decided is, whether or not the said decision of the board of commissioners is a bar to so much of the petition as alleges the seizure to have been by a Spanish vessel? We have recently had a question to decide very similar to the one now before us; and the following observations made on that occasion are applicable to this case: "The final decision of the board against the claim was rendered by a tribunal specially provided for by the treaty for the adjudication of such claims; to which tribunal the original claimant had submitted the case for decision; and from which decision there is no appeal given to any other tribunal. The judgment of the board stands upon the same ground with the judgment of any judicial tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction." "The nature and effect of a judgment of this same board of commissioners, under the same treaty of 1819 with Spain, have been examined and settled by the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Story, in delivering the opinion of the court, uses the following language: The object of the treaty was to invest the commissioners with full power and authority to receive, examine, and decide upon the amount and validity of the asserted claims upon Spain for damages and injuries. Their decision, within the scope of this authority, is conclusive and final. If they pronounce the claim valid or invalid— if they ascertain the amount, their award in the premises is not re-examinable. The parties must abide by it as the decree of a competent tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction. A rejected claim cannot be brought again under review in any judicial tribunal; an amount once fixed is a final ascertainment of the damages or injury. This is the obvious purport of the language of the treaty.'-(Comegys vs. Vasse, 1 Peter's Rep. 193, 212; Thomas and others vs. The United States, decided by this court.") These decisions are precisely in point, and show that the question we have just been considering must be determined against the claimant. 66 We are next to examine the case on the petitioner's complaint, that the seizure was by a French vessel. The first article of the convention between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831, is as follows: The French government, in order to liberate itself completely from all the reclamations preferred against it by citizens of the United States for unlawful seizures, captures, sequestrations, confiscations, or destructions of their vessels, cargoes, or other property, engages to pay a sum of twenty-five millions of francs to the government of the United States, who shall distribute it among those entitled, in the manner and according to the rules which it shall determine."-(8 Stat. at Large, 430.) On the 13th of July, 1832, an act of Congress was passed to carry into effect the said convention with France. The first section of that act is in these words: "The President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint three commissioners, who shall form a board, whose duty it shall be to receive and examine all claims which may be presented to them under the convention between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831, which are provided for by the said convention, according to the provisions of the same and the principles of justice, equity, and the law of nations. The said board shall have a secretary versed in th English, French, and Spanish languages, and a clerk, both to be ap pointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of th Senate; and the commissioners, secretary, and clerk shall, before the enter on the duty of their offices, take oath well and faithfully to per form the duties thereof."-(4 Stat. at Large, 574.) The commissioners provided for by said act of 1831 were accordingl appointed, and the board was afterwards organized as the act required The petition contains the following statement: "Your petitione brought said claim before the board of commissioners appointed t carry into effect the treaty concluded with France in 1831, but sai board refused to entertain said claim upon the ground that the priva teer making said capture was a Spanish and not a French vessel; so tha your petitioner, though clearly entitled to indemnification from on or the other of said governments, has been excluded from the pro visions made by each for indemnity for illegal captures by an alter nate denial of jurisdiction." The petition here shows that the last named board of commissioners rejected the claim upon the merits, The ground of the rejection was, according to the petition, that the offending vessel was Spanish. Now, the claim before that board being for a French spoliation, could not be sustained without proof that the offending vessel was French; and the decision against the claim for the want of that proof was a decision on the merits. There is but one other question in this part of the case which need be examined, and that is, Whether or not the decision of the lastnamed board of commissioners is a bar to so much of the petition as alleges the seizure to have been by a French vessel? Our answer to this question must be similar to that given in the former part of this opinion to another question. The decision against the petitioner made by the commissioners appointed under the treaty with France, to whom he had submitted the present demand to be examined, is a bar to the claim. The board had exclusive jurisdiction of the case.under the act of Congress, and there is no law giving an appeal from the judgment to any other tribunal. It may be proper to mention that, believing the decisions of said two boards of commissioners on the claim now before us to be a very material part of the case, we applied to the State Department for information on the subject. The answer of the department is as follows: "The record of the proceedings of the commissioners under the convention with Spain of 1819 has been examined, and it appears that the claim of Jonathan Jenks, growing out of the capture of the brig 'Jane,' was duly presented to the board of commissioners, and was disallowed. The claim of Robert Roberts, growing out of the capture of the brig Experiment,' was presented to the same board of commissioners, and was disallowed. The same claim was also presented to the board of commissioners appointed to carry into effect the treaty with France of 1831, and by that board was also disallowed. The evidence of these decisions is derived from minutes on the dockets of the several boards of commissioners, but no document can be found in either case stating the principle on which the decision was founded.' This communication shows, what the petition admits, that the claim in question had been disallowed by both said boards of commissioners to which it was presented. The petition, in order to show the liability of the government of the United States, offers the following argument: "And your petitioner further shows, that the United States, in the treaties aforesaid, both with France and Spain, has in her sovereign capacity released those governments from all further reclamations and claims to indemnity than such as are therein provided for, of the like character as those therein. provided for, and has thereby become responsible for claims of that character which have been excluded from the benefits of the provisions of said treaties." This argument, which assumes the claim to have been valid against either Spain or France, has been already, we think, sufficiently answered. The boards of commissioners, legally organized for the determination of such claims as the one before us, have, upon the application of the petitioner himself, examined his claim and decided against its validity. The fact, therefore, assumed as the basis of the argument, namely, the validity of the claim against either Spain or France previonsly to the treaties referred to, does not exist. The decisions of said boards of commissioners against the claim, like the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, are, as we have before shown, a bar to this petition for the same demand. It appears to the court, therefore, that the facts set forth in the petition do not furnish any ground for relief. Rep. C. C. 4-2 To the House of Representatives of the United States: The undersigned, by direction of the Court of Claims, in pursuance of law, herewith respectfully transmits the following papers in the case above mentioned. 1. Petition of Samuel M. Puckett. 2. Opinion of the Court. [L. S.] WASHINGTON, March 5, 1856. SAMUEL H. HUNTINGTON, The honorable the Court of Claims, at Washington city, in the District of Columbia. The petition of Samuel M. Puckett, a citizen of Rankin county, in the State of Mississippi, respectfully represents: That one John E. Richardson became the purchaser of a large tract of land, to wit: the southwest quarter and the west half of southeast quarter section eight; the southeast quarter and the east half of the northwest quarter section seventeen; all of section twenty; the northwest quarter of section twenty-nine; the south half and the northeast quarter of section thirty; and the northwest quarter and the east half of the northeast quarter section thirty-one, township eleven, range eleven. east, in Neshoba county, in said State. That for and in consideration of said purchase, three promissory notes were executed by the said John E. Richardson, with your petitioner and one John S. Gooch as his securities, for the sum of ten thousand six hundred and eightynine dollars and forty one cents, payable to the United States at one, two, and three years; and that your petitioner, subsequent to the purchase, became a joint partner with the said John E. Richardson in said lands. That the land was sold by the United States marshal as the property of one Wiley P. Harris, who was late register of the land office at Columbus, in said State. That subsequently suits were instituted in the United States district court at Jackson, Mississippi, upon the three promissory notes above mentioned, as they became severally due, and judgments were obtained against the said John E. Richardson, your petitioner, and John S. Gooch, for the several |