St. Landry democrat. (Opelousas, La.) 1878-1894, 1886-11-20

Mr.. Editorials the session of our
desire to invite the attention of our
law makers to the act of July eth, 1868,
Is Statutes at large, p. 243. organizing
the U. S. Court of Claims. As the
learned Judge Matt gave in his opinion,
in Browns case, 6 Court of Claims: "In
the arrogance of great ignorance, our
popular orators and writer's have i'm
pressed upon the public mind the belief
that in.this Republic Of ours, private
nights receive unequal protection from
our government, and some had actually
pointed to the establishment of the
Court of Claims as sublime spectacle,
to be seen nowhere else on earth, under
the act above referred to. First in this
high civilization, that protects the indi-
vidual and assures his rights, stands
the great empire of the German States
In Hanover and Bavaria the redress is
substantially the same. In the Repub-
lie Of Switzerland, the Federal tribunal
takes cognizance of suits between the
Confederation on one side, and corpo-
rations or individuals on the other.
See law 9Th June, 1S49, Lobsiger's case.
5 id. p. 6S7. In Holland, the Neither
lands, the Hanseatic provinces, the free
city of Hamburg, and in all countries
which have Inherited the perfect JUS
tlce of civil law, the government ia in
legal liability thus subject to the citizen.
Even in France, under the late Empire,
there was a less circumscribed means of
redress, more certain judicial remedy.
more effective method of enforcing
the judgment recorded than has been
given to the American citizen, notwitl
standing the pledge of the Constitution:
for, said he, of all governments of
Europe, it is believed that Russia alone
does not bold the State amenable, in
matters of property, to the law. Of all
amiDed in this Court, Spain only resem
hles the United States. in lettering the
judicial proceedings of her courts by
restrictions, and leaving the execution
of their DEGREES dependent npon the |
legislative will. Yet in Spain the indie
pendence of courts of Justice was we'll |
maintained under King Ferdinand
Ferdinand and Isabella, Sd Vol. n. |
245.)" But not so with the United |
States Court of Claims. 1t has no an
pellate Jurisdiction in certain class of
cases. To remedy this evil; Congress
passed an Act March Sd, 1883, known as
the Bowman act, which has proven a
failure. True, it permits parties to go
before the Court, but their pleadings
are restricted by limitation laws of 1868.
Unless our lawmakers give the Court
of Claims appellate power to the y. S.
Supreme, Court in all cases coming be
fore it, the Bowman act is legislation,
cause, but without effect
The third section which reads, nor shall
the said court have any jurisdiction of
any claim against the United States.
which is now barred by virtue of the
provisions Of any law of the United
States. The Court of Claims still holds
and exacts from citizens of the United
States, that proof Of loyalty is essential
o final Judgment. re we are citizens of
he United States, the force of circum-
stances makes us loyal; for we cannot
De citizens unless loyal. Hence why
,xact OF us that which we were grant
ID by the general amnesty proclama-
ion of 80 May, 1866, rs Stat. 1851 of
[nly 4th, 1868. Us Stat. 1922 and De-
,ember %, 1868, Us Stat. 711) All
hese proclamations, including the
pecial one of December 9Th. 1868. have
,eee judicially settled by the e. S.
supreme Conrt. In Padleford VS.. y. s.,
Wall 531; q. S. VS.. Klein. 10 id. 1873;
Us. q. S. 10 id. 154; Pargoud
IS. U. S., IS id. 1856; and Carlisle Va.
J. S., Is id. 1913. In deciding these
asses, the Supreme Court held that the
oint resolutions No. 46. March Cd, 1867
IA Stats. STD prohibiting payment by
my officer of the Government, to any
'erson not known to have been opposed
o the rebellion, and in favor Of it's
to be unconstitutional. null
nd void. The same was also declared
nll and void bv assistant Attorney
General Smith, February Goth, 1875,
nd by Secretary G. Delano, Feb'y 9th,
875. In cases of Carlton and Hutchin-
on, applications to the General Land
)ffice for the return of certain land
and money paid for lands in
857, the title thereto could not be CON
rmed by the United States. The
General Land Office disallowed their
laims on account of their participation
D the rebellion; from which Carlton
nd Hutchinson appealed, and were
warded their claims BY the Sec \
etary and Asst. Attorney General,
Vho uses the following language: An
xecutive officer has jurisdiction to
lsregard IN act Of Congress. and treat
as unconstitutional, where there is a
lain. unequivocal conflict between the
and the Congressional en-
ctment. The Presidents proclamation
I Dec. 20. 1868, was general, uncondi-
!onal, unlimited pardon and amnesty.
Why the Court Of Claims should hold .
therwise. deponent saith not. Yet it y
'Ould seem to be strange doctrine to
backwoodsman, under our republican i
Drm OF government; and we respect
ally invite the earnest attention of our
Iw-makers to this state of facts. and K
Ope the same may receive their careful
onsideration at the approaching SEES /
on of Congress. JUSTICE.