The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-04-03


No. 1U.-1M United States. op,alLa,t,. ~,
FyaNeis p. Fursra, ad,nini ,trator Of Eanc;,
Pass, --On appeal from the District Court
Florida. y
Mr. Chief Justice fancy delivered the opinion of
the Oourt.-This purports to be an appeal from the
District Court of the United States for the northern
district Of Florida. The case brought before the
Court is this:-T treaty Of 1879 by which Sna;n
coded Florida to the United States, contains the
following stipulation, in the ninth article -
The United States shall satisfaction to he made
for the injuries any which, by process law rhsl be
and individual Spanish inhabitants by the late
Of the American army in Florida.
In 1873, Congress passed an act to carry into exc
cuton this article Of the treaty The first section
OF this law authorizes the Judges Of the Superior
Courts established at St. Augustine and Pensacola
respectively, to receive and adjust all claims arising
within their respective Jurisdictions, agreeably to
the provisions OF the article of the treaty above
mentioned; and the second section provides that, in
all cases where the Judges shall decide in favor of
the claimants, the decisions, with the evidence on
which they are founded, shall be by the said Judges
reported to the Secretary Of the Treasury who, on
being satisfied that the same is just and equitable,
and within the provisions of the treaty, shall pay
the amount thereof to the person persons in
whose favor the same is adjudged. Under this law
the Secretary of the Treasury held that it did not
apply to injuries suffered from the mentioned
in the treaty in 1912 and lSl3 but to those of
subsequent period. And, in consequence Of this
decision, another law passed in 1884, extending
the provisions Of the former act to injuries suffered
in 1872 and 1873, but limiting the time for present
ing the claims to one year from the passage Of the
act. This law embraced the claim of the present
claimant. He did not, however, present his claim
within the time limited. Aud in lSi9, special
law was passed, authorizing the District Judge of
the United States for the northern district of Florida
to receive and adjudicate this claim, and tina, Of
certain other persons mentioned in the law, under
the act OF lSS4--the several claims to be settled
by the Treasury as in other cases under the said
act. Florida had become State of the
Union in lS49, and therefore the District Judge
was substituted in place OF the Territorial Officer.
Ferriera presented his claim accordingly to the
District Judge. who took the testimony offered to
support it, and decided that the amount stated in
the proceedings was due to him. The District At
torney of the United States prayed appeal to this
court from this decision, and under that PRAYER the
case has been docketed here as an appeal from the
District Court The only question now before us is
whether we have any jurisdiction in the case. And
in order to determine that question, we must exam
inc the nature of the proceeding before the District
Judge, and the character Of the decision from which
this appeal has been taken. The treaty certainly
created no tribunal by which these damages were to
be adjusted and gives authority to any court of
justice to inquire into or adjust the amount which
the United States were TO pay to the respective par
ties who had suffered damage from the causes men
toned in the treaty. 1t rested with Congress to
provide one according to the treaty stipulation But
when that tribunal was appointed, it derived it's
whole authority from the law creating it, and not
from the treaty and Congress had the right to re-
gulate its proceedings and limit its power, and to
subject its decisions to the control of appellate
tribunal, if it deemed it advisable to do so. I'm
doubtedly Congress was bound to provide such
tribunal as the treaty described. But if they failed
to fulfil that promise, it is question between the
United States and Spain. The tribunal created to
ADJUST the claims, cannot change the mode Of pro-
cceding or the character in which the law authorizes
it to act under any opinion il may entertain that
different o n IF a
different character would better comport with
the provisions Of the treaty. If it acts at
all, it acts under the authority of the law,
and must obey the law. The territorial Judges
therefore, in adjusting these claims, derived their
authority altogehertrom the laws above mentioned;
and their decisions can be entitled to no higher
respect or authority than these laws gave them.
They referred, by the act of 1928 to the treaty
for the description of the injury which the law re-
qures them to adjust, but not to enlarge the power
which the law confers nor to change the character
in which the law authorizes them to act. The law
Of 1923, therefore, and not the stipuations of the
treaty furnishes the rule for the proceedings of the
territorial judges, and determines their character;
and it is manifest that this power decide upon the
validity of these claims not conferred them as
judicial function, to he exercised in the ordinary
forms of a court of justice. For there is to be no
suit; parties, in the legal acceptation of the term
are to be made; no process to issue; and is
authorized to appear behalf of the United States
or to summon witnesses in the case. The proceed
ing is altogether pa,fc, and all that the judge is
required to do. is to receive the claim when the
party presents it, and to adjust it upon such evil
dence as he may have before him, or be able him
self to obtain; but neither the evidence. nor his
award, to be filed in the court in which he pre-
sides, nor recorded there; but he is required to
transmit both the decision and the evidence upon
which he decided to the Secretary of the Treasury;
and the claim is to be paid if the Secretary thinks
it just and equitable, but not otherwise 1t is a
debt from the United States upon the decision of the
Secretary but not upon that Of the judge 1t is too
evident for argument on the subject, that such tri
buna is not judicial one, and that the act of Con-
gress did not intend to make it one. The authority
conferred on the respective judges nothing more
than that of commissioner to adjust certain claims
against the United States, and the Office of judges
and their respective jurisdictions are referred to in
the law, merely as designation Of the persons to
whom the authority is confded, and the territorial
limits to which it extends His decision is not the
Judgment Of court ofjustice. 1t is the award of
commissioner. The act Of 1884 calls it an award.
And an appeal to this court from such decision, by
such an authority asfrom the judgment of court of
record, would be anomaly in the history of jurs
prudence. Anappeal might as well have been taken
from the awards Of the board of commissioners under
the Mexican treaty, which were recently settled in
this city Nor can we see any ground for objection
to the power Of revision and control given to the
Secretary Of the Treasury. When the United States
consent to submit the adjustment of claims against
them to any tribunal, they have right to prescribe
the conditions which they will pay and they have
the right therefore, to make the approval of the
award by the Secretary of the Treasury one of the
conditions on which they would agree to be liable
No claim therefore, is due from the United States
until it is sanctioned by him. and his against
the claimant for the whole part of a claim as
allowed by the judge is final and conclusive. 1t
cannot afterwards be disturbed by an appeal to this
any other court, in any other way, without the
authority of an act of Congress. 1t is said, how
ever, on the part Of the claimant, that the treaty
requires that the injured parties should have an OPP
poruny of establishing their claims by process of
law; that process of law means judicial proceeding
in court Of justice and that the right of super
vision given to the Secretary over the decision of
the District Judge, is therefore a violation of the
treaty. The Court think differently; and that the
government of this country is not liable to the
proach of having broken its faith with Spain. The
tribunals established substantially the same as
those usually created where one nation agrees by
treaty to pay debts or damages which may be found
due to the citizens of another country. This treaty
meant nothing more than the tribunal and mode Of
proceeding ordinarily established on such occasions,
and well known and well understood when treaty
oh IF dr iptio R,,f