Herald and tribune. [volume] (Jonesborough, Tenn.) 1869-current, 1895-02-20
Speech of Hon. Alfred A. TAYLOR.

The House having under consideration
the resolution reported by the Com
mittee on Rules for the consideration
of House bill S445, introduced by Mr..
Catching, of Mississippi, for the pay
ment of certain war claims
Mr.. Catchings. l present a report
from the Committee ON Rules.
The clerk read as follows:
Resolved, fundamentally upon the
adoption of this resolution the House
shall resolve itself into Committee of
the Whole for the consideration of
House bill S445. That should there be
in said bill any item or claim which is
not for stores and supplies and which
has not been examined, Investigated,
and reported f%avorably by the Court of
Claims under the act of 1888. known as
the Bowman Act, and reported favora
bly, by the Committee on War Claims
of the House, the same shall be stricken
out on a point of order made thereon.
And no claim shall be in order as an
amendment to said bill which is not of
the same class and been SO reported BY
the Court of Claims and the Committee
on War Claims. That at the hour of 4
O'Clock Pm. the same day the commit
tee shall rise and report the bill and
amendments to the House, when the
previous question shall be considered
as ordered on amendments and on the
bill to its passage, whereuron, without
intervening motion, votes shall be taken
upon said bill until the same shall have
been fully disposed of.
Mr.. Taylor said:
Mr.. Speaker: The purpose of the pend
ing resolution reported by the Commit,
tee on Rules is to secure consideration
for the bill which provides for the pay
ment of claims of certain citizens,
mostly of the South, for stores and sup
plies furnished for the use of the Fed
eral Army during the war. The bill
carries 1871, 945 81, if ] have made no
mistake in my calculation, $112, $50 90
of which sum will go to my own State
if the bill is passed. If we accept the
findings of the tribunal to which we
have referred these claims for investi.
CATION as conclusive, our duty to ap.
propriate the money to pay them is
%plain-to my mind imperative. These
claims having originated in the South,
the act of 1883, known as the Bowman
Act, authorizing their reference to the
Court of Claims for investigation and
determination, made the question OF
loyalty to the Government of the United
States during the war q jurisdictional
question.
The claimant, therefore, in each case
embodied in this bill was required in Q
preliminary hearing to establish hii
loyalty to the entire satisfaction of the
court as a condition precedent to the
admission of his case for trial on iii
merits. The preliminary question Of
loyalty being first settled, the cour'
proceeded to the consideration of tn,
merits of each case; and after the mos
scrutinizing investigation, after hearing
the evidence on both sides and the arg
uments of counsel, pro and con, thu
court has rendered its decisions, favor
able to the claimants, and has sen
these claims back here to us with theii
findings in each case; say to us tn,
claimant was loyal, his claim is just
and that he ought to be paid the amour
which has been ascertained to be du,
him.
What, then, is u duty in the prem
ises? II seems to me that the question
is, shall we discredit the Court of Claim
"a court composed of five honGrabl,
judges appointed for life, and secont
only in dignity and importance to th,
Supreme Court of the United States
by attaching no Importance to its de
c%isions, or shall we recognize the bind
ing force of its findings and thus up
hold it and accord to it that which al
our courts should receive at our hand
our entire respect and conidenceY
In recognizing the binding force o
these findings we are afforded ampl,
justification by the decisions of tn,
Supreme Court of the United States
and the opinions of some of u mos
eminent leaders aud statesmen of th,
past and present.
The Supreme Court held in the cas-
Of United States vs.. Joseph Smith {
Otto, 2l4, 219) that the finding of fact
by the Court of Claims is conclusiv,
unless impeached for some error in Law
appearing In the record
The Supreme Court also held in tn
case of Eliza j. Mahan VS.. the Unite,
States ia Wall, 109, 112) that it coult
not go behind the finding of fact b,
the Court of Claims; that such indinI
was conclusive.
The Supreme Court also held that tn,