sent to the treaty. This was the view taken and insisted upon by Mr. Meade, who was not privy to that understanding. And had the Secretary of State substituted this view of the case in the place of that taken in his letter to the commissioners, they must have rejected the claim altogether, as neither renounced nor provided for by the treaty. The liability of Spain, on its acknowledgement to Mr. Meade, would then have remained unimpaired by any act of this government.

The commissioners, however, decided, in conformity with the admission of the Secretary of State, that the case was still within the treaty as an unliquidated demand; and that, to that extent, the claim, was renounced, while Spain claims, an entire renunciation. By this concurrence, the liability of Spain to all claims up to the signature of the treaty has become in fact renounced.

But even the liability supposed to have been incurred by Spain by the subsequent liquidation of the claims which the Secretary of State avers she was "bound, in honor and justice to him, to discharge to the last farthing from her own treasury," was not permitted to remain.

The claim of Mr. Meade, thus by its liquidation cast out of the provisions of the treaty as signed, (1819,) is again brought within them by an unauthorized admission that it was still provided for by the treaty, to this extent that the United States renounced only the unliquidated claims, and that Spain remained holden for the liquidated debt; and between this renunciation and that liability the demand of Mr. Meade was suspended.

After this admitted renunciation, the committee will not inqure into the extent or value of the liability of Spain.

The effect of the express understanding of the parties at the time of giving their final assent to the treaty was not taken into consideration by the commissioners or by the Secretary of State; for the obvious reason, that it was unknown to them. But had it been a part of the admission, the commissioners would have admitted the certificate of liquidation as full evidence of the claim, as conclusive as to its amount and validity. If the unliquidated claims were brought, by the first understanding, within the treaty, then, by the fair construction of the second understanding, the first was recognized, and the certificate was to be considered as settling the amount and validity of those identical unliquidated claims. (P.)

The liquidation, on the face of the paper, refers to those claims, and to those only. It was not, like the case of a recent purchase of an "order on the funds of the royal finance," founded on any consideration not existing at the signature of the treaty. Even the "interest" included in the liquidation was incident to and a part of the original claims.

To the neglect, then, of the government, in not seasonably obtaining the facts of the understanding of the parties at the time Spain gave her assent to the treaty, or in not communicating it to the commissioners, their decision rejecting the certificate is to be attributed.

This decision of the commissioners was made and communicated to Mr. Meade on the 27th of June, 1822. (R 3.)

On the 6th June, 1822, Mr. Meade presented a memorial to the commissioners (R.) asking for a reconsideration of their decision. This was accompanied by a correspondence of the Spanish minister. (S.)

On the 18th of April, 1823, the commissioners affirmed their decision. In consequence of that decision, Mr. Meade was compelled to undertake to sustain his claims by other proof; and the final result was that, without any fault on his part, he was unable to procure his vouchers, which had been surrendered to the Spanish government, on the liquidation of his claim, before the commission was closed; and the five millions was divided among the other claimants.

The claimant alleges, as a distinct ground for relief, it was through the fault or neglect of the government of Spain or of the United States that his vouchers were not procured in season to be laid before the commissioners; and that if through the fault or neglect of Spain, this government has, by a subsequent treaty, renounced all claim for satisfaction. The 11th article of the treaty provides, that "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 commissioners."

On the 4th of April, 1822, Mr. Meade, in consequence of apprehensions excited by the letters between the commissioners and the Secrery of State, of the 5th and 9th of March, addressed a note to the Spanish minister here, stating his apprehensions, and requesting him to become his mediator with his Catholic majesty, to obtain for him all documents, vouchers, and evidence whatsoever, in the possession and under the control of Spain, appertaining to his demands, that he might prepare them, in case of need, for exhibition to the commissioners. (S 1.)

On the 10th of October he reiterated his request to be furnished with his vouchers, stating the decision of the commissioners of the 27th of June. (S 2.)

On the 16th of October the Spanish minister replied to the last note of Mr. Meade. After expressing great indignation at the decision, he concludes by stating, "that the Spanish government will regard as a serious insult that what in Spain is acknowledged as most sacred and respectable should here be pronounced of no value; that it will never consent to have questioned the legality and purity with which your liquidation was made, and which is accompanied by all the marks of authenticity which it can give it ; and in fine, though it should be practicable to reunite all the documents upon which that liquidation was made, his Catholic majesty knows too well what is due to his own dignity, to the reputation of his ministers, and to the integrity of his tribunals, to consent that a foreign commission shall deem itself authorized to revise their decrees." (S 3.)

On the 15th of April, 1823, the Spanish minister addressed a communication to the Secretary of State, enclosing copies of the three notes above mentioned, informing him that they had been transmitted to his government, which had approved of the answer of the Spanish minister of the 16th of October, and protesting in strong terms against the decision of the commissioners. (P.)

It is not necessary to inquire whether the treaty required that the demand should be made at the instance of the commissioners, and by the government itself, or whether the documents should be more par

ticularly specified. It is sufficient that no such objections were made by the Spanish government. The refusal to furnish the documents was founded solely on a denial of the right to demand them.

On the 15th April, 1823, that refusal was officially communicated to this government, and, in the reply of the Secretary of State, the right (by direct implication) was affirmed. The issue was made, and Spain was responsible for all the consequences of delay from the time of the refusal. (P.)

The refusal was on the 16th October, 1822. It does not appear that during the next six months the obstacle existed that subsequently interrupted the presentation of the demand.

The final decision of the commissioners was made in April, 1823; and on the 18th the commissioners, at the instance of Mr. Meade, addressed a note to the Secretary of State, requesting him to demand of the Spanish government the documents specified in an accompanying schedule. (T.)

On the 13th May the Secretary of State addressed that communication to our minister in Spain, with instructions to make the demand. (U.) Owing to circumstances over which this government had no control, these papers did not reach Spain until December, 1823. Thus a delay of more than a year was the consequence of the refusal.

On the 19th December, 1823, a formal demand was made, (V 2,) and the attention of the Spanish government again called to it on the 1st February, 1824. (V 3 and 4.) On the 14th May the Spanish minister replied that, on account of the extent and number of the documents, further time was required.

On the 31st July our minister advised this government that, from the papers in Mr. Meade's case being so voluminous, there was no wellfounded expectation of their being speedily furnished. (V 5 and 6.) The commission closed in June, 1824; in consequence of which, Mr. Meade's claim was finally excluded, and the five millions divided among the other claimants.

It is not necessary to inquire whether the claim was pressed with sufficient earnestness on the Spanish government. Her treaty engagement was positive, and on her rested the responsibility, from the date of the original demand. (P.)

Of every fact necessary to constitute that responsibility, this government was seasonably and officially informed.

The infraction of the treaty was the subject of a national claim. Such was the state of Mr. Meade's case at the date of the treaty with Spain of the 17th February, 1834.

By the first and third articles, the parties reciprocally renounced all claims preferred by each against the other, of whatsoever class, denomination, or origin, from the 22d February, 1819, (the date of the former treaty,) until the time of signing the treaty.

If the claim, founded on the refusal to furnish the documents, was renounced by the treaty, the claimant is left to seek redress of the United States. If the claim was not renounced, then the liability of Spain remains. As an infraction of the former treaty, it can be enforced only by this government; and after the course taken, without the authority or consent of Mr. Meade, by which his claim has been thus

embarrassed, if not defeated, and considering the equivalent received by the annulling the Florida grant, it is not unreasonable that the government should satisfy the claim, and seek its own indemnity against Spain. From the fact, however, that this refusal became the subject of diplomatic discussion between the governments of the two nations, the claimant may with much force contend that it is to be considered as a claim preferred, and renounced by the treaty.

On a view, then, of the whole case, the committee are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to relief. And, understanding that she will be satisfied with being restored to the benefit of the provisions of the treaty of 1819, they think this the least measure of justice that is demandable from the United States. They therefore report a bill for that purpose.

Proceedings in the House of Representatives on the claim of Richard W. Meade.

2d sess. 18th Cong. 1824-25-Petition referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. No report.

1st sess. 19th Cong. 1825-'6-Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and bill reported by Mr. Forsyth, No. 223, (Rep. No. 174,) providing for the settlement of sundry claims under the Florida treaty; which bill passed the House of Representatives and was rejected in the Senate.

1st sess. 20th Cong. 1827-'8-Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and bill reported by Mr. Edward Everett, No. 51, (Rep. No. 58,) which bill was rejected by the House.

2d sess. 20th Cong. 1828-'9-Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. No report.

1st sess. 21st Cong. 1829-'30-Same.

1st sess. 22d Cong. 1831-'2-Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and bill reported by Mr. Archer, No. 366, (Rep. No. 316,) which was committed to a Committee of the Whole, and not after acted on.

1st sess. 23d Cong. 1833-'4-Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, bill reported by Mr. Archer, No. 183, (Rep. No. 167,) which was debated in Committee of the Whole. Nothing further done.

1st sess. 24th Cong. 1835-'6-Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. No report.

3d sess. 25th Cong. 1838-'9-Same.

1st sess. 26th Cong. 1839-'40-Same.

Proceedings in the Senate on the claim of Mr. Meade.

2d sess. 18th Cong. 1824-'5-Petition referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Committee discharged, and referred to the Secretary of State, and reported on. (Rep. No. 40.)

1st sess. 19th Cong. 1825-'6-Referred to a select committee. Reported against by Mr. Clayton, (Rep. No. 66,) and laid on the table.

1st sess. 24th Cong. 1835-'6-Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Bill reported by Mr. Porter, No. 165, (Rep. No. 236,) and passed the Senate, and referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, and not reported back by that committee.

2d sess. 24th Cong. 1836-'7-Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Bill reported by Mr. Buchanan, No. 19, (no report,) which passed the Senate, and was laid on the table in the House of Representatives without being referred to a committee.

2d sess. 25th Cong. 1837-'8-Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Bill reported by Mr. Buchanan, No. 31, (no report,) which also passed the Senate, and was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, and reported back to the House without amendment, and committed to a Committee of the Whole, and not further acted on.

1st sess. 26th Cong. 1839-'40-Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. No report. Leave granted to withdraw, &c.

List of documents referred to in the foregoing report.

A.-Extract from report of the Secretary of State on Richard W. Meade's memorial to the Senate, February 13, 1821.

B.-Letters from Mrs. Meade and Mr. John Sergeant to Hon. John
Quincy Adams, Secretary of State, January 17, 1819.

C.-Official note from the minister, Mr. Arguelles, to Mr. Meade.
D. Mr. Adams to Mr. Meade, September 6, 1820.

E.-Secretary of State of Spain to American minister, June 10, 1820.
F.-Extract of a letter from Mr. Meade to Mr. Adams, August 17, 1820.
G.—No. 1. Deposition of Don José Canga Arguelles, taken in 1827.
No. 2. Deposition of Joseph Moreno Guerra, taken in 1824.
No. 3. Deposition of Don Alvaro Florez Estrada, taken in 1827.
No. 4. Deposition of Don José Becerra, taken in 1824.
H.-Deposition of Mr. Forsyth, taken in 1824.

I.-Extract from Mr. Meade's memorial to the Senate, February 8, 1821.
K.-Spanish Secretary of State to Mr. Meade, June 16, 1821
L.-Certificate of Tobias Watkins, June 7, 1824.

M.—Letter from the commissioners under the Florida treaty to Mr.
Adams, March 5, 1822.

N.-Letter from Mr. Adams to the commissioners, March 9, 1822.
O.-Opinion of Judge White.

P.-Mr. Salmon, chargé d'affaires of Spain, to Mr. Adams, April 15, 1823.

Q.-Mr. Adams to Mr. Salmon, April 29, 1823.

R.-Third memorial of Mr. Meade to the commissioners under the

Florida treaty.

S. No. 1. Letter of Mr. Meade to the Chevalier Don Joaquin de Anduaga, April 4, 1822.

No. 2. Same to same, October 10, 1822.

No. 3. Letter from Chevalier Don Joaquin de Anduaga to Mr.
Meade, October 16, 1822.