Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
From time to time the cases known by the generic name of French Spoliation Claims come up for discussion in Congress and in the press and are often debated without any very definite conception of their origin or basis. It may seem strange that claims against the government whose inception is connected with the very beginning of our national existence should still be the subject of consideration as present demands against the government, both before the courts and in the legislative forum.
But dilatoriness in dealing with matters of private right between the citizen and the government seems to have become traditional. Not until 1885 was there any tribunal before which these claims could be prosecuted. Even under the Act of 1885, as will be seen hereafter, a decision of the court has not the legal effect of a final judgment. Hence, it is that the liability of the government for the payment of these claims settled by unanimous judicial decision a quarter of a century ago is often reopened in Congress and the press and the subject threshed out anew, often in apparent ignorance of the laborious investigation long since made by the Court of Claims into the history and basis of these claims, and the result of that investigation as announced in a number of thorough and well-reasoned opinions.
1 Public Treaties of the United States, 1875, pp. 202, 203.
2 Public Treaties of the United States, 1875, p. 214.
3 Public Treaties of the United States, 1875, p. 215.
4 Public Treaties of the United States, 1875, article 17, pp. 208, 209.
5 Public Treaties of the United States, 1875, article XXV, p. 280.
6 1 Statutes at Large, 561.
7 1 Statutes at Large, 565.
8 1 Statutes at Large, 572.
9 1 Statutes at Large, 678.
10 1 Statutee at Large, 678.
11 April 30, 1798, 1 Statutes at Large, 653.
12 Act May 28, 1798, sec. 5, 1 Statutes at Large, 668.
13 Public Treaties of the United States, 1875, p. 225.
14 Public Treaties of the United States, 1875, p. 232.
15 Clayton’s Speech, 1846.
16 23 Statutes at Large, 283.
17 10 Statutes at Large, 612.
18 12 Statutes at Large, 767.
19 United States v. Klein, 13 Wall. 128, 144.
20 United States v. Borcherling, 185 U. S. 223, 234.
21 Judicial Code, Secs. 242, 243.
22 United States v. O’Qrady, 22 Wall. 641, 648.
23 Compilation of Reports of Committee on Foreign Relations, U. S. Senate, Vol. I, pp. 305, 306.
24 Compilation of Reports of Committee on Foreign Relations, U. S. Senate, Vol. I. p. 306.
25 Ship Concord, 35 C. Cls. 432, 443, 444.
26 De Bode v. The Queen, 3 Clarke’s House of Lords, p. 464.
27 Gray, Adm’r v. United States, 21 C. Cls. 340, 391.
28 “La brochure dont nous nous occupons renferme les avis donnés par la cour des griefs, et il est presque inutile de dire que ces avis sont favorables aux plaignants.”
29 “Espérons que le congrès se ralliera à l’avis qui lui est donné, et terminera ainsi une controverse qui offre de l’intérêt plus à cause do son origine et de ea durée extraordinaire qu’a cause des difficultés qu’elle présente.”
30 Brigs Fanny and Hope, 46 C. Cla. 214, 223, 224.
31 Senator Sumner’s report on French spoliation claims, Compilation of Reports of Committee on Foreign Relations, U. S. Senate, Vol. I, p. 319.
