The appellants, as heirs of Jesse Fish, claim title to the whole of Anastatia Island, containing about 10,000 acres, under a grant from the Spanish government, made prior to 1763. They further claim, that said grant being a complete, perfect, and valid grant at the date of the treaty of February 22, 1819, between the United States and Spain, and having been so reported on December 31, 1825, by the Commissioners appointed under the act to ascertain and determine titles to lands in Florida under said grant, said land was never the property of the United States, and the complete title to the same is vested in the heirs of said Fish.

The act of May 8, 1822 (3 Stat., 709), provided for the appointment of commissioners to inquire into the justice and validity of all claims or titles to land in the Territory of Florida, under any patent, grant, concession, or order of survey made prior to the 24th day of January, 1818, which were valid under the Spanish government or by the law of nations and which had not been rejected by the treaty ceding the territory of East and West Florida to the United States. The act required all persons claiming title under such grant, or orders of survey, to file their claims with said commissioners, setting forth the situation and boundaries, if to be ascertained, with the deraignment of titles where they were not grantees or original claimants, and empowered the commissioners to examine into such claims, and, if satisfied that said claims are correct, to give confirmation to them; provided that the confirmation should only operate as a release of any interest of the United States, and that said commissioners shall not have power to confirm any claim or part thereof where the amount claimed is undefined in quantity, or shall exceed 1,000 acres, but in all such cases they shall report the testimony, with their opinions, to the Secretary of the Treasury, to be laid before Congress for its determination.

This act was amended by act of March 3, 1823 (3 Stat., 754), providing that the powers of the commissioners, appointed under the act of May 8, 1822, shall be confined exclusively to the examination of claims in West Florida, and authorizing the appointment of three commissioners to examine titles and claims to lands in East Florida under such grants and orders of survey. The 2d section of this act provided: That, in the examination of titles to land before either of said boards of commissioners, the claimant or claimants shall not be required to produce in evidence, the deraignment of title from the original grantee or patentee, but the commissioners shall confirm every claim in favour of actual settlers at the time of session (cession) of the said Territory to the United States, where the quantity claimed does not exceed three thousand five hundred acres, where such deraignment cannot be obtained, the validity of which has been recognized by the Spanish government, and where the claimant or claimants shall produce satisfactory evidence of his, her, or their, right to the land claimed: And said commissioners shall have the power, any law to the contrary notwithstanding, of deciding on the validity of all claims derived from the Spanish Government in favour of actual settlers, where the quantity claimed does not exceed three thousand five hundred acres.

On December 31, 1825, the commissioners reported this claim to the Secretary of the Treasury, together with other claims that had been acted upon by said commissioners, among which were the following: Report No. 1 of claims not exceeding 3,500 acres, which had been confirmed by the commissioners; Report No. 2, of claims not exceeding 3,500 acres which had not been confirmed, but which were recommended for confirmation; and Report No. 3, being "Register of claims to land exceeding 3,500 acres in East Florida, which are founded on patents or royal titles derived from the spanish government, and which, in the opinion of the commissioners, are valid."

In "Report No. 3" appears the claim of the heirs of Jesse Fish, which was reported by the commissioners as a claim derived from a conces sion, or order of survey, filed June 19, 1795, to Jesse Fish, for 10,000 acres of land situated on Anastatia Island. These claims were reported to Congress February 21, 1826. (Am. State Papers, Vol. 4, p. 283.)

By act of February 8, 1827 (4 Stat., 202), all decisions made by the commissioners appointed to ascertain claims and titles to lands in the district of East Florida, and those recommended for confirmation under the quantity of 3,500 acres contained in the reports of the commissioners, submitted to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury, on February 21, 1826, were confirmed.

By act of May 23, 1828 (4 Stat., 284), it was enacted that the claims contained in the reports of the commissioners of East Florida and recommended for confirmation by said commissioners shall be confirmed to the extent of the quantity contained in one square league, to be located within the limits of the original grant, and by section 2 it was enacted:

That no more than the quantity of acres contained in a league square, shall be confirmed within the bounds of any one grant: and no confirmation shall be effectual until all the parties in interest, under the original grant, shall file with the register and receiver of the district where the grant may be situated, a full and final release of all claim to the residue contained in the grant.

The claim of Fish, being for a quantity greater than one square league, was controlled by the provisions of this act, and was only confirmed subject to the conditions therein named.

The heirs of Fish have never taken any action under said act, and, in the meantime, two other private land claims, based upon Spanish grants to wit: the claims of Rodrigues and Sanchez-have been located on said island, and segregated from the public domain by the United States survey made in 1835, against which no protest was made by the heirs of Fish, nor, indeed, does it appear that any notice was taken of said claim from the time that it was presented to the commissioners until July 16, 1870.

It is insisted by appellants that their title to Anastatia Island is under a complete Spanish grant, which was so considered by the Spanish authorities and the United States commissioners, who reported

it to be valid for the full quantity granted. That the United States never having acquired any title to the land covered by said grant under the treaty with Spain, it could not impose any condition upon the grantees, and no act was therefore required on the part of the heirs of Fish or of the government to perfect their title.

The theory of their claim is that the act of Congress of May 23, 1828, which undertook to confirm all claims of this nature to the extent of a league square, provided the parties in interest released all lands in the grant in excess of a league square, is in violation of the obligation of the government as established by the treaty, and can not therefore affect the validity of their claim.

Even conceding that this claim was a valid grant from the Spanish government for the full quantity of 10,000 acres, or the entire area of Anastatia Island, and that the act of May 23, 1828, is in violation of the obligation of the treaty under which Florida was ceded to the United States, the departments as well as the courts are bound to follow the statutory enactments of its own government, and must be controlled thereby.

This question was fully considered by the supreme court in the case of Botiller v. Dominguez, 130 U. S., 238, in which the court held that no title to land in California, dependent upon Spanish or Mexican grants, can be of any validity which has not been submitted to and confirmed by the board provided for that purpose, under the act of March 3, 1851 (9 Stat., 631), or if rejected by that board, confirmed by the district or supreme Court of the United States.

In that case, as in this, it was claimed that the grant was a complete grant, needing no confirmation, and that the grantee was not compelled to submit the same for confirmation to the board of commissioners. The material and controlling question, decided by the court in that case and which must control in this, is, that if an act of Congress is in conflict with the treaty, the court is bound to follow the statutory enactment of its own government.

If the treaty was violated by this general statute enacted for the purpose of ascertaining the validity of claims derived from the Mexican government, it was a matter of international concern, which the two States must determine by treaty, or by such other means as enables one State to enforce upon another the obligations of a treaty. This court, in a class of cases like the present, has no power to set itself up as the instrumentality for enforcing the provisions of a treaty with a foreign nation which the government of the United States, as a sovereign power, chooses to disregard. Botiller v. Dominguez, supra.

This language must apply with greater force to the action of the Department, whose duty it is to administer the laws as they are found in the statute books, and not to determine whether they are in violation of the Constitution, or of treaties with foreign nations.

If this claim comes within the provisions of the acts of February 8, 1827, and of May 23, 1828, its validity can not be recognized, for the reason that the claimants have failed to comply with the conditions pre

scribed by the said acts. The purpose of the several acts providing for the adjudication of these claims was to separate private property from the public domain, to enable Congress to safely sell the vacant lands in the newly acquired territory, and "to accomplish this it was necessary that all claims of every description should be brought before the Commissioners, and that their powers of inquiry should extend to all." United States v. Arredondo et al., 6 Peters, 691; United States v. Percheman, 7 Peters, 51; United States v. Clark, 48 Peters, 436-465.

All claims of every description whatever, whether arising under patents, grants, concessions, or orders of survey were required to be submitted to the board of commissioners for confirmation, or to be submitted to Congress for final action, before their validity could be recognized, and all claims reported upon by the commissioners, whether founded upon complete or incomplete titles, were subject to the provisions of the act of Congress of May 23, 1828, limiting the extent to which confirmation would be made, and providing that all claims to lands within the territory of Florida, embraced in the treaty between Spain and the United States, which had not been decided and finally settled, should be brought by petition before the court within one year from the date of said act, or be thereafter forever barred.

In the case of United States v. Percheman, supra, the claim involved was a complete grant subject to no condition. It was reported to Congress January 14, 1830, in a list, with other claims rejected for want of sufficient evidence of title. The act of May 26, 1830, confirmed all claims which had been recommended for confirmation by the commissioners, but took no action upon the list of rejected claims. A petition was filed by claimant in the supreme court for the district of East Florida, under the 6th section of the act of May 23, 1828. The court, after reviewing the several acts for the investigation and adjudicatiou of these claims, says that "these commissioners seem to have been appointed for the special purpose of procuring promptly for Congress that information which was required for the immediate operation of the land office." The court further says:

It is apparent that no claim was finally acted upon until it had been acted upon by congress; and it is equally apparent that the action of congress on the report containing this claim is confined to the confirmation of those titles which were recommended for confirmation. Congress has not passed on those which were rejected. They were, of consequence, expressly submitted to the court.

The grant to Percheman was a complete grant, subject to no condition, and, although it had been rejected by the board of commissioners, it was as much protected, until acted upon by Congress, as the Fish claim, which had been reported favorably.

The commissioners had no jurisdiction to confirm grants for more than 1000 acres, but merely to examine into and report to Congress such claims as are valid and ought to be confirmed. "No claim was finally acted upon until it had been acted upon by Congress."

In the case of United States v. Clark, supra, the court said:

The grant which constitutes the foundation of the petitioner's claim, is a complete title, subject to no condition whatever, emanating from the governor of East Florida, who was the lawful authority of his Catholic majesty, for making grants and concessions of land, in that province. The decree of the district court, so far as it affirms the validity of this grant, is, we think, correct. But it appears to us to confirm the title of the petitioner to lands not comprehended within it.

If these were perfect grants, instrinsically valid, and not depending upon the sanction of the legislative or judical departments, it would have been unnecessary to file a petition to obtain the decree of confirination, but for the provision of the act of May 23, 1828, which required all claims not finally acted upon by Congress to be brought before the court for adjudication.

It is apparent that when the court says, in the case of United States v. Wiggens (14 Peters, 334), that perfect titles made by Spain prior to January 24, 1818, are intrinsically valid, and need no sanction from the legislative or judicial departments of the government, it simply means that perfect claims do not derive their validity from confirmation, but there is nothing to indicate that it was not the intention of Congress to require all claims to be substituted to the proper tribunals appointed to ascertain what claims are perfect, and that claims not submitted in accordance with the acts would not be recognized. If this claim came within the provisions of the second section of the act of May 23, 1828, its validity was recognized only to the extent of one league square, and upon the condition that the claimant would relinquish all in excess of that quantity on or before May 26, 1831. If it did not come within the provisions of said section, then it was a claim not acted upon by Congress, and is barred by the failure to commence the proper proceedings in the courts within the time limited by the 6th section of said act of May 23, 1828.

From the facts shown by this record, I can see no reason for the recognition of this claim, which seems to have been practically abandoned from 1825 to 1870 by failure to perform any act required under the laws of Congress, and without protest against the action of your office in extending the public surveys over the island and restoring to the public domain all of said lands, except that part segregated and set apart as the private claims of Rodriguez and Sanchez, and in pat enting to the State a large part of this land as swamp and overflowed. In view of the foregoing, the decision of your office holding that said claim has no validity is affirmed, and the papers are herewith returned. With the record in this case, your predecessor forwarded the application of various parties to enter lands. on said island under the land laws of the United States, and in his decision he directed that, if the decision rejecting the Fish claim be affirmed, the applications will be returned to the local officers to act upon the same according to their merits and to settle all conflicts.