Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1874-10-19
AUDITOR's CERTIFICATES.
Important opinion of Attorney Gene
EaI WilllAmR


HB DEoIDEs THAT THE CERTIFICATES BEAR
INTEREST PROM THE DATE THEY WE'RE IS
SUED.
Attorney General williams has given the fol-
lowing opinion relative TO the question of inter
est on certificates of Indebtedness issued by the
Board of Public Works of the District of CO.
lumbia:
DEPARTMENT oP JUSTICE, J
WASHINGTON, October II, 1874
Hon. B. ~. BTistoU, Secretary Of tie Treasury.
SIR:-I have the honor TO acknowledge the
receipt of your letter bearing date October 10,
1914, IDelosing one of the 9th addressed to you
by the First and Second controllers, and re-
qutsting my opinion upon the question pre-.
sented by those officers, viz: Whethey they,
Il ting as a board of audit under the act OF
CoDgre IS for the government OF tue District Of
Columbia, approved june 20, 1914, should allow
interest on that portion of the debt of said Dis
tTict purporting TO be evidenced by certain Ger
uhCatss sIgUed by the auditor of the late Board
OF Public Works. find in the inclosure with
your letter a copy of one of these certificates.
showing th cir form ana tenor, notice your sug-
gestion that the interests OF the United States
Wi be affected by the determination of the ques
tiop. 1t may so happen; nevertheless, tits not
debt or Claim against the United States that the
controllers are called on TO examine. Ii Con
gress has enacted a law by which in some con
ingency near or remote the United States may
be obliged to pay the debt of another gov
ernment, L do not see that the nature
or conditions of that debt can in any
way be changed or modified by such liability
If the debt bears interest IL must be taken cum
oRere. The Indebtedness to be audited is that
of the District OF Columbia fer the paymsnt OF
which Congress has made provision, and has
determined that its status shall be accurately
ascertsined. The act above referred to de-
scribes the class of the floating debts of the
District, to which these certificates belong
Secondly, the debt purporting TO be evidenced
and ascertalned by certificates of the Auditor
of the Board of Public Works" Whether it is
lawful and right for the District to pay interest
upon these certincaths is, as 1 understand it,
the question submitted. The case seems to be
this. The Board of fPublic Works haV Wing entire
control over the streets, avenues, alleys, and
sewers of the city of Washington and George
town, ordered improvements of streets, ItSc t.
be made and contracted with sundry persons t.
do the work. Under the same section of tue
law the board had also power to disburse upon
their warrant all moneys appropriated in pur
suance OF law for Improvements [sectiOn 81 of the
act of February 2l, ls7l. statute 426). from tn
powers thus granted there is necessarily in
fsrred the authority to audit and settle the ac-
counts Of contractors and other employees O.
the board. This duty was imposed upon an Of
fcer appointed by the board STYLED the Auditor
Of the Board of Public Works. He
represented the board, and in the ex-
animation, settlement, and allowance of
accounts his action was theirs. When the
funds OF the board became exhausted, and the
amounts found due to the contractors upon
settlement could not be paid the Auditor gave
to them, (doubtless by order of the board a.
evidences of such settlements, certificates
signed by him Auditor, in which il wa
stated that he had audited and allowed the ac-
counts, and the amounts allowed were dis
unctly given. These amounts, as shown by the
Auditors certificates, then became lquidated
de bts, due at the respective dates OF the certh-
Gates, and there being no question raised as t.
the legality of the contracts under which they
were incurred, they are debts of the District OF
Columbia. L am of the opinion that interest il
chsrgeable on these certificates from and after
their dates, because they are evidences OF in
debtedness ascertained and liqudated by the
debtor at the times they bear date. They ar
cknoHledgments by the debtor that the amount
shown by them were due at date. but payment
was declined. The law in such cases implies
contract TO pay interest. Interest becomes a
part of the debtor as obligatory upen the
debtor as the principal. In B0ddam VS.. Riley
2 Bro. G. c., p. 3, Lord Thurlow said: "when
there are accounts regularly stated between
the parties there is an implied contract on the
part of the debtor TO pay, and ali contracts to
pay undoubtedly give a right to interest from
the time when the principal ought to be psid:,'
and MIR. Justice Spencer said in Maiden VS.
SherbuTne, ID Johns, 40, ave have uniformly
decided that after ami account has been hquf-
dated II carries interest, AMI that acc OanI is
70 be considered liquidated after 1t is rendered.
II objections are not made 10 it. See also ca.
j: Savage's decision in Reed Rensselaer,
Glass Factory-3 CoweD, 393. Nr. Sedgwick, in
bis Work on damages, well sums up tue Law on
this subject as 1t Is held in America, ia a note
at the foot OF page 3S3, thus: 80 The law in this
country anneNes interest a. an invariable Incl
dent in all cases of default to pay the princip3
sum, where the debtor knows what that SUN is
and when he is to pay it. These authorities
this subject is in the case of individuals and
corporations. 1t is not different in respect to
state ard territorial governments. A state can
not be sued by citizen, but when questions OF
public Indebtedness come incidentally before
the judicial tribunals they dOnot hesitate to dis
pose of them upon the same legal and equitable
principles as in the case of individuals. The
state is ss liable to pay interest as Individual
aTe.-Respublica VS.. Mitchell, 2i Dallas, l0l
Commissioners vs. Kempshsll, 26 wend, 4O4
People vs.. Canal Commissioners, Denio, 4OI
Mason q. q. Rep. I. Congress, in requiring
the Controllers of the Treasury to examine and
audit the floating debt of the District OF Co
lumb bia, has limited them in the perform sucs
of this duty by no rules in respect to interest
other than those which would apply to the
debts OF individuals, corporations and states
and it Is fairly to be inferred that it is tn
intent OF the act that they should be governed
by those rules. Moreover, section Of act O
April q, 1870, 10 Stats, 81, entitled an act Il
amend the usury laws Of the District OF Colnm
bia, provides that for the loan or forbesrance o.
any money, goods or things in action, the rat.
or interest shall be per cent. per aDnum, anG
there seems to be no good reason why this ac'
should not apply to the iiquidsted and overdue
Indebtedness of the late Board of Public Works
Very respectfully your obediens servant.
GRO. II. WILLIAMS, Attorney General