
    STE. MARIE’S CASE. Henry B. Ste. Marie v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      The Secretary of War offers a reward of $25,000 “ for the apprehension ” of Sur-ratt and a liberal reward “ for any information that shall conduce to the arrest.” The claimant, being a zouave in the Papal service, identifies Surratt and informs the American minister, who applies for his extradition. The Papal government accordingly arrests Surratt, but he escapes and makes his way to Egypt. He is traced there by the American minister and re-arrested. Congress award the claimant $10,000 for Ms information and assistance. He insists that the arrest on his information entitled him to the whole reward of $25,000.
    Where a proclamation makes two offers, one for the apprehension of a criminal, the other for information that shall conduce to his arrest, the former offer contemplates his actual capture and delivery to the Government. It is not fulfilled hy a party giving information which directly leads to the arrest hy a foreign government, followed bythe criminal’s escape before delivery to the American Government.
    
      The Reporters’ statement of the case.
    The court found the following facts:
    I. On the 20th April, 1865, the Secretary of War issued and caused to be published in the public newspapers and otherwise ■ a proclamation, w hereby he announced that there would be paid by the War Department, “for the apprehension of John H. Surratt, one of Booth’s accomplices,” $25,000 reward ; and also that “ liberal rewards will be paid for any information that shall conduce to the arrest of either of the above-named criminals or their accomplices,” and such proclamation was not limited in terms to any specific period, and it was signed by Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War. On the 24th November, 1865, the President caused to be published his order revoking the reward offered for the arrest of John H. Surratt. (13 Stat. L., p. 778.)
    II. In April, 1866, John H. Surratt was a zouave in the military service of the Papal government, and the claimant was also a zouave in the same service. During that month he communicated to Mr. King, the American minister at Rome, the fact that he had discovered and identified Surratt, who had confessed to him his participation in the plot against the life of President Lincoln. The claimant also subsequently communicated further information to the. same effect, and kept watch, at the request of the American minister, over Surratt. Thereupon certain diplomatic correspondence passed between the Government of the United States and the Papal government relative to the arrest and extradition of Surratt, and on the 6th. November, 1866, the Papal government, at the request of the United States, ordered the arrest of Surratt, and that he be brought to Rome, he then being at Veroli. Under this order of the Papal government Surratt was arrested, but at the moment of leaving prison at Yeroli he escaped from the guard having him in custody, and crossing the frontier of th e Papal territory, embarked at Naples and escaped to Alexandria, in Egypt. Immediately after his escape, and both before and after his embarkation at Naples, the American minister at Rome, being informed of the escape by the Papal government, topk measures to trace and re-arrest him, which was done in Alexandria. From that place he was subsequently conveyed by the American Government to the United States, but the American, minister having previously procured the discharge of the claimant from the Papal military service, sent him forward to Alexandria to identify Surratt. At the time of the first interview between the claimant and the American minister, and at all subsequent times until the final capture of Surratt, they were ignorant of the fact that the reward offered by the Secretary or War for bis arrest bad been revoked by tbe President. Tbe discovery and arrest of Surratt was due entirely to tbe disclosures made by the claimant to tbe American minister at Rome, but tbe arrest was not made by tbe claimant either at Yeroli or subsequently at Alexandria.
    III. There has been paid to tbe claimant by tbe defendants, under the Act 27th July, 1868, (15 Stat. L., § 3, p. 234,) tbe sum of $10,000. Such payment was made by a draft on tbe Treasury, payable to tbe order of the claimant, which draft was by him duly indorsed.
    
      Mr. F. C. Breioster, Mr. I). B. Mecmy, and Mr. V. B. Fdwards for the claimant.
    
      Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Goforth (with whom was Mr. J. S. Blair) for tbe defendants:
    Tbe terms of an offer of reward must be complied with strictly. Clinton v. Young, (11 Rich. So. Oa., p. 546.) Marie cannot claim tbe $25,000, for be did not apprehend Surratt, or do more than give information which led to bis arrest. There was no legal or effectual arrest until 27th November, 1866, and with this Marie bad no connection. In bis memorial to Congress be claims for information furnished, not for the actual arrest. At best, therefore, bis claim must be limited to tbe liberal reward offered for information. Tbe offered reward was revoked before compliance with its terms, and consequently there was no contract. An offer of reward is not a contract until its terms have been complied with, and consequently can be revoked at pleasure. (Freeman v. Boston, 5 Metcalf, p. 57; 6 Mass., p. 344; Cummings v. Gann, 52 Penn. St., p. 490; Roger v. Stoehwell, 14 Cal., p. 137; Boring v. Boston, 7 Metcalf, p. 409.) Even tbe discontinuance of an offer has been held to prove that those who made it no longer bold it forth conspicuously as a continuing offer, &c. (Boring v. Boston, 7 Metcalf, p. 414.)
    He has received a very liberal reward for all tbe labor be performed, having received $10,250, bis discharge, and bis free passage home. Tbe evidence does not show that be lost any time, underwent any hardships, or suffered any losses in bis giving tbe information so accidentally acquired. Tbe receipt by Marie of the-$250, without demanding more at tbe time, even if ignorant of tbe offer of reward, was satisfaction in full of any claim. A fortiori tbe claim by bim before Congress of less than $25,000, and bis acceptance of tbe $10,000 without objection, would estop bim from recovering in tbis action. (Marvin v. Treat, 37 Conn., p. 96; Johnson v. United States, 2 C. Ols. B., p. 167.) Tbe United States are not bound by tbe offer of tbe Secretary of War, because be bad no authority to offer a reward in their behalf. “Tbe United States are only liable to tbe extent they have actually (not apparently) given to their officer.” (Lee v. Monroe, 7 Crancb, p. 366; The United States v. Hugh It. Martin, 2 Paine, p. 68; Pierce v. The United States, O. Ols. B., p. 270; Ibid., 2 C. Cls. B., p. 599; Ourtis v. The United States, 2 O. Cls. B., p. 144.) Tbe War Department has never been charged with tbe enforcement of tbe civil law of tbis country.
    To tbe points in claimant’s petition we answer:
    He neither arrested Surratt nor- caused bis arrest, further than that be furnished information which eventually led to bis arrest. In answer to the second, third, and fourth points, we cite tbe case of Poring v. Boston, Preemam v. Boston, and other cases cited supra. To tbe fifth point we answer, that if the United States have recognized tbe services of Marie by their legislative department, that same department has, after due consideration, fixed the amount of tbe real worth of those services, and claimant has accepted that amount in satisfaction. To tbe point in claimant’s brief that Mr. King told Marie be would get tbe reward, and that King’s course was"approved by tbe Government, we answer that Mr. King’s testimony on this point is extremely uncertain. If be did tell Marie tbis, be did not communicate tbe fact to tbe Government, and consequently bis course was not approved. Certainly an offer which bad been formally revoked cannot be constructively renewed in tbis manner.
   Nott, J.,

delivered the opinion of tbe court:

The senior counsel who summed up tbis case for tbe claimant, after analyzing it with great ability, rested it upon three legal propositions, as to which be frankly admitted that if any one of them could not be maintained tbe suit must fail. These propositions were:

1. That when tbe Secretary of War offered a reward for the arrest of Surratt, be spoke for the President at a time when martial law existed in Washington, and when it was proper for the Executive to take extraordinary measures to secure the arrest of the assassins.

2. That the claimant acted upon the offer and accomplished the purpose of the proclamation by procuring the arrest of Surratt.

3. That the Government had not power to revoke the offer after the other party had proceeded to act upon the faith of it.

It is, we think, upon the second proposition that the case upon the facts must fail. The proclamation made two offers: the one looking to the arrest of Surratt and his actual capture and delivery to the Government; the other looking to valuable information which would lead to his arrest. The claimant’s service came within the second offer. He did not arrest and deliver Surratt, either by himself or through the officers of the Papal government, but he gave to the American minister information which led to the final arrest in Alexandria, by which this Government, for the first time, actually acquired possession of Surratt. This service was valuable, but for it he has been compensated by Congress.

The judgment of the court is that the petition be dismissed.  