Evening star., 1900-04-21
EFFECT OF PENDING BILL.
AMENDMENT TO AUTHORIZATION
ACT AFFECTING CLAIMS.
Judgments Of Court Against District
gress Approves.

contains an amendment. inserted Dy tne
Senate providing that no judgment here
tofore or hereafter rendered by the Court
of Claims under the act of Congress of
June 16, 1880. shall be paid by the Secre-
tary of the Treasury until said Judgment
shall have been reported to and specific
authority for payment thereof granted by
Congress. The act of 1880 provides for the
settlement Of all outstanding claims against
the District and confers jurisdiction on the
Court of Claims to hear the same, ETC.
Sections and of this act provide that
the judgments rendered in pursuance there
of shall be certified to the Secretary of the
Treasury by the clerk and chief Justice of
the Court of Claims. respectively, and paid
in 3.65 bonds. This provision, however.
was amended March 3, 1881, by making 1t
optional with the treasurer of the United
States to sell the bonds and pay the judg-
ments from the proceeds of the sales when
ever it appears to him to be to the advan-
tage Of the District to do so. In his last
annual report Mr. ]. T. Petty, the auditor
of the District, stated that a recent occur
renee had convinced him that the interests
of the District required that this provision
should be so amended as to have all such
judgments reported to Congress and re-
ceive the approval of that body before pay
ment.
Case Referred To.
The case referred to by Mr.. Petty was
a judgment based upon the report of
referee. for s41SO.44. The attorney for the
District filed a motion for new trial, but
while this motion was pending. Mr. Petty
states, the judgment was certified to the
Secretary of the Treasury and check for
Sl,116,61, including S3,536, % for the interest,
was issued to the attorney for the claim
ant. question arose, it is said, as to the
date of the interest allowance. and being
submitted to the controller his decision was
published in the daily press as item of
news, which publication is said to have
been the first intimation received by the
DISTRICTS representatives that the judg-
ment had been certified for payment A
protest against payment was promptly
flied by the District but the check had
already been delivered. The treasurer
stopped payment. however, although he did
not. it is said demand the return of the
check, and it is today. improperly SO, says
Mr.. Petty, in the possession of the claim
ants attorney. Mr.. Petty also contends
that the brief of the Districts attorney m
the case shows most conclusively that in
stead of the District being Indebted to the
claimant in the sum of s41s0.44. as the
referee found, the claimant owes the Dis
trct SJ51.9J.
Mr.. John C. Fay. local attorney, several
days ago called the attention of the Dis
trict Commissioners. through Commissioner
Ross, to the amendment in the pending
District appropriation act above referred
to, and subsequently, in a letter to the
provision of law mentioned at this date.
when, he declared. there are less than five
cases pending. would be not only direct
reputation of the provisions of the con-
tracts entered into by the board of public
works. but would work a very serious hard
ship and injustice to the claimants.
without Foundation.
your suggestion" wrote Mr. Fay, re-
ferring to a suggestion of Mr.. Ross. that
possibly it had worked injustice in so far
as it might have prevented the District
from appealing from a judgment rendered
by the court is absolutely unfounded and
untrue. No judgment ever was
paid until after the lapse of ninety days
from it's rendition. and after the Commits
sioners had affirmatively approved it, or
had acquiesced in its payment by their
silence; but notice in every case was
promptly sent them, and. so far as l am
aware, there is not case except, possibly,
one in which the auditor expressly recon-
mended its payment. that can be criti-
cised. To change the law now
would be to require the payment of
the remnant of these old claims not out
of the funding act but out of the current
revenues of the District. To do such a
thing would seem to me to be very i'll ad-
vised. Why the current revenues Of the
District should now be loaded with the
payment Of claims already provided for by
a funded debt, in accordance with the
terms of their contraction. does not ap-
pear The current revenues are already
loaded with all that they ought to bear.
but that an increase of taxation should be
sheaked into an appropriation bill does not
appear to be wise.
1.-The rules of both the House and the
Senate in order to prevent the vicious leg
islation that is liable to ensue by changing
the law in appropriation bills, both forbid
such change. and this proviso is found in
the Senate amendment to the District ap-
preparation bill in violation of the rules of
the Senate, which were made expressly to
prevent it A point of order raised on the
provisO would have excluded it. And 1t
seems to me. under all the circumstances,
that the Commissioners ought not to per-
nit one of their. subordinates to induce
legislation of this character without their
appreciation. and so detrimental to the
interest of the District and to the inius-
tice of individual claimants. l have, there
fore, earnestly to request that you will ad-
dress a letter to the conference committee
repudiating this violation of the Districts
obligations, and the loading on the current
revenues of the District of old claims
Mr.. Petty's Comment.
The ommunication of Mr.. Fay was re-
ferred by the Commissioners to Mr.. Petty,
who. in reporting thereon, stated that
while Mr.. Fay's letter is open to criticism,
he PettD would not in reply descend to
the plane of the writer in his use of in
nuendo, but would content himself, he
added, with recital of the facts. Refer
ring to Mr.. Fay's contention that no judg-
ment has ever been paid without previous
notice being sent to the Commissioners of
its rendition, and an opportunity afforded
them either to approve or acquiesce by
their silence in it's payment, MIR. Petty de-
clares that in the case of Stephen Tally
Judgment was rendered for the claimant
and check issued in payment thereof with
out the slightest previous notice to the
commissioners or an opportunity being
given them to express an opinion in the
matter. The only Information they receiv-
ed upon the subject, says Mr.. Petty, was
contained in the chance publication of an
item of departmental happenings in daily
newspaper.
In this connection Mr.. Petty refers to his
last annual report, giving the history of
the transaction and containing the recon-
mendation which the Senate Incorporated
in the pending District appropriation act
for the protection of the District against a
recurrence of such a mshap.
The fear of the writer" says Mr. Petty,