United States, but by the awards of every board of commissioners which has ever acted under any of our treaties, and by the unvarying demands of this government, whenever it has sought indemnity for its own citizens in similar cases of injury by other powers.

It would be disreputable to the character of this government, and derogatory to its honesty and good faith, to repudiate, in this case, the principles whose acknowledgment it uniformly exacts from other governments under the same circumstances. The injustice would be only the more inexcusable and tyrannical, from the fact that the territory in which the outrages were committed, with many of the suf ferers themselves, have passed under the jurisdiction of the United States, so as to leave but little interest on the part of Spain to press the demand of her citizens. The government, having the parties completely in its power, cannot, without dishonor, refuse them that measure of justice which it would not for a moment withold from any powerful nation, having an equal right to claim it.

Without further argument of a question seemingly so plain, the committee refer to the numerous authorities quoted below in support of the positions assumed; and upon the strength of those authorities, they report a joint resolution directing payment of the awards made by the judges in favor of the claimants, and recommend its passage by the House.

First-The law of nations.

The following rule is laid down by Rutherforth in discussing the subject of "Reparation for damages done:"

"In estimating the damages which any one has sustained, when such things as he has a perfect right to are taken from him and withholden or intercepted, we are to consider not only the value of the thing itself, but the value likewise of the fruits or profits that might have arisen from it. He that is the owner of a thing, is likewise the owner of such fruits or profits, so that it is as properly a damage to be deprived of them as of the thing itself."-Rutherf. Instit. Lib. 1, ch. 17, sec. 5.

"Satisfaction" for injuries, according to Vattel, includes interest and damages, and authorizes reprisals until what is due, with interest and damages, is repaid.-Vatt. Lib. 2, ch. 18, sec. 342; Wheat. Inter. Law, part 4, ch. 1, sec. 3.

The loss or diminution of any one's possession is not confined to the injuries done to the substance alone of the property, but includes everything affecting the produce of it, whether it has been gathered or not."-2 Camp. Grot., ch. 17, sec. 4, et passim.

Fruits and profits are awarded in cases of wrongful taking or detention of property as part of the damages.-1 Domat. Lib. 3, tit. 5; vid et The Acteon, 2 Dods. R. 84.

Such is also the rule of the common law. The value of the property, with interest, furnishes the measure of damages.-Sedgw. on Damages, 549, 550, and authorities there cited.

Second-Judicial decisions of Supreme Court United States and State courts.

"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 rule for estimating damages."-The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat., 546.

"The value of the vessel, the prime cost of the cargo, with all the charges, and the premium of insurance when it has been paid, with interest, are to be allowed."-The Anna Maria, 2 Wheat., 327.

"The just measure of damages has been deemed to be the actual value of the property, with interest upon the amount from the time of trespass."-The Appollon, 9 Wheat., 362.

"The proper measure of damages, in cases of illegal capture, &c., is the prime value and interest to the day of judgment."-The Lively, 1 Gallis, 315.

In all cases of injury to property, whatever may be the form of the action, the rule that the value of the property at the time of the injury, with interest from that time, is the measure of damages, is of universal application.-2 Greenleaf's Ev. 282; Sedgw. on Dam. 517; and authorities there cited. Brannin vs. Johnson, 19 Maine R. 361; Bissell vs. Hopkins, 4 Cow., 52; Hyde vs. Stone, 7 Wend., 354; Dellenbach vs. Jerome, 7 Cow., 294.

Third-The practice of this Government.

Under the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, in 1794, a joint commission was instituted, which sat in London, and interest, as part of the damages, was allowed. Doctor Nicoll, one of the English commissioners, said: "To reimburse the claimants the original cost of the property, and all the expenses they have actually incurred, together with interest on the whole amount, would, I think, be a just and adequate compensation.

"This, I believe, is the measure of compensation usually made by all belligerent nations, and accepted by all neutral nations, for losses, costs, and damages," &c., &c.-Wheaton's Life of Pinkney, 198; vid et 265, in nota, and 375; the case of the Betsey. Some of these cases were submitted to Sir William Scott and Sir John Nicholl, and interest was awarded by them.-2 American State Papers, Foreign Relations, 119, 120.

The most important, because best considered case, was that arising under the treaty of peace between the United States and Great Britain in 1815, before commissioners acting upon the award of the Emperor of Russia, which declared "that the United States were entitled to a just indemnification from Great Britain for all private property carried away by the British forces." The question was, What was such just indemnification? Mr. Cheves, the American commissioner, said: "The claim is not of interest eo nomine. It is adopted as a mitigated rule of damages, compensation, or indemnification, founded on the estimated value of the article withheld. In that case the common law and the civil law are both clear in allowing reparation for the loss of

the use of the thing withheld from the commencement of the tortious detention. The rule of the public law is the same."

The government of the United States maintained the position of Mr. Cheves. In a letter dated April 16, 1826, from the then Secretary of State, Mr. Clay, and addressed to the British minister, he says: "We are prepared to show, if it were proper now to enter on this discussion, that interest is a fair and just component part of the indemnification, which the convention stipulates, and that, without interest, it would fall short of the intentions of his imperial Majesty's decision."

These claims were eventually compromised between the two governments by the payment of a gross sum, of which $418,000 was expressly for interest.

This case will be again adverted to in referring to the opinions of the Attorneys General. Yet, it is obvious here to remark, that the analogy is perfect between it and the case under consideration. In the former, "a just indemnification"-in the latter, "satisfaction," was to be made for the "injuries suffered." The terms are convertible. Nothing short of a just indemnification can constitute satisfaction for an injury. If there be any difference between them, the latter is the stronger expression.

The practice of the government on this subject has been uniform. In the treaty with Spain, of the 27th of October, 1795, it was agreed that the "losses" sustained by American citizens from the capture of their vessels by Spanish subjects should be referred to the decision of commissioners. This was done, and interest was awarded as part of the damages.-American State Papers, vol. 2, Foreign Relations,

283.

In the settlement, by Mr. Tudor, of the claims of American citizens against the Brazilian government, interest was claimed and allowed.Executive Document 32, 1st session 25th Congress; H. R. 249.

So under the convention of April 11, 1839, and the treaty of February 2, 1848, with Mexico, interest was allowed.

The cases of the Comet and Enconium ought also to be referred to. These vessels, having slaves on board, were driven by stress of weather into the Bahamas. The slaves were seized and liberated by the colonial authorities, and the American government claimed from Great Britain the return of the slaves, or compensation for their detention and loss. In his correspondence with the English secretary, the American minister said: "The general doctrine is this: that he who withholds what he ought to return, does an injury for which he is bound to indemnify the sufferer; that the proper measure of indemnification is the thing which is withheld, together with reasonable fruits or profits accruing during the period that it is so withheld; that if restitution of the property, however, cannot be made, justice finds its equivalent, and interest on it is resorted to as the best standard by which to ascertain the reasonable profits of money." These positions were ultimately acquiesced in by Lord Palmerston, and the cases were settled on payment of the value of the property, and interest from the time of seizure.-Senate Document 174, 2d sesRep. 33-2

sion 24th Congress; Senate Document 119, 1st session 26th Congress; Letter from Mr. Stevenson to Mr. Forsyth, August 6, 1839.

Other cases might be adduced, but these are sufficient to show the uniform practice of this government to demand and receive interest as part of the damages, and as compensation for the loss of the use of the property taken or destroyed.

Fourth-Opinions of the Attorneys General.

Attorney General Wirt's opinion, under the award of the Emperor of Russia, relative to the deportation of slaves and other property by the British forces in violation of the treaty of peace in 1815, is full and explicit. He said: "After the most full consideration of all the arguments which have been urged pro and con, I am clearly of opinion that interest, at least, is a necessary part of the indemnity awarded by the Emperor." Again he says: "What is a just indemnification for a wrong? Is it the reparation of one-half, or two-thirds of that wrong? Is it anything less than the reparation of the whole wrong?" Further, he says: "Let us put aside the emphatic and striking word just, and take the word indemnification alone. What does the word indemnification mean? The saving harmless from danger. Is that man saved harmless from danger who is left to bear one-half of the damage himself? The question seems to me too plain for discussion." Speaking of the deportation of the slaves in violation of the treaty of peace, he says: "They" (the claimants) "have thus lost the use of this property for eleven years. Is the meagre return of the average value, at the time the slaves and other property were taken from them, a just indemnification for the whole wrong?" Affirming that "such is not the notion of the British courts sitting to administer the law of nations," in proof of which he refers to authority, he concludes his opinion on the question of interest thus: "Upon the whole, sir, I am of the opinion that the just indemnification awarded by the Emperor involves not merely the return of the value of the specific property, but a compensation for the subsequent and wrongful detention of it, in the nature of damages. If the actual damage in each case could be ascertained, they ought, under the award, to be decreed; but since this, if not impracticable, would be a work of great labor and time, I am of opinion that the interest, according to the usage of nations, is a necessary part of the just indemnification awarded by the Emperor of Russia."-Opinions of Attorneys General, printed in 1841, from 568 to 571.

Now, unless satisfaction for an injury is something less than indemnification, which no one will pretend to affirm, here is an authority which runs on all-fours with the case under consideration. It was, no doubt, from concurring with Mr. Wirt, that Mr. Attorney General Grundy held that the claimants under the same ninth article of the Florida treaty were entitled to satisfaction for property detained and subsequently restored, thereby affirming their right to compensation for the loss of the use of the property while it was detained.— Opinions Attorneys General, 1225, 1226.

And from a like concurrence in opinion with Mr. Wirt, Mr. Attor

ney General Nelson said, in reference to the case of these claimants, that he would not say they were not entitled to the interest decreed, "upon the principles of a broad and liberal equity;" and upon what other principles, it may be asked, are international compacts adjusted?

Certainly, too, it was from a conviction of the correctness of Mr. Wirt's opinion that Mr. Attorney General Crittenden said, "that the compacts of nations are governed only by the law of nations;" that to apply to them any "local law or local usage" would be "in violation of the most indisputable principles of public law;" that he expressed his concurrence in Mr. Wirt's opinion, that the original value of the property, together with interest, as a compensation for the loss of the use of that property, is a measure of the pecuniary satisfaction, to which the injured claimant is entitled under the laws and usages of nations; and stated that, if the question were a new one, he would probably advise the payment of that measure of damages in this class of cases.-Reddin Blunt's printed case.

And assuredly it was with the same view that the present Attorney General Cushing, speaking of the opinion of Mr. Attorney General Crittenden, stated, that it precisely accorded with his own; thus admitting that the interest awarded to the claimants was that to which the law of nations entitled them, while he advised the Secretary not to pay, under the existing acts of 1823 and 1834, and recommended that the case should be laid before Congress.-Executive Document 82, 1st session 33d Congress.