must be acknowledged, is not without great ability. But without entering into the argument, the committee are of opinion, that, in going behind and beyond the points of difference between the Mexican and American commissioners, under the convention of 1839, they exceeded the jurisdiction given them by the treaty of 1848. It is a striking fact, that the most important point in their decision-that which entirely controls the amount of indemnity to be awarded-is in direct conflict with facts and principles conceded by the Mexican commissioners themselves, under the convention of 1839. This point is, as to the legal effect of the contracts made with the Empresarios; whether they imported a valid grant of the lands to be colonized, upon the settlement of them by the colonists. Judge Breckenridge, when acting with Governor Marcy, under the convention of 1839, had ably maintained the affirmative of this question, basing his award upon that view. And the Mexican commissioners, in the paper presented by them in answer to that of the American commissioners, use the following language: "Messrs. Zavala, Burnet, and Vehlein obtained from the general government of Mexico, and the State of Coahuila and Texas, in 1826 and 1829, the grant of several tracts of land in the latter department, to colonize them. The lands of said individuals being colimiting to each other, they made one single mass of them in October, 1830, &c., &c." And after thus admitting the original contracts to have imported grants, they proceed to state their objections to the award of the American commissioners, in substance as follows: 1. Because the claim was not presented in conformity with the convention; particularly because some of the proof was "delivered by a person who, if not an enemy of Mexico, has chosen to reside among her enemies.' 2. Because the conduct of the Mexican authorities in not permitting the establishment of the colony was in conformity with article 11 of the law of April 30, 1830. These are the only grounds of objection. Yet the American commission, under the treaty of 1848, notwithstanding this distinct admission of the Mexican commissioners of 1839, elaborately argue, and finally decide, that the contracts aforesaid do not contain words of grant. This point controls the whole case, and produces all the difference between the award of 1839 and that of 1851. The committee have thus briefly set forth what they conceive to be a sufficient statement of the merits of this case, without attempting to report all the facts, or to review the arguments on the one side or the other. They are of opinion that the late board of commissioners were not authorized to adjudicate anything beyond the points of difference submitted to the umpire under the convention of 1839; and that, if they were authorized to go behind those points, they have mistaken the character of the contracts which are the foundation of the claim, and which were plainly admitted by the Mexican commissioners of 1839, and appear upon their face, in express terms, to constitute valid grants of the land intended to be colonized. But, at the same time, the committee are of opinion that the questions involved, being of a judicial nature, will be more appropriately decided by the courts than by Congress. It is true, the treaty of 1848 stipulates that the award of the commissioners shall be "final and conclusive." But the citizens who suffered from the violence and injustice of the Mexican authorities were not parties to this agreement. And in a case of manifest injustice, especially where the conduct and motives of the commissioners themselves have been impeached, and that not without some appearance of good reason, it can hardly be insisted that the suffering parties shall be concluded from all further remedy for their alleged wrongs. The committee think they ought to have a fair hearing, and therefore recommend that they be authorized to submit their demand to the circuit court of the United States in the District of Columbia, with the privilege, either on their part or on that of the government, to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. In the judgment of the committee this proceeding will be perfectly just and unexceptionable to all parties. It will be the interest of the government to vindicate the purity and legality of the proceedings of the late board of commissioners; while the memorialist will have the benefit of a fair and impartial tribunal, in which he can fully establish his claim, if there be in it the merit which the committee are inclined to believe there is. In accordance with these views the committee report a bill, and ask the favorable consideration of the House. CONGRESS MONUMENT TO THE MEMORY OF WASHINGTON. FEBRUARY 22, 1855.-Ordered, that 100,000 extra copies be printed. Mr. MAY, from the Select Committee on the Washington National Monument, made the following REPORT. On the 13th of July, 1854, it was resolved that a select committee of thirteen members be appointed to consider the memorial of the Washington National Monument Society, and the following gentlemen were appointed the members of the committee: Mr. MAY, of Maryland; Mr. J. GLANCY JONES, of Pennsylvania; Mr. REESE, of Georgia; Mr. PURYEAR, of North Carolina; Mr. HASTINGS, of New York; Mr. ELIOT, of Massachusetts; Mr. OLIVER, of Missouri; Mr. PRATT, of Connecticut; Mr. ELLISON, of Ohio; Mr. VAIL, of New Jersey; Mr. McMULLEN, of Virginia; Mr. MACY, of Wisconsin; and Mr. DowDELL, of Alabama. The Select Committee of Thirteen, to whom was referred the memorial of the Board of Managers of the Washington National Monument Society, beg leave to report: That this memorial states, "that in the year 1833, an association of individuals was formed in this city for the purpose of raising funds, by appeals to the patriotism of the people, for the erection of a monument, in the national metropolis, to the memory of the Father of his Country. "That your memorialists, and their predecessors, elected managers of the association, have gratuitously given their services, at great personal sacrifice, to the promotion of its objects; that they have been enabled to raise the proposed monument to the height of 170 feet; that 347 feet remain yet to be erected; that the funds of the association are entirely exhausted; and all recent efforts on the part of your memorialists to obtain means for completing the work have proved abortive, and that your memorialists are unable to devise any plan more likely to succeed. "Under these circumstances, they feel it to be their duty to bring to the notice of the representatives of the States and people of the |