As the relinquishment of the United States was of claims for depredations on American commerce by French cruisers, it did not embrace the seizure and confiscation by the French army in 1796 of goods in a British warehouse in the neutral city of Leghorn. (Field, Admr., v. United States, 27 Ct. Cl. 224.) A condemnation by a French tribunal in Santo Domingo, within the jurisdiction of Spain, was disposed of by the treaty between the United States and Spain of 1819. (The Hope, 27 Ct. Cl. 122.) 3. RIGHT TO WITHDRAW OR ABANDON. § 1057. A government does not, by abandoning the claim of one of its citizens against a foreign government, necessarily become liable to make good the claim. "The argument of abstract right is strong; but as the justice obtainable from foreign nations is at all times, and under every state of things, very imperfect, and as the only alternative in cases of denial of justice is the abandonment of the claim or war, a nation by abandoning the claim, after exhausting every specific expedient for obtaining justice, neither partakes of the injustice done nor makes itself responsible to the sufferer; for war, even if it eventually obtains justice for that sufferer, secures it by the sufferings of thousands of others equally unmerited and which must ultimately remain unindemnified. And mere inability to obtain justice can not incur the obligation it is unable to enforce." 6 J. Q. Adams's Memoirs, 383. "The diplomatic abandonment of the claims by their own government, especially if accompanied by the characterization contained in the proposed preamble, could not fail to prove a serious obstacle to the success of any efforts which the parties, whose claims have heretofore been presented, might make to secure redress through the judicial tribunals, a source from which, under the most favorable circumstances, the claimants would seem to have little to hope for." Mr. Fish, Sec. of State, to Mr. Logan, Dec. 20, 1875, MS. Inst. Chile, XVI. 171. "While this Department is at all times ready to lend the good offices of its representatives abroad for the presentation of all valid claims founded on justice and equity of its citizens upon foreign governments in accordance with its established regulations, and also to assist in the promotion of American interests in all proper cases and by those methods known and approved internationally, yet it is not unmindful of the concurrent obligation imposed by our professions of amity and comity with other nations, as well as by the injunctions of our own self-respect, upon which we invite those nations confidently to rely, which should secure such previous scrutiny and examination of the law and facts upon which such claims are based by their proponents as shall, prima facie, assure both parties of their justice. "To discriminate against speculative and unjust claims by our citizens upon foreign governments and in favor of those founded in justice and equity, will cause our recommendations to have that weight which we desire, and create confidence in our international action." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Jarvis, min. to Brazil, No. 40, Sept. 6, 1886, 42, withdrawing the claim of James C. Jewett against the Government of Brazil. "In view of the previous exercise of the Department's good offices on your behalf in this matter, and the apparent failure to establish the allegations of claim then made, it is not thought that your case is a proper subject for further diplomatic action." (Mr. Wharton, Asst. Sec. of State, to Mr. Jewett, June 28, 1889, 173 MS. Dom. Let. 474.) "Essential as it is that the intercourse between nations should be marked by the highest honor as well as honesty, the moment that the government of the United States discovers that a claim it makes on a foreign government can not be honorably and honestly pressed, that moment, no matter what may be the period of the procedure, that claim should be dropped.” Report of Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to the President, on the case of A. H. It is part of the sovereign right of a government if, at any time before the consummation of a transaction relating to the claim of a citizen against a foreign government, it becomes satisfied of the falsity or injustice of the claim, to abandon all further action on behalf of the claimant. United States v. La Abra Silver Min. Co., 29 Ct. Cl. 432. XVI. DAMAGES. 1. MEASURE OF DAMAGES. $ 1058. The probable or possible profits of an unfinished voyage afford no rule to estimate the damages in a case of marine trespass. The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat 546; La Amistad de Ruse, 5 id. 385. The prime cost or value of the property lost, and, in case of injury, the diminution in value by reason of the injury, with interest thereon, affords the true measure of damages in such a case. The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat. 546. The liability of France, in a French spoliation case, is limited to the value of the property at the time of the illegal seizure or condemnation, and can not be augmented by subsequent transactions between owners and insurers. The John Eason (1902), 37 Ct. Cl. 443. A party whose house was destroyed in Florida, so as to give him a claim for its loss, can not receive, in addition, indemnity for extraordinary expenses incurred by him in taking up his residence in another place. Cushing, At. Gen. 1854, 6 Op. 530. By the Geneva tribunal the distinction between immediate and remote (or consequential) damages was maintained; the latter being held not to be properly chargeable. See supra, § 1050. A British vessel, wrecked on the Chinese coast, was purchased by an American citizen. The day before the purchase, however, "the vessel had been gutted by Chinese marauders, who, it is alleged, had access to the vessel through the neglect of the Chinese Government. Now, supposing that such neglect imposed on the Chinese Government a liability to make good to the owners of the vessel the losses thereby sustained by them, which, however, we have no reason on the facts to assume, yet we must recollect that the petitioner bought the vessel as she was at the time of purchase and can only claim for damages subsequently accruing." Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Denby, min. to China, No. 42, Feb. 5. 1886, MS. Inst. China, IV. 118. On this and other grounds, it was held that there was no claim against the Chinese Government on the part of the American purchaser. (Ibid.) 2. INTEREST. § 1059. The rule of the common law that interest is not payable on claims against the Government, unless express provision be made for such payment, has been followed in the United States. This is, however, merely a rule of municipal law enforced by the Government against its citizens or subjects, and is not obligatory as between government and government. As to the practice of international commissions in the allowance of interest, see Moore, Int. Arbitrations, I. 287, 339, 374; II. 1317, 1445; IV. 3545, 3734, 4323, 4324, 4327; V. 4613. "Interest, according to the usage of nations, is a necessary part of a just national indemnification." Davis, Notes, Treaty Vol. (1776-1887), citing Wirt, At. Gen., 1 Op. 28; Crittenden, At. Gen., 5 Op. 350; Geneva Award, 4 Papers relating to the Treaty of Washington, 53. By the fifth article of the convention of 1818, certain differences were referred to the Emperor of Russia, who awarded "That the United States of America are entitled to a just indemnification, from Great Britain, for all private property carried away by the British forces; and as the question regards slaves more especially, for all such slaves as were carried away by the British forces, from the places and territories of which the restitution was stipulated by the treaty, in quitting the said places and territories." A convention. was subsequently formed at St. Petersburg between the United States and Great Britain, July 12, 1822, " for the purpose of carrying into effect this award of His Imperial Majesty." A question arose as to the payment of interest on the indemnity awarded, and Great Britain appealed to the terms of the convention of 1822 as relieving her from such payment. It was held that "just indemnification involved not merely the return of the value of the specific property, but compensation in the nature of damages for the wrongful detention of it; but since this, if not impracticable, would be a work of great labor and time, interest, according to the usage of nations, was a necessary part of the indemnification. It was further held that in case of conflict between the award and the terms of the convention of 1822, the latter should give way to the former. Moore, Int. Arbitrations, I. 361; Wirt, At. Gen., 1826, 2 Op. 28. When a fund awarded to a claimant is invested by the Department in United States securities, on which interest has accrued between investment and payment, such interest is not payable to the claimant. Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Messrs. Coudert Brothers, Oct. 7, 1885, 157 MS. Dom. Let. 306, affirming Mr. Frelinghuysen's ruling in letter to same persons of Feb. 26, 1885. "Under section 3659 of the Revised Statutes, all funds held in trust by the United States and the annual interest accruing thereon, when not otherwise required by treaty, are to be invested in stocks of the United States bearing a rate of interest not less than five per centum per annum. There being now no procurable stocks paying so high a rate of interest, the letter of the statute is at present inapplicable, but its spirit is subserved by continuing to make investments of this nature in current stocks bearing the highest interest now paid. The statute, however, makes no provision for the disposal of such accretions. It being contrary to the general rule of this Government to allow interest on claims, I recommend the repeal of the provision in question, and the disposition, under a uniform rule, of the present accumulations from investment of trust funds." President Cleveland, annual message, Dec. 8, 1885, For. Rel. 1885, XIV. See Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Messrs. Coudert Brothers, Oct. 16, 1885, 157 MS. Dom. Let. 375. By article 6 of the agreement between the United States and Spain, of February 12, 1871, for the arbitration of claims, it was stipulated that the expenses of the arbitration would be “defrayed by a percentage to be added to the amount awarded." In distributing the moneys received from Spain on the awards as they were rendered, the Secretary of State, pending the final act of the Commission in adding a percentage to the total amount of its awards, retained 5 per cent of the moneys so received. The reason for this was stated in a circular letter of the Secretary of State to the claimants, which said: "Five per centum of the amount due in each case will be reserved for the present, to meet the expenses of the commission, until a payment to cover such expenses shall have been made by Spain in conformity with the provision in that regard of said agreement of February 12th, 1871." In another letter, addressed to the plaintiff in the present case, the Secretary of State said: "It is hoped that no great delay will occur in receiving the payment from Spain, which will liberate this reserve for expenses, and the Department will expect to keep this reserve invested in interest-bearing securities of the United States, to cover the delay in its distribution to the claimants." Subsequently the reserve was paid over by another Secretary of State to the claimants without interest. Held, that a writ of mandamus would not lie to compel the payment of the interest; that, as the money was withheld from the claimants by the United States, the case fell within the rule that the United States does not pay interest on claims against it, except in pursuance of statutory authority; and that no claim for interest could be founded “upon the language of any notification or circular or letter which issued from the Department of State," since "no binding contract for the payment of interest was thereby created." Angarica v. Bayard (1888), 127 U. S. 251. See Angarica v. Bayard, 4 XVII. PAYMENT. § 1060. "I am under the impression that the payment by diplomatic agents, either directly or through this Department, to claimants on foreign governments of moneys which may be recovered from such govern |