rebel cause; that it was calculated to give such aid, and that his imprisonment and detention were lawful military acts. The claimant was imprisoned for about fourteen weeks, and was then discharged without trial.

"The commission gave an award for $1,540, Mr. Commissioner Frazer dissenting.

"Robert McKeown, No. 463, was in March McKeown's Case. 1863, while employed as a ship carpenter in the service of the United States Government on board the gunboat Benton, on the Mississippi River, near the mouth of the Yazoo, arrested by the commanding officer of the gunboat, confined in the hold for about four days, then transferred to another gunboat, and taken to Cairo, Illinois, where he was discharged on the 5th April, after a confinement, in all, of thirteen days. He alleged improper treatment during his confinement, in consequence of which his health was materially injured. His arrest was upon the charge of disloyal and seditious language against the United States while employed on board the gunboat.

"The commission unanimously made an award in his favor for $1,467."

Am. and Br. Claims Commission, treaty of May 8, 1871, Hale's Report, 61-87. See, also, as to cases of McHugh, No. 357, and Reading, No. 43, Howard's Report, 69, 555, 560, 563, 73, 569, 571.

of the Le Mores.

Prior to the civil war in the United States the French and American firm of Edward Gautherin & Co., consisting of Commission: Case Edward Gautherin and Alfred C. and Jules Le More, all citizens of France, was engaged in business at New Orleans, the two Le Mores being the resident partners. At the time of the capture of the city by the forces of the United States, in April 1862, the firm had a contract with the Confederate authorities for the delivery of a large quantity of gray military cloth, and in June 1862 it delivered to them at Matamoras, through an agent, a quantity of cloth valued at $405,483.08, taking therefor a receipt. This receipt was duly presented at the Bank of New Orleans, and the sum of $405,000, which the Confederate authorities had deposited, first with the French consul and then at the bank, previously to the delivery of the cloth, was obtained upon it.

When this transaction was discovered, General Butler caused the two Le Mores to be arrested and brought before him, and after an examination he sent Alfred Le More to Fort Pickens

and Jules to Fort Jackson. Alfred was confined at Fort Pickens from the 15th to the 26th of November 1862, and was forced to wear a 32-pound cannon ball and 6 feet of iron chain. From November 28 to December 20 he was imprisoned, with others, in the New Orleans custom-house. Jules Le More was simply confined at Fort Jackson, and was then brought to New Orleans and kept at the custom-house.

On behalf of the claimants it was contended (1) that on April 14, 1862, when New Orleans was still under the control of the Confederate authorities, the sum of $405,000 was held in escrow by the French consul; (2) that on the following day the agent of Gautherin & Co. left New Orleans to deliver the goods to Confederate authorities; (3) that after the capture of New Orleans by Admiral Farragut, and the raising of the blockade, the city remained surrounded on the land side by the lines of Federal forces, and that Gautherin & Co. were unable to communicate with their agent, who left New Orleans on or about the 14th of April; (4) that under the laws of the State of Louisiana the transaction was complete on the 14th of April. (See Contract of Sale, chap. 4, art. 2431.) It was contended further on behalf of claimants that the duties of the neutral alien were determined by international law and not by the municipal law of the United States, and that the Le Mores had never violated their duties as neutrals.

Counsel for the United States maintained that by the execution of their contract with the Confederate authorities the Le Mores voluntarily gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States during the time specified in the first article of the convention, and contrary to the provisions of that article, and that consequently the commission had no jurisdiction either of the persons or of the cause.

The majority of the commission-Baron de Arinos and M. de Geofroy-held that the Le Mores, by the delivery of the cloth, were not guilty of giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, but the grounds of the opinion were not stated.

In the case of Alfred Le More the majority of the commission said:

"This is a case of unusual and arbitrary conduct on the part of the general commanding at New Orleans.

"He had no right to inflict punishment on the claimant, but only to detain him in custody for trial. The punishment of

f

solitary imprisonment at hard labor with ball and chain was unnecessary, extreme, and much too severe. In this case we allow the claimant ten thousand dollars without interest."

In the case of Jules Le More an award of $4,000 without interest was made.1

Jules Le More v. United States, No. 594, and A. C. Le More v. United States, No. 598, Boutwell's Report, III., commission under the convention between the United States and France of January 16, 1880.

Charles Heidsieck, a citizen of France and Heidsieck's Case. a manufacturer of wines, whose place of busiiness was at Rheims, France, made, previ ously to the civil war in the United States, sales to various persons in that country, as the result of which he held claims against them for considerable sums of money. In April 1861 he came to the United States for the purpose, as he alleged, of protecting his interests in the North and in the South. He passed from New York City to Schenectady, N. Y., then to Louisville, Kentucky, and then to New Orleans, where he arrived in June 1861. After the capture of New Orleans in April 1862, General Butler, having learned that there was at Mobile a stock of flour purchased by the city of New Orleans for the subsistence of its citizens, dispatched a steamboat, under safe conduct, to Mobile, to transport the flour to New Orleans. Heidsieck, who had then established himself at Mobile, though he had not obtained authority to leave New Orleans, obtained or assumed the position of bartender on the steamboat, and was enrolled among its employees. In that

The commissioner on the part of the United States, Mr. Aldis, delivered a dessenting opinion in which he said:

"1. The evidence that is not in dispute shows, in my opinion, that the claimants gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States.

"2. Notwithstanding the conflicting decisions of the courts, and the more conflicting opinions of the writers upon international law, I think that the gray cloth furnished by the claimants should upon principle be held to be contraband of war. It was furnished voluntarily upon express contract with the Government of the Confederate States for the use of the army. Its destination was for some port of the Confederacy nearest to Richmond, if possible. It was called in the correspondence 'army supplies.' It was a direct and necessary aid for carrying on the war. These are the elements which upon principle constitute contraband goods.

"The doctrine and policy of nations as to what is and what is not contraband advance and recede according to their necessities as belligerents or their interests; but the doctrines of international law must stand upon principle to command the assent and respect of mankind.”

capacity he made several trips, each occupying seven days. and conveyed letters between New Orleans and Mobile. When this fact was discovered, General Butler issued an order for his arrest. On this order he was arrested July 29, 1862. He was detained in New Orleans till August 5, when he was transferred to Fort Jackson. He remained there till August 29, when he was removed to Fort Pickens. He was released November 5, 1862, after a detention of 110 days. After he had been imprisoned 48 or 50 days, General Butler offered to release him on condition that he return to Europe by the first vessel: but this offer he rejected. He claimed, for his 110 days' imprisonment, $225,000; and for damages to his reputation in France, and for his bankruptcy, $115,000.

Counsel for the United States contended that Heidsieck was properly arrested as a spy, and that the punishment imposed upon him was a very moderate one.

Counsel for the claimant on the other hand urged that he had no intention to convey information that could affect the interests of the belligerents, and that the letters which he brought were for the most part addressed to the French consul at New Orleans.

The claim was disallowed by the act of a majority of the commission, consisting of Baron de Arinos and Commissioner Aldis. M. Lefaivre dissented.

Upon a rehearing, after motion, the same majority on March 26, 1884, rendered an opinion in these words:

"This case has been fully considered on the rehearing. As our respected colleague, the commissioner on the part of the French Republic, differs from us, and has expressed a dissenting opinion, we deem it proper to briefly state our views, though the question is purely a question of fact resting upon the evidence. "Mr. Heidsieck in the summer of 1862 was a leading wine merchant of Rheims, France, the head of his house, and doing a large business in the sale of champagne wine both in Europe and America. He was about 40 years old, and had a wife and children. He had an agency for the sale of his wines in New Orleans and in most of the other cities of the United States.

"In June 1862 General Butler made an arrangement with the Confederate authorities at Mobile by which a steamboat under a flag of truce could pass from Mobile to New Orleans and back, carrying flour to New Orleans and returning with salt to Mo bile. But as it was all important that there should be no correspondence between the Confederate citizens of New Orleans and those outside, it was made a part of the arrangement that no passengers should be allowed on the boat, and all letters should be carried openly, be submitted to Captain Thornton for

his inspection, and in the care and custody of Mr. Greenwood, both of whom were Federal officers, and subject to the order of General Butler. This caution was necessary to prevent all communications between the disaffected Confederate citizens in New Orleans and the armies on the outside, who were planning the recapture of the city.

"In June 1862 Mr. Heidsieck took the position of barkeeper on this steamboat, and between that date and the 29th July he made four trips from Mobile to New Orleans and back.

"That a gentleman like Mr. Heidsieck should take such a position as that-so humble and so much beneath him-and should continue in it for four consecutive voyages certainly seems surprising.

"He gives them [reasons], first (p. 33): To obtain news, if possible, from the French consulate of my affairs and of my family.' It does not seem a wise or a fair course to assume the post of barkeeper to get such information. It would occur to anyone that a frank and open letter to the French consul, to be read by General Butler, would be a better way and be open to no objections. But even if this be an excuse for so going once, still it can not be considered as an excuse for going four times, especially as he ascertained the first time that there was nothing for him at the consulate.

"It is further to be considered that he had directed his agents in New York not to send on his letters until they knew where he was; that they did not know, and that he had really no reason to expect letters at New Orleans.

"His second reason was that he agreed with the captain of the boat that he would sell the liquors in the bar for the benefit of the boat (the boat to furnish them), but the wines for his own benefit (he furnishing his own wines), and that as the expense of living was very great, this operation would give him a profit not to be despised.

"As no passengers were allowed on the boat, the idea of a profit from selling his champagne wines to the crew is plainly no good reason; it is a pretense, and casts discredit on his whole story.

"These are all the reasons he gives. The absence of any good reason for his conduct, and at such a time when every artifice was resorted to to carry communications between the Confederates in and out of the city, justly subjected him to grave suspicion.

"At the last voyage he carried a package of letters, as bearer of dispatches, as he called it, to Comte Méjan, the French consul. This package General Butler opened. He then sent for Comte Méjan; had a stormy interview with him; charged Heidsieck with bringing letters fraudulently, and ordered him to be arrested as a spy and sent to Fort Jackson. This occurred on July 29th. He arrived at Fort Jackson August 5th. Eight days after, August 13, General Butler offered the claimant his liberty if he would go to France by the next boat and not return during the war. This he refused. His case was 5627-VOL. 4————6