Watertown republican. [volume] (Watertown, Wis.) 1860-1906, 1871-07-19
An Important Decision.

The United States Court of Claims,
before its late adjournment, decided q
case bearing on certain private rights
of redress of citizens against the gov
eminent, which viii affect large num-
Der of cases now pending. Elias 4
Morris Brown brought an action in the
Court of Claims, wherein decree was
rendered on april 13, 1868, adjudging
them entitled tc 500, Al, being the net
proceeds of captured property found
by the court remaining in the United
States Treasury The Secretary of the
Treasury assumed to annul the decree
of the Court, and paid only a portion
of the Judgment, leaving ST., 332 I'M
paid, wherefor the claimants brought
action for this amount due upon the
former decree. The defence Of the Uni
ted States in this action was, first, that
| the Court of Claims had no jurisdiction,
because its power was exhausted when
| it had passed upon the amount due
the claimant from the captured
and abandoned property fund,
which is special fund, and
that it could not award any portion OF
such amount to be paid from the gen
eral appropriation for the satisfaction
/ of DEGREES or for other purposes; sec
ond, that the United States are not liza
BILE for the mistake, maifeasance, OF
neglect of its officers, and ought not &c
be compelled to pay this account from
the general fund If wrongfully with
held by the Secretary of the Treasury
from the claimants.
The decision of the court sustaine
| /, 81 I
the ground that a Judgment WIS an i'm
piled contract of which the court, under
It's organized laws, had jurisdiction
that this proceeding was not under the
special laws relating to captured and
abandoned property, and that the de
cree in the present case was PAYABLE
like any other general decree of the
court, from the general fund Touch
ing the second point of the defence OF
| the government, the court saws
"The Court of Claims was established
to give legal redress to the citizen
as against the government where ne
would have had legal redress as against
another citizen We cannot give legal
address except upon legal principles
| We cannot sustain defence on the part
| of the government where, if set up by
an ordinary defendant, it would be
held Illegal, inequitable or unconscion-
able. What would be said of a bank
that came into court, while still with
holding the funds of a deposition, and
pleaded that the refusal to pay over
was the tortious act Of It's
cashier2 What would. be thought of a
common carrier who, while retaining
possession of any goods, pretended
that the conversion was merely the
wrongful act of his agent Such is the
position of the government III this suit
withholding money that does not be
long to it; insisting that the wrong was
its agents, though done on it's behalf
| and that the owner is without remedy.
To allow the money of a citizen to bekept
in the public treasury without his fault
or neglect; to sanction public officers
through a mistake of law in taking pr
vate property against the Legislative
will to permits unlawful acts to control
the law-would be to annul the highest
purpose of Congress in establishing this
court. The Judgment of the court il
that the claimant recover of the defend
ants the sum OF $40, $50 y
Sec'y Boutwell, has heretofore hello
in these cases that he could not be af
fected as private citizen, but that as
an executive officer, he could review
the cases and pay the claims in &C.
cordance with the showing on the books
OF the Treasury Department.