Case ID: us-ct-cl_22/html/0116-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pee cueiam :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOHN G. WILLIAMS, Administrator, v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 2186.
    Decided March 14, 1887.]
    
      On the claimant's Motion.
    
    The resolutions, October, 1780, provide for the reduction of the Continental Army, and assure to officers thrown out half pay for life. The Albe-marle Guards serves till June, 1781, when it is “disbanded.” Circumstantial evidence is produced to show that the men had enlisted for the war, and were liable to be transferred to other regiments. Colonel Taylor, commanding the Guards, never received the half-pay for life, assured to reduced officers by the resolutions. The case is decided adversely to the claimant. A motion is now made for a new trial, based on evidence found in recently published State Papers, and on the Revised Statutes(§ 906).
    I. Whore a provision of the Revised Statutes (§ 906), relating to the authentication of State records, says that records “so authenticated shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court and office within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts or offices of the States from toldeh they are taken,” it cannot be held that anything more than “faith amd credit” is imparted. An award or judgment, which may be final against a State, is neither obligatory in law nor conclusive as evidence against the United States.
    II. Where the statutes of Congress or of the legislature of a State establish a presumption in favor of a party, the Supreme Court is as well authorized to take judicial cognizance of and give effect to thorn as is this court.
    
      The Reporters' statement of the case:
    This case was tried at the December term, 1879, and is reported in 15 C. Gis. B., 514. A motion for a new trial was made at the same term, and has been pending since. 'The purpose of this motion was to establish the fact that Col. Brands Taylor, of the Albemarle Guards, continued in the service of the Continental Congress after the disbandment of his command in June, 1781, until the end of the war. The newly discovered evidence on which the motion rested consisted chiefly of recently published volumes of the State Papers of Virginia. Several grounds were assigned for a new trial:
    (1) A statute of Virginia provides for a commission “ to examine and report upon claims for unsatisfied military land 
      
      bountiesP (Act March 11,1834), and makes the decision of the governor of the Commonwealth upon such reports final. It now appears that the governor decided, September 19, 1850, that the heirs of Col. Francis Taylor were entitled to a land warrant for his services as “ colonel in the Continental Line, from October 1, 1775, to the close of the war.” This was not known when the case was tried.
    (2) Certain resolves and proceedings of the Continental Congress, and certain resolves of the general assembly of Yirginia, and official correspondence in the first and second volumes of the State Papers of Yirginia, were also produced to establish the fact, or presumption, that Col. Francis Taylor was an officer in the Continental service from the year 1775 to the close of the war, September 3,1783.
    The Eevised Statutes (§ 908) were relied upon by the counsel for the claimant to give effect to the decision of the governor of Yirginia upon the report of the commissioner of that State in regard to the right of Col. Francis Taylor to a military land bounty.
    
      Mr. P. B. Dye and Mr. George 8. Boutwell for the motion.
    
      Mr. Lewis Cochran (with whom was the Assistant Attorney-General) opposed.
   Pee cueiam :

The court is of the opinion that the section referred to relates to the authentication of State records, and that the last clause, which says that records uso authenticated shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court and office within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts or offices of the State' from which they are taken f does not impart to a State record so authenticated any thing more than “ faith and credit,” and certainly does not extend the effect of a decision against a State to the General Government, nor make an award or judgment, which may be final against a State, either obligatory in law or conclusive as evidence against the United States.

But inasmuch as the counsel for the Government is willing that this question be presented to the Supreme Court, if the case shall be taken there, the findings of the court will be amended and refiled so as to show the approval of the governor of Virginia, on which the claimant now relies.

As to the resolves of- the Continental Congress, and of the general assembly of Virginia, and the correspondence published in the State Papers of Virginia, the court is of the opinion that if they had been put in evidence on the trial they would not have changed the result; and the court is further of the opinion that if they establish a fact or presumption in favor of the claimant the Supreme Court is as well authorized to take judicial cognizance of and give effect to them as is this court.

The order of the court is that the findings of fact and conclusions of law heretofore filed in this case be withdrawn from the files, and that the amended findings of fact and conclusions of law now filed stand as the findings and conclusions of the court, and that the claimant’s motion for a new trial be overruled.