FRENCH SPOLIATION CLAIMS. On January 20, 1885 (23 Stat. L. 283), congress authorized all citizens of the United States or their legal representatives, to present to the court of claims valid claims which they had against France for spoliations of prop erty on the high seas prior to 1801. These spoliations were committed by French war vessels and privateers in pursuance of gov ernmental orders, inspired by alleged viola tions of the treaty of 1778 by the United States, and extended from about I796 to 1801. The United States authorized retalia tory measures in 1798. Napoleon having succeeded to the Directory, made a treaty with the United States by which the respec tive pretensions of the two nations were abandoned. The claimants insisted that this proceeding was a trading off of their claims against France for a national consideration, and that their own government became liable therefor.
In making appropriations, congress did not intend to determine conclusively what per sons were entitled thereto ; the payments were for the next of kin of the original suf ferers; the person receiving the appropria tion and filing an account is held to have submitted to such court the question of who were entitled to the money;. Buchanan v. Patterson, 199 U. S. 353.
Under the act of March 3, 1891, the pay ments were by way of gratuity and grace, and went to the next of kin, excluding cred itors, etc. Next of kin were those living
at the date of the act, to be determined by the statute of distribution of the •respective state of the domicil of the original sufferer ; Buchanan v. Patterson, 190 U. S. 353, 23 Sup. Ct. 764, 47 L. Ed. 1093.
French spoliation cases rest upon the just and equitable principles of international law and are not matters of strict legal right; The Hiram, 24 Ct. Cl. gl. The actual loss is all that the claimant is entitled to ; trans actions of parties as owners, insurers,, etc., cannot be considered; id.
The act of Congress (March 3, 1891) pro vides that claims shall be awarded to the next of kin; Rutledge v. Tunno, 63 S. O.. 205, 41 S. E. 308 ; Healey v. Cole, 95 Me: 272, 49 Atl. 1065; to be distributed under the statute Qf distributions of the domicil of the original sufferer at the time of his death; id. • A probate court can appoint an trator for the sole purpose of collecting these claims, though the fund will not be liable for the debts of the intestate, but will go to the particular persons ; Sargent v. Sargent, 168 Mass. 420, 47 N. E. 121. An administrator c. t. a. collecting such claim does not de prive the next of kin of their interest ; In re Warren, 105 App. Div. 582, 94 N. Y. Supp. 286.
See NEXT OF KIN.