The evening times., 1900-01-06

which IL left a legacy to it's municipal
successors, remain unadjusted. The au-
| tEority for their complete adjudication,
conferred upon the Court OF Claims by the
act Of June 16, 1880. seemed ali that was
needed to accomplish their settlement with
reasonable celerity; but today. nineteen
years after the enactment OF that law. they
are still upon the docket. with no immedi-
ate prospect Of final adjustment
Sections and Of the act Of June 16
1850. provide that judgments rendered in
pursuance of said act shall be certified 10
the Secretary OF the Treasury by the clerk
and Chief Justice OF the Court OF Claims
respectively, and paid in the 3.65 bonds. is
sued under the act Of June 20. 1874. This
provision was amended March g. 1881, by
making II optional with the Treasurer OF
the United States. whenever, in his opin-
ion, it Will be more advantageous for the
interest OF the District OF Columbia 70 do
So, TO sell the bonds 10. the satisfaction
Of the judgments which may be rendeTS d by
said Court OF Claims UnGer the provisions
OF said act. and pay the judgments from
the proceeds Of said sales instead OF de-
livering bonds TO the lulgment claimants,
as authorized in the original act
A recent occurrence mas convinced me
that in the interest OF the District this pro-
vision should be still further amended by
requiring that all judgments rendered un-
der this act shall be reported to Congress,
and receive the approval OF that body be-
fore payment.
The case TO which 7 refer is that OF a
contractor who received a judgment. based
upon the award OF a referee for S41SO44.
The special attorney representing the Dis
trict Of Columbia in the Court Of Claims
fled motion for new trial. but while
this motion was pending the judgment was
certified to the Secretary Of the Treasury.
and a check for S7.716.67, being 81 1904
for the principal and Sc, ,536-23 for the in
terest. was issued TO the attorney for the
claimant.
Fortunately, a question arose as to the
date OF the interest allowance. and. being
submitted TO the Comptroller. his decision
was published in the press as an item Of
news This publication gave the first in
timation 10 the Districts representatives
that the judgment had been certified for
payment. and no time as lost in filing a
protest against action in the premises by
the Treasurer OF the United States
The check. however as already stated
had been delivered but il had not been
cashed. Upon the representations made
the Treasurer ordered payment stopped
but he did not demand return Of the check.
and II is today improperly. in my opinion.
in possession Of the claimants attorney.
Judgment in the case was rendered up
on the report Of a referee. which, accord
ing to the brief OF the special attorney for
the District. is based wholly upon error
The brief OF this special attorney which
is an exceptionally able and well-consid-
cred paper, shows most cOnClusively that.
instead OF the District being indebted to
the claimant to the amount Of S4.IS0.44, as
the referee found, tn claimant owes the
District 1851 %.
Reports OF these referees often display
such an extraordinary lack of intelligent
appreciation Of the facts and their relation
TO the cases under consideration that they
would cause profound anazement but for
their representative character as members
Of a class OF productions in which frequent
repetition dulls the edge OF surprise
The late, but not IaIuented,' act OF
February Is, 1885. was happily shOrt-lived
having been repealed March 3, 1897, but
it numbered the statute books long enough
to cost an expenditure OF S63, ,697.3S, being
S36. .500.57 principal and S27.196.SI interest
The principal, representing allowances
made to contractors Of the Board Of Pub
lie Works in excess OF their contract rates.
was declared by the Supreme Court Of the
United States, in a decision rendered Feb
ruary IS, 1897, to be a pure and simple
gift
LAS the act aforesaid authorized this
gift however. the payment thereof In the
shape Of the principal Of these so-caIled
claims was legal. and no criticism. except
Of the law Itself, is just, but, in allowing
interest upon this gratuity, the special
attorney representing the District OF Co
Iumbia cOntended that the Court Of Claims
erred, and on appeal was sustained in this
contention by the United States Supreme
Court. Upon the rendition OF this decision
suits were instituted in the Court of Claims
for the recovery Of this illegally-paid IN
terest, and had hoped to be able to chron-
icle herein the fact OF their prosecution to
a successful issue, but in answer to a re-
cent enquiry I was advised, much to my
regret. that they are quietly repOsing upon
the calendar OF the court, apparently no
nearer 70 a conclusion than when the su-
preme tribunal Of the land first set upon
their fOTeheads the seal OF its cOndemna-
ton.
The act OF June Il. 1896. authorized the
use OF the moneys derived from fines in
the Police Court 10 meet any deficiency
which might occur in the payment OF the
pension rolls from the reguar receipts of
the police and fremen's relief funds. Since
the enactment Of this legislation allow
ances have been paid promptly and in full,
but prior thersto-that is to say, from
June 80, 1894, to May 81, 1S96-there was
a shortage. in round numbers, Of S17, 600.
This means that to this extent infirm
or disabled men who had given the
strength OF their manhood and risked their
lives in defense Of our homes, and the
widows and orphans OF those who had died
in the public service, had failed to receive
the full allotment (but small at besO
which had been made 10 their support.
The oF fhic sum usae Fal4
and made IL necessary for some of these
dependent ones TO incur obligations which
TO this day they have been unable to meet"
-- --