damages. There are some inconveniences attending residence in a country which is the theater of rebellion, which are practically irremediable, and must be borne as a share of the common misfortune. It is to be hoped, therefore, that Mr. Edwards will be sufficiently moderate in his demands as to justify the hope of a speedy settlement when tranquillity shall be restored to Cuba.

The arbitrators awarded the claimant the sum of $5,000 in American gold.

James M. Edwards v. Spain, No. 5, December 20, 1873, Spanish commission, agreement of February 11-12, 1871. See also S. Ex. Doc. 108, 41 Cong. 2 sess. 203, 204.

Story's Case.

"Henry Story, a citizen of the United States, in order to arrange some outstanding business, settled with his family in a district of the Island of Cuba lying between the lines of the Spanish troops and the Cuban insurgents. He was thus fully aware that he exposed himself to all the casualties necessarily incident to the de facto war in those regions. He claims for the destruction of two houses on the Vegas, and of their contents, for the disappearance of some furniture in a town house in Puerto Principe, and for the ill treatment to which he was subjected.

"With reference to his claim for damages on account of ill treatment, it appears from the documents in this case that he and his family were arrested by the Spanish troops and subjected to treatment not required by any military necessity, nor justified by the political behavior of the claimant or of his family. This is proved by the fact that the governor of Puerto Principe, before whom they were brought, declared them innocent, and released them. The manner in which Story and his family were arrested prevented them from saving some of his personal property.

"As the ill treatment was not required for the purpose of investigating his case, it constituted a wrong for which he has just claim to an indemnity to the extent that such treatment exceeded the measure of the hardships to which he had unavoidably exposed himself by settling in that part of the island.

"By modern principles of international law, a foreigner voluntarily exposing himself to casualties growing out of war waged to expel foreign invasion or to suppress a rebellion must submit to the hardships they impose; but the extent and

character of these hardships must be limited by the actual necessity of inflicting them in order to carry on military operations.

"In the case of Story, the hardships he suffered, so far as they were to secure an investigation of his case, give him no claim; but those that were wantonly and unnecessarily inflicted give him a clear right to indemnity under the agree ment between Spain and the United States of February 12, 1871..

"In consideration of the preceding facts and arguments the umpire is of opinion

"1st. That the claimant has no sufficient title to an award for the destruction of the houses and their contents, as he has not proved himself to be the legal owner of them; and

"2d. That the claimant having been ill treated by the Spanish troops to an extent not required to secure his arrest and the investigation of his case, and having been afterward declared innocent by the competent Spanish authority, is entitled to an indemnity, in which may be comprised an allowance for the loss of some personal property which he might have saved from destruction if the proceeding toward him and his family had not been of a too great severity.

"It seems to the umpire that $1,200 is sufficient to cover the wrong for which said Story is entitled to an indemnity under the agreement of February 12, 1871, and the umpire awards that amount accordingly."

Baron Lederer, umpire, January 16, 1874, Henry Story v. Spain, No. 1, Spanish Claims Commission, agreement between the United States and Spain of February 11-12, 1871.

Case of Lowe and
Others

"In the case of Gideon Lowe, Charles Curry, and John Barthum v. Spain, No. 14, it is my opinion

"1. That the master of the schooner Arietes does not explain satisfactorily how, having sailed from Key West, bound to Sisal (Yucatan), the said ship was found inside the Colorado reefs, within the maritime jurisdiction of Spain, a long distance from the direct course; that there was sufficient reason to suspect that the Arietes was a wrecker engaged in illegal business, and consequently that the commander of the Spanish schooner of war Omega was justified in taking her to port, but that the Spanish authorities neglected to comply with treaty stipulations in not referring immediately the examination of the case to a competent court; that therefore the claimants

have a right to recover damages to the amount of $75, with interest at 6 per cent from the 10th of January 1869 to this day. "That in towing the Spanish schooner of war Omega, the Arietes did to the Spanish ship a service, for which the claimants have a right to receive remuneration to the amount of $100, with interest at 6 per cent a year from the 10th of January 1869 to this day."

M. Bartholdi, umpire, December 12, 1874, Spanish Claims Commission, agreement of February 11-12, 1871.

Charles Jemot, a citizen of the United States, Jemot's Case. was part owner of a hacienda situated near Trinidad de Cuba, and between two camps of insurgents. In May 1869 he was arrested there on a charge of conveying information to the insurgents. On this charge he was tried by a court-martial and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. Through the intervention of the United States consul he was released on condition of leaving the island without permission to return. The arbitrators allowed him $5,000 with interest from December 4, 1869. The grounds of this award are not stated. It was on or about December 4, 1869, that he left Cuba under the conditions of his release.

Fritot's Case.

Charles Jemot v. Spain, No. 108, April 8, 1876, Spanish Claims Commission, agreement between the United States and Spain of February 11–12, 1871. The claimant, a native of Cuba, was naturalized in the United States in 1860. On February 11, 1869, he was arrested in Cuba as a suspected and dangerous person. He was imprisoned until March 12, when he and other citizens of the United States were released at the request of the consul-general of the United States at Havana and Admiral Hoff. A few hours after his release he was rearrested by a Spanish officer on the supposition that he had escaped, and was confined until the following day, when, having been again released, he went on board a United States man-of-war, by which he was brought to the United States.

It was contended by the advocate for Spain that the claimant when arrested was not known to be an American citizen, and that it did not appear that he had ever made known his nationality until an application was made for his release on that ground. Moreover, there was at the time of his impris onment an insurrection in Cuba, in which the power of arrest had to be freely exercised in a manner coextensive with the

necessity. Martial law prevailed, and the claimant, it was contended, was subject to it. (United States v. Diekelman, 92 U. S. 520, 526.) The treaty of 1795, said the advocate for Spain, allowed the claimant to employ counsel and to have his case conducted according to the regular course of proceedings usual in such cases, and there was no allegation or proof that any such privilege was denied him. He left the island, as it was maintained, voluntarily.

The claimant demanded $250,000. There was evidence to show that at the time of his release he was earning $3,000 a year. The arbitrators allowed him $500.

Henry Fritot v. Spain, No. 35, March 16, 1873, Spanish Claims Commission; agreement between the United States and Spain of February 11-12, 1871.

The claimant, a native of Ireland and a natMontgomery's Case, uralized citizen of the United States, was employed in 1870 as an engineer on a sugar plantation in Cuba. June 26 he was arrested by the military authorities for insolence or want of respect to Colonel Verges, governor of Guantanamo, "the chief of operations in the field," who visited the plantation during the day, and whom the claimant on that occasion inadvertently (as he alleged) omitted to salute. The claimant was confined for three or four days, when he was reprimanded and released without trial. In consequence of his arrest and imprisonment, he lost his position as engineer. He claimed damages to the amount of $22,090. The arbitrator for the United States awarded him a year's salary as engineer at $1,000, with interest at 8 per cent from the day of arrest till final payment of the award. The arbitrator for Spain thought it clear, from the claimant's own statements, that he "was guilty of some want of respect, whether intentional or not, to an officer in the field in a time of insurrection and public danger;" that the only facts proved, on which Spain could be held liable, were "that he was arrested under circumstances of perhaps unnecessary hardship, and that he was detained three or four days instead of twenty-four hours, which, under the circumstances, would have been a reasonable time;" and that the sum of $500 would be "an ample indemnity." The umpire allowed $1,000 without interest.

Case of William Montgomery, No. 8, Span. Com. (1871), July 12, 1880.

Machado's Case.

The claimant, a naturalized citizen of the United States, was arrested in Havana in July 1869 for bringing prohibited papers into Cuba. Havana was at the time under martial law, and any correspondence with insurgents was specially prohibited by military orders. The claimant had in his possession certain bonds or certificates which were given to him by an escaped Cuban insurgent in New York, to be delivered to a house in Cuba. He was also the bearer of several letters from the family of the insurgent in question, and of a letter from a young man in New York to his father in Cuba, expressing devotion to the cause of Cuba, and a hope to serve her in the diplomatic line. After a detention of three days the claimant was released, but was informed that the proceedings against him would not be dismissed. He then desired permission to leave the country, which was granted on condition that he would not return while the existing condition of things in Cuba continued. Subsequently he asked if he could remain to finish his business, and was told he could stay a reasonable time. He left Cuba about the middle of October 1869, without having received from the government any order of expulsion. He made the following claims: For value of goods in his store in Havana, $40,000; for goods left in the custom-house, $20,000; for debts which he lost through his expulsion, $10,000; for loss of power to do business, $50,000; for personal sufferings, $50,000; and as he claimed interest on all these sums at 8 per cent, his claim at the time of its hearing amounted to upward of $300,000. The umpire rendered the following decision:

"The claimant in this case * complains that he was illegally arrested when he went to Havana from New York in July 1869, in order to settle some old affairs before going to Para, Brazil, where he was to establish himself in business. He intended to return to New York in August. He was arrested in Havana on July 28, and was imprisoned from about 4 o'clock on Wednesday afternoon till about 1 o'clock the next Saturday, when he was released from confinement. A suspicion that he was the bearer of certain papers and correspondence which the law in force in Cuba at the time did not permit him to bear, and which papers and correspondence were liable to seizure, was the cause of his arrest and imprisonment. Such correspondence was found in his possession, and in consequence there was sufficient ground for his temporary imprisonment.

"The correspondence found was not of a political character, but it was prohibited by military orders to carry even private