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 Mobile. 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

then sent to Washington for the administration to decide. This made delay. Comte Méjan went to Washington on his behalf, among other things. Traveling from New Orleans to Washington was then slow and difficult, and we may reasonably think that there must have been much delay, especially if there was correspondence between Washington and New Orleans.

"In the mean time the claimant was sent to Fort Pickens, a place thought to be more healthy than Fort Jackson.

"On the 15th November the authorities directed him to be set at liberty upon condition that he would leave the country, the only difference between this offer and the one made by General Butler being that he might go to New York and then to France, instead of going by the first boat.

"If he had accepted General Butler's offer on the 13th August or had asked to have it modified as to going by the first boat, he would have been in custody only fifteen days.

"We think General Butler had good cause for arresting the claimant, and that it was his own fault that his imprisonment was prolonged beyond fifteen days.

"The claim is disallowed."1

Charles Heidsieck v. United States, No. 691, Boutwell's Report, 119: Commission under the convention between the United States and France of January 15, 1880.

Bebian's Case.

Augusta de Bebian, daughter of Louis de Bebian, a French citizen, who was lost at sea in 1865, presented a memorial in which it was stated that at the outbreak of the civil war in the United States Louis de Bebian was a resident of Wilmington, North

1M. Lefaivre, the commissioner on the part of France, filed the following dissenting opinion:

"I can not bring my mind to a concurrence with my colleague in disallowing this claim. In my view of the case the action in the premises of General Butler, the commanding general of the Federal forces at New Orleans, was arbitrary and illegal. The arrest and imprisonment of the claimant in close prisons, situated in unhealthy localities, for the period of one hundred and ten days, without a trial, was not only out of proportion to any offense disclosed in the record, but was a violation of the law of nations and of the rights of a French citizen who was at the time under the safeguard of a flag of truce.

"The failure of the defendant government to produce General Butler as a witness, and the nonintroduction of the so-called treasonable correspondence, is, in my opinion, strong proof that there was no sufficient evidence to justify the harsh treatment to which claimant was subjected at the hands of the Federal military commander.

"The principle upon which I rest my dissent in this case has been indicated and sanctioned by the jurisprudence of the commission in the Le More arrest and imprisonment cases.

"Under the circumstances the claimant is entitled to an award of ten thousand dollars."

Carolina, in the employ of the mercantile firm of O. G. Parsley & Co.; that on August 6, 1861, he left Wilmington in the English vessel Adelso as the agent of that firm; that the vessel was driven by stress of weather into Newport, Rhode Island, where she was boarded and searched by a revenue officer; that among De Bebian's papers were found a letter of credit and instructions from Parsley & Co. to purchase in Liverpool quantities of army blankets, coffee, clothing, and iron of various sizes, all to be shipped in a French or British vessel to Wilmington; that there was also found among De Bebian's effects a set of signals, to be answered from the shore, for the purpose of enabling the vessel with the contemplated cargo to make the harbor of Wilmington; that upon the disclosure of these facts De Bebian was arrested and sent to Fort Lafayette, where he was detained from August 20 to September 16, 1861, when he was released on parole; that on October 4, 1861, Mr. Seward, then Secretary of State, informed the French minister that he had ordered De Bebian's release on condition that he would not return to the Confederate States; and that all De Bebian's papers except the letter of credit, which had been lost, were returned to him. The memorial claimed damages for (1) the arrest, (2) bad treatment, (3) the loss of the letter of credit and the consequences thereof, (4) the expense incurred in the effort to recover the letter of credit and to obtain justice, (5) the imprisonment and its resulting losses.

Counsel for the claimant urged that the arrest and detention of De Bebian were arbitrary and without good cause; that when arrested he was on his way to Europe for a legitimate commercial purpose; that the goods which he was to purchase were to be disposed of in the regular course of business, and were in no manner to be considered as contraband of war. In support of this position counsel referred to Article XXIV. of the treaty between the United States and France of 1778, and to the treaties between the United States and Holland of 1782, between the United States and Sweden of 1783, and between the United States and Spain of 1795, all of which declared in substance that various articles of merchandise, among which were "all sorts of cloth and all other manufactures woven of wool, flax, silk, cotton, or any other materials whatever," should not be reckoned as contraband or prohibited goods. It was claimed also in behalf of the memorialist that there was no effective blockade of the port of Wilmington on August 6, 1861.

Counsel for the United States contended that De Bebian, being merely an agent, had no interest in the letter of credit, and that the third and fourth items of the claim were therefore excluded from consideration; and that, as to the first, second, and fifth items for damages for illegal treatment sustained by De Bebian in his own person, no recovery could be made by his heir-at-law. As to the case as a whole, it was contended by counsel for the United States that if De Bebian were alive the claim must be rejected. The position of the United States was presented thus: By the proclamation of the President of April 27, 1861, a blockade was declared of all the ports of the States of Virginia and North Carolina. The Adelso sailed from Wilmington with a cargo of turpentine and rosin taken on board after the blockade was declared. The circumstance that De Bebian had among his papers a set of signals for the use of the vessel that should take the return cargo was important as establishing beyond controversy his knowledge of the state of blockade, and the fact that the blockade was effective. It also fastened upon him the responsibility of giving aid and comfort to the enemy of the United States during the time specified in the first article of the convention. The escape of the vessel was a violation of the blockade, and De Bebian in his capacity as agent of the house of Parsley & Co., and in his character as purchaser of goods to be used for the support of the army of the Confederate States, was an active party to the violation of the blockade. The rule of law as laid down by Sir William Scott was this: That when there was an actual blockade, and the party charged with violating it had knowledge of its existence, it was unlawful for him to go in or come out with a cargo laden after the commencement of the blockade. (Lawrence's Wheaton's Elements of International Law, p. 577.) It was not anticipated, said counsel for the United States, that an attempt would be made to maintain the position that the blockade declared April 27, 1861, was not effective in the month of August in that year; but any such averment must fail in presence of the fact of De Bebian's possession of the system of signals referred to. The rule of law in regard to blockade was fatal to the claim for compensation for loss of property. A vessel which has run a blockade is liable to seizure and confiscation if arrested at any point between the place of departure and the port of final destination. The same rule applied to the cargo, subject only to the condition that the owners of the articles shipped were at the