New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-05-18

~ al III
-, II IL evidence Of the construction given to
!. INST be considered binding on past trans
~ ~ Hence. OF necessity, usages have been
sstsbIisbed 10 every department OF the uo,en-
r.ert ULicb have become KIND Oh common iaS,
80 reeulate the rights and d1ues Of those WHO
sct within their respective limits u. ,. -.
A-i'i-I The general rule is clear That
d. I'VE exceptions to il, is a matter OF COURSE
ln 81, When interest is directed % be paid b.
,,seiol act of Congress, either by direct language
or bv s;rorg implication.
oi When Il Is stipulated for IN the contract.
"a When the claim is FOR advances IN money
r,.5e 70 tho United States, though this exception
itself hes It's limits. AND
United States.
when The act directs damages 70 be paid, Or in
dernriGratiou 70 be nadeor euthorises the account
inc ,Hicers 70 adjust the claim upon principles OF
equity and Justice the usage permits an inquiry
into the proprety Of allowing interest but IN every
other case it is no. held 70 be an open question
THE presert case is not within either Ct there er-
oe1,tions and if it was, il would be subject TO
another rule. Interest can only BE- computed from
the time that the claim presented ;rith the prop
er rcuclfrs. As the United States are always
ready to pay, when Claim IS presented Supported
by proper vouchers it can rarely, If ever, happen,
that they are Justly chargeable with interest, be-
cause i is the fault Of the claimantif be delays
presenting bis claim, or does not bring forward the
proper vouchers to prove II, and justify rs pay
ment. Opinion Attorney'GeneTGI IL. b. Idney
GAL
"He has never made application for payment
and therefore there has been no withholding pay.
rnent against bis consent. II he conceives himself
acerieved by the practice Of the Treasury Depart
nent in similar cases, he has remedy before Con
gress"- Opinion Attorney General VIM. prrt, lso;
If we apply the principle to this case, the natural
inquiry is, When did the parties present the1r clam
and bring foTrard the proper rouchers!
It's history shows that the first application to the
Governnent of the United States was made in
1sa7 II was not ailosced until the passage OF the
art in 1913. "The whole adjustment Of these
claims being conided exclusively to the Secretary
of the NAVY the amount allowed by him becomes
debt due from the United States, at lifetime Of the
0l7orance"-(Opinio Attorney-G eneraL William
UTyt ass How then could interest be allowed
,,yIor TO that date Indeed, ifinstead Of being is
.ned bv the Commissioners Of Great Britain, the
cor.ifcate held bv Galphin had been issued under
the authority of the United States, interest under
the circumstances would not have been allowed
upon il. prior to the date Of the demand for pay
ment Did then the obligations OF the United States
become stronger because, instead Of issuing the
certificate themselves they acknowledged the re-
spopsibility upon them, rs arising from the acts OF
others, This hardly will be claimed.
The Attorney. General says, that " as the lands
were used in great measure for the common
benefit ofall the United States, the United States,
in 1913, when they agreed to pay the particular
claim. agreed to assume a liability, coextensiye
with that of Georgia In this respect. am unable
10 distinguish between this case and that OF the
Virginia Communication cases, assumed by the
United States by the act Of July, 1892. And again
he remarks, "here, beside the obligation resulting
from assuming, was done by the act OF ls4s, the
debt of Georgia because Of the appropriation by
her of the lands charged with the debt to the com.
mon cause which was all that existed in the Vir-
einia cases, there exists this additional ground
that by taking the cossion of Georgia in 1902, we
bound ourselves to extinguish all outstanding titles
to the lands within the bounds Of Georgia" The
"odditional ground here spoken Of, we have
heretofore sufficiently examined.
The other point presented rests upon the sssump'
ton that by the act of ls4s the United States as
sumed the debt, as the debt of Ge0rgid and did so
because the lands were used in the common cause
from which it is claimed 10 follow that the United
States must discharge the full extent OF liability
which Georgia had incurred. But t'as this the
debt Of Georgia Was il directed 10 b. paid as the
debt of Georgia. The act Of ls4s Describes Il as
"fhe claim Of ne late Gc0rgc GalpA1i.' 10 does
not describe It as the debt of Georgia, OF IN any
wav implicste that state. Congress hid not SIT IN
iudcmont Oh her. Then, b. what authority does
the Attorney General pronounce upon that Sove
reign State The implications OF his position are
that this was debt Of Georgia that she broke her
Good fifth; and that the United States undertook
In her behalf TO pay her debt and sats sly the dam
ages inflicted by her This, too, in opposition to
her will II is pronouxccd 70 be deb. OF corsla
and the extent OF the debt is measured, though by
her action, Georgia had protested Gad deRled N,
rule BIZ uhich tie erent Of The dCJi ra' dscTtaiasd
as 7reR as the existence ofthe de5t tsat. The CLAIM
Of Galphln is one thing and The debt oi Georgia Is
certainly another; anu II was not ire ls'Ler On'
/ the former, which the act oil le4s directed ID De
! examined and adjusted.
The Attorney General cen see no difference be
tween the act of May, ls4s and that Of July, ls3a
! in relation to the Virginia commutation cases
Shall we inquire if there is any The latter Wal
"an oct to provide for liquidating and paying Ger
tain claims of the State Of Virginia" The former
was an act to adjust and pay the claim OF the ex
ecutor Of George Galphin. The latter was to In
demnify Virginia for moneys paid or to be paid by
her for services in the common cause. The former
was to pay claim arising out OF goods sold to the
Indians, the payment Of which was intended by
TIE parties to be secured by fund, no part o
,rlfth sauyed 10 the general benefit. The act OF 3.
did not pass in Judgment upon the rights OF the
claimants against Virginia; she had fixed then
rights before and the act Of Congress was to in
| dtrRnify the State. Was the act of l54s 10 indem
nifty Georgia She had neither paid, nor fixed an
obligation to pay Galphin; she had suffered moth
ing for which Naturalization could be asked o.
given We repeat, the act of 80 was not to pay
the individual claimants against Virginia, for upor
their rights Congress did not decide. The act wal
for reimbursement but the act of IS ras 10 pa'
the claimant.
Interest was allowed under the act Of 80, be
cause Virginia was compelled TO pay Il; and thu
is the doctrine Of Attorney General johnson himsel
in the Fwell cases Interest under the act OF Al
was allowed, though Georgia denied both debt am
interest The act of so allowed the State TO de
eide upon her obligations and yet the Attorney-Ge
neral assumes that the act OF '4s denied this poxe
to Georgia In the case of Tresevant, for supple
furnished the army in III, Georgia allowed an
paid the dsbt, but she refused interest on it. Th
rule would have refused interest to the represents
tives of Galphin. What similarity, then, is TIER
between the acts of A. and 50 1.-THE principle
Of the latter could apply, they would have prohibit
ed interest under the act Of AZ.
The ATTORNEY. General seems 10 think, that q