been first mate, had been engaged in January 1865 in carrying crew, arms, and ammunition from London to the rebel cruiser Stonewall, which received substantially her entire crew and armament of small arms and ammunition by that means. On parting with the Stonewall, the City of Richmond steamed to Bermuda, and thence to Nassau, where her officers and men were discharged, the claimant immediately proceeding to New York, as above stated.

"The claimant alleged in his memorial, however, that he shipped upon the City of Richmond in good faith for an ordinary voyage to the West Indies, and without information or suspicion that her voyage was in any way connected with either of the belligerent parties in the United States,' and that, on finding her engaged in supplying the Stonewall, he had protested to his captain, who paid no attention to his protest, and required him to obey orders, on pain of arrest for mutiny. The fact of the claimant's having been thus engaged on the City of Richmond was reported to General Dix, and this, in connection with his arrival in New York from Nassau, constituted the grounds of his arrest by General Dix.

"On the part of the United States it was claimed that the fact of the claimant's having been actively engaged in aiding the enemies of the United States, and that he immediately thereafter came from Nassau, the principal port in the Atlantic from which intercourse with the States in rebellion was kept up through the blockade, to New York, justified the authorities of the United States in arresting and holding him both as a prisoner of war and as a probable spy.

"On the part of the claimant it was contended that there was no proof of any offense committed by the claimant against the laws of the United States, or the laws or principles of neutrality. That even if he had voluntarily participated in the cruise of the City of Richmond to equip the Stonewall, this fact would have furnished no justification for his subsequent arrest in New York, though it might have sufficed to determine Her Majesty's government not to interfere for his protection or indemnity. That the informality in his passport was caused, if not contrived, by the United States consul at Nassau, and that the assurance by that officer to the claimant that the passport was a sufficient one was in bad faith, and made with a view to the claimant's arrest when he should arrive in the city of New York, the consul having sent by the same ship a letter

addressed to General Dix, giving him the information upon which he acted; and that the claimant's imprisonment was unnecessarily and unjustly severe and prolonged.

"The commission unanimously awarded to the claimant the sum of $1,200.

"The cases of John C. Rahming, No. 7; Cases of Rahming, Joseph Eneas, No. 126; and Joseph W. Binney, Eneas, and Binney. No. 352, were of substantially the same character, and were all decided at the same time. These claimants were all domiciled in the city of New York, and there engaged in trade. All were carrying on a considerable trade with the port of Nassau, and were arrested on the charge of carrying on an unlawful traffic with the enemies of the United States under color of their trade with Nassau. Rahming and Eneas were both arrested on the 31st December 1863 and confined under military authority in Fort Lafayette, until July 2, 1864, and then discharged without trial, on giving bonds for their appearance if called on for trial by the United States authorities. Rahming had also been previously arrested, on a charge of having shipped arms to the rebels, in September 1861, and had then been detained as a prisoner in Fort Lafayette for fifteen days. Binney was arrested on the 14th June 1864, imprisoned in Fort Lafayette under military authority for five weeks, and then transferred to a jail in the city of New York, where he was detained seventeen days longer and was then discharged by General Dix without any bonds or security required.

"In each of these cases it was alleged by the claimant, and proofs were taken in support of such allegations, that the claimants were innocent of the offenses charged against them; that their imprisonment was unnecessarily and improperly protracted; and that they received improper and unnecessarily severe treatment during their imprisonment. Proofs were taken on the part of the United States to show the charges against them well founded, and to rebut the charges of improper treatment. In each of the cases allegations were also made of large resulting damages to the claimants by reason of their imprisonment.

"Rahming, by his memorial, claimed damages $580,800, besides interest. He was awarded by the majority of the commission (Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting on the question of amount merely) the sum of $38,500.

"Eneas claimed $720,000, besides interest, and was awarded $1,540, all the commissioners joining.

"Binney claimed $100,000, besides interest, and was awarded $5,390, all the commissioners joining.

"In each of the cases I am advised that the decision turned upon questions of fact, all the commissioners agreeing that the proofs, though sufficient to warrant the arrest in each case, did not leave the truth of the charges free from doubt; and that the detention of the prisoners without trial was unnecessarily protracted.1

Stovin's Case.

"In the case of John Carville Stovin, No. 23, claimant was arrested at Cumberland, Maryland, in October 1861 on the charge of disloy alty, in attending secession meetings in Cumberland, and being the means of transmitting information to the enemy. He was taken to Fort McHenry, there detained for about five weeks, and discharged without trial. He alleged that his business as a manufacturer at Cumberland was stopped, and in effect destroyed by his arrest, and claimed damages $380,794.27, besides interest; including, however, some firewood, hay, corn, and oats, alleged to have been taken and appropriated by the United States soldiers. He alleged, also, ill treatment while in confinement. Proofs were taken on both sides on the question of his disloyal conduct, and it was contended on the part of the United States that the facts of the case justified his arrest as a disloyal person, openly giving aid and comfort to the rebellion by his language and expressions of sympathy, in a village situated upon the frontiers of the enemy's country, and where such conduct involved danger to the military operations of the United States.

"On the part of the claimant the charges of disloyal conduct and language were denied, and proof was adduced to show him a law-abiding and peaceable inhabitant.

"The commission gave an award to the claimant of $8,300, all the commissioners joining.

"In the case of Frank Russell Reading, No. Reading's Case. 43, the claimant was arrested in the city of Washington on the 6th July 1864, that city then being threatened by the rebel forces under General

1 Mr. Frazer read an opinion, discussing the facts. He held that the only ground of claim established by the claimant was that "he was detained too long." (Hale's Report, 241.)

5627-VOL. 4- -4

Early; was brought to trial before a military commission in Washington on the charge of uttering disloyal and treasonable language in the District of Columbia when threatened by the enemy, such language being calculated to give aid, comfort, and assistance to the enemy. He was found guilty by the commission, and sentenced to imprisonment for five years, with hard labor, at the Dry Tortugas, or such other military prison as the Secretary of War might select. Under this sentence he was imprisoned at Fort Delaware from the 30th August 1864 till 1st June 1865.

"On the part of the United States it was contended that the military commission was a lawful tribunal, competent for the trial and punishment of military offenses, and having full jurisdiction of the case of the claimant, both as to subjectmatter and person; that at the time of his arrest and trial Washington was a city in military occupation, environed by forts of the United States, occupied and defended by their armies, the headquarters of the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and, as the capital of the country, always a vital point of attack for the rebel forces, and at this specific time the actual objective point of a vigorous and determined attack by the enemy, who actually reached, as their advanced post, on the 12th July, Fort Stevens, within the limits of the District of Columbia and within four or five miles of the Capitol.

"That the offense charged against Reading was a purely military offense, of which the civil tribunals had not cognizance, and so was not within the principle held by the Supreme Court in the case of Milligan (4 Wall. 2).

"That Reading having appeared in person and by counsel before the military tribunal, and having pleaded in chief, without raising any question to the jurisdiction, could not be heard to question the jurisdiction of the tribunal as to his person merely; and that the commission having by law jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the charge, the failure to object to jurisdiction as to the person obviated all question as to their complete jurisdiction. The counsel for the United States cited the case of Vallandigham (1 Wall. 243).

"On the part of the claimant it was contended that the military tribunal had no jurisdiction whatever, and that the imprisonment of the claimant under it was wholly without authority of law.

"The commission gave a unanimous award in favor of the claimant for $15,400.

Shaver's Case.

"In the case of John I. Shaver, No. 51, the memorial alleged that the claimant, being at the time domiciled in Canada, but traveling in the United States on the business of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, a Canadian corporation, of which he was an agent, was arrested at Detroit on the 15th October 1861, by direction of Mr. Seward, the Secretary of State of the United States; that he was taken thence to Fort Lafayette, in New York Harbor, and confined there, and subsequently at Fort Warren, in Boston Harbor, until the 6th January 1862. He alleged that by his arrest he was thrown out of lucrative employment as agent of the railway company named; that by it he lost the confidence of his employers and was unable to regain his position after his release; and that he suffered large pecuniary losses in consequence. He claimed damages $100,000.

"The arrest was made upon information communicated to Mr. Seward that the claimant was engaged in conveying communications between the rebels in Canada and those within the insurrectionary States. The proofs failed to sustain the charge, and it appeared that Mr. Kennedy, chief of police of the city of New York, immediately after the arrest of the claimant, reported to the State Department that he found no proofs to warrant his detention, or to implicate him in any improper communication with the enemy.

"The commission awarded the claimant $30,204, Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting on the question of amount only.

Levy's Case.

"In the case of Samuel G. Levy, No. 61, it appeared that the claimant, a resident of Canada, on landing in Boston from a British steamship from Liverpool in May 1864, was taken thence to New York, and there detained for about eight days, on a charge of being engaged in blockade running. At the end of that time he was discharged upon giving bail for his appearance within six months, if required. He alleged large consequential damages by interference with his due attention to his business, and by the enforced breaking of an engagement of marriage in consequence of his arrest, and claimed as damages £20,000.

"The commission unanimously gave him an award of $930.