The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-10-02


Department as had jurisdiction to con-
slider their appeal the claim was there
tore considered as properly before tn"
Comptroller. who says further
II Is not COnteuded by the claimants
that they have complied with the require
ments of the act OF April g. 1874. quoted
ln part by the Auditor and under which
ne diSallowed the claim It is insisted.
however that that act IS unconstitutional
50 far as H. affects the rights of the
claimants in this case and that they are
NOT therefore required 20 comply with its
This act provides the manner in which
contracts e'wiJh a nation Of Indians
etc. shall be proved and prohibits the
accounting officers or other officers Of the
Government from recognizing the valid
nv OF such contracts unless proved la
this manner and IL this. act Is operative
the method provided Is exclusive. Where
special proceeding is expressly ordained
ior q particular purpose it Is presumably
gNcluSILs- tButterwOrth VS. Hoe, ll2 e.
), 80. o.
No claim can be paid from money in
the Treasury Of the United States except
ih consequence Of appropriations made
by law, and II necessarily follows that
congress can prevent the payment Of
any claim or class Of claims from tho
United states Treasury by refusing to
make appropriation therefor. The power
70 regulate the manner in which claims
Shau be settled Is certainly included
WITHIN the power to prevent payment
statutes prohibiting or regulating the ad-
JuGlCdtlOn OF any particular claim or
class OF claims payable from moneys in
the treasury, and which can only be
Drawn thereirOm by appropriation, are
not obnoxious to the provisions Of the
Constitution. whether they affect claims
uhueI cNlStlng contracts OF those subSe-
Quently made
This principle is fully considered and
sustained by the Supreme Court in the
following cases. arising under State laws
ana constitutions in which it was in
al EaHN Poi
llu L. 5, $50. Railroad Company vs..
Alabama tlOl L. s, S35l. see also opinion
on the petition FOR rehearing in the case
l3st cited, S.5i Batter ". North Carolina
In each Of the cases cited the conten-
uon was made that the State had impair
cd the obligation Of the contract by re-
pealng the statutes that were in force
at the time the contracts We're made al
lowing the contractors 10 sue the State in
the State courts on their contracts It
was held I'm each case that this right
10 sue was no part of the remedy on the
contract protected by the contract clause
In the constitution. The remedy that is
protected by that clause in the cOnsti-
tuition was defined in these cases as fol-
lows:
" The remedy. which is protected by
the contract clause Of the constitution. is
some thing more than the privilege of hav-
ing claim adjudicated. Mere judicial
enquiry into the rights Of the parties is
not enough. There must be- the power
TO enforce the results Of such an enquiry
before there can be said TO be q remedy
which the constitution deems a part Of the
contract Enquiry is one thing: remedy
another. Adjudication is OF no value as "A
remedy unless enforcement follows II is
Of no practical Importance that q right
has been established If the right is no
more available afteTward than before.
The constitution preserves only such rem
edies as are required 10 enforce a con-
tract
THE manner in which claims against
the United States that are To be paid
from appropriations made by Congress
are To he adjudiCatcd or settled s. in the
exclusive CpntTOi Of Congress as a priv
ntg- of SQveTeignty. and IL can change
the method by which claims against the
United States may be adjudicated at will
II is at liberty 10 determine for itself
whether It viii pay the claim or not by
refusing an appropriation for IL. Stat
utes providing the manner in which
claims may be ad JudiCated can be repeal
cd or modified at Will and their repeal
or modification does not affect any rem
cdy protected by the Constitution on con-
tract payable from apDropr otions Icy Con-
The Comptroller says that a careful ex-
animation Of the claimants brief fails TO
disclose any authority that Is opposed 20
this principle After reviewing the au-
thorities quoted by them, he says in con
clusion:
This provision does not conflict with
the provisions Of the act OF April g ISTf
ment for services rendered for an Indian
tribe under contract. or the manner in
. which such contract and the services rem
GeTed thertUndsr shah De proved.
The claimants are seeking payment
. from the United States Treasury under a
contract with the ChOctaw Nation. and
before their claim can be paid therefrOm
by the accounting officers IL must be
proved, as required by the act OF April
-, lS14 II has not been so proved, and
the action Of the Auditor is therefore ap-
proved. and l find and certify no differ
cnce."