Organization of Commission. The commissioners held their sessions "in a building on Capitol Hill, formerly occupied by Congress." On June 9, 1821, they appeared before the Hon. Buckner Thurston, one of the associate justices of the supreme court of the District of Columbia, and each took the following oath: "I do solemnly swear that I will truly, faithfully, and diligently discharge the duties of my office, to the best of my knowledge and abilities, and that I will support the constitution of the United States." Messrs. Watkins and Forrest also appeared, and each took the same oath. Rules of Procedure. On June 14, the board "Ordered, that all persons having claims under the Treaty of Amity, Settlement and Limits, between the United States of America and his Catholic Majesty, concluded at Washington the 22nd day of February 1819, which are to be received by the Commission, do file a memorial of the same with the Secretary of the Board, to the end that they may be hereafter duly examined, and the validity and amount thereof decided upon, according to the suitable and authentic testimony concerning them, which may be hereafter required. The said memorial must be addressed to this Board; must set forth minutely and particularly the various facts and circumstances whence the right to prefer such claim is derived, and must be verified by the affidavit of the claimant. "And in order that claimants may be informed of what is now considered by the Commission as essential to be averred and established, before any such memorial can be received by this Board, it is further "Ordered, that each claimant shall declare in his said memorial for and in behalf of whom the said claim is preferred; and whether the amount thereof, and of every part thereof, if allowed, does now, and at the same time when the said claim arose did, belong solely and absolutely to the said claimant, or to any other, and if any other, what person. And in cases of claims preferred for the benefit of any other than the claimant, the memorial to be exhibited must further set forth when, why, and by what means, such other has become entitled to the amount, or any part of the amount, of the said claim. "The memorial, required to be exhibited by all claimants, must also set forth, and certainly declare, whether the claimant, as well as any other for whose benefit the claim is preferred, is now, and at the time when the said claim arose was, a citizen of the United States of America; where he is now, and at the time the said claim arose was, domiciliated; and, if any, what change of domiciliation has since taken place. "The said memorial must also set forth whether the claimant, or any other who may have been at any time entitled to the amount claimed, or any part thereof, hath ever received any, and if any what, sum of money, or other equivalent, or indemnification, for the loss or injury sustained, satisfaction for which is therein asked. "And, that time may be allowed to claimants to prepare and file the memorials above mentioned, it is further "Ordered, that when this Board shall adjourn to-day, it will adjourn to meet again on the 10th day of September next; at which time it will proceed to decide, whether any memorials which may have been filed with the Secretary, in pursuance of the above orders, shall be received for examination. "Ordered, that a copy of these proceedings be published by the Secretary of this Board, in all the public Gazettes in which the laws of the United States are usually printed. And thereupon the Board adjourned to Monday the 10th day of September next. "H. L. WHITE. "Attest, "T. WATKINS, Secretary." On January 29, 1822, the following additional rule was made: "Ordered, that after the memorial is set down for examination, either on motion of the claimant, or under the rule of this Board, no document or other evidence be added to those filed with the Secretary, except by special leave of the Board; and that no paper once filed by a claimant shall thereafter be withdrawn without such leave." Completion of the On June 8, 1824, the board adjourned sine die, after having been in session for the full treaty period of three years In announcing its adjournment, the National Intelligencer said: "The praise of ability, assiduity, and devotion to business will be conceded to this board; and it is admitted that the President could not have made a more judicious choice of persons to execute this arduous trust." Mr. Tazewell said that the commissioners, in order to accomplish their work with facility, took lodgings in the same boarding house, and labored together indefatigably. The Meade Claim. When the board adjourned there were, among the claims rejected for want of proof, eight in respect of which certain evidence requested from the Spanish Government had not been obtained. Of these claims the principal one was that of Richard W. Meade, in which the sum of $491,153.33 was demanded partly as compensation for supplies furnished to the Spanish Government, and partly as damages for unlawful arrest and imprisonment. In respect of both these subjects Mr. Meade had secured the diplomatic interposition of the United States; but pending the negotiations which resulted in the treaty of 1819, he informed the Secretary of State of the United States that it had been intimated to him that if he would advance a further sum of money to the Spanish Government he might obtain a grant of land in Florida sufficient to cover all his claims. The Secretary of State replied that if the cession of the Floridas was concluded, it would be provided that all grants after a certain time should be null and void. Mr. Meade then, on January 17, 1819, filed his claims with the Department of State for such protection as the Government might think proper to grant. Previously to that time, however, he had sought from the King of Spain the appointment of a commission to examine and liquidate his claims. On the 7th of May 1819, in the third month after the signature of the treaty, such a commission was appointed; and on the 19th of May 1820, after examining the original documents which the claimant had submitted, the commission rendered an award in his favor for the sum of $373,879.83, which included his unliquidated contract claims, fourteen in number, with interest to the date of liquidation, and a gross sum as damages for his arrest and imprisonment. By the sixteenth article of the treaty of February 22, 1819, it was provided that the ratifications of the treaty should be exchanged within six On February 27, 1822, the minutes of the board state that the commis sioners on that day adjourned till the following day as "a manifestation of the deep sense they entertain of the loss which the nation has sustained in the death of William Pinkney," and to enable them to join in paying the last tribute of respect to his memory. 2 Scott's Memoir of Judge White, 33. 3 H. Poc. 212, 20 Cong. 1 sess. 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, Wм. 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 even tually 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 competent 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 response. On the 13th of May 1823, however, Mr. Nelson, the newly 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. |