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

upon mass OF evidence, frequently conflict
ing in its character, almost always imperfect
in its conclusions, and often voluminous in its
size. Now, what opportunity has body com
posed Of sixty-two members, as is the Senate,
much less of two hundred and thirty-four mem
bers as the House of Representatives, to sift it
and deliberate upon any case resting upon such
evidence for decision? The result is, that the
petition of claimant is referred to commit
tee, whose members are busily engaged about
matters more to their taste and more to their
personal advantage. The bare idea Of great
and ambitious Senator leaving discussion in
volving such mighty interests as the Nebraska
bill, to determine claim of John Doe for
furnishing the army on the Canadian frontier
with beef during the last war with Great Brit
ain, is as grating to his sensibiliies, as was
the motion for judgment on forthcoming
bond BY greasy county court lawyer, after
the brilliant defamation of Patrick Henry or
of William Writ. The consequences of the
whole system has been that the demands of q
private claimants are frequently ignored, or, if
at all regarded, are passed at the solicitation,
and on the ca parte statements of the eager
representative of the claimant himself And
thus it follows, as an almost inevitable result,
that where the claimant does not meet with an
entire denial Of justice, the Government suf
fers from the effects Of hasty and careless leg
islation.
We must confess our surprise that, in the
preparation Of the bill for the organization of
this court, provision should not be made that,
where claim was rejected by the court, there
should be no right Of appeal to Congress. The
claim calendar would thus be thoroughly sifted
Of all cases except such as, in the opinion Of
three expert and learned judges, were worthy
of a favorable consideration. Nor could the
rejected claipant himself, with reason, COM
plain of such provision. For, even if he
should be dissatisfied with the decision of this
inferior tribunal, there can be no doubt that
the Supreme Court of the United States; under
the Constitution, has appellate jurisdiction in
all such cases.
But even without this amendment, which we
would have preferred, we think the system pro-
posed by the bill has immense advantages over
the present practice 1t provides for deciding
these numerous cases, not on the er payte evi.
dence Of the claimant, but with proper regard
to the rights Of the Government, whose inter
ests are to be represented and protected by an
attorney. 1t sits the yoluminous evidence
upon which claim may rest, and presents the
issue, Invested Of all extraneous matter, plainly
and fairly to Congress. 1t decides upon the
merits Of the case, and not upon the merits o.
Me applicant. 1t gives to Congress the benefit
of the legal learning, the long experience and
the patient investigation of three judges, who,
from their position, may be fairly presumed to
be eminent in their professions and just and
honorable in their character; and, finally, it
ensures promptness in the settlement Of these
claims without sacrifice Of the interest of
the Government.
In the limits of our editorial columns we are
unable to go more fully into the merits of the
bill. All recognize the evil of the present sys-
tenn, and see the necessity for a change. We
think that this bill meets as nearly as practical
bic the acquisitions of the case. 1t will, at
least, have the desirable effect of more speedily
adjusting claims before Congress, and Of adj
ministering prompt and efficient justice. I'm
der the existing dlatory mode of proceeding,
these claimants are in the position Of Dickens's
poor cobbler in the Fleet who attributed his
insolvency to the fact that he had legacy left
him.