to the person or persons in whose favor the same is adjudged." Where the decision was adverse to the claimant, no further proceedings were authorized. Claims Prior to 1818 When the judges came to execute this statute, claims were made before them for losses occasioned by the three invasions of 1812-13, 1814, and 1818; and such claims in each class as were established by the proofs were allowed and certified to the Secretary of the Treasury. The judge for East Florida, at St. Augustine, allowed many of the claims of 1812-13; and the judge for West Florida, at Pensacola, allowed claims not only of 1818, but also of 1814. The claims of 1814 were 43 in number, and their nominal amount was $84,970.63. The judge for West Florida, before whom they were preferred, awarded upon them in all $72,639.06. He disallowed $12,331.56, for insufficiency of proof. When the decisions in favor of the claimants were reported to the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Crawford, who then held that office, set aside all the awards for 1814, on the ground that General Jackson's entrance into West Florida was justified by the law of nations, and that the claims were not within the treaty. In the exercise of a similar discretion Mr. Rush, as Secretary of the Treasury, in 1826 rejected the claims for losses by the invasion of East Florida in 1812-13, on the ground that the "late" operations of the American army in Florida, mentioned in the treaty, meant only the operations of 1818 and comprehended none of an earlier date. In passing upon the cases before him Mr. Rush Decisions on Various rejected certain claims for the loss of slaves on the following grounds: Claims. "It is not believed that the words or intention of the ninth article of the treaty will warrant a confirmation of the judge's decision in these cases. The slaves had all left their masters prior to the invasion of 1818, and were a part of the community of Suwanee Indians for the time beingat least when that invasion took place. Those who were killed by the attack on that Indian settlement, or who were blown up at the negro fort, must necessarily be lost to their owners; and as to those who were taken prisoners, the owners must be left to such remedies for recovering possession of them as the common course of law would afford. On these grounds, if on no other, the cases are, one and all, excluded from confirmation." Other claims were rejected by Mr. Rush, in which it appeared by the evidence that the damages and losses were occasioned by hostile Indians who were opposed to the American army. Mr. Rush rejected these claims on the ground that their allowance would involve "a forced construction of the treaty, the principle of which, if admitted, might open a door to numerous and remote claims never within the contemplation of the contracting parties."3 13 Stats. at L. 768. 2 S. Ex. Doc. 391, 29 Cong. 1 sess.; S. Rept. 482, 29 Cong. 1 sess. 3 H. Doc. 67, 24 Cong. 2 sess. The blowing up of the "negro fort," mentioned by Mr. Rush, took place in 1816. The fort in question was erected by the British during the war of 1812, at Bonavista, on the eastern branch of the Appalachicola River, 15 miles above its mouth and 120 miles east of Pensacola. After the close of the war it was used by Indians 5627—VOL. 5—9 From the executive decisions rejecting the claims Appeal of Claimants to prior to 1818, en masse, the claimants appealed to ConCongress. gress. They pointed out that the word "late" was not in the Spanish text of the treaty. The English and Spanish texts of the two paragraphs in question are as follows: "And the high contracting parties, respectively, renounce all claim to indemnities for any of the recent events or transactions of their respective commanders and officers in the Floridas. "The United States will cause sat. isfaction to be made for the injuries, if any, which by process of law shall be established to have been suffered by the Spanish officers and individual Spanish inhabitants by the late operations of the American army in Florida." "Las altas partes contratantes, renuncian reciprocamente todos sus derechos á indemnizaciones por qualquiera de los ultimos acontecimientos y transacciones de sus respectivos comandantes y oficiales en las Floridas. "Y los Estados Unidos satisfarán los prejuicios, si los hubiese habido, que los habitantes y oficiales Españoles justifiquen legalmente haber sufrido por las operaciones del Exercito Americano en ellas." It was pointed out by Mr. Joseph M. White, the delegate from Florida, in an argument submitted to the Committee on Foreign Affairs in 1826, that no word corresponding to late was to be found in the Spanish draft of the treaty. It was also urged by him that instead of the word "Florida,” which is found in the English draft, the Spanish has the words "en ellas," referring by necessity to "las Floridas," and consequently including both East and West Florida, which would not have been the case had it been intended to provide exclusively for the losses of 1818, which were almost wholly confined in West Florida. Adverse Reports. By a report of March 10, 1826, the Committee on Foreign Affairs reported adversely to the claimants.1 The report stated that the Secretary of the Treasury, before excluding the claims of 1812-13 and 1814, applied to the Chief Magistrate, under whom the treaty was framed, and was confirmed by him in the opinion that Article IX. embraced no claims prior to 1818. As to the English and Spanish texts of the treaty, the committee, while admitting that the word "late" was not in the Spanish text, maintained that this did not alter the sense of the stipulations; that though the word "operaciones" was not qualified by any term corresponding to the word "late," yet the two clauses were connected in the Spanish text by the conjunction "y," and that the term "ultimos" in the first paragraph necessarily limited the sense of the word “operaciones" in the second. These and fugitive slaves as a rendezvous and stronghold. General Jackson on April 23, 1816, demanded of the governor of Pensacola the "prompt interference of the Spanish authorities to destroy or remove from our frontier this banditti." The governor, while concurring in General Jackson's view as to the character of the establishment, stated that he was unable to act in the matter without orders from his captain-general, to whom he had written on the subject nearly two months previously. The fort was attacked by United States forces July 27, 1816, and, a hot shot entering the magazine, was blown up and completely destroyed. (Am. State Papers, For. Rel. IV. 555-560.) H. Report 112, 19 Cong. 1 sess. views were formally adopted by the Committee on the Judiciary in the next House of Representatives.' Mr. Everett's Favorable Report. This February 26, 1829, Mr. Everett, from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, made an elaborate report in favor of the payment of the excluded claims, accompanied with a bill for that purpose. The committee would, said Mr. Everett, forbear to pursue a verbal discussion of the treaty as being necessarily unsatisfactory in its nature. The renunciation and the stipulation for indemnity seemed to be coextensive; and this being so, if the losses sustained by the Spanish inhabitants in 1812 and 1814 were not provided for, then Spain had not renounced her claims on the United States for those losses. would be to suppose that a considerable and not the least embarrassing part of the controversy between the two governments remained unsettled by the treaty of 1819, though it was intended, and in its preamble it was declared, to be a settlement of "all their differences and pretensions." While the American Executive regarded the stipulation for indemnity as extending only to the cases in 1818, it was evident that the inhabitants of East and West Florida understood it to extend to the losses in 1812 and 1814, since all but five of the cases presented to the judge of the superior court of East Florida were for losses sustained in 1812-13. The committee, said Mr. Everett, had come to the conclusion that the claims of 1812-13 and of 1814 were entitled to the favorable consideration of Congress. The claims of 1812-13 appeared to be highly meritorious. An agent of the United States, clothed with large discretionary powers and with the control of funds from the public treasury, and having a force of United States troops, approached and entered Florida. It was natural that the inhabitants should repose great confidence in his promises of protection. Although his movements were disavowed by the Executive, their most important results were to a certain extent sanctioned by the occupation of the province, on behalf of the United States, for a twelvemonth after General Matthews was superseded. The transaction was one no doubt of a peculiar nature, not likely to occur again in our history, and difficult to be adjusted, in all its consequences, on ordinary principles of legislation. The committee were disposed to recommend a liberal course; and this they did with the more confidence as the amount involved, though highly important to individuals, in its importance to the United States bore no comparison with the beneficial consequences of the cession of Florida. The case of the claimants of 1814 was, said Mr. Everett, somewhat different; but it appealed, in the judgment of the committee, in a high degree to the equity of Congress. The Government of Spain was in 1814 at peace with that of the United States; but the authorities of West Florida were unable, had they been disposed, to prevent the violation of their territory by the hostile arms of Great Britain, aimed against the United States. In this situation of things the American commander, without express authority from his government, but in the exercise of a wise discretion for the public good, found it necessary to invade a province whose political situation was so anomalous. The committee found it stated by the delegate from Florida, whose means of information were ample, "that it was H. Report 16, 20 Cong. 1 sess. 2 H. Report 99, 20 Cong. 2 sess. proved by all the witnesses examined that every effort was made by the commanding general and his officers to preserve the property of the inhabitants inviolate." It was, however, in the nature of things that some losses should have been sustained by the inhabitants of a character entitled to equitable compensation. The committee could not but think that the situation of provinces circumstanced as were the Floridas was entitled to great tenderness, looking at them as distant appendages of a weak government unable to vindicate their neutrality; occupied against the law of nations by the enemy of the United States, and thus necessarily exposed to the hostile approach of an American force; acquired by the American Government as an indemnity for wrongs inflicted by the Spanish Government, from which the Floridas derived no benefit, and shortly afterward admitted into the political family of the Union. The committee deemed it expedient by the adoption of a liberal policy to remove forever any remaining ground of irritation and discontent. Owing to the lateness of the session no action was taken on Mr. Everett's bill. February 9, 1830, Mr. Archer, then chairman of the Mr. Archer's Reports. Committee on Foreign Affairs, reported a bill to allow the claims of 1812-13, but not those of 1814. He excluded the claims of 1814 partly on the ground of Article V. of the treaty with Spain of 1795, by which the contracting parties pledged themselves "to restrain by force all hostilities on the part of the Indian nations living within their boundaries." On January 20, 1832, and March 25, 1834, 3 he presented a similar recommendation from the same committee, on each occasion with a bill to give it effect. Provision for East Florida Claims. On June 26, 1834, the bill became a law. By the provisions of this act the Secretary of the Treasury was "authorized and directed to pay the amount awarded by the judge of the superior court at St. Augustine for the losses occasioned in East Florida by the troops in the service of the United States in the years 1812 and 1813 in all cases where the decision of the said judge shall be deemed by the Secretary of the Treasury to be just;" and the judge of the superior court at St. Augustine was "authorized to receive, examine, and adjudge all cases of claims for losses occasioned by the troops aforesaid in 1812 and 1813 not heretofore presented to the said judge or in which the evidence was withheld in consequence of the decision of the Secretary of the Treasury that such claime were not provided for by the treaty of February 22, 1819." One year was allowed for the presentation of such claims. It was also provided that in no case should an award be made or paid where the claimant was not at the time of his loss an actual subject of Spain. Under this act many claims were adjudicated; and Adjudication of Claims. when Florida was admitted to the Union, the unfinished business pending before the judge at St. Augustine in relation to the East Florida claims was transferred to the judge of the dis H. Report 176, 21 Cong. 1 sess. 2 H. Report 223, 22 Cong. 1 sess. 3 H. Report 64, 23 Cong. 2 sess. 46 Stats. at L. 569. trict court of the United States for the northern district of Florida.1 Subsequently the district judge was specially authorized to receive and adjudicate certain claims, among which was that of Ferreira, administrator of Pass. From 1823 to 1849 the judges allowed on the claims of 18121813 upward of a million dollars, exclusive of interest. When the Secretary of the Treasury came to exercise Action of the Treasury the authority conferred upon him in respect of the Department. payment of the awards, his Department subjected them to a reexamination. The rules of decision adopted by Mr. Rush were acquiesced in, Mr. Woodbury, the Secretary of the Treasury, deeming himself to be unauthorized "to revise or overrule the same without the special authority of law to that effect. The Treasury Department also held that there were three descriptions of cases, included in the claims for losses in 1812-13, in which the provisions of the act of 1834 did not warrant an allowance: 1. Where the loss sustained was shown by the evidence to have been occasioned by the acts of Indians hostile to the Spanish Government, but not cooperating with the American army. 2. Where it appeared that the claimants had joined the "patriot" troops who were acting in hostility to the Spanish authorities, and the property was taken and destroyed by the Spanish forces. 3. Where the loss was shown to have been occasioned by hostile Indians opposed to the troops of the United States. Claims were also rejected where the losses were shown to have been occasioned not by the direct acts of the United States troops, but by the acts of lawless inhabitants of Florida who took advantage of the disturbed situation of the province, arising from the presence of an invading army, to commit depredations. Mr. Woodbury being of opinion, however, that injuries of this class might "be fairly deemed as consequential, suggested the propriety of a special statutory provision for them."4 It was advised by Attorney-General Grundy that the United States was bound to make compensation to claimants under the treaty for slaves carried away or killed by the United States forces and thus totally lost to their owners, as well as for the detention of slaves that were wrongfully taken but afterward restored." Attorney-General Cushing advised that the extraordinary expenses incurred by a claimant in living at St. Marys, whither he retired after the destruction of his property, were too remotely consequential to form a subject of compensation under the article." Disallowance of Interest by the Treasury. In respect of these rules of decision no general controversy occurred. In most cases the principal amount allowed by the judges was paid.' But against the Treasury's action on the question of interest, a general complaint arose. The rule of the judges in making up their awards was to allow damages to the amount of the value of the property at the time of the injury, and to add to this, as satisfaction for the loss of the use and profits of the property, 'Act of February 22, 1847, 9 Stats. at L. 130. 'Act of March 3, 1849, 9 Stats. at L. 788. 3 H. Doc. 67, 24 Cong. 2 sess. H. Doc. 67, 24 Cong. 2 sess. 53 Op. 389. 66 Op. 530. 7S. Ex. Doc. 158, 48 Cong. 1 sess. 12-17. |