In the case of Bates v. Clark (1877, 5 Otto), 95 U. S. Reports, 204, it appeared that Captain Bates of the United States Army, in command at Fort Seward, in the Territory of Dakota, and a lieutenant acting under him, seized, pursuant to an order of the Commanding Officer in the Department of Dakota, a quantity of whiskey on the assumption that the whiskey was subject to confiscation under an Act of Congress dated June 30, 1834, and entitled "An Act to Regulate Trade and Intercourse with the Indian Tribes and to Preserve Peace on the Frontier." In holding that the seizure of the whiskey was unauthorized by the Act, and that therefore the officer was liable in damages for his trespass, Mr. Justice Miller, speaking for the Court, said: "The plaintiffs below violated no law in having the whiskey for sale at the place where it was seized; and the twentieth section of the act of 1834, as amended by the act of 1864, conferred no authority whatever on the defendants to seize the property. "It is a sufficient answer to the plea, that the defendants were subordinate officers acting under orders of a superior, to say that whatever may be the rule in time of war and in the presence of actual hostilities, military officers can no more protect themselves than civilians in time of peace by orders emanating from a source which is itself without authority. The authority of the commandant of the post in the case was precisely the same as the Indian agent or sub-agent, or superintendent; and it will hardly be maintained that if either of them, wholly mistaking their powers, had seized the goods, he would have incurred no liability. "So the plea that they had good reason to believe that this was Indian country, and that they acted in good faith, while it might excuse these officers from punitory damages, is no defence to the action. If it had been Indian country, and it had turned out that the plaintiffs had a license, or did not intend to sell or introduce the goods, the fact that defendants acted on reasonable ground would have exempted them from liability. "But the objection fatal to all this class of defences is that in that locality they were utterly without any authority in the premises; and their honest belief that they had is no defence in their case more than in any other, where a party mistaking his rights commits a trespass by forcibly seizing and taking away another man's property. "There was here no process from a competent court, nor any order from any source having authority, and there is, "As the damages found in the verdict are measured by the Point IX. INASMUCH AS THE TERMS OF SUBMISSION EXPRESSLY STIPULATE THE RATE AT WHICH INTEREST SHALL BE ALLOWED IN THOSE CASES IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL DETERMINES INTEREST IS DUE, THE CLAIM FOR INTEREST AT THE RATE OF SEVEN PER CENTUM (7%) PER ANNUM, PUT FORWARD IN THIS CASE, IS WITHOUT MERIT, IS CONTRARY TO THE EXPRESS AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES, AND CANNOT BE ALLOWED. MOREOVER, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, NOT EVEN FOUR PER CENTUM (4%) PER ANNUM SHOULD BE ALLOWED As INTEREST. Whereas the cases already cited show that damages are assessable against the Crown in cases such as this, no serious effort appears to have been made by the claimants to this end. Although the claimants could have sued the American officers in the courts of the United States, and have recovered appropriate damages for any wrongful act committed by such officers as against them, no such action has been taken by them. The failure thus to enforce their legal remedies in the courts of either country, deprives them of any just claim for interest. i AMERICAN AND BRITISH CLAIMS 3 AWARD IN THE MATTER OF THE KAТЕ. British Memorial CLAIM NO. 28. Arbitrators: HENRI FROMAGEOT, SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK, filed September 1, 1913. United States Answer filed December 24, 1913. Hearing of the case March 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 1914. Decision given December 9, 1921. Counsel: Great Britain, SIR CHARLES HIBBERT United States, MR. J. REUBEN CLARK, JR. This is a claim presented by His Britannic Majesty's Government for $4,044.75 and interest for damages for the seizure and detention of the ship, cargo, officers and men of the British schooner Kate by the United States steamer Perry on August 26, 1896. The Kate, a schooner of 58.11 tons gross, was a British ship registered at the Port of Victoria, B. C.; her owners were Henry F. Bishop and Samuel Williams, native British subjects, and Otto F. Buckholz, a naturalized Canadian, having been born in Germany. By charter party dated December 20, 1895, the Kate was chartered for the full season of 1896 for a sealing voyage in the waters of the North Pacific Ocean and Behring Sea by Carl G. Stromgren, a naturalized Canadian, having been born in Sweden; Emil Ramlose, also a naturalized Ca nadian, having been born in Denmark, and James Cessford, a native Canadian. Under the terms of the charter party, the charterers had to provision and equip the vessel, and one-fifth of the entire catch of skins for the season was to be paid to the owners. (British Memorial, pp. 4, 21, 22.) On January 15, 1896, the Kate left the Port of Victoria, B. С., and sailed on her sealing voyage in the North Pacific Ocean. She was manned by Stromgren as master, Ramlose as mate, and Cessford as second mate, and four seamen and twenty-five Indians (British Memorial, pp. 23, 24), and had twelve canoes (British Memorial, p. 9). On August 23rd, an officer from the United States cutter Rush boarded the Kate and overhauled the skins. (British Memorial, pp. 3, 24.) On August 26th, 1896, the Kate, while in Latitude 57° 33′ Ν., Longitude 172° 53′ W., was boarded by an officer from the United States Revenue Cutter Perry, and seized, and the following entry was made in her log book: Seized this day the British schr. Kate for having on board two (2) fur seal skins bearing evidence of having been shot in Behring Sea. (British, Memorial, p. 25.) At the same time the Captain of the Perry gave the master of the Kate a document (British Memorial, p. 6), reading as follows: U. S. Revenue Cutter Service, Steamer ‘Perry,' August 26, 1896. I, H. D. Smith, a captain of the Revenue Cutter Service of the United States, commanding the United States steamer 'Perry,' declare that the British schooner 'Kate' of Victoria, whereof Stromgren is master, was this 26th day of August, 1896, boarded by Lieutenant F. J. Haake, R. S. C., who reported to me that said vessel had contravened the provisions of the Behring Sea Award Act, 1894. The following evidence, found upon search, is relied upon to prove such violation of law: The aforesaid British schooner 'Kate' was found cruising within the area of the Award on the date given, namely, |