New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-06-15


I'd ;hr; Nsr believed reitsrr hsd been paid .nnoi b
it Tat Oscn must have ben ID 70 iu.JTlta1 =
~ ~; of Ms.o1 ..ter uhirA h.. no, ,, been fnnd BIT
TIE BlIk haseahs v-h Desh5's kowl-d-e and hence
a.suu that z JIr' ~, h ac'a Postn ofthc taft' t
b. ave beer h ~ he Bank lnJ ratr IN sne
IGfc a.! know td.e 20 that tn Rvr Ran BAaS j.
truhi ne . y Again the powers n S'ewar- settle were
az ps aiming at'ver shi possessed against the state
n C.,'AH,r 4 the s.t,Helf Of Nov rut,r W. -.
o,ersve 70 snrsi Shat stewrt bad performed 70 vi ihs
Hai ths Bsal ~ Jiy aPPie Gle public II + q
that delaimsd 81 Interest 80 The securities and lcf:
i' ~ u state to esai ~ 'l' A. iholsAi PopI 49,
mbr 20 the b. haa ~al equitable irnan4
seau.t the State Of Michigan for payment Of either q those
IT, Judge then proceeds rev,w The f-t. Connected
With III rrcns,ion Of he claim hy the PheniH Baa 20 i6c
= tFe -eeeipt by eon on b.6sf # The Pbeux Bank Of
deed for thousand land sud upward which had been
ccrvey stewart y the safe Bank Z Nchig.n sc
duty and aeroiy preserved hold "a the securities Stew
as hzud sud persisted in It's deu,ant the Tee
State never By any declaration recognized o.
But in January 1851 new Constitution vas adopted which
afterard stated provided for e.;abhHs Bai fr the
.Id fo1t, e the Bank we're revived.
Til. bT;gs T. the remaining aud important
a. VEL as difficult qse.ou in the case TIA;
he award q The Board Of Adors and Of the OF Tie
Tn the provision. Of the Constitution
Il Michigan ~ restou the organization and powrs II the
B.erd nd the subsequent legislation in aid OF Il and .ay'
In the consideration OF the ard under this s the counsel
cstion between parties recognized Cont If Justice and
for h force ~ Judicial esoppe TIE Counsel Cor the
plaintiffs regard nothing higher Than the adj .tmen OF an
sccons; or by sseut examine sni
payment Of the amount upon the basis Of his adjustment
Judicial rowr in supreme Court and in other Courts therein
usued Thtre IS n authority 70 inpeao the sl'c before
either these. aud think that his supplies
10 show tei thu award cannot b. regarded a. Of equal
force with a Judgment.
The SUBMISSION Ly SOVEREIGN State of claims asans; il to
the arbram~t e any tribunal mast be construed in th strict
ct msnuer is 80 Tar renneou u is Hh % jHdEe
through il highest .entnE power Of 'yrrt demand Hp
it and hcsti'n 4 is authority 30 treat al su demands
refer the rule his head other
than t- ssrse opinion OF Jusce lrrde IN Chisholm
The STATE Of Georgia Il Dallas as Ths great case "a Of
such moment Of 20 Produce amendment - 90" to'' ltn
the unitod state aId the opinion and~ 20 wi bear
icy thist Juice q no S.uIi nT pTe ana re Nv
H. toitep e.p.ct, for the service Of the Kingaom Acr
iu xaunaton the Bdnksys and Of Mbaih AIT Hal
dmsrd Il DuTr and East ~, he says II 4ebt be con
tracted ayovsdly the public Of government is At
least doubtful heher the petition right will lie and
will seIv ard IN the Of Pa Lament 20 provide
rs .T The se Of deb; due from the State None b.
dir city claimed but in The following instances L. III ase o
contract with the Leg-atme itself: End in case o contract
with the i've OF any Tttt ps,on 20 , ~ a
e1p's' uniformly irm me Le-i's'"ie 81. ,Le-
viii the Executive without ay 'pe's III 'ne ~
md second the contract II evidently mar on he po
alegsatye body his Only deptnarnce t"eeiorr can De
that the Ler's aiure will rak" provision r the Nuoh 9t
any % , l Ta,;.c ~ stanton on Prr-os.tyc These
pTcceed 70 b. viewed strictly tor they are the conces
Keeping tl principle in Wow recognize and recon
Gle the II any which the determinations OF boards com
l,ours and ofcer vested with 9aGSi Judicial character
Tie following passage tie opinion in The Ured state.
as Areto.do g Pet' - sARei.e the r. Ia p Ie
cpe that wL,e power juri.dicon DELEGATED to any pub
c oC tribunal subject matter aud ts e1er, Sc Is
coded 20 hs their discretion the acts 90 done are hdI4
ard valid The only quest that arise between an ind
ydual claiming gL under the sets done and The public OF
person denying m validity are power IN the ohe'i ana
iGd in the party Al other questions are settled oy the dos
executive n Crsnch l7o legislative a Whest i Peters
49,, fsI j9e bdM PAL n Ca ane.. an spp
BE- provided fr, other reyi.ion b soe sPet.oIy 'ro
g snd supery.rs Of Onond,ga Briggs q Denio 49, and
End in suy If them that the State Is patry directly
in ier.. tia; the sht of the whole aggregate body j.
crred then only by express positive enactment taai i
be- bound and only so far as by ne er o. s'cn
consent made apparent take for example thu regulation Of
H.. Canal Of State This IL public concern
but it would be in possible 10 manage By the ' 1,e
Commissioner . therefore established with body Of APprA
under It. The determination Of tn, latter upon question
decision 4 lie latter j. final W s. 1880 p 2ip and payment
It earn doubted t, but for these provision. a. to the
ely ~ ~ & @ would o1y m the settlement 81
lam py ~ {cbi.sn direct the Attorney Geurra b. collect
the mount found the State from claimant Bu aP
fi'n t. , 5 b tl tfect Of the decision Il the Auditor.
If even prcsuuTyt evidence it could not in my Judgment
Wien then II, Pteuy Bsnk could no. sue 'he stae Of
Michigan Federal tribunal when It could not sue II IN any
the whole judicial
ths under The Consultation O. the United Staie'l Vested
in definite tribunals cannot but consider That ~ board
auditors oeoFd no Asn,r P' atrol, i., ,' ' r. wa.
the substitute Of tie usual committee OF me Le9'9'e e
'quiiae claims II possessed r,ater authority snt can
not invest its determination with any greater po"or
The result That there settlement. by an agent and
Ill y,v we meet the wei distinction be
en- the ouud which MONEY PAID may be rec eTed
. .S 70 H. Lord Mansfield in Dickinson
T. r. 28 seio the distinction and various cases to Illus
Apayen; # money due e bono, bat 10 suit for
which there would have been legal defense sicA as infancy
money made with ample knowedse Of all the mateai facts
which ~oud constitute .esll On I ,, b & nh
ul obtaining tie knowledge OF 'ach facts Will
tns and cutag various in illustration
Of tic Sc proposition, the Judge continues;
know and Of st were they ignorant kbbey the Land Com
mi.sis,G Whitemcre the Treasured and Ota!e, .ne
sry of State the three membis OF the boa2 Oh
xuined They all members OF the board OF AUDITORS
They deposc to the fact. thst they saw" Exhots aud ~
which w,e exhibited 10 tie Board At its session IN MAJ POI
Two meetings had, ole in May aud one IN DectmoeI
1851 and other testimony oIal 81 WEI "s "a Ne
No 1tinaion tyrn that the claim hei pee Ptu 40
witness ,xsBed They never Ipes OF Tie si Del u
way settled by the hehl.an STATE 6hnh, or ~ , 1 e
The River RasiD q any security Delhs iecceu 'o
either u such Banks by the DEF. dalt'- os,. r.t
They deem evidence before Them 'iient Lo,hfop
the Counsel the confirms this statement ad adds tAat
he r,hrred R,ard - public docgtht, or AeTsPai,
The deed Of 1870 for the Saginaw anas ne da I;t
state 20 the Board anything .soa, ~ q af %1 besn 9smr
ba tbe Eapk mad never ayaed Themselves Of H. had never
rtrd b nor received anything under - lie himself haR
e,s heard 81 Stewart having uadc, OF ptei U nave
de suy settlement with the Two BiLks lie hf't heAiu o'
thi- sfirr the awsr.. -. -. ,t. po.-3
luis.d II u, Of the following facts OF segatlois fAI OK
va. the claim IL ihr form Of an account petnn Ap D
sc 80 .rcr, II the State OF MchiSan. with he fArnN
Bsni -hsrgrg the dra, delivered 70 John norton 's'arI
o., oyeruor Mason being for advance On state boa,
and br t ,tHdayt OF JOIN Deshtd anu the eefste u ~
@ OGDEN Cssher. Both Esde the lOth ~ Juh'' l'f
The sdGy, q Dcsfei sets forth bis oy o,r
Mon ~, st 70 -. the Bonds II the state lI.i ne 4AIt
sdyc.s on The faith u such bonds that two '-yeia
= 49,. ~, =, ,rre red for IL by hniou- iur SI509 ad'4nrd
- - x I'd Nipg aud the ota-r for 8 10 20 BY lie roe
NJ, R,r ,ht the after peid by delivery Of the Two dr'
i, "a S,t.on fiscal agent Of the state at slih
- Sur.nn .cL,.tlLr u W Liot-