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
Mackey, 310.

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

ments in satisfaction of claims, is, to say the least, irregular, and imposes responsibility where it does not properly belong."

Mr. Clayton, Sec. of State, to Mr. Shields, May 19, 1849, MS. Inst.
Venezuela, I. 77.

"In revising Wharton's Digest you may care to have the result of my
examination of the subject mentioned in volume 2, p. 701, sec. 245,
which I made yesterday, in pursuance of your kind permission.
"Secretary Clayton not only directed Mr. Shields to remit to the Treas
ury Department moneys which he might receive from the Venezuelan
Government in satisfaction of private claims to be by that Depart-
ment distributed among those who might be legally entitled to the
same, but he very clearly indicated that this was the only correct
practice, and leaves it to be inferred that it should be followed by
all diplomatic officers in the future.

"The impression created by the extract printed in Dr. Wharton's Digest
is that this practice was inaugurated in 1849 by Mr. Clayton and
continued.

"As a matter of fact Mr. Shields was authorized by instruction of October 15, 1849, to pay moneys received and to be received from the Venezuelan Government in a certain case to the assignees of the claimants, who were then in Venezuela, and Mr. Shields reports in his last dispatch, dated January 6th, 1850, that the receipt for this payment as well as the receipts for payments to the parties interested of the amounts realized in all the other cases of indemnity brought to a close during my term of service, are left on file in the archives of the legation.'

"On February 28th, 1852, the Department instructed Mr. Steele, who was Mr. Shields' successor, to remit to the attorney of the claimant in the case of the Constancia any money which he might receive from the Venezuelan Government on account of the claim in that case. Throughout the correspondence, during Mr. Webster's and Mr. Cass's administrations (and also Mr. Marcy's), it is made clear that the practice of paying by diplomatic agents directly to claimants on foreign governments of moneys recovered from such governments in satisfaction of claims was approved.

"I have not learned when this practice was changed by the Department, but I am satisfied that Mr. Clayton's plan of having the proceeds of foreign claims forwarded to the Treasury Department, as set forth in his instructions to Mr. Shields, was never insisted upon; indeed, it was wholly impracticable. Having been received at the Treasury, such moneys could not have been distributed to the parties in interest without an appropriation by Congress." (Letter of E. I. Renick, sometime chief clerk of the Department of State, to Mr. Moore, Assist. Sec. of State, May 27, 1898, MS.)

A minister who collects from a foreign government, under instructions from his government, a sum due a citizen of the United States, is not entitled to make any charge for expenses of collection, even though he act at the time under a power of attorney from the claimant.

Mr. Marcy, Sec. of State, to Mr. Peden, Apr. 10, 1856, MS. Inst. Arg.
Rep. XV. 91.

"I have received your No. 149, of the 5th instant, from which it appears that the National Bank of Hayti refuses to pay the second installment, amounting to $7,375, of the indemnity awarded to Richard Allen, an American citizen, alleging that the same has been attached by a Mr. Devot.

"If the order upon the bank to which you refer was in terms payable to the diplomatic representative of the United States, it was not attachable, and the action of Haytian court violates diplomatic privilege.

"If the money was deposited in the bank in such way as to become lawfully attachable, the Government of Hayti simply fails to fulfill its obligation to pay the money to the Government of the United States.

"While we do not expect the Haytian Government to apply arbitrary constraint to her courts, yet if, instead of delivering the money directly to the legation, she has placed it for the time being in such a position that the courts may lawfully take cognizance thereof, her liability remains the same, and she is absolutely bound to make good the payment to our legation under any circumstances, since the debt. of Hayti is one to the United States as a Government and not to the claimant as an individual.

"You will apprise the minister for foreign affairs of these views and express the Department's confidence that the amount now due and payable on account of Mr. Allen's indemnity may be immediately turned over to you."

Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, to Mr. Terres, chargé, June 21, 1895, For. Rel. 1895, II. 816.

The foregoing views were duly presented to the Haytian Government; but, on June 15, previously to their reception at Port au Prince, “an arrangement was made between Messrs. Devot and Allen by which the former agreed to raise the attachment," and the money "was duly turned over to this legation by the National Bank of Haiti.” (Mr. Terres, chargé, to Mr. Olney, Sec. of State, July 9, 1895, For. Rel. 1895, II. 816.)

Mr. Adee, Act. Sec. of State, to Mr. Terres, chargé, Aug. 2, 1895, said: “Your communication to the Haytian secretary of foreign affairs of the views of this Government . . . was . . timely, and will doubtless tend to a better understanding of the subject in the future." (For. Rel. 1895, II. 817.)

As Henry de la Francia, the original claimant, was dead at the time of the passage of the supplementary act of 1848 (9 Stat. 736), authorizing the Secretary of State to settle his claim for advances, etc., and as the claim was assets belonging to his estate, the avails of which were to be accounted for as such, it was advised that the amount awarded should be paid only to an administrator duly ap pointed and authorized to receipt for the estate. As, however, it