The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1855-12-21

NV srnwFRKY aubseribels win sss enclosed he
uued a copy gratis,
In ENGLAND interest has refused where property
has been unusy detained, payment improperly reused
even ia cases fraud Lord Marlborough saying, IN me
case Of Crockford Winter Camp i29 that tue rHha
d not take out OF the rule ne had previously lnd
down in De Havaild Vs Bowerbanki lamp 20 mat
there fns lie an agreement expressed impl aud bis
principle was afterwards adhered 10 IN the case Of ennles
es Fuller Camp 42G by the act < W; rh. ", sS
II was provided that upon certain, payable nt ert
tain fine or otherwise the jury may ey shall ihnk
6t allow interest to the creditor. Ihls act however,
leaves the matter In great uncertainty as the Jury are 10
! exercise their discretion IN each case.
sim there are decisions the effect Of which would seem
70 he that interest in c,es Is legal claim lrrese
tive of any agreement Although II has been oen s eu
thai interest Il NOT recoverable money owing for go1ds
sold and delivered as 10 Blaney u.s. Hendrch WIS., 10
and in Eddowes Hopkins, Dough- 3I6 sun y ls sala uy
Lord Thurow, in Boddam g. Riley broT - y. y t1as
ual contracts to pay undoubtedly give right TO inter-
eat from the when the principal ought 10 oe Pa a.
One for the discrepancy IN me DECISIONS z = ~
found in the neglect discriminate between me cases
where interest held 10 he incident 10 %
those cases where has been held a the jury mghi al
low il by way damages for the detention q tns Gspt
In Edioyes ps Hopkins Dong, 3I6, Lord Mansfield ed
that though, by the common-aw, book deo's 10 hot o
carry interest yet in cases oi long ae
aous and oppressive circumstances 1t may ne allowed,
IL ury in their discretion, shall see ht 70 allow ~ IN
Entwistie rs. Shepherd, T. II, Is, when was cent
upon judgment, Butler said y was question ior
the Jury whether they would give interest by way OF
| damages In Bum ps. Dabze, and - $40, u was
held by Lord Tenterdn that whether interest should
be recovered upon an irsh uasmsh. Ma5 ha% /, ~
dligent aud had taken proper steps 70 lha ms "p-
or they might allow It. In Craven u.s. lokeit ets
T Cd the Lord Chancellor said from conversation have
had with the Judges interest s given eher 6y 'e con-
tract or damages upon every debt detained pGt ~ ~
pin u.s. Consequa, Pet G. c. r. %, Washington sald ~
not agreeable legal principles 10 ALLOW htefest on
nnliouidaed or contested claims in damages aud ~ he
subsequent case Of Willing Consequa i6ia III mo
same Judge said "nterest is question generally ~ mo
has not been our purpose in referring to Of tho
more prominent decisions this subject to ascertain
whether any general rule be deduced from them that
shall regulate allowance of interest IN sis a. law ~
that is not the question before us Our oblee mas pee
simply to show that the authorities are conic'he anu
thai an approximation to rule is to be found ~
those decisions which hold that III the absence OF con-
tract to pay interest it may in some cases De allowed ~
the jury upon view OF all the circumstances ~ 1 ny
case But supposing that juries are vested WIN
a discretion to allow interest or not we 40 ho'
occupy tho position Of jury, although, 70 GER
tain extent wc necessarily exercise some OF tho
functions beonpine to that body Like jury, we are
called upon 10 determine questions OF fact bn OF ihat
wide discretion which, according to some OF ue osseS,
iurcs may often exercise possess no poruoh " S
subject they derive their power so far tmay exist from
practice sanctioned by judicial DECISIONS IN Iegiu W h
question before us there have been no Juaica @
no practce Our duty il confined TO determining whether
certain facts are proved by the evidence ana ony IN ts
respect are o,lr duties like those of JGry ~ we Wee
take Lord Mapsfcds raIc, that jury IN .ner
might allow interest in of long delay, unucr ,
tious and oppressive circumstances and apply !. "
against the United States, the question would t,en ~
whether in the given case the United States had 3 ~
datory. and had postponed the payment OF .he aeD.
for unreasonable period This would render ~ heeGa
sary to inquire extent into the condiion OF t5
United States when the debt accrued and since the sitn
ton of their foreign and domestic relations the posion
of their financial affairs the existence OF financial crises ana
everything that would throw any light upon me question
whether II was or the whole unreasonable hat
psy yDlent of debt should have been delayed Such
vague and unlimited discretion should hesitate 10 exer
else without authority vested in us IN clear ana pos
terms.
In regard to the third of the right to recover in
in suits law, the existence OF usage known 10
and recognised by parties it is sufficient for our pres
ent purpose say that the usage of trade in this as well s
in other may properly aud often does regulate me
contracts of parties (Meech ps smith, emu olo) -
of individuals whose dealings comprehended whin ~
whether it be local merely, the usage OF particular
trade they presumed to contract with reference TO
the usage it thus becomes part of their contracts
we attempt apply in this court where claims
are preferred against the United States the rules winch
regulate the liability Of parties in ordinary SUITS we snail
find that the liability of the United States to pay Interest
upon debt cannot be traced to any Of the sources from
which the liability of individuals can be dedueed lnero
are in the 6rst place. of Congress which impose
this liability upon the United States Statutes may oe
found exceptional in their character and based upon pecu
liar circumstances which induced Congress- IN the exeE-
else of their discretion and in view of what seemed 10 tem
proper provide that interest IN certain cases shou po
paid But there general law enacng that interest
Shall be paid on debts from the United States nor mas
any general appropriation of money ever been MADE ior he
purpose OF paying claims ior interest 80, .,. -
Secondly there adiudged cases wnch ght serve
to us as pcceents for deciding that the United States are
legally bound TO pay interest Indeed, until the insu
ton Of this court there mode by which the lap-
ty Of the United States upon this point could be made me
subject of judicial investigation. But we are NOT aware
that there are any in which the question mas peen
even incidentally discussed There is no law enacsng that
interest shall be paid there is no law protecting me
United States from being sued but we presume iha ~
was never supposed such suit would lie until tue passage
of the act constituting this cour We could not men,
Justify ourselves for holding that the United states are a
be pay interest by appealing TO the decisions o. tiou
nails where this question has arisen and has Deen deeaeu
There is n remark rsade by Mr. Justice BALDWIN, ~ pro-
nouncing the Judgment of the court the case OF the Un
ted States u.s. Aredondo &C. Pet I'LL which migh a bst
be supposed 10 have bearing upon this question lie
says: aThe only question depending is whether the claim
ant or the United States the owners OF the lana IN
question BY conscnng TO be sued, and submitting the
decision 10 judicial action they have considered ~
as purely judicial question, which we are now bound
! to decide rs between and man on the same suo-
ioc-macr and by the rules which Congress themselves
have prescrbedp We do understand this remark s
meaning anything more hsn that when the United States
have permitted themselves to be sued they become SUBJECT
to such rules and principles of law as may be applicable to
them or may have been prescribed by Congress The case
referred to was decided than twenty years before the
United States were made suabe and when II was necessary
to state rule the decision of that particular case aou
the court being called upon to state any general Prn-
1 ~ -. III laa