National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-10-20
OUR DISTRICT SECURITIES.
TIE ATTORNEY GEEERAHs OPINION
oFAUDIFOR's CERTIFICATES.

THEY ARE LIQUIDATED DEBT OF THE
BOARD oFPUBLIC WORKS, WHICHwoULD
HAVE BEEN PAID II THE BOARD HAD
POSSESSED THE MEANS, AND THEREFORE,
DRAW LEGAL INTEREST FROM THEIR
DATE.
Tia following opinion Of Attorney General
Williams Is OF much Interest 70 large number Of
the citizens Of this District We therefore give IT
entire:
DEPART1rEET or JUSTICE,
WASHINGTON, October II, 1874
HOa. B. Il. BrfStoto. Secretary Of tie Treasury;
SIR; / have the honor 10 acknowledge the re-
ceipt Of your letter bearing date October 10 1874
inelosing one OF the 9th addressed to you By the
nrst and second comptrOllers and requesting ny
opinion upon the question presented By those off-
GERS, viz: Whether they, sitting IS board OF
audit under the act Of Congress for the govern
ment Of the District Of Columbia, approved June
20, 1874 should allow interest on that portion Of
the debt Of said district purporting 70 be eTi-
densed BY certain certine signed By the aldi-
the Enclosure with your letter copy Of one Of
these certificates, showing their form and tenor,
notice your suggestion that the interests Of TIE
ton ofthe question Itmay 90 happen nevertheless
It Is not debt claim against the United States
that the comptrollers are called on to examine.
fCDgress has enacted . law BY which in some
continge ncy, near or remote, the United States
may Be obliged 70 pay the debt Of another govern
ment, do not see that the nature conditions OF
that debt can in any way be changed or modified
by such liability. II the debt bears interest it
must be taken cum 0aeTe. The Indebtedness to
be audited is that Of the District Of Oolum ba for
the payment Of which Congress has made pre-
vision, and has determined that It's status shall
be accurately ascertained.
The act above referred to describes the class or
the floating debt Of the District - which these
certificates belong. Secondly, the debt purport-
ing to be evidenced and Asesrtained oy eertin-
Gates Of the auditor Of the Board OF Public
Works. Whether It Is lawful and right for the
District to pay interest upon these eertneates is
as understand # the question submitted; The
case seems to be this: The Board Of Public Works
having entire control over the streets, avenues,
alleys and sewers Of the city Of Washington and
Sc. 10 be made and contracted Win sundry per-
sons to do the work. Under the same section OF
the law the board had also power to disburse
upon their warrant all moneys appropriated In
pursuance Of law for improvements, (seetion 81 Of
the act Of February p, 1871, statute 425) From
the powers thus granted there is necessarily In
counts Of contractors and other employees Of the
board. This duty was imposed upon an of1cer
appointed BY the board styled the auditor OF the
board, and In the examination, settlement and
allowance Of accounts his action was theirs
When the funds Of the board became exhausted,
and the amount found due to the contractors
upon settlement could not be paid, the auditor
gave to them, doubtless by order Of the board,)
as evidence Of such settlements certificates signed
by him as auditor, IN which It was stated that
he had audited and allowed the accounts, and the
amounts allowed were distinctly given.
These amounts, as shown ~ the auditors GER
tihcates, then became liquidsted debts, due at
the respective dates Of the certificates and there
being no question raised 70 the legality Of the
contracts under Which they were incurred, they
the opinion that interest Is chargeable on these
certificates from and after their dates, because
they are evidences OF Indebtedness ascertaiRed
and Hquidated BY the debtor at the times they
bear date. They are Acknowledgements BY the
debtor that the amounts shown BY them were
due at date, but payment was declined. The
Ia ~ N n
est. Interest becomes q part Of the debtor as
obligatory upon the debtor e. the prin-
cipal. In Boddam vs.. Riley, Bro. o. o., p.
8, Lord ThurloW said: .sWhen there are accounts
regularly stated between the parties there Is an
implied contract on the part OF the debtor to pay,
to Interest from the time when the principal
ought to be paid" And Mr.. Justice Spencer
said, IN Maiden vs.. Sherburne, Is Johns, 40:
1--WE have uniformly decided that after an ae-
count has been liquidated It carries interest and
that an account Is to be considered hquidated
after II is rendered n objections are not made TO
it," [See also On. j. Savage's decision in Reed
vs. Rensselaer, Glass Factory OoWen, s93. Mr..
SedgWick, in his law on damages, we'll sums up
the law on this subject as It is held In America,
In note at the foot Of page 3s3, thus: ''The law
in this country annexes interest as an invariable
incident in all eases Of default to pay the prin-
eipal sum, where the debtor knows what the sum
These authorities VIII probably sufice to show
that the law this subject is IN the case Of ind
viduals and corporations. It is not different in
State cannot be sued by . citizen, but when
questions Of public indebtedness come incidental
~ before the Judicial tribunals, they do not hes
tate 70 dispose Of them upon the same legal and
equitable principles In the case Of individuals
The State Is liable to pay interest lndiVidu-
ais are.-Republiea Ys. Mitchell, I'd Dallas, lol /;
Commissioners vs.. Kempshall, % Wend, 4o4 ;
People vs. Canal Commissioners, DEMO, 401 2
Mason @. o. Rep. /. Congress, In requiring the
Comptrollers ofthe Treasury TO examine and audit
the floating debt Of the District Of Columbia, has
limited then in the performance 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 Il is fairly to be in
ferred that It Is the intent Of the act that they
should be governed by those rules. Moreover,
section Of act Of April q, 1870 10 Stats, 81 en-
titled an act to amend the usury laws Of the Dis
trict Of Columbia, provides that for the loan or
forbearRnce Of any money, goods or things in &C
tion the rate Of interest shall be per cent. Per
annum, and there seems to be no good reason
why this act should not apply 70 the nquidated
and overdue indebtedness OF the late Board Of
Public Works.
Very respectfully your obedient servant
GEO. H. WILLIAMS, Attorney General.