legislative enactments or public and general regulations by the execu tive departments, copies of such laws and published regulations should, as far as practicable, accompany your report. I am, sir, your obedient servant, Schedule of inquiries. J. C. B. DAVIS, Acting Secretary. Inclosure. [Inclosure.] SCHEDULE OF INQUIRIES. 1st. Are claims against the government investigated, determined, and, if allowed, their payment directed and provided for by the legislative branch of the Government? 2d. If the legislative authority does entertain such claims, what is the mode of procedure, by committee or otherwise, and what means, if any, are provided for procuring evidence on behalf of the government? 3d. What provision, if any, is made for the examination and determination of claims by the executive department? What is the mode of procedure in the investigation of claims by or before executive officers, and what means are provided for procuring evidence on behalf of the government? 4th. Is there any provision of law allowing a citizen or subject to sue the Government in the regularly-established courts, or in any special tribunal, and does the privilege of maintaining an action against the Government (if it exists) extend to aliens? 5th. What is the status of aliens before the regularly-established courts of the country? Can they maintain an action in such courts against a citizen or subject, and, if so, does the privilege extend to all aliens, or is it confined to resident aliens only? 6th. If different systems of adjudication exist as regards different classes of claims, what is the system with reference to each class, and what the mode of procedure, and the privileges of the Government in relation to evidence in its behalf and the means of procuring such evidence? 7th. Add any other information, general or special, of which you may be possessed bearing on the subject. Mr. Jones to Mr. Fish. LONDON, July 18, 1874. SIR: Just as I was leaving Brussels I received yours of the 23d June, requesting information for the purpose of facilitating the adjustment and determination of claims, &c. I gave Mr. Jottrand, père, a memorandum of what I required, and he now sends me the inclosed. Mr. J. is a lawyer of forty years' practice at Brussels; has a son in congress, and was himself a member of the first congress. I inclose his note to me, by which it will be seen that I shall have to pay him 150 francs. I must apologize for sending the document in its present form, but am constantly on the go, and have deemed it better to send it now than to retain it until my return, which I trust will be satisfactory. Your obedient servant, Hon. HAMILTON FISH, Secretary of State. Inclosure No. 1.] J. R. JONES. JULY 14, 1874. MY DEAR Mr. JONES: As I intend to start before long, in some journeying to enjoy my holidays in the next recess of business in the courts of law, and everywhere generally, I have lost no time in satisfying to your demand. Here is my paper on the in quiries wanted by you; and I hope you will find them satisfactory for the use you have to make of them. I dare recommend to you the mending of my broken English, when used for your purpose. The question of my fees is very difficult to be solved by me. I would not charge you like an ordinary client; that is to say, I must take in consideration the kind services you have obliged me with, and owe to make a compensation for them. If you would find fault in my charging you with 150 francs for fees, pray tell it me frankly, and I will settle the matter according to your best judgment, after your and my return to home in October next. Faithfully, your friend, L. JOTTRAND, PÈRE. [Inclosure No. 2.] First. Are claims against the Belgian government investigated, determined, and, if allowed, their payment directed and provided for by the legislative branch of the government? Claims against the Belgian government must be directed to the king, at Brussels, by a request on stamped paper, of the size called grand papier in the law; the cost of each sheet being 1 franc 20 centimes. The language to be used is commonly the Frenchalbeit, according to article 23, of the Belgian constitution, both the Dutch (Flemish) and German may be used also, at will. The object of the claim, its cause or origin, the facts and circumstances whereon established must be exposed; and the documents pertaining to the matter annexed, with an inventory index or succinct description of them at the foot of the request; the whole to be deposited at the royal palace or sent thither by post, duly franked, under the plain subscription, Au Roi à Bruxelles. On receiving such request, the King taking or not taking knowledge of it, as the case may be, the chief secretary of the King's cabinet causes a summary examination of the matter to be made by a clerk, in order to know the ministerial department to which the matter may be related-foreign affairs, interior, justice, public works, finances, or war-the_request is sent from the King's cabinet to the competent department in the six. The claimant is made aware of it by a cabinet dispatch; and from that time he must apply for his claim directly to that department under address of the minister, or by calling on him or the chief clerk intrusted with the matter. The department investigates the case, determines on it; and, the claim being found just and allowable, the minister orders the payment on the special chapter of his department's budget which the matter is related to, and causes a bond for payment to be delivered. This bond, called a mandat de paiement, is submitted to the Belgian court of public accounts, la cour des comptes, at Brussels, which verities of the chapter of the budget designed is the one properly charged with the expense whereof question; and, if so found, puts on the mandat à visa authorizing payment; and this takes place then at the treasury public (the national bank at Brussels or anywhere at its delegates in the provinces) on show of the paper. If no chapter of the said ministerial department's budget, in run for the year, can be charged with the expense; or if that chapter is already exhausted by previous payments, or if the court of public accounts does not agree with the minister on the question that such or such chapter is the proper one to be charged with the payment, the ministerial department would propose, in the next budget, an allocation for the payment. But the legislative authority may then debate the question, "Is the payment to be allowed, yea or nay?" The competent minister would, of course, sustain his proposition, the claimant at leisure to petition to the legislative power, in the house of representatives and in the senate, successively, in order to make his rights evident. The said claimant could get representatives or senators to his party, the public press being called, too, in the discussion. The matter then publicly debated, in both houses of representatives and senators, like all matters in the budget, would succeed or not, in the sense of the claim. If succeeding, the payment would take place in the way as aforesaid; if not, the claim would drop and be set aside. But in such case yet, like in case of rejection of the claim by the minister at the beginning, the claimant would be admitted to bring the matter in the regular courts of law, by a suit for his rights against the government; because he could not be debarred in his claim otherwise than by sentence of regular justice, the legislative authority, no more than the ministerial or governmental one, being competent to decide definitely in matters of civil obligations between particulars and government any more than between particulars and particulars, as such. Indeed the Belgian constitution provides, in its article 92, "Contestations having for their objects civil rights, are exclusively under the competence of the courts of law." If a claim against the government, on a question of mine or thine, is proved good in the courts of law, it must be settled by the public budget of the proper ministerial department; and nobody in the legislative nor administrative authorities has power to the contrary. Second. If the legislative authority does entertain such claims, what is the mode of procedure, by committee or otherwise, and what means, if any, are provided for procuring evidence on behalf of the government? From what has been said hereabove, it follows that no claims of particulars in matter of obligations can be brought directly before the legislature; and, consequently, no procedure, by committee or otherwise, can be kept. In case of discussion in the legislature, between the ministers and the houses, about matters to be brought or not in the budget, and related to particular interests which a minister admits to be claimable on his department, and the legislature would not allow, the debate takes place on the documents only procured by the party interested, and which the minister himself has admitted as doing sufficiently. The debaters in both the legislative houses do object only from these documents. No further evidence is offered; no investigation by inquiry before committee or otherwise may happen. If the credit asked by the minister is allowed, the minister will pay the claim; if not, the minister will not pay, and the matter may then be brought by the claimant before the courts of law, with the consequences aforesaid. 3d. What provision, if any, is made for the examination and determination of claims by the executive department? What is the mode of procedure in the investigation of claims by or before executive officers, and what means are provided for procuring evidence on behalf of the Government? As it has been seen, all debatable matter between a claimant and the government, like debatable matter between particulars, must be brought before the courts of law, and settled thither only. Thus, it cannot happen that a discussion whatever takes place between a claimant and the government to be settled by way of a procedure before the government itself, and its officers. The claimant must make his claim good, from the beginning, by documents satisfactory to the government. It may happen that, in the investigation of the documents, the government would require from the claimant more documents than those furnished in the beginning, and determine that such or such documents are wanted, and may, perhaps be procured; which the claimant is at leasure to do, in a certain time allowed to him therefor. But the government will at the end settle the matter according to the documents procured. If the claim is allowed, the payment takes place, as said here above; if rejected, the matter drops there; and the courts of law are the only recourse for the claimant. 4th. Is there any provision of law allowing a citizen or subject to sue the government in the regularly-established courts, or in any special tribunal; and does the privilege of maintaining an action against the Government, if it exists, extend to aliens? Perfectly. According to article 92 of the Belgian constitution, already quoted, the regular courts of law are the judges exclusive in all questions of mine or thine between all kinds of litigants. During the French domination Belgium had what the French call la jurisdiction administrative, le contentieux administratif, which they yet enjoy. In suits between the particulars and the government, their conseil d'état is the judge. The Belgian have no conseil d'état, no more than the American of the United States. After the French domination Belgium had the Dutch one, during about fifteen years, in the beginning of which no contentieux administratif, no jurisdiction administrative existed. But, at the end of his reign, the king, William First of Orange, endeavored to establish that detested jurisdiction again, and had a conseil d'état for judging the contentieux administratif, of his own arbitrary reinstallment. This was, in 1830, not the least of the griefs of the Belgian against William's government; and caused, for a large part, the eversion of that government, by the Belgian revolution of that epoch. Under the Belgian national institutions before the French and Dutch domination in their country, it was a rule that Brabancons, Flemish, Liegeois, etc., could not be governed otherwise than par droit et sentences des tribunaux. The rule was re-established by the Belgian constitution of February, 1831, in article 92 aforesaid. The regularly-established courts are the judges in all suits, as well between particulars and government as between citizen and citizen. No special tribunal does exist; and the right and by no means the privilege of maintaining an action against the government in the ordinary courts of law extends to aliens, by force of this other article of the Belgian constitution, article 128, which provides that an alien being on Belgian ground enjoys the benefit of the Belgian laws, (1.) The Belgian civil code provides further, article 15, that a Belgian may be sued before a Belgian court of law for obligations contracted in Belgium, or abroad, with an alien, (2.) 5th. What is the status of aliens before the regularly-established courts of the country? Can they maintain an action in such courts against a citizen or subject; and, if so, does the privilege extend to all aliens, or is it confined to resident aliens only? The above quoted articles answer the question. An alien not resident in Belgium can sue a Belgian before Belgian courts, like an alien resident, who has nevertheless a peculiar privilege; that is, to sue a Belgian without procuring the cautio judicatum solvi, whereof question in article 16 of the civil code, as here (3) mentioned. 6th. If different systems of adjudication exist as regards different classes of claims, what is the system with reference to each class, and what the mode of procedure and the privilege of the government in relation to evidence on its behalf, and the means of procuring such evidence? The claims may properly be divided in three classes, according to civil rights in matter of obligations. A. Rights peculiarly civil, resulting of civil contracts or obligations, as, selling and buying; borrowing and lending, (in matters non-commercial;) leasing, and taking in lease, houses, lands, furniture, etc.; wills in matter of succession and heirs, and the like. B. Rights related to contracts or obligations in commercial matters; matters of societies or partnerships for commercial enterprises; matters of commercial navigations, and the like. C. Damages to be recovered in consequence of crimes, misdemeanors, or delinquencies of all kind in penal law, (droit pénal.) In the first class, and in suits for a value above 150 francs, no evidence whatever is admitted, nor for the claimant, nor for the defendant, which is not by written deeds or documents. Verbal testimony is not allowed. Every action must be preceded, (excepting the cases of great urgency,) by an experience to be made before a magistrate called juge de paix, in order to know if the to-be plaintiff and the to-be defendant could not be conciliated about the matter to sue for. That experience does not take place in suits where minors, lunatics, partners above two in number, government, and all kind of public establishment are concerned. An alien suitor must furnish cautio judicatum solvi, as said before; and would get no hearing by the court, without the deposit of cash in the hands of a public officer thereto appointed, for a value to fix by the court, when thus required by the defendant. In the second class, all kind of evidence, by verbal testimony, pro and con, can be admitted; no preliminary experience for conciliation is wanted; no cautio judicatum solvi is required. The procedure is summary; at less expenses than in the first class; and the parties may plead their cases themselves, without attorneys or barristers, who are indispensable in the first class. In the third class the damages may be recovered before the court judging the delinquent for his detect, and by a summary procedure peculiar to the criminal courts which it seems useless to explain here. The government has no privilege in relation to evidence in its behalf; the procedure is quite the same for itself and the private suitor. 7th. Add any other information, general or special of which you may be possessed, bearing on the subject. As a general information, it can be said that the fees of attorneys and barristers are less than in England and the United States; except in the second and the third classes aforesaid the suits can be protracted long enough, in civil matters properly sued; longer than in France, but not so long, as one is generally told, as in England and the United States of America. It is now question to abridge the law-suits by a reform in the laws of procedure; but the legislative authority has not yet been seized with the intended prospect of law, thereabout. No 177.] Mr. Rublee to Mr. Fish. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, Berne, August 1, 1874. (Received August 28.) SIR: Upon receipt of the dispatch, not numbered, of Mr. J. C. B. Davis, Acting Secretary of State, dated June 23, 1874, asking me to obtain and transmit to the Department of State, exact and trustworthy information respecting the course pursued by the government of Switzerland relative to the adjustment of claims against that government, and the mode of procedure adopted in regard to the investigation and determination of such claims, I addressed a note to the President of the confederation, inclosing with it a copy of the series of questions accompanying the aforesaid dispatch. Copies of this note, and of the response of the President thereto, with copies of the federal constitution of Switzerland, and of such laws of Switzerland as relate to the adjustment of claims against the government, are herewith inclosed. The note of the President with the accompanying documents, will be found to contain the information desired. I have, &c., HORACE RUBLEE. [Inclosure 1 in No. 177.] Mr. Rublee to the President of the Swiss Confederation. The undersigned, minister resident of the United States, has been requested by his Government to obtain as full information as possible in regard to the course pursued by the government of Switzerland in regard to the adjustment of claims presented against it, whether held by its own citizens or by the citizens of other states, and the mode of procedure adopted in the investigation and determination of such claims. This information is desired in view of the circumstance that the Government of the United States is contemplating a revision of its regulations regarding such claims, with the object of establishing a uniform system and mode of procedure. The undersigned, in order to obtain exact and trustworthy information upon the subject in question, incloses herewith a series of inquiries, and respectfully asks that your excellency will be pleased to cause the same to be referred to the appropriate department, and the answers thereto to be prepared and transmitted to the undersigned at the earliest convenient period. The undersigned, &c. HORACE RUBLEE. [Inclosure 2 in No. 177.-Translation.] BERNE, July 29, 1874. The federal council has received a note of the 13th instant from the minister resident of the United States, in which he asks, in the name of his Government, information concerning the modes of procedure of the federal government in cases of claims, either on the part of its own citizens or of the refugees from other States. The federal council is obliged to infer from the contents of this note, and the questions subjoined to it, that the subject is not of collisions of public rights but of question of civil rights. It is, then, starting from this point of view, that it has the honor to reply to the questions propounded to it. In this instance it will commence by calling to mind that, as was the case under the régime of the federal constitution of 1848, so the new federal constitution of 29th May, 1874, and the federal law concerning the federal judiciary of 27th June, 1874, have applied rigorously the principle of the division of power for claims of civil rights brought up by the confederation, or against it. It follows from this that neither legislative nor executive authority are competent to pronounce on claims of this kind, only the competent tribunals, which have the prerogative of pronouncing upon the text of the laws and the principles of right generally obligatory, and that without calling in question the constitutionality of these laws. Concerning the question, Which are the competent tribunals? it is necessary to cite the following cases: 1. Questions of civil right between the confederation (or a special branch of its administration) and one or more of the cantons. All proceedings of this kind, whether the confederation or an administration be plaintiff or defendant, whether the question is a personal claim or a real suit, and whatever may be the value of the disputed objects, must be brought before the federal tribunal. (Article 110, No. 1, of the federal constitution, and article 27 of the federal law on the organization of the federal judiciary, of 27th June, 1874.) 2. The civil suit between the confederation or a federal administration and a corporation or an individual. Suits of this category appeal also to the federal tribunal, provided always that the |