Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1856-04-30

COURr OF CLAINs.-Yes yesterday, the opinion
of the court in the case Of Letitia Humphrey
as. the United States (the "Florida CASE
was delivered by Judge Blackford, of which
We give the following condensed synopsis:
The claim Immediately before the court
originated under the treaty of 1919 with Spain;
the ninth article providing for satisfaction to
the Spanish officers and inhabitants for In
Juries by "the late operations of the Ameri-
can army in Florida"'in 1872 and 1913.
Susan Murphy, eIecutrix Of Andrew Akin
son, recovered So, 800 for the losses suffered by
the deceased The interest of five per cent
awarded by the Florida judges was, however,
dissllowed at the treasury Of the United
States. The suit was to recover this interest,
and the executrix fled her application for it,
with damages for the nom payment.
Two questions were involved in this case
First, whether the decision of the FIorida
judges in favor Of the claim for interest was,
under the law, subject to the review of the
Secretary of the Treasury If this be so,
then, secondly, whether the Judgment of the
Secretary against the claim is final and con.
elusive as regards this court?
The acts of Congress of 1923 and 1884 were
designed to furnish a remedy by which satis-
faction was to be obtained for injuries as pro
vided for in the treaty of 1919.
The Florida judges were required to take
testimony, and determine the merits of the
claims; and when they had so decided, re-
port their proceedings, with the evidence, to
the Secretary Of the Treasury; and on his
being satisfied that they were just, and in &C
cordance with the provisions of the treaty, he
was required to pay them. These judges were
As commissioners merely. The decision was
an award Of these commissioners.
The proceedings before this Court of Claims
purpOrted to be an award.
The aggregate of the claims embraced by
the acts Of 1923 and 1884 was S2,SOS, 7O3. Of
which have been paid 50, 224 992, the interest
claimed amounting to 81, 55O,4l3
The question was whether the allowance OF
disallowance, by the Secretary of the Treas
ury OF these claims put an end to the demand
for interest? The affirmative was settled by
the Supreme Court Of the United States.
The opinion Of the court is that the claim
ant has shown no ground for relief
Judge Scarburgh expressed his opinion, diff.
fering from his brethren, Judges Gilchrist
and BlackfOrd He said this case involved a
principle Of the greatest magnitude, and sunk
into insigni6c ance the hundreds of thousands
OF dollars involved. He took the ground that
the words of the law, ''due process of law
amounted to a judicial process, and argue Ia
length In support Of his position, and further,
IN maintenance of the business of the allow.
ance OF interest on the principal sum of these
claims.
motion for a rehearing in this case was
| submitted, and is to be argued hereafter
The opinion of the court in the case of VIM
| IL Chase was delivered by Chief Justice Gil
| christ, the court deciding to report bill t
Congress allowing the claimant s., 092 SO
The opinion of the court in the case o.
| Michael NOurse, in which the court decided Il
| report bill to Congress allowing the claimant
S2,e16,l3; in that of John Rob, in which 8
bill was ordered to be reported to Congress al
lowing theclaimant 81 ,S76,73; and in that Of
Holman, Second opinion on amen led petition
in which an adverse decision was given, were
| delivered by Judge Blackford.
The opinion of the court in the case of AL.
nanzon Huston, in which bill was ord cred t.
De reported to Congress allowing the claimant
| 81, 49O; In that of John c. Hall in which nc
| decision was given, on the ground that all the
parties interested were not before the court
and in that of Jacob Gideon, in which the
taking Of testimony was ordered, were deliv
cred by Chief Justice Gilchrist
Jefferson F. jackson, Esq, of Montgomery
Alabama, was admitted to practice as an at
tOrney Of this court AdiOurned