The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-05-25


others, that Of De la Francia; that list Of the
claims which existed against the convention,
payment OF which, 1t was expected, would be as
sumed by the Government Of the United States,
was furnished to the then Secretary Of State by
the convention or by its authority; which list did
not include that of De la Francia; that all the claims
are believed to have been allowed, except his;
that the acting Secretary Of State rejected his
claim, upon the ground, as it is understood, that
the arms and ammunition sold by De la Fran
cha to Kemper were not private property. but
| had been taken from the magazines OF Spain,
by whose arms they were shortly after their sale
and delivery TO Kemper, recaptued; that this want
of property in the arms and ammunition 10 not I'M
derstood to have been established by positive test
mony, but was supposed by the then Secretary to
/ be probable, from the circumstances OF the case;
that the claim was, in 1924, again presented for IL
quotation and payment; and the then Secretary OF
State declining to act upon it, 1t was referred by
| the then President Of the United States (who was
the Secretary of State at the time of the passage OF
the act Of Congress) to the Fifth Auditor, who ad-
hered to the former decision that had been given
against it; that subsequent to the rejection Of the
claim, suit brought by the representative of
| De La Francia against Reuben Kemper, to render
him personally responsible for the amount OF the
| demand, and Judgment was accordingly recovered
against him; that since the present Secretary OF
State has been in the department, the counsel Of
the claimant has several times mentioned the claim,
| and expressed wish that the decision should be
reviewed; that with view OF obviating the diff
Guilty which is supposed to have formerly been the
chief cause Of the rejection OF the claim some new
property to the arms and ammunition to have been
in Henry De la Francia; but that new evidence has
not been examined, for reasons which will be here
after stated.
'That under all the Giro instances of the case the
present Secretary of State does not deem il his duty
| to re examine and decide upon this claim without
some new authority conferred upon him; that he
considers the former decision of his predecessor
an execution of the trust created by the act OF Con-
gress that, although the terms of the act gen
eral and indefinite as to timc 1t Is rtheless be-
hat.
was assumed and exercised, not by suspension of
the demand for further evidence, but by final de-
| csion, the case ought to be considered as much
Withdrawn from the power of the present Secretary
if the decision had been against the Government
instead of being, as it was, against the claimant;
that it would be most mischievous practice for
officer of the Government at any distance of time,
and without, at least, more extraordinary circum-
stances than are believed to exist in this case to
open, and revise and reverse final decision of his
predecessor; that, moreover, the appropriations to
carry into effect the provisions OF the act of 1914
have been long since exhausted, and there is no
isting appropriation applicable to the payment of
this claim, if, upon reconsideration, It was thought
proper to admit and pass it; that the late Score
tary of State, in letter under date the 22d Of
April, 1924 addressed TO the chairman of the Com
mittee of Claims of the House of Representatives,
in relation to claim of Philemon Thomas, thus
expresses himself The act of 18th April 1914, to
authorize the Secretary ofState to iquidate certain
claims therein mentioned, to which the committee
are referrcda as having settled the principle which
expressions, personal trust, conhded to the Sec
rotary Of State OF that PERIOD and has been consid
cred as long since executed. AS 1t vests high
and unusual discretionary power IN the Secretary
of State, have never considered myself author
lied to act under it, except directed by the Pres
ident, to whom il had been originally given; that
without undertaking to decide absolutely whether
the act of Congress did or did not create trust,
personal to the Secretary of State at the time
being, the present Secretary conceives that he is
forbidden, by all the circumstances of the case
bute ciay hxyf nf fha forrne ciatnn
length of time which has elapsed, and the want of
an appropration-from regarding himself as au-
thorized to allow this claim; that he has Difficult
ty, at the same time, in stating that considerations
of State, appertaining to the occupation of West
Florida in 1910, and to the act of Congress of the
18th April, 1914, which grew out Of il, required the
indulgence of liberality in the liquidation OF the
demands to which that act refers; that, supposing
the omission of the claim in question from the be-
aforementioned list to be satisfactorily accounted
for, and the right of property to the arms and am
munition OF De la Francia 10 be esta bshed, ade
quate reason can be perceived why the same mea
sure of justice which extended to the other
creditors Of the convention should not be applied to
the representative of De la Franca that il has been
stated that some evidence has been recently
taken to obyate the two last mentioned objections,
and that il left by the counsel Of the claimant
at the Department of State several weeks ago; but
lift were so left, it has been misaid, and cannot
now be found; consequently, opinion be
expressed as TO its weight or effect.
All which is respectfully submitted.
H. CLAY.
The committee are also of opinion that the claim
is made yet clearer by the additional evidence
| which accompanies the memorial Of the claimant,
and which was not before the Secretary of State
when his report was made, or before the committees
Of Congress who have heretofore had the subject
under consideration.
"Is SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, february 2,
lS45, Mr.. Wsstcoh made thu foiIo,cing report, 70
accompany bill s, No l22.
&" The Committee on the Judiciary, 10 whom was
referred the petition Of Joseph DE la Francia,
| report:
"That this has been before Congress several
times, and has been more than formally re-
ported upon. A bill similar TO that now recon-
mended in favor Of petitioner passed the Senate Of
last session. The report, appended hereto, made
by the Secretary of State in 1928 to the House of
Representatives, sustans the justice of the claim 10
relief; and, besides additional evidence obtained
since that report was made, and some since the
former proceedings Of Codgress on the claim, has
been adduced 10 this committee, and lie filed with
the papers strengthening and certifying the equita
BILE claim Of the petitioner 10 the relief proposed 10
to be granted by the bill now reported in his favor"
"HoUsE or REPREsEsTATIvEs.-Joseph DE Ia Fan
ca, june IL lS4S-Mr. Joseph n. Ingosou, from The
Committee on the Judiciary, made The foIio,cing re
| port:
"The Committee ON the Judiciary, TO whom
ferred the Senate bill for the relief Of Joseph De
| Ia Francia, having had the same under consider
alton, beg leave 70 reports
THAT the claim 10 which IL refers, Of De la
Francia, for arms and munitions Of war furnished
TO the provisional government Of West Florida,
arises under the act Of Congress Of April ls 1914,
which directs the Secretary Of State ito liqudate
according 10 the principles Of justice and equity
all the claims Of the inhabitants Of the late province
Of West Florida, included in the State Of Louis
lana, or Of the Mississippi territory, for advances
made for the use and benefit OF the United States
prior 10 and since the taking possession Of the said
late province Of West Florida by the United States
That although this act IL still In force, the several
Secretaries OF State whose attention has been called
TO the subject, have declined any examination OF
Nc additional or newly produced evidence in favor
| Of the claim Of Francia, on the ground that re-
vision Of the opinion Of predecessor in office in
one case, would impose like necessity in all cases,
which would result in a serious and nadmissibe
interference with the discharge Of their current Of
fetal functions.
''The memorial Of the claimant, therefore, is in
the nature Of craving leave 10 file bill Of review,
| on the ground Of evidence discovered or produced
since the refusal TO audit the claim; mode Of re-
| A ~ - lar.rrx