National Republican., 1877-10-01

u a..
Now L Is plain that the circumstances under
| which these notes were given were suficient
| TO MAKE VOID ANY CONTRACT
| which the parties may have executed. 1t then ap.
pears that this examination went on. II also ap-
| paTs nom the statement Of Judge Bartlett that the
SSSrS s' snG sf
there were four distinct representations by counsel
sidlng In this investigation Now, II you are salts
ties executed these notes while they were out OF
prison aud free from arrest II you are clear that
for their arrest had been dissolved the note, were
coed and they were not voidabe on account oi
Now Ihavc givon you an instruction to the ef.
feet that durcss will void contract entered into
BY party who suffers ffom IT, II isa principle Of
the law that there must be free and voluntary
assent OF the parties to contract IN order to rem
der II binding, and III contract has been obtained
by terror or Violence, 1t Is sufficient to render II
xo!dable ut the option OF the party who executed
T. But, as the circumstances are as have stated
them In this case that dnrcss which renders con.
tract void did Ithcrcforc instruct you that
IL you believe as have stated that these notes were
executed while these parties were out Of prison and
free from arrest they are not void by reason ofanv
durcSS to which these parties were subjected. "
| you find that they were absolutely held IN prison
at the time they executed this contract that would
| be another AFFAIR.
II Il quite likely that the bonds they executed In
| order % obtain their release might he void. but
they were parties void to the uoes that were acr.
they were fee from ali release, and that does nu
effect the validity of the contract But Il Is said
that Parkman, brooks & Co. did not owe this
think, to dwell upon that dcfcnsc in regard 70
the notes. Here was very large dcfclf the par:
wsTs syessd an took place and
conflict Of testimony Il may bc that they were
not hlly liable for any Of IT. but afCr 4 has been
| adjusted by common consent, think the parties
| are afterwards stopped from making void a con-
tract which they have signed OF that description.
1T Is SAID THAT THESE NOTES WERE VOID
for other reasons It Is said that they constitute
| part ot contract that they were given upon n
time and do not know but that twas on the same
| day. Risley who represented the Government cn.
with Brooks, authorizing him to % into the Con.
fcdcrate territory for the purpose or collecting cot
ton belonging to the Government This was to he
done upon shares, he, Brooks t. receive one fourth
| Of the proceeds. This contract was produced by
the Government here, and II states IN the body of
gcncy-f not rejected by the Secretary Of the Treas
| ury: The Secretary lid afterwards refuse to rntfy
and adopt IL. He allowed II u stand. however, so
| far as 10 permit brooks to avail himself Of amy
| business which he hal transacted under II until 4
certain day which was mcntioncd-the nth of Sep.
II Is alleged By the defense that the contract rc.
fcrred To-, the notes that were executed mud the ar
| rlngcmcnt with Ri.lcy constitute one contract:
that the notes were executed IN view of that con.
tract that the contract wa. rcscindrd Or rather
not ratified by the secretary Of the Treasury. and
as there Is want Of consideration for the notes
they are void. but there Is nothing Of that kind
upon the fnCe ofthOSc instruments. The notes are
for tho payment nrso much money. and absolutely
unconditional Tho notes were executed, a. nm.
dcrstnnd H. by the firm Of Parkman. brooks & Co.
The contract was executed hy EislCy and BronkS
alone. ion sec, thcrcfrs the parties are different
In this that only one OF the parties 10 the notes Is
party IN tho contract. Therefore, upon the con.
stTucliun that give to these two instruments,
have to say to you, gentlemen, that
THERE Is so FAILURE or CONSIDER NTIoS
for the notes resulting from tho fact that the Sccrc.
tary OF the Treasury refused t. ratify that c0rtrurt
II Is possible, however that there was some other
reason assigned for the iuvaidity Of those notes.
Assuming the facts tO be- truc and established by
the testimony to which | have referred. and
which submit 20 your jud ;mcnt-ihNt there Is
nothing upon the face Of thcs" instruments to
der the notes invRlid-I have come to tho conclu.
sIon. as matter Of law; that they were binding
favor Of tho United States.
In lsd6 the Shepherd claim was settled in the
Treasury Department It appears that IN tina,
that that interest was recognized and provided for
by the Treasury Department; 1t appears al.n that
awarded up0n that claim IL Is not very material
for us to understand the fact, Of that claim or how
II arose; and further, the testimony does not throw
great deal Of light upon the facts. II Is only suf.
ilcicnt for us to understand that the Government
made this allowance, and that upon the settlement
awarded to Parkman Brooks & Co. for their inter.
est in the claim. This appear to be done by the
consent OF all the claimants II was dome by the
Government, and was adopted ~ Its act
II appears upon this settlement an instrument
| has been introduced showing the settlement anil
showing the assent and the parties who executed It.
Parkman. Brooks x Co. being among thcm-thqt
thsmOney was To be applied u the payment oi
the notes There can he nn doubt that this was
lawful application nf that amount. and without
there i some reason for rcn ctng It iuoprrT,vc II
IL binding upon the parties. The application was
made by the Government with the consent Of the
parties who owed the debt to the Government.
Why then should this application be declared In
valid and inopcrative: Mr.. Roddy said he had
an assignment Of that claim, nm assignment Of
the claim which pATkmnu Books * Co. had
against the Government. executed before the
application Of this payment was made upon the
id not desire for some reason 10 present II
from presenting the claim Where was II at the
time this application was made
WHERE WAS BRoOKs2
They have not shown that they havei the slightest
manner notified the Government Of any such
siglmcnt Brooks did notify the Government that
he had executed AN assignment In the execution Of
the claim, and did not mention II when he ought
to have mentioned Il, aud he H. cstOppcd from
afterwards setting II up. Besides all this Il was
quite proper for the Government To make this ap
nlicHtion To tho indebtedness which was due to
them from the parties In the absence Of any assign
mcnt and they had perfectly Just right To make
the application whether there was AN assignment
or not Any assignment which might he made by
creditor Of the Government cannot affect the
legal rights of the Government 10 set up any claim
which II may have upon any such person. So that
~ far rs the assignment Is cnnccrnci no notice of
II having been communicated to the tiovcrnmeut,
Y cannot he set up for the purpose Of nvaliating
that application.
There Is another ground upon which 1t Is con
tended that this application should be disregRrded
and that Il that there was an understanding on the
part Of the Secretary Of the Treasury that he should
retain that money until tho validity Of the notes
were attested In a court Of justice. when the pro-
position was made 10 prove such All arrangement II
occurred to me that II there was distinct agree
ment 10 that effect, would permit the introduc-
tion OF evidence on that point-this being crlmi.
nal cRsc-alhough 1t would he entirely out OF the
case In u civil suit. Mr.. Lamon was called and he
simply testified to some conversations that he had
had with the Secretary. in which he said the Secrc
tary stated something to thnt effect. lie did not
pretend that there was direct and positive agree
ment; and when the adjustment was made, Il was
made without any reference To that at ALL far
the record shows, am. therefore, very clearly of
opinion that the consideration cannot operate
against this application have passed over these
as questions OF law, aud as questions prOperly for
the decision Of the Court The result Is that
THE GOVERNMENT WAS UNDER NO LEGAL
LIABILITY
to pay that money to any one; and unless the
claim was made for Il mistakenly and honestly, II
was false and fraudulent claim. and under that
wr0ugnIly. II | am incorrect IN regard 10 the
principles have stated, another tribunal will set
the matter right This, however, does not dispose
Of the whole case so far as these defendants are
concerned.
In 1873 Mr.. Roddy presented his petition and he
claimed that that money which was applied upon