Alexandria gazette & advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1822-1824, 1822-08-01
: --.-~-.sss 49,,

COMMISSION, for the course pursued IN re-
lation TO the cases 10 question:.
The proposition, whether claims arising
from the breach of contract were or we're
not intended to be embraced by the trea-
Ity. came up for discussion at q very early
period after the organization of the Board;
| the memorial which FIRST presen.edit be-
ing, as il appears, No So on their docket.
On the 18th Of September this memorial
was suspended for argument, and a wish
was expressed by the Board, that the
counsel interested in the question would
prepare their arguments by the succeed
ing January session. Some of the most
distinguished members OF the American
Bar were concerned in the discussion, and,
during the reces. Of the Board, several ar
gumenis were filed, in support Of both
sides OF the proposition. Having had
| these various views of the subject before
them, and taking abundant time tor de-
| liberation, the Commissioners, some time
| in February. announced, that they were
! prepared to decide the question. 1t had
been previously understood, that, notwith-
standing the rule of the Board requiring
! the arguments OF counsel to be reduced to
writing, any gentleman who opposed the
| admission of a claim. would be regarded
| in the light of An amicus'curie, and heard
ore lenu,. When one OF the counsel
| therefore, claimed permission to address
the Board, before they proceeded. in pur'
suanCe ofthe notice given, to decide, ne
was frankly told, that, as the Board all
ready entertained the opinion which 1t
was bis purpose to support by argument.
it would be unnecessary 10 give h'mseli
| the trouble OF addressing them at that tame
that if any thing further could be advan-
ced by gentlemen who maintained DIT.
ferent construction of The treaty, they
would willingly wait to hear it; and ii any
thing should occur to change their present
view of the subject, he should be called
upon for bis intended argument, before
decision should be made. !,
Thus the question remained suspended
until the lIth of March, the last day Of
thatFsession. In the mean time, letters
had been addressed to the Board, stating,
in the most positive terms. under the au-
thority of both negociators. that it was utl-
questionably the intenton of the two
high contracting parties to the treaty TO
include cases of contract in the 9th renun-
citation OF The 9th article, and earnestly so.
liciting them, before they decided, to call
upon the Executive for confirmation OF
their statement The correspondence
which took place, in consequence OF this
earnest demand on the part OF the claim
ants, between the Commissioners and the
Secretary OF State, has already been pub
lished; and the result OF that coFrespon-
dence was given in our paper OF the 18Th
of June. On the day appointed tor the
final decision OF the question, the BOARD
briefly recapitulated the substance OF what
is here stated. They said, that though
the gentleman from whom they had ex.
pected to hear an oral argument, had been
prevented from attending IN person,
he had transmitted his views OF Inc
subject to them in writing. That they
had examined the question with great
deliberation, and had paid all due
attention to the able arguments wi tn which
they had been assisted by counsel: That
| the principal arguments against that con-
slruction of the treaty which would admit
! claims of contract were, that the treaty
was made TO settle all differences between
the two nations, That private contract
between one of our citizens and the 60
vernment OF Spain, being voluntary act
on the part of that citizen. entered INTO
| from his own confidence in the good faith
Of that government. could not properly
make subject of national difference -
That the government OF the United States,
having no right to enforce the observance
OF a contract, the import and validity of
which must be decided by the judicial tri-
! bunals of a foreign sovereign, could not
with proprety deprive its citizen OF his re-
course to those tribunals, by interfering
| in the settlement of his claim That,
though it might be urged that the govern
nent might, at the solicitation OF the citi-
zen, so far interpose as to use its good Of
fees with the foreign government by per
suaslon--yet it might be doubted whether
that solicitation gave it right TO make
such compromise of the claim as would
bring loss and injury to the citizen: that
if, therefore, our government intended
TO release Spain from the obliga
tons of her contracts with our citizens, it
would seem that il must have intended
also to take upon itself the full discharge
OF them--a conclusion which the limited
satisfaction thatit undertakes to make will
not warrant: That The 5th remuneration
being reciprocal in its terms, If the govern
ment of the United States intended to re-
nounce the claims Ct its citizens growing
out of contract, Spain also intended the
same with regard to her subjects, and
t6us the latter, who might chance to hold
the obligations OF the United States in the
form of government stock or otherwise,
would be occIuded from their just claims
upon the Treasry--aD inference which
the known Justice and good faith of the U.