The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-09-10

contents, or Of the To which they related uu
less his attention were specially called 10 them b,
| some Of his subordinate officers. His signature L
the certificate, therefore, Is no proof that the
| Secretary examined and adopted the mode there
in prescribed for calculating interest, than his sig
| nature TO a requistion would be proof that he hao
footed up the figures and approved of the addition
| and subtraction by which the result attained.
The substance OF the testimony Of Albion X. Par
ris touching this point referred to by the majority
OF the committee, Is contained in his answer TO the
last interrogatory, which is in these words
| Question 4. Was or was not Mr.. Ewing's at
tenton called TO the fact in Calls case that The in
terest exceeded the payment which was to be cred
| ted and did he or not order the payment 10 be
made on a principle that allowed compound int
| rest in that case ?
.-dnstoer. The certificate from the Pension Office
| prescribed the mode Of adjusting the claim. Mr.
Lyons called with Inc upon the Secretary of the In
terror, to ascertain whether the interest was TO be
computed according to what have stated TO be the
usua practice OF the Treasury, or as contended by
Mr. Lyons In conformity with the Judgment ofth
court OF Virginia When stated TO the Secretary
what had been the practice of the Treasury, viz,
where the interest exceeded the payment the in
teres is not to be added 10 the principal, the pay
nent deducted and interest computed on the bal
ance, as that would be allowing compound interest,
he assented to its correctness, but understood,
considered that the judgment of the court TO be
carried out in this | cannot say that il was
particularly stated that in the case OF Gait the
interest exceeded the payment which was to be
credited.''
1t appears by this extract that the claim of Gait
was founded on judgment; that the judgment
specially prescribed the mode OF calculating inter
est; and that the Secretary said the judgment must
be followed; but he was not informed that il gave
compound interest. And when the witness stated
the mode in which interest was calculated in the
Department, the Secretary assented to it's correct
ness. This is all and, instead of showing that the
Secretary "adopted'' ''node' of calculation which
gave interest upon interest, it merely shows that he
Gppr0Ued mode which did not give it. But there is
evidence on
subject
On the 23d Of October, 1919, the claim of Will
liam Graves to communication and interest was al
lowed by the chief clerk, in the absence Of the Sc
cretary. His instructions TO the Commissioner Of
Pensions in these words:
"You are therefore requested to settle the claim,
allowing Communication and interest as cornet and
quartermaster, deductiDg the amounts heretofore
received for communication and half pay"
The Commissioned on the same day directed the
settlement Of the account, allowing interest upon
interest, compromising twice. The attention of the
Secretary seems then to have been called to the
subject, and he wrote the following letter TO the
Commissioner OF Pensions, not adopting, but ex-
pressly condemning that mode of calculating in
terest, and directing that it should be corrected
"DErARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
November q, 1919.
'SGR: The Third Auditor of the Treasury has
transmitted TO this department your letter of this
date in reference TO the in the amount allowed
William Graves, in which you cay, shat if there
has been any the Secretary of the Interior
should direct denomination of the claim. As
1t is very obvious that the certificate of the Com
missioner OF Pensions is erroneous, in directing
the manner IN which interest should be calculated
in the settlement of the account, if any authority
from me is necessary in the premises, as you sup
pose, you are hereby directed to reopen the to
the extent required in order to settle the account
upon the proper basis.
every respectfully, II. EWING, Secretary.
''To the COMMISSIONER OF PENSIONS"
On the receipt Of this letter, the Commissioner
corrected only the second compounding, not the
hrst and the error thus persevered in, not being
suggested, again passed without detection-as in
like manner did the certificate in Commodore
James Barron's case, which made out by the
Commissioner, after his mode of calculation had
been attempted to be corrected by the above copied
letter.
like error committed by the Commissioner
of Pensions in the case of Ann Hubbard, late Ann
Barron, which came TO the notice of the Secretary
who thereupon addressed him the following letter
"DEPARTMENT or THE INTERIOR
January I, 1850.
"sLR The certificate signed by you in the case Of
Ann Hubbard, late Ann Barron, dated this day and
sent here for my written approval, is herewith
turned without it. You have been heretofore adj
vised that in the settlement Of such claims interest
could not be allowed upon interest, and now have
to request that those instructions may be adhered
10 by you in this and all similar cases.
Every respectfully, &c.
ct. EWING, Secretary.
This allowance by the Commissioner, directly in
conflict with his recent Instructions seems to have
led 10 an investigation of previous cases The re-
suit is explained in letter of the Secretary 10 the
Commissioner, which is as follows:
January 10, 1850.
"sm: When my attention was called to your GER
tiicate in the case Of William Graves, perceived
that you bad cast interest upon interest and immc-
diatcy wrote to you stating that your mode Of cal.
cuating interest was erroneous, and that il should
be corrected. did not lay down rule for the
calculation, not deeming II necessary. Since that
time several certificates sent up by you have been
signed in the ordinary way, without examination
on my part. And now find, on looking 70 them,
that they contain the came error with the one
which sent back 10 you, namely, an allowance Of
interest upon interest. They differ from the fret
named case in this only, that there were two com
poundings Of interest in that case nj first, one Of
which was omitted in the second certificate and
there is but one in the other cases.
"Tho error Is an unfortunate one but is cxcusable
on your part, as perceive that both you mud the
Third Auditor were misled by the opinion Of the
Court of Appeals of Virginia in the Gaze of Gars
administrator against the Commonwealth. You
have adopted in terms the mode Of calculation pre-
scribcd by that decree, which very correct in
the particular case, where all Of the interest and
part Of the principal had been paid al the time liked
upon 10 commence calculation Of interest upon the
balances THE did not involve interest upon Interest
but merely interest upon the remaining principal.
whereas, when applied TO these cascs il involves in
tcrcst upon interest, and IN some OF them 20 large
amount This must be corrected in all the cases
heretofore passed upon, and tho money reclaimed
az paid by mistake and ia all future cases you will
give simple interest merely
every respectfully, &c,
1T. EWING, SecretarV
"To the CoMMIsstoSER OF PENstoNs."
II will be seen from this simple narrative, drawn
from the contemporary correspondence, that the
Secretary Of the Interior did not adopt n mode Of
computation involving interest upon Interests that
that mode the result of error on the part Of
the certifying and accounting officers; that the Sec
rotary condemned u and ordered It's correction NJ
soon ne il came 10 his notice and directed the mo.
ney erroneously paid 10 be reclaimed az paid by
mistake. IL therefore did not and does not, require
the action Of committee Of Congress, or Congress
itself, TO set right error which was condemned
and corrected by the Secretary Of the Interior as
soon ~ il detected.
Prior 10 the Of Barron, two other cascs rest
ing on principles involved in that case, we're pre-
scented TO the Secretary Of The Interior and by him
referred 10 the Attorney General for his opinion
The bret IN point Of time the casc Of John NJ
Gait, above considered, in which the Attorney
General decided that when a Judgment was rcn-
dercd for Communication and interest against the
state OF Virginia, subsequent 10 the act of July g.
1884, II must be paid by the United States under
the provisions OF that act. Now, far as the Sec
rotary OF the Interior Il concerned this drcsion of