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.' The Supreme Court of the United States has held that Awards Inconclusive as the awards of the commissioners under Article XI., to Private Interests. 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. 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. (Meade r. 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. until the ensuing January, with a view of allowing further time to claimants, to renew any applications which might have been refused, because of their not conforming to the orders herein before referred to, or to present new claims which might not yet have been exhibited. "During this session the Commission having received sundry memorials for examination of the proofs which might be offered thereafter to support the same, it became necessary to prescribe the course proper to be adopted in relation to the exhibition of such proofs. An order was therefore made directing that all memorials which had been or might thereafter be received, should be set down for examination after the expiration of six months from the date of their reception, but that if any claimant desired his memorial to be set down before the expiration of that period, this might be done at any time, upon application for that purpose; and if, after the lapse of the six months aforesaid, any claimant could show good cause why his memorial should not be then set down, upon application made and such cause shown further time would be allowed for the exhibition of proofs. During this session, also, the commission having suspended its decision as to some memorials which had been presented, in order to allow itself more time for considering the important, novel and difficult questions they presented, an order was made (upon the application of the memorialists) that every claimant might be permitted to support his claim by the arguments of counsel, provided all such arguments were committed to writing and filed with the Secretary. And before its adjournment, the Commission made a second order, again requiring all claimants to exhibit their claims before the next session, which order was also directed to be published for the information of all to whom it might apply. "On the 7th of January 1822, the Commission again assembled in pursuance of its adjournment. At this period,they found 768 new memorials had been filed with the Secretary, conformably to the former orders before referred to. All these memorials were read and considered, and, together with most of those the decision as to which had been before suspended, were during the session disposed of, as to the board seemed right. And then the Commission having nothing further before it, adjourned on the 11th of March until the ensuing June, in order to allow more time to claimants to present their applications. With a view to induce them to do so, the Commission before adjourning made a third order, again requiring all claimants to exhibit their claims before the next session; notifying them in it, that after that period no memorial would be received, without good cause shown why the same had not been before exhibited, in pursuance of the repeated orders requiring the same to be presented. And this order was directed to be published for their information and government. "On the 11th of June 1822 the Commission again assembled in pursuance of its adjournment. At this period they found 534 new memorials had been filed with the Secretary, conformably to the former orders before referred to. All these memorials were read and considered, and, together with all others not before acted upon, were during this session disposed of as to the board seemed right. "Besides these claims, 20 other memorials (accompanied by satisfactory reasons for the delay in not presenting them before) were also received, read, considered, and disposed of in like manner. The period of six months having now elapsed, since many of the memorials had been received, the Commission during this session also proceeded (in pursuance of their order before referred to) to set down for examination all such, to postpone the setting down of which no good cause was shown. And [it] likewise proceeded to the examination of all the cases so set down (except when good cause was shown for a continuance), allowing or disallowing the cases so examined, as to the board seemed right, and directing the cases allowed as valid to be deferred until a further time, when the amount of the same would be adjusted and finally ascertained. Having then nothing further before it, the Commission adjourned on the 2nd of July 1822, until the ensuing October, with the view of allowing further time to the claimants, where claims had been received for examination, to collect the proofs in support of the same. "As much more than three years had now elapsed since the date of the aforesaid Treaty, nearly eighteen months had expired since its ratification by both of the high contracting parties, and more than a year had passed since the organization of this board, during which last period three several orders had been uttered by it, at different times, requiring claimants to exhibit their claims, the undersigned believe they might have been well justified in closing the door at this time, against the reception of any new claims; and might with much propriety have dedicated all the residue of the time prescribed in the Treaty to the examination and adjustment of such as had been received. Hoping, however, that with proper diligence this laborious task might be performed within the remaining term, and desirous not to debar any of their fellow-citizens of the relief to which they might possibly be entitled, the Commission still continued their last order, authorizing the presentation of claims at any time; and requiring only, that the claims presented should be accompanied by proper evidence to explain why they had not been before preferred. Under this order, at the next and each succeeding session of the board, new memorials have been presented to the number of 1859, all of which have been read, considered, and disposed of, as to the board seemed right. Nor has the reception of any claim been refused at any time, upon the mere ground of its coming too late, until the 31st of May last. "On the 15th of October 1822, the Commission again assembled in pursuance of its adjournment. At this session the board proceeded as before to set down for examination all such memorials as had been received six months previously, except those in which good cause was shown for postponement. Having thus arranged its business, the board next proceeded to examine the proofs exhibited in support of the several cases so set down for examination, except such as applied to claims for the continuance of which some sufficient reason was assigned. And having disposed of all these as before, the Commission, having nothing further before it, again adjourned on the 22nd of November 1822, until the ensuing February, for the same cause before stated. "On the 18th of February 1823 the Commission again assembled in pursuance of its adjournment, and having arranged and disposed of all the business before it as at the preceding session, adjourned on the 18th day of April 1823 until the ensuing July, for the same cause before stated. During this session the Commission found itself under the necessity of adopting some rule which might expedite the business before it. The term prescribed by the Treaty was drawing fast to a close-much remained to be done to complete the performance of the duties committed to the board, and its progress in this task was retarded, not only by the apparent delay of the claimants in setting down for examination claims which had been received, but also by the interruption which the presentation and reception of new memorials incessantly produced. Many of the claims were intimately connected. Altho' preferred by different persons, they yet depended upon the selfsame facts, the evidence of which was often to be sought and collected by piecemeal from several different cases. Whensoever therefore one claim was set for examination, if any other growing out of the same circumstances was not acted upon in like manner, the board was under the necessity either of examining the same voluminous mass of proof again and again, or of postponing the examination of cases which were ready until others could be made so. Besides, in cases depending (as sometimes occurred) upon parol proof only, there was obvious impropriety in deciding anything until the whole proof which could be adduced was brought forward. These considerations induced the Commission before it adjourned to make a new order, by which it announced its determination, at its next session, to set down for examination all memorials without distinction, which had been filed six months; and required all new memorials to be accompanied (when presented for reception) with the proof relied upon to support the same; and that such memorials, when received, should be immediately set down. This order the Commission directed to be published as before, for the information of all who might be affected by it. 5627-VOL. 5- -8 "On the 15th day of July 1823 the Commission again assembled in pursuance of its adjournment, and, acting according to the determination expressed in their last order, arranged and disposed of all the business before it as at the preceding session, and then adjourned on the 5th day of August 1823 until the ensuing November, for the same cause stated. During this session it became obvious that the business before the Board could not possibly be completed, if much further indulgence was granted to the applicants, by postponing the examination of the cases set down; the board therefore announced most distinctly its purpose of examining every case, in its order, at their next session, and of then finally disposing of it. "On the 12th of November 1823 the Commission again assembled in pursuance of its adjournment, and, finding it impossible to complete its business without a continued session, it has had no recess since that day. All the cases being now set down for examination, the board for the purpose of affording the longest possible period for preparation to such of the claimants as might not yet have obtained the proper proofs, commenced with examining only such cases as were voluntarily offered to them for examination by the claimants themselves. Having disposed of all those, the examination of the remaining cases, in the regular order in which they stood upon the calendar, was next gone into and completed, altho' in many of these the parties were not prepared, and had no proof whatsoever. The only exception permitted to this course was in those cases in which applications for documents had been made to the Spanish Government in pursuance of the 11th Article of the Treaty. All these cases were suffered to remain unexamined, until a very recent period, inasmuch as no negligence could be properly imputed to the claimants for not exhibiting such proofs. This process of examining memorials and pronouncing upon their validity, according to the nature of the proofs offered to sustain them, which process the board had commenced in June 1822, and had continned at every succeeding session as the claimants were prepared, or the nature of the duties confided to the Commission had permitted, was not completed until the 25th of January 1824. Indeed since that period several new memorials have been presented, received, and allowed or rejected. Having finished this part of its duty, the board next commenced the labor of adjusting and ascertaining the amount of the claims which had been received, examined and allowed as valid. This task occupied the board with but little intermission ever afterwards, and when completed ought probably to have ended its labors. But inasmuch as many of the claimants had been forced by the rules adopted by the Commission to set down cases for examination, at a time when they had not obtained any proof to sustain them; and as consequently there were some rejected merely for the want of proof, the board, before entering upon the business of ascertaining amounts, made an order, whereby permission was given to all claimants who wished their claims re-examined to file a petition for that purpose, accompanied by any new proof they might have procured after the first decision. This order was made on the 31st of December 1823, and limited the time for exhibiting such petitions to the 17th of the following month. As the object of this order was merely to enable the Commission to complete its duties within the time prescribed by the Treaty, so soon as it was seen that this might be accomplished without a strict adherence to either the letter or intent of the rule, but little regard was paid to it by the board. Applications for the re-examination of every kind of claim have been received, altho' not offered until after the time limited. New evidence has been suffered to be introduced up to the last moment possible, and new arguments have been received, and attentively considered, upon almost every proposition, the assumption or application of which had at first caused the rejection of any case whatsoever. In short, the board having once yielded to this departure from its rule, was under the necessity of re-examining more than once almost every case which had been rejected, and reconsidering many of the memorials which were at first refused. The undersigned do not, however, regret this additional labor, since it has served in some instances to change the opinion which |