The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-02-02

claims for stores and supplies reported Is
the Court of Claims under the provision;
of the Bowman act OF March 3, 1888. was
passed by the House of Representative,
yesterday. Mr. Mahon, Chairman of the
Committee on War Ga ms, called up tht
DILL and the House, for its consideration
resolved itself into Committee of the
Whole with Er. Hemenway in the chair
Mr. Mahon explained that the bill carried
an appropriation of $685. $50 for the fra
settlement of 1871 claims upon which the
Court Of Claims had made findings. He
said that the purpose of the Bowman act
was to relieve Congress from the investi-
cation of claims for stores and supplies
for the use of the military forces of the
United States during the civil war. Under
section l of that act any claim pending
before either house o. Congress or be-
fore any committee thereof might be ie-
ferred to the Court of Claims for the En-
vestigation and determination OF facts
Section of the act makes the loyalty of
the claimant throughout the war" a
jurisdictional fact. If loyalty be not c.
tablished, the claim is dismissed, and that
fact is reported TO Congress.
By section of the act the court is in
! hibited from taking Jurisdiction of amy
claim growing out of the destruction or
damage TO property by the army or navy
during the war for the suppression OF
the rebellion" So that none OF the claims
SO investigated and reported to Congress
include property that was destroyed or
| damaged by the army or navy as an ins
| cident of war, and such has been the hold
ing of the court. The claims in question
include only such properly as was actually
| taken and used by the army or navy and
| the authority for such taking under the
| decisions of the court, has to be shown
| to its satisfaction before any allowance
| is made; that is, that the fact of taking
was not depreciation, but an actual TAX
1 ing for the use of the army or navy.
| No allowance is made for any claim for
property taken by soldiers without au-
thority and for their own personal benefit
and not coming within the ordinary sup
| plies Of the army or navy.
! by section s, also, the court is inhibited
from taking jurisdiction of any such claim
if at the time of the passage of the act
| the same was barred by virtue of the
provisions OF any law of the United States"
and in constituting that provision of the
statute the court in the Ford case held, in
/ 1854, that claims referred for stores and
| supplies which had not been previously
presented to some other department Of the
| GOV ernment, such as the Quartermaster
| General, Commissary General, or Southern
| Claims Commission. were barred.
| Furthermore, claims considered and
4
the Government the court declines to en-
terrain, unless new evidence be offered in
support thereof for the reason that 1t vas
not constituted a tribunal to sit in re-
view Of the decisions of such other Depart
ments. In the trial and consideration of
these cases, both on the question Of loyalty
and merits, the court holds that it is gov
erned by the common-law rules of evil
dence.
Mr.. Mahon said that in the trial and
consideration OF these claims the court
had excluded ex parte alhdayits and had
required the loyalty oi the claimants, as
well as the amount Of their claims, TO be
established. if at all, according to the
common-law rules Of evidence
Mr. Cannon expressed hostility to the
bill, saying that he was opposed to all
omnibus bills and that If he could have
his way he would insist on a thorough
discussion of each item in the bill. Mr.
Mahon offered to produce a report of the
findings of fact in each case by the Court
Of Claims and he asked Mr.. Cannon if he
had opposed the River and Harbor bill
because 1t was in it's nature an omnibus
bill. Mr.. Cannon had not opposed that
bill. Mr.. Mahon declared that the pend
ing bill would stand the sunlight while
the River and Harbor bill would not The
Claims bill was to pay judgments render
ed against the United States by its own
claims according to rules prescribed by
the defendant
The main contention of Mr. Cannon in
opposition to the bill was that when it
went to the Senate other claims would be
put upon il as amendments and that these
would be agreed to in conference. Mr..
Cannon spoke disparaglngly OF the rules
of the Senate. which he said would make
It practically impossible for the Claims
bill to pass except by unanimous consent
and that this condition would be taken
advantage of by Senators to tack on IN
worthy claims. The Chairman of the Com
mlttee on Appropriations insisted that the
United States Government was the best
paymaster in the world and insinuated
that most claimants wanted what was not
due them. Along this line Mr. Cannon
spoke in desultory way for half an hour,
when Mr.. Shackleford disturbed him by
asking If he were not talking against time
with the evident intention of delaying ac
tion on the bill and thereby committing
the same character OF offence Of which he
was complaining on the part OF the Sen
ate. When the laughter had subsidized Mr..
Cannon said that in. the House 1t was at
all times possible for a majority TO exc
cute its will Mr. Mahon took to task the
gentleman from Illinois for his statement
that the Government Of the United States
was the best paymaster. The member
from Pennsylvania said that the claimants
provided for in the pending bill had been
put to great expense in proving their
claims and that then the amount allowed
had been scaled down far below the value
of the stores taken. He said that the
United States was the vo-St paymaster
and quoted James A. Garfield to that eff
feet Mr. Mahon said that during the
civil war in the border States the Govern
ment had taken from loyal citizens prop
erty worth hundreds Of millions Of dollars
and had paid in claims only eighteen mil
lions.
Mr. Dalzell opposed the bill and was
asked a number of direct questions con-
corning his energetic advocacy of the
Cramp claim for more than enc million
dollars. which had been publicly de-
nounced on the floor of the House as a
steal that had been lobbied to its pas
sage.
Mr. Carmack said that II seemed to be
impossible for humble and poor claimants
to get justice at the hands OF Congress
even after fighting their way through the
courts. but experience had proved it an
easy thing for a corrupt corporation with
the aid of a lobby TO get from Congress
what it wanted
The bill was finally reported from the
Committee OF the Whole to the House |
with a favorable recommendation but |
with an amendment striking out certain |
claims reported by the accounting off ers |
of the Treasury Department. The bill |
was then passed
The only Bowman act claim carried in |
the bin which is of local interest is that |
of George w. Talburtt, deceased, for |