ject, and they amount to four in number, covering a period of nearly forty years, is in their favor.

Captain Reid has been reproached with sordid motives in mingling with the glorious history of his achievement the accep tance of a pecuniary recompense. Is it dishonorable in the war-worn veteran, to accept from the overflowing treasury of his happy and prosperous country, the means of subsistence in his old age, and of decent sepulture when his hour of parting shall arrive? Surely not. The learned solicitor accompanied his lecture on this head, with a reference to the example of him whose deeds and memory are deemed the best illustrations of all that is heroic in patriotism, and exalted in honor and moral rectitude. Though Captain Reid presumes not to challenge a comparison, we must say that this allusion of the learned solicitor was most unfortunate. Though there be no comparison, neither is there in this particular, any contrast. Though Washington never descended to the grade of a hireling, and persisted to the last in refusing compensation, though he did not even accept reimbursement of his personal expenses from our impoverished treasury during the conflict; yet it is one of the recorded proofs of his practical wisdom, of his freedom from mere sentimentality, and of his precision and exactitude in the details of duty, that when his country had achieved her independence, and was able and willing to do justice, he rendered in his own hand-writing, a minute statement of his expenses in the public service, and received from Congress a full pecuniary indemnity. This parallel, which but for the learned solicitor's introduction of it, we would not have ventured to exhibit, refutes another of his arguments. He says that all claims allowed by government ought to be founded in some prescribed rule of law. Washington declined that very payment for his time and services which the law allowed, and accepted the indemnity which no known law directly sanctioned; but which, being due on principles of natural justice, was conceded by the enlightened equity of Congress and the gratitude of his country.

Captain Reid asks no gratuity; he asks neither pay nor reward

for his personal toil, sufferings or achievements.

Simple indemnity

for the actual pecuniary losses of himself and his brave companions, is all that he seeks for himself or them.

Here and elsewhere, it has been again and again urged that the allowance of this claim would be bad policy and

precedent."

a dangerous

Paying a just indemnity for such losses, it is said, would lead to numerous claims of the kind. When claims are not founded on meritorious services, they can be rejected. But we cannot see that any mischief will result to our country or its interests from allowing indemnity for the cost of achievements in war, so signal in themselves and so beneficial in their consequences as that now under review. May such "precedents" never be wanting. They must ever redound to the profit and honor of our country, and can never prove dangerous, except to our enemies.

It is said, if we repudiate the award of Louis Napoleon, it will disturb our amicable relations with France and prevent European potentates from ever acting as umpires for us. France cannot easily make a national quarrel out of our awarding compensation to our gallant tars for doing their duty. And if the effect of your decision should be to deter, for all future time, American statesmen from submitting to the arbitrary determination of an European potentate, without evidence and without argument, questions of fact involving our national honor, so much the better. If it shall also deter European rulers from ever again assuming the decision of such questions, it will render them an important service. He who is by position and circumstances disqualified from exercising an impartial judgment, sins against his best interests and his own honor in assuming the office of judge.

The award is founded in error. It seeks to falsify American history, to fix a stigma upon our national character, and, at our expense, to rescue our enemy from merited opprobrium. Unless by some competent authority repudiated upon our part, we must be deemed, through all future time, as having subscribed to its truth and our own dishonor. Instead of allowing it to seem thus acqui

esced in, this court, as it may do consistently with truth and justice, ought to stamp upon the page of history its indignant reprobation of both the reference and the award.

Let it not be said that posterity will prefer to the judgment of this court, the award of the impartial referee. In what degree he was impartial may be gathered from the facts. He assumed powers not granted. He gave credit to the denial of a witness whose positive assertion he discredited and solemnly found to be

At the very time of forming his award he was secretly progressing in negotiations for an alliance with Great Britain, the nation chiefly interested against us in the controversy. The importance of that alliance, and the necessity of securing it, may be judged by the stupendous objects it had in view, and is now struggling to accomplish. Neither will it be overlooked that he was chosen to arbitrate as President of the Republic of France, and that, when preparing the award, he was actively engaged in undermining the foundations of that government which, as chief magistrate, he was pledged to maintain. Though the reference was to a President, the award came from a king. With the hand which signed it, he had just stricken down the liberties of his country; that hand was yet reeking with the life-blood of a republican constitution.

No wonder that to gratify a monarchical ally, he readily sacrificed the rights of a republic.

You have been asked to forbear from scrutinizing too nicely the justice of this award, from considerations of deference to the chief of a sovereign State now in amity with us. We ask you to scrutinize it closely, to judge it fearlessly, and, as becomes an American tribunal, to discard considerations of policy when justice and national renown are involved. If the arbiter were all that his most obsequious admirers would venture to assert, his merits have been sufficiently acknowledged and amply rewarded. The liberties of one republic have been sacrificed to his ambition, let us not immolate the fame of another upon the same unholy altar.

POINTS DECIDED BY THE COURT.

OF THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF NEUTRALS.

ANY violation of the neutrality of a port, by either of two belligerents, is a breach of the law of nations.

The property of belligerents when within neutral jurisdiction is inviolable. It is not lawful to make neutral territory the scene of hostility, or to attack an enemy while within it; and if the enemy be attacked, or any capture made under neutral protection, the neutral is bound to redress the injury and effect restitution.

Where a party attacked, merely exercises the right of self-defence, it cannot be a cause of complaint; the breach rests with the party violating the rights of the neutral by attacking the other.

The act of sending out boats to effect a capture, is in itself a direct act of hostility, in violation of the law of nations. No measure is to be taken that will lead to immediate violence.

Where an enemy's vessel is approached by the boats of a belligerent, in a neutral port, with an evident hostile intention, the right of self-defence, and law, and reason, justify the enemy in firing upon the boats, which had been hailed and warned to keep off. The fact that the enemy fired the first shot, does not constitute them the aggressors.

Where a neutral power permits an enemy's vessel to be attacked and destroyed, while under neutral protection, the neutral is bound to make pecuniary compensation for the damages sustained by the injured party

Where the Governor of a neutral Territory remonstrated against the hostile aggressions being committed upon an enemy's property, but did not use all the means in his power to protect it, the neutral will not be released from liability.

The weakness of a nation, or the want of ability to protect her neutrality will not relieve her from the obligation to make compensation for property destroyed in the neutral territory.

OF ARBITRATION-LIABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

The right of the government to submit a claim upon a foreign nation, involv ing the interests of its citizens, to arbitration, is not denied, but it must be done with a due regard to the rights of the citizen.

Where the government submits such a case to arbitration, in which the rights of the citizen are disregarded and sacrificed, the government is bound in justice to make him restitution,

To relieve the government from liability to its citizen on this account, it must appear that the case was one proper to be submitted; that he had an opportunity of being heard before the arbitrator by argument and proofs; that the award was certain, definite, and within the submission; and that the arbitration did not exceed his powers.

Where the government has universally acknowledged a claim of its citizens against a foreign nation, upon overwhelming evidence, and had always asserted that the foreign nation was bound to redress the injury; when it had resorted to argument, and finally, asserted its fixed determination that the foreign nation must redress its citizens, it has no right to hazard the claim by afterwards submitting it to the arbitration of a third power. Such a case is not proper for submission.

Where a case is thus submitted, without the assent of the claimants, and against their wishes, the government assumes the responsibility, and becomes liable to the claimants.

Where the government by a treaty with a foreign nation, agrees to accept the payment of certain claims, pro bono pacis, with the condition that a certain special claim of its citizens shall be arbitrated, it is not released from responsibility to its own citizens, in case the award is unfavorable. Where the government submits a claim of a citizen to arbitration without his

assent, it should provide that he shall be fully and fairly heard, and have all reasonable opportunity to lay before the arbitrator the evidence on which he relies.

Where the government refused to sanction in any manner the presentment of a case by the claimants to the arbitrator, under the construction of a treaty, it will be in violation of the plainest principles of justice, and for such a wrong at the hands of the government, reparation should be made.

OF THE AWARD AND ITS VALIDITY.

An award made without the party having had an opportunity to be heard, rests neither upon law nor justice. Every party should have an opportunity to be heard before the tribunal that is to pass judgment on his rights. Where, by the terms of a treaty, the matter submitted was a question of law, and the award of the arbitrator was solely founded upon the facts held, that the award is void, because it does not settle the matter in dispute, and