rectob's case. 17 �their clainis shall be forever barred; and no claim shall be considered which bas aecrued since the twenty-fourtb day of April, 1876. �"Sec. 6. That the said commissioners shall havepowerto compel the attend- ance of witnesses and the production of papers touching the occupancy or improvements of or on said lands, or any other matter in anywise belonging or appertaining either to the said lands or the improvements thereon ; shall have power to examine, under oath, all witnesses that shall come before them, and all testimony shall be reduced to writing and preserved, aa hereinafter provided. " �Counsel for complainant have insisted in argument that the decis- ions of the commission are of no higher character than those of the officers of the land department, which may be set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction, on the ground of fraud, mistake, or miscon- struction of the law. Moore v. Robbins, 96 U. S. 530 ; Johnson v. Tows- ley, 13 Wall, 91. But it is manifest that congress intended to clothe this tribunal with extensive judieial powers. There is a broad distinc- tion between its functions and those of the officers of the other branch of the executive departments referred to. The usual powers of a court of justice were conferred upon the commission. It was to organize by electing a presiding officer, and to give notice of its sessions. Parties claiming the right to purchase any portion of the lands were required to appear before it. It was clothed with power to compel the attendance of witnesses and to administer oaths; and it was to "finally determine the right of each claimant or occupant to purchase the same (the land) or any portion thereof at the appraised value," It is not to be supposed that congress created this commission and clothed it with all these powers merely for the purpose of creating it to perform the ministerial functions usually devolving upon an officer of the land department. The language of the act and the surround- ing history and oircumstances alike forbid such an interpretation. It was time to have an end to controversy. For half a century the courts and legislatures of states and nation have been vexed with this dispute, The questions of title have been finally settled. Congress resolved through the commission to have a final settlement of all questions as to improvements aud the right to purchase the title; and 80 it was provided that the commission should "finally deter- mine" these questions. This language, when applied to a special tribunal, must be held to mean a final determination in the absolute sense, although similar language, if applied to officers of the land department, might be final only so far as departmental action is con- cerned. The rule of law above stated, relied upon by counsel for v.9,no.l— 2 ��� �
