The Chiriqui Improvement Company. by a special concession of the particular lands in question. to the province of Chiriqui. If it be derived through the constitution, that, like any other question of foreign law, must be regarded by us as matter of fact, and is the subject of proof. A copy of the constitution should be produced, together with the testimony of one or more credible witnesses skilled in the jurisprudence of that country, who could swear that it was the fundamental law of the land, in force there at the date of the grant. If, on the other hand, the title to these lands came to the province by a special concession from the supreme government, the act of concession should be produced, together with the law which authorized and regulated it; and the act of concession, as well as the law, should be proved by the proper witnesses, accompanied by authenticated copies. The well-known distrust always manifested by the Spanish race against foreigners, makes it natural to suppose that so large a concession as this to a company of foreigners would be either forbidden by the constitution and laws of New Granada, or else coupled with very important restrictions upon its use or alienation. The laws on that subject are not produced, and cannot be noticed by us until they are. An article is quoted from the constitution, in which it is said that foreigners shall have the same privileges as natives; but the same article is quoted at another place with a most important addition, which confines those privileges exclusively to those who reside within the territories of the republic. Mr. Thompson and his associates live in the United States. There is no evidence that the body by whom this grant was made is the proper organ of the province for making it. It is styled the "provincial legislature," in some of the papers, but what was the extent of its jurisdiction, or how constituted, and with what powers clothed, does not appear. It may have authority to give away public lands, but more probably its duties are analagous to those of a county board or town council in this country. The mining rights are claimed under a denouncement, The Chiriqui Improvement Company. which it does not appear that the supreme government or the government of the State of Panama ever sanctioned. The proceeding was conducted under the auspices of what is called the Camara, which is said to be the same body elsewhere called the provincial legislature. But the power of that body, under either name, to interfere with the mining rights of the supreme authority is not shown. All mines and mining rights were carefully retained by the ordinances de mineria, established by the king of Spain long before the independence of Mexico and the South American republics. Those ordinances continued in force after the revolutions in those countries took place. It is not believed that the fundamental principle of them has been changed in any important respect. That principle was a reservation to the sovereign authority of the full control over all mining operations within its territory, and this control was carefully guarded by stringent laws. A recopilacion of the ordinances was made not very long ago by New Granada, but it is not produced, and we know not what modification it makes in the former law. But the presumption prima facie must be that the sovereign right is retained by the sovereign government. But suppose that Mr. Thompson derived a good title from the province which he may convey to another individual or a private corporation, is the United States Government, as a government, capable of taking the conveyance which he now proposes to make, and enjoying the fruits of it? By the law of nations, (see Vattel, sec. 92-3,) one government cannot enter upon the territories of another, or claim any right whatever therein; for if this be done by force, it is usurpation, and if it be done by any underhand bargaining with individuals, who have not the explicit assent of their government, it is mean and unfair. To accomplish it either way would be a subject of just complaint, which could only be answered by the retirement of the offending nation from the territory so gained. It is to be observed that the privilege of making a railroad across the isthmus, has not been conceded to Mr. Taxation of United States Property. Thompson. This right of way across the country is confined entirely to the improvement in a solid manner of an old wagon road so as to make it fit for the transit of wheeled carriages. He seems to think that this comprehends the right of making a railroad; but manifestly no fair construction can give it that extent. Besides I may repeat as to this privilege, what I have said about the other concessions, that it is a thing which can be derived only from the supreme government. This comes from the province, without any proof that the supreme government had previously vested it there. For these reasons, and for some others, which I think it unnecessary in my present hurry to mention, I must decline to certify that the title of the Chiriqui Improvement Company is valid. Very respectfully, yours, &c., Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY, Secretary of the Navy. J. S. BLACK. TAXATION OF UNITED STATES PROPERTY. A city has no power to tax United States property within her limits. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, March 16, 1859. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of yours of February 24, 1858, requesting my opinion as to the right of the city of Cincinnati to tax United States property within the limits of said city. I am clearly of opinion that the property referred to is not subject to taxation by the city of Cincinnati. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. HOWELL COBB, Secretary of the Treasury. Fees of District Attorneys. 1 JUDICIARY OF THE TERRITORIES. The construction of the acts of Congress, so far as they relate to a Territory, properly belongs to the judges of the territorial supreme court. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, March 16, 1859. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of yours of January 16, 1858, enclosing a letter from the Governor of New Mexico, in which he requested my opinion as to the correctness of the construction given by the judges of that Territory to certain acts of Congress. The construction of the acts of Congress, so far as they relate to that Territory, properly belongs to the judges of the territorial supreme court; and this office, having no power of review, can express no opinion as to the correctness of their decision, unless some case should arise requiring its action. I herewith return Governor Rencher's letter. Hon. LEWIS CASS, J. S. BLACK. Secretary of State. FEES OF DISTRICT ATTORNEYS. No district attorney can receive, on any one day, more than one per diem for the services of that day. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, March 16, 1859. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of yours of the 22d ultimo. The point now submitted was not raised in your communication in reply to which my opinion of August 25, 1858, was written, and, of course, I did not then consider it. The question to which you now desire an answer is whether United States attorneys are entitled to more than Promotions in the Army. one per diem on the same day, even if the attorney may have attended upon the circuit or district court, and appeared before a United States commissioner, on the examination of a person charged with crime. In the act of the 26th of February, 1853, there is no provision authorizing the payment of more than one per diem on the same day, and I think its spirit clearly intends that no district attorney shall receive, on any one day, more than one per diem for the services of that day. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. JACOB THOMPSON, Secretary of the Interior. J. S. BLACK. PROMOTIONS IN THE ARMY. The two regiments of cavalry, raised under the act of March 3, 1855, are a distinct arm of the service, and as such regulate promotions therein. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, March 16, 1859. SIR: I have the honor to state, in reply to your letter of 7th February, 1858, in relation to certain communications from officers of the army, on the subject of promotion therein, that, having examined the laws bearing upon the subject, I am of opinion: 1st. That the War Department may lawfully regard the two regiments of cavalry raised under the act of March 3, 1855, (10 Stats. at Large, 639,) as a distinct arm of the service, and as such regulate promotions therein. 2d. That the third paragraph of General Order No. 4, of March 26, 1855, is not in conflict with the laws of the United States. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. JOHN B. FLOYD, Secretary of War. |