Lord Russell, on the 19th of December, 1862, replied denying any liability for any injuries growing out of the acts of the " Alabama.1” Aз new losses were incurred from time to time, they were brought to the notice of the English Government, without discussion, which was by consent deferred.2

As the list of destroyed vessels lengthened, the record evidence of claims continued to pour into the Department, till, at the close of the war, these documents had come to form a large bulk of material. It was a great task to classify, arrange, and index these almost innumerable papers. After the treaty of Washington had gone into effect, and the prospect became immediate of obtaining relief, the Department of State issued a circular in response to the inquiries of such as assumed that they were entitled to have their claims presented at Geneva.3 The Department caused to be prepared a printed list giving names, dates, figures, &c., and a memorandum of the papers accompanying the statement of the loss, a work which was performed with great fidelity by the official in charge. This list nearly fills the seventh volume of the Appendix to the Case of the United States. A revised list was laid before the Tribunal in April following. It is to be understood that the original documents were not transported to Geneva, nor were copies of them filed there.

Upon the establishment of the court, it was found convenient to have all these papers kept together in one place, and under one

1 Am. App. vol. iii. p. 88.

2 Am. App. vol. ii. p. 641. Papers relating to the Treaty of Washington, vol. iii. p. 190.

8 This circular is dated September, 1871, and was designed to obtain as nearly a complete list as possible, in season to be filed at the first conference of the Tribunal. "In the absence of rules," the circular proceeds to say, "and in anticipation of the action of the Tribunal, this Department cannot assume to determine what claims it may or may not be proper to prefer under the first eleven articles of the treaty, nor to direct what form or extent of proof will be necessary to establish them, nor the effect of insurance upon the question of right of compensation. It will present to the Tribunal at Geneva, to be taken into account in estimating the sum to be paid the United States, all claims growing out of the acts committed by the several vessels which have given rise to the claims generically known as the Alabama claims,’ which may be presented to the Department in time to enable it to do so. Persons desiring to lodge claims in the Department for that purpose are requested to do so without delay, in such form and sustained by such proofs as they may be advised or think proper to rest their claims upon, as the time for presenting the case of the United States expires on the 16th day of December next.”

24

VALUE OF DEPARTMENT RECORDS.

supervision, in the custody of the court itself. They were accordingly removed to the upper stories of the building occupied for court-rooms, where a claimant or his attorney had permission to consult them. They were always at the service of the counsel in behalf of the United States. To the claimant and to the government alike, these files were of a value not easily overestimated. Inasmuch as ten years (and in some instances even fourteen), had elapsed since the events occurred to which they bore witness, it is not surprising that they served constantly to correct errors or to supply defects of memory, It was no unusual thing that a copy had never been retained of some instrument of vital import to the claimant; or, if kept at the time, it had long since disappeared; parties had died, and heirs could not find the missing records. As a result, sometimes, indeed, it happened that a claimant had in perfect good faith omitted to mention facts in his petition, or in his testimony, that ought to be brought to the attention of the court, and a knowledge of them was disclosed by reference to some instrument filed and forgotten. So, too, instances occurred where documentary evidence, filed for a certain purpose by one claimant, bore directly upon the claim of somebody else for a loss growing out of the same vessel's capture and destruction. Occasionally evidence from this source assumed a controlling value at the trial.

It is but anticipating the language of sections sixteen and seventeen of the act under examination to state that express authority was given the court to permit these documents to be read as evidence, under the single restriction that an affidavit was not to be read except the court was satisfied that the affiant could not be produced as a witness, or his testimony taken by a commission upon interrogatories. Also, that upon the completion of the business of the court, these papers were returned in perfect order to their place of original deposit in the office of the Secretary of State.

Section ten of the act of 1874 is as follows:

"That each of the said judges shall have authority to administer oaths and affirmations, and to take the depositions of claimants, parties, and witnesses, in all matters pertaining to the presentation or examination of said claims; and if any person shall knowingly and wilfully swear or affirm falsely in such examination or deposition to any matter or fact material to the investigation of the claim touching which such person is

examined, or if any person, whether claimant or witness, shall so swear or affirm falsely to the contents of any memorial, petition, affidavit, deposition, or other paper containing any matter or fact material in the examination of any claim pending before, or to be presented before said court, or shall, in giving testimony, or in swearing or affirming to any deposition, affidavit, or other paper, before any officer authorized to administer oaths or to take such testimony, so swear or affirm falsely to any matter or thing material in the examination of any claim pending or to be presented before said court, every such person so swearing or affirming falsely as aforesaid shall be deemed guilty of perjury, the same as if such false oath or affirmation had been taken in a judicial proceeding in any of the courts of the United States, and shall be liable to indictment and trial in the district or circuit court of the United States for the district in which such perjury shall have been committed, or in the proper courts of the United States for the Territory or District of Columbia in which such perjury shall have been committed, and shall, upon conviction, suffer such punishment as is provided by the laws of the United States for that offense.'

The depositions of claimants, parties, and witnesses. — No claimant, or person through whom a claimant derives title is a competent witness in the Court of Claims to support a title, claim, or right against the United States. Rev. St. sec. 1079. This exclusion of a party claimant, it is to be observed, does not obtain in the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims. Had such a rule prevailed, it is doubtful whether the court could have proceeded without very great embarrassment in a majority of cases.

The words "claimants, parties, and witnesses" would indicate that Congress conceived that a person might be a claimant before the court, without being a party to the suit upon the record. It is difficult, however, to see how this could happen; though the expression may, perhaps, be accounted for by supposing that an original claimant may have filed a memorial in the Department of State, but subsequently transferred his interest; or, as in the case of an assignment by operation of law. The party who suffered the loss. might in some sense be called a "claimant," although no longer assuming to own the claim, or to be interested in its prosecution, while his assignee is admitted to prosecute the action as the party complainant.1

1 Whatever be the proper use of the word "claimant," there is no doubt that an assignee may file a petition and recover judgment in his own name where the original

26

TO RECEIVE AND EXAMINE CLAIMS.

Perjury. Happily need did not arise for calling into exercise the powers conferred upon the district and circuit courts of the United States, or the courts of a Territory, or upon the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, to indict and try any person deemed guilty of perjury under this section. The punishment for the crime of perjury is a fine of not more than two thousand dollars, and imprisonment, at hard labor, not more than five years. Rev. St. sec. 5392. Any person comitting perjury in making oath, &c., in a foreign country, before a secretary of legation of the United States, or consular officer, may be proceeded against in any district of the United States, in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in the United States. Rev. St. sec. 1750.

Section eleven of the act of 1874 is as follows:

"That it shall be the duty of said court to receive and examine all claims admissible under this act that may be presented to it, directly resulting from damage caused by the so-called insurgent cruisers Alabama, Florida, and their tenders, and also all claims admissible under this act directly resulting from damage caused by the so-called insurgent cruiser Shenandoah after her departure from Melbourne on the eighteenth day of February, eighteen hundred and sixty-five, and to decide upon the amount and validity of such claims, in conformity with the provisions hereinafter contained, and according to the principles of law and the merits of the several cases. All claims shall be verified by oath of the claimant, and filed in said court within six months next after the organization thereof, as provided in section eight of this act; and no claim shall be received, docketed, or considered that shall have not been so filed within the time aforesaid; but every such unrepresented claim shall be deemed and held to be finally and conclusively waived and barred.”

Receive and examine all claims. It is not necessary that a claim should have been previously filed in the Department of State, in order to give the court jurisdiction thereof. The United States presented to the tribunal at Geneva the claims of its private citizens

owner of the property lost has assigned to complainant. Osgood v. United States Nos. 27-31) Rep. 24. In this case the assignment had been made and the instru ment evidencing the change of title filed in the Department of State before the organization of the court. H., the assignor, also filed a petition claiming indemnity for the same loss, and moved that the claims be heard and decided together. This motion was denied and H.'s petition dismissed. Hubbard v. United States (Nos. 27-31).

for losses. The record evidence was, from the very nature of things, ex parte, and the proof of loss prima facie only. Our government did not bind itself by this procedure to recognize the validity of the claim either in character or in amount, as between itself and the private claimant. That the United States appeared before the Geneva tribunal as in any sense an agent or attorney for private claimants, or that the money paid by Great Britain in pursuance of the award was held by the United States as a trustee for purposes of distribution, is a doctrine which, though once receiving countenance, may now be regarded as virtually abandoned. See Rhind v. United States (No. 243) Rep. 34, where the language of the court is, —

"The award was made in favor of the government and not in favor of the claimants. The government thus vindicated the national honor, but it did not assume to pay any particular class of claimants nor any particular claim. Having obtained the money by its own act and at its own cost, it had the right to prescribe the terms on which the distribution should be made. It certainly had the power to exclude certain claimants and to include others less meritorious. In the act now before us, claimants are excluded who believe themselves justly entitled to a part of the fund, but they have no power to assert their right to it. Under the powers committed to us, we have in some instances rejected altogether claims presented at Geneva, and in many more instances we have largely reduced such claims in amount." Per PORTER, J

So, too, in deciding in favor of the admissibility of a claim presented by an officer of the navy, for private property lost on board the "Hatteras," when sunk by the Confederate cruiser " Alabama,” the court, in answer to the objection that claims of this nature. were not presented to the arbitrators at Geneva, remarks (speaking through the same learned judge):

"This is of little importance. Congress did not direct us to determine what claims were presented at Geneva. If this had been the object of the act, much trouble might have been saved to the claimants and to the court. We have allowed many claims never preferred at Geneva. We have excluded some, and reduced the amount of many more, which were there presented. Congress required us to decide upon the amount and validity of the claims presented in this court, and to see to it that these were decided according to the principles of law and the merits of the cases themselves." 1

1 Butman v. United States (No. 993) Rep. 118.