The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-01-10

against an individual that Judgment could have been en-
forced by the party in whose favor II was gwen, who
would have been entitled 10 recover this amount, and
therefore he would have received what would be equiv
alent TO that with interest now. Is true there Is
rule which could include this deserving 10 be
paid with interest But there particular cases, and
the Senate knows they very numerous, where inter-
est is allowed and insist that this is one OF those
excepted cases. which has at least much merit IN u
those which have been hitherto fayoraby considered by
the Senate. That is my view OF the matter. lnasmuch
The claimant here, he could have enforced the claim
al the time the judgment was rendered, would have stood
as we'll as he would now stand we were 70 pass tins
bill as il came from the committee, which this interest
added the original amount think he comes here with
claim 10 our favorable consideration, by having passed
that scrutiny which his claim mus, have passed before
Mr. MALLORY. Mr. President. gentlemen seem TO
be dividing upon the simple question, not whether the
principal should be paid but whether we should pay The
interest Now, although the total amount is very small,
YET involves question OF very vital importanceone
which has occupied the public attention great deal du-
ring The past two three years. and which VIII Proba,
bly, occupy il still during the coming year stand
up here OF the representatives OF Florida to say
that the State Of Florida is interested IN this 9ues
ton. as to whether the government bound and Will pay
interest upon claims against IT, than any other State IN
the Union refer 10 very able opinion upon that sub.
ec which has recently been pronounced by venerable
judge in taking the affirmative doctrine In the hrst
place. this is the very principle which has been al
ready adudcated and sent TO the country The question
is, whether the government will go behind the adudica
ton of the uresgo behind the argument OF the jures
their verdics conceive the cases 10 be equal In the
one case they have submitted 10 the decislon-the
suits concluded II the question OF interest be up
think the government should be the first to SET the ex
ample matter OF equitythe first to do Justce-and
should be always ready to pay the interest as well as the
principal where il is due 49,
aches upon the part OF the claimant; the gov
set up that plea. And will 60 further,
and say that the Congress has at no time set forth the
doctrine that the government will in no case pay interest
Ii is rule OF the accounting officer That rule
has been adhered to- but il is unjust One of the
earliest in which the rule came up was under the
Florida treaty, by which it assured to the Spaniards
that these persons who had been injured in their prop
ery by the occupation OF the country by troops should
have their claims adudcaed according 10 due process OF
law The government failed toproyde that due process OF
law, and the claimants were kept from their money Tor
many years by default OF the government and not in con-
sequence of any es upon the part OF the claimants and
the interest accumulated by the delay OF the government
The law contemplated that the claim should go before the
and believe it was contemplated and re-
ported upon BY the Secretary OF the Treasury that he
was to examine the evidence and allow or disallow the
payment of the claim Upon the discussion at that early
day, after the acquisition OF Florida in 1921 the princi'
and there undoubtedly instances where it has been
paid parties. matter of justice TO them, and by the
laws themselves ! apprehend that doctrine has been
ratified and the position OF the Secretary OF the Treasury
confirmed in the course which he then took. Iappre-
bend here in this case that the question is not before the
Senate whether ought TO pay interest or not. II we
payment of the interest; but even if we did il should
Mr.. BAYARD | am unable, Mr.. President, 10 agree
with the honorable senator from Florida, Mr. NAL
LoRYl consider that the rule which denies the pay.
ment OF interest is wise ONE bat he seems 10 take the
ground that the presumption is against the government
The honorable senator takes position 10 which am
perfectly willing TO accede and that is the principle by
which this is governed The principle IS that the
government is always willing 10 pay and The presump
lion is that if party had evidence that his claim was
would
same principle applies here in the case before US. The
evidence OF this claim arose from the verdict OF the jury
which early as the year 1S4l. Why was not the
claim presented If il just, and allowed to be he
alleges There has never been time when there was
no money in the treasury OF the United States, and we
could have easily discussed this money great many
times since 1S4I, ii knew that the party had valid
claim. The claim is said TO be founded upon and esiab
lished by the rendition OF the verdict in is4l. submit
then, il the principle be tTueand consider II to be
sound one-w hen the party makes claim against the
government and The presumption is that the claim is just
the presumption is also that II Will be promptly paid
That presumption IN the present case established by
the fact that he had full evidence OF his clam by the
dict of the jury, but did moi choose 10 put in his claim
until ten years after. VIXEN he made H.
BILE senator IRON Delaware mir. BAYARpl u.s. tina, gov
refuses 10 pay interest upon sort OF legal pre-
sumption, Now, sir, cannot that legal presumption be
removed by statement OF facts adverse TO II! IL has
been done in numberess instances by the United States
Congress- and it is done at every session Ia this case
there is contract with an individual by which this
money becomes
receive this OF money, but il refused by the de-
partment, and they bring suit agains, him in this Dis
lric for alleged violation OF contract IL is certainly
Mr. President, a claim that he willing 10 prosecute
for he TO trial he goes 10 the jury and submits
his proof and obtains verdict IN favor OF his claim and
this does away with the legal presumption. But the
committee went behind the verdict know, SIR, that
very many and very serious objections raised against
verdcts OF juries adverse 10 the United States know
very certainly that the committee were not al all satisfied
with the evidence OF the verdict, and they went be-
hind that and did not take the verdict OF the jury, but
examined the testimony upon which that verdict was
founded think that they have become entirely salts
fed that the verdict correct and that the claim
is well established against the government II seems 10
that these facts amply sufficient TO satisfy The
government that payment should be made
Mr. PRATT. | hope shall be excused for saying
one word The proposition here is, whether the gov
is bound in all cases pay interest upon debts
The government TO individuals. think the sound, legal
mind OF The honorable senator from Florida Mr. NAL
IoRYl ought to have the faacy OF the distinction
he attempted TO draw between those different cases. The
verdict of the jury does what, sir IL only ascertans
the amount of Indebtedness Concedng that does that
case brought before the Senate. Take any one Of the
claims decided upon by the Senate, which we have
acted heretofore We have ascertained that n par
toular service has been rendered, and that par
lcular amount of money was due 10 the individual.
Now. the Senae's ascerianmeDt OF that fact was as
much verdict any verdict rendered by jury. But
how the senator's asceranng that fact, that money
Is DUE have any hearing upon the principle involved, or
be brought up Tor the purpose OF determining whether
shall pay interest upon the Indebtedness OF the gov
eminent Conceding that Indebtedness, the particular
question which up here is. whether the govern
men is bound to pay interest upon IL. Sir, am not
stand up here and attempt relieve the govern
ment from what is Justly incumbent upon her. | be-