Imagini ale paginilor

with no such appellate authority, and that the proper appellate tribunal for such appeals, and the only tribunal to which they will lie, is Congress. If, upon the evidence before them, either the Southern Claims Commission or the QuartermasterGeneral erred, Congress can award a new trial or otherwise rectify the wrong.

It must be now understood that this court is without authority to sit in review of the decisions referred to, and that where a claimant does not pursue his remedy of an investigation of the facts by judicial means in this court his claim must be dismissed..

Accordingly the order of the court is that the claim in the present case be dismissed and the fact of its dismissal be reported to Congress.


Filed May 6, 1889.

A true copy.

Test, this 8th day December, A. D. 1890. [SEAL.]

JOHN RANDOLPH, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims.

[graphic][ocr errors][ocr errors]

2d Session.

No. 22.


DECEMBER 9, 1890.-Referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

December 3, 1890.

SIR: Referring to your communication of July 23, 1890, inclosing copy of House Report No. 2750, in relation to certain claims included in House Executive Document No. 314, Fifty-first Congress, first session, and to the reply of the Department thereto of August 4, 1890, I have the honor to transmit herewith the final report upon the claims by the Second Comptroller, dated the 2d instant, for your information.

Respectfully, yours,


Hon. J. G. CANNON,

Chairman Committee on Appropriations,
House of Representatives.


Washington, D. C., December 2, 1890.

SIR: I have to acknowledge, by reference to me from you, the receipt of a letter from the Hon. J. G. Cannon, chairman of Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, dated July 23, 1890, reading as follows:

I have the honor to hand you herewith a copy of House Report No. 2750, this session, with reference to certain claims included in House Executive Document No. 314, which has been referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and to request that you will, after having had the same examined by the accounting officers of the Treasury, report to the committee whether you recommend that appropriation be made for the payment of the claims embraced in said Executive Document No. 314.

Your indorsement upon that letter of date July 24, 1890, is as follows:

Respectfully referred to the Second Comptroller for examination, as contemplated by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, and for report as to whether any facts are disclosed that would in his judgment affect the validity of the claims referred to, or preclude the Secretary from recommending an appropriation for their payment.

I have the honor to report that I have caused the said claims, so far as they relate to this office, to be examined, and in my opinion the claims embraced in the accompanying report marked Exhibit A and Exhibit B should be appropriated for and paid. There are no facts dis


closed in the evidence or record that will, in my judgment, affect the validity of the claims or preclude the Secretary from recommending an appropriation for their payment.

The other claims referred to in the said letter and your indorsement, accompanying my report and marked Exhibits C and D, should, in my opinion, not be appropriated for, nor should payment be made, because the facts disclosed by the record and the evidence as to the claims marked Exhibit C (although these facts are not new) affect the validity of the claims and are such as, in my judgment, preclude the Secretary from recommending an appropriation for their payment; and as to the claims in Exhibit D the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Mouat (124 U. S. R., 303) holds that claims of this character should not be paid.

My reasons for these conclusions are fully given in the accompanying report on each claim and class of claims.

The claims specified in said Report No. 2,750 as claims allowed and reported by the Sixth Auditor have been referred to that officer, together with a copy of said letter and indorsement, with the request that he examine them and report to you.

I have the honor to be, very respectfully.


Secretary of the Treasury.




The following claims are just, due, and unpaid, and should, in my opinion, be appropriated for by Congress:

Louis Von Hoffman et al., $18,430.65.

There seems to be some confusion in this case as to whom the money should be paid. This arises from the fact that a question exists as to whether a certain sale made by the trustees appointed by the court, to Oscar Von Hoffman, is such as would entitle him to receive rent from the date of such sale.

It appears by an affidavit of W. H. Newman that Oscar Von Hoffman purchased the property for the firm of Louis Von Hoffman & Co.; that said firm was composed of several members, all of whom subsequently disposed of their interest to the firm of Louis Von Hoffman & Co. It is claimed that W. H. Newman became the sole owner of the claim by certain assignments. Newman is now dead.

In view of these facts, I recommend that an appropriation be made to the heirs of William H. Newman, deceased, and Louis A. Von Hoffman & Co., to be paid by the Secretary of the Treasury as the interests of the said heirs of W. H. Newman and the late firm of Louis A. Von Hoffman & Co. shall hereafter be legally made to appear. This will enable all parties to present their claims to the Department, and have them settled before payment is finally made.

The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, $32,788.48, for transportation service rendered in the fiscal year 1861-from April 23 to May 19-while the road was in the possession of the United States, and by agreement operated in connection with the Annapolis and Elk Ridge Railroad, by the military authorities of the United States.

Eliza Taylor, mother of James Carrol Taylor, deceased, seaman on gunboat Tyler, $17.43. The amount stated is the sum that was due the seaman at the date of his death. As it has never been paid, it should be now paid.

St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Railroad Company, $13.20.

This is a balance of a claim of $5,139.30 allowed to the said company as 50 per cent. of land-grant earnings previously withheld. The sum of $5,126.10 has been paid; the balance, $13.20-two items, one of $6, sleeping-car berths for three officers and transportation for two invalid pensioners, $7.20-should be appropriated for and paid.

Inland and Seaboard Coasting Company, $24.13.

A bill for services rendered the Quartermaster's Department, from September, 1877, to December, 1879, seems to be correct and should be paid.

Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railroad Company, $178.64.

There was, at the time this service was rendered the United States by the above company in May and June, 1879, an agreement that it should be treated, so far as its services to the Government were concerned, as though 156 miles of its road were land-grant. In conformity with that agreement the earnings of that 156 miles of. the road were held up and deducted out of the amount of the total earned. The amount thus deducted was $357.29.

Under the decision of the courts and the rule adopted for settlements with landgrant roads, this company is now entitled to 50 per cent. of that amount, or $178.64 retained. Therefore an appropriation should be made for it.

Morgan's Louisiana and Texas Railroad and Steamship Company, $334.05.

This is for transportation of freight between New Orleans and San Antonio in September, 180, and February, 1881. The bill is for $387.81, $53.76 of which was over land-grant portion of the road, and is deducted. Hence the balance should be paid.

Frank T. Eastman, lieutenant, Fourth Infantry, $10.50.

This officer, in obedience to an order from his superior, traveled from Omaha, Nebr., to Salt Lake City, Utah. Instead of procuring transportation from the Quartermaster's Department, as it was his duty to do, he obtained mileage from Major Staunton, amounting to $70.50; but as the route from Omaha to Ogden was over the Union Pacific Railroad Company, it was not proper for this officer to pay his fare on that road; he should have procured transportation over it. He was compelled to refund the $70.50 to Major Staunton: The Utah Central is not a bond-aided or land-grant road, and having paid his fare over that road he is entitled to have it, as well as his sleeping-car fare, paid. Therefore this claim of $10.50 should be paid.

William J. Jarrell, $13.25.

This is for quartermaster stores furnished the quartermaster of the Twenty-third Kentucky volunteers during the late war. The quartermaster of that regiment, Lieut. W. W. Air, gave vouchers for the property, which are presented for payment. The amount should be paid.

George Peoples, $14.

This is for transporting two men, belonging to the Army, from Bismarck, Dak., to Fort Yates, Dak., by stage, and was made up, on a regular transportation request and should be paid.

Catharine Ransom, administratrix of Giles T. Ransom, deceased, assistant engineer on the steamer General Bragg, $105.33.

This man was an assistant engineer on the United States steamer General Bragg, and died in the service. The amount above stated was due him at the date of his death and should be paid.




I have reëxamined the claims embraced in House Report 2750, Fifty-first Congress, first session, at page 5, commencing with No. 6046 and extending down to and including No. 6107. These claims are for difference between actual expenses and mileage for officers of the Navy while traveling under orders, and were allowed under the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the United States vs. Graham (110 U. S. R., 219). These claims were settled by the accounting officers and reported to Congress in House Ex. Doc. 55, Forty eighth Congress, second session, pages 26, 27.

By the act of March 3, 1885 (23 Stat., 477), Congress refused to make appropriation for their payment.

Ou March 2, 1886, by direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, these accounts, with others, were reëxamined. A report of that examination was published in House Ex. Doc. 210, Forty-ninth Congress, first session, pages 32, 33.

By the act of August 4, 1886 (24 Stat., 303), there was appropriated $10,673.79 to pay the claims reported on page 33 of the last above-mentioned documents.

It was held by Comptroller Maynard, July 11, 1885, that under the provisions of section 7 of the act of July 17, 1862 (12 Stat., 594), when an officer was furnished with transportation by orders of the Navy Department or a superior officer, mileage could not be allowed, as the officer in that case did not travel at his own expense.

That decision has since been modified; and if the claims of the following-namedofficers for difference between actual expenses and mileage were settled under the present rulings, they would be allowed the amounts set opposite their names:

« ÎnapoiContinuați »