The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1904-08-15

were begun both in the Court Of Claim a
/ TO recover boratv and ia the S,1r-e-,,s :
Court OF the District OF CoIunbi5 80.
ing as Plze Court OF the United
states. TO recover prize money.
FauagUt's Exploits.
The case upon which the results most
depended was obviously that OF Farra-
gut in 1862. The conditions were much
the same in respect to the most Htigated
question Farragut's greatest dificulty
was IN forts St. Philip and Jackson
AFTER these were passed. the naval force
Whlch he met was greatly inferior 70 his
own although his victory required great
daring on account OF the command Of
the river which the opposing vessels
had.
The courts then took into consideration
: INC forts. and he was allowed prize
money and bounty at the double rafe-
RMS question came up IN both the Bev-av
cases y was presented in the Court ~
/ Clalms FIRST. and after very fun argu
ment was decided against the AdrniToI
! The court held that the terms ~ +b ~,
statute plainly bound II 10 consider ouIy
I the naval equipment. no matter hog
bbe e,,iel Ian nj forces took part in the
paItles. or now much they fncrea sed the
diIncJltles in the way Of the victory
Inc Farra gut case was NOT rRe3~de5
IS conclusive precedent because tbst
question had then been connected by tbe
Government. and not made a snb5S., -
[ litigation. "a
Facts n the Case.
The Court Of Claims in the Dewey caea
found that the total number OF men n,
the enemy's vessels was 2.972. or deduct
ing the men on the three enerv's yes
scls which were restored. there we're
1914 on board the vessels DESTROYED. and
AT the rate OF 800 for each man sent TO
destruction under this humane and
mercifHl law. the court ayarded- $50. 100.
OF this Admiral Dewey's share OF 5 per
cent amounted to $3.50. The officers. and
men. with the exception OF the COM
handing officers OF the vessels and the
feet captain. shared exactly in accord
ance with their rates OF pay. getting each
a little over two months salary. The
captain OF each vessel received one
tenth OF the total awarded 70 her
DeWey's counsel took the case 70 the
Supreme Court OF the United States on
this question. whore Il was deliberately
argued But the Supreme Court affirm
cd the judgment. in a very strongly ex-
pressed opinion by Justice Harlan Three
justices. including the chief justice, dis
sented. q
One interesting question lth5 T. arose IL
this case that returned TO trouble The
counsel In the prize case which followed
was the claim made bv the merchant Of
and ZaflrO. which nad been purchased BY
Dewey before the outbreak OF the war
one to carry coal and the other for sup
plies He put on board a naval officer
and five men to take charge of each
vessel. and then engaged a merchant
captain. officers and men at double their
current wages, TO continue with their
vessels.
A captain Of one Of these applied for
a share in the bounty The Court OF
Claims overruled him on the ground that
these were not nghting Vesseis ana thar
the officers and men were or the nature
Of hired employees and not enhste-i men
in the military service Of the United
States
Uncle Sam Loses Point.
Almost insurmountabIe difficulties pre-
sented themselves as soon as proceed
ings in the prize case were begun. in
getting testimony to show what the cap
tured property was. It had become so
scattered. and the officers who knew
anything about It were so wi1eIy sep
arated that the counsel for the claim
ants were a long time in getting the
threads OF the evidence together
This entailcd almost endless CORE
spondeace. The counsel for the Gov
eminent resisted the claim that the
three vessels which we're sunk but af-
teTWard raised. were legitimate prize
hut the great ter contest was over the
ed out that under civil war presidents
the Supreme Court had refused 70 allow
for such property. This was answered
by showing the liberalization OF the law
which had been accomplished near the
close Of the civil war
Justice Bradley finally decided that
the land captures were not prize, but
held that the vessels sunk and after
ward raised were. This was a COM
promise result
Dewey's Instructions.
When Admiral Dewey was consulted
whether further proceedings should be
instituted, he instructed his counsel not
TO continue the litigation, provided the
Government would agree 10 accept Brad
iey's decree as final He did this in spite
Of his counsel. who thought there was
an excellent chance OF success on both
counts in the Supreme Court. Il hap
Dened that the Governments attorney
declined TO close the litigation with Jus
tee Bradley's decree. and an appeal was
entered by the United States. There
Tore, Admiral Dewey also appealed
The case was decided by the Supreme
Court IN February 1903 in way highly
iavorably to the Dewey claimants. Jus
ice Bradley's judgment was affirmed IN
'egaTd to the vessels sunk and after
ward recovered. but reversed IN regard
10 the property captured on land
II was supposed THAI this would end
he litigation. but unfortunately q seri-
exact value OF these articles. The case
VAS reruanded 60 the Supreme Court OF
he District OF Columbia and an auditor
lf that court, an officer OF twenty-five
Years experience. was assigned to hear
he testimony. Questions Of fact were
deliberately argued, the Government
a large number Of points
he finally allowed SS2S, I32. This was re-
1uced $50, Dewey's counsel waving q
point and the decree was entered the
18th OF March last.
Question Of Costs.
A question Of costs then arose which
threatened TO suspend the final settle
nent OF the case for more than a year.
The law provided that half or the net
proceeds OF the property. where the
opposing vessels were Of inferior forca-
should go 10 the naval pension fund.
which Is something held In trust by tho
OF the Navy and invested in
United States bonds. The other hair
goes to the captors.
Herbert a. MicOu, the attorneys To-
ADMIRAL Dewey, and George A. & viii
am 3. King. the attorneys for some ~
he other officers and men who had been
lighting these cases, COntended that tba
uu sum had been condemned in ur{Ta
through their eEertiOn. and that tho in
'rcasc Of the raVal pension fund v-aa
Tue in consequence TO them, since tho
Government had fought the whole r,ro-
cCdlnES They argued that COmDaNsa-