The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-02-13


jury to be due TO the defendant but that not udg-
ment and does not carry interest per SO at law is
ectnatter on which interest may or may not be allowed
am unwilling to that this is peculiar case, on
account or the character of the tribunal that Investigated
! 1T SO as to require us TO pay interest.
see nothing like contract the which implies the
obhgation TO ray interest see nothing In rnoras that
calls on me to vote for the allowance OF interest in this E
stance because the merits OF the transaction not before
and on account of other circumstances the amount
ofi5 In order TO get rid OF the claim, | am by means
satisfied that that the exact due by the United
States do not know that il the account had been
recty stated on principles OF law any such balance would
have been established. Having evidence of that kind
canrot agree to allow interest ibis claim against the
general practice of Congress- which is 10 refuse interest
may cite to me- not only case, but ten Or
twenty in the legislation where interest has been
allowed but If they will take the trouble TO examine private
claims as often as have done they will find i've hundred
where interest has been refused for every twenty where ~
has been allowed In every where you allow claim
act gr&uiiy necessarily admit that the amount
is due DO you ever suppose it is due just at the hs
you allow it2 II the principle here conended for be
sound, you ought to allow interest in all cases |;
and you should go further. Suppose your approprla-
uon bills are not passed at the commencement OF the
hscal year. and there is money pay the salaries due
to your officers; this principle you ought to pay inter-
est on their salaries from the day which they became
due the day Of If there be any Question r,
progress onwards until your government will Break down
under it. Other governments have not acted you bave
not acted heretofore, this indscrimnae idea of allow
ing interest In general you have refused it. The un
versa practice OF the departments from the foundation OF
the government has been to refuse interest In his letter TO
Mr. Hammond Mr.. Jefferson contended for the principle
broadly and think soundly that under the teity with
Great Britain which requiiei 10 pay the debts due to
British subjects, we we've not bound to pay interest be-
there expression that interest TO be paid
and yet the debts were ihgs certain In that correspond
ence in my Judgment, in of the abest letters ever
written by Mr. Jefferson he concusively demonstrated
that there was no obligation to pay interest in that case
even under treaty. .n0r
Taking these views Of the question of interest cannot
see any peculiarly 10 the case WHICH calls me to allow
it, though INDY be willing assume if the claimant will
accept it, The sum found by the jury as approximation
to the proper amount There evidence to that it
Is not the exact amount There is no proof that if the
whole question had been understood it would not have
been less but if 1t the proof should
be willing to allow it, am unwilling however, to assume
verdict found contrary to the opinion Of the SuH
preme Court declaring such finding invalid carries inter-
est per Sc; and if do it in this Case conceive of
case in which you allow claim where you will not be
bound to allow interest il from the date at which
say the claim is due Such certainly has not been your
legislation You may try it you pleasethere is ten
dency that way, admitand the evil will go far
that you will be obliged to rescind your action and
back the sober principle of the law which
that interest ia to be allowed only upon agreement
either express implied from the circumstances Of the
transactions between the parties, and 10 other
Mr.. HOURSE Mr.. President, / apprehend that if we
vote pay the principal in this case must do upon
the understanding that this debt ascertaned spccca
ly by the jury which asseA this TRANSACTION and
that 1t at that time settled fixed matter BY the
--~-t Of the governmental that much money
then due to the petitioner in this we We
have had tn, Of this mans money, against his will
from that day to bs Undoubtedly have the power to
say that we will not psy him any Interest upon IT and
hare the power too say that we win ps5 tho orig
a sum- but upon what principle can We sit here lind vote
that the principal due and ha.it asceraned some
twelve or fifteen years ago be due and yet efuse pay
interest it at this time The senator from New Hamp
shire Me- HAH has certainly expressed The true idea in
regard this The practice of the government is
not to pay interest simply TIE ground that it is pre-
sumed the government always stands ready to do justice
os s fact that ss % s Sss been R bs
been brought forward to substantiae it. ".
As understand the facts in this case there was dis
pute between the Postmaster General the sse rep
resenting the government OF the United States and Mr.
Reesde upon the other to which debtor for each
claimed that the other debtor These parties stood
unequal ground because the United States had the
of enforcing their claim and Mr. Reside had not the power
of enforcing his The United States took the matter in
hand and fixed upon tribunal to decide the That
tribunal took cogniaance Of it precisely as if it were
Question between individuas and IL judgment could
be endefed the side the other side and be
made eectua instead of its being Between the govern
ment the one side and individual on the other,
where judgment could not be rendered against the gov
ernment The treated by tie court that tried
it. IL treated by the consent of the agents of the
government representing it at that trial and when
ton was made for trial. those gentlemen did not
pretend that the verdict should not be against the govern
ment that the balance due not rightly ascerained
only that too large balance was found against the
government
/ sfi not a lawyer, and do hot know technically
whether the accounts between the parties were legally
placed before the jury for them to determine the whole
against the government well n favor of the govern
ment but it sufficient for acting here that those who
represented the thst occasion consented
TO consider it. ask gentlemen IL II is not plain and
papabe fact that the court and the jury that occasion
of opinion that this than fairly
due to the claimant? We know the opinion of the
jury for they say and know il the opinion OF
the court because they refused upon that ground grant
a trial. They said that the amount due ascer-
tanned In their judgment with much accuracy
could be ascertaned The has consented by
this act to waive its right Of sovereignty far let ii
be ascertaned by jury whether they owed to this claim
ant anything, and how much they owed him. 1t has
been ascertained; and if we, instead of being govern
ment, individual Judgment would have been is
| sued and enforced against The simple question is
Shall we take advantage Of sovereignty Shall we
because have the power refuse to out to citizen
of this country that which would compel citizen
out to another2 If do equal justice to
individuals that equal justice which require individuals
to do to one another shall pay this claim and the
erest upon it. If to button ourselves up in our
dignity and sovereignty and say that because
refuse we will therefore refuse it, undoubtedly do
| so. #'5#iHe.. .4. aH.- = rsa al.F
drawn into precedent for The future being in violation
of precedent in the past have this say: il the govern
ment OF the United States has ever in any refused
pay interest due citizen from and after the
time when 1t was ascerained by proper tribunal that
that due it is quite time that such precedent
sulting from passing the bill
Mr. STUART. That my vote this subject unex plain
ed may not charge with Inconsistency, like the
from New Hampshire Mr.. BELL wish to say few
words. When this question before the Senate
former day. 1t was presented TO solely the decision
and upon inspection of the opinion of that court their
decision repuQnant to my views of under the