respectful terms. His letter to Captain Lloyd had no other effect than to produce a menacing reply, insulting in the highest degree. Nothing can exceed the indignation of the public authorities, as well as of all ranks and description of persons here, at this unprovoked enormity. Such was the rage of the British to destroy this vessel, that no regard was paid to the safety of the town; some of the inhabitants were wounded and a number of the houses were much damaged. The strongest representations on this subject are prepared by the governor for his court.

Since this affair the commander, Lloyd, threatened to send on shore an armed force and arrest the privateer's crew, saying there were many Englishmen among them, and our poor fellows, afraid of his vengeance, have fled to the mountains several times and have been harassed extremely. At length Captain Lloyd, fearful of losing more men if he put his threats in execution, adopted this stratagem; he addressed an official letter to the governor, stating that in the American crew were two men who deserted from his squadron in America, and as they were guilty of high treason, he required them to be found and given up. Accordingly a force was sent into the country, and the American seamen were arrested and brought to town, and as they could not designate the said pretended deserters, all the seamen here passed an examination of the British officers, but no such persons were found among them. I was requested by the governor and British consul to attend this humiliating examination, as was also Captain Reid; but we declined to sanction by our presence any such proceedings.

Captain Reid has protested against the British commanders of the squadron for the unwarrantable destruction of his vessel in a neutral and friendly port, as also against the government of Portugal for their inability to protect him.

No doubt this government will feel themselves bound to make ample indemnification to the owners, officers, and crew of this vessel, for the great loss they have severally sustained.

I shall as early as possible transmit a statement of this transaction to our minister at Rio Janeiro for this government.

I have the honor to be, with great respect, sir, your most obedient servant,

To the Secretary of State of U. S.

Washington.

JOHN B. DABNEY.

BRIEF OF FACTS.

The claimants in this case assert the liability of the government of the United States to indemnify them for the losses sustained herein, upon the following brief of facts:

1st. That immediately after the outrage was committed by the British fleet upon the American brig, the Portuguese government acknowledged its liability to the United States; charged the violation of the neutrality of the port upon England; and demanded an apology and indemnification from that government, which was accorded. (See letter from the Marquis de Aguiar to Mr. Sumpter, and enclosures in Sen. Doc. No. 14, 1st ses. 29th Cong. p. 22 et ante to 12.)

2d. That every administration of this government, from Mr. Madison's down to President Taylor's, has admitted, recognized, and asserted the rights of the claimants. (See letters of instruction from the Department of State in Sen. Doc. 14, ibid.) That, in 1845, under the administration of Mr. Polk, the Portuguese government, for the first time, denied its liability, and refused indemnification; and the prosecution of the claim was abandoned by Mr. Upshur on the ground that "argument and importunity had been exhausted," although the claimants' rights were never once questioned. (See letter of Senor De Castro, Sen. Doc. 14, p. 48, and Mr. Upshur to Mr. Reid, and reply, ibid., p. 54.) That afterwards, during Mr. Polk's administration, this claim was brought before

the Senate of the United States, by a resolution calling for the correspondence in the case, and the Committee on Foreign Relations recommended its reference back to the Department of State for further prosecution, which was ordered. (See Mr. Atherton's report, May 19, 1846.)

3d. That, under the administration of General Taylor, the prosecution of this and other claims against Portugal was renewed by a letter of instructions from Mr. Clayton to Mr. Hopkins.-(See letter G, p. 16, in Ex. Doc. Ho. of Reps., No. 53, 1st ses., 32d Cong.) Finally, on the 8th of March, 1850, Mr. Clayton, Secretary of State, was instructed by the President to make a peremptory demand for this claim through Mr. J. B. Clay, our chargé at Lisbon, in opposition to the proposition of Portugal to refer this and other claims to arbitration.-(See letter U. p. 68, V. 69, Y. 73, in Doc. 53, ibid.)

4th. That on this demand being made, Portugal offered to pay all the other claims, as a bonus, if the United States would refer the Armstrong claim to arbitration, which proposition was again rejected, and Mr. Clay demanded his passports, and left for France. -(See letters Y, Z, AA, BB, p. 73 to 81, and BBB, 112, in Doc. 53, ibid.)

5th. That pending this negotiation the Portuguese government made further admissions of its liability by citing the acts and acknowledgments of the English government. (See letter I, Count Tojal to Mr. Hopkins, p. 34, and letter L, to Mr. Clay, p. 51, and Mr. Clay's reply, M, p. 54, ibid.) That Portugal never admitted that she had abandoned the claim made on England, for indemnification for the destruction of the brig, up to this time. (See letter of Mr. Hopkins, H, p. 31, ibid.) That Mr. Clay demanded copies of the diplomatic correspondence between Portugal and England on this subject, which was refused.-(See letter K, p. 46, ibid.) That, notwithstanding, England was constantly interfering with this negotiation, and furnishing communications and arguments to Portugal.— (See letters N, p. 57, and P, p. 62, ibid.)

That in the meantime, the Portuguese minister at Washington opened a correspondence with the Secretary of State, strenuously urging the arbitration, to which Mr. Clayton peremptorily refused, under instructions from the President, whose intention it was to lay this claim before Congress for its final action.-(See letters TT, p. 97; No. 22, p. 180, No. 25, p. 186, and No. 27, p. 191, ZZ. p. 110, VV. p. 99, U. 68, ibid. and private letter of Mr. Clayton, F.)

6th. That on the 9th July, 1850, General Taylor died, previous to which period all negotiations had ceased, the Portuguese government having received the ultimatum of the President. That on the accession of Mr. Fillmore's administration, Mr. Webster-only three days after succeeding Mr. Clayton-agreed with Mr. Figaneiro to accept the bonus of the payment of all the other demands, and arbitrate the Armstrong case.-(See Mr. Clayton's speeches, p. 5, 13, and 17.) Mr. Clay was informed of this acceptance, and requested to return to Lisbon to complete the arrangement; which, for the most honorable and delicate reasons, he declined. (See letter DD, p. 83, ibid.) That on the 5th September, 1851, Mr. Webster officially communicated to the Portuguese minister the President's acceptance of the terms to arbitrate this claim. (See letter BBB, p. 112, ibid.) ·

7th. That the private agreement to arbitrate this claim was entered into without the advice, information, knowledge, or consent of the claimants, reversing the opinion of the previous Executive, and in direct violation of the plighted faith, solemnly asseverated to Portugal, that it would never consent to compromise the honor of the nation or the rights of the claimants.-(See conclusion of letter H, p. 33, ibid.) That on hearing of the rumor of the acceptance through the newspapers, the agent of the claimants immediately wrote to the Secretary of the State, protesting against this course, and begged to have the matter postponed until he could arrive in Washington. He was informed, however, that it was tor late, that the proposition had already been accepted, and the fa

formally announced to Portugal.-(See letter of Mr. Reid, and Mr. Webster's reply, p. 9 in the printed speeches, original marked A.) That the responsibility was hereby fully assumed without the consent of the claimants, and the act became established, perfect and complete. That the said convention was not absolutely drawn up until the 26th of February, 1851, seven months after the verbal acceptance. (See letters FF and GG, p. 84, in House Doc. No. 53.)

8th. That this treaty or convention was submitted to the Senate, and ratified on the 10th March, 1851, in secret session, without any possible knowledge or information of the nature and circumstances under which said convention was made.-(See letter GG. p. 84, ibid., and Sen. Doc. No. 7, 1st Session 33d Congress.)

That the first article of said convention declares the conditions under which said treaty was made, and that the consideration of the bonus, for which this claim was agreed to be arbitrated, is set forth in the fourth article of said treaty.-(See Treaty in Appendix.)

That said treaty is imperfect and defective, and was made in violation of all principles of justice, and without a strict regard to the protection of the rights of the claimants: first, because said treaty, under the second article, has for its only object the decision of a point of public law, which is not expressed or set forth in such a manner as to compel the finding of the arbiter to be confined to any particular point of law or statement of facts; second, because, under said second article, it is provided that the claim only "in behalf of the captain, officers, and crew of said privateer should be submitted to the arbitrament," while the claim in behalf of the owners of said brig General Armstrong, is wholly disregarded, omitted, and unprovided for, under said convention, consequently, the claim of said owners was never submitted to arbitration; third, because, under the third article of said convention, it is not stipulated that the arbiter shall hear and decide upon the law and the facts which shall be submitted by the claimants through their government, as well as on the part of Portugal. Fourth, because, by the third arti