The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1855-02-23
CITY OF WASHINGTON FRIDAY MORNING FEBRUARY 49, 1856


above mentioned and their decisions eau be entitled 70
higher respect o. authority than these laws gave them
description of the injury which the Law requires them 10 ad
Just but not 70 enlarge the which the law ccnrs
act
The law Of ls2s therefore and not the stipalaons Of
oria J1dg~ and determines their character Andis mani
et that this power TO decide upon the validity Of these
exercised in the ordinary forms Of Justice there
= 70 oe no suit no parties In the legal acceptance Of the
70 appear on behalf Of the United States or 10 summon wt
aesses " ,ne case The proceeding Is altogether Pa,ts
when ,hs party presents ~ and % adjust such sv
neither the evidence his award hed in the court
N which he prSsde nor recorded there but be required
20 transmit both the decision and the evidence upon which
decided 20 the Secretary Of the Treasury and the claim i
20 oe paid y the Secretary thinks just and equitable but
not otherwise IL to be debt from the United
upon the decision Of the Secretary but upon that OF the
judge
tribunal is judicial one, and that the Congress
did noi intend 10 make IL The authority conferred
the representative judges nothing than that Of
commissioner to adjust certain clan against the United
States and the Office OF judges and their respective ursde
tons referred to in the laws merely designation Of
the TO whom the authority con6ded and
torial limits TO which extends The decision the
Judgment OF court OF justice IL is the a,rard of
The act Of 1854 calls ard and an appeal
this court from such decision by such authority from the
Judgment Of court of record would be anomaly in the
/ history Of Jurisprudence.
Nor can any ground for objection the power Of
revision given TO the Secretary OF the Treasury When the
United States consent 10 submit the adjustment Of claims
against them TO tribunal they have right prescribe
right therefore, make the approval q the award by the
Secretary Of the Treasury the conditions upon which
they would agree to be liable No claim h therefore, due
TO the United States until it sanctioned by him and his
decision against the claimant for the whole part OF
afterwards Be disturbed by an appeal to this or any
other court or in any other way without the authority Of
The conferred by these Congress upon the
Judge, as well as the Secretary it Is true judicial in
their natureto Judgment and discretion must be exercised
by both Of hembut it nothing more than the power
dinariy given by law commissioner appointed adjust
claims 70 lands money under treaty special TO
yeres in which the public individuals may be concerned
power OF this description constitutona be conferred
cdt in either in the in which judicial is
granted ey the constitution to the courts Of the United
Independent of these objections we are
understand how this could be legally transmitted this
court and certified as transcript OF record in the district
According the directions the act of Congress
decision of the judge and the evidence which it is founded
ought have been transmitted the Secretary the Treas
They not to remain in the district court be
corded there They legally belong the office Of the Secre
tary of the Treasury and the and copy from
the clerk Of the latter would not be evidence Of
court Of which transcript can be legally made and certified
and consequently there before that
recognise as evidence of any proceeding or Judgment in
i that court"
II now fixed trust beyond cav to the character
in which these judges acted These show
Supreme Court have decided that the judges of Florida in
commissioners and that Congress had not exceeded
its constitutional powers in giving the Secretary OF the
Treasury jurisdiction the DEGREES and awards made by
4 the judges commissioner
Mr.. STANTON of Tennessee, (interruptng.) With the
permission of the gentleman, wish to call his attention
the which is appended the decision appears by
that after the decision made the attention of the
called TO previous decisionswhch had been
prnted-made by Judge Marshall, in which he decided
that the judges constituted by act of Congress could not
commissioners unless they nominated by the
President and confirmed by the Senate need not refer
him the in which the Supreme Court Of the United
States has decided that executive officer could not be
clothed with the judicial power of the government call
his attention that note shall the inference
which he drawn from the and shall show the
court decided nothing excep, that they had jurisdiction
and that that contadced by the previous decisions OF
Judge Marshall
which the gentleman refers and the decision from
which have read and hope he win point it when he
replies read the report to show what the adudcated
law of the with reference to these judges take this
and show you from that what the fair Interpretation
it is and, as further evidence il the decision of the Su-
peme Court fails satisfy my friend from Tennessee Mr.
SrASroN il the act still leaves him in doubt state from
reliable information that these judges received per diem
compensation while they thus serving commission
ers in addition to their regular salary district judges
But suppose there conflict in the decisions Of the
Supreme Court as the gentleman snpposes which would
be best authorythe decision made in 1894 in 1851
Would not the last decision control2
But rely these decisions to aid me in the construc
ton which give the act of 1923 and 1884, that Con-
gess never intended confer upon the judges the power
decide these questions judges with the view of break
ing down the conclusion which gentlemen attempt to adj
duce that when they made decree for the interest the
government much bound to pay that II to
pay principal The Secretary of the Treasury had the
perfect right under the law review the decisions When
the testimony submitted he had the right dock the
claims he had the right dock them to the extent Of in
and principal If he satisfied that they in
\ equitably and unustly awarded.
In 1923 this act passed of which have been speak
ing Up 1884 there had been drawn from the treasury
under its provisions the of Ss 1os That the
whole amount drawn from the treasury BY the act of 1898
In 1884 however Congress passed another II under
took say by the passing of that act that the spoiaon
committed in lsl2l3 in East Florida and in 1914 in
West Florida, embraced in the treaty stipulaons
providing for the payment Of indemnity. The act was
passed and suspect that il passed mainly upon the
Of the then delegate from the Territory OF
I Florida and the report from the Committee Foreign
Affairs in the House of Representatives submitted by Mr.
Everett, Of Massachusetts,
4 Before upon this branch Of the subject II is
cessary that should make preliminary statement The
Secretary of the Treasury Mr. Crawford during Mr.. Mon
administration, dsallowed these claims Of 1872 1873
and The Judge in Florida had previously proceeded
investigate the made awards and returned the awards
and evidence the Treasury Department and they
filed there Mr. Everett in his report asked that Congress
should pass supplemental bill to embrace these claims
thus dsalowed by the Secretary Of the Treasury aud his
successors. The whole amount of claims professionally
awarded by the Judge OF the superior court Of East Florida
Mr. Everett in his report says sal ,S65 and that
claims a much larger amount presented, but
ected for various causes which forth upon the
record These S4l 500 embraced all the claims OF 1872
l3; and there Is left out Of this item claims except
those of 1914. assume that the Of spolations
committed in 1914 less than those OF ls2-l3
4 4 u. Imfa. l.... a.. "a.