months from the time of its signature, or sooner if possible. The exchange did not, as we have seen, take place till two years after the signature. This circumstance necessitated the resubmission of the treaty to the Senate, in order that the period for the exchange of the ratifications might be extended. Availing himself of this opportunity, the claimant sought to have the treaty amended so that it might not include his claim, which, being embraced in the fifth renunciation of Article IX., was one of the claims which the United States undertook by Article XI. to satisfy to an amount not exceeding $5,000,000. The treaty, however, was not amended; and when the commissioners were appointed to carry Article XI. into effect, Mr. Meade presented to them a memorial in which he asked that his claim be treated as liquidated, and that an award be made in his favor for the amount allowed him by the Spanish commission, without regard to the pro rata allowance which might be made to the general mass of claimants before the board. Claims. The commissioners were at first inclined to reject Mr. Question as to Contract Meade's claim altogether, on the ground that, as a large part of it was for supplies furnished to the Spanish Government to enable it to carry on the war with Napoleon, it was inadmissible because of its contractual and unneutral origin. In this sense the commissioners addressed to Mr. Adams the following letter: WASHINGTON, 5th March 1822. "SIR: Several claims of indemnity have been presented to this Board by citizens of the United States, for losses sustained by reason of the breach of contracts entered into with them by the Government of Spain. In most, if not all of these contracts, the citizen stipulates to perform acts for Spain, which, as a subject of a neutral state, he could not have performed without transgressing the acknowledged belligerent rights of other nations with whom Spain was then engaged in open war; acts, therefore, which would have subjected him to the just application of the laws of war, and justified, nay, probably required, the United States to abandon such citizen to the fate of war, without making any reclamation in his behalf. It is for the performance of such acts that Spain has contracted to make compensation. "In support of these claims, it is contended, that it was distinctly understood by the high contracting parties to the late Treaty, that claims of this description were to be included, and were intended to be provided for implicitly by the fifth renunciation of the 9th article, within the words of which all such are found; and, in proof of this assertion, a letter from the Minister of Spain, as well as the enclosed document, has been placed before this Board. "The Commissioners feel inclined, at present, to construe this article of the Treaty in a different mode; and to reject all such claims as those above described. But as such a construction, if contrary to the intent of the high contracting parties, as is suggested, may possibly impair the faith of the United States, and lead to consequences violating even their peace, the Commissioners beg leave to submit to you the propriety of adopting some course, which may bring before them any document or suggestion by which the object and intent of the United States, in concluding this treaty, may be disclosed more fully than they are now exhibited by the article before mentioned. "If the President is content to adopt that construction of the treaty, which the Commissioners, as at present advised, are disposed to give it, no suggestion need be made to them. But if this should not be the case, H. Rep. 58, 20 Cong. 1 sess. as nothing will most probably operate to change the opinion which the Commissioners are disposed at present to entertain upon this subject, but a clear communication that such a construction would be violative of the intention of the high contracting parties, it will be necessary that a communication to this effect should be made to them. The mode of making it is submitted to the President. "The want of any representative of the United States before this Board, has constrained the Commissioners to adopt the course they have thus pursued, with a full knowledge of all the objections which apply to it, not only as they refer to the President, but to the Board itself. "We have the honor to be, &c. "The Hon. The SECRETARY OF STATE." "H. L. WHITE. "L. W. TAZEWELL. To this letter Mr. Adams made the following reply: "DEPARTMENT OF STATE, "H. L. WHITE, WM. KING, and L. W. TAZEWELL, Esqs., "Commissioners under the 11th article of the Florida Treaty. "GENTLEMEN: In reference to the letter which I have had the honor of receiving from you, dated the 5th inst., I am directed by the President of the United States to inform you, that, in providing for the claims of the citizens of the United States upon Spain, by the treaty of 22d February 1819, it was not understood or intended by the Government of the United States, nor, as is believed, by the other party to the treaty, that claims arising from contract, as they existed at the time of the signature of the treaty, should be excluded from the benefit of the treaty. The claims intended to be provided for, were those specially enumerated in the renunciations, and embraced all claims, statements of which, soliciting the interposition of the Government, had been presented to the Department of State, or to the Minister of the United States in Spain, since the convention of 1802, and until the date of the signature of the treaty. "As there is no limitation in the words of this renunciation, with regard to the nature of the transactions in which the claims originated, whether by contract or by tort, so none was intended. They were claims, of all of which it was believed that the only possible chance of obtaining any satisfaction to the claimants, consisted in the execution of the treaty. "Of the absolute obligation of this Government to interpose in behalf [of] their fellow-citizens, possessing such claims, and imploring the aid of their country to obtain satisfaction for them, no very subtle or punctilious scrutiny had been made. It was the need of the claimant, and not the legal classification of his claim, for which the assistance of his Government had been solicited. The delay or denial of justice, which it was desirable to remedy, was the same, whether it was for a wrong committed, or a contract broken. The claimants have alike been promised, that at the negotiation of the treaty, their claims would be considered, and endeavors made to provide for them, in common with others. "Whether among the contracts provided for, there were some upon which the Government of the United States, but for the treaty, must have eventually abandoned the claimants to the fate of war, was never a subject of inquiry. Those claims, it is presumed, were not the less valid against Spain, nor were their prospects of real satisfaction by Spain in any other manner, believed to be different from the rest. The Government was indeed aware that the abstract right to its interposition, of citizens who had suffered by acts of foreigners, without any co-operation of their own, was more clear and imperative than that of others who had voluntarily staked their property upon the good faith of Spain; and, in the course of the negotiation, a proposal was made to omit the renunciation, which included the latter class of these claims. It was, however, finally agreed to, with the full understanding, that all the claims should have the same benefit of the provisions, be subjected to the same investigation, and be decided upon, not by any subsequent transaction between the claimant and the Spanish Government, but by the Commissioners, in the manner prescribed by the treaty, and upon such proof as they should think proper to require, for ascertaining its amount and validity. Of the right to include such claims in the provisions of the treaty, in cases wherein the interference of the Government had been solicited by the claimants themselves, and their claims had at their own desire been made a subject of negotiation, no doubt was entertained. It is sanctioned equally by the moral principles applicable to public law, and by the frequent practice of other civilized nations, as well as by more than one example in our own history. If indeed no such right existed, and the two Governments were not competent to make and accept such renunciation, it was certainly neither made nor intended. But that a Government, negotiating for the claims upon another Power of its citizens, at their own entreaty, is not compe tent to compound for them, upon terms as favorable as it can, consistently with its duties to the rest of its own nation, secure, is a doctrine, certainly not contemplated at the negotiation of the treaty, and now believed to be without warrant, either in the law or usages of nations. "To ascertain, in the manner stipulated by the treaty, and in no other, the full amount and validity of these claims, as existing on the day of the signature of the treaty, the commission instituted under the 11th article of the treaty was provided. How far contracts, under the special circumstances mentioned in your letter, as applying to some of those which have been presented to the board, were valid contracts, it is the peculiar province of the Commissioners to decide. The Executive Government had not the means of judging of the validity of any of them; and of their amount, it could form no other than a gross estimate. But it fully believed, that the sum stipulated for the payment of them, would be adequate to the full satisfaction of every valid claim embraced by the treaty, whether the claim had originated in contract or in wrong. "I have the honor to be, with great respect, gentlemen, "Your very humble and ob't serv't, "JOHN QUINCY ADAMS."1 After receiving this letter, the commissioners resumed Rejection of Mr. Meade's the consideration of Mr. Meade's case; and on April 16, Liquidated Demand. 1823, they decided, Judge White delivering an elaborate opinion, that they had no jurisdiction of the claim as a liquidated demand against Spain, resting on the award of the royal commission in 1820. By the treaty as well as by the act of Congress passed to carry it into effect, they were required to ascertain the "validity and amount" of claims. By this language they held that they were required to treat claims as unliquidated, and that they were precluded from admitting the liquidation of 1820 as the basis of allowance, both because it was subsequent to the conclusion of the treaty and because it was, as to the United States, res inter alios acta. They therefore determined that the original documents must be produced before them in order that they might ascertain the validity and amount of the claim. Previously to this time Mr. Meade had written to Failure of the Claim, the Spanish minister at Washington in regard to obtaining the documents, but had received an unfavorable On the 13th of May 1823, however, Mr. Nelson, the newly response. See Reminiscences of James A. Hamilton, 57. Mr. Hamilton states that he was instrumental, as counsel for one of the claimants, in bringing about the disposition of the contract question, in the manner above narrated. 2 * H. Report 58, 20 Cong. 1 sess. appointed minister of the United States to Spain, was instructed to apply for the papers. On arriving at Cadiz he was unable to enter, owing to the blockade of the port by a French squadron; and it was not till December 19, 1823, that he was able to make a formal application to the Spanish Government for the documents. The government acceded to his request, but intimated that there would be some delay in furnishing the documents on account of the great quantity of them and the confusion into which the public offices had been thrown by the removal of the government from Seville to Cadiz. Intelligence to this effect was received in Washington only a few days before the expiration of the commission, and on May 29, 1824, ten days before that event, Mr. Meade's claim was rejected for want of sufficient evidence to establish its validity.' to Private Interests. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that Awards Inconclusive as the awards of the commissioners under Article XI., though final and conclusive as to the rejection or admission of any claim, were not conclusive as to conflicting interests in the sum awarded; that after the validity and amount of the claim had been ascertained by the award of the commissioners, the rights of the claimants to the fund, after it had passed into their hands, were determinable by the established courts of justice in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings; and that a right to compensation from Spain, held by an underwriter under an abandonment by his insured, for damages and injuries arising from an illegal capture, passed to the assignees of the underwriter under the provisions of the United States Bankrupt Law of April 4, 1800.2 Finality of Board's In a case rejected by the board, it was held that the claimant, by failing to apply to the board for a rehearing, had precluded himself from obtaining Congressional relief, though he may have acted on the assumption that such an application made to the commission in another but separate case would embrace his claim." Efforts were subsequently made by Mr. Meade and his heirs to obtain compensation from the United States, and the claim, after having been made the subject of many Congressional reports, was referred to the Court of Claims "for adjudication thereof, pursuant to the authority conferred upon said court by any existing law to examine and decide claims against the United States, referred to it by Congress." (Joint Resolution of July 25, 1866, 14 Stats. at L. 611.) The Court of Claims held, Nott, J., dissenting, that the case having been dismissed by the board of commissioners under the act of 1821, the court had no power under the acts defining its jurisdiction to reopen it. (Meader. United States, 2 Nott & Huntington, 224.) This judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court. (Meade r. United States, 9 Wallace, 691.) 2 Comegys v. l'asse, 1 Peters, 193. It may be observed that the award of the commissioners in this case was made to the assignees, and that the money was paid to them by the United States. Subsequently this action was brought against them by the underwriter to recover back the money, on the ground that the claim against Spain, held by him under the abandonment, did not pass to his assignees under the bankrupt law. In fact, the award of the commissioners was sustained. 3 H. Report 55, 20 Cong. 2 sess. Custody of the Board's When the board adjourned its records and papers were in accordance with the treaty deposited in the Department of State. Attorney-General Taney advised that the Secretary of State could not legally deliver the papers up to the claimants, and that an act of Congress authorizing such delivery would constitute a violation of the treaty.' On June 8, 1824, the day of their final adjournment, Commissioners' Final the commissioners made the following report: Report. "To the honorable the SECRETARY OF STATE OF THE U. S.: "The undersigned Commissioners, citizens of the United States, appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, having at length performed the duties with which they were charged, under and by the 11th Article of the Treaty of Amity, Settlement and Limits, concluded at Washington, between the United States of America, and his Catholic Majesty, on the 22d day of February 1819, now beg leave to present an account of their proceedings in the following Report. "The undersigned having received their appointments as Commissioners aforesaid, from the President of the U. S., in conformity to the 11th Article of the Treaty aforesaid, and having been required to repair to the City of Washington, in order there to organize a board, immediately complied with this direction. After their arrival in this city on the 8th day of June 1821, they were instructed by a communication of that date, addressed to them by the Honorable John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State of the U. S., 'immediately to form themselves into a board and to commence the discharge of the important duties incident to the high trust committed to them.' Whereupon, on the 9th day of the same month, they did form themselves into a board, by taking an Oath for the faithful, diligent discharge of their duties, before the Honorable Buckner Thurston, one of the Associate Judges of the District of Columbia, conformably to the provisions of the said Treaty. "The Commission being thus organized, forthwith proceeded to adopt such rules and forms of proceeding as seemed best adapted to attain the objects of its creation; and the following mode was established as that proper to be pursued. An Order was made, whereby all persons having claims under the Treaty aforesaid were required to file a memorial of the same with the Secretary of the board, to the end that they might be thereafter duly examined, and the validity and amount thereof decided upon, according to the suitable and authentic testimony concerning the same, which might be required. Such memorials were directed to be addressed to the Commission; to set forth minutely and particularly the various facts and circumstances from which the right to prefer such claim was derived; and to be verified by the affidavit of the claimant. And that claimants might be notified [of] what was considered by the Commission as necessary to be stated and so established, before any claim could be received for examination, a particular description was given of the averments required, wanting which they were informed that no memorial would be so received. A copy of these orders was directed to be published in all the gazettes in which the laws of the U. S. were usually printed, for the information of all persons who might be interested. And that all claimants might know and conform themselves to these directions, the board on the 14th of June 1821, after making these orders, adjourned to meet again in the month of September then next ensuing. "On the 10th of September 1821, the Commission again assembled in pursuance of its adjournment. At this period they found 302 memorials had been filed with the Secretary, conformably to the orders before referred to. All these memorials were read, considered and disposed of during this session, as to [the] board seemed right; and then the Commission, having nothing further before it, adjourned on the 26th of September 12 Op. 515. |