GIass__V^i5_ Book -^^^^ f REPORT SOLrCITOR AND COMPTROLLERS TRE AS r R 1\ UPON THK CASE OF CtlAlil^S]^ F. 8IBBAIiD^ OF PHJLADELI'fUA. REMARKS OF THE CLAIMANT, Made prior tn said Report, NOTES THEREON SUBSEQUENT THERETO. PHILADELPHIA. 1839. .355(0 PREFATORY REMARKS. THE undersigned Claimant has, in the various stages of his case, written and published numerous staiements wliich have been neces- sary, exhibiting the gnuiiuls which support his claim for damages or » indemnity against the Governinent of the United Stales, in destroying his entire business, stopping the operation of his saw mills, erected on his lands in Florida, and depriving him of the use, possession, ^^ control and occupation of his lands and mills in that Territory, — and H> thus causing his commercial destruction in the year 1830, after he ^ had disbursed upwards of $100,000 on property, which the Supreme Court has decreed, against the United Stafcs, to have been his in ; the year 1816, under a legal title derived from the Government of £ Spain. i In submitting the Report of the Solicitor and Comptrollers of the Treasury, the undersigned begs reference also to a statement prepared by himseK several months prior to theirs being submitted to Congress, and which is hereunto annexed. No action of Congress whatever has taken place on the Report, in consequence of its having been submitted only the day previous to the adjournment on the 3rd qf March last. The facts submitted by those officers of the Treasury Department, going to establish as they do the entire allegations made in support of the claim of the undersigned, he has only to regret that more particular reference had not been made to the evidence, and saved the very unpleasant duty and task, devolving upon him, of add- ing notes of facts, which have been omitted by them: assured as he is that they themselves would have as willingly corrected these omis- sions, some of which having an important bearing on the subject matter, as they did in inserting, at his requst, many others which he had conceived equally important, that he had observed in a hasty perusal of their Report just as it was about to be submitted to Con- gress. It was the result of that perusal of this Report, also, that (instantly) led the undersigned to call the attention of the Solicitor and Comp i trollers to tlu- facts, ns annexed \)\ llu ;n luuler liis signature, wliii-li he considered constituted and e:sial)i!r!hed liis claim, not only equiiablc for a *^ portion of his dcnland,"' (r, rc:)Orlc;\ but a iegal claim for his entire demand, established by tJie facts, supported by the most unquestionable testimony, and embrnct-d under the law of damages. It would be, perhaps, considered presumptuous in an individual to advance such an opinion as this, in contrariety to the views of otiiers, had he not the opinions of some of the most eminer.t, distinguished legal advisers in this country to support him. Of these legal advisers, it is considered sufHcienl to e.\hil)lt llie opinions given liy the late Attorney General of the United States, .fudge Berrian, and that of the Hon. George M. Dallas, — which, in their views as expressed, added to those of other gentlemen of the liar, render this a clear legal, as well as an equitable clairn. The testimony in this case, embraces in all perliaps nearly a thou- sand pages; three or four hundred of these have been printed by the undersigned — decisions of the Supreme Court have been exhibited — legal decisions in other cases, as prttcedents, have been given — claims made by this agai;;st other Governments have been shown — principles developed and conceded in other similar cases in ('ongress have been produced, exhibiting the opinion of Congress of the liability of the Government for acts of its officers, all of which tend directly to sup- port this claim. In this case the injury is proved to be by the im- mediate and positive orders of the Government. The Solicitor and Comptrollers have given no law or reason (after exhibiting facts to establish the claim) in coming to conclusions of its being " equitable" and not legal. The charge of Judge Harrington to the jury in the case of Randall vs. the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company appears so appro- priate to this claim, that although it is given elsewhere by the Claim- ant — it may be important to exhibit it here. " It embraces, says the Judge, inquiry into legal rights growing ** out of contract, — into alleged wrong, — for the violation of those " rights, — damage and loss, resulting from such wrongs, and com- " pensation therefor. The jury are bound to make the Plaintiff " whole — to weigh out to him as it were from the scales of justice " remuneration and compensation for his wrongs." " The only guide the court can give you on this subject, is the legal *' rule, — that whatever loss or damage naturally or immediately re- *' suits from the wrong complained of — the wrong doer is bound to •* compensate." Harrington's Reports, 1 vol. p. 307-316. The lands were certainly in the case of the Claimant legal vested rights. The Treaty that protected those rights was a contract sacredly made between two nations. And the Government of the United States was tlie violator of those rights — the ivrong doer which is bound to compensate. Various decisions of the Supreme Court have been annexed to the documents of the undersigned — this is high and binding authority. — The Supreme Court said in Strother vs. Lucas, (12 Pet. 439. J "Trea- " ties are tlie law of the land and a rule of decision of all courts, — " Their stipidations are binding on the United States'—in that of " 1819 (the Florida Treaty) there is a present confirmation of all " grants made before the 24th of January, 1818, with the exception " of three, (to the three Spanish noblemen.) If the United States " were not content to receive the Territory charged with the titles " thus created, they ought lo have made and they would have made " such exceptions as they deemed necessary — ihey have made these " exceptions — they have stipulated that all grants made since the 24th " January, 1818, shall be null and void. The American Government " was content with the security which this stipulation afforded, and " cannot now demand farther and additional grounds — all other con- " cessions made by his Catholic majesty or his lawful authorities, " in the ceded Territories are as valid as if the cession had not been " made." " By the Treaty of 180.3, there was a stipulation, inter alia, that " the inhabitants of the ceded Territory shall be maintained and pro- " tected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the re- *' ligion they profess — as to which, this is the language of this court, — " That the perfect inviolability and security of property is among " these rights, all -will assert and maintain." 9 Pet. 133. S. P. 10 Pet. 718. 732. 736. " A cession of a Territory is never understood to be a cession of " the property of its inhabitants. I'he king cedes only that which " belongs to him. Lands he had previously granted were not his to " cede — neither party could so understand the treaty — neither party " could consider itself as attempting a wrong that would be condemn- " ed by the whole civilized world." Pet. 12. 439. Mr. Rawle, in his work on the Constitution, says, the legal effect of a Treaty, constitutionally made, is that next to the Constitution itself. It prevails over all state laws and state constitutions, and acts of Congress. This is expressed in the following words: " The Con-. ** stittition, and lau\s of the United States wliich shall be made in * pursuance thereof, and all trealies made or which shall be made " under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law " of the land, and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby^ '* anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary "notwithstanding." Mr. Rawle says, "What Judge of the state " court would willingly attempt the establishment of a rule ofproper- " ty, or of evidence differing from or opposed to that which had been " settled by solemn adjudication of the Supreme Court of the United " States, a tribunal composed of men of the highest judicial eminence " in the nation." It is this tribunal that declared the rights of the Claimant perfect to 16,000 acres of land in Florida, under the laws of Spain, the United States, the laws of nations, and the treaty existing with Spain for the cession of Florida. It is in this decision, — to that Court, — to that solemn treaty, — to the constitution and laws of the country and Con- gress, that this Claimant asks, looks for, and expects protection and indemnity, for his violated rights, — his sufferings and his losses — and submits this Report to substantiate the facts, which have been al- leged by him for these aggressions, and begs to tender the entire evi- dence in the case to any one who may desire its perusal. CHARLES F. SIBBALD. Philadelphia, April 17, 1839. ?5th Congress, DoC. No. 248. Ho. of Rkps, 'id Session. CHARLES F. SIBBALD. REPORT OP THE SOLICITOR, FIRST COMPTROLLER, & SECOND COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, Upon the Case of Charles F. Sihbald. March 2, 1839. Read, and laid upon the table Treasury Department, March 1, 1839,. Sir, — We have the honor to transmit, herewith, a report in the case of Charles F. Sibbald, made in compliance with the resolution of the Honse of Representatives of the 2d July, 1838, transmitting to the Solicitor and First and Second Comptrollers of the Treasury the pajiers in the case, and directing them to examine and report the facts, with the law that arises thereon, with their opinion whether relief should be granted, and, if so, the measure of it. These papers are also herewith transmitted. They consist of two parcels: one containing miscellaneous letters and documents laid before the Committee of Claims; the other, containing the depositions, docu- ments, and other evidence taken under the resolution of the House of Representatives of 3d March, 1837, and transmitted to the House on 7th February, 1838. We also transmit, herewith, additional documentary evidence sub- mined to us by Mr. Sibbald. It was received at his request, in the progress of the examination, and since the meeting of Congress which prevented the presentation of this report an earlier period of the session. Very respectfully, yours, H. D. GILPIN, Solicitor of the Treasuri/. J. N. BARKER, First Comptroller of the Treasury^ ALBION K. PARRIS, Second Comptroller of the Treasvrv Hon. J. K. Polk, '^ Speaker of the House of Representatives,. 8 Dot. No. 248. Report on the Case of Charles F. Sibbald, referred to the Solicitor and First and Second Comptrollers of the Treasiny, by a resolu' tion of the House of Representatives of the 2d July, 1838, ivith instructions to examine and report the facts, with the law that arises thereon, and their opinion whether relief should be granted, and, if so, the measure of it. This Claim is brought to the notice of Congress by a petition pre- sented in February, 1836, seeking indemnity for heavy damages sus- tained by Mr, Sibbald, as he alleges, by unauthorized aggressions on his property and rights, committed by agents of the United States, for whose acts they are responsible, upon principles of equity and justice. Mr. Sibbald is, as he states in his memorial, a native of Pliiladel- pliia, but removed at an early age to East Florida, where he became domiciled. In the year 1816 he obtained from the Spanish Govern- ment a grant of 16,000 acres of land, on the express condition of im- proving them by the erection of saw mills; and, having complied with the conditions required of him whilst that Territory remained attached to the Crown of Spain, the lands thus granted became his property; and he used and enjoyed them as such, without hindrance or molesta- tion. The Supreme Court of the United States, at its session in 1836, confirmed his title to the lands. Being prevented from disposing of them, as he alleges, previous to this, by the judicial scrutiny and in- vestigation which was going on with respect to them by the Govern- ment of the United States, in its different departments, he returned to Philadelphia, from whence he was influenced to continue to improve tlie lands, after the cession of the Floridas to the Government of the United States, under the firm conviction tliat, whenever an adjudication of the Supreme Court should be obtained, it would result (as it did) in his favor. In these improvements, as he states, he disbursed upwards of $100,000 in the erection of steam mills on his premises, (one of which mills worked 48 saws;) he had made arrangements for a most extensive business there; and his mills were placed in complete and successful operation. He goes on to say thot the Government of the United States, in 1828, sent an agent to Florida, who prevented him from using his own timber to supply the mills, (erected at such enormous expense,) or for other purposes. His vessels were detained, his mills had to be aban- doned, his whole business prostrated, and he was thus caused inde- scribable difficuhies and a most serious loss. Repeated remonstrances were made, as he alleges, to the Government and its agents, against these illegal measures, based on the opinions of several of the most eminent prolessional gentlemen of the nation. He further states that these difficulties continued to exist, and he was conpelled to submk to them, until the decision was made in the Supreme Court, conclu- sively proving that his rights had been infringed. He stated to Con- gress that he was prepared to substantiate the facts by satisfactory evidence, and to furnish indisputable proof of the losses to which he was subjected. Several affidavits, and much documentary testimony, consisting of letters, opinions of counsel, extracts from judicial decisions, and other ,b N 'iO LIBRARY OF CONGRESS lllillll Hill 111' iiiiiii'i"'— - 014 498 909 •