wm. L. Marcy, Secretary of State,

MR. BLAIR objected, and said-I do not know what are the contents of the letter the gentleman proposes to read or what he intends to prove by it. The gentleman has already read several papers to the Court not included in, or made part of his petition, and I shall insist on his confining himself solely to the documents in the petition.

MR. PHILLIPS rose to explain, and said-May it please your Honors, the letter in question is of a remarkable character, and goes to establish the fact, beyond all dispute or cavil, that the British were the first to violate the neutrality of the port of Fayal. The existence of this letter was discovered but a few days ago, by Mr. Reid, from an incidental conversation with a gentleman, late an officer of our navy, who visited Fayal about a year ago, and who had conversed with Mr. Dabney on the subject. I, therefore, move that the petition be amended, and that this letter and the other documents, not alluded to in the petition, be made a part thereof. MR. BLAIR opposed the motion.

MR. REID. If the Court please, the course pursued by the learned solicitor, on this occasion, is very remarkable. He has sat by, listening to the reading of documents and letters used against the claimants in the debate on this claim in the Senate (not referred to in the petition) and took no objection, because the evidence was supposed to run in favor of the government. He has heard me read private letters produced against the claimants by the Department of State, charging them with having acquiesced to this arbitration, and no objection was taken whatever. But when I come to read a piece of newly-discovered evidence-a public letter to this government, tending to establish the rights of the claimants, the learned solicitor objects!

Sirs, I have concealed nothing in this case. I have put every particle of evidence before this Court, for and against the claimants. The learned solicitor asks what this letter contains? Sirs, it contains the truth-the very essence of this case. It contains the statement of a distinguished gentleman, widely known on both sides of the Atlantic, for his nobleness of character, for his honor and probity. A gentleman, whose princely position and wealth puts him beyond the reach of suspicion or temptation! I appeal to the magnanimity of the solicitor, and ask him whether his duty, as a government officer, prompts him to make these technical objections in a case of this character, or whether it should not urge him to adopt a nobler course-that of the highest equity? I hope the motion of my learned colleague will prevail.

BY THE COURT [after consultation]. Leave to amend the petition will be granted, and the documents considered as made a part thereof.

The letters marked A, B, C, D, E, and F, and documents marked [1, 2, 3, and 4] were then made part of the petition.

MR. REID having read Mr. Dabney's letter, and other documents, here rested the case, and it being near three o'clock, the Court adjourned.

The Court met pursuant to adjournment. The evidence having been closed,

MR. REID, in summing up, spoke as follows:

May it please the honorable Court

I come now to the argument of this cause, upon the evidence which has been laid before it.

I come to the argument of this cause with deep and powerful feelings of a sense of wrong and injury, which have been heaped upon the claimants for nearly half a century! I will not conceal that I come to it exultingly, and that I have looked forward to this hour with an intense and painful interest.

I shall permit no scruples of policy to guide my course, and I shall speak in plain language as being the best adapted to the vindication of truth, of honor, and of justice, which have so long been made subservient to the miserable falsehoods, prevarications, and weaknesses of unjust men !

Assuming the doctrine laid down by the most distinguished commentators and publicists on international law, be true, that the violation of the port or territory of any neutral power by a belligerent, and the capture of property, public or private, under the protection of the neutral flag, imposes on the neutral power a liability to indemnify the owner for all losses sustained, I shall proceed to fix the liability, in this case, first, upon Portugal.

We charge that the brig General Armstrong was attacked and destroyed by the British fleet, in violation of the laws of neutrality, and of the protection which that vessel sought in the neutral port of Fayal. To support this fact, we have the sworn protest of Captain Reid, and nine of his officers; the letters of John B. and Charles W. Dabney, U. S. consuls at Fayal; the statement of Governor Ribeiro; and the letters of the Marquis de Aguiar, the

Portuguese Minister of State, to Mr. Sumpter and Lord Strangford, the American and British ambassadors at Rio Janeiro.

It must be remembered that the statement of Gov. Ribeiro to his government was his voluntary act, founded upon official reports made to him by the officers of the Castle, and what he himself witnessed. In this statement, the violation of the neutrality of the port of Fayal is expressly charged against the commander of the British fleet. In describing the affair, the Governor says:

"We are now, for the first time, made witnesses to a horrible and bloody combat, occasioned by the madness, pride, and haughtiness of an insolent British officer, who would not respect the neutrality maintained by Portugal, in the existing contest between his Britannic Majesty and the United States of America."

The Marquis de Aguiar, in his letter to Mr. Sumpter, says:

"Nor can his royal highness avoid viewing this affair, in the light it is represented, as attacking his sovereignty and independence, by the manifest violation of his territory in the infringement of its neutrality, which ought to have been observed by the two belligerent powers. Not a moment's delay ensued in causing to be addressed to the British minister at this court the note which is confidentially communicated by a copy to your lordship, at the same time that he directed his minister in London to make the reclamation so serious an offence requires."

In the letter of the marquis to Lord Strangford, the language is unequivocal. He says:

"His excellency will likewise observe the base attempt of the British commander, at the time he commenced the unprovoked attack on the American privateer, to attribute those violent measures to the breaking of the neutrality on the part of the Americans in the first instance, by repelling the British armed barges that were sent for the purpose of reconnoitering that vessel, advocating, with the most manifest duplicity, that they were consequently the aggressors; but what appears still more surprising, is the arrogance with which the British commander threatened to consider the territory

of his royal highness as enemies, should the governor adopt any measures to prevent them from taking possession of the American privateer, which they subsequently plundered and set on fire!

"His royal highness, at the same time that he has directed his minister at the court of London to make the strongest representations before the prince regent of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and require satisfaction and indemnification, not only for his subjects, but for the American privateer, whose security was guaranteed by the safeguard of a neutral port, orders it to be signified to his excellency, Lord Strangford, that he may inform his government of the unfavorable impression the conduct of that British commander had caused in the mind of his royal highness," &c.

Here, then, is the open avowal and admission, on the part of Portugal, of her responsibility to the United States; and a demand made by the prince regent of Portugal, of his own free will and accord, for satisfaction and indemnification from England, before he was ever called on by this government to make indemnity.

In 1814, in compliance with the demand made by Portugal, Lord Bathurst instructs Mr. Canning, the British ambassador at Lisbon, to make a verbal apology to the prince regent.

In 1815, Mr. Monroe instructs Mr. Sumpter to call the attention. of the Portuguese government to this case, "and to state the claim which the injured party has to immediate indemnification." Mr. Sumpter replies, that a demand for satisfaction had already been made from the British government.

In 1817, Lord Castlereigh, in obedience to the demand of Portugal, sends £319 to indemnify the subjects of that government. Now, why the indemnity demanded for the loss of the Armstrong was not sent, or the grounds of England's refusal stated, we do not know, for we never have had the benefit of any of the correspondence between Portugal and England. But it is not material at this point to make the inquiry. It is sufficient that the fact of England's apology and indemnification to Portugal stands patent and incontrovertible With what assurance, then, can England attempt