IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. AUGUST 1, 1856.-Read and referred to the Committee of Claims. The COURT OF CLAIMS submitted the following REPORT. The honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled: The Court of Claims respectfully presents the following documents. as the report in the case of LETITIA HUMPHREYS, ADM'X vs. THE UNITED STATES. 1. The petition of the claimant. 2. Record of the proceedings of the judge in Florida, with the action of the Treasury Department thereon, transmitted to the Senate. 3. Briefs of claimant and United States solicitor, on the first hearing. 4. Opinion of the court delivered by Judge Blackford. 5. Dissenting opinion of Judge Scarburgh. 6. Briefs of claimant and United States solicitor on the rehearing. 7. Opinion of the court on rehearing, delivered by Judge Gilchrist. 8. Dissenting opinion of Judge Scarburgh, on rehearing. By order of the Court of Claims. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said court at Washington, this first day of August, [L. S.] A. D. 1856. SAMUEL H. HUNTINGTON, To the Court of Claims: The petition of Letitia Humphreys, of Georgetown, in the District of Columbia, administratrix de bonis non of the estate of her father, Andrew Atkinson, deceased, respectfully represents: That during the years 1812 and 1813, and previous and subsequent thereto, her father, the said Andrew Atkinson, by occupation a planter, was a Spanish subject, and an inhabitant of East Florida, then a Spanish province and dependency of the crown of Spain; that during the said years 1812 and 1813, while a state of peace existed between the United States and Spain, East Florida was invaded by the military and naval forces of the United States, acting under the orders and authority of the government of the United States; that the said invasion was in open and acknowledged violation of the law of nations, and of the treaty then existing between the two governments; that the most wanton and indiscriminate destruction of the property of the Spanish officers and Spanish inhabitants was occasioned by the operations of the American army in East Florida during those years; that, for the purpose of securing to the sufferers that full indemnity for those injuries which the law of nations authorized Spain to demand, the following provision was inserted in the 9th article of the treaty concluded between the United States and Spain, on the 22d day of February, 1819, viz: "The United States will cause satisfaction 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." The Spanish version of this article does not contain the word "late,” but reads simply, "by the operations of the American army in the Floridas."-(Statutes at Large, vol. 8, p. 260.) By this clause of the treaty the United States became solemnly bound to give the claimants an opportunity to "establish' their claims (i. e., both the fact of injury and the amount of the injury) judicially, and to satisfy, by payment, the amount which should be so established. That Congress so understood the obligations of the treaty, is proved by the provisions of the acts passed to carry it into effect. The first act was passsed on the 3d March, 1823, and is entitled "An act to carry into effect the ninth article of the treaty concluded between the United States and Spain," &c.-(3 Statutes at Large, p. 768) The 1st section of this act directed the federal judges in Florida, (previously appointed and commissioned as judges according to the Constitution, and possessing a full federal jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States,) "within their respective jurisdictions," to receive and adjust these claims "agreeably to the provisions of the 9th article of the treaty with Spain." The 2d section required the judges to report their decisions, when in favor of the claimants, (not otherwise, decisions against them being final,) to the Secretary of the Treasury, with the evidence, to enable him to see that they were "within the provisions of the treaty," (or "just and equitable within the provisions of the treaty," which is the same thing;) and if they were found to be so, he was required to "pay THE AMOUNT THEREOF"-nothing more, and nothing less-out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated. This act is thus expressly declared, on its face, to be auxiliary and subsidiary to the treaty. By the 1st section, the claims are to be ad judicated (established") by the judges in Florida, as the treaty required; and by the 2d section, they are to be paid (not adjudged) by the Secretary of the Treasury; and "the provisions of the treaty" are made the law by which both are to be governed. Under this act, Secretary Crawford held that the lossses occasioned by General Jackson's entrance into West Florida, in 1814, to expel the British and Indians, being justified by the law of nations during our war with England, were not within the 9th article of the treaty of 1819 with Spain; and Secretary Rush having applied this decision to the losses of 1812 and 1813 in East Florida, Congress, on the 26th June, 1834, passed an explanatory act, entitled "An act for the relief of certain inhabitants of East Florida."-(6 Stat. at Large, p. 569.) This act was passed to reverse and correct the decision of Secretary Rush, that the claims of 1812 and 1813 were not within the treaty. The 1st section of that act directs the payment of the decrees of the judge for losses, in those years, which had been previously made, and rejected by the Secretary, with provisoes to guard against the payment of claims which were not found to be within the provisions. of the treaty. The 2d section authorizes the judge "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 claims were not provided for by the treaty of February 22, 1819, between the governments of the United States and Spain," subject to the provisoes aforesaid, and to the further proviso that the claims should be presented to the judge within one year from the passage of the act. Under this act, the judge in East Florida proceeded to adjudge the claims for lossses of 1812 and 1813, as therein required. In making his awards or decrees the judge allowed, as the just and proper measure of damages under the law of nations, necessary to fulfil the stipulations of the treaty, the proved value of the property at the time of the injury or loss; and, by way of satisfaction for the further loss of the use, fruits, or profits of the property, whilst wrongfully deprived of them, and of the just satisfaction for them, which the law of nations required; and during the period that no provision of law existed for the presentation and payment of said claims, he added five per cent. interest. by way of damages, and as an equitable measure of damages, to the original value of the property, (being the legal rate of the country,) and made a formal decree that the United States pay the same to the claimants. The decrees thus made in favor of the claimant were, as before stated, reported to the Secretary of the Treasury for payment; when against him, they were deemed final, and were never reported to the Secretary or heard of afterwards. That when the decrees of the judge, allowing this legal measure of damages under the treaty and law of nations-which governs treaty obligations were first presented to Secretary Woodbury, in December, 1836, he, instead of paying the amount of the decree, as required by the 2d section of the act of 1823, in cases found "within the provisions of the TREATY," claimed the right to go fully into the merits of the claims upon the evidence reported, and called upon the judge for further evidence whenever he entertained doubt. In regard to the damages decreed for the loss of the use and fruits of the property, it was rejected, in all instances, under the mere usage of the Treasury Department in reference to domestic pecuniary demands, (which the government assumes to be always ready to pay,) without any reference to the treaty, the law of nations, or the express directions of the act of 1823, which required the Secretary, when he paid at all, to pay the amount of the decree. The claims seem never to have been considered with any reference whatever to the treaty, or the law of nations, until Mr. Secretary Walker's reference to the Attorney General, in 1849. All the previous references related to the mere usage of the department in regard to domestic accounts. Since that period, the precedent of Mr. Secretary Woodbury's decision, in 1836, has been set up as a bar to the consideration of these claims under the treaty and the law of nations; and the claims have been referred by the Secretary to Congress, with an opinion of the Attorney General, substantially conceding the correctness of the measure of damages awarded by the judges, but advising the Secretary to adhere to the precedents under the departmental usage until further legislation by Congress.-(See note at the end of the petition.) The petitioner further represents that, after the passage of the aforesaid act of 26th June, 1834, the said Andrew Atkinson having departed this life, his then administratrix, Mrs. Susan Murphy, filed her petition under oath before the proper judge, setting forth the claim of his estate, amounting to the sum of $11,294, and all the facts necessary to bring the same within the provisions of the treaty, and within the jurisdiction of the said judge, and in the manner prescribed by law and the rules of the court, and within the time limited by said act of 26th June, 1834; and prayed that said claim might be adjudicated by the said judge, and such adequate indemnity awarded as to him might seem reasonable, with interest on the amount of the losses from the date of their occurrence. That the said judge took jurisdiction of the said case, and thereupon such evidence was taken and such judicial proceedings had, that on the -- day of August, 1839, the said judge made his final decree in favor of said estate, for the sum of $3,800, with an interest of five per centum per annum from the 10th day of May, 1813; which decree and proceedings, with the evidence, duly certified by the said judge on the 15th day of August, 1839, were immediately reported by him to the Secretary of the Treasury for payment, as provided by law-all of which will fully appear by the record remaining on file in the Treasury Department, and for which this honorable court is respectfully requested to call, as the Secretary of the Treasury declines furnishing the same, or even a certified copy thereof, to the petitioner, until such call shall be made by this honorable court. That on the receipt of the said record and proceedings at the Treasury Department, payment in full of the said decree was demanded. on behalf of the said estate, but the Secretary of the Treasury, the Hon. Mr. Woodbury, applying the principles and practice herein before set forth, refused such payment in full, though all the items of claim |