The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-05-19

4 Of the act OF fs4s es
The whole adjustment Of these claims being confded
icussely the Secretary OF he Navy he amount allowed
by him becomes debt due from the United States az the
t,ns Of iAs aaoaase- Opinions Attorney General VIM
Then how could interest be allowed prior to that date
Is clear that if instead Of being issued BY the commls
soners OF Great Britain. the certificate held BY Gaphn
interest would not have been allowed upon il prior to
the date OF the demand for payment Them may ask
did the obligations Of the United States become stronger
because, instead OF issuing the certificate themselves they
acknowledged the responsibility upon them as arising
from The acts Of Others This hardly will be claimed
The Attorney General says tkat--
beQeft OF all the United States. the United Sale lSs
when rLey agreed pay this partcuiar claim. agreed 10
this respect Che adds unable 10 distinguish between
and tina, q the Virginia commqston cases AS
And again he remarks
Here, beside the obligation resulting from assuming as
done by the OF ISsS this debt Of Georgia. because
OF the appropriation by her OF the lands charged with the
debt the which all that existed in the
Virginia cases there exists this that BY "a
king the cesson OF Georgia in lso2 bound ourselves TO
exngnsh all outstanding titles 70 the lands within the lin
its Of Georgia
heretofore examined. The other point rests upon the
assumption, that by the OF ls4S the United States
sumed The debt The debt Of Georgia. and did because
it is claimed to follow that the United States must dis
charge the full extent OF liability which Georgia had
incurred But are we to decide whether this was the
ngs. Congress did not set in judgment on her The
claim directed to be paid the debt of Georgia
The act describes il the claim Of the late George
Gaphn," and in way duplicates the State Then by
what authority does the Attorney General undertake 10
pronounce il to be her debt The implications Of his
position are that this was debt of Georgia; that she
broke her good fah and that the United States under
took her behalf, to pay the debt and satisfy the dam
wish wish in'i''e' = A''' ~ : op''''''A
Ii is pronounced to be her debt and the extent of the
debt measured though by her action. Georgia had pro-
tested and denied the rule BY which the extent Of the
debt itself The claim OF Gaphn is thing, and the
debt OF Georgia is another and il not the latter bu
the former. which the act OF isis directed to be exam
ined and adjusted @
The Attorney General can see no difference between
the Of August s4S and that of july 1882 in relation
TO the Virginia continuation cases. l. there any This
certain claims of the State OF Virginia" The former
was act TO adjust and pay the claim OF the exc
cuior Of George Galphm The latter was 10 indem-
nifty Virginia for money paid, to be paid by her
for services in the common cause The former was
to pay claim arising out OF goods sold to the In
dams, the payment Of which was intended BY the
parties to be secured by fund.- part OF which in
ured to the general benefit the act of 1882 did not
pass Judgment upon the rights OF the claimants against
sn @as u
OF l54S indemnify Georgia Georgia had neither paid
nor hxed an obligation to pay Galphin She had suffered
nothing for which decentralization could be asked or
given. The act OF 1892 for reimbursement to the
State, but the act of 1s4s pay the claimant In
erest allowed under the act OF 1882, because tir
gina compelled pay and this the doctrine of
Attorney General Johnson himself in the Ewe case.
Interest under the Of lS4s allowed, though Geor
gia denied both debt and interest," The act OF 1882 al
lowed the Stale to decide upon her obligations, and yet
the Attorney General assumes that the act OF lsis de-
MED this power to her
In the Of Irrelevant. for supplies furnished to the
army I777 Georgia allowed and paid the debt but she
refused interest on it and this rule would have refused
interest 10 the representatives OF Galphin. What smi
arity then there between the acts of Is4s and 1892
Rut III fha Mt ha
ter could have applied they would have refused interest
under the act of 1S4s.
Congress knew the amount of the principal. its refer
rnce OF the claim for adjustment indicated a
reference Of something beside the principal, and
this OF course must have been the interest THIS.
We apprehend, is simply mistake in point Of fact
The certificate held by Galphin was for pounds, shil-
lings and pence. lawful money OF the pvvvsnce =
and TO bring that amount TO dollars il required 10
be examined. In what, perhaps may be considered
his supplemental opinion he remarks that the
adjust and pay the claim the whole claim and the inter
est was as much part oil the claim was the principal
Such. however, must be permitted to remark, does
to have been the opinion OF his predecessors
Interest the Of such ioss certainly thing
distingushabe and different from the losses them
selves may jsses posd hare required fhis
the allowance OF interest well Of the principals but
its obligations give withhold authority the al
lowance OF the Pahat is the value OF the properly
consideration and legislation and question Of
interest was as mportaaf an assosnf as the Principal
iNoPihion oi huofncJ otnefai Nrucnocn, Suno iot
And this PROFESSIONALLY, is the doctrine OF the law
Interest is not part OF the debt but something added
the debt by way OF damage for the detention of it, For.
merly, all interest considered unlawful in every
country in Europe. In France particularly, few years
SINCE and perhaps yet thoroughly did the laws con-
denim IL that. with the exceptions OF minors, marriage
portions money, and the price OF lands. party who
had paid interest voluntarily might il back al
pleasure Even in England, the allowance OF interest
not given by express law but rests the discretion OF
judges and juries, the arbiiers OF damages II is
measure OF damage Ii may be payable in OF delay
jury in their discretion shall think fit to allow il II
thing IN the term and words which pass the debt do
not give interest necessarily II depends altogether on
the discretion of the judges and jurors and where the
party odnnoi make profit of the money IN has hands
n ought NOT 10 be dHoioed-(Leu OF Mr. Jefferson TO
Hammond, State Papers, vol /, D. ala. Opinion OF At
torney General William Wir, si3l There gene
statute OF the United States allowing interest and H. for
the argument, admit that the trusfund had passed
into the possession OF the United States of the
thortes relied on BY the Attorney General would not
have given interest in the
fund, where he had made interest," there be laches
neglect, OF the money his pau."(Casses ps
Werner, Mason, ss2
The exceptions grow out OF the profit which the rus-
tee may might have made by the OF the money but
the law will raise such presumption against IT, they
will not lie against the government
Such the principles which ought TO govern the
counting officers m settling claims against the United
States. and the records show how closely they have been
observed in prscceSee reports Of all the auditors ap
pended 10 the report OF majority OF committee)
Mr. Crawford appointed agent and counsel for this
clam far back the year eighteen hundred and thirty
three As such he asked PAYMENT from The egsa,u Of