I, Louis G. Thomas, do solemly swear that the facts as set forth in the foregoing petition are just and true, to the best of my knowledge and belief, so help me God. LOUIS G. THOMAS. Sworn to and subscribed before me, the undersigned authority, on this 18th day of July, 1855. THOS. DONOHO, J. P. COURT OF CLAIMS. LOUIS G. THOMAS AND OTHERS VS. THE UNITED STATES. Judge BLACKFORD delivered the opinion of the Court, which is as follows: This claim is founded on an alleged illegal seizure at Laguayra, by the Spanish authorities, in 1812, of the brig Jane, and on the treaty of 1819, between the United States and Spain. The Court considering the decision of the board of commissioners mentioned in the petition to be a very important feature in the case, made a request to the Secretary of State for information on the subject. The information furnished by the department relative to the decision of the board will be hereinafter noticed. The only question in this case which we have found it necessary to examine is, whether the final decision of the board of commissioners (which decision is described in the petition) is a bar to the claim? Previously to the treaty of the 22d of February, 1819, between the United States and Spain, which we shall presently notice more particularly, this claim for redress for the alleged illegal seizure and condemnation of the said brig by the Spanish authorities in South America could only have been preferred against the nation that had committed the injury, which nation was Spain, not the United States. Accordingly, we find that, in 1813 and 1814, the captain of the brig endeavored, at Laguayra, to obtain satisfaction from the Spanish authorities. But his endeavors being unsuccessful, he abandoned the pursuit, and returned to the United States. Nothing further appears to have been done as to the claim until after said treaty of 1819 between the United States and Spain, for the cession of the Floridas. By the 9th article of that treaty, all such claims of citizens of the United States against Spain as the claim described in the petition before us were renounced by the United States. The 11th article of said treaty, so far as it need be stated, is as follows: "The United States, exonerating Spain from all demands in future on account of the claims of their citizens, to which the renunciations herein contained extend, and considering them entirely cancelled, undertake to make satisfaction for the same. to an amount not exceeding five millions of dollars. To ascertain the full amount and validity of those claims a commission, to consist of three commissioners, citizens of the United States, shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, which commission shall meet at the city of Washington, and within the space of three years from the time of their first meeting shall receive, examine, and decide upon the amount and validity of all the claims included within the descriptions above mentioned. The said commissioners shall take an oath or affirmation, to be entered on the record of their proceedings, for the faithful and diligent discharge of their duties; and, in case of the death, sickness, or necessary absence of any such commissioner, his place may be supplied by the appointment as aforesaid, or by the President of the United States, during the recess of the Senate, of another commissioner in his stead. The said commissioners shall be authorized to hear and examine, on oath, every question relative to the said claims, and to receive all suitable authentic testimony concerning the same. And the Spanish government shall furnish all such documents and elucidations as may be in their possession, for the adjustment of the said claims according to the principles of justice, the laws of nations, and the stipulations of the treaty between the two parties, of 27th October, 1795; the said documents to be specified, when demanded, at the instance of the said commissioners."-(8 Stat. at Large, 260.) The commissioners, whose appointment was thus provided for, were afterwards appointed in conformity with the treaty; and in June, 1821, the board was organized in the city of Washington. In January, 1822, according to the petition, the said Jonathan Jenks, the original owner of the claim, filed his memorial before said commissioners, demanding indemnity for the losses sustained by him in consequence of the seizure, detention, and final loss of his vessel, and injury to her cargo, by the Spanish authorities at Laguayra and Puerto Cabello. The petition further states that the board of commissioners before which these memorials were filed "examined them, and the testimony adduced in support of the claim, on the 18th of November, 1823, and came to the conclusion, and so ordered, that the said claim be allowed as valid against Spain for the value of the vessel, for the necessary expenses incurred in defending the property, and for the loss sustained upon the cargo; but on the first of May, 1824, the said commissioners rescinded their previous decision, on the plea that the evidence was not sufficient to establish the claim under the treaty." That is the language of the petition relative to the decision of the commissioners. The statement on the subject, to which we have referred, received from the State Department, is as follows: "The record of the proceedings of the commissioners under the convention with Spain of 1819 has been examined, and it appears that the claim of Jonathan Jenks, growing out of the capture of the brig Jane, was duly presented to the board of commissioners, and was disallowed." This statement from the department, after mentioning a decision of the board in another case, and also the decision of another board, says: "The evidence of these decisions is derived from the minutes on the dockets of the several boards of commissioners; but no document can be found, in either case, stating the principle on which the decision was made." The objection of the petitioners to said decision of the board of commissioners against the claim is set o it in the petition, and is as follows: "Your petitioners allege that the commissioners clearly erred in not allowing the said claim, and that, too, without fault on the part of the claimant or claimants, whereby the government of the United States became liable to the claimants in the said sum of $11,782 44, which sum is now due and unjustly detained from the petitioners." The ground thus taken to avoid the decision of the board of commissioners is not tenable. The question whether the board erred or not, in their judgment in the case, is not for this Court, or any other court, to determine. The decision of the board must be taken to be correct. The circumstance stated in the petition, that the board had, in the first instance, made an order in favor of the claim, is unimportant. The case remained, after that order, under the control of the board, to be finally disposed of as, upon further reflection or information, they might think proper. The final decision of the board against the claim was rendered by a tribunal specially provided for by the treaty for the adjudication of such claims, to which tribunal the original claimant had submitted the case for decision, and from which decision there is no appeal given to any other tribunal. The judgment of the board stands upon the same ground with the judgment of any judicial tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction. The nature and effect of a judgment of this same board of commissioners, under the same treaty with Spain of 1819, have been examined and settled by the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Story, in delivering the opinion of the court, uses the following language: "The object of the treaty was to invest the commissioners with full power and authority to receive, examine, and decide upon the amount and validity of the asserted claims upon Spain for damages and injuries. Their decision, within the scope of this authority, is conclusive and final. If they pronounce the claim valid or invalid, if they ascertain the amount, their award in the premises is not reexaminable. The parties must abide by it, as the decree of a competent tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction. A rejected claim cannot be brought again under review in any judicial tribunal; an amount once fixed is a final ascertainment of the damages or injury. This is the obvious purport of the language of the treaty."-(Čomegys vs. Vasse, 1 Peters' Rep., 193, 212.) We are of opinion, for the reasons above given, and upon the authority cited, that said final decision of the board of commissioners, disallowing the claim now before us, is a complete bar to the present demand. 1st Session. No. 98. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. MAY 12, 1856.-Read and referred to the Committee on Claims. The COURT OF CLAIMS submitted the following REPORT. To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled: The Court of Claims respectfully presents the following documents as the report in the case of J. D. HOLMAN, EXECUTOR, vs. THE UNITED STATES. 1. The petition of the claimant to the Court of Claims. 2. Petition to Congress, with accompanying documents, referred to the Court of Claims by the House of Representatives, and returned to that House. 3. Two original letters, exhibited as evidence in the case, and transmitted to the House of Representatives. 4. Petition for rehearing by claimant. 5. Claimant's brief. 6. Opinion of the Court on both hearings. By order of the Court of Claims. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court, at Washington, this seventh day of May, A. D. 1856. [SEAL.] SAM'L H. HUNTINGTON, J. D. HOLMAN, executor of JESSE B. HOLMAN, deceased, vs. THE UNITED STATES. To the honorable the Judges of the Court of Claims : Your petitioner, J. D. Holman, respectfully represents, that his rother, Jesse B. Holman, died in the State of Alabama, in the year 1853, and that letters of administration, with the will annexed, upon |