The evening times., 1897-02-04
1t Was Considered in Committee
and In the House.
THE OLD CLAIMS CLAUSE
1t Was Opposed by Mr.. Meredith and
Advocated by Other Members.
Mr.. Sayers Explained How He
Came To Favor the Measure-The
Vote This Afternoon.

the House District Committee this morn
ing continued nearly two hours, but was
inconcusive in its result. at 1920 D.
IN. recess was taken till p. IN.
There were present OF the committee
Chairman Babcoek, Messrs. Curtis, Shan
non, Mines, Hulick Meyer, Meredith and
Richardson. The District was represented
by Commissioners Ross and Truesdell,
Judge r. A. Howard, special assistant at
torney general to defend the District in
civil SUITS Auditor Petty, Secretary Tin
dali and others.
AT the head OF the claimants was ex
Congressman j. j. Hemphill, formerly
chairman of the District Committee. Others
present Were Messrs. John c. Fay, w. E.
Cole, E. Il. Barnes, E. V. Edwards, John
Spicer, Dir. BUsey, j. j. Shipman, and
Job. Barnard. Judge Abbott, OF Alabama,
who introduced the bill, and whose repeal
is sought, was on hand and explained the
action OF the committee when the bill was
passed.
The gentlemen who spoke before the
coTnnittee included the Commissioners,
Mr. Hemphil, Auditor Petty. Judge How
ard, Mr. Edwards and Judge Abbott.
Mr. HenphIl explained the nature of
the claims They were exactly such as
had already been allowed others under
similar conditions The rate permitted
were only such as the board OF public works
had properly allowed. These claimants
had been unjustly held out OF their dues
ell this time
He said idtheStatementt that the law OF 1895
made payment mandatory upon the Court
OF Claims was incorrect Also he pointed
out the amount, 81 ,4o0,0 ,0c0, was mis-
leading
Tie Commissioners explained their un-
derstanding of the matter. They said the
law OF 1895 took from them md from the
Court Of Claims all discretion in the matter.
Payment must be made OF any claim Which
had the least merit.
Auditor Petty explained that the amounts
on file before the Court Of Claims amounted
to 1851 900, and with interest the amount
would be about 81 ,400,0 900. He was will
ing to admit that not quite so much as this
could be collected under the act now being
questioned.
Judge Howard explained the attitude OF
the Department OF Justice in the matter.
In instances where there was a show Of a
goodcase the claim could be collected.
Are these claims appealable TO the su-
preme Court?" asked Mr. Hullck.
Yes
Judge Abbott said the bill which was
enac ted into the law OF 1895 was referred
to him to examine and report upon. 1t
was certainly not then understood that
the law would prevent the Court of Claims
from considering the equities involved
10 The
trouble before the committee, he said,
was that many OF the contracts were
signed in blank There was 10 measure
fixed for damages or compensation. IL
was the intention of the committee to
prevent the Court OF Claims from going too
high in it's award, 10y fixing the toard rates
as the limit There was nothing in the law
TO compel the Court Of Claims to allow
the claims in any instance.
But if tie court has construed the law
differently" asked Commissioner Trues-
dell, "wIlat do you say?''
There should be an appeal from the de
cision," answered Judge Abbott.
When there are contracts said Mr..
Meredith, "suCh a law would be invalid it
would be unconstitutional
do you say" asked Judge Abbott, that
under these contracts the law could COM
pei the payment Of the claims?''
I'm sorry to answer l think it could"
answered Judge Howard He afterward
explained that Congress, as the highest
legislative power, would have absolute
control OF the government money, District
or general, and was confirmed in that con-
troll by the Constitution. The provision as
to sacredness of contracts would not pre-
vail to prevent this 1t was explained
against the law that in many of the claims
made conectable and for which judgments
had been given, receipts in full hadlong ago
been given by the contractors.
on the other hand it was urged that
great Injustice had been forced upon these
men by the power of government, and
many of them had been ruined.
With the discussion still in full swing,
the recess was taken, and within an hour
the matter was taken up on the floor Of
the House.
This was after some minor business.
The committee Of the whole took up the
District appropriation bill, and Mr.. Dock
ery, under the rule adopted yesterday, Of
fered his am endment repeating the law of
1895. Mr.. Payne was in the chair.
Mr.. Meredith opened the attack upon
the amendment.
II entered my protest yesterday upon
legislation of this kind, and 1 appreciate
the fact that any opposition today after the
action of the Committee on Rules yesterday
is leading a forlorn hope. 1 wish to state
that the House Committee on the District
of Columbi has not been remiss in its
duty. Assoon asthis measure was brought
to its attention, hearing was held, and
hearing of then people interested in it
pro and con was held yesterday.
MIR. Grout asked Mr.. Meredith what time
would be sufficient for a reasonable dis |
cussion. Mr.. Meredith asked for half an |
hour. whereupon. Mr.. Grout ma de a motion |
that one hour be allowed for the debateupon !
the bill, half an hour for each side, the |
final vote to be,taken at o'clock.
REPRESENTATIVE Pitney asked for longer |
time in order that the House might come |
to full understanding of the bill. 1t was |
finally agreed that two hours should be |
given to the discussion.
Representative Sayre Of Texas first |
took the floor. He requested that the |
discussion which took place in the House, |
when the bill which it was now proposed |
TO repeal was originally passed, should be |
read This was done by the clerk.
Mr.. Savers then called the attention of |
the District Committee to the fact that |
at the time the bill had been considered |
approved and indorsed by the District Com
missioners. He then continued to say: 81
was told By Judge Cobb that the bill was |
intended only to allow these contractors /
to recover the exact sum for which they /