National Republican., 1878-08-12

proper vouchers, and that the services were |
rendered before the road was turned over by /
the military authorities to the railroad com.
pany.
In 1875 the railroad cerpasy renewed their
application for payment, having the proper |
vouchers and evidence that the road was
turned over to them before the date Of the
service, and they then charged, as they were |
advised by counsel 10 do, six cents per mile !
per man, that being their regular and legal |
charge at all times, and because, being within
the territory of the rebel government, they |
were no party to the convention Of roads held |
during the war fixing the rate for war purposes |
at two cents per mile por nlan. The vouchers
and evidence Of scrvice.weroifo found correct by |
the accounting officers, and the then acting |
Quartermnster-G General and the then Assistant |
Judge. ge.Advocate-GCneral decided that this
company was not bound by the military rate"
not being party to It or Consenting to 1t, aud
allowed, as a fair compensation, four and one
half cents per mile per man, that being the
sum allowed the Baltimore and Ohio and other
roads situated rs these roads were, subject to
raids, Sc. The total amount thus fixed was
SiT,3li25.
This was recommended to bc paid by the
Acting Quartermastcr. General, II was approved
by the Secretary of War, and was thus stated
b. the Third Auditor, and was examined,
passed, and duly certified by the then Second
Comptroller, and was duly certified to Congress
by the then Secretary Of the Treasury, and
Congress appropriated the money to pay II.
Now, when new Secretary Of War had come
in and was asked for Il warrant to pay this ap-
| prOpriaton It was refused solely upon the
| ground that the account should be two cents
| per mile per man, and entirety HciC accounting
officers undertook to review all that had been
| done.
Upon such state of facts It would certainly
appear to ordinary comprehension, and es.
| peCially TO legal mind, that new incumbcnts
| Of office could not thus reverse the action OF
their predecessors Before the Solicitor of the
| Treasury It was simply question of law, aud
| he decided 1t according tolaw. Attorney'Gen-
| eral BUrLER had longngo i2 Opinions Attorney
| General y. 3y3) decided that the decision Of
| late Second Comptroller was final, so far as the
accounting officers Of the Government were con-
cerned. He says that II ceases to be matter
of account and becomes a liquidated and Gd-
justed demand when ho has certified the
balance to the Secretary" So Attorney-Gen'
eral BUTLER, in an exactly similar case, says,
in 3 Opinions, 16s: whether the original al
lowancc by the Secretary Of War was proper
or not as an executive act, think, after tho
application 10 Congress and the submission OF
the precise allowance and the actual appropri.
alton by law Of the precise amount 1t would
be unreasonable to turn over the party to the
vexatiDns and delays OF special application to
the Legislature"
1t is isPttcnpted to justify the new Secretary
Of War for his refusal Of warrant, by section
l9l Revised Statutes; but that requires him
to submit facts affecting the correctness of the
account, and these facts must be new and mate
rial. He did not do so he simply set up his
Judgment against that Of his predecessor.
i, II Is due to all concerned that this correction
should be made. 1t Is proper to add that no
other Southern roads eau claim the Solicitors
opinion as o precedent. None arc situated as
the Dauville railroad was aud all accounts in
r such cases must pass the different accounting
officers. It Is prcposterous to talk Of the opin-
ion as precedent. 1t was based upon the
facts Of that case alone, and the law under
T which the Solicitor acted can apply only to an
exactly similar state of facts.
The final appropriation Of Congress to the
Richmond aud Danville Railroad was only
some 5000. Very respectfully,
/ X. RAYNER,
Solicitor Of tho Treasury.
WASHINGTON, D. C., August 0, 1878.
We publish the above for two reasons :
First, the writer claims 1t rs an act of JUS
tice and we would be the last to withhold
an act of courtesy from or be guilty of IN
act of intentional injustice toward any one
7 and, secondly, for the reason that this ef-
fort at intrenchment appears to us to have
: weakened the case of the Solicitor and to
4 have impaired additional strength to the
) position we have taken, that the claim is
: neither Just nor valid per Sc, and establishe:
= dangerous precedent for the future rapa-
e city of Southern railroads.
e The Solicitor pronounces our statement
S at the outset of his message, as "erroneou'
t, from beginning to end" and yet We do
n not see that he successfully controverts any
ID | ii nc ,ot contained
/" therein. As to the history Of the case, we
It seem substantially to agree, while our views
= of its merits are quite diverse.
= The claim set up by the Solicitor that thi
If road should be paid more than the loya
/ roads which had performed like service TO
l. the United States Government because Il
" was aiding the rebellion, and hence could
Y not be party to the military rate" i
e certainly as ingenious as the further rea
If soa that it was subject to raids and SHOULD
is therefore receive extra compensation. Pre-
is cisely from what quarter the raids coul
ID come after the war had been closed, an
Y the service out of which this clair
IN originated was for carrying the raiders
their homes, is not fully apparent 1t
with us, and we doubt not it will be wit
:. great majority of loyal people who col
" slider this claim, matter Of grav
~ doubt whether It should have bee
:, recognized at all by anybody. 1t originate
=. il the conveying of paroled prisoners owe
:: o. this road. There does not seem to hav
. been any contract for this service on tn
y part of the United States. If such col
~ y tract or authority on the part Of this GOV
ernment has an existence, II no doubt col
" tained within itself proper terms relating
70 its fulfllment, and the claim should be o,
"' justed in accordance with those terms
the absence of such contract or specific
~ authority for the service on the part of tn
Government, the claim has no foundation
~ ~ except perhaps, in desire to get mont
no from the United States Treasury under son
"' pretense or other. This is our view Of tn
part Of the case.
~ Now, this claim having been recognize
~ by the Government by payment that a
m az On its part imparts additional importan
y. and danger to it as precedent, for, blin
Nv | -. oonoaol th,o ,,nint tha Snlicifnr m