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

not pay interest. and says .There may be cases in
which might think the head OF department author
lied TO allow interests but they would be rare and SIN
gulsr exceptions MT Lssa BY request rssonslae e,
principles stated in IT, and maintained that the rule ON
the subject OF interest is an exception TO that which ex
lists between individuals in favor of governments But
he insisted that however il overlooked or dsegaded the
equitable principle, 'ihai interest Is incident TO the
debt" yet the rule is stern and inhexble
That there are exceptions TO the general rule disallow
ing interest against the government will not be denied
The exceptions enumerated by Mr. Walker, Mr..
Meredith and Mr.. Whitilesey. They mainly rules
adopted by the executive departments IN settling demands
that grow out of the operations OF the government and
incident 10 the public service In the opinion oil the
committee. the principle OF none of the exceptions to the
general rule would e any ar interpretation embrace me
uiiye departments, in referred to them by acts OF
Congress- appears TO have invariably depended on the m
ienlon OF the legislative department that should De al
lowed This intention is usually expressed by directing
il in TERMS but IL has been sometimes manifested by
reference in the lawst to principles OF settlement which
e o iss general rule
which direct that the claimant shall be Undermined for
losses INJURIES damages sustained, or that the
claims shall be settled according e The principles Of us
held 10 allow discretion TO pay interest in proper cases
Il is believed that instance be found in which 1t
has been allowed oy an executive ocer by virtue o. an
apply the transactions OF individuals unless the law
directing the settlement intended il should be paid But
view q hs question ms z DC 81 wncn
BY the treaty with the Creek Indians, oil the sth Janu-
ay 1884, the United States engaged 10 pay certain claims
Of the citizens Of Georgia agans, ,hs, nation
The question submitted by the President, Mr. Mon
roe, to Mr. Writ the Attorney General. On the goth OF
July 1922, Mr. Writ delivered his opinion against the
claim OF interest," and said .The United States, in this
case, have taken the place OF the lniians they have
agreed TO be responsible the Indians were responsible
and therefore the same principles and usages should be
applied to the liquidation OF these claims in relation 10
the United States, if they sill to be paid BY the
original debtors. the Indians; and IT - believed thai
claim OF interest against nation OF Indians or the pay
men OF interest by them, would be without precedent
Gaphins claim was originally against the Indians,
against whom Mr.. Writ said "a claim for interest i
without precedent" The United States have assumed
the debt of the Indians to Gaphin, under the treaty OF
1873. They have taken the place Of the indians; have
made themselves responsible as they were responsible
and the claim should have been settled and paid accord
ing to the same principles and ueages if il have
been paid by the Indians These principles and usages
forbid the idea OF allowing interest IN such case.
ID is worthy OF special remark IN this case and should
have received earnest consideration in examining the
claim oil interest
ist That the claim OF Gaphin was originally against
an Indian nation, and that there is precedent for
claim OF interest against an Indian Aation.
3D. That The treaty OF 1878 contained stipulation fol
interest
| bear interest
4h. That the claim first presented against the
United States in The treaty Of New Echoia, in 1885
scented to Congress in 1884, and did not claim interest
| 9th. That the report OF the Senate committee did moi
| recommend the payment OF interest
It'll That the act OF 1915 Tor the relief OF the claimant
did not authorize the payment OF interest, nonne
sth That the act did not direct the settlement TO be
made according to special or unusual principles
The inference, almost irresistible from these facts, is
that interest the contemplation OF any OF the
parties to this caimeher the judiciary the claimant
the United States There 49, certainly nothing IN the
act for the relief OF the claimant show that infer
ence so well deduced from the history OF this case was
the intention OF Congress, and should have been the
guide OF the executive officers II may be supposed thai
The claim Of Gaphin peculiar in its character and
It's merits and that its equities commended II strongly
and earnestly 10 favorable consideration This may be
admitted and yet the appeal was TO Congress alone and
as that body did not think BIT TO provide Tor the peculiar
harishps of the case by drecngcompensaion connen.
with them its omission ough, not 10 have been sup
piled BY executive officer The DUTY OF the Secretary
was plainly prescribed 10 be the asceainment and pay
ment OF what due TO George Gaphin from the In
dams, under the treaty OF l773 and that was his entire
duty. II not delegated to him TO pay interest, by
way OF damages that TO any amount, especially
to an amount than fourfod greater than the debt
itself well founded doubt in The mind OF the Secretary
in in which the principal bore so small proportion
10 the interest," whether be had authority OF law to pay
H. should have been decisive against H. Congress could
have readily and promptly interposed TO remove the
doubt.
thorough investigation OF the facts OF this case, and
patient and deliberate consideration OF the Arguments
and authorities adduced TO justify the payment OF in
teres have brought the undersigned TO confident
cluson that il was paid against precedent, and without
ARMISTEAD BURT
| JOSEPH w. JACKSON.