Mr. Stanbery to Mr. Seward.
Sir: I received, yesterday, your letter of the 1st instant, enclosing a copy of a note of the 21st ultimo, addressed to you by the minister of Spain, relative to the proceedings of the district court at New York in the case of the Meteor.
The question you ask is, whether it is expedient or necessary to interfere with those proceedings? I reply that the constitution and laws have committed to the tribunals of the district court exclusive original jurisdiction of the case, and do expressly prohibit the executive department of the government interfering with that tribunal in the exercise of such jurisdiction. The government, through its counsel, had the right to oppose before the court the granting of the claimant’s application to bond the vessel after condemnation. This right was duly exercised. The district attorney was instructed by this office not to give consent thereto, and the instructions were, I am advised, obeyed. But when the court, in the exercise of the discretion vested in it by the law, decided in favor of the application, and ordered the release of the vessel on stipulation filed, all opportunity, as well as all right, on the part of the government to object or rèsist terminated.
In respect to the value of the vessel, and the amount of the bond to be accepted as a substitute for her, that was a matter also within the jurisdiction of the court, to be decided according to the evidence submitted. It appears, by the note of Mr. Tassara, that the valuation and report of the appraisers were contested in court, and counter-affidavits submitted.
It is to be presumed that the court considered the question in the light of all the evidence adduced on the part of the libellant and of the claimants, and that its decision was correct.
But whether its decision was right or wrong, no executive officer has power to review or resist it.
I have the honor to remain yours, with great respect,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State.