The Birmingham age-herald., 1913-06-01

| before May G, 19l1 and the states suit
was for money collected between May 6,
1911, and April II, 1913. Examiners of
| public accounts reported to the governor
that the health officer had no right to
| accept the increased salary and this
caused the suit
| When the case was called today ali
! counts in the suit were withdrawn ex-
| oept one which alleged that DIR. Sanders
was state official and thus could not
| be paid more or less than the salary
| fixed when he was employed r. M.
| Stephens of Mobile and John r. Tyson
| OF Montgomery represented the health
officer and Robert C. Brickell attorney
general, and 7. II. Seay, assistant at
| torney general, appeared for the state.
/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~S>
| United States, which has a right to re-
examine them under fixed conditions of
| law.
Two Glasses of Claims
| The two great classes of Jurisdiction
| or the court of claims in which the most
| important questions arise are claims of
contractors with the United States and
| claims of officers and employees of the
government. The government engages in
| a great variety of contracts and the
court of claims has Jurisdiction over dis
putes arising under all of these Thus,
claims come before that court under corf-
tracts of the 1sthmian canal commission.
or the engineer corps of the army for
river and harbor improvements of the
reclamation service for engineering prof.
ects in the west, of the supervising archi-
tect of the treasury for United States
and courthouse buildings of the great
supply departments of the army and
navy, of the Secretary of the NAVY for
pulldlng war vessels and of many other
| classes.
These frequently involve large sums
For instance. in the last volume of the
reports of the court of claims a iudg-
ment was entered upon postoffice
contract in favor of the Purcell Envel-
ope company for S1S3,331.76 The con-
struct1on of dry docks by the navy de-
partment has been FERTILE source of
jurisdiction and a Judgment was rem
dered in one of these cases for over
s2oo,ooO. A single claim upon the con-
struetion of battleship, now pending
before the court of claims, Is for nearly
s1,Oo0,0Oo, and suits are now pending
there upon the construction of nearly
20 vessels of the navy. These suits re-
qulre the most careful study of very
extended records and a mastery. not
only of the principals of the law, but
OF the details of marine construction
The question that arises on behalf
of officers and employees of the govern
ment are very complicated and very
numerous. Thus, in the last two years
the court of claims has had to decide
cases in regard to the pay of officers
and enlisted men of the army and OF
the navy on the active and retired lists.
at sea, on shore and on leave, and of
many different grades; of officers of
the revenue cutter service, of clerks
of court and other judicial officers and
or OFFICERS OF all branches of the civil
service.
The jurisdiction of the court also
extends over large variety of miscel-
laneous cases. This court is every
year called upon to consider constitu-
tional questions arising in other classes
OF cases, such as the taking of private
property for public uses for river I'M
provements, the liability of the United
states for the overflow of lands by the
Mississippi river on account of levee
construction, damages to private prop
erty by firing big guns across 1t, the
power of removal of public officers and
the effect of pardon by the President
upon the restitution of title by i'm
provements on lands unlawfully ac-
quired 1t can be seen that these are
very difficult questions.
Then the court of claims has inter-
national questions to decide. Thus it
has within the past two years decided
questions as to the liability Of the
Chinese under the Chinese indemnity
fund. the obligations of this govern
ment under subsidies granted by Spain
in our inSular possessions, a large num-
Der of questions relating to the capture
Of vessels as prizes-these being ad-
Indicated under the French Spoliation
act.
Another important and very diff
cult branch of jurisdiction arises under
various claims of Indian tribes COM
ing before the court of claims A judg-
ment was rendered less than year
ago in favor of the Mile Las tribe of
Chippewa Indians for nearly $1,000, 900,
involving the rights of these Indians
to certain lands. The court has adjud-
icated the rights of the Cherokees, the
Chickasaws. the Sacs and Foxes, the
Menominees and the White River Utes
of Utah, these involving questions Of
Indian treaty and federal guardianship
over Indians"
Magnitude of Claims
But as to the magnitude of claims the
judgment rendered in favor of the White
River Ute Indians in 1910 was for $3,516,-
251.O5, much larger judgment than often
falls to the lot of courts to render The
largest claim, probably ever seriously pre-
sented to the court of claims is that of
the Missouri. Kansas and Texas railway,
decided on December 4, 1911. This suit
was for more than $61.0O0.OGO. The petit
tion itself contained, including it's exhibits
6eS printed pages. This arose out of q
land grant of July 25, 1866 and the subse-
quent extingushment of the Indian title
to lands over which the predecessors of
this railroad built their line.
''rhe court of claims cannot be afraid
of large amounts. In the case just re-
ferred to the opinion of one of the judges
of the court resented suggestion that the
court might be influenced against claim
by any consideration of its amount, the
opinion saying:
I'm the brief of one of the learned
counsel it is said that a suit for more
than s61,000,000 never had been and never
could be carried through, followed by the
further declaration that it had been fire.
quently stated that If this were a suit
between private parties for a moderate
amount there could be no question of its
receiving favorable consideration. But