Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1855-01-23
THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

/ In the views which we presented in our last
paper on this subject, we confined ourselves al
most exclusively to the right of Congress to
constitute such a tribunal We did this be-
cause we thought that the main difficulty in
the passage of the bill lay in the Constitutional
question involved in it; and because, more.
over, the urgent demand for some change Of
the kind was SO generally entertained that it
was almost unnecessary to advocate it. We
propose, however, very briefly to consider some
Of the objections which are advanced to the bill
by its opponents.
The objection which has been urged to the
bill, on the ground Of the increased expense of
such q system, is Of the penny wise and pound
| foolish character which we had hoped would
find but little favor in this practical age. AS
was very Justly said on the occasion of the de-
bate on the proposition in the Senate, more
money is often lost by the discussion of one
single claim before Congress than would pay
every salary of every officer Of the Court for an
entire year
The act Of relieving Congress of the consid-
Grafton Of these claims and vesting the power in
court, must to that extent, shorten its sessions,
and thus diminish the public expense. 1t is in
fact but a transfer Of causes from one court to
another-for Congress, in the consideration of
these claims, acts as judicial tribunal. We,
therefore, believe that the contemplated change
will actually be desirable in an economical
e p,,@o a
there is real merit in a measure, where the in.
terests of thousands Of citizens are involved in
the question, whore the treasury itself is to be
directly protected, we must confess that we
think it but indifferent craftsmanship to cavil
over the very moderate expense Ct the court of
claims.
1t is urged, again, that the decision of these
claims by the court is only equivalent to the
decision of the committee Of the House, to
whom claim is referred. Both court and
committee are COMPELLED to,report to Congress
the result of their deliberations, and Congress
in both instances has supervisory control
over the subject. This, to say the least Of it,
is only plausible. We have no reason, and
certainly no right, to complain Of the neglect
Of the committee Of either house. We doubt
not that in most instances they are composed
of conscientious, active and vigilant men, who
spare neither pains nor labor in discharging
the duties committed to them. But, from the
very nature of the case, it is impossible that
committee can be qualified to decide on these
claims. AS we remarked in our former article,
they rest upon the er parte testimony of the
claimant himself rendered stronger by the per-
sonal considerations which are brought to bear
upon the case by the representative of the
claimant We have ourselves heard mem
bers Of both branches Of Congress urge the
passage of bill for the relief of constit-
uent on the ground of his honesty, his per-
sonal bearing and his moral worth. Very
good qualities these, we acknowledge, and not
always united in the same individual. But We
venture the assertion that if such qualifications
entitle every claimant to his warrant on the
treasury we would not long hear Of reduction
Of the tariff Of 1876, to relieve an overgrown
revenue. Nor is this all. While imperfect and
the judgments, and excite the charity Of mem
bers, it is often impossible to obtain sufficient
evidence at all. The claimant, may indeed, be
relied upon, even though living at a distance
to prepare his own testimony, and may thus
appear before Congress with his immense bags
of dispositions and documents, large enough to
supply the place Of the cotton bales at New
0rleans--much less to defend his own claim.
But where is the rebutting testimony to be OBJ.
tained2 Unless the committees, like the courts,
are empowered TO issue commissions 10 take de
positions at Assistance, and tohear the arguments
Of an attorney for the United States rs well as the
counsel for the claimant, it is impossible that
the Government can be sufficiently protected
from the hungry harpies who swarm the lob.
bies OF Congress, to feed upon the open treasury
ofthe country.
Now it is proposed to vest in the Court Of
Claims these very powers. Hence it is clear
that Congress will, and with propriety should,
give more attention to decision based upon
evidence maturely considered by competent
tribunal, theu in mere report hastily and i'm.
perfectly acted upon by an irresponsible COM
mittee. We believe that for the most part
Congress will act only as confirming power,
and record the edicts Of this judicial tribunal.
II will but seldom have occasion to exercise the
power which it has, to reverse the decisions of
the court. And yet it is left with that power
by this bill, for wise purposes. For in cases Of
l.
immense magnitude, in cases involving ques-
tons Of great principle, the Congress is well
qualified to act rs court OF review to this
lower tribunal. But even in such cases the
court Of claims will be Of great advantage in pre-
pairing and maturing the cause, in sitting the
voluminous evidence upon which it rests, and
in presenting the issue Invested of all extra