The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-02

found due Medge Galphin executor Of the said George
Gaphn out OF any money In the treasury NOT o'nefwse
appropriated.
Mr. Walker then Secretary Of the Treasury, referred
the TO the accounting officers Of the treasury Doctor
Collins. then First Auditor being absent. il was con-
sdered by the acting Auditor who reported in favor Of
the payment Of interest as well as principal against the
acknowledged rule Of the government on the following
unienable grounds: 8M fF
l. Because the sum due George Galphin was lqudated
or ascertaned in IT'S. .g
q Because the British government paid interest TO those.
in the situation with Galphn, who remained faith
full to her cause during the revolution.
word in reply to this is sufficient There is no pre-
cedent which warrants distinction between iquda,ed
and unliqudated claims far interest is concerned
Even in the arising between individuals. such
distinction is known by the law As to the second point,
we have already shown that the British government
Acknowledged any indebtedness to the Indian traders.
but paid them their claims, with interest, expressly as
matter Of gracsof fauor-because Of their loyalty to
the British Crown. Now, we acknowledge that Con-
gess may pensions or lands as reward for patriot
ic services but deny that the accounting officers of
the government rightfuy make, through grace or
favor. such appropriations, in the shape Of interest," by
unwarraned departures from established precedent,
matter whether the money is to 60 into the pocket Of the
descendant Of a revolutionary patriot Of member Of
the cabinet Executive officers, whether at the head Of
departments bureaus, not public almoners II
they were, we would soon have the reign Of grace and
auor upon U.S. and the Galphin claim would lose its
Importance in the nnumerable throng Of similar enorm
ties But to resume.
The act OF 1888 was also referred to Mr. McCullob,
the Comptroller Of the Treasury. who reported that the
did direct the payment Of interest and as no de-
nand for the principal made prior to the year
1885, to allow interest would be contrary to the com
mon practice Of the department and the just economy Of
this government which requires its creditors 10 demand
whatsoever may be owing to them APPLY and promptly.
TO forego any and every demand for interest thereon
On this statement OF the case, Mr.. Walker allowed
the principal 435ls 97) leaving the question Of inter-
undecided, saying at the time that his impression
against The allowance of interest.
Thus stood the matter when the members OF the new
cabinet were installed, among whom was George w.
Crawford the of one-hal Of the Galphin claim
The President was informed Of Mr. Cawfords interes,
in and the papers filed in the set forth the fact
that he was interested The claim for interest from I77a
was brought the attention Of Mr. Meredith, who re-
fened it to Mr. Whittesey. the successor Of Mr. McCu
lob Comptroller Of the Treasury This officer reported
against the allowance and fortified his opinion by an IN
answerabe argument, to which invite especial atten
ton. But this not satisfactory; and Mr.. Meredith
accordingly referred the demand for interest 10 Mr. At
torney General Johnson, who to be used on all
occasions by the other members Of the cabinet as ega
provided for the especial purpose Of enabling
them evade their just responsibilities That officer de-
cided that interest ought to be paid and accordingly
was paid TO the amount Of $lsl,352 SO; one half Of
which. after deducng expenses, into the pocket
George w. Crawford, Secretary Of War
We have given fair abstract Of the GaIphin case
and we reserve full examination Of its features until al
the evidence adduced before the investigating COMMITTEES
is brforc readers. Bur IL would. perhaps, be wrong
to conclude the present article without mentioning h,
fact that Mr. Meredith and Mr. johnson both testify tina
they ignorant Of the fact that Mr. Crawford
teresed in the Galphn claim and it is proper to say
ALSO that it is in proof that there papers in the
which showed that Mr. Crawford was interested in til,
claim We state these facts; butt is not for us to recon
cile them. Those officers may have examined only hoss
papers which necessary TO examination Of the
case yet how could be ascertaned that those papers
which set forth Mr. Crawfords interest were not neces
sary to full understanding Of the case without reading
them, is problem which we viii not undertake L
solve.