The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-05-25
ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE, !

|
30th May, lS49 {
Sir The case of the claim Of De la Francia, re-
ferred by your Department to this Office, have
| considered with the care demanded by the charac-
ter of the questions upon which it depends, and the
| amount it involves.
The facts Of the case, as most satisfactorily
| tablished, are these
The people of West Florida, DESTROYS of casting
off the Spanish rule, established provisional gov
eminent prior to the Sd of December, 1910. Under
| the authority OF that government, Colonel Reuben
Kemper, Oh that day, purchased for the use OF the
government, of Henry de la Francia, arms, am
munition, &C., and agreed to pay for them the
sum of eleven thousand eight hundred and fifty
| dollars. On the 9th Of the same month, under
Kemper's letter of instructions, Captain Goss
ceived and receipted for the arms &C., and they
were delivered at the garrison at Baton Rouge,
used by the military of the government, and por
ton Of them afterwards used by the forces of the
United States in the defence of New Orleans III
1875 do not state the evidence OF these facts II
is sufficient to say that they are, in my judgment,
most clearly established by the proofs filed with the
claim The patriotic exertons Of the temporary
government contributed to the subsequent acqusi-
ton of West Florida by the United States, and in
spirit of just and enlightened liberality Congress
passed the act of the 18th April, 1914, for the iqui
daon upon principles Of justice and equity, OF all
claims of the Inhabitants of the province ''for adj
vances by them made for the use and benefit of
the United States, prior to and since the taking
OF possession, &C.. by the United States"
Under this law, large sums have been paid, and,
appears by the vouchers on file, and the opin-
ions of the proper officers of the Government the
term advances" was construed to embrace adj
vanccs or sales to the conventional government, of
articles OF war, or any other property calculated
and intended To aid in accomplishing the purposes
of that government-the destruction of the Spanish
power.
Among the claims presented under that act for
allowance, was the one now in question. OF the
amount Of the claim, the fact OF the purchase of
the arms by Colonel Kemper, or his full authority
to act for the convention, no question at that time
rejected. 1t was but suspended by the then Score
tary of State, Mr.. Rush, and, as appears by a mem
orandum by Mr.. Pleasonton, the Fifth Auditor,
under an impression that the articles purchased
had been obtained from the Spanish government,
by De La Francia, under circumstances which still
left them the owners. can evidence Of the
justice of this impression. 1t is, think, in conflict
with all the clearly established facts of the case,
and with the conduct of the claimant and his agent
in prosecuting il upon the United States. Besides
this ground for its suspension, can see nothing In
the evidence, and have before all the proof in
possession Of the department at the time, to show
any other ground against it.
have not the time is il necessary to state at
length the for believing that the particular
objection was unfounded. word or two will be
enough. The arms, &c, were in the possession of
De la Francia as the apparent owner, and such
possession is pria facie evidence of real ownership,
amounting, unless disproved, 10 conclusive evil
dence.
There is not a word of proof other than the mere
"imprssson' Of the Fifth Auditor, that he was told
the fact, by the agent of the claimant when he
urging the claim, that the arms ever belonged to
Spain, much less that they had been illegally
quircd from her. II is impossible that the recollec
ton Of the Auditor can be accurate. Col. Kempcr
IL admitted TO have been both intelligent and an
honest Municipalities inconsistent with the fact
stated by the Auditor. II is in evidence, too, that
being sued for the amount of the purchase by De
la Francia, upon his personal liability under the
contract Of sale, Kemper set up no such defence,
although II Is quite clear that he did defend the
case in perfect good faith, and upon every ground
that he thought he could make good His omission
Of this objection. as fatal 10 the demand upon him
as Il would be 10 the demand against the United
States IL, in my judgment, conclusive that he knew
there was no foundation for IL. have no doubt,
thereforc-not the shadow Of one-that the claim
should have been allowed under the act Of 1914.
What lie the effect upon II Of ts then suspension,
and the subsequent fruitless efforts TO have IL
vived under that act?
II may be true, though thai I should greatly
doubt that but for the act Of the l4th August ls4S,
such suspension and efforts would be conclusive
against il now. But that act renders such an i'm
quiry unnecessary.
Congress applied 10 for special relief by the
claimant, his heirs, in 1882, 1885, 1898, 1874,
1916, and lS47. In 1916, favorable report was
made by the Committee Of Claims of the Senate.
In January, 1877, another favorable report by the
same committee, and on the I'd February, lS4s,
third report Of like character, by the Judiciary
Committee Of that body, accompanied by a bill
which passed This bill was referred TO the
Judiciary Committee Of the House, who reported Il
with amendment, accompanied by detailed
report in its favor; as amended IL was passed
afterwards by both Houses, and is the law Of the
l4th August, ls4s In considering that act, these
favorable rccognitions OF the claim by committees
Of Congress are TO be regarded. Under the circum-
stances attending them, am clear in the opinion,
that the fact Of claim by De la Francia is to be
considered admitted by Congrcss-the amount
only being TO be ascertained by your Department
In this view am sustained by various opinions of
this Office; and a moments reflection will show
hat Ia On he dnch Inv he
tive 70 Congress When they have lcgislated upon
reports Of their appropriate committees, charged
specially with such investigations, Il would be
against the courtesy due from the Executive 10 the
legislative department Of the Government TO dis
regard such reports. They serve to show the in
tent Of Congress, and, in of this character,
must be held 10 give the true construction Of the
law.
The claim, then, being thus, in my opinion, es-
tabshed by the evidence, well n by Legislative
recognition, and the amount only open for Inquiry,
the questions in this connection to be considered
are
Fira.-what is the amount Of the principal of
the claiml
Second. What, If any, interest is due upon it,
and
Thiyd.-From what period, and to what period,
is the interest TO be calculated
First, the principal:
This is settled by the contract Of purchase Of
Sd December, 1910. II 10, agreed by that con-
tract, eleven thousand eight hundred and fifty dol
lars, $500 n any thing 10 due for princi-
pol, that IL the amount.
Second the interest:
The general rule, and exceedingly import
ant for obvious TO observe, is that the Gov
eminent pays no interest II rests upon the as
sumption that the Government in ever willing 10
discharge all It's obligations, and that the delay in
doing is not TO be attributed 10 any laches on
it's part But 10 this rule there are exceptions.
Without stating all the grounds upon which cxcep-
tons have been made, Il Is sufficient, in my judg-
ment, in this particular case, 10 state that IN the
past construction OF the act of 1914 interest was
allowed upon all the claims liquidsted under Il,
from the time the claims arose 10 the date Of that
act, and Congress afterwards recognised the pro-