
    THE SLOOP MARTHA. JOHN C. WILLIAMS, Administrator v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [French Spoliations,
    3361.
    Decided March 7, 1892.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    In 1795 the French authorities at Port á Paix compel the master to sell his cargo to the Republic by refusing to let the vessel depart. He is then compelled to take pay in coffee at an exaggerated valuation. The price agreed to bo given is the reasonable value of the cargo, the injury complained of being delay of payment and underpayment by reason of the overvaluation of the coffee.
    I. Though tho detention of a vessel by the French and the compulsory methods used to compel a sale of her cargo were unlawful, yet if the master subsequently agreed upon a price, which was the reasonable value of the cargo, the injury complained of being in fact delay of payment and underpayment, the owner’s redress was that provided by the fifth article of tho treaty 1800. The claim was not one of those relinquished under the second article of the treaty 1800, and the United States are not liable therefor.
    II. The seizure and detention of a vessel by the French in 1795 to compel a sale of the cargo were illegal, and the owner for the voyage had a valid claim for indemnity therefor, which was relinquished by the treaty 1800, and for which the United States are liable.
    
      The Reporters'’ statement of the case:
    The following are the facts of this case as found by the court. I. The sloop Martha, of Fredericksburg, Ya., of'the burden of about 83 tons, sailed from Fredericksburg on the 15th day of February, 1795, bound for Fort Dauphin, in Hispaniola, and a market, under charter party to Edward Dunant. Being off Port á Paix, on the 23d of March, the master went in his boat with intention to inquire the state of the market and of the trade there. While entering the port with his boat, the harbor boat came alongside and ordered him back to his vessel, and, being under the guns of the fort, obliged him to go with said sloop Martha into the harbor, threatening that the fort would fire on him if he did not go in, which he had refused to do. On entering the harbor at Port á Paix they placed a guard of soldiers on board. He went on shore and applied to Gen. Lavaud, the commander in chief, for permission to proceed on his voyage for another port, but was by him refused, and the general insisted tliat Ms cargo, which consisted of 630 barrels of flour, should be delivered to the administration for the use of tbe Republic, and that be should be paid for the same $12 per barrel in coffee at 30 sols per pound, and other produce of the island in proportion, taking Ms turn after the other vessels then in port for payment. He refused those terms and persisted in Ms refusal for seventeen days, remaining there and soliciting permission to depart the port, but was constantly refused, as well by the general as by the administration, who insisted on having the cargo, declaring that the vessel should remain there, as they wanted the flour, and that it should then be taken from him by force, which was declared to him by the commissary-general, who also informed him that Gen. Lavaud had ordered his sails and rudder to be taken away if he did not comply. Having no remedy in his power and apprehending that his cargo would perish, wMch appeared to be the case on a survey by four American masters of vessels, he at length submitted to deliver his cargo, and was compelled, before they would receive his cargo or make any payment therefor, to sign an agreement which was tendered him by the administration. He was detained there for upwards of three months and compelled to take pay in coffee at 30 sols per pound for the first quality, and in that proportion for inferior. He could have sold his flour on his arrival at private sale at $10, and after-wards from $12 to $13 per barrel, and could have purchased coffee of the first quality from 13 to 15 sols per pound and other, qualities in proportion.
    II. On the 17th April, 1795, some dispute having arisen as to the quality of the flour, the master of the Martha addressed the following communication to the French authorities:
    
      u To the judge of the court of admiralty, Port de Paine:
    
    ‘‘Sir: In answer to your last summons I can only say that I did not agree with Mr. Perroud to deliver any particular quality of flour. I exposed to him for sale a certain number of barrels of flour to be in good order — whether fine or superfine was no question.. In consequence thereof I shall deliver my cargo in the same condition and quality as I received it on board, and should any of it be damaged I wish it to be returned to me, which I take to be fully sufficient on my part.
    “ From your devoted humble servant,
    “Joshua McWilliams.
    “April 17,1795.”
    
      Subsequently, on the 2d day of May, 1795, be addressed tbe following letter to tbe owner of tbe cargo:
    “ Port de Paix, May the 2d, 1795. “Mr. Edward Dunant :
    “Dear Sir: Since my last, wbicb was on tbe 7th April, I have delivered tbe whole of my flour to the administration, when, on the delivery, a dispute arose respecting tbe quality, wbicb was determined by tbe court of admiralty of this place in my favor after two weeks’ demur, during wbicb time there was three different surveys upon it. Tbe agent for administration wished to curtail three dollars pr. barrel, for wbicb I stood trial, and it was finally settled as pr. agreement, wbicb is twelve dollars pr. barrel. .
    “I am, your friend and bumble servant,
    “Joshua McWilliams.”
    III. Tbe loss and injury wbicb Edward Dunant suffered by reason of tbe wrongful acts of tbe French authorities, as before set forth, are as follows:
    For underpayment of 602 barrels flour by compelling him to receive coffee at an excessive valuation. $3, 538.54
    For forcible detention of the vessel.. 1,260.00
    4,798.54
    IY. Tbe claimant has proved to tbe satisfaction of tbe court that Edward Dunant was a citizen of tbe United States, and that tbe person now represented by tbe administrator is tbe same person who suffered loss by tbe seizure of tbe Martha as aforesaid.
    
      Mr. William 13. Barle for tbe claimant.
    
      Mr. O. W. Bussell (with whom was Mr. Alexander O. Moore) for tbe defendants.
   Nott, J.,

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court:

1. As to tbe cargo. Tbe detention of the vessel and tbe compulsory methods used to compel a sale were unlawful, and constituted duress, but tbe master of tbe vessel having subsequently agreed with tbe French authorities upon a price which was tbe reasonable value of tbe cargo, and tbe injury complained of being in fact delay of payment and underpayment by reason of arbitrary overvaluation of tbe coffee given in exchange for the cargo, tbe redress wbicb tbe owner was entitled to was that provided by tbe fifth article of tbe treaty 1800 and tbe first and fifth articles of tbe treaty 1803, and tbe claim is not one for which tbe United States are responsible under tbe seeond article of tbe treaty 1800.

3. Tbe seizure and detention of tbe vessel were illegal, and tbe owner for tbe voyage bad a valid claim of indemnity tberefor upon tbe French Government prior to tbe ratification of tbe convention between tbe United States and tbe French Republic, concluded on tbe 30tb day of. September, 1800; and tbé claim was relinquished to France by tbe Government of tbe United States by tbe treaty in consideration of tbe relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States. Tbe claimant accordingly is entitled to tbe following indemnity from tbe United States:

John C. Williams, admininistrator of Edward Dunant, for tbe seizure and detention of tbe vessel, $1,260.  