
    DAUPHIN’S CASE. Maximilian A. Dauphin v. The United States.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      A subject of France brings Ms action in tMs court to recover the net proceeds in the Treasury of captured property. He offers in evidence, to pi’ove the law of France, certain volmnes of the Bulletin des Lois, sent to the Supreme Court by the French government. He also calls as a witness a member of the French legation at Washington, who has studied law as a profession in France, and been graduated as a lawyer at the University of Fatris, but who has neves’ actually been admitted to the bar, though he has been engaged in legal pursuits and is now employed by the French government as legal adviser of the legation. The claimant then proves the law of France relating to suits against the state by citizens andforeignei’s.
    
    I. A volume of tlie laws of a foreign government, transmitted "by tliat government to tlie Supreme Court of the United States, may he admitted in evidence in another court, without further authentication, for the purpose of proving the foreign law.
    II. A witness, though not a member of the French bar, is still competent to prove the law of France if it appear that he has studied that law as a profession, has been graduated at the University of Paris, and since then engaged in legal pursuits, and is now employed by the French government as legal adviser of the legation at Washington.
    
      III. Any person claiming money to Tie due Mm from, the government of France may summon the minister of finance to appear before the Court of Paris, or the tribunal of a district, and then bring his suit against Mm as against any private person, except that the procureur vmpérial appears for the government. For the bringing of such a suit no authorization of a legal officer is necessary. And ther e is no distinction made between a foreigner and a subject, except the giving of security judioa-turn solví. Therefore the government of France accords to citizens of the United States the right to maintain actions against it within the meaning of the Act 27th July, 1868, (15 Stat. L., p. 243.)
    
      Messrs. Hughes, Denver & Peelc for tbe claimant:
    This is an action brought by original petition to recover the net proceeds of ninety-five bales of cotton seized at Mobile, Alabama, upon the occupation of that city by the United States forces.
    The claimant, who is a citizen of France, asks for relief under the third section of the Act March 12th, 1863, (12 Stat. L., p. 820.)
    We will consider the evidence:
    1st. As to the ownership of the cotton by the claimant and his right to the proceeds.
    2d. The seizure by the United States authorities, and the. payment of the proceeds into the Treasury.
    3d. The status of the claimant in reference to the late rebellion.
    I. The claimant resided in the city of New Orleans until the month of March, 1863. He was a physician by profession, and in that month left New Orleans in attendance upon a patient, one Mr. Caldwell, and went with him to Biloxi, Mississippi, upon the proper military passes. Shortly after their arrival at Biloxi, Mr. Caldwell died, and the claimant continued his residence there until the month of January, 1865, when he returned to New Orleans, where he has since resided.
    While residing at Biloxi, the claimant purchased, through Messrs. Hinson & Holt, of Mobile, Alabama, one hundred and thirty bales of cotton. This was bought in several lots. Mr. Vincent testifies that he bought one lot of fifty bales on the 18th of June, 1864, and one lot of seven bales on the 10th of February, 1864; that these were bought by him for the claimant, upon the order of Hinson & Holt, and were stored with N. W. Perry & Co., as the property of the claimant.
    
      Another lot of seventy-three bales was bought for the claimant by Hinson & Holt, and stored in the same warehouse, in the same way, on the 17th of June, 1884, but of this last lot,, thirty-five bales were resold for the account if the claimant in the month of December, 1864, leaving only thirty-eight bales of this lot, which, added to the other two lots of fifty and seven, make the ninety-five bales which the claimant sues for. All of this cotton remained stored in the warehouse of N. W. Perry 8a Co., as the property of claimant, until it was taken possession of by the Federal forces on the 12th day of April, 1865.
    The person who transacted this business for the claimant was Mr. William B. Holt, of the firm of Hinson & Holt. He has since died 5 so that we have been unable to prove the facts by him, but the books of the firm have been examined for the purpose of showing the lonafides of the transaction, and the commercial correspondence relating to it is brought before the court.
    II. The evidence of N. W. Perry shows that the property was taken possession of by Captain Samuel Lappin, of the Quartermaster Department, and forwarded to Hew York City, on the ship Ada Carter, May 4, 1865.
    The returns from the Treasury Department heretofore made to this court in the cases of Mrs. Celestine Eslava, and Henry T. Blodget, administrator, show that the cargo of the Ada Carter was received in New York City; that no account was kept of the sales of separate lots.
    That, in all, 3,221 bales of Mobile cotton were sold. An estimate based upon that return shows the net proceeds of 95 bales to be $17,879 95.
    IH. The fact that the claimant never gave aid or comfort to the rebellion is abundantly proved by the depositions filed in the case.
    We therefore ask for an award in favor of the claimant for the sum of $17,879 95.
    
      Joseph A. Ware (withpvhom was the Assistant Attorney General) for the defendants:
    N.B. — The question of the French law arising under the proviso nfthe second section of the Act July 27th, 1868, (15 Stat. L., p. 243,) was elaborately discussed by tbe same learned counsel in tbe case of Rothschild et al. v. The United States, (ante, p. 204.)
   Losing-, J.,

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court:

Tbe petitioner claims tbe net proceeds of ninety-five bales of upland' cotton, and tbe court finds tbe facts to be:

1. That tbe claimant is, and at tbe time of tbe transactions bereinafter stated was, a subject of France, resident in tbe city of New Orleans.

2. That on tbe 12tb of April, 1865, be owned and possessed ninety-five bales of upland cotton, then stored in tbe city of Mobile, wbicb was taken from bis possession by tbe United States and by them sold, and its net proceeds, amounting to tbe sum of $17,869 95, paid into tbe Treasury.

3. That tbe claimant never in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or gave encouragement to rebellion against tbe government of tbe United States.

4. Tbe civil judiciary of France consists of courts of tbe first instance and of courts of appeal. Tbe courts of first instance are of two classes, viz, trihunaux civils and trihunaux administrates. From tbe trihunaux civils there is an appeal to tbe Gour Impé-rtale, and tbence to tbe Gour de Cassation. From tbe trihunaux administrates there is an appeal to tbe Gonseil d’Éiat. All of these courts are judicial tribunals, and tbe jurisdiction of each is limited by law to certain subjects.

5. There are several classes of trihunaux administrates, from wbicb an appeal may be taken before tbe counsel of state, Gon-seil d’^État. Tbe two main classes are: 1. Gonseils de Prefecture ; 2. The executive departments.

6. Tbe administration of every “ department” of France is thus organized: There is a prefect, and by him sits a Gonseil de Prefecture, tbe members of wbicb are appointed by tbe executive. These Gonseils de Prefecture decide in tbe first instance merely on facts wbicb are not submitted to tbe cours civiles; and from their decisions there is almost always tbe possibility of appealing to tbe council of state, Gonseil dJÉtat.

7. Executive departments. — Tbe beads of departments have a judicial jurisdiction of their own over matters pertaining to their departments, but subject to an appeal to tbe Gonseil fflÉtat. If tbe decision of tbe department is not appealed from, it is obligatory and may be enforced as a judgment. In each department there is a bureau of claims of permanent organization, which first examines the case,• it is then carried to the minister, from whose decision there is an appeal to the council of state, Gonseü d’État.

8. The Gonseü d’État contains a Section du Gontentieux, before which parties appear by their counsel. The members of the court confer after they have heard the case argued, and their decision is rendered in public and recorded. Its judgments are enforced by a decree emanating from the head of the state. He must consent to the same. But the witness testifies that there were no instances that he was aware of that such decree was refused.

9. Suit may be brought by an individual against the French government in the tribunaux civils and the tribunaux administrates, according to the nature of the suit, and the government be brought into court by service of process, as follows, on — i

First. The Emperor, when it is a question of lands or eminent domain, in the person, or at the residence of the prefect of the department where sits the court before which the action must be brought in the first instance.

Second. The summons, or a copy, left at the office of the treasury.

Third. The treasury, in the person, or the office of its agent The public departments or establishments in their offices in the places where the seat of administration is fixed ; mother places, in the person or at the office of their representative.

Fourth. The Emperor, if it is lands, in the person of the pro-■cureur irnpérial d’arrondissement.

10: An individual claiming money due him in the treasury department may summon directly the minister of finance to appear before the Court of Paris, if it is in Paris, or before the tribunal of the district, and then bring his suit against him as against anybody else, except that the procurenr irnpérial argues a case brought against the government, and for the bringing of such suit no authorization of any legal officer is necessary.

In France, foreigners may sue the French government as French citizens may, and no distinction as to the right or manner of suing is made between them, except that in certain eases the foreigner is required to give security, judicatumsolvi.

The claimant offered in evidence of the French law volumes 4th, 24th, and others of the bulletin ties Lois, sent to the Supreme Court by the French government. These were objected to by the defendants, and admitted by the court as duly authenticated.

The defendants objected to the admission of O. EL Peneton, Marquis of Chambrau, as a witness to prove the French law, that he was not a practicing lawyer and member of the bar. This examination showed that he had studied the law as a profession in France, and graduated at the University of Paris $ that he had since studied the law as his profession from 1849 to 1856, and had been since engaged in legal pursuits, and from 1866 has been employed in Washington by the French government to study, examine, and give information in reference to all claims delivered over to Mm by the French legation. He was admitted as a witness, and testified with other witnesses.

And the court find as a conclusion of law : .

That the French government accords to citizens of the United States the right to prosecute claims against such government in its courts.

That the claimant is entitled to recover against the United States the net proceeds of said ninety-five bales of cotton, amounting to the sum of $17,869 95,for which judgment is rendered.  