1 Department of State, Arbitration Series, No. 6, American and Panamanian Claims Arbitration, under the Conventions of July 28, 1926, and Dec. 17, 1932, Report of Bert L. Hunt, Agent for the United States. (Washington, Government Printing Office, 1934, pp. 872.)

2 Manzo (p.679, permitting a small boy to clean machinery); it is doubtful whether Mr. Hunt's distinction between the privilege of submitting and favorably deciding such claims is altogether well founded. Afiorbes (p. 751; a similar case). The Colunje decision (p. 733) is more sustainable, because the enticement of the claimant into American jurisdiction from Panama by a Canal Zone policeman, was followed by the assumption of jurisdiction by an American court, on a charge which was later nolled by the District Attorney.

3 Ruiz (p.635); Diaz (p. 639); although in these cases the commission predicated liability on “international law”.

4 Banks (p.117); Denham (p. 201); Richeson (p. 247), really Langdon; Baldwin (p. 311). In the Noyes case (p.155), the claim was disallowed on the ground that it is insufficient to assert that morepolice protection might have averted the injury at the hands of private individuals, a mob. Under the facts, this may be sustainable.

5 Langdon (p.247), Adams (p. 275).

6 Dismissal from the service and short punishment deemed insufficient to release state from all liability.

7 P. 201; see also Baldwin (p. 311), failure to prosecute.

8 Solomon (p.457).

9 Perry (p.33). In the Denham case (p.491), no violation of local law or bad faith was found.

10 De Sabla (p.379).

11 P.523.

12 P.341. (Estopped because of settlement effected through mediation of American Minister in Panama).

13 P.533,

14 P.765.

15 These articles are quoted conveniently in Mr.Jessup's comment in this Journal, Vol.27 (1933), pp. 748-749.

16 Article in Revue Critique de Droit International,XXIX, p. 16, at 38-46.

17 Handboek van het Volkenrecht, Eerste Deel,1931, p. 303.