The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-02-16

the claim of the State of Indiana. which
had been disallowed as aforesaid. 1t was
founded on the act of July ~. 1861. and on
the joint resolution of Congress approved
March s, 1862.
Upon due and full hearing by the Court
Of Claims, Judgment was rendered in favor
of the State of New York on June s. 1851.
for the sum of SCI. 320.S4. Both the United
States and the State of New York appealed
from the judgment, the State holding that
1t was entitled to a judgment for an adj
ditional sum of s39,S67.1S paid into the
canal fund as interest on moneys bor-
Towed from that fund by the State.
1.-The Supreme Court held that the act of
July q, 1861, and the resolution of Con-
Gress of March s. 1862, created on the part
OF the United States an obligation TO
indemnify the States for any costs, charges
and expenses properly incurred for the pur-
poses expressed in the act of 1861, the title
of which shows hat it's object was to in
demnify the States for expenses incurred
by them In defense of the United States.
INTEREST WAS INCLUDED.
"The court also held that the words costs.
charges and expenses properly incurred
included interest paid by the State of New
York upon the money borrowed for the pur-
pose of subsisting and supplying troops
employed in suppressing the rebellion. If
that State said the court, was to give eff
fective aid to the general government in its
struggle with the organized forces of re.
bellion, 1t could only do so by borrowing
money sufficient to meet the emergency;
for 1T had no money in its treasury that
had not been specifically appropriated for
the expenses OF Its own government. 1t
could not have borrowed money any more
than the general government could have
borrowed money, without stipulating to pay
such interest as was customary in the
commercial world. Congress did not ex-
pect that any State would decline TO bOr-
row and await the collection of mnnav
raised by taxation before 1T moved to the
support of the Nation. II expected that
each loyal State would, as did New York,
respond at once In furtherance of the
avowed purpose of Congress-, by whatever
force necessary, to maintain the rigntfu.
authority and existence Of the national
government. We cannot doubt that the in
terest paid by the State on is bonds, is
sued to raise money for the purposes ex-
pressed by Congress-, constituted n part
of the costs, charges and expenses proper
ly incurred by it for those objects. Such
interest, when paid, became a principal
sum. as between the State and the United
States. that is, became a part of the ag-
gregate sum properly paid by the State for
the United States. The principal and in
terest so paid constitutes a debt from the
United States to the State. 1t is as If the
United States had itself borrowed the mon
ey through the agency of the State. We.
therefore, hold that the court below Gid no.
err in adjudging that the $91. 320.A paid ly
the State for interest upon it's bonds isSue1
IN 1901 10 Oe1Tdy the expenses 10 De incurred
in raising troops for the national defense
was a principal sum which the United
States agreed to pay, and not interest with
In the meaning of the rule prohibiting the
allowance OF interest accruing upon claims
against the United States prior TO the rem
dition of Judgment thereon
Upon this authority. il is clear thar the
claim of the State of Indiana should have
been allowed and paid on presentation TO
the Treasury Department on June s, 1oGS:
and that 1t constitutes a just and valid OBJ
legation against the United States under
the provisions of the act of Congress APP
proved July q. 1861, and the joint resolution
of Congress approved March s. 1852.
1.-The controller of the treasury on Sept.
10. 1899. held that the application of the
State TO reopen the order of the second
controller of Oct. II. 1866. should not be
set aside and the claim of the State re-
opened. upon the ground that he was pre-
Guided by the prior adjudication. The claim
had become res adjudicata.
I'm an exhaustive and able opinion by the
assistant controller, after reviewing the
authorities with respect 10 the effect of the
prior adjudication of the controller upon
the application to reopen, he held: Il nave
examined and considered carefully the able
brief OF the learned counsel for the State
OF Indiana, and have no doubt of the JUS
tice of their contention in behalf of q State
that not only gave its treasure. but the
lives of thousands of its citizens for the
suppression of the rebellion. but. in view
of the authorities cited. l am of opinion
that I am without power to afford any
remedy. The application for reopening the
claim OF the State of Indiana. for the rea-
sons above set forth is denied
1T will be observed that the claim of the
State of Indiana includes the item OF s2i3.-
107.51, which appears in the report OF the
loan commissioners filed with the claim
and is the amount of discount upon the
100000 of bonds sold by the State.
WHAT THE STATE GOT.
'"The State received credit from the gov
eminent only for the amount realized upon
the sale of the bonds. namely. 81. 756. 9s2. AZ.
or $2f3. 1871 less than the face or par value
OF the obligations which IL created and
which 1t was obliged TO pay Whether a
discount upon bonds sold constitutes a just
and valid claim against the United States
was not a question involved In the New
York case. and. therefore. was not decided.
who should bear this burden? Who