National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-04-09
THE BOWMAN CLAIMS ACT.
An Important Decision by the Court OF
Claims on the Subject.

Claims on the Subject.
The following is the decision OF the court
Of claims in the case Of VIM. G.. Ford, adj
ministrator Of j. G.. Robinson, VS.. The
United States, on the motion to return
papers to committee. The opinion was de-
livered by Judge Richardson:
This case was transmitted to the court by the
committee on claims of the Senate, under the
authority of the Bowman act OF March 3, 1883,
entitled IAN act to afford assistance aud relief
TO Congress and tho executive departm onts In
the investigation of claims and demands
against tho government (22 Stat. L., 4Sj). The
claimant camo in and filed his petition.
We take this occasion to explain quite fully,
for the information of the bar, a matter of
practice Of considerable Importance under the
Bowman act, with which the present motion
When this court was first established in 1855
Its whole jurisdiction consisted OF the invcsti-
CATION of claims coming TO It from Congress,
facts and the law, accompanied by bill for
relief when the claimant succeeded in estab-
lishinga legal right, but not when the claim
themselves to the discretion and llborality of
Congress Lindsay v. The United States, No.
2Ob, docket of court of claims, decided Feb. @.
1856. Opinion by Gilchrist, presiding Judge.
Todd'B Case Deycrcaux's Reports, 179)
The organic act required the court to trans
init with Its reports the testimony In each case,
whether tho Same received the favorable or
adverse action Of the court. "a CT of Feb. a.
1855, CHI. l22, ~, 10, Stat. L., 6l2)
This provision led to great embarrassment
and obstruction In the way OF securing action
by Congress- The reports were referred to the
committee on claims OF one House or the
other. or to both.
"Tho committee on claims, finding mass of
evidence, with the briefs In each case referred
to them, very naturally felt that II was their
duty TO go carefully over tho whole matter
TO read all tho evidence and examine the
briefs of the claimant and Of tho solicitor OF
the government Claimants were uneasy an d
pressing. and the troubles and perploxitlcs of
The members of the committee were numer.
case and submit the question, (which Were
| raised on the facts and the law to the decision
of the. committee, would require more time
| and labor of the members than 1t was possible
| TO devote to such duty, If the work which the
court had done was to be all gone over again IN
| committee, little was gained by reference. to
the court at ALL In fact 1t was n positive loss
| and injury to the claimants, because they were
forced to try their cases twice, while neither
Congress nor claimants obtained relief. Favor.
| able reports were often not concurrcd In or
not acted upon at all and were finally lost alto,
gether." History Jurisdiction and Practice Of
| the Court Of Claims, IL q. els r., S)
Thcreupon, in 1868. the system was aban-
doned and authority was given to the court to
enter judgment, which, when favorable to the
claimant, was make payable out of any general
| appropriation made by law for the pay.
| ment dissatisfaction of private claims on pre-
sentation TO the Secretary of the Treasury with
|
CHI. %, u stat. L., 765, now Rev. Stat, % 1919
| iOg3)
This jurisdiction extended only to cases of
| legal rights, as before, founded upon any law
| OF Congress, crupon any regulation of an eNecu-
| tive department., or upon any contract eX.
| pressed or implied, and upon claims referred
| by either House of Congress.
| But there were still pending in Congress, ut
| every session, claims In relation to matters
| which addressed themselves to the discretion
| and liberality of Congress, In which there was
|
that discretion and liberallty could not con
situtionally be conferred upon any other tri
10 provide for the judicial investigation o.
this class of cases. us far as 1t could be done, wa,
one of the main objects of the Bowman act,
By section Congress gave authority TO eithel
the court of claims with the vouchers, papers
proofs and documents pertaining thereto, any
claim or matter pending therein, which IN
wolves the investigation and determination o.
facts
II provided in the same section that whei
the facts shall have been found the court shat
| not enter Judgment, but shall report the same
| that IL. the findings of fact, to the committee
or to the House by which the case was trans
mitted, for Its consideration. Thus II will bi
seen that the court Is not authorized, on mo
ton of the claimant or otherwise, to return
the vouchers, papers, proofs, and dooumunt
filed in the case. Congress seems TO nav!
| carefully guarded against the difficulty which
destroyed the usefulness of the former act, b.
providing for concise judicial finding o
facts upon which the committee andthe wv
Houses can easily determine the remedy or re
lief which they will give.
The idea OF thus reporting findings O
facts without the evidence was suggested b.
the course of proceedings of the Suprem.
Court in relation to appeals. The act OF lSG
gave parties the right OF appeal from tn
I, court of claims, under such regulations as tn
: n 707, 50S) That court foresaw that, with tn
whole record sent up. they would encountC
the same difficulty which Congress had eS
| t,,An Nho ENru nor frnn h. I'm
possibility of devoting sufficient time to tn
consideration OF such q mass of evidence, AM
ofundertaklng to review the findings OF fac
thereon. History of the Court, &c, IL G. Cl'
r., 25) They therefore made rule that Ii
the Supreme Court cases should be hear
upon finding by the court Of claims OF tn
facts in the case established by the evidenc
In the nature of special verdict, but not tn
, evidence establishing them combining thei
review of the case to questions of law alone.
This rule has been closely adhered TO.
an early case where evidence had Deon ser
up at the request of both parties the suprem
, Court said
have prescribed, and shall regard no othe
| matter found In the transcripts sent to us tina
, what they allow, and that In proper cases th
, costs of the useless part Of the record vi Ill b
,, taxed against the party who brings 1t her
, (De Groat v. The United States, Wall, Al
' and &c. els. r., ~
1.-THE findings of the court of claims furnis
the facts we are TO consider and we cann'
look beyond them. For the purposes of tn
case they import absolute verify aud conclut
n both parties. (Desmre v. The United State
90, U. S. II. COS, and ~ c. els r., 33,w
Substantially the same was said In the ca
ofCaryer v. The United states ll2 U. 81 =
a We have no doubt that Congress, in case
i under the Bowman act, intended to establis
the same practice Of making the finding
facts by the court of claims conclusive on hO
parties thus removing from the halls of egi
+ lation the determination of controverted que
tons OF fact, relieving itself and Its comm
tees from tho investigation of such matte
proper to be tried only by judicial tribuna
s and obtaining the full measure OF the ASST
|. ance and relief contemplated by the act
II follows that where the court takes Il
b jurisdiction of q case transmitted to II by
0 committee of Congress or by either house Il
der that act, finds the facts and reports q
same back as therein directed, 1t has d
charged Its whole power in the matter, ar
I has no authority in law to return the do