The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-12-23
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.

Decision ON n sspoiia:ion Claim Under tho
Treaty with Spain OF 1SiS--Tic Payment
of Interest on such Ci:linls-Award by
Heads OF Departments IL Mot Arbitra;nent--
The Number and Amount of the Claims.
DaUtd Gordon, administrator OF george ". Fisher,
49, Tae United Sdtes.Thc plaintin, as the represen-
tative OF Fisher, claims to recover the amount of
sixty-six Thousand and some hundreds Of dollars
under an award made by John b. Floyd Secretary of
War, as compensation for the property OF Colonel
Fisher destroyed by the troops OF the United States
in 1884 In The then Territory OF Florida. In 1sl6
Colonel Fisher applied to Congress for compensa-
ton and after delay Of thrty-fve years, in lS4S
act was passed providing "a fair and full indemnify
Tor ell losses and injuries sustained" under which
at different times ne received about Oncfourth part
OF the claim subsequently, IN 1900 the Secretary Of
War was directed TO revise his action under the act
OF lS4S by Joint resolution OF Congress-. There
upon the award referred TO was made allowing
ABOUT one-nan the balance OF the claim
and rejecting the residue. Sucn balance al
lowed amounted to the sum above named.
The Third Auditor then wrote to the administrator
that upon showing Ills authority to receive II, the
amount awarded would be paid; but before payment
another joint resolution approved March 1861 re-
Scinded the joint resolution OF June, 1850. Payment
then refused and this action brought. The Court,
demurrer, dismissed the action, using the follow
Ing anguage:4-There not being any cause OF action
Claim set up III the petition, save that founded
upon the finding of the Secretary OF War, under the
resolution approved June l. 1860, claimed 70 be an
thai that resolution, ana all acuon under IT, was de-
cared 10 be and became null and void by the force
and effect OF the repeal OF March, 1861 the demurrer
IL sustained and the petition dismissed. This was
The only question decided IN the case or presented
for review here. The claim is under the treaty OF
1919 with SPAIN
The cause was argued az the last term Of the court
and decision held uDuer Amusement uaui now
Mr. justice Greer delivered the opinion Oh the court
affirming the Judgment OF the Court OF Claims, hold
in- that the theory OF appellant that the Is ode
OF arbirraDient and award binding upon the govern
meut a mistake. The secretary OF War was not an
arbitrator and dad not act as sucA. His action
wholly ministerial the resolution under winch he
not authorized to make a iina award, nor did the
resolution require thar the appellant should abide by
the award made. An 3rbitfament that Included
one party only would certainly be an anomaly III the
law. IL was competent for Congress 10 repeal the
law which gave the appellant tribunal before
which To have his CAIN investigated Toe repeal OF
the resolution did deprive aim OF this remedy but IL
did not violate hls right. He can still mportune
Congress rs much as he pleases. All the injury ne
has suffered by the repeal OF resolution autloriz
ing The Secretary OF War 10 revise the claim ls that
he h deprived OF that particular means OF redress.
Ali Others still remain open 10 INN. Judgment az
nrmed.
1t appears from this opinion that about 200 OF these
claims have beea prosecuted by Inherent parties an
TO THIS time and about Si,000ooo nave been paid
thereon. The only difficulty respect the claims
Is to the payment OF interest. The action OF The
department mas uniformly been to pay only the prin-
c.pal. Tie award made by secretary Floyd in this
allows about $780, 600 OF interest which the court
regards as an award TO the claimants Tor Their own
iAclgs.