Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1855-01-21
THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

before Congress, and the brief time which Will
elapse before the close Of the present session,
will not prevent due and favorable consider
alton Of subject of such great Importance
to large portion Of the people of our coun-
try, as the organization Of o court Of claims.
We have but little to add to the valuable
reasons adduced by others in support Of this
measure, but it may be we'll to recur to some
Of the advantages Of such an establishment
both to the government ITSELF and to the claim
ants whom it affects.
The system which has heretofore been pur-
sued in relation to this subject, has been ine6i-
Gent, and therefore, we add with all respect,
unwise and unjust. While we do not endorse
the maxim that swift injustice is to be preferred
to slow justice, yet the delays in the prosecution
of claims before Congress, are lamentable and
often destructive to the claimant. This much
abused, and much derded class of the commu
nifty, have often been compelled to wait for
years the adjustment Of the simplest claim TO
exhaust time and means in urging it forward
before Congress, and finally to give up in
despair; the impoverished victims of system
more alluring in its character, end more fatal
in its results than the chancery proceedings
rendered memorable in the well known cause
of Jarndyce and Jarndyce. They are, indeed,
dismal illustrations of the truth Of the old
adage, that the game is not worth the candle.
A valued correspondent, in late number OF
our paper, referred to the dilatory proceedings
of Congress in the adjustment of the claim Of
Amy Darden's horse, and, by simple. nara
tive of the facts, showed more conclusively than
logic could do, the evil Of the system under
which that claim was prosecuted. He alluded
to it principally, however, in its bearing
upon the Government itself. 1t would re-
quire graphic pen to detail the heart-aches
and disappointments of the amiable widow,
herself, as, through long and weary series Of
wears, which blanched her hair and dimmed
her eyes and wrinkled her visage, she strug-
gled for che acknowledgment of a claim, the
final and favorable decision of which was the
best commentary upon the gross injustice I'M
der which she had so long suffered. The curse
of Tantalus is but just myth of the decetful
hope which, through thirty years, destroyed the
peace Of mind of this "importunate widow"
But we rest our defense of this measure upon
a higher ground than the mere protection of the
rights of the claimant We incline to the opinion
that, placing the cognizance of these causes
in court organized for the purpose, is not
only expedient in itself, but is carrying out
the very letter and intent of the Constitution.
We consider claims against the federal gov
eminent to be of the very essence of the cases
spoken of in the Constitution as peculiarly be-
longing to the federal judiciary. The language
of the Constitution is explicit, and rendered
even more explicit by the connection in which
the clause to which we refer is to be found.
"The judicial power Of the United States shall
extend to all controversies to which the United
States shall be party" Not party plaintiff
only, as is expressly stipulated in regard to q
State, but party at all. Now, if this be the
fair construction of that article, let us ask
when is the United States party defendant,
except in cases Of claims against the United
Staies2 And if we are correct in this view,
by what right is cognizance of such cases
vested in the legislative department of the
federal government? 1t can only exist in the
aSupreme Court, and in such inferior courts as
the Congress may from time to time ordain
and establish"
This we hold to be the only rational inter
nretation of this clause of the Constitution.
By il full power is given to Congress to ordain
and establish such tribunal for the adjudca-
lion of these claims rs it may think fit. All
that is required is, that some tribunal, Judicial
IN ;ts character-a court--shall be provided by
Congress for that purpose.
The difficulty which has arisen in regard to
,b;soues,ion is due to thefactthat Congress must
appropriate the money necessary for carrying
into effect the judgments Of such tribunal
Tb;s ia cleaf to every mind. But it is no new
thing, that the prerogatves and duties of diff
ferent departments of the Government viii
,bps often clash. To decide in favor of 9
claim is one thing, to appropriate money fo'
ats payment Is ahoene'' A"o
exists in a far more important power provided
for by the Constitution. We refer to the treaty
making power. Here the power to make trea
ties is vested in the President, with the con
currence Of two-thirds Of the Senate. Yet, !
auch treaty involves the payment Of money, nj
one has ever contended that the House Of Rep
resentatives has not also controlling voice
N such an appropriation. Indeed, if il be ne
cessary to increase the revenue to raise the ap
preparation, the bill must even originate in tn .
5,uncb of Congress which has no voice in tn
making OF the treaty. Ifthis be the case, IS
no dificn,. to understand that the Judica
power should adjudicate and determine
claim, which, however, can only be liquidate
nv the consent of the legislative branch {
Government
- llp