Washington sentinel., 1854-03-31

was to govern myself by two general rules.
considered that the duty which deyolyed upon
us, mainly, was to ascertain whether these com.
plants of the petitioners were well-grounded,
and required a revision of their claims by the
appointment of new commission; because
that was what the petitioners asked for. In
order TO determine that question correctly, it
seemed to me that there was only one course
to be pursued and that was to look over the
whole series of decisions, and to compare the
evidence in each case where complaint was
made with the memorial of the petitioner and
the adjudication and opinion delivered by the
board. The committee did that and the SEN
ate will easily perceive that it was labor of
no slight extent. For my own part, think ]
can say with safety that l examined at least
fifty6ve Of the opinions given in these cases,
in which petitions were presented, out of the
sixty-three in all. | read over all the papers
In every case which / examined, in order to
arrive at the conclusion whether the general
decisions of the committee showed such laxity
or such disregard of the rights of the petition
ers, that we should be justified in saying that
there had been such a non-performance Of duty
that we must recommend to the Senate reyi-
sion OF those claims which had been previously
acted upon. In that investigation, found but
one solitary case myself in which could say
that injustice was done to the petitioners, or
that the commissioners had allowed less than
they were entitled to. / think the committee
were unanimous in that; and we could, there
fore, find no sufficient ground whatever, arising
out of the decisions of the commissioners as
against the claimants, to impeach those deci-
sions, or to require a review Of the action of
the commissioners for the benefit of the peti,
TONERS. We therefore determined against re.
commencing any additional commission
But there was another class of cases. also
looked at those cases, and / believe the com
mittee did, on this principle: that if there had
been plain and palpable mistake in law in
any one decision, as against the petitioner, on
into details Of the facts, or the reasonings upon
which it was founded, in such a particular
case the committee would feel itself Justified in
recommending that this particular case should
be reheard before the accounting officers Of the
treasury. The result Of that mode of inyesti-
CATION was, that in two cases the committee
arrived at the conclusion that they ought to be
reheard, and it is their intention to report
bill for that purpose. One was the case of Mr..
Herrera,i in which the mistake consisted in this:
The commissioners had decided previously that
claim made by an American citizen which
was Of Mexican origin, though held by an
American citizen at the time Of the conclusion
of the treaty, was not within its terms, and
therefore they had rejected them, and, think,
upon sound grounds. But, contrary to their
principles as established in relation to all this
class Of cases, in the case Of Mr.. Herrera, al
though the claim, they say, was an undoubted
claim, yet, because it was held by him, they
rejected it. In what manner it was transferred
to him did not appear before the committee
but there was an American claim-American
in its origin-of which the benefit would 60 to
Mr.. Herrera, whether as collateral security or
absolutely, the committee have no knowledge.
But take the statement of the commissioners
They rejected even the hearing of that claim,
principle of justice. Hence we thought that
that claim ought to be reheard by the account
ing officers of the department. so that they may
decide whether or not it was valid claim un.
der the treaty. That is one case. The other
case was in reference to portion of the claim
OF Dir. Levy, which majority of the commit
tee believed stood upon the same principles,
and they regard it as proper thatit should have
a rehearing.
These. are the only two cases in which we
have come to the conclusion that the petition
ers ought to be reheard and while say that
will also add that, as against the rights of the
petitioners on their statements Of facts, the
committee could discover no grounds for relief
| whatever. | couple it further with this fact
that in my own opinion, and, believe, in the
opinion of the committee so expressed in their
report, there was eminent ability displayed in
the general investigations and opinions Of these
commissioners but / am sorry to say, Mr..
President, that rs regards the cases Of Gardiner
and Mears it was not displayed. The opinions
of the committee, and the conclusions which
they draw from these cases, are as mild as
could be drawn. But, without entering into
that matter, / will say that there is also one
one other case, at least, where the decision
was in favor of the allowance of the claim
against the United States, in which have been
unable myself to appreciate or understand by
what possibility lawyer could have arrived at
the result at which these commissioners ar
rived in reference to the allowance of that
claim. | alude to the claim of Aaron Leggett,
upon which the American commissioners and
the Mexican commissioners had differed. One
rejected the claim IN toto and the other ad.
mitted it to the amount of over four hundred
thousand dollars. An umpire heard the case,
decided it, and allowed the claim to the extent
of $4,000, and the commissioners under the
treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo admitted that it
was not within their jurisdiction, and that they
had no right under the treaty to revise the de-
cision made by the umpire; and yet they drew
as fanciful distinction as could possibly be
drawn, for the purpose of making out an
original claim against the government of
Mexico, and SO revising the decision of the
umpire and allowing an additional amount for
injuries sustained, under claim which had
been adiudicated under the treaty of Guada-
lupe Hidalgo.
state these facts generally, without going
into details; but confess that Of all that |
read, and Of all the cases which examined in
reference to the proceedings of the commits.
sioners, the most unfavorable impression was
made upon my mind by the decision in the
case of Aaron Leggett. There was no testi.
mony whatever before the committee in regard
to it, and thisis nothing but the result to which
| l arrived as to the almost legal impossibility Of
the conclusion which had been arrived at by
the commissioners in that case,
Mr.. BROWN. This report is the result of
tedious investigation into matter which has
created great deal of public excitement and
1 Al. '1.- - L.