Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1891-11-05

The Assistant Attorney for the District Objects
to the Court Of Claima

to the Court Of Claims.
As stated in The STAR at the time, the frst
controller in his letter to the Commissioners
upon the subject Of the refundment of the
direct tax suggested that in view of the differ
enee OF opinion which existed in regard to the
refund Of the direct tax that the whole matter
be referred to the Court Of Claims FOR its action.
The Commissioners referred the matter to
the assistant attorney for the District, Mr.. S.
| L. Thomas. for information as to the way the
subject could be brought before the Court of
Claims
| In his letter to the Commissioners today. in
reply to their inquiry, Mr.. Thomas says:
| Nr. Matthews seems to be under the inn
| preston that have maintained that the money
| Is to be refunded by the United States to indi-
vlduals. This is misapprehension: | have
never taken that position. My contention is that
| the money should be credited by the Secretary
| of the Treasury to the District OF Columbia
| The situation of the United States in this
| matter is that of debtor and stakeholder.
| But not stakeholder in the sense that entities
them to file n bill of interpleader. This is not
case where several persons are claiming
| legally or equitably the same debt against a
stakeholder Private individuals as against the
| United States can set up no claim to this
| money. They must make their claim against
the fund in the hands Of the District Com
| missioncrs. that the United States can
safely pay the money TO the District and be
forever afterward protected from having to
pay it over again to private individuals.
The duty of disbursing this money is not de-
volved on the United States, nor il the Secre-
tary of the Treasury required to see to the
application Of it. Ii is the business of the
Commissioners of the District Of Columbia to
attend to the distribution Of the money to indi-
viduais, If it is to 60 to them. SO much for my
position.
II have Carefully considered Mt. Matthews
letter, and it seems to me his scheme would not
accomplish the result desired. Should the Sec
retary of the Treasury. on the request OF the
Commissioners of the District Of Columbia, re-
fuse to credit the District with the amount
OF the direct tax collected of it uNder the
act OF 1861, as it seems 10 me he is plainly
directed to do by the act OF March
2 1891, suit might be brought in the Court of
Claims by the District of Columbia against the
United States to recover the money, but the
Judgment in such n case, If in favor of the
claimant, would be of no value determining
to whom the money ultimately belongs The
Court of Claims in such a suit would not
and could not have before it the individuals
who may be interested in the fund, ami hence
could not determine the real question, that is,
whether the fund belongs to tho District abso-
lutcly or belongs to it in trust to be distributed
to individuals who paid the reimbursement
direct tax levied by the act Of August
5. 1861. 1t seems to me the only
proper way to get this matter before
the courts is for the United States to pay the
money over to the District, then let the Com
missioners, if so advised, claim the money abb
solutely, and thus force private individuals
claiming any part Of the money to sue the Dis
trict in the courts Of the District. In this way
final and binding adjudication could be had.
In my opinion there is no way in which the
controversy in this case, that is, whether this
money belongs to the District absolutely or as
trustee for the benefit Of individuals, can be
settled by the Court of Claims."