and there was, the court added, "some uncertainty, to say the least, whether in due course of mail this petition, posted at Glasgow, January 2, would be delivered in Washington by 12 m. on the 14th."1 July 24, 1885, the court made an order directing Case of Disbarment. Jerome F. Manning, one of the attorneys admitted to practice before it, to show cause at 10 o'clock the next morning why his name should not be stricken from the rolls. The ground of this action, as stated in the order, was that Manning, "being uninvited and refused admittance to its consultation room, July 23, 1885, then occupied by the court sitting in chambers engaged in the transaction of its official duties, nevertheless forced his way into said room, and interrupted the court in the prosecution of its official work by unseemly threats, then and there uttered against one of the judges thereof because of an official opinion delivered from the bench in open court by said judge as the organ of the court in the announcement of a decision in a case pending before it." On July 25, after the order had been read in open court, Manning made a statement disclaiming any intention of interrupting or insulting the court, and asked for a postponement of the hearing till the 27th. The court declined to postpone the hearing beyond 4 o'clock in the afternoon of the 25th, when Manning appeared with counsel, who read and filed affidavits and addressed the court in his defense. On the 29th of July the court, after signing a statement as to what took place on the 23d, made an order prohibiting Manning from exercising the functions of an attorney or counselor before it, and authorized the clerk "to substitute the name of any attorney of this court in place of said Jerome F. Manning in any case, upon the receipt of the request in writing from the claimant therein, or from his legal representatives to that effect." In the following autumn a motion was made for Manning's restoration. The court replied that after his disbarment he had embodied in a circular to his clients and in an article published in the Lowell (Mass.) Courier of August 1, 1885, a copy of which was received through the mails by each member of the court, statements which the court described as "grossly abusive" and "in contempt of its authority;" and the court refused to rescind its order except on condition that Manning retract his charges on oath and apologize for them, which he refused to do. By the act of 1882 the Secretary of State was required, after receiving the list of the court's judgments, to transmit a certified copy of it to the Secretary of the Treasury, in order that they might be paid; but owing to the impossibility of making such a copy at once the original list was provisionally sent to the Treasury, in order that the claimants might not be subjected to any delay. While the matter stood thus Manning filed in the supreme court of the district of Columbia a petition for a writ of mandamus, in which he stated that the judges of the Alabama Claims Court had unlawfully caused his name to be erased from the "true and correct list" of judgments, and prayed that the Secretary of State might be 1 Guild v. United States. 2 The act of June 3, 1884 (23 Stats. at L. 33), requiring the court to report a list of judgments of the first class, expressly authorized the Secretary of State to transmit "the same, or a copy thereof," to the Secretary of the Treasury. directed to recall the false and misleading record and furnish a true and correct one. Nothing came of this proceeding. Manning also brought suit for damages against Judge French in the courts of Massachusetts; but he failed to recover, it being held that the Alabama Claims Court possessed, under the statutes by which it was created, power to make rules for the admission of attorneys to practice before it, and to deprive such attorneys of the privilege of continuing such practice, and that the proceedings against Manning were not in the nature of a proceeding for contempt.3 1 Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Garland, At. Gen., October 14, 1886, MSS. Dept. of State. 2 The petition for the writ was filed October 11, 1886, and on November 22 an amended petition was filed. January 7, 1887, Merrick, C. J., directed a decree for the respondent. A motion was made for a rehearing, but on January 14 the petition was dismissed with costs. An appeal bond was filed, but the matter does not appear to have been carried further. No mandate was ever filed. (Mr. Young, clerk of the court, to Mr. Moore, February 8, 1897, MS.) 3 Manning v. French, 149 Mass. 391, 21 N. E. 945. A person named Charles O. Osborn, who had been designated by the court as an expert witness to examine the books and records of sundry insurance companies and individual insurers, was disqualified by the court, and his orders of employment were revoked, upon the discovery that he had addressed a letter to an ex member of Congress offering him a sum of money for his influence to obtain a consular position under the Government of the United States. The Secretary of State possessed no power to review the judgments of the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims. (Mr. Porter, Assistant Secretary, to Mr. Steever, April 16, 1885, MS.) The Department of State declined to advise the President to recommend to Congress the revision of the judgment of the court in respect of the claims of certain members of Lloyds. (Mr. Bayard, Sec. of State, to Sir Lionel West, August 17, 1886, MS. Notes to the British Legation.) 5627-VOL. 5-19 APPENDIX II. TREATIES RELATING TO ARBITRATIONS TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN A PARTY. [Argentine Republic. See Brazil, and Paraguay.] BRAZIL. Protocol of a conference held in Rio de Janeiro in the foreign office on the 14th day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and serenty, between the enroy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States and the minister and secretary of state for the marine department in charge of foreign affairs. Whereas the Government of the United States have claimed of the government of His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Brazil the payment of a certain compensation to the owners of the United States whaleship Canada, which is alleged by the Government of the United States to be justly due to the said owners by the government of His Imperial Majesty; and whereas the government of His Imperial Majesty deny their liability to make such payment by reason of any of the alleged causes set forth by the Government of the United States; and whereas both parties being animated by a friendly feeling, and each desiring to make an amicable settlement of the said cause of difference, have agreed to refer the same to the arbitration of Edward Thornton, esq., commander of the bath, the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Her Britannic Majesty at Washington: For this purpose it now becomes necessary to place on record certain terms and arrangements, with a view of obtaining a speedy and convenient hearing and determination of the matters to be submitted; and the undersigned, Henry T. Blow, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States near the court of His Imperial Majesty, and the Baron de Cotegipe, minister and secretary of state for the marine department in charge of the foreign affairs, being duly authorized by their respective governments, have agreed as follows: ARTICLE I. The claim of the Government of the United States against the Government of Brazil for compensation to the owners of the United States whaleship Canada, and of the cargo thereof, shall be submitted to the arbitration and award of Edward Thornton, esq., commander of the bath, the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of Her Britannic Majesty at Washington. ARTICLE II. The award of the said arbitrator shall be considered as absolutely final and conclusive, and full effect shall be given thereto without any objection, evasion, or delay whatsoever. Such decision shall be given in writing and dated. It shall be in whatsoever form the arbitrator shall choose to adopt. It shall be delivered to the minister or other public agent of His Imperial Majesty who may be actually in the United States and to the Secretary of State at Washington, and shall be considered as operative from the date of the delivery thereof. ARTICLE III. The written or printed case of each of the two parties, with the documents, correspondence, and evidence on which each relies in support of the same, shall be laid before the arbitrator at Washington on or before the 1st day of June next, and the arbitrator shall decide the questions so submitted to him upon such case, documents, correspondence, and evidence. ARTICLE IV. The Secretary of State of the United States and the minister or other public representative of His Imperial Majesty, actually in the United States, shall be considered as the agents of their respective governments, to whom the arbitrator shall address notices and whose acts shall bind their respective governments. ARTICLE V. The arbitrator may employ a clerk for the purposes of the arbitration at such rate of remuneration as he shall think proper. This and all other expenses of the arbitration shall be repaid in two equal por tions, one by each of the two parties, as soon as the arbitrator renders an account of the same. ARTICLE VI. Should the arbitrator decline to render any decision, everything done by virtue of this agreement shall be null and void and each government shall be at liberty to proceed as if no arbitration had been made. Done at Rio de Janeiro the fourteenth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventy. [SEAL.] [SEAL.] HENTY T. BLOW. Treaty between Brazil and the Argentine Republic, signed September 7, 1889, for the arbitration of the question of their boundaries. [Translated from the Portuguese.] His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil and His Excellency the President of the Argentine Republic, desiring to solve as speedily as possible the boundary question pending between the two States, have agreed, without prejudice to the treaty of the 28th of September 1885, to fix a term for the conclusion of the discussion of right, and, in the event of their not succeeding in coming to an understanding, to submit the same question to the arbitration of a friendly government, and as to this end a treaty is necessary, they have appointed their plenipotentiaries, that is to say: His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil, the Baron de Alencar, a member of his council, his envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary in the Argentine Republic; His Excellency the President of the Argentine Republic, Dr. D. Norberto Quirno Costa, his minister and secretary for the home office and, ad interim, for foreign affairs; Who, after having communicated to each other their full powers, which were found in good and due form, agreed upon the following articles: ART. 1. The discussion of the right which each of the high contracting parties believes itself to have to the territory in litigation between them |