Clarksville chronicle. (Clarksville, Tenn.) 186?-1872, 1871-07-22
Impertans Dccisiem or the Cesrs Of
G'unfsupa.

The Court OF Claims, before the
late adjournment, decideds case bear
Ing on certain private rights and re-
dress Uf citizen against the govern
ment which will affect a large num-
Der of cases now pending. ELIAS and
Morris Brown brought action in the
Court Of Claims; whereon decree
was rendered April IL, 1868, adjudg-
Ing them entitled to $9,0O4,44, heinR
net proceeds Of their captured proper
ty, found Ivy the court remaining In
the United States Treasury. The Sec
retary of the Treasury assumed to
annul the decree NJ the Court, and
paid only a portion Of the Judgment,
leaving $723,3 unpaid, wherefore the
claimants brought action for this
amount due upon the former decree.
The defense Of the United States In
this action was, first, that the Court
Of Claims had no Jurisdiction, be-
cause Its power was exhausted when
~ had passed upon the amount due
the claimants for the Captured and
Abandoned Property Fund, which Is
q special fund, and 1t could not award
any portion Of such amount to be
paid from the general appropriation
for the satisfaction Of DEGREES for other
purposes. Second, that the United
States are not liable for the mistake,
maffeasance, or neglect of It's officers.
and ought not to be compelled to pay
this amount from the general fund, n
wrongfully withheld by the Secretary
Of the Treasury from the claimants.
The decision Of the Court sustained
the question Of Its own Jurisdiction
on the ground that Judgment was
an implied contract Of which the
Court, under its organic law, had ~.
risdlction; that this proceeding was
not under the special laws relating r,
captured and abandoned property,
and that the decree IN the present
case was not payable. lie any other
general decree Of the courts from the
general flind. Touching the second
point Of the defense Of the Govern.
ment, the court says: 1.-THE Court Of
claims was established to give legal
redress to the citizen. as against the
Government where he would have
had legal redress as against another
citizen. We can not give legal re-
dress except upon legal principles
we cannot sustain defense on the
part OF the Government where, ifset
up by an ordinary defendant, It would
be held illegal, inequitable and ut-
considerable. What would be said
OF bank that came into court while
still Withholding the funds OF q de-
position, and pleaded that the refusal
to pay over was the tortuous act Of its
cashier? What would be Thought Of
a common carrier who, while retain
Ing possession Of any goods, pretend
ed that the conversion was mere
ly the wrongful act Of his agent p
Such Is the position of the Govern
ment on this suit, Withholding money
that does not belong to 1t, insisting
tnat the wrong waists agents, though
done on It's behalf, and that the own
er Is without remedy; to allow the
money OF citizen to be kept In the
public treasury without his fault or
neglect; to santcion public officers,
throigha mistake Of law, IN taking
private property against the legisla-
tive Will to permit unlawful acts to
control the law would be tn annul the
tile highest purpose Of Congress IN
establishing this court" NJ
The Judgment of the court Is that
the claimants recover of the defend.
ants the sum of S723.32.
Secretary Boutwell, has heretofore
held In these cases that he could not
be affected rs q private citizen, but
that as an executive officer lie could
review the case and pay the claims
In accordance with the showing on
the books of the Treasury Depart
ment.