THE CASE OF THE BRIG GENERAL ARMSTRONG matter was proper to submit to arbitration; that such arbitration must be controlled by the government and not by the private claimants; that even if the arbitration were mismanaged by Mr. Webster, our Secretary .of State, that imposed no liability on the government which incurs no liability for the wrongs or negligence of its officers; that by the law of nations a government in all such negotiations exercises its own judgment and discretion and such action is wholly inde pendent of the judiciary; that the bravery of the officers and crew in the conflict can not be too highly admired; that they had received from Congress $10,000 for their valor, and that they must rely for any further compensation, not on legal rights, tut on the liberality of Congress. It was claimed that a portion of the correspondence bearing on the case was not presented to the arbiter, but Mr. Blair showed that the same matter was fully set out in the papers actu ally submitted. However, this omission was the principal foundation of a new report favoring the payment of the amount of damages, found by the Court of Claims, less the $10,000 already appropriated. The bill passed the Senate but the House took no action. In 1878 the claim was revived and laid before the President. He referred it to the Department of State, whose ex aminer reported that the history of the case was contained in three printed volumes, and that among the facts clearly established was that this British fleet, intended for the capture of New Orleans, was kept busy by the A rmstrong long enough to enable General Jackson to reach that city and save it. In fact, however, the British fleet of fifty sail left Jamaica for New Orleans on the day before the contest in the harbor of Fayal." The examiner concluded that our government had incurred an obligation to its citizens which it was bound in equity, in morals, and in honor to discharge. Fav orable reports were made from time to time upon the claim, and in 1882 the matter was pressed by Mr. Pendleton "because it
337
appeals to patriotism, to good feeling, and to an admiration of the heroism of our countrymen, which was displayed on that occasion." A bill referring the matter to the Secretary of State to examine and ad just all claims of the captain, owner, offi cers, and crew upon the evidence before the Court of Claims, and authorizing him to settle the same "to the amount of $70,739, as proved before" that court, finally passed by a vote of more than three to one in the Senate and nearly four to one in the House, and became a law on May i, 1882, without the President's approval. The matter was still surrounded with difficulty, for by a joint resolution in 1867 it was made un lawful to pay any account against the United States that existed prior to April 13, 1 86 1, to any person who sustained the re bellion. Some of the claimants came under this provision, but Dr. Wharton, solicitor of the Department of State, held that the provisions did not apply, as the claimants had no claim prior to the passage of the act in 1882, which act, he said, " gave them the fund in question as a gratuity." Ulti mately, Mr. Reid was allowed one" half of the amount awarded to the owners of the brig and forty per cent of that awarded to the officers and crew for his services in prose cuting the claim. So ended the famous case of the brig General Armstrong. The case as a precedent, however, survives and is still the matter of controversy among pub licists. It is obvious that Louis Napoleon was suggested by the United States as arbitra tor in the matter of the General Armstrong, because as President of a sister republic he was deemed less hostile to the United States than sovereigns of a different type. His award was dated Nov. 30, 1852, and on the second day thereafter he was inaugu rated as Emperor of France. He devoted himself to maintaining an alliance with England, joining her in a war against Russia in the following year. It is therefore diffi cult to consider his award as entitled to
