The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1896-05-26

abas = Z eour4 II lav n Gkfsstng a9a1nss
a Individual. Their rocsgnision depends
scsesv rpon congress. Whether 4 wsH
recognize Claims fhzs founded must -
LEFT 10 the discretion Of that body Pay
u,er.s 10 Individuals not OF right Or 81 .
merely legal claim. bat payments u the
nature % rratuify. yef having soms eea-
tare OF moral obligation 70 support them.
havu bern made by the government ~
x.rtus Of acts Of congress appropc.atng
TIE public money ever since fts foun1a-
s1en. Some Of the acts were based upon
considerations OF pure charity. The In
direct or war rsxkf rejected by the gen
era, srt.trztson tribunal but paid b. con-
xrssx, and the Preach spoliaftons claims
are cited ~ Instances OF payments that
are not Of right. but IN the nature Of
grzsuity and a. an act Of grace" and II b
szfd that payments 70 provide FOR similar
claims have been recognized BY STATE gov
ernrneefs and sustained. for example. BY
the New York court Of appeals IN the case
Of the town Of GuIiford. supervisor OF
Chenaeo county.
In conclusion the court says: IN ~
GARD 10 the question whether the facts
existing IN any given case bring II With
IA the description OF that class Of claims
which congress can and ought 70 recog-
mise ~ founded upon equitable and moral
considerations and grounded upon princi-
pies OF right and justice. Ne think that
generally such q question must IN ts na-
sure be one for congress 10 decide for it.
eeff. Its decision recognising such claim
and appropriatins money f6R its payment
can rarely II ever b. the subject OF re-
view by the judicial branch OF the gov.
eminent Upon the general principle.
therefore. that ne government Of the
United 6tsses through congress has the
right TO pay debts OF the United States.
nature which that body might rightfulsy
decide 10 constitute a debt payable BY the
United States upon considerations Of tus-
fice. We think the right of congress
making provisions for the payment OF
such claims was valid without reference
to the question OF the validity of invalid
ity OF the original act providing fer the
payment OF bounties to manufactures Of
sugar. A. contained In the tariff act Of
1880. The judgments on these cases are
right, irrespective OF how that question
night be decided or any conclusion that
might be reached upon other questions
suggested At the bar"
Mr.. Bowler. comptrclisr Of ne treasury.
has taken prompt measures 10 comply
with the decision. In q letter to the au-
ditor Of the treasury department he sfafes
that the claims of he Realty Company. OF
New Orleans. ana the oxnard Beet surar
Company. under the ACT OF March q. 1856.
are now approved for payment. and rec
ommends that the 0xnard claim be with
drawn from the court OF claims. Bowler
recognizes that rofay's decision IN these
test cases apples 10 all properly authenti-
Gated claims under the act of March &
rs96. and win proceed at once to pass than
for payment. The amount which viii DO
required to pay cana and beet sugar claims
win be about S. z37 900. which. II all ans to
be paid before July l. will increase the
deficiency Of the fiscal year to about $3o.-
ooo, 900.