The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-10-19

hese claims fully sus,ans the statements OF his letter
II is ia the following words:
a. do mean TO say that, upon the principles of
broad and liberal equity, the present claimant may
be entitled TO interest upon his demand That question:
upon ,oaich express opinion All that intend urge
is that. under The established USAGE TREASURY De
PARrMEkT, over and over again sanctioned by the law
officers Of the government The Secretary has authority
to allow it,"
In recent letter OF Mr. Nelson on file among the pa
pes OF these cases, he fully arms the legality and just
ice OF the of damages, including the interest,"
awarded by the Florida Judges in these cases, and says
be subsequently, allowed II in domestic case Tor injury to
property.
A reference to Mr. Crittenden's opinion OF ls4l, in
these cases, will show that opinion was given under the
usage OF the Treasury Department IN domestic cases.
and without any reference whatever to the treaty. the
iasos Of nations, or even The act OF 1928.
Letter Of Hon. G. M Bbb late Secretary Of Tie Treasury
TO the Hon. Wiiiam Cost johnson.
WAsHISGToH June 80, 1851.
DEAR In answer to your letter OF this month, !
can say, without hesitancy, that in the orders which
gave whilst Secretary OF the Treasury for payment OF
the claims adudcaed by the judge in Florida under the
act OF Congress OF 1884, for indemnity TO Spanish sub
ject for losses sustained by the operations of the Ame
can troops in Florida in 1872 and isis no attorney
argument as to rule of damages. The question as TO
rule OF damages under the lao Of nations and the treaty Of
1919 between the United States and Spain, not pre-
scented to my mind not considered by me, not
intended to be decided by in making the orders for
payments without interest In so ordering, signed an
which had previously been observed in like cases.
The question Of interest upon the value of the property
destroyed at the time Of the Iespass by way Of compen
saton for the deprivation OF the OF the property was
not considered nor adudcaed BY me in these cases. but
passed sub sitenio
If the question had been Stirred feel confident that
would have committed great blunder as to have
decided that under the treaty. and the acts OF Congress
carry into effect the treaty between the United States
and Span allowance of interest," at the legal rate OF
the country where the ,respass, in violation OF the laws
OF nations, had been committed was not to be paid by
the United States, just compensation for depriva-
ton of the OF the property valued at the time OF the
Hespass.
Respectfully. yours. GRO n p,op
Hon. WIN Cosr JOHNSON
The full concurrence of Mr. Forward and of Mr..
claims, in the statements of Mr. Spencer and of Judge
Bibb will be shown by their papers file in these
and that OF Mr. Secretary Walker by the questions pro-
and the la,cs Of nations and that of Judge Woodbury. by
the foregoing statement of Mr. Young, his chief clerk.
Opinion Of the Hon. Daniel Webster
have carefully examined the opinions given by Mr..
Crittenden, Mr.. Legare and Mr. Nelson. upon the
claims arising under the 9th article of the Florida treaty
of 1872 and the acts of Congress OF 1923 and 1894
to carry that article OF the treaty into effect; and my
opinion is
LIST. That neither Of those opinions answers or in
wolves the questions referred by Mr. Secretary Walker for
the opinion OF the Attorney General the 2sth of Feb
ruary, l649.
Neither OF those gentlemen expresses any opinion as
to the legal effect Of that clause OF the treaty which re
CURED the claims to be esasishsa by process Of lao -
nor any opinion as to the obligations OF said article OF the
treaty, or the OF redress for which called,
under The public law whether the measure OF "sat-
sfaction" decreed by the courts in these
formable to the obligations OF the treaty.
Mr.. Crittenden seems to have confined his attention
exclusively to the act OF 1884, without any reference
the treaty. the public law, the provisions of the act Of
1923 and he thinks the court had no authority allow
interest nomine and such, under the word closes
in that act but the question is not whether the judges
might lawfully decree interest nomins, but whether
he was authorized to consider il equitable meas
ure OF damages under the treaty and the public law in
connection with the act OF 1929 which authorized him
to decide according ITO the provisions of the treaty"
In considering the power OF the Secretary to review the
decisions OF the courts, no one OF the gentlemen who
gave these opinions took any notice of that distinct pro-
vision of the treaty which required the claims 10 be e.
abshed" by process of law " OF that provision of
the act of 1923 which made the decisions OF the judge.
rejecting claims final and conclusive upon the claimants,
by prohibiting them from being sent 10 the Secretary
ID have also examined both OF the acts OF Congress
above referred to with care and entertain no doubt ha,
the Secretarys power and duty TO make payment are CO.
extensive with the provisions and obligations oil the
treaty. under the public law.
braced by il upon the same footing and think il mani
fest that Congress intended they should all be adudged
and paid by and the standard OF judgment and
payment and that 1t could not have been intended 10 au
horize the allowance OF interest, by way of damages,
under the of 1929, if required by the provisions OF
the treaty. under the public law and to exclude under
the acts being in matsa and the undoubted purpose
OF both full and complete execution oil the treaty Such
construction would involve the compound absurdity OF
establishing standards OF Judgment upon the same class
OF claims, whilst the obligations OF this government
precisely the TO the whole class and at the same
me but rule OF payment 10 wit the provisions OF
the treaty thus authorizing the Secretary pay interest
the whole class OF claims, the treaty and the puN
lie law required II, but refusing authority TO the ecxr to
adudGs portion OF them, If required by the
treaty and the public law.
In 2 Cranch, p. 81, the Supreme Court OF the United
States declared that
:" An act oil Congress ought never to be construed TO
violate The law OF nations II any other posbs cons'ruc
ton remains"
The same doctrine is laid down, BY the same court in
the case of Talbot Seaman, Cranch, p. l. The Lam
guage OF the court is as follows
The laws Of the United States ought to be con-
strued II II be avoided TO inffact the
principles and usages OF nations the general doctrines
OF national law"
This is undoubtedly the rule and if the Sec
Rotary authorized revise the DEGREES of the courts
there be doubt that the obligations OF the treaty.
under The public law, should be adopted the standard
OF his judgment
The act OF 1884 provides no rule OF judgment for the
courts iha, of 1923 does, and expressly requires the
10 decide agrssoby the provisions Of ihe 9Th stics
Of hs treaty" These being laws yu maieria the
ly descriptive and indefinite words"cains for losses in
1912 and lS13"-n the act Of 1894 cannot, upon any
sound principle OF legal construction, be construed 10
control the express and positive rule OF adjudication pre-
scrbed by Congress in the act oil 1929
No one OF the opinions intmaies any want OF au.
thorty in the Secretary OF the Treasury under The I'd
section OF the act of 1923, TO pay interest. II the treaty
and the public law require it. Upon that question, which
appears to be for the first time presented, and on
which alone the merits Of these claims depend, so far