Neutrality of the Isthmus of Panama. and by the general law appropriating fines imposed for offences. 6. The exclusion of the collectors from all right and power, as touching the crime created by the 9th section, will by no means leave them without the power to prosecute and to sue and recover, for the act abounds with other provisions for fines, forfeitures, and penalties which are not crimes, and which may be prosecuted, sued for, and recovered. Examples may be found in sections 11, 14, and 16 of the act. Upon the whole, in answer to your first question, I am of opinion that the fines imposed, upon indictment and conviction under the 9th section of the act, enure wholly to the United States, and that the collectors have no right nor interest therein. And as to your second question, I have no doubt that the offence created by the said 9th section can be tried and punished only in the manner and by the means in that section specified, and not otherwise. All which is respectfully submitted. Your obedient servant, Hon. J. P. USHER, Secretary of the Interior. EDWARD BATES. NEUTRALITY OF THE ISTHMUS OF PANAMA. The 35th article of the treaty of June 12, 1848, between the United States and New Granada, binds this Government absolutely to guaranty the perfect neutrality of the Isthmus of Panama, on the demand of the proper party; and this obligation must be performed by any and all means which may be found lawful and expedient. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, SIR: I have the honor to receive your letter of August 16, informing me that "the Minister of Foreign Affairs Neutrality of the Isthmus of Panama. of the United States of Colombia, which now comprises New Granada, has addressed a note to Mr. Burton, the United States Minister at Bogota, setting forth the expectation on the part of his government that the Government of the United States will carry into effect its guaranty of the neutrality of the Isthmus of Panama, claimed to have been stipulated in the 25th (meaning, doubtless, the 35th) article of the treaty between the United States and New Granada, of the 12th of June, 1848." And you request my opinion "as to whether the article referred to binds the United States, forcibly if need be, if required by the • United States of Colombia, to interfere in their behalf to prevent the importation of troops and munitions of war across the Isthmus of Panama, for the purpose of carrying on war against Peru?" The form of the question embarrasses me somewhat; for it is not whether the United States is bound by the said article thirty-five to make good the guaranty to New Granada, but whether the United States is bound, if required by the United States of Colombia, (not, in the language of the treaty, "to guaranty, positively and efficaciously, to New Granada the perfect neutrality of the before-mentioned isthmus," but) "to interfere in their behalf to prevent the importation of troops and munitions of war across the Isthmus of Panama, for the purpose of carrying on war against Peru." These two questions are very different in form, and, it seems to me, are substantially different in practical effect. Our treaty of June 12, 1848, is with the Republic of New Granada, which, it appears, no longer exists under that name; and it is, perhaps, my fault not to know with satisfactory certainty whether the Republic of New Granada exists, in fact, under the name of the United States of Colombia, or whether the United States of Colombia do so comprehend and represent the Republic of New Granada as to be bound by its treaty stipulations, and to be entitled to the benefits of its treaty guaranties. These questions I must leave to your better information. Neutrality of the Isthmus of Panama. But as to the guaranty of neutrality contained in the 35th article of the treaty, it seems to me that there is no room to doubt its binding force upon us, if its fulfillment be demanded by the proper party. The undertaking of our Government is declared to be for a valuable consideration expressed in the treaty, and our obligation is assumed in language the most plain and positive, thus: "The United States guarantee, positively and efficaciously, to New Granada, by the present stipulation, the perfect neutrality of the before-mentioned isthmus." As to the best means of making the guaranty efficacious, and the neutrality of the isthmus perfect, perhaps I am not the best judge. But having assumed the obligation, I do not doubt the duty to perform it by any and all means which may be found lawful and expedient. I need not express to you, sir, my regret at finding in the statute took a treaty which makes so great a departure (for the first time, I believe,) from the wise and cautious policy of the fathers of the Republic. This treaty assumes to guarantee not only the neutrality of the Isthmus of Panama, but also "the rights of sovereignty and property which New Granada has and possesses over the said territory." It is not for us, however, to complain of the onerous character of an obligation which we have voluntarily assumed. But, having assumed it, honesty and good faith require us to fulfill it. And I can but express the hope that, as this treaty is the first instance, so it may be the last, for a long time to come, of such dangerous intermedaling in the affairs of foreign nations. I am, sir, very respectfully, Your obedient servant, EDWARD BATES. Hon. Wм. H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. Case of Colonel Gates. CASE OF COLONEL GATES. The War Department erred in disallowing the claim of Colonel Gates for servants and forage for the months of August, September, October, and November, 1861, under the 20th section of the act of August 3, 1861. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, August 26, 1864. SIR: I have the honor to say that the papers in the case of the claim of Colonel Gates, which were sent yesterday by your excellency to the Attorney General, reached this office in his absence, and I have, therefore, given the subject matter of these documents my consideration. You desire this office to say whether the opinion rendered by yourself September 5, 1861, to the Secretary of War, touching the effect of the provision of the 20th section of the act of Congress approved August 3, 1861, is or is not a sound legal opinion. The view expressed in that opinion is as follows: "I have examined the 20th section of the act of Congress entitled an act for the better organization of the army,' approved August 3, 1861, and am of opinion that officers whose cases fall within it should be paid according to the old law up to the passage of the new-August 3, 1861." My opinion clearly is, that the view of the law thus expressed is perfectly correct. I may be permitted here to make some general observations touching the law of August 3, 1861, and to state what I suppose to have been its effect in the case of Colonel Gates. The 20th section of the act of August 3, 1861, thus provides: "That officers of the army, when absent from their appropriate duties for a period exceeding six months, either with or without leave, shall not receive the allowances authorized by the existing laws for servants, forage, transportation of baggage, fuel, and quarters, either in kind or in commutation." There is nothing certainly in this section, nor do I discover a word in any other part of the act, which gives its provision, in any respect, a retroactive ope Case of Colonel Gates. ration. The law, therefore, took effect at and from the date of its passage. Officers who were then absent are not within its provisions, unless they continued "absent from their appropriate duties for a period exceeding six months after the 3d day of August, 1861. The time, in the case of such officers, when the six months began to run, after which they were barred the right to claim the allowances enumerated in the section, was the time when the act became a law. The law, in other words, did not take effect upon absence begun antecedently to its date, and continued to that time, but only upon absence continued after that time; and, in a case where the continued absence was protracted to a period greater than six months, the right of the Government to withhold the allowances in question attached at the expiration of six months from the date of the act. Your excellency probably desired (although you do not specially request it) an examination of the papers in Colonel Gates' case, and also some expression of opinion with reference to it. I have, therefore, carefully considered his claim, so far as I have been enabled to do so, by the aid of the letters and other documents accompanying the request you make with regard to your own opinion. The papers before me are the original vouchers for the payment of Colonel Gates for the months of August, September, October, and November, 1861; three letters written by Colonel Gates-one to your excellency, two addressed to General Canby, and one to Hon. Augustus Brandegeeand a copy of the order of the Secretary of War, dated April 7, 1863, disallowing his claim. It seems by these vouchers that the allowances of Colonel Gates for servants and forage, authorized by the then existing laws, were stopped during the months of August, September, October, and November, 1861; and of this stoppage I understand he complains. Now, in view of that construction of the law which I deem correct and have adopted, in no event was the stoppage of these allowances, in the case of Colonel Gates, authorized by the provisions of the 20th section of |