OF THE 
 
 HON. DANIEL WEBSTER, 
 
 AND THE 
 
 HON. J. MACPHERSON BERRIEN, 
 
 AND 
 
 OPINION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 HON. GEORGE M. DALLAS, 
 
 IN THE CASE OF 
 
 CHARL.E:S F. SIBBAL.D 
 
 AGAINST THE 
 
 UNITED STATES. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 
 1845, 
 
n. of D." 
 
 ■ JG 2 1917 
 
CEiAI 
 
 CHARLES F. SIBBALD 
 
 OP PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 This claim is brought before the Attorney General of the 
 United States, pursuant to an act of Congress, passed for the 
 relief of Charles F. Sibbald, on the 23d of August, 1842. 
 
 The Petition sets forth as follows : as will more particularly 
 appear by a Report made by the Committee of Claims of the 
 House of Representatives, in the following words : — 
 
 "On the 1st of April, 1842, Mr. Tomlinson from the Com- 
 mittee, made the followmg report : — 
 
 The Com mittee of Cla ims, to whom was referred the memo- 
 riaTot Wtarles F.^ttTb^ld, together with divers documents and 
 testimony communicated from the Treasury Department, with 
 previous reports made thereon, have had the same under con- 
 sideration, and submit the following report : 
 
 It appears that the petition of said Sibbald, was submitted to 
 this committee at the 2d session of the 24th Congress, (in 1837,) 
 wherein he sets forth that he was a merchant in Philadelphia, 
 and was possessed of a large and valuable landed estate in East 
 Florida, und er a grant from the Spanish Government ; that, for 
 the purpos^ "Ot^making the same productive and profitable, he 
 hadierected extensive steam mills thereon, and had also made 
 extensive contracts for supplying timber of various kiiTds'; that,' 
 while thus pursuing his plans, and in the peaceable and success- 
 
ful use and enjoyment of his property, he was dispossessed of 
 the same by orders from the Executive Departments of this 
 Government, and thereby his plans were frustrated and he was 
 overwhelmed in ruin; that he was kept out of the use and pos- 
 session of his estate for many years, and finally he was restored 
 to the possession thereof by the decision of the Supreme Court 
 of the United States in 1836. 
 
 For the losses and damages sustained by thus being prevented 
 from the use of his property he claims remuneration from 
 Congress. 
 
 This petition was accompanied with numerous documents and 
 correspondence with several of the Departments. In the early 
 investigation of this case, application was made by the Com- 
 mittee of Claims, to the Treasury and Navy Departments, for 
 proof of these alleged aggressions, or for the orders and in- 
 structions which had emanated therefrom to the Government 
 agents in relation thereto. 
 
 Numerous documents were obtained, and, after due conside- 
 ration, on the 3d of March, 1837, Mr. Whittlesey, from the 
 then Committee of Claims, made a report, setting forth a concise 
 statement of the facts, as they then appeared, and concluding 
 with certain resolutions, which were concurred in by the House, 
 authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to take testimony so 
 as to develope fully the whole facts, and concluding that " it 
 was deemed inexpedient to make any decision as to the liability 
 of the United States until the facts in the case became known." 
 
 Pursuant to said resolutions, interrogatories were prepared by 
 the Department, and the petitioner and witnesses, among whom 
 were divers Officers of the Government, were carefully examined 
 by the district attorneys at the several points of examination, 
 and by the consul of the United States in Cuba. This testi- 
 mony was returned to Congress on the^7th of February, 1838, 
 but, from its extent, it was found impracticable to give it such 
 an examination as was requisite, in justice to the United States 
 or to the petitioner. It was, therefore, on the 2d of July, 1838, 
 under a resolution of the House, referred to the Solicitor, and 
 First and Second Comptrollers of the Treasury Department, 
 whose report thereon may be found in document No. 238 of the 
 3d session 25th Congress. 
 
 The whole case has again come up for consideration before 
 this committee , and from the examination Ihgy, have been 
 enabled to bestow upon it, they d eem the foflo wmg facts e s- 
 tablished : — ~ ~ 
 
 That the^petitioner was the owner, and entitled to the full, 
 free, and uninterrupted use and enjoyment of his landed estate 
 
3 
 
 in Florida, at the time of the cession of that Territory to the 
 United States ; that he so continued the owner, and in quiet 
 and peaceable possession thereof, until he was disturbed, as is 
 hereinafter noticed ; that his lands were well supplied with 
 yellow pine timber, red cedar, and live oak, in detached par- 
 cels; that he had erected extensive steam saw mills to saw his 
 pine timber; had made extensive contracts with one Samuel 
 Grice, and subsequently with the Navy Department, for a sup- 
 ply of live oak, thus to bring into profitable use, divers portions 
 of' these lands; and had in connexion with these operations, 
 other business to a large extent; that the officers of the United 
 States having in charge the preservation of the timber on the 
 public lands in that Territory, and the prevention of trespasses 
 thereon, acting under orders from the Treasury and Navy De- 
 partments, deemed and treated the lands of the petitioner as 
 public lands, directly interfered and prevented him, or those 
 acting for him, from cutting or using his own timber, either for 
 supplying his mills or fulfilling his live oak contracts ; that 
 being thus prevented from the lawful use and enjoyment of his 
 property, his credit based upon its value and his ready resources 
 therefrom, became impaired, his business affairs (which were 
 very extensive) became embarrassed, and after praiseworthy 
 efforts to relieve himself from his pecuniary difficulties, he was 
 compelled to yield to the pressure of the circumstances sur- 
 rounding him and throw himself upon the mercy of his creditors. 
 His creditors immediately sued out attachments against him, 
 and his mills, erected at an immense expense, and his other 
 property in Florida, were taken possession of by the United 
 States marshal, at the suit of his creditors, in whose hands they 
 have perished by dilapidation and decay. 
 
 It is proper here to remark, that there is no direct evidence 
 to sustain the allegations of the petitioner, that the agents of the 
 Government directly interfered with the cutting of pine timber 
 upon his lands for the supply of his mills after the 20th of June, 
 1829, until his title to his land was fully confirmed by the 
 Supreme Court of the United States in 1836; yet, as they had 
 directly and positively interfered prior to this lime, and threat- 
 ened the employment of military force to enforce obedience to 
 their authority, and as the same orders and instructions under 
 which they then assumed to act were continued, and were re- 
 fused to be relaxed on a direct application made by the peti- 
 tioner to the Navy Department for that purpose, the petitioner 
 had good reason to suppose and did suppose, and acted in view 
 thereof, that no use of the timber on said land, for any purpose 
 
4 
 
 whatever, would be permitted until the final confirmation of his 
 title by the Supreme Court. 
 
 The orders and instructions under which the Government 
 agents acted were made to extend to all unconfirmed Spanish 
 grants, and the construction put upon them by the agents seems 
 to have been concurred in and confirmed by the Executive De- 
 partments, as they were fully advised of the conduct of their 
 agents in the premises, and repeatedly and earnestly called upon 
 by the petitioner to modify their instructions, and to interfere 
 and prevent the loss and damage which would result to him 
 therefrom. They were issued doubtless, for the laudable object 
 of protecting the public lands from injury and spoliation, espe- 
 cially of the live oak, so necessary for the Navy. Still however, 
 if in thus protecting the interest of the United States, an indi- 
 vidual like the petitioner, has been seriously injured, the obli- 
 gation to make him reparation is not weakened thereby. The 
 acts of the authorized agent or agents being approved by the 
 Government, it must be considered their act, and the injury, if 
 any, to the petitioner, must be responded to by them. 
 
 In this view of the case, the committee have found no difficulty 
 in coming to the conclusion that the damages which the peti- 
 tioner actually sustained by reason of the interference of the 
 Government by their agents, with the use, possession, or enjoy- 
 ment of his property in Florida, when ascertained upon prin- 
 ciples of law and equity, according to a true construction of the 
 testimony submitted, should be paid to him ; and, with this 
 view, they report a bill directing the Secretary of the Treasury 
 to ascertain such damages, and when ascertained, to allow and 
 pay him the amount. 
 
 AN ACT 
 
 FOR THE RELIEF OF CHARLES F. SIBBALD. 
 
 • Be it enacted, by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
 the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
 Third Auditor of the Treasury, under the direction of the 
 Attorney General, be and is hereby directed to ascertain the 
 actual damages which Charles F. Sibbald has sustained, and 
 would be entitled to recover upon the principles of law, as 
 applicable to similar cases, by reason of the interference of any 
 agent, or agents of the United States, acting under their autho- 
 rity, with the use, possession or enjoyment of his lands, timber, 
 mills, or other property in East Florida, from eighteen hundred 
 and twenty-eight, to February 7th, eighteen hundred and 
 thirty-six, at which time the title of said property was con- 
 
firmed to the said Charles F. Sibbald, by the Supreme Court 
 of the United States : And that the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 after the said damages shall have been ascertained in the man- 
 ner aforesaid, in case any sum, shall be found due to said 
 Charles F. Sibbald, shall pay the same to him, out of any 
 money in the Treasury, not otherwise appropriated. 
 
 This is the bill passed for the relief of the claimant: and we 
 have cited the report of the committee, for the purpose of evin- 
 cing what were the views and designs of the Legislature in 
 passing it. 
 
 They say they have examined the claim, they have " reported 
 the facts, which they deem to be established," viz : " the peti- 
 tioner was the owner, and entitled to the full, free, and uninter- 
 rupted use, and enjoyment of his landed estate in Florida, at the 
 time of the cession of that territory to the United States" 
 
 This fact is corroborated, and rendered incontrovertible, by 
 the decrees of the Supreme Court of the United States, 10th 
 and 12th Peters, Sibbald vs. the United States, and 6th Pet. 
 aredondo, vs. the United States, the Court has defined his rights, 
 and decreed that his grant was confirmed simultaneously with 
 the ratification of the treaty existing with Spain for the cession 
 of Florida. 
 
 The committee say the " fact is established, that Mr. Sib- 
 bald's lands were well supplied with yellow pine, red cedar, and 
 live oak timber, that he erected extensive saw mills, to saw his 
 pine timber, and made extensive contracts with Mr. Grice, and 
 the Navy Department, for a supply of live oak, thus to bring 
 into profitable use, divers portions of his land ; and that he 
 had in connection with these operations other business to a 
 large extent. That the officers of the United States, having in 
 charge the preservation of the timber on the public lands in that 
 Territory, and the prevention of trespasses thereon, acting un- 
 der the orders from the Treasury and Navy Departments, 
 deemed and treated the lands of the petitioner as public lands, 
 directly interfered, and prevented him, or those acting for them, 
 from cutting or using his own timber, either for supplying his 
 mills, or fulfilling his contracts, isLC. 
 
 . " The committee also say that the orders under which the 
 agents acted, were made to extend to all unconfirmed grants, 
 and the construction put upon them by the agents, seems to have 
 been concurred in and confirmed by the Executive Departments, 
 as they were fully advised of the conduct of their agents on the 
 premises, and repeatedly and earnestly called on by the peti- 
 tioner to modify their instructions, and to interfere and prevent 
 the loss and damage which would result to him therefrom." 
 
The act of the authorized agent or agents being approved by 
 the Government, it must be considered their act ; and injury if 
 any to the petitioner, must be responded to by them. 
 
 " In this view of the case, the committee have found no diffi- 
 culty in coming to the conclusion, that the damages which the 
 petitioner actually sustained, by reason of the interference of the 
 Government by their agents, with the use, possession, or enjoy- 
 ment of his property in Florida, when ascertained upon prin- 
 ciples of law and equity, according to a true construction of the 
 testimony submitted, should be paid to him, and with this view 
 they report a bill," &c. 
 
 It appears that this report was adopted by the committee of 
 the Senate, the committees in both branches being unanimous, 
 and thereupon this bill was passed. 
 
 The bill provides that all damages caused by reason of the 
 inter feTj^nce, shall be paid. 
 
 It has been supposed this report would be satisfactory to the 
 Department, as to the general facts and general merits of the 
 claim. 
 
 Congress has reported the fact to be established, that the 
 claimant was interfered with by officers of the United States, 
 acting under orders from the Treasury and Navy Department, 
 who they say directly interfered, and prevented the claimant or 
 those acting for him, from cutting or using his limber, either for 
 supplying his saw mills, or fulfilling his live oak contract; and 
 that they " threatened the employment of military force, to en- 
 force obedience to their authority, and that no use of the timber 
 on said land would be permitted, until the confirmation of his 
 title by the Supreme Court," &c. 
 
 Congress seems not to have doubted upon evidence which is 
 now before the Attorney General, that an interference by offi- 
 cers of the United States, under instructions from the Depart- 
 ments at Washington, had wrongfully interfered with Mr. Sib- 
 bald's property, and thereby preventing him from carrying on 
 his business, and put him to heavy loss : that these officers di- 
 rected Mr. Sibbald's agent to desist from his operations with 
 regard to the timber, and threatened him with the employment 
 of military force to compel obedience. 
 
 The evidence fully supports the opinions thus founded and 
 acted on by the two Houses of Congress. 
 
 Indeed we think the facts, which are fully established by the 
 evidence, may be thus stated: — 
 
 First. That there was a direct and forcible interference, 
 causing the entire overthrow and destruction of the business of 
 the claimant, by the officers or agents of the United States. 
 
Secondly. That the claimant was ousted or forced ofF, by 
 the same authority. 
 
 We suppose there is no doubt that in a case of this sort, a 
 positive direction given, and military force threatened, is the use 
 of force, as much as if the soldiers had used their bayonets. 
 
 It was unnecessary and would have been quite wrong, for the " 
 claimant's agents, to have defied the Government of the coun- 
 try and waited for blows and battle: in our opinioriTthe actual 
 ouster is just as clearly proved, as if it had been the result of a 
 conflict in arms. J 
 
 Third. That there has been a violation of the treaty exist- 
 ing with Spain, that treaty having designed to protect the . 
 claimant's estate. f 
 
 Fourth. That he was kept from all use of his own property \. 
 a period of several years. ■ 
 
 The whole case, in our opinion, is one of very serious wrong, a j 
 trespass, attended with circumstances of peculiar hardship and I 
 distress, towards the claimant. The injury and damage result- I 
 ing from this trespass, and clearly within the strictest limits of f 
 just compensation, are very great."^" 
 
 There is also abundant proof that this interference was most 
 injurious to Mr. Sibbald in his general business, his mercantile 
 credit, and all his pursuits, and though the amount of this part 
 of his claim, (injury to his commercial credit) may not be capa- 
 ble of exact ascertainment^ yet it is evident that Congress, in a 
 spirit becoming a just government, intended to make him fair 
 and liberal compensation for alUlosses. It is submitted there- 
 fore, that some allowance on tmse heads, may be regarded as 
 within the scope of the law, and the discretion of the Attorney 
 General, the Legislature certainly intended that he should be 
 made whole. 
 
 The claimant under the direction of his counsel in Philadel- ^ 
 phia, has prepared a full statement of his case, showing it from 
 the beginning, also has word by word, cited the report of the 
 Third Auditor, and replied to every proposition and objection 
 advanced by him, to which reference is requested. 
 
 We think the report of the Auditor fundamentally erroneous, 
 so far as it questions the fact of actual forcible ouster. 
 
 He seems to rely on a letter from Mr. Snowden, of the 28th 
 of May, 1829, in which the writer manifests a disposition to 
 keep possession of the claimant's property if he could, but he 
 could not, as shown by the testimony of all the witnesses, and 
 by the whole tenor of the correspondence. 
 
 The officers of the Government, acted under the extraordi- 
 nary provisions of the act of March 3d, 1807, which provision, 
 
8 
 
 or some of them, the Supreme Court have thought to be in vio- 
 lation of private rights. 
 
 The act to establish a Territorial Government in Florida, 
 approved 30th March. j\§22. expressly directs, that the "act to 
 prevent settlements bemg made in lands ceded to the United 
 States, until authorized by law, which had been approved 3d of 
 March, 1 80 7, shall extend to, and have full force and effect 
 in the Territory of Florida." 
 
 It forbids claimants, " under pain of forfeiture of all claim to 
 the land from occupying their lands; but the Secretary of the 
 Treasury, by the approbation of the President, &c., may permit 
 applicants to remain on such tracts, not to exceed 320 acres, 
 as tenants at will, on such terms and conditions, as shall pre- 
 vent waste and damage, and on the express conditions when- 
 ever he may be required under authority of the United States, 
 to give quiet possession of such land, and the land and naval 
 forces are to be employed, or such other further measures as 
 may be deemed advisable." 
 
 By an act passed in 1817, the Secretary of the Navy had 
 been required to protecWrTe public timber; and any vessel 
 taking the same, was made liable to seizure and confiscation, 
 " and those persons cutting the timber liable to a fine of $500, 
 and imprisonment." 
 
 An act approved February 23d, 1822, directs "the employ- 
 ment of the land and naval forces, ancl'such other measures to be 
 taken, as may be deemed advisable respecting the timber in 
 Florida," &c. # 
 
 An act was passed on the 3d of March, 183L expressly de- 
 claring ^11 the other acts ift forpe in Flnr idn. and applies to tim- 
 ber oievery description : live oak/ceclar, and other timber, 
 " vessels to be seized, captains to be subjected to a fine of 
 $1000 : all the other hands cutting, subject to prosecution and 
 imprisonment." 
 
 John Rodman, Esq., Collector of the Customs, at St. Augus- 
 tine, and a principal officer of the Government in Florida, has 
 given the copies of his instructions from the several Secretaries 
 of the Treasury, which are on file with the other papers. 
 They are 
 
 From the Hon. Wm. H. Crawford, dated 23d April, 1823. 
 " Richard Rush, dated March 8th, 1828. 
 " " " S. D. Ingram, dated December 4th, 1829. 
 
 All these direct the applications of the laws of 1807 and 1817, 
 to " grants not yet confirmed by our Government." 
 
9 
 
 The letters of John Rodman, Esq., in the printed documents, 
 pages 21, 23, 32, show that he applied these instructions to lands 
 situated as the claimant's were. " I am expressly directed by 
 the Secretary of the Treasury, he says, to seize all timber cut 
 upon these lands, the Government consider all lands in Florida, 
 the claims of which have not been confirmed, as public lands." 
 
 On the 10th of April _1828, Mr. W. D. Acken, was commi s- 
 sioned by the Secretary of the IVavy, "an agent tor the pre- [ 
 servation of timber in East Florida," with instructions to call 
 on the district attorney for advice, with the " military and naval 
 forces" placed at his call to enforce his orders. See letter pam- 
 phlet, 1st part, page 30. 
 
 On the 10th of May, 1828, the district attorney at St. Augus- 
 tine, directed Mr. Acken to consider " mill grants as the public 
 property of the United States," and calls his attention to the 
 acts of Congress on the subject. These directions were com- 
 municated by Mr. Acken to the Secretary of the Navy, from 
 St. Augustine, on the 12th of May, 1828, as forming the rule of 
 his own conduct in Florida. See page 67 and 60, printed docu- 
 ments, and that he had called upon the military. 
 
 On the 1st of July, 1828, with these facts known, the Navy 
 Department, nevertheless, instructs Mr. Acken to " use great 
 vigilance, &c., and in all doubtful cases to refer to the District 
 Attorney and follow his instructions." See page 208. 
 
 On the 12th of August, 1828, the General Land Office, acting 
 with " the Treasury and Navy Departments," instructs Mr. 
 Douglass, the district attorney at St. Augustine, to stop the 
 cutting of all valuable timber, " on grants not confirmed," even 
 when they had been regularly filed by the owners, and says, the 
 Navy Department will issue corresponding instructions to their 
 agent. Page 208 and 210. 
 
 On the 14th of August, 1828, the District Attorney of East 
 Florida, as he says at page 178, by instructions received by 
 him, from George Graham, Esq., Commissioner of the General 
 Land Office, was to consider all lands claimed under Spanish 
 grants, then remaining unconfirmed as public lands, and they 
 were to be treated accordingly. On the 23d of September, 
 1828, it will be seen at page 80, printed documents, that Mr. 
 Acken wrote the Secretary of the Navy, thus : " It would be 
 well for the Secretary of the Treasury, to give instructions to 
 the different collectors in Florida, as well as the collector of 
 St. Mary's, Georgia, whose district extend to Nassau river, to 
 permit no vessel to clear with live oak or other timber, without a 
 certificate from each individual, from whose land it was cut, 
 and the particular place from where shipped, stating the tract, 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 and whether it has been confirmed by the Board of Land Com- 
 missioners or otherwise." These instructions, it would appear, 
 were accordingly issued, as the Collector of the Customs of St. 
 Augustine, has furnished copies thereof On the 18th of De- 
 cember, 1828, Mr. Acken notifies the Navy Department: "I 
 have by the advice of the District Attorney, prevented any tim- 
 ber from being cut on lands, the titles to which are not settled, 
 especially the mill grants," and refers particularly to that "of 
 Charles F. Sibbald/' &c. See page 210. 
 
 On the 20th July, 1829, the agent of the Government, wrote 
 to the Secretary of the Navy, that " he has prevented the 
 claimant from cutting, and saved a valuable lot of timber, and 
 calling his attention to the saw mill establishment of the claim- 
 ant," &c. i'amphlet, page 73, 1st part. 
 
 On the 23d of May, 1829, the Commissioner of the General 
 Land Office, writes to the Secretary of the Treasury, enclosing 
 a letter from the District Attorney, suggesting a relaxation of 
 the general instructions, so as to sanction the taking of pine 
 timber for mill logs. 
 
 On the 16th of June, 1829, the Secretary of the Navy Com- 
 missioners, Mr. Thompson Mason, in the place of Mr. Acken, 
 an agent for the Navy Department, with the same authority, to 
 be governed by the District Attorney, as to the manner of per- 
 forming his duty ; and to call upon the army or naval forces, to 
 enforce obedience to his authority. See pamphlet, page 89, 
 1st part. 
 
 On the 10th of July, 1829, the Secretary of the Treasury, 
 writes the General Land Office : "No sufficient reason is per- 
 ceived, for a further modification of the general instructions." 
 
 In "an advertisement" in the public papers, see page 20, the 
 District Attorney in accordance with his instructions, says : 
 " these instructions extend not only to live oak, and cedar tim- 
 ber, but timber of every decript\pn for the purpose of shipping, 
 the use of saw mills, &c. It will be seen that the remonstances 
 and applications of the claimant, to the Treasury and Navy 
 Departments, Attorney General, and other officers, against these 
 most unjust proceedings, were constant ; from June 1828 to 
 November 1835, he endeavored without intermission, to get 
 these measures withdrawn, and that notwithstanding, agents 
 were successively appointed to enforce these orders. 
 
 Reference is particularly requested to all the evidence as to 
 the acts done, also to 6 Peters, Arredondo vs. the United 
 States. 
 
 It is thus clearly established, that it was the positive deter- 
 mination of the Government of the United States, and its offi- 
 
11 
 
 cers, to prevent absolutely and forcibly, the use of all the lands 
 in Florida, held under Spanish grants, until the same was 
 confirmed by the United States Courts ; that they extend this 
 mill grants, live oak lands, pine lands, to all cutting of tim- 
 ber. That to enforce this, they sent special agents, and autho- 
 rized the forcible use of the military and naval forces. 
 
 Under this authority, we see the actual seizure of the live 
 oak timber, and logs cut for the use of the claimant's mills. 
 Printed document, page 16. Also the seizure and confiscation, 
 and sale of the brig Planter and her cargo. Pamphlet, ] st part, 
 page 36. 
 
 The instructions from the Departments, to the agents and 
 officers, and their correspondence with the Departments at 
 Washington, may be found at pages 30 to 45. Pamphlet, 
 1st part. 
 
 What did the agents do, by virtue of this authority, or 
 
 Was there any, and what mischief done, as asked by the 
 Attorney General. 
 
 It has been seen by the report of Cor^ress, that "a resolu- 
 tion was concurred in, authorizing the Secretary of the Treas- 
 ury to take testimony, so as to develope fully the whole facts, 
 and that pursuant to said resolutions, interrogatories were pre- 
 pared by the Department and the petitioner, and that witnesses, 
 among whom were divers officers of the Government, the com- 
 mittee say were carefully examined by the District Attorneys, 
 at the several points of examination, and by the Consul of the 
 United States in Cuba." 
 
 The following is the third %iterrogatory as submitted on the 
 part of the United States. To which Charles Snowden of 
 Philadelphia, the agent of the claimant at his mill, gives the 
 following answers, at page 11. 
 
 Third Interrogatory. Was the said Sibbald dispossessed of 
 his lands or mills, or deprived of the use of them, between the 
 years 1826 and 1837, and by whom? was he forbid, or pre- 
 vented from cutting timber, and of what kinds, from said lands, 
 and by whom? and particularly were such persons officers, or 
 agents of the Government of the United States? 
 
 " Mr. Sibbald was dispossessed of his lands, and prevented 
 from using them from the year 1828 to 1836, when his title to 
 
12 
 
 the lands was confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United 
 States. He was during this time, prevented from cutting 
 timber for the use of his mills — both pine timber and live oak, 
 to execute his contracts ; he was dispossessed by Mr. William 
 D. Acken, he was commissioned by the Navy Department ; he 
 was the most active in the business ; he was an officer and 
 agent of the Government of the United States. This act of the 
 Government, also dispossessed him of his saw mills." 
 
 The following was propounded by the counsel of the claimant: 
 Was or was not, the said Charles F. Sibbald, dispossessed of 
 any part, or the whole of said land? By whom was that dis- 
 possession effected? Were or were not the persons acting 
 under the authority of the Government of the United States ? 
 Slate such authority, and the directions on which it was 
 founded? What acts were done by them? Were or v.ere not 
 the persons employed in cutting timber driven from their work? 
 Was he or M^as he not, prevented from using his timber? Stale 
 the circumstances, particularly and at large, and whether the 
 said Charles F. Sibbald, was or was not compelled to abandon 
 his lands and mills? What were the threats and means re- 
 sorted to, to bring about this result? 
 
 To this interrogatory the witness answered thus, at page 16. 
 Mr. Sibbald was as before stated, dispossessed of his lands 
 and mills, by the offid^r and agent of the United States, Mr. 
 William D. Acken ; he was a special agent of the Government, 
 sent from Washington, and acted with Mr. Douglas, the Dis- 
 trict Attorney. He stopped Mr. Samuel Grice from cutting 
 live oak timber on the lands claimed by Mr. Sibbald, and forbid 
 me from having jjine timber cut to supply the " saw mills. The 
 people I sent on Mr. SibhaWs lands, to cut mill logs, were 
 driven from their ivork by Mr. Acken, and he threatened me 
 with an hijunction, arrest and iirmrisonment, and to bring a 
 detachment of troops from St. Ai^ustine, and to put me in the 
 fort, as I wrote Mr. Sibbald at the time." 
 
 *'He also seized the mill logs cut for the use of the mill, and 
 threw every possible obstacle in the way, until I was compelled 
 to submit." 
 
 Witness answers also at page 63 : — 
 
 I know that a number of vessels of said Sibbald were detained 
 at the mills, that could have been loaded with pine timber of 
 different descriptions, and live oak cut from his mill grant, had 
 not Mr. Sibbald been stopped, and dispossessed of his land by 
 the Government agent. He was in the practice of having tim- 
 ber cut of different descriptions, to be ready for vessels, before 
 his lands were interfered with. 
 
13 
 
 This is the testimony of the agent of the claimant, who we 
 see was instructed to procure 3,000 to 4,000 mill logs per month, 
 in the letter of the 1st of May, 1829. Page 59, pamphlet, 1st part. 
 
 Mr. Colt, the book-keeper, who was on the spot, see appendix 
 to pamphlet, testified as follows : " Mr. Acken was several 
 times at the mill, in the month of June, 1829, he drove the 
 negroes that were employed in cutting mill logs from the 
 woods where they were at work, by threats of flogging, in 
 consequence of which the negroes returned to the mills ; all 
 further attempts to cut logs were abandoned, in consequence of 
 the interference of the Government agent. I think this was the 
 final act of Mr. Acken. I can say positively it was his final 
 act. Mr. Snowden the agent, left the mills about this time, on 
 his way to Philadelphia." 
 
 " I know the fact, that he drove the negroes off". Thomas 
 Stevens, the blacksmith, corroborates this, and says: "they, 
 the laborers, were so terrified, that they would not dare to lift 
 another axe." See testimony, page 85, pamphlet. 
 
 What is this but actual force ? 
 
 The next witness is Mr. John Gibson, book-keeper, in Phila- 
 delphia. 
 
 To the third interrogatory on the part of the United States, 
 he answers : — 
 
 All my knowledge on the subjects inauired about in this in- 
 terrogatory, is derived from keeping th*books of Mr. Sibbald, 
 and seeing his correspondence. Mr. Sibbald was virtually de- 
 prived of the use of his lands and mills, in the year eighteen 
 hundred and twenty-eight, twenty-nine and thirty. I speak now 
 of the four thousand and ten thousand acre tracts. 1 mean he 
 had no use of the timber, during the first two years, and was 
 also, in eighteen hundred and thirty, deprived of the use of the 
 mills. He was forbidden to cut timber from both said tracts, 
 consisting of pine and live^ak, by William D. Acken, Esq., 
 agent of the Navy Departm"t, and Thomas Douglass, United 
 States Attorney, at St. Augustine, and John Rodman, Esq., 
 Collector of the Customs at St. Augustine. I think I have 
 spoken to Mr. Douglass about stopping Mr. Grice, from taking 
 the live oak timber. I have had no conversation whatever on 
 these subjects, with Mr. Rodman or Mr. Acken. I know Mr. 
 Rodman, but not Mr. Acken. The forbidding the cutting of 
 timber, was, as I heard, by Mr. Acken personally, and not by 
 letter. Mr. Rodman's letter I have seen, but I cannot tell the 
 date. I never saw any letter on the subject from Mr. Douglass. 
 Mr. William Carlyle, of Philadelphia, was the chief steam 
 engineer of the saw mills. 
 
14 
 
 To the fourth interrogatory, on the part of the United States, 
 he replied as follows: — 
 
 He loas deprived all the time I was there, of cutting saw logs, 
 and live oak, and continued to be when Ileft there. I was there 
 about eighteen months, including one short absence. 
 
 It was obviously the exclusive purpose of the claimant, to 
 saw his pine timber, or he would not have built mills. It is 
 proved beyond doubt, that he was forced to stop all cutting of 
 timber. It is evinced by the testimony of many witnesses, that 
 Mr. Sibbald commenced ship building, and designed to have 
 carried it to great extent, but it is wholly unnecessary to add 
 proof, that he could not prosecute it for want of his live oak, 
 which the witnesses say he was prevented from -cutting after he 
 had made preparations, had the carpenters at work, building 
 vessels, and had to abandon it. 
 
 Mr. Peter Walker, of Philadelphia, millwright and steam- 
 engineer, says: "I went there in May, 1830, we got the timber 
 from transient people from 7'afts, as ive could not cut any on 
 Mr. Sibbald's lands. 
 
 Now it will be seen that this exhibits the fact, that after Mr. 
 Acken's departure, the prohibition was positively enforced, as 
 shown by the date, sworn to by the witnesses, and also the pro- 
 ceeding one, who it will be found left Panama, in March, 1830. 
 Mr. Acken was succeeded by Mr. Mason, in July, 1829, the 
 commission of the lattM* is dated the 15th of June, of that year. 
 Mr. Walker proves the prohibition enforced in 1830. Mr. Wil- 
 liam L. Newbold, of the city of Philadelphia, answered the 
 third interrogatory on the part of the United States, thus: 
 Page 50, printed documents. 
 
 "• I can answer this interrogatory, only by hearsay. It was 
 commonly reported at St. Augustine, that he had been prevented 
 from exercising acts of ownership over his property by the 
 officers of the Government." 
 
 And the fourth interrogatory off the part of the claimant, he 
 answered thus : " Mr. Sibbald, had no use of his -property irhile 
 I was there." 
 
 Mr. Samuel Grice of Philadelphia, answered thus to the third 
 interrogatory on the part of the United States. Page 29, 
 printed documents. 
 
 The said Sibbald was dispossessed of his live oak lands, that 
 I have been on myself, in Mosqueto county, in East Florida, from 
 the year eighteen hundred and twenty-seven ; and I have no 
 knowledge that he is possessed of them yet. This was done by 
 an agent of the Government, William D. Acken. He was pre- 
 vented from cutting live oak timber from the said lands, by this 
 agent. 
 
15 
 
 And to the fourth interrogatory on the part of the claimant, 
 he says: — 
 
 " I had a heavy contract with the Navy Department, for live 
 oak timber, and I contracted with Mr. Sibbald, as I have 
 before stated for the timber; and in the fall of eighteen hundred 
 afid twenty-seven, sent my brother with a gang of twenty or 
 thirty han.h to Mr. Sibbald's lands in Florida; and having 
 found them, he was notified by Mr. Acken, who forbid us cut- 
 ting timber on this land, and the object then was abandoned. I 
 think when I was out in eighteen hundred and thirty, I was 
 told by Mr. Rodman, the Collector of St. Augustine, or Mr. 
 Douglass, the District Attorney, that we could not cut the tim- 
 ber on the lands, under pain of fine and imprisonment, until the 
 thing was settled. 
 
 Mr. Grice, also says in his affidavit, taken in reply to inter- 
 rogatory submitted to Mr. Whittlesey. See printed documents. 
 
 Seventh Interrogatory. Was Mr. Sibbald dispossessed or 
 turned out of possession, or prevented from cutting his timber, 
 by any officer, and by whom 1 
 
 He was evidently dispossessed of that portion of his property, 
 where we were about commencing to cut live oak timber, (as per 
 contract, made with Mr. Sibbald in 1829,) which see, page 21, 
 pamphlet. 
 
 In 1829 and '30, I was in Florida»going to complete my 
 contract for cutting live oak. on Mr. jfl5bald's lands, and was 
 told either by Mr. Rodman, Collector of St. Augustine, or Mr. 
 Douglass, the District Attorney, or both, with whom I was 
 well acquainted, that if I did go, I would get into trouble, as 
 they would not permit tJiQ timber to be cut or taken. Mr. 
 Grice's brother was previously stopped by threats of seizure of 
 his vessel, &c. 
 
 Interrogatory Ninth. What amount of money would you 
 have paid Mr. Sibbald, if yc^ had been permitted to cut timber 
 on his lands, and how much of that sum would have been profit 
 to Mr. Sibbald. 
 
 Answer. " I believe if I had been permitted to cut the 
 timber I could have got on his lands, I would have got sixteen 
 thousand dollars worth, and the whole ($16,000) would have 
 been profit to (him,) as he was not to be at the expense of a 
 cent." 
 
 " I know his lands were valuable for sugar plantations, and 
 there was a great deal of live oak on it." 
 
 "Mr. Sibbald, sold 1000 acres before my contract, but for 
 what price, does not know." 
 
 Thws^are tiw,most important facts established. 
 
 k 
 
16 
 
 First. That the Government stopped the execution of a live 
 oak contract, for which the claimant should have received 
 sixteen thousand dollars, a "clear cash profit." 
 
 Second. That he had actually sold his k'nds, previous to 
 the interference in 1827, so that these lands would have aflbrded 
 him large means, but for the interruption. 
 
 Third. That his lands were adapted to sugar culture, and 
 that he could have sold them for that purpose, or made planta- 
 tions of them. 
 
 Mr. W. D. Acken himself, the Government agent, confirms 
 this testimony. Page 55. 
 
 He says, Mr. Grice was forbid by me, as agent of the Gov- 
 ernment, in 1828 and 1829, to cut live oak, on the 4,000 acre 
 tract. 
 
 I told him the consequences. If he persisted I should have 
 to seize hi^ vessels. Mr. Sibbald was prevented certainly from 
 using his live oak timber. And at page 58, 
 
 " Mr. Sibbald and his agents, were prevented by me, as agent 
 of the Navy Department, and as advised by the District Attor- 
 ney, from cutting live oak upon said land." Certainly, there is 
 no answer or refutation, given to this. 
 
 This agent of the Government, had written the Navy Depart- 
 ment, that he had stopped Mr. Grice from cutting live oak, and 
 the claimant, also waiteaved a valuable lot of timber, but he 
 attempts to deny the sWppage of cutting pine timber. His tes- 
 timony is not only disproved by almost every other witness, but 
 likewise by himself on this point, for he says at page 62, where 
 he is asked : — 
 
 Did you inform Mr. Rodman, JifeBS^ Collector of Customs, of 
 these instructions? 
 
 He replies: "Mr. Rodman, the Collector, was I believe, 
 shown all my instructions, and was fully acquainted with all 
 the business of my agency." a 
 
 It appears that Mr. Snowden, in May, 1829, wrote the fol- 
 lowing to Mr. Rodman, who has sent a copy of the letter, under 
 his following affidavit, see page 62, pamphlet. 
 
 Panama Steam Saw Mills, ) 
 East Florida, May 15, 1829. j 
 
 John Rodman, Esq., 
 
 Dear Sir, — Having made contracts with several persons, for 
 mill logs lately, and they having commenced cutting, have been 
 slopped by Mr. Acken, the United States agent, on the ground 
 that their several grants, (though made by G«»ernoi*\White,) 
 
17 
 
 were invalid, from not having been confirmed by that inquisi- 
 torial and usurped tribunal, the Land Commissioners. Mr. 
 Acken has also positively forbid my cutting a log from the mill 
 grant, declaring it to be his determination, to cause to be im- 
 mediately arrested, myself or any other person, contravening his 
 sublime commands. 
 
 As the mill will be ready to start in about three weeks, and 
 I have not or will not have at that time, more than five hundred 
 logs, I see no other alternative before me, but an absolute stop- 
 page of the ivhole concern, unless some plan can be devised of 
 furnishing logs to me at present unknown. 
 
 I had formed a resolution to employ a gang of hands forth- 
 with, to cut on the mill grant, but on reflection, I have conclu- 
 ded to await your advice on the subject, which I request you 
 will give me by the return of the mail, stating therein your 
 ideas on the subject fully; particularly as to the consequences, 
 according to law, of such measures being pursued. I have had 
 lumber cut from the mill grant, and shipped, as Mr. \. well 
 knew, (from the fact of my having called his attention to it,) 
 but he took no steps to stop the vessel, or to prosecute me, that 
 I know of, as yet. 
 
 I also wish you to inform me whether my presence is neces- 
 sary in St. Augustine, during the trial of the mill case — if so, 
 state when, and if Mr. Sibbald has not requested you to do so, 
 cause G. J. F. Clarke, Esq. and Judge I^thune, to be summoned 
 as witnesses. I am, dear sir. 
 
 Yours, verv respectfully, 
 
 CHARLES SNOWDEN. 
 
 City of St. Augustine, in East Florida, ss. 
 
 John Rodman, attorney and counsellor-at-law, in said city, 
 and holding the United States office of Collector of the Customs, 
 for the district of St. Augustine, and which office he has con- 
 stantly held since the cession of Florida to the United States, in 
 the year 1821, being duly sworn, doth depose and declare, that 
 the written instrument hereunto annexed, is a true copy of a 
 letter which he duly received from Charles Snowden, as agent 
 of Charles F. Sibbald, of Philadelphia, who was the owner of a 
 saw mill, and sixteen thousand acres of land, on which the said 
 mill had been built by the said Sibbald, conformably to the 
 terms of the Spanish grant of the said land, the original of which 
 letter from the said Snowden, is still in the possession of this de- 
 ponent, on file in his office, on the back of which letter it is 
 stated, that the «aid letter was answered by this deponent on 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 the 18th May, 1829, three days after its reception, but as this 
 deponent kept no copy of his said answer, he does not now pre- 
 cisely recollect the particular contents of it. But this deponent 
 well remembers that he had several interviews at his office, with 
 the said Mr. Acken, mentioned in the letter from Mr. Snowden, 
 as the agent of the United States, on land claims in East 
 Florida, about the time mentioned in the said letter from Mr. 
 Snowden, of his stoppage the cutting of any timber on land 
 for which the claims had not been finally confirmed by the 
 Government of the United States. The said Mr. Acken openly 
 declared to this deponent, that by his express instructions from 
 the United States Government, and also by Mr. Douglass, the 
 District Attorney of the United States in this District, that he, 
 the sai i. Acken, loas bound in performing the duties of his office, 
 as United States agent, to prevent by all means, the cutting of any 
 timber on land claimed by a possessor under any Spanish grant, 
 if the said grant had not yet been confirmed by the Goveriiment 
 of the United States. That the said Acken, made frequently in 
 East Florida, a similar declaration, is a notorious fact ; and if 
 he now denies it, (as this deponent has been informed, that 
 lately he has denied it,) he then asserts a barefaced falsehood. 
 
 JOHN RODMAN. 
 Sworn to, this 23d day of 
 January, 1839, befo« me 
 
 mso. L. Phillips, Justice of the Peace. 
 
 We have deemed it important to transcribe this letter and 
 affidavit at length, confronting as it does, the testimony of Mr. 
 Acken on that point. See, also page 112, what Mr. Rodman 
 says in relation to the interference. Mr. Rodman says: — 
 
 "Mr. Acken called upon me, and observed, that by his 
 instructions, he had always considered himself bound to pre- 
 vent the cutting of any kind of timber on public lands, or the 
 removal of it in any way ; and that land claimed by the pos- 
 sessors under Spanish grants, if those grants had not yet been 
 confirmed by our Government, were comprised in our Govern- 
 ment in all public lands; he also assured me that Mr. Douglass, 
 the District Attorney of the United States here, had assured him 
 that he (the District Attorney,) had received instructions of the 
 same nature and the same etfect, to prevent the cutting or re- 
 moval of any timber, even pine, as well as live oak or red cedar, 
 on any granted land, as well as any other public, unless the 
 grant has been confirmed by our Government. I well remember 
 in a conversation with Mr. Douglass on this subject, he declared 
 he had received instructions to that eifect : that is, to prevent 
 
19 
 
 people from cutting any kind of timber, not only on obviously 
 public lands, but on any lands claimed from Spanish grants, if 
 these grants had not yet been confirmed by our Government." 
 
 " I understood Mr. Acken, that Mr. Douglass, the District 
 Attorney of the United States, at St. Augustine, in virtue of his 
 instructions from the Government, (I do not now recollect from 
 which Department,) had authorized him to make seizures of 
 timber cut: and to prevent the cutting of any more on land in 
 Florida, or be removed thence, though the land should even be 
 claimed by the real grantees. I understood, that the said Mr. 
 Acken, acted under this authority from the said Mr. Douglass, 
 by stopping the operations of Mr. Sibbald's saw mill on Trout 
 Creek, and by preventing him from cutting timber on his own 
 land ; and that he, the said Mr. Acken, had previously done the 
 same on the tract of four thousand acres at Mosquito, on this 
 presumption of his, by his instructions from the Government." 
 Page 150. And Mr. Rodman notified the claimant on the 11th 
 of December, 1828, as follows : The District Attorney has given 
 Mr. Acken, his written opinion, that all grants for mill seats, 
 until confirmed by the Government, or decided by the judiciary 
 as valid, are to be considered as public property of the Uni- 
 ted States. See letter, page 21. And on the 24th of February, 
 1830, the claimant was again thus notified, by the said Col- 
 lector of Customs: "J am expressly directed by the Secretary 
 of the Treasury, to seize on all timber cut upon these lands. 
 The Government consider all lands in Florida, the claims for 
 "which have not been confirmed, as public lands." Page 23. 
 And on the claimant making an effort in November, 1835, with 
 regard to your inquiry, respecting the cutting of live oak timber, 
 you cannot cut a stick of it, on any of the lands which you 
 claim, until the grant be finally confirmed, in court. My orders 
 on the subject from the Treasury Department, are express to 
 stop and seize all timber cut," &c. Page 32. So it is shown, 
 that the interference was continued, until the grant was con- 
 firmed by the Supreme Court, for a period of eight years. 
 
 This testimony is fully confirmed, by that of the District 
 Attorney; at page 178, Mr. Douglass says: " By instructions 
 received by him, from George Grahame, Esq., Commissioner of 
 the General Land Office, bearing date August 14th, 1828, a 
 copy of which is herewith enclosed, it will appear that all lands 
 under Spanish grants, then remaining unconfirmed, were con- 
 sidered public land, and to be treated accordingly." 
 
 Colonel JohufWarren, of Florida, being examined, answered 
 the third interrogatory thus : — 
 
20 
 
 " The witness answers, that he knows that Mr. Sibbald, was 
 prevented from cutting live oak, or pine timber, from his mill 
 tract, by Mr. Acken, Government agent." Page 121. 
 
 And to the fourth interrogatory, on the part of the claimant, 
 he answered : — 
 
 " The witness states that he has already answered that the 
 Government agents, prevented his (Sibbald's) cutting live oak, 
 or other timber off his lands, and caused Mr. Sibbald's embar- 
 rassments." 
 
 Mr. Lewis Fleming, planter, of Florida, answered thus to the 
 fourth interrogatory : — 
 
 " The witness answers that William D. Acken, Esq., agent of 
 the United States, for the preservation of timber in Florida, told 
 this witness, that he (Acken,) had stopped Mr. Snowden. the 
 agent of Mr. Sibbald, from cutting pine timber, on Mr. Sib- 
 bald's mill grant ; witness thinks this was in the year 1828 ; it is 
 strongly impressed on his (witness's) mind, from the circum- 
 stance that he wished to cut some timber from a tract of 
 land, which he (witness) then owned near the St. Mary's river, 
 but Mr. Acken told him if he did so, he (Acken) should seize the 
 timber so cut, and said he had just stopped Mr. Snowden from 
 cutting, as aforesaid ; witness does not know that the hands 
 Mr. Sibbald engaged in cutting timber, were driven from work; 
 but he was of course prevented from using his timber. Wit- 
 ness does not know the means resorted to by the agent of the 
 United States, to prevent Mr. Sibbald from cutting timber, but 
 he has no doubt, that the agent did so prevent him, and that Mr. 
 Sibbald was compelled to abandon his mill, because he could 
 not supply it with logs. Page 133. 
 
 Mr. Hart says, he knov^'s Mr. Sibbald's agents were forbidden 
 repeatedly to cut timber, but thinks they resisted, undoubtedly, 
 they held out as long as they could, and had many alteications, 
 but in the end, as is quite evident, they were compelled to 
 submit. 
 
 Mr. Bethune, answered to the third interrogatory on the 
 part of the United States. Page 136. •' Mr. Sibbald" was de- 
 prived of the use of his timber and land, by the agent and Gov- 
 ernment of the United States:" and to the fourthinterrogatory 
 on the part of the claimant, he replied thus: — 
 
 " The witness answers that he has already stated, that to the 
 acts of the Government of the United States, or of their agents, 
 is the destruction of Mr. Sibbald's mills to be attributed. The 
 Government of the United States, instructed their agents, to 
 consider all mill tracts, as public property, and deprive their 
 owners of the use and profit of them, until the Supreme Court 
 
21 
 
 decided in their favor. Mr. Sibbald had peaceable possession 
 of his mill tract, from 1816 or 1817, until the United States 
 agents interfered, perhaps in 1828." Page 140. 
 
 And Mr. Sibbald's business was destroyed by the means be- 
 fore related, by the acts of the Government of the United 
 States. 
 
 Mr. Mills, answers on the part of the United States, to the 
 third interrogatory : — 
 
 Mr. Sibbald was deprived of the use of his mills in the year 
 1830, by the Marshal of the United States, on sundry attach- 
 ments levied on his property, from his business being suspended, 
 in consequence of the Government agents preventing him from 
 cutting timber to saw, or for other purposes. Mr. William D. 
 Acken, repeatedly in my presence forbid the agents of Mr. 
 Sibbald to cut lumber of any kind, from the land owned by 
 him, as well as to forbid many of the settlers and owners of 
 land in the vicinity, of cutting lumber to supply the mills; he 
 represented himself as agent for the preservation of timber for 
 naval purposes, and in that character was well known throuo^h- 
 out the Eastern District of Florida. 
 
 To the fourth interrogatory, I answer: the agents of Mr. 
 Sibbald were annoyed for more than a year before the stoppage; 
 contracts were entered into with various citizens to supply lum- 
 ber from their lands in the vicinity, and they were also stopped, 
 and thousands of logs were left to njt in the woods by such in- 
 terference. The United States Marshal has had possession of 
 the mill since 1830. 
 
 To the fifth interrogatory, I answer : the mills are a com- 
 plete ruin, altogether in consequence of his being dispossessed. 
 
 Mr. Douglass, the District Attorney, says at page 174: — 
 
 The witness has no doubt, that said Sibbald was forbidden to 
 cut timber, on his said lands, within the peiiod abose mentioned, 
 both by William D. Acken, Esq., agent of the United States for 
 live oak, and other timber in East Florida, and by Thomson 
 Mason, Esq., his successor, but this witness never understood, 
 that he was prevented from cutting pine timber, off his tract on 
 Trout Creek, by such prohibitions, or that he ceased to do so in 
 consequence thereof: on the contrary, this witness understood, 
 that he continued to cut timber there, when he could procure 
 hands to do so, up to the time of his failure and assignment 
 thereof: but this witness has a faint recollectien that a Mr. 
 Grice, said to be from Philadelphia, some years since, asked him, 
 if he Grice, could with safety cut timber off the 4,000 acre tract 
 at Mosquito, under a contract with said Sibbald, and that this 
 witness (who was then, and is still, Attorney of the United 
 
22 
 
 States for the District of East Florida,) informed said Grice on 
 that occasion, that the title of said 4,000 acre tract, had not 
 been confirmed, and that from the instructions which he wit- 
 ness, had received from the Government, he should be bound 
 to institute legal proceedings against him, Grice, if he attempted 
 to do so; and this witness has been informed, that said Grice, 
 proceeded to said tract with some hands, and was about to 
 commence cutting live oak timber thereupon, when the said 
 William D. Acken, agent as aforesaid, interfered, and prevented 
 his doing so, and that Mr. Sibbald subsequently sent, or brought 
 out hands to East Florida, for the same purpose, but was pre- 
 vented by the breaking out of the present Indian war. A copy 
 of the instructions above alluded to by this witness, are hereto 
 annexed and marked D. See page 174, pamphlet 1st part : and 
 at page 176, he says : — 
 
 He has heard, and thinks it probable, that Mr. Sibbald was 
 deprived of the benefit of a contract for the sale of some live oak 
 timber to Mr. Grice, by the interference of Wm. D. Acken, 
 Esq., agent as aforesaid. 
 
 The testimony of Mr. Douglass, the District Attorney, we 
 shall have occasion to notice hereafter. Mr. Douglass says, 
 " he has no doubt, but that Mr. Sibbald was forbidden to cut 
 timber on said lands, both by William D. Acken, Esq., agent for 
 the United States, for the live oak, and other timber in Florida, 
 and by Thomson Mason, and his successor ; but as regards the 
 stoppage in cutting pine, he has not understood the claimant 
 ceased to do so." The evidence shows that Mr. Acken, and 
 Mr. Mason, both were required to be governed by the instruc- 
 tions of the District Attorney, and Mr. Douglass evidently 
 confirms that their authority extended to live oak and ether 
 timber; but as regards the orders not being enforced as to the 
 pine timber, Mr. Douglass who resided in St. Augustine, cer- 
 tainly could not have as good opportunity of knowing the 
 facts, as the many persons who, under oath have declared, that 
 they were on the spot, and knew the fact, that not a log, was per- 
 mitted to be cut, and brought to the mills, and that the logs 
 which had been cut, were actually seized and went to decay, 
 and were burnt in the woods. See testimony of Mr. Snovvden, 
 Colt, Stevens, Mr. Carlyle, Mr. Walker, Mr. Rice, and others 
 who were employed at the mills. 
 
 Mr. Acken himself, told the following witness, that he was 
 authorized to " seize the timber" as he did. 
 
 Dr. James Hall, at page 193, third interrogatory, says : " He 
 was informed, and believes that a quantity of pine timber which 
 had been cut on the tract on Trout Creek, was seized by William 
 
23 
 
 D. Acken, Esq., an agent of the Government of the United 
 States." 
 
 The said agent told this -witness, that, " he was instructed by 
 the Government, to prevent the cutting of timber, upon all the 
 mill grants, that had not been confirmed ; and to seize all timber 
 which had been, or might be cut, on any unconfirmed grant; 
 the Government considered them public lands, and treated 
 them accordingly." 
 
 Mr. Colt, the book-keeper at the mills, was present the whole 
 time of the interference, as he says, until the abandonment. 
 To the tenth interrogatory, witness saith: — 
 I know that the interference of the Government in preventing 
 Mr. Sibbald, from cutting his timber, and dispossessing him of 
 his lands, deprived him of most important pecuniary resources. 
 The contracts with Mr. Grice, would have given him $16,000 
 in cash. Mr. Joseph E. Bloomfield, withdrew his loan of $15,000, 
 in consequence, together with many other mercantile houses in 
 New York, Boston and Philadelphia, from which houses he was 
 enjoying very extensive credits, all of which were predicated on 
 his lands in Florida. He was further deprived of resources, 
 which he might have derived from 5,000 acres of land, particu- 
 larly adapted to the growth of sugar cane, and the abundant 
 growth of the live oak timber upon them. All these resources 
 of profit, and peculiar advantages, he was deprived of, by the 
 direct interference of the officers and agents of the Govern- 
 ment of the United States. I was familiar with Mr. Sibbald's 
 business transactions from 1829 to 1835. I know that Mr. 
 Acken, the Government agent, visited Mr. Sibbald's mills in 
 person, and then forbid Mr. Sibbald's agent, Mr. C. Snowden, 
 from cutting any timber on that tract, and also forbid a person 
 by the name of Price, (who was then cutting for the consump- 
 tion of Mr. Sibbald's mill?,) from cutting more, and if they 
 persisted in cutting he would punish them, or any other person 
 that might attempt to cut timber upon that grant, to the fullest 
 extent of the law. I believe Mr. Sibbald to have been induced 
 to undertake that businessin Florida, exclusively looking to this 
 properly, as the basis of his support, and which was throughout 
 treated as the public property of the United States, until the 
 final confirmation of it to him, in February, 1836, by the Su- 
 preme Court. 
 
 Mr. George Colt, more recently, has given the following — his 
 entire deposition is with those that follow, very important. 
 
 Mr. George Colt, the book-keeper at the mills in 1828, '29, 
 and '30, recently in answer to interrogatories, says : " The 
 United States agent, Mr. William D. Acken, did come to the 
 
24 
 
 mills, during my residence there, and interfere, interrupt, and 
 stop his, said Sibbald's business. The United States agent did 
 go into the woods, and drive the operatives from cutting the 
 mill logs, necessary to supply the saw mills. The United States 
 agent, did hold the agent and operatives of Mr. Sihhald, in 
 strong apprehension oj personal danger, hy threats of whipping 
 the negroes, and of imprisoning the agent, Capt. Snowden, in 
 the St. Augustine fort; and that the United States troops should 
 he brought upon the spot, to see these threats enforced. There 
 were serious and many altercations, between the United 
 States agent, and the agent of Mr. Sibbald, in resisting these 
 encroachments upon the rights and property of Mr. Sibbald. 
 The U. S. agent did previously stop the cutting of live oak 
 timber, which Mr. Sibbald was cutting to supply his contracts, 
 and ship building. There was more or less live oak timber, 
 upon the said Sibbald's tracts of land. I was present at the 
 Panama steam saw mills, when Mr. Acken, the Government 
 agent, forbid the cutting of any timber upon the grants of Mr. 
 Sibbald, and when these said aggressions were made. I know 
 that Mr. Sibbald has been in correspondence with the officers 
 of the Executive Department, at Washington, and has remon- 
 strated with them, and resisted their encroachment upon his 
 rights, since he was first molested in his operations in Florida. 
 
 " I know that letters were received by Mr. Sibbald's agent, 
 from Mr. Rodman, Collector of St. Augustine, directing him not 
 to cut any more pine logs on Sibbald's grants. There were 
 agents appointed Inj the Government, successively to enforce the 
 prohibition on Mr. Sibbald. I recollect the names of Mr. Acken, 
 Mr. Mason, and Mayor Taylor." 
 
 Here we shall show the last successful effort of Mr. Acken, 
 in driving the claimant from the mill tract, by force and violence, 
 and actual threats of inflicting bodily injury. After the letter 
 of Mr. Snowden, of May, 20th, 1829, exhibiting his determina- 
 tion to maintain the rights and authority of the claimant over 
 his property at the saw mills, it appears he came to Philadelphia 
 himself, to report the facts, instead of writing. 
 
 Mr. Colt, says: "Mr. Acken, was at the mill, several times 
 in the month of June, and at one time particularly, he drove 
 the negroes, that were employed in cutting logs, from the woods, 
 where they were at work, by threats of flogging, inconsequence 
 
25 
 
 of which, the negroes returned to the mills, and all further at- 
 tempts to cut logs, were abandoned in consequence of the in- 
 terference of the Government agent. I think that was the final 
 act of Mr. Acken, the Government agent, at the mill. I can 
 say positively, that it was the final act. Capt. Snowden, the 
 agent, left the mills about that time for Savannah, on his way to 
 Philadelphia. I recollect the Government agent being at the 
 mill, and communicating with the District Attorney, in St. 
 Augustine, before this threat. I know the fact, that he drove 
 the negroes off. 1 do not know of their being any attempt to 
 cut timber on Mr. Sibbald's lands, after the negroes were driven 
 from their work, by the Government agent. Mr. Acken some 
 time in the month of June I think, left the country for Washing- 
 ton. There was another agent (Mr. Mason, on the 16th June, 
 1829,) appointed in the place of Mr, Acken, who it was under- 
 stood by all at the mills, would carry out the course taken by 
 the former agent, which prevented any further attempt of 
 cutting null logs on Mr. Sibbald's grant. I know that all mill 
 grants not confirmed by the Government of the United States, 
 were treated as public domain. Mr. Sibbald had no use of these 
 lands for the purposes for which these grants were given, that 
 is, he was forbidden, and could not cut the timber from them. 
 Mr. Sibbald had no use of the property. I know that there was 
 an attempt in several instances, from January to June, 1829, to 
 prevent cutting mill logs and other timber. The people gene- 
 rally, in that neighborhood, were stopped from cutting mill 
 logs, at that period." 
 
 " There were no mill logs brought to the mills from January, 
 1829, to July, 1829. I have to-day refreshed my memory, by 
 examining the account book, kept by me at that time. There 
 were no mill logs charged or credited within that period. 
 There was another mill constructing at Panama. I know that 
 Mr. Sibbald was daily expecting, that the mill grants would 
 be confirmed by the courts in Florida, at that time. If the land 
 title had been confirmed, Mr. Sibbald could have supplied him- 
 self from these lands with mill logs and other timber. The mill 
 was several times stopped in consequence of this interference. 
 It sawed at intervals. That Mr. Sibbald's whole business was 
 broken up there, I attribute to the interference of the Govern- 
 ment agents alone. And had Mr. Sibbald, have had the free 
 use of those lands, he could have fully carried out his views in 
 sawing lumber and cutting live oak. I consider that Mr. Sib- 
 bald's business was wholly broken up, in consequence of the 
 interference of the Government agents there. Mr. Sibbald was 
 forced to abandon the business, until these land claims were 
 
 4 
 
26 
 
 confirmed. I was there until the final abandonment of the 
 mills, and other property." 
 
 " At this period, the course taken by the Government agents, 
 caused a great excitement at the mills, among those employed 
 there, and also in the neighborhood ; and from the determina- 
 tion manifested by Mr. Acken, in stopping all further cutting, 
 the agent Capt. Snowden, could not furnish himself with mill 
 logs, or other timber from the mill grant. Mr. Acken further, 
 threatened to imprison Capt. Snowden, the agent of Mr. Sibbald, 
 if he attempted to cut more logs. Mr. Acken, further threat- 
 ened to bring the United States troops from St. Augustine, to 
 enforce these threats. 
 
 " / know also that the United States marine, and United 
 States troops, were subject to the or-ders of the Government 
 agents. It was an prohibition, and enforced by driving the 
 negroes from the woods, and preventing all further cutting of 
 timber. I know that Mr. Sibbald addressed several letters to 
 the various heads of the several Departments at Washington, 
 asking their authority to prevent his being further molested in 
 his operations in Florida, by the Government agents ; these ap- 
 plications were not effectual." 
 
 Now Mr. Snowden's letter of the 27th of May, 1829, proves 
 that Mr. Acken told the Collector of Customs at that period, 
 that he was determined to stop him from cutting the timber, to 
 supply the saw mills: and Mr. Acken himself testifies, ihat he 
 was upon the grounds and at the mills, on the 20th of June, 
 1829. 
 
 This testimony last cited of Mr. Colt's, was taken since the 
 report of the Third Auditor, was made. 
 
 James Rice, a mill-wright, who assisted to build the mill, 
 erected in 1829, has recently given the following testimony: 
 " That he is a mill-wright, and was recently employed in the 
 capacity of a mill-wright, at the steam saw mill, erected by 
 Charles F. Sibbald, merchant, of the city of Philadelphia, on 
 said Sibbald's lands in Florida, in the year one thousand, eight 
 hundred and twenty-nine. That the land on which said saw 
 mills were erected, were said at the time to belong to Mr. Sib- 
 bald, a tract of sixteen thousand acres, well timbered with 
 pine, and some live oak, suitable for building vessels. 
 
 " That he, the deponent, knows of the operatives of said Sih* 
 hald being dinven off, and prevented from cutting pine timber 
 on his, the said Sibbald's lands, by an agent of the United 
 States, by the name of Acken, and that said Acken quarrelled 
 with the agents of Sibbald ; that the black laborers of Mr. 
 Sibbald came in from the woods where they had been cutting 
 
27 
 
 pine mill logs, saying that Mr. Acken, the agent of the United 
 
 States had driven them from the woods, by threatening to inflict 
 personal injury, by whipping them ; that the defendant does not 
 know whether they (the blacks) were prevented from cutting 
 the live oak or not. That Charles Snowden, was the agent of 
 Mr. Sibbald, at these mills. That he knew that Mr. Chester 
 Sully, was also engaged in cutting mill logs, on Mr. Sibbald's 
 land ; that his encampment was on what is called Six Mile 
 Creek, and that Mr. Acken told this deponent, that he had 
 driven the said Sully away, and had prevented him from cutting 
 timber on the premises of the said Sibbald, ajid caused the 
 hands employed to leave, but where they went, this deponent 
 does not know ; that this deponent does know the fact of the 
 hands leaving, and recollects the time, from Mr. Sully's taking 
 a quantity of ropes and some blocks, &c. 
 
 Thomas Stephens, of the city of Philadelphia, then employed 
 as blacksmith at the mills, has also recently given the following 
 testimony: "I engaged with Mr. Charles F. Sibbald, in De- 
 cember, 1828, to woik as blacksmith, in erecting a steam saw 
 mill, and other smith work, in that way at Panama, in East 
 Florida. Mr. Sibbald asked me if I understood ship work, as 
 well as mill work, and mentioned his intention of building ship- 
 ping, and that I would be called upon to work at ship-smith 
 work, as well as mill work. After I had been there, I found 
 that there was timber, pine as well as live oak, &c. To the 
 best of my recollection, the saw mill could run forty saws. I 
 think it did not require less than forty logs a day, to keep the 
 mill in operation." 
 
 " I know of an agent of the United States coming on Mr. 
 Sibbald's property, and forbidding the laborers to cut any more 
 timber. I know that he forbid them cutting any more timber, 
 and if they did not leave directly, he would tie the negroes up, 
 and whip them : and they came to report these circumstances to 
 the agent, Capt. Charles Snowden. Mr. Chester Sully was the 
 man who directed the negroes in their work in cutting, on Six 
 Mile Creek, at the time, on Mr. Sibbald's lands. The spot 
 where Mr. Sully was cutting, I have marked with the letter B., 
 and indicated by an ink line on the map, hereunto annexed." 
 
 "I understood, that all the lands on that side of the creek, 
 belonged lo Mr. Sibbald, and as shown by the draft annexed. 
 When the report was brought down that the agent had stop- 
 ped them from cutting, Mr^ Sully went to bring the logs down 
 that were cut, he was forbid to touch any of them. I know the 
 logs were there, and I saw some ten years afterwards, 1839, 
 when I was there. When T saw them in 1839, some of them 
 
£8 
 
 were very much rotted, and some partly burnt, in consequence 
 of the burning of the underwood. The men employed at the 
 works, talked about this matter a good deal, and thought it 
 hard, that Mr. Sibbald should sutfer such loss, and we expected 
 that it being done in this high way, it would stop Mr. Sibbald's 
 business, knowingthat the land was Mr. Sibbald's, and thinking 
 that he ought to use his own property as he thought proper. 
 The laborers that came in, tvere so terrified, that they would not 
 dare lift another axe /" 
 
 The following deposition of William L. Haskins. the first 
 agent of the claimant, shows the actual seizure of a vessel 
 taking timber from a Spanish grant. 
 
 That deponent transacted business, commencing in the 
 autumn of 1828, and for several years afterwards, in Middle 
 Florida, residing at Magnolia, on the river St. Marks. That on 
 his first arrival at Magnolia, in the autumn of 1828, or a few 
 days afterwards, deponent, in conjunction with his partner in 
 trade, carrying on business, under the firm of William L. Has- 
 kins &Co., purchased at a Marshal's sale, the hull, tackle, and 
 apparel of a brig, of about 160 tons burthen, called the " Plan- 
 ter," which brig, together with a quantity of live oak timber, 
 laden on board of her, and a further quantity lying in the woods, 
 more than sufficient to complete the cargo of said brig, had been 
 seized, adjudicated and condemned, by authority of the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States, for an alleged violation on the 
 part of the owners or charterers of the said brig Planter, had 
 proceeded and commenced to load their said brig with live oak 
 timber, and had cut said live oak timber, upon and within the 
 tract of land bordering upon said St. Marks, known as the 
 Forbes purchase or grant, which said Forbes purchase or grant, 
 has been subsequently by the Superior Court of the United 
 States, confirmed to the claimants. 
 
 That said William L. Haskins & Co., after purchasing said 
 brig as aforesaid, contracted as owners of said brig Planter, 
 with the Marshal of the United States, to carry said live oak 
 timber there, on board of said brig, and to receive on board the 
 balance then in the woods, or as much of it, as they, the owners 
 of said brig might chose to receive on board, for account of the 
 United States Government, and to deliver the same to the Navy 
 agent, at the Navy Yard, at the port of Norfolk, thence to re- 
 ceive freight therefore as agreed upon. That said William L. 
 Haskins & Co., did receive said live oak timber on board said 
 brig Planter for account of the Government of the United States, 
 arid did deliver the same agreeable to contract, to the agents of 
 the Government of the United States, at the Navy Yard at 
 Norfolk. 
 
29 
 
 That from these acts so well known to deponent, from his in- 
 timate connection with them, or with some of them, from his 
 general knowledge of the country, and from current report, he, 
 deponent, believes that after he left Panama, said Sihbald was 
 prevented from carrying on his business of sawing, ship build- 
 ing, and its collateral branches by the acts of the Goveinment of 
 the United States, which acts cut oft' the very root of his enter- 
 prise, in depriving him of timber, that formed the very ground 
 work of his operations, and that timber liis own, acquired by 
 just title, as the courts of the United States have since decided, 
 but which he could not, and dare not cut and load, on pain of 
 confiscation of vessel and cai'go, thus putting at once a period 
 to the business, and as a natural consequence in the incipient 
 state of that business, an end to his credit. 
 
 That deponent verily believes, from an intimate acquaintance 
 with the rise, progress and decline of the enterprise commenced 
 by said Sibbald in Florida, in 1827, that his failure to continue 
 that business since deponent left Panama, is to be ascribed to the 
 illegal, oppressive and unjust course, in relation to the uncon- 
 firmed grants of land in Florida, pursued by the Government of 
 the United States. (See testimony of William L. Haskins.) 
 
 Mr. Douglass, the District Attorney, at page 182, has shown 
 that attachments had issued against JMr. Sibbald's property in 
 Florida, which he particularizes. Now what are the facts with 
 regard to these attachments: examine their dates, they will be 
 found to be issued in August, 1830, and in June, 1830, the 
 claimant suspended payment in the city of Philadelphia. We 
 have seen him appealing and applying over and over to the 
 Government for relief. At that period he made his final effort, 
 accompanied by legal opinions, setting forth his rights. These 
 were sent to the Departments, but they were determined they 
 would not relax their measures, or give the claimant the use of 
 his own property, and the inevitable consequence was, that he 
 had therefore no alternative but to stop. And as soon as it 
 was known in Florida, says Mr. Douglass, that Mr. Sibbald had 
 failed, the following attachments were issued against his pro- 
 perty. Page 182. 
 
 Page 182, by persons residing in this country, " principally 
 persons employed at the mills." 
 
 It is quite evident, that the Solicitor of the Treasury, in fram- 
 ing the following interrogatory was strongly impressed with the 
 belief himself, that these attachments were caused by the ille- 
 gal conduct of the United States, in producing the embarrass- 
 ment, and which opinion is confirmed and proved by the wit- 
 nesses. The following is the interrogatory as prepared by 
 him: — 
 
30 
 
 Eighth interrogatory on the part of the United States : Was 
 said Sibbald's property attached by his creditors, or was any 
 other legal process served on it, in consequence of the embar- 
 rassment brought upon him by any act of the Government or its 
 officers. 
 
 Mr. John Gibson, the book-keeper of the claimant in Phila- 
 delphia, says at page 24, attachments were issued against Mr. 
 Sibbald's mills and property, upon the claims arising from the 
 hire of hands, and sums due to workmen in consequence of em- 
 barrassments, caused by the Government. Page 24. 
 
 See also what Mr. Gibson says upon this subject, in reply to 
 the tenth interrogatory on the part of the United States, at page 
 26, printed documents. 
 
 At the time Mr. Sibbald suspended payment, in Philadelphia, 
 in June, 1830, I was his agent at l^anama, and I witnessed the 
 successful operation of the mills, the whole amount of payments 
 which were then due, or which would have become due, for four 
 months after his suspension, amounted to six thousand dollars, 
 exclusive of notes, which were understood to be renewed, until 
 the funds were realized from his business. The interference of 
 the Government in preventing him from cutting his timber, and 
 possessing his lands, deprived him of his resources, as follows : 
 First, the amount of the contract with Mr. Grice's sixteen thou- 
 sand dollars, the sum to be actually paid in cash per contract; 
 Second, the withdrawal of the loan of fifteen thousand dollars, 
 by Joseph E. Bloomfield, of New York, which loan was predi- 
 cated on Mr. Sibbald's contracts with Mr. Grice ; Third, the 
 operations of the mills; Fourth, the withdrawal of fifteen 
 thousand dollars, by Sturgis & Perkins, of New York, predi- 
 cated upon Mr. Sibbald's operations in Florida. He was de- 
 prived of further resources, and money arrangements he might 
 have effected, from the great value of the five thousand acres of 
 land, particularly adapted to the culture of sugar, and said to 
 be worth ten dollars per acre, exclusive of the value of the live 
 oak timber on it, of which there was a large quantity. He 
 was deprived of all those resources by the direct interference of 
 the officers and agents of the Government of the United States, 
 a« already stated, with his mills and land. 
 
 Now these attachments we understand were in fact for 
 $2,.500 only, although nominally stated by the witnesses to be 
 $4,000, and Mr. Gibson has testified, that the payments coming 
 due in Philadelphia, would not have exceeded $6,000, beyond 
 accommodation paper. Now is it not very obvious, that if Mr. 
 Grice, had been permitted to cut the live oak as per contract, 
 that that amount alone would have saved these events, as he 
 
31 
 
 would have paid $16,000 at or before that period, to Mr. Sibbald. 
 And look at the large amount of resources, — otherwise cut 
 off by the Government, as here stated by the witness. 
 
 Mr. Snovvden replied : — 
 
 Legal process was served on the mills, by the workmen on 
 the premises, entirely owing as I believe, to the embarrass- 
 ments brought on him by the Government of the United States. 
 I believe these liabilities did not exceed $4,000. Evidence, 
 page 15. 
 
 Mr. Fleming replied : — 
 
 That said Sibbald's property was attached by several of his 
 creditors, and witness believes that the embanassment of Mr. 
 Sibbald, which occasioned these writs of attachment to be is- 
 sued, was the consequence of the acts of the Government of 
 the United States and their agents, in depriving him of the use 
 of his timber, and thereby cutting oti' his resources, and diminish- 
 ing his credit. Evidence, page 131. 
 
 Mr. Bethune replied : — 
 
 That Mr. Sibbald's mills were attached in 1830, by his 
 creditors for an amount quite inconsiderable, (about $4,000, 
 see page 15,) when compared with the value of the property; 
 and in consequence of embarrassments brought upon him by the 
 agents of the Government of the United States, who deprived 
 him of the means he relied on to meet his engagements. Evi- 
 dence, page 137. 
 
 Mr. Mills replied, page 143: — 
 
 The property was attached by his creditors, in consequence 
 of embarrassments brought on him by the Government. 
 
 John Rodman, Collector of Customs, replied, page 153: — 
 
 " I have no doubt, that these attachments were solely oc- 
 casioned by embarrassment, incurred by Mr. Sibbald from the 
 Government measures." 
 
 In the 14th interrogatory : — 
 
 The witnesses are asked " whether they knew of any com- 
 mercial houses in the city of New York or elsewhere, with 
 whom the claimant enjoyed extensive credits, that withdrew 
 these credits in consequence of the course adopted against his 
 lands and mills, by the officers of the United States." 
 
 Also at the 15th interrogatory: — 
 
 " Whether they knew of any other cause to exist for the de- 
 struction of the business of said Charles F. Sibbald, except the 
 interposition of the agents or officers of the United States. 
 
 When Mr. Snowden replied, page 10. The business of Mr. 
 Sibbald has been destroyed in its various branches and details, 
 by the Government. 
 
Mr. Sibbald had extensive credits with several houses in New 
 York, part of these credits were withdrawn in consequence of 
 the course adopted against his lands and mills, by the officers of 
 the United Slates. His credit did suffer as a merchant, to a 
 great extent, on account of these measures. It affected him for 
 several years. 
 
 I know of no other cause for the destruction of Mr. Sibbald's 
 business, but the conduct of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Gibson said at page 27 : — 
 
 " There were other houses in New York, besides those already 
 named by me, with whom Mr. Sibbald enjoyed extensive cre- 
 dits, which were withdrawn in consequence of the interference 
 of the authorities or officers of the Government of the United 
 States, as aforesaid. These measures have continued to ope- 
 rate against his business pursuits, as a merchant, in the city of 
 Philadelphia, from the year eighteen hundred and twenty-eight, 
 up to the present time. I believe the destruction of the business 
 of Mr. Sibbald, arose exclusively from the interference of the 
 agents or officers of the Government of the United States." 
 
 Mr. Samuel Grice replied, " I have no knowledge, except 
 that the business of the said Charles F. Sibbald, in its various 
 branches and details, by being dispossessed of his property in 
 the manner aforesaid. With Mr. Joseph E. Bloomfield, of 
 New York, Mr. Sibbald had an extensive credit, which he 
 withdrew, finding Mr. Sibbald as much crippled to get pos- 
 session of his property in Florida. He has certainly sustained 
 a heavy loss in the destruction of his commercial credit, and the 
 continual embarrassment from 1829, to the present time. Wit- 
 ness also says, " I do not know or believe any other cause ex- 
 isted for the destruction of the business of the said Charles F. 
 Sibbald, except the interposition of the officers, and agent of 
 the United States, as aforesaid." Page 34. 
 
 Mr. Newbold replied, Mr. Sibbald has suffered irretrievable 
 loss in commercial credit, by reason of the measures pursued 
 against him. I cannot estimate it. These measures affected 
 him, and operated against his business pursuits as a merchant, 
 in the city of Philadelphia, for many years, and are still 
 suffering. No other cause whatever existed that I am aware 
 of, for the destruction of the business of the said Sibbald, ex- 
 cept the interposition of the agents or officers of the Govern- 
 ment of the United States. 
 
 Mr. Colt says at page 117: — 
 
 He has suffered great loss in commercial credit, by reason of 
 the measures pursued against him, by the authorities and offi- 
 cers of the Government of the United States. I think the loss 
 
of commercial credit, the damages of which taking into conside- 
 ration his great facilities in commanding at any time, the vast 
 sunxi he constantly required to carry on his operations in 
 Florida, that were totally destroyed by the Government agent, 
 depriving him of the use of his timber and lands, cannot in my 
 opinion be less than $100,000. Those measures have continued 
 to operate against Mr. Sibbald as a merchant, since 1828, to the 
 present time. 
 
 To the fifteenth cross-interrogatory, witness saith : — 
 
 I know of no other cause than that produced by the acts of 
 the Government of the United States, in destroying the busi- 
 ness of the said Charles F. Sibbald. 
 
 Mr. Warren answered thus: — 
 
 To the fourteenth interrogatory, the witness answers that 
 he knows that several commercial houses in New York, with- 
 drew their credit from Mr. Sibbald, in consequence of the in- 
 terference of the agents of the United States Government, with 
 his lands and property. 
 
 To the fifteenth interrogatory, the witness answers that he 
 does not know of any other cause. 
 
 Mr. Bethune answered at page 137, thus : — 
 
 " The act of the Government or its agents, were in his 
 witness's opinion, the direct cause of Mr. Sibbald's embar- 
 rassment, they deprived him of his means, and destroyed his 
 credit, inducing merchants at the North, who had supported 
 him, to believe that the lands were not his, operating most 
 injuriously on his credit and his character." 
 
 To the fourteenth interrogatory, he replies : — 
 
 " That there were several houses in New York, which with- 
 drew their credits from Charles F. Sibbald, in consequence of 
 the course adopted against his lands and timber, by the officers 
 of the United States. The witnesses answered to the interro- 
 gatory of the Solicitor of the Treasury, contains his opinion as 
 to the effects of the acts of the United States Government, upon 
 his (Sibbald's) credit and character. The acts of the Govern- 
 ment have operated injuriously on said Sibbald, since the year 
 1828, up to the present time." 
 
 To the fifteenth interrogatory, witness replied, that he knew 
 of no other cause for the destruction of Charles F. Sibbald's 
 business, than the interference of the agents of the Government 
 of the Uuited States, who deprived him of means to which he had 
 the most undoubted right. 
 
 Mr. Mills of Florida, replied : — 
 
 He was deprived of large contracts entered into to supply 
 live oak, and other lumber, for the United States. The amount 
 
 5 
 
34 
 
 of damages I cannot positively determine, but I have heard 
 those conversant with those contracts, state them to be near 
 $400,000. Page 143. 
 
 To the fourteenth interrogatory, he answered : — 
 
 I did know several houses in New York and Philadelphia, 
 with whom Mr. Sibbald enjoyed extensive credits, that with- 
 drew them, from the cause referred to. Mr. Sibbald has 
 suffered immense losses from these measures, adopted by the 
 officers of the Government. The precise amount, I cannot at 
 this time estimate, he has been effected by it ever since, I un- 
 derstand in Philadelphia. See page 146. 
 
 I have as I believe stated the substance of all I know in this 
 matter, the subject has been one of great and exciting interest, 
 in East Florida, and considered a high-handed measure on the 
 part of the United States, and Mr. Sibbald's claims to large 
 damages, universally admitted. Page 143. 
 
 Mr. Rodman said : — 
 
 To the fourteenth interrogatory, I answer : I do not know 
 of any particular commercial houses in the city of New York 
 or elsewhere, with whom the said Charles F. Sibbald enjoyed 
 good aud extensive credit, before he was obliged to abandon his 
 saw mills at Panama, by the interference of the Government 
 of the United States : but I have often understood from good 
 authority that he lost all his credit in his business with those 
 houses in consequence of the interference of the Government of 
 the United States. The people in the States, generally thought, 
 that no Spanish grant could be valid, unless sanctioned at 
 once by the Government of the United States. 
 
 To the fifteenth cross-interrogatory, I answer : that I never 
 heard or believed, that any other cause, than the one above 
 mentioned, viz : the interference, with the just, fair, and reason- 
 able claim of Mr. Sibbald, to the 16,000 acres of land, granted 
 to him by the Spanish government ; said grant being clearly 
 embraced by the 8th article of the Treaty of 1819, with Spain, 
 ever produced any loss or damage to Mr. Sibbald's, in his 
 mercantile or other business. 
 
 e.'bliicUi. 
 
 :,jT,h^ Attorney General Mr. Legare, in the instructions given 
 
 by him in the case, says : 
 
 Fi7-st. What the Legislature means is indemnity. 
 
 Secondly. The damages to be such as the claimant would 
 be entitled to recover upon the principles of law, as applicable 
 to other cases. 
 
35 
 
 And " such damages as directly flow in the natural and ordi- 
 nary course of things from the trespass or omission." 
 
 " If it be proved, that the interference of a Government agent, 
 directly and necessarily stopped the working of the mills, or 
 produced their destruction, the measure of damages must then 
 be ascertained on the probable nett proceeds of the mills, for 
 the time during which it was so prevented from working, or the 
 efl«t of the mills, not the price of the construction, &c." 
 
 " The Auditor is requested to state particularly how the 
 alleged damage was done by the agent." 
 
 " Did he oust the claimant? Did he hold him in personal 
 terror of life or limb ? or did he merely threaten suit, and legal 
 consequences?" 
 
 " The Auditor is bound by the late act, to take up the enquiry 
 de novo, and to examine with X\\q impartiality of an arbiter, all 
 the evidence which, consistent with the principles of law, can 
 be admitted on the several heads of complaint." 
 
 The points to which my attention are particularly called, are 
 these four : .. 
 
 First. " Was there any, and what mischief done ? 
 
 Second. By what agent, acting under authority ? 
 
 Third. How was it done ? 
 
 Fourth. What were its effects 1 
 
 With regard to the contracts, if not performed, what prevent- 
 ed their performance. 
 
 And whether if the Government agent interfered, the obsta- 
 cles presented to the performance were quite unsuperable. 
 
 The questions of fact for the Auditor to arrive at, are : — 
 
 Did the mills suffer by the interferences 1 
 
 What interference of the Government, by its authorized 
 agents ? 
 
 What was Mr. Acken instructed to do in the premises ? 
 
 What did he actually do? 
 
 How, and to what extent did Mr. Acken's doings, lead to the 
 destruction of Mr. Sibbald's property, and loss of its use ?" 
 
 The general questions have been as fully answered by the 
 witnesses, that it seems wholly unnecessary to argue at length 
 their bearing upon the subject matter. 
 
 First. It is shown that Mr. Sibbald erected extensive saw 
 mills, propelled by steam, " one of which worked 48 sawsJ' 
 It can scarcely be necessary to remark, that he erected tlie 
 mills, because he had lands of his own, and on those lands, 
 pine timber to be sawed up into boards, plank, scantling, &e. 
 He was carrying out the very intentions of the Spanish gov- 
 ernment in making the grant. " It was a mill grant." 
 
 ^^lX^^..^ 
 
The proof seems to us, positive and incontrovertable, that 
 the interference, prevented all cutting of timber from the land 
 to supply the saw^ mills, that not a log was brought to the 
 mills after the interference, that the logs cut were actually 
 seized, and some were burnt, and that others went to decay in 
 the forests. And that Mr. Sibbald was driven off by force, 
 by threats of violence to his laborers, to t,ie them up and whip 
 them, that they were chased or driven from his lands, and "so 
 terrified, that they would not dare to lift another axe." That 
 his agents were threatened with imprisonment, and military 
 brought to enforce the threats. The interference is proved 
 to have wholly broken up the business, and that the claimant 
 had no use whatever of his property from the commencement 
 of the disturbances in November, 1828, until the confirmation 
 of his title by the Supreme Court of the United States, in 1836. 
 
 No one can ever attempt to deny these facts as proved, who 
 is not willing to take upon himself to resist the most positive, 
 grave and solemn testimony, aflfecting the sacred rights of 
 property. 
 
 Second. A ship yard was established, and a superintendant 
 from Philadelphia, and ship carpenters on the spot, who had 
 commenced to build vessels. 
 
 The Government agent seized the timber at Black Creek, 
 collected for the purpose, and wholly prevented the cutting of 
 live oak from the claimant's lands, of which the frames alone 
 were to be composed, and broke up that business. The ex- 
 penditure of erecting work-shops, drafting lofts, blacksmith 
 shops, with that of sending carpenters to the spot, was lost, 
 and it appears that the iron, copper, and other materials, had to 
 be sold at a great sacrifice. 
 
 Third. Contracts were made with Mr. Grice and others, 
 the first to give the claimant, a "clear cash profit of $16,000." 
 Mr. Grice was turned off from cutting the timber, under threats 
 of its seizure, and his imprisonment, and the threats of the 
 seizure of his vessel, after he had actually sent carpenters to the 
 land to cut it. 
 
 Fourth. The claimant is shown to have made contracts to 
 the extent of upwards of $200,000 for live oak, for the Navy. 
 After he had committed himself and his friends, he was noti- 
 fied that he could not cut one foot of his own timber, and a 
 determination thus manifested and persisted in to the last mo- 
 ment, up to the confirmation of his grant, by the Supreme Court, 
 that he should not use his own property. 
 
 Now what induced the claimant to embark in this business 1 
 was it to use his property as he pleased. 
 
 1 k ^ 
 
37 
 
 The claimant was a merchant in Philadelphia, it is in proof 
 that up to the period of the interference, he enjoyed excellent 
 credit, whereby he could have prosecuted his business; more- 
 over, he might have extended his pursuits wherever and to 
 whatever he chose, from his domicile in Philadelphia, but for 
 this interference. 
 
 Fifth. The Government totally destroyed his credit, in doing 
 so — broke up his business everywhere. 
 
 Sixth. He had a store, profitably selling all kinds of mer- 
 chandize. 
 
 The Government broke it up by destroying his credit and 
 his business with the mills, with which it was so directly and 
 immediately connected. The store was broken up by the 
 proceedings of the Government. Evidence of C. Snowden, 
 page 17. 
 
 Seventh. Vessels were placed under Spanish colors, to carry 
 flour and merchandize to Havana from Florida. The mer- 
 chandize or flour could not be sent there, without the advan- 
 tage of the vessels resorting to the mills, and his means were 
 withheld, his credit destroyed, so that he could not pursue 
 that business. See evidence of C. Snowden, George Colt, 
 Lewis Fleming. 
 
 Eighth. Ships and vessels were brought expressly to carry 
 out these undertakings. 
 
 They had to be sacrificed and sold, the objects for which they 
 were bought, being wholly destroyed. 
 
 Ninth. Planing machines or rights were purchased, relying 
 upon the speedy confirmation of his land claims in the year 
 1832. 
 
 The Govornment omitted to do so, and ordered his land case 
 continued until 1835. See Sibbald vs. the United States, letter 
 from Secretary of State, to District Attorney, page 11. 
 
 Tenth. The outlay of all his undertakings destroyed, were 
 thrown upon him ever since. He has had to pay enormous 
 usury to prevent total destruction of his interests. Page 107, 
 pamphlet, 1st part. 4 
 
 Eleventh. Donations were give of his own land, and the 
 parties cut that timber in spite of his remonstrances. See 
 letter of Charles Snowden, page, pamphlet, GO, 1st part. 
 
 It would appear by the testimony that every means that 
 could be devised, was actually resorted to, to stop the claim- 
 ant from using his own property, and to break up his business. 
 
 It is proved by the evidence, that there were several distinct 
 and forcible interferences, to wit : — 
 
First. The first in June, 1828, by seizing the live oak, 
 collected for ship building, and stopping the cutting of the 
 same, and breaking up that business. 
 
 Second. The second in November, 1S2S, in stopping the 
 cutting of the live oak, in breaking up the contract witlf Mr. 
 Grice, and keeping the claimant from the receipt of 816,000. 
 
 Third. Tho third commenced in February. 1S29, in stop- 
 ping the cutting of pine timber required to supply the saw mills, 
 and seizing the saw logs, when the District Attorney urged a 
 relaxation of the general instructions to permit the use of the 
 pine timber, but the Secretary of the Treasury, positively re- 
 fused to grant it. 
 
 Fourth. The fourth in February, 1S30, when Mr. Grice 
 made an attempt to execute his contract, and application was 
 made to the Secretary of the Treasury, and Secretary of the 
 Navy, and legal opinions of Mr. Dallas and others, were sent 
 to Washington, but the Government positively determined to 
 adhere to the measures adopted. 
 
 Fifth. In November, 1S35, after Mr. Sibbald had made 
 written contracts with the Government, to supply a large 
 quantity of live oak timber, to be cut from the lands, and was 
 notified by the Collector of Customs at St. Augustine, that he 
 was positively ordered by the Secretary of the Treasury, to 
 stop and seize any timber to be taken therefrom. 
 
 Having read the law passed for Mr. Sibbald's relief, and the 
 report upon which it was founded, and diligently examined the 
 evidence in the case, we now respectfully submit for the con- 
 sideration of the Attorney General : — 
 
 First. That an unjustifiable interference with the defendant's 
 land, property and affairs in Florida, was made at the several 
 times stated, by officers of the United States Government, 
 acting under the authority of orders from Washington. 
 
 Second. That the wrongful forcible interference is acknow- 
 ledged by these officers themselves ; is fully admitted by both 
 Houses of Congress and their committees, and is incontrover-. 
 tibly proved by the evidence in the case. 
 
 Third. That the forcible interference was an actual and 
 lawless trespass ; inflicting severe wrongs, injuries and losses, 
 on the claimant. 
 
 Fourth. That seeing and acknowledging the wrong and the 
 injury, Congress has passed a law for "his relief," which ought 
 
39 
 
 to be construed liberally and beneficially for him, so that he 
 may receive full compensation. 
 
 Fifth. The rule of law is undoubtedly universal, that every 
 wrong doit^ answerable for the consequences of his unlawful 
 act. 
 
 The Attorney General is well acquainted with the principles 
 and cases appertaining to this branch of the law, in its applica- 
 tion to ordinary cases: we submit with confidence, that the 
 defendant's case is to be favorably considered, because he has 
 committed no fault, and has been guilty of no negligence; 
 and because moreover, the act in his favor being intended as a 
 measure of relief, it must be presumed to have been the inten- 
 tion of Congress, to make that relief full and complete. 
 
 Sixth. This is a claim for indemnity, by a citizen of the Uni- 
 ted States against his own Government. 
 
 It is not to be doubted that that Government, will feel it- 
 self bound to extend to him that same measure of indemnity, 
 which it demands itself from other Governments in favor of its 
 own citizens, having claims for indemnity on such Govern- 
 ments. We adopt therefore as just in themselves, and as 
 particularly applicable to this case, those rules for estimating 
 and assessing damage?, which were adopted by Commissioners 
 on the part of the United States, under the late Convention with 
 Mexico ; adding what may be hardly necessary, that those 
 Commissioners, were both of ihem, Judge Marcy and Judge 
 Brackenbridge, eminent lawyers and jurists. 
 
 The claim of Mr. St. Angilo, proceeded on grounds broad 
 enough to do justice to Mr. Sibbald in his case, and probably 
 broader than his case may require. Mr. Angilo's complaint 
 was for breaking up a seminary or school, which he had esta- 
 blished by lawful authority or permission, and which consti- 
 tuted his business and means of livelihood, — the American 
 Commissioners, with the concurrence of the Mexican Commis- 
 sioners, made him a very full compensation. In his case, the 
 American Commissioners say, that Grotius and his enlightened 
 commentator, Rutherforth, lay down rules for the adjustment 
 of damages, by which they shall be guided in the dischai-ge of 
 their trusts ; these rules are, that : — 
 
 " Every loss or dimunition occasioned by the fault, that is the 
 unlawful action or omission of any one, creates a damage 
 which he is bound to repair." Grotius BII. Chap. XVII, Sec. 
 XL, 1 Rutherford, Int. 385. 
 
 " In estimating the damages due for a thing unjustly taken or 
 withheld, we are to consider not only the thing itself, but the 
 value likewise of its fruits, or profits, netly arising therefrom." 
 Grotius, Ibid. Sec. IV., Ruth. Ins. 39. 
 
4a 
 
 " Not only the damages directly flowing from an unlawful 
 act, are chargeable upon the wrong-doer, but those damages 
 likewise are to be made good, which are the consequences of 
 such an act. And this is the case, although such coliSequences 
 were not originally intended." Grotius, Ibid, Sec. XII — 1 
 Ruth. Inst. 395. 
 
 The Commissioners say, " so also in the Curia Filipica, Page 
 II., Par. XXVIL, Art. 6, we find the following as a principal 
 illustrative of the honest renumeration to be extended to. a 
 despoiled person. And shall not a nation (say the Commission- 
 ers) be as just as an individual." 
 
 " A despoiler is obliged to restore not only the property, but 
 likewise the fruits or profits, which it would have yielded 
 during the period which elapsed, from the time of the spolia- 
 tion was committed, until restitution is made." 
 
 These rules drawn from that great fountain Equity the Civil 
 Law, are in full accordance as we submit with the best con- 
 sidered principles, and the most established authorities of the 
 common law. 
 
 We would respectfully refer the Attorney General to the de- 
 cision of the Court, in the controversy between Randall and 
 the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company, a full account 
 of which will be laid before him. 
 
 We deem it not necessary to pursue farther our inquiry into 
 the proper rule of damages, as the subject has been so fully 
 gone into, and treated with so much ability and precision, by the 
 late Attorney General Mr. Legare, in his instructions to the 
 Auditor in this case, and in an official letter to the Secretary 
 of the Treasury, in a somewhat similar case, to wit: the claim 
 of Bunches executor ;" which we also submit to the considera- 
 tion of the Attorney General. 
 
 Mr. Davis' abridgment contains many cases arising from 
 flowage and other injury to mills, to which we refer the At- 
 torney General. Similar cases are found in the Reports of the 
 Court of the United States for the first Circuit. 
 
 In applying the established principles and rules of law to 
 Mr. Sibbald's account for his losses and damages, and its several 
 items, we respectfully submit : — 
 
 First. That as to the first item in his account, it comes 
 clearly within all the rules, and ought to be allowed in its 
 fullest extent. We do not understand the Auditor himself in- 
 deed, as stating objections to this item ; if it be proved, that the 
 claimant was dispossessed of his mills and property by the 
 interference of any agent of the United States. That he was so 
 
41 
 
 dispossessed, we here have already stated, appears to us beyond- 
 all dispute. This item embraces the actual loss of the capital 
 vested in the mills. 
 
 Second. This item is in substance a claim for the loss of 
 the income of the mills ; fixed by the actual rate of income of 
 the mills themselves, while they were allowed to operate, as will 
 appear by the testimony of witnesses. 
 
 This is certainly a just mode of fixing the amount of income. 
 It cannot lie in the power of a wrong-doer, to underate either 
 the value or the profits, or property and business, which he 
 destroys and breaks up, or to conjecture that future income 
 might be less than the present, he is answerable, just in pro- 
 portion to the present value and present income, of all the pro- 
 perty and all the profits which he destroys. If there be any ex- 
 ception to this rule, it is that he may be justly answerable 
 also, for expected rises in value, or prospective increase of 
 profits ; but in no case can he be exempted from payment for 
 properly and profits, at as high a rate at least, as that which 
 belonged to them at the time. 
 
 Mr. Legare's instructions, and the case of Bunches executor, 
 are very full to the point. 
 
 Third. It would appear that the claimant had paid $3,500, 
 for the use of Woodworth's patent planing machines in these 
 mills, and for the right of using them in East Florida, as far as 
 the Sawanee river. 
 
 This is evidently a direct loss, as much so as would result 
 from the destruction of the saws themselves, or any part of the 
 mills. 
 
 He had paid his money for that, from which the act of the 
 Government immediately took away all value. 
 
 Fourth. In this item the claimant demands damages for 
 breaking up a mercantile establishment, connected with his 
 mills ; this establishment was founded and carried on by other 
 distinct capital ; from that vested in the mills, and which is 
 stated in the first item. 
 
 The officers of the Government it is true, did not seize his 
 goods in his s.tore houses ; but they did break up and stop the 
 further prosecution of his trade and merchandize. 
 
 Now it is clear, that if one individual, were to go into the 
 warehouse or shop of another, and stop the operation of 
 the business, cither by force, or by such threats as he had the 
 means of exercising, he would be answerable to the full ex- 
 tent of the injury inflicted, even though he should not take or 
 carry away the value of a farthing ; the case would be a case of 
 
 6 
 
trespass and the trespasser must answer for all the conse- 
 quences of his illegal conduct. 
 
 The store was an appendage dependent on the continued 
 operation of the mills ; the Government in destroying the ope- 
 rations of the one, destroyed the other also. 
 
 The Fifth item, is the contract with Mr. Grice. 
 
 This item is for damages, for breaking up a beneficial con- 
 tract, which existed between the claimant and Samuel Grice ; 
 the injury arose from the same acts which caused his other 
 losses, — the Government forcibly put the defendant out of the 
 possession of his own property, and destroyed every arrange- 
 ment which he had made for the profitable use and employment 
 of it, among the rest, this bargain with Mr. Grice for cutting 
 timber. There can be no donbt, that this is a fair grounded 
 claim ; if it stood alone, it would constitute for itself, a case 
 for compensation. Nor is there any difficulty in ascertaining 
 the principle, upon which the amount ought to be calculated. 
 The claimant in this case, has lost all that would have been 
 clear profit. And courts of law in cases of this kind inquire 
 into the amount of that profit. A case was lately tried in one of 
 the courts of New York, which exemplifies the principle: the 
 city of Brooklyn, having entered into an agreement with a con- 
 tractor to build a Town House or City Hall, by special contract. 
 A considerable part of the w^ork having been done, and the city 
 having concluded to proceed no further in it, offered to pay 
 the contractor protanto, for the part which he had built ; but 
 he insisted, thai he had a right to show what would have been 
 his clear profits, if he had been allowed to go through with 
 the contract, and the court so decided, and damages were 
 accordingly awarded. A case still more analogous to the 
 present, occurred between the State of New York, and several 
 contractors for making canals. The State having resolved not 
 to prosecute their works, the contractors were settled with 
 upon the principles of allowing them all the clear profit, which 
 should appear they would have made, if the works had pro- 
 ceeded to completion. 
 
 Sixth. Damages for stopping the execution of contracts 
 made with the Navy Department. What amount of actual 
 injury arose under this head, we do not undertake to say. It 
 appears that there was a subsisting contract, and it is presumed 
 that it was a beneficial contract to claimant. He was pre- 
 vented from entering into its performance, by being prohibited 
 from cutting timber from his own land ; for this, he would seem 
 to be entitled to some consideration, although it may be true, 
 that other events occurring afterwards, would of themselves 
 
43 
 
 have prevented the completion of the agreement with the 
 Government. 
 
 See the Randall case, Harrington's Reports, 233, precisely 
 in point. The company interfered with the contract, although 
 it was shown that other causes would have prevented Mr. 
 Randall from completing his contract, yet as a previous breach 
 of covenant was proved, the company were held liable for all 
 damages, including the profits in the work, remaining to be 
 completed. 
 
 Seventh. For damages for breaking up the claimant's com- 
 mercial business with Cuba. This must stand in point of law 
 on the same grounds as other interferences with the business. 
 It would appear that the claimant had vessels, under Spanish 
 colors, built or purchased for this particular trade ; in going 
 from Philadelphia to his mills, he could take the flour to Florida, 
 and thence it could be taken in Spanish vessels to the Havana, 
 This was a lucrative business, and was wholly destroyed by the 
 interference of the Government with his establishment, and the 
 capital vested in vessels more than half lost. Some part of this 
 loss can undoubtedly be ascertained, and is sufficiently ascer- 
 tained by the evidence. 
 
 Eighth. This item is for damages for breaking up his ship 
 yard, and ship building business. 
 
 The evidence on this head is full, and an actual loss to a 
 great extent clearly proved. In point of law and justice, the 
 loss so far as it is ascertained, ought to be paid for, on the prin- 
 ciples already stated. 
 
 The Ninth. This item is for damages occasioned by break- 
 ing up his commercial establishment at Philadelphia, and in 
 Florida. 
 
 We believe it to be true that the Government of the United 
 States and other nations, hold themselves answerable for in- 
 juries of this description, where they appear to be the direct 
 result of the wrongful acts of such Government : compensation 
 for such an injury, we understand was made by the Government 
 of the United States in the case of Mr. Bruen ; and in the 
 case of Mr. Leggett, the Government of the United States, 
 presented a similar claim against the Government of Mexico, 
 in his behalf, which the Commissioners allowed. And he was 
 allowed a very large sum of money as indemnity. 
 
 The facts of this case, show as clearly as can be shown in 
 any case, that Mr. Sibbald's loss of commercial credit, was 
 the direct and necessary consequence of the unlawful iiter- 
 ference of the Government, with his business and property. 
 
 The remaining item is tne interest. 
 
44 
 
 Some misapprehension may be fallen into on this point, from 
 the common remark, that Government does not pay interest. 
 This rule applies we suppose, only to cases of debt, but it is 
 by no means universal; perhaps now hardly general, even in 
 its application to such cases. It can never exclude a just con- 
 sideration of the time, during which an individual has been 
 kept out of the use of his property, by an act of trespass: 
 from the first the claimant has been seeking a remedy for his 
 wrongs, but the Government would not remove its hand from 
 his property. The opinion of Mr. Wirt, Attorney General, 
 would appear to conclude the Government of the United States 
 in all cases of this kind; that opinion too, is founded on just 
 reasoning. 
 
 Though called interest, the same allowance in such cases, is 
 a pail, and a necessary part of indemnity. It falls into the 
 general aggregate of damages. 
 
 The claimant is clearly as much entitled to compensation for 
 having been kept out of the use of his property, as he is for the 
 original trespass. The length of time during which he was 
 thus kept out is a principal element in any just estimate of the 
 amount of its loss. The case of Randall and the Chesapeake 
 Canal, before referred to, proceeds upon the equity and jus- 
 tice of this principle ; but indeed the principle itself, is so plain, 
 and so well established, as hardly to need the aid of adjudged 
 cases. 
 
 The claimant in this case will not be made whole ; he will not 
 receive that full indemnity, which Congress intended for him ; 
 his losses and injuries will not be repaired, until full allowances 
 is made for loss of the use of capital, during the whole period, 
 through which he had been deprived from the use of that capital, 
 by the acts of the Government. 
 
 We have now the honor to submit to the Attorney General, 
 a few remarks upon the general nature and character of this 
 case : the act was passed for the " relief of the claimant^'' it 
 proceeds upon the ground that he has sustained damages by the 
 interference of agents of the United States, acting under the 
 authority of the United States, "with the use, possession or en- 
 joyment of his Za?2c?s, timber, mills, or other property ;" there is 
 nothing said in the law of any actual ouster, or any forcible 
 driving out of the claimant, or his agents, it is enough to meet 
 the whole demands of the act, and to entitle the claimant to 
 full compensation, that there has been ; by showing an interfe- 
 rence, with the use, possession, or enjoyment of his properly. 
 
 Interference may be by force ; it may just as well be by 
 threat or menace ; and it may just as well be direction, or 
 
45 
 
 order of agents of Government, acting under the authority 
 of Government, or any one of these acts vi^ould constitute such 
 an interferince as the law contemplates. There is nothing 
 technical in the language of the act, its plain meaning is that 
 the claimant shall be compensated for any interruption in the 
 use of his property, and disturbance in his business ; or any 
 interruption with his affairs, by agents of the Government : and 
 we conclude by remarking, that in our opinion, this is a case, 
 for full, ample, and liberal compensation. The question is 
 whether the claimant shall bear any part of the losses, injuries 
 or damages, which have happened to him. He, as an indivi- 
 dual, is one party; is a blamless party; he has committed no 
 wrong or negligence; the whole people of the United States, 
 represented by their Government the other party, — and by this 
 party the whole wrong has been done; the character of the 
 parties therefore, as well as the merits of the case, call for a 
 full measure of relief and indemnity. No honest citizen of the 
 country can dessire that the public treasury shall be exempted 
 from any charge, which may become necessary in order to do 
 full justice to an unoffending and deeply injured citizen of the 
 country. 
 
 DANIEL WEBSTER, 
 
 JOHN MACPHERSON BERRIEN, 
 
 Of Counsel for Claimant. 
 
OFINIOIV 
 
 HONORABLE GEORGE M. DALLAS. 
 
 Philadelphia, February llM, 1837. 
 My Dear Sir,— 
 
 I have again reflected upon the circumstances and 
 nature of your Claim pending before the Committee of the 
 House of Representatives, and feel renewed convictions that it 
 is a just Claim, and will be liquidated by Congress. ^ 
 
 The facts are clearly established. It is impossible to exam- 
 ine your documents, and retain a doubt that while the owner 
 and in peaceable possession of very valuable property, the title 
 to which has received emphatic confirmation by the Supreme 
 Court of the United States, and while actively engaged at vast 
 cost, and under large responsibilities, in making your estate 
 productive, you were interfered with by the Officers and 
 Agents of Government. Your Lands claimed as public Lands, 
 your operations of business prohibited and arrested^" your con- 
 tracts defeated, your capital vested in machinery, buildings, or 
 equipments, wasted and sunk, and every arrangement and en- 
 terprise begun or contemplated, totally subverted and destroy- 
 ed. The evidence is conclusive to show, that by the interfe- 
 rence stated, and without the slightest misconduct of your own, 
 an unquestionable basis of means and credit alike solid and ex- 
 tensive, was swept from under you, and your conditfon was 
 changed from one of actual and augmenting wealth, to one of 
 ruin and poverty. These are facts I say clearly and positively y 
 proved. ^ 
 
 There must be in a country like our's, a certain remedy for 
 all this, — and I do not think that just men will admit that there 
 can be more than two questions for solution: 1st, by whom are 
 you to be righted? and 2nd, by what standard are your injuries 
 to be measured ? 
 
 1st. For the acts of every public Officer or Agent done in 
 the honest discharge of public duty, in assertion of some public 
 claim or protection of supposed public property, the Govern- 
 
 / 
 
2 
 
 ment is upon every principle of moral and political jiislicc, to 
 be held answerable. An opposite doctrine would lead to the 
 worst consequences, both as to official fidelity and social peace: 
 Officers would shrink from exercising functions which incurred 
 individual liabilities; and citizens would forcibly resist the 
 ruinous interference of Agents, when they know that the mis- 
 chief once done would be disavowed and irremediable. While 
 the Government can never be made to answer for the personal 
 corruption or malice of its functionaries, it should never hesi- 
 tate to answer for the consequences of an upright and conscien- 
 tious course: — the Agent tlien fearlessly proclaims and enforces 
 the suggestion of his duty, and the citizen whom they aflect in- 
 juriously, submits to the appearance of legal authority, and 
 looks to be comi)ensated by his country as soon as he esta- 
 blishes the extent of his wrongs. 
 
 In your case no imputation has been or can be made against 
 the objects or motives of the public officers, whose interference 
 was so fatal. While your title was in the progress of Judicial 
 trial, these officers, the highest of executive character, errone- 
 ously construing certain acts of Congress to apply, and solicit- 
 ous to protect national property deemed to be under their 
 charge, — moving strictly within the line of their general duties, 
 and not actuated by any apparent irregular bias of feeling, — 
 mistakingly and through error of judgment only, committed 
 all the injury. Certainly this cannot be considered to be an 
 individual proceeding of aggression: — certainly the officers 
 have, upon no principle subjected themselves to the conse- 
 quences; — certainly the whole must be assumed and responded 
 to by the Government. 
 
 It is true that you might make the public officers the instru- 
 ments of redress; by instituting actions at law against each and 
 all of them, and availing yourself of the advantages incident to 
 such a course, yow might obtain verdicts and judgments to an 
 immense amount: — but ultimately the Government, as it has 
 done in countless cases heretofore, and as it always will do 
 while administered with integrity, must come to the relief of 
 its Agents, and pay the damages assessed: — and no effisct dif- 
 ferent from these you are now pursuing would result, except 
 that you might be most vexatiously postponed; and the Gov- 
 ernment be precluded from the exercise of its own criticism 
 and judgment, by the fixed decision of the Judicial tribunals. 
 
 Your direct appeal to Congress promises earlier indemnity 
 than can otherwise be expected, and submits to the honor and 
 equity of the very party that is to pay, all the circumstances 
 upon which it rests. 
 
 2nd. The rules by which your damages are to be estimated, 
 may not, at first, seem to be so distinctly settled. The very 
 
basis of your application, as I have already represented it, ex- 
 cludes the pursuit of exemplary, vindictive, or speculative da- 
 mages; you desire to be righted or redressed, not revenged: — 
 but you are entitled to be fully righted, and completely re- 
 dressed. 
 
 The mode of reaching real, in contradistinction to imagina- 
 ry, damages, has been defined by the ablest jurists in various 
 phraseology. I will refer to two of the latest and most ap- 
 proved instructions, both of which have indeed received the 
 sanction of Congress — for laws were passed without hesitation, 
 to meet the assessments made under their operation, — remem- 
 bering that they relate solely to the seizure and detention of 
 personal property, in the end restored, though depreciated in 
 value, and not to cases where at ihe same time that personal 
 property was taken, the uses and employments oi real estate 
 have been suspended, and all intermediate and regular profits 
 arrested, they furnish a fair guide, and may be safely conformed ^ 
 to by you. Judge Washington, in Nicoll vs. Conard, told the ^ 
 jury to give the plaintifi' such damages as he had proved him- 
 self to be justly entitled to on account of any actual injury 
 he had proved to their salisfuclion he has sustained by the 
 seizure and detention of the property, — and Judge Baldwin 
 in another instance, said, "where the party taking the property 
 of another by legal piocess, acts in the fair pursuit of his sup- 
 posed legal right, the only reparation he is bound to make to 
 the party who turns out ultimately to be injured, is to place 
 him in the same situation as to the property in which he y 
 was before the trespass teas committed.'''' 
 
 As far as respected the use and enjoyment of the real estate, 
 you were as directly and actually injured by the Officers of 
 Government, as if they had in fact by violence or stratagem, 
 <iisseised you: for the only use and enjoyment to which it was 
 applicable or tributary, were the feeding of the Mills, and the 
 fulfilment of contracts of live oak or other lumber. The lands 
 and its buildings were valuable in these respects only, and in 
 these only were they assailed. Your injury wa^as positive and 
 precise as would have been the nett proceeds pf your Mills, or 
 as were the penalties consequent upon your faiUire to complete 
 your engagements with Mr. Grice and others. 
 
 As far as respected the personal property accumulated by 
 you for business and enterprise, — the machines, the cattle, the 
 ves.scis, tools, the equipments- and furniture generally, — they 
 were rendered totally useless, the expenditure iacurred in jjro- 
 curing them, was turned to waste, and every thing hastened to 
 decay. 
 
 As to both descriptions of property, the spirit of the rules 
 which I have quoted, would require that you should be paid 
 
 / 
 
for every ^'^ actual injury sustainecP' by the interference of 
 the public officers; and that you should be placed in the situa- 
 tion in which you would have been, had that interference not 
 taken place. 
 
 Even this view of the subject, — which I cannot help think- 
 ing somewhat too narrow, when the appeal is made by a ruined 
 citizen to the Government, author of his ruin, — covers damages 
 for the delay of payment or interest, and a fair remuneration 
 for prostrated credit. Interest on the ascertained value of the 
 property, wrongfully taken or detained, is uniformly allowed; 
 and the loss of credit whgn proved to be an "actual" result of 
 the specific trespass, »» it sometimes may be, becomes in the 
 account of damage, an item as substantial as in commercial bu- 
 siness it is most fatal. 
 
 I would proceed to test by these principles the details of 
 your statement of damages, and feel assured that each and all 
 would abide the ordeal, but my time is too much engaged and 
 distracted to permit a longer letter; and the able gentlemen 
 who have the matter in hand, with all the documents before 
 them, can have no difficulty whatever in applying whatever 
 rule they once adopt. 
 
 I am truly and respectfully, 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 Your ob't serv't, 
 
 G. M. DALLAS. 
 
 Charles F. Sibbald, Esq. 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 525 176 P ^ 
 
 I