reports of that committee, relating to many claims of this nature from 1789-1900, have recently been compiled and pub "V. The Act 18th June, 1878 (20 within the constitutional power of Stat. L. p. 144), requesting the Congress to impose necessary and President to investigate charges of proper terms and conditions in the fraud in regard to the claims of act of jurisdiction. Thus Congress Weil and La Abra Mining Company | may provide that if an award which was only an expression of the de- is the subject of litigation was prosire of Congress to have the charges cured by fraud, the parties may be investigated. The Act 28th Decem- barred from all claim on the faith ber, 1892 (27 id., p. 409), provided of the award, and the money be rean appropriate and effective means turned to the government from of investigation in a judicial forum, which it was received." being the domestic tribunal' anticipated by the Supreme Court in Boynton vs. Blaine, (139 U. S. R. 306.) Neither act limited or increased the constitutional diplomatic powers of the President. ་ "VI. The statutory recognition of a claim to an international award in the custody of the government changes its character from that of a mere appeal to the grace of the sovereign to a right susceptible of judicial determination. Against such a claim the government, as trustee of the fund, may file a bill in the nature of a bill of interpleader, or to quiet title; and such a proceeding will not conflict with the diplomatic authority vested in the President by the Constitution. "VII. The United States, by the act of 1892 conferring jurisdiction on this court, suspended their relation to the fund as sovereign, and recognized a right in the defendants, but subjected that right to the provisions of the statute which recognized it. "VIII. When a citizen insists upon a recognition and adjustment of a claim, he imposes a legal obligation upon himself to become subject to the jurisdiction of such court as Congress may empower to adjudicate the claim, and it is Meade vs. United States, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1869, 9 Wallace, 691, CLIFFORD, J. This is an appeal from the case in the Court of Claims, (2 Ct. Claims, 224,) affirming the decision rejecting his petition for indemnity. The syllabus is lengthy, but it contains the facts and the decision, and is as follows: "1. The claims of American citizens against Spain for which by the convention (subsequently becoming the treaty) of February 22d, 1819, the United States undertook to make satisfaction to an amount not exceeding $5,000,000 were such claims as, at the date of the convention, were unliquidated, and statements of which had been presented to the Department of State, or to the minister of the United States. And within this class, on the said 22d of February, were the claims of the late Richard W. Meade. And this was the only class that the commissioners appointed subsequently, on the ratification of the treaty, to pass upon claims, had power to pass upon. "2. The convention as signed February 22d, 1819, subject to ratification within six months, though it was not ratified within the time stipulated, was never lished. Much valuable historical information is contained therein, as well as the views of some of the eminent leaders abandoned, though some expres- namely, of an award or judgment sions in the notification of August 21st, 1819, by the United States to Spain (notifying to that government that after the next day, 'as the ratifications of the convention will not have been exchanged,' all the claims and pretensions of the United States will stand in the same situation as if that convention had never been made), indicated that the United States might be induced to refuse to carry it into effect. "3. This notification did not, by the non-ratification within the six months, make revocable the power which citizens of the United States, by filing their claims with it, had given their government to make reclamations against Spain in their behalf, nor did Mr. Meade in point of fact revoke the power which he had so given his government. "4. Mr. Meade having subsequently to the appointment of commissioners presented to them his claims, not in an unliquidated form, but in the shape of a debt acknowledged by Spain in a judgment against it given by a royal junta, or special judicial tribunal of that country, made after the above-mentioned notification by the United States, the commissioners properly rejected the claims thus made. They did not reject his claims in their unliquidated form, and as filed previously to the convention, in the Department of State and with the American minister. "5. The fact that before the said commission rejected the claim of Mr. Meade in the form in which he had presented it-the form, as by a Spanish tribunal for a sum certain-he requested the government of the United States to procure from the Spanish government his original vouchers and evidences of debt, under a clause of the treaty which obliged the Spanish government to furnish, at the instance of the said commissioners, all such documents and elucidations might be in their possession for the adjustment of the unliquidated claims provided for by the treaty, does not, even assuming that it shows that he meant to present his claims in an unliquidated form, show any cause of action against the United States over which the Court of Claims could exercise jurisdiction. "6. The award of the tribunal of the Spanish government in favor of Mr. Meade, made on the 19th May, 1820, was not, in that form, included by the 5th article of the convention of February 22d, 1819, renouncing certain unliquidated claims then existing. "7. There having been no evidence in a finding of the Court of Claims that an assurance, which that court found as matter of fact had been given by the minister of the United States at the court of Madrid, to the government of Spain, that a debt due by the last named government to Mr. Meade would certainly be paid, if a treaty whose ratification had been suspended was ratified, and which treaty was afterwards ratified, was given in pursuance of any instructions from the President or by virtue of any authority from the United States, the said assurance is of the Senate on points of constitutional and international law affecting clains of this nature." to be regarded as having been given the commissioners, dismissing the without authority, and therefore to be held void. claim in the form in which it was presented to them, barred a recovery in the Court of Claims on merit. And that the joint resolution of Congress of July 25th, 1866, referring the case back to the Court of Claims after it had been once decided adversely to the claimant, was not a waiver of the bar, and did not allow that court to consider it upon merits irrespectively of the dismissal by the commissioners. "8. This court does not agree with the Court of Claims in its opinion that, on the facts found by it, the United States by the acceptance of the treaty of Spain of February 22d, 1819, and the cession of the Floridas, unincumbered by certain private grants, to a recognition of which as valid our government had objected, appropriated the property of Mr. Meade, and that he acquired a good claim "9. This court, in conclusion, against them for $373,879.88, for expresses its regret, that entitled which they were not liable legally as Mr. Meade clearly was to prove and judicially except by and his unliquidated claims before the through the investigation, allow-commissioners he did not do so, ance, and award of the commis- and they observe that now the sioners appointed under the treaty. only remedy of his representatives But they do agree with that court is by 'an appeal to the equity of in the opinion that the decision of congress.' 9 FOREIGN RELATION COMMITTEE REPORTS. SENATE DOCUMENT NO. 231 (8 PARTS) 56TH CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION. Compilation of Reports of Committee of Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 1789–1901, First Congress, First Session, to Fifty-Sixth Congress, Second Session. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1901, 5 volumes, each part constituting a separate volume (7328 pages in all), as follows: Published pursuant to a Resolution adopted by the Senate of the United States January, 15, 1901, and as authorized by an Act of Congress approved June 6, 1900 (Deficiency Appropriations to June 30, 1900). See p. 1, Vol. I of this report. Volume I, part 1, contains this prefatory note: "The reports in this Compilation include all those known and procurable made by the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate from the First to the Fifty-sixth Congress, inclusive. In making this compilation search was made through the original files of the Senate, the American State Papers on Foreign Relations, the Legislative and Executive Journals of the Senate, the Annals and Debates of Congress, the Congressional Globe and Record, and the bound volumes of the Senate Reports. HAWKINS TAYLOR, Compiler and Clerk, Commiteee on Foreign Relations." WASHINGTON, D. C. In many cases the question arises whether a claim is National or individual. If the former, the Government has exclusive control over it, and can, therefore, release the foreign government or pursue such course as the political department of this Government determines. If, however, the claim is an individual one the rights of the claimants are protected by the provisions of the Constitution already referred to in the previous section.10 For the reasons stated in the note this question and the distinction between National and individual claims is not discussed at length in this book." There is a separate index to each volume of matters therein contained, and a general index referring to volumes, but not pages thereof, at the end of volume VIII. The general subdivision of the subject-matter of the Document, and the heads under which the reports are classified, are as follows: Volume I, Part 1 (686 pages), claims of citizens of the United States against Foreign Governments. Volume II, part 2 (1061 pages), same, but entirely devoted to claim of La Alba Silver Mining Company against Mexico. Volume III, part 3 (831 pages), same; and also claims of Citizens of the United States against the United States, claims of Citizens of Foreign Governments against the United States, Claims against the United States of Diplomatic and Consular officers of the United States for Reimbursement and Extra Pay. Volume IV, part 4 (877 pages), Mediterranean Commerce, etc., Nominations, Authorizations to accept Decorations from Foreign Governments, International Exhibitions, International Conferences, Maritime Canals, Pacific Cables, Railroads, Trade and Commerce with Foreign Nations, Tariff Restrictions. Volume V, part 5 (944 pages), Trade and Commerce with Foreign Nations, Foreign Tariffs, Boundary and Fishery Disputes. Volume VI, part 6 (1176 pages), Diplomatic Relations with Foreign Nations, Hawaiian Islands. Volume VII, part 7 (1029 pages), Diplomatic Relations with Foreign Nations, Affairs in Cuba. Volume VIII, Part 8 (723 pages), Treaties, and Legislation respecting them, General Index. 10 See § 442, pp. 285, et seq., ante, | sion of the Maine in Havana Harand cases there referred to follow-bor, February 15, 1898, in which ing Comegys vs. Vasse, U. S. Sup. Ct. the author of this book is counsel 1828, 1 Peters, 193, STORY, J. 11 At the present time there are pending before the Spanish Treaty Claims Commission many cases involving the right of survivors, and relatives of victims, of the Explo for the claimants who have filed claims under the provision of the Act of March 2, 1901, (31 U. S. Stat. at L. pp. 877-880) already referred to (see note 5 to § 308, pp. 442, et seq., vol. I) on the ground that Spain § 445. Wide extent of this power both as to claims of citizens and of States; fishery treaties with Great Britain as they affect State ownership of fisheries.-We have seen in the preceding sections that no higher exercise of the right of eminent domain has ever been assumed by any government; so far-reaching in its scope is it, that citizens whose claims are thus obliterated have no remedy whatever until Congress shall see fit, first to provide some procedure by which the claims can be proved to exist, and subsequently to appropriate money for payment of the claims as proved.1 The property affected by treaties includes not only claims of citizens but also property of States. The waters of such lakes as are within the boundaries of adjoining States, and of the ocean within the three-mile limit, belong, so far as there are property rights in the soil beneath the water, and to the fishes in the water, to the States and not to the United States, which only has a paramount right of regulating the navigation thereover. Notwithstanding this, the United will only be paid after Congress shall have appropriated the money therefor. This has always been the custom in regard to claims of this nature against the government. 2 Illinois Central Railroad Co. vs. Illinois, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1892, 146 U. S. 387, FIELD, J. Shively vs. Bowlby, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1894, 152 U. S. 1, GRAY, J. was originally liable for the dam- | Treaty Claims Commission estabages occasioned by that disaster lished by the Act of March 2, 1901, and, therefore, the United States is now liable under the assumption clause of the treaty of 1898 (See INSULAR CASES APPENDIX at end of Volume I for treaty in full). One of the legal questions involved in those cases is whether the entire claim including indemnity for death and injuries of those on board is a national claim for which only the United States Government could make any claim, or whether individual claims attached in favor of those who were injured and the families of those who were killed. As the author is now engaged in preparing a brief argument in support of the latter proposition, it would obviously be improper for him to express his personal views in a book of this nature. § 445. Lawton vs. Steele, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1894, 152 U. S. 133, BROWN J. Ownership and right to control fisheries in the Great Lakes which are boundary waters are here considered. The court held that it was within the power of the State to preserve from extinction fisheries in waters within its jurisdiction by prohibiting the exhaustive methods of fishing, or the use of such destructive instruments as are likely to result in the extermination of 1 The judgments of the Spanish the young as well as the mature fish. |