New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-05-21

| piehend no such Judge can be found and that i
would be difficult even to pack Jury who wo1lC
return such verdict. But The allowance OF inter
est does not depend upon liberal construction O
/ the sct even the strctest construction would au
| thorze us pay ment If found due. Aud what rals
( or usage oil the government has been violated b.
the payment OF the interest on this claim IT. a.
we believe, the net 81 lsis implies an authority q
pay Il, then IL has been paid according 70 both law
and usage ard In discharge OF an imperative duty
which the act imposed Il is true, as applicable u
the Great majority q disbursements bv this and no
doubt every other Government, that interest il not
paid. But It is equally true that this and every
other honest Government pays interest in all cases
where upon the principles OF justice and equity
interest is doe: Nattei says;
All the promises. tie convsnuons al toe contracts OF the
Of pr!vsis persons CYatsL 10 , chap. Il lisp
That eminent iurist. the amented Justice Story
says, in Thorudike rs. United States, Il Mason's re
ports. .0)
there can be 70 doubt that the Court would be bound "a
eige upon the contract up 70 TIE line Of payment
ard II by lsw tie lmO4n due The contract could ID
pie AIDED eLdeT set Of 70 private debt Won
b. coed bar In tie fl extent % he principal aud Interest
fur The tine Of such lender or ietoH Nay, more 4
the promise were made By citizen % h9 Govern
meIL the lser might enforce It's claim 10 the ike extent
Can make any difference In the construction OF tle
tract that the Cover t3 DEBTOR instead OF the cred.
lori In reston, In justice IN equity II ought to make
nore and here Is not Mills OF az TO Justify any. II a
fUit could be maintained agsns. me GoycnmsnL do no.
perceive by wOuc not be much the duty Of the Court
10 render judgment IN such suit FOR the principal and the
interest 10 the mariner and 10 Tie sans extent IA H
would in the OF private citizens The United States
haze 10 preroe alive b claim law upon their con-
creditors ard smother debsO H. a. creditors
they are entitled to interest," as debtors they are bound also
The opinion Of Chief Justice Tancy while At.
torney General, in the case of Tharp Top. Attor.
news General SAL places the subject also upon
the true ground. He says that am not aware
r TX Co. tl.eE l..
Secretary OF " ar, the accounting officers, TO al
low interest 10 claimant, if 1t should appear thai
interest is Justly due him. As the United States
are always ready to pay when claim is presented
supported by proper vouchers 1t can rarely if ever,
happen that they are Justly chargeable with inter.
est because it is the fault of the claimant if ne de.
lays presenting his claim does not bring forward
the proper vouchers prove il and Justify It's pav
ment But if in sior Tharp's case, or in any
other, the Secretary OF War, upon a review of the
whole evidence, should be Of opinion that interest
is justly due to the claimant think he may legally
allow it.
But, whatever may be the general usage of the
Government as to interest it is not applicable to
this case, as il was not originally claim against
it. Ii was a claim against third party, the State
OF Georgia. which the Government has assumed to
pay, and to pay all that was due upon it, whatever
the third party was in justice and equity bound TO
pay. The word dHe in this act means what is
justly and equitaby due. 1t can mean nothing
else. All claims against the Government are ad
justed upon the same principles-upon the princ
pies OF Justice and equity. But the payment of
the interest in this violates no precedent be-
cause no analogous case has been cited nor can any
be found unless il be under the act of 1892 by which
the Government assumed the payment of claims
due by Virginia 10 that case, the entire liability
Of Virginia, interest as well as principal was as
sumed and paid. lD this case, the liability, not n
art, but the entire liability OF Georgia in regard
TO this claim, has been assumed, and, as we think
Justly paid.
1t is not perceived that the case relied on of
the claims OF Georgia against the Creek Indians
under the treaty OF 1921, and which the United
10 a certain extent, had stipulated to pay, has any
application to this as an authority against tine
payment Of interest. The only claim asserted by
Georgia in that was for the return OF specific
property. The Attorney General, Writ says:
THE claim ought TO be qudated against the United
States, exactly on the pnci les that It would be qudated
gsrs he Indiana and 1t ia believed thar claim Of in
crest against nation Of Indians under circumstances like
hese would be Unprecedented"
The Attorney General decided against the pay |
neDt OF Interest," and assigns, among other reasons
hat the property, return OF which was claimed
lad been assessed on an average, at nearly double
rlces that the claims were in the nature of I'M
quldated damages upon which, as general rule
I law, interest VAS not allowed; that the princi-
lies OF equity did not call for the alo vance of in.
erest-so far from it, that they forbid it, Under
circumstances like these, it is believed it would not
My be unprecedent ed to charge a nation of In
ians, but any other nation, with interest But the
ase seems to be relied on as authority 20 show
hat, because it was held unprecedented, under the
trcHnlstances OF that case, for a nation of Indians
D be charged with interest therefore Georgia and
be United States were not bound to pay interest
n Galphin's claim. The case would not have been
o particularly noticed, were it not relied on IS a
rominent authority why interest should no. have
cen allowedln the present ease But before eav.
lg 1t, we must be permitted to say, as Georgia
aimed interest against the Indians under he CIR
OF that case, she ought 10 be cstoppsd
ON denying the claim OF Galphin to interest in
is case; and as the United S atss have thought
roper to step into the shoes of Georgia, they
lOuld DE subject b. a similar esfODDek
The great antiquity Of this claim will be found
ntitled TO no weight as an objection against II,
hen it is understood that every material fact, up
4 which its justice depends, is incon.royertibly
tabished. 1t has. in fact, for three lourths of a
injury, constituted part Of the history of the
unuy, and there is little hazard in the prediction
at IS destined to give more extended notorie-
to the name Of the claimant than 10 would other.
ise probably ever have obtained.
The amount Of the claim, although large const
ted no reason against its payment. la regard 20
e payment of the principal, it is conceded on all
les that il has been paid in conformity 10 law and
ecedent IN ms all the accounting officers OF the
te as wel as the present Administration concur;
Il different opinions are entertained in regard to
e pay ment OF the interest.
The Auditor to whom the former Secretary of
e Treasury referred the claim reported in favor
paying the interest as well as the principal
ne Controller reported against the interest. Mr..
alker directed the payment Of the principal:
t his impression being against the payment of
erest, and not having time TO examine the sub
4, be left the question to the interest an uude-
led, open question for his successor In his ties.
uoDy, however, before the Committee, he says,
the claimant had presented TO him such an argu.
mt as that OF the opinion of the Attorney Gene
!, he should have referred the case TO the Attor.
y General, and been guided, he thinks, by his
non.
The present Secretary referred the claim to the
ntroller, who decided against the payment Of 10.
est. He then requested the oDinion of the Az |