Evening star., 1944-01-29
Letters to The Star !.
Congress Urged to Respect
Court Of Claims.


limelight where, If the public had un-
derstood its functions, it probably would
have been long ago. 1t is the only court
Except for some minor clain.s) in which
citizen can sue the Government for
damages for breach of contract or for
unlawful detention of money due him.
Much is now being said about the
recent Pope case in which 1t appears
that the Court of Claims held invalid q
congressional direction that it retry
case in which it had rendered final
judgment. The question discussed in
the press seems to be the legalistic one:
Whether the Court of Claims is, tech
nically, a constitutional court or legis-
lative court. But there is a practical
question of more Importance. Why
argue whether it is a constitutional
court, or legislative court, or any
other kind Of court, if Congress will
not respect its judgments and appropri-
ate money to pay them?
The Court of Claims is a court and
so regards itself, although it does not
always resent raids upon its jurisdic-
ton by executive officials and Congress.
Sometimes even the Supreme Court
seems to give its judgments short shrift.
The executive departments and bureaus
go to extremes Of illegality and unfair
ness with the prime purpose Of enabling
them to do largely as they please with
out rtsking judicial review of their
conduct. This they do by means of con-
tract provisions which they put, some
what covertly, into printed contract
forms. For many years they have in
corporated in their forms provisions
conferring powers on their contracting
officers to make final and binding de-
cisions upon all disputes of fact aris-
ing under the contract; and some of
them, particularly the Interior Depart
ment, have at times, especially recently,
extended the provision for final de-
partmental decision to all disputes of
law.
The Court of Claims has consistently
sought to invalidate such provisions in
sofar as they relate to questions OF
law. OF course, questions Of the proper
legal construction of the language and
OF the scope Of a contract are uues-
tions OF law, and such questions of law
the court has consistently held could
not be thus finally disposed of by the
contracting officer. But some two years
ago the Supreme Court slapped down
such a decision by an order OF rever-
sal. 1t Is difncult to detect the wisdom
or legality OF contract policy which
makes the Governments contracting
officer the final judge Of all questions
OF law and all questions Of fact and of
the fairness and propriety of his own
conduct; it is easier to believe that the
Supreme Court, under the urging of the
Department of Justice, took its action
hastily without apprehending its seri-
GUS consequences.
Thus it is that in the great field of
Feoeral contract claims the officer who
makes the contract becomes the sole
luoge OF all questions OF Interpretation
OF the contract determinative of the
scope OF the contract and the meaning
OF Its language, and all other questions
OF law arising under 1t, sole trier of
all disputed facts, sole reviewer of anv
questionable conduct of his own.
Congress resorts to no subterfuee in
asserting It's power to review judgments
OF the Court Of Claims. It simply as
sumes the power Of a sovereign court
sitting above all judicial courts in the
matter OF money judgments against the
Government. Government may not be
sued without the consent of Congress.
IL mas consented to be sued upon
claims brought against it In the Court
OF Claims. When the court was first
created in 1855, it was authorized to
investigate" claims and suits against
the United States and to report its
conclusions to Congress for legislative
action. Obviously 1t was not a court
at all. In 1861, President Lincoln rec
commended that the so-called court of
claims be made court In the judicial
sense, saying, 1T Is as much the duty
OF Government to render prompt i1s-
tice against itself in favor of its citi-
zens as it is to administer the same
between private individuals. The in
vest1gation and adjudication of claims
IN their nature belong to the judicial
department. In 1863, Congress at
tempted to confer judicial power upon
the court and expressly empowered II
to render final Judgment, with appeal
under proper conditions, to the Supreme
court. But that act, apparently through
!noaVertence, provided in effect that
Judgments would not be paid until Con-
eress had made an appropriation there
!or estimated for by the Secretary of
the treasury The Supreme Court
held that such revisory authority de-
stroyed the courts judicial power.
congress promptly repealed the iuris-
dictionally offensive language. From
then till now 1t has been settled bv an
unoroken line Of Supreme Court de-
cisions, Cd that the Court of Claims
exercises judicial power with all the
functions OF court; ca that, its juris-
olctlon having once attached, Congress
is without power to/cause a Cessation
or modification Of it; 90 that Congress
is without power to prescribe rules of
decision In cases before the court: az
that the right to sue the Government
In the Court of Claims is not a mere
matter OF favor but a matter of high
legal right This is all we'll and good.
But money judgments can be satisfied
only by direct payment of money or
py raising money through sale of prop
erty under execution. Money judg-
ments against the United States can
be paid only through appropriations.
The Controller General who came
into office in 1921 under the new &C.
counting setup, esteeming himself as
an agent OF Congress, came to contend
and advised Congress accordingly, that
congress has the lawful power to revise
or ignore final judgments of the Court
OF Claims. Congress has accepted that
view, erroneous though it is both legally
and morally. Since then, Appropria-
tlon Committees have ignored final
judgments of the Court of Claims or or
dered retrials upon the occasions when
ever persuaded that they ought to do