Evening star., 1944-01-16
Congress and the
Court of Claims
Bv John II. Cline.


portant constitutional question has
grown out of recent Court Of Claims
decision in a case which, of itself, is
relatively unimpressive.
Twenty years ago q man named Allen
Pope made contract with the Gov
eminent to construct a tunnel incident
to the Districts water supply system.
Claiming that the Government had
preached the contract, Mr.. Pope brought
suit in the Court of Claims and was
awarded Judgment for a fraction Of
what he had asked. Dissatisfied with
the award, he sought relief in Congress
and that body. apparently feeling that
Mr.. Pope had suffered at the hands of
the Government, passed bill provid-
ing for a further hearing in his case.
This bill became law when the Presi-
dent signed 1t some two years ago
On this record the stage seemed set
for routine rehearing of the matter.
but this was an assumption which Cid
not take into account the bewilderirg
ramiacations of constitutional law 1t
seems clear that the bill was not deemed
to involve any weighty constitutional
issues when 1t was under considera' ion
in Congress. 1t went through the mill
as scores of other bills 60 through. The
chances are that majority of the leg
islators had no more than a superficial
knowledge Of its contents and it is most
unlikely that the President, in signing
10 hot iy,y,
appearing measure would soon provoke
constitutional dispute
Il
When the case was reached for re-
hearing in the Court of Claims, how
ever, majority of the judges of that
tribunal promptly challenged the right
Of Congress to enact such Law. Re-
fusing to treat the legislation as in
tended merely to grant Mr. Pope fur
ther hearing, with the Government
waving certain defenses that ordinarily
would have been available to it, the
court took the position that Congress
had attempted to dictate the nature of
the courts decision. This was not the
view of counsel for Mr.. Pope, at least
in their oral arguments, nor OF counsel
for the Government But the court,
while indicating that it was skeptical
of the power of Congress TO order a new
trial and nothing more, stuck to it's
position that this particular statute
was. in effect, an attempt by . Congress
to decide the suit, and on that basis the
case was dismissed.
The real question in this matter Is
whether the Court of Claims is what
is known as a constitutional court or a
legislative court. If the former it
would be clearly beyond the reach Of
congressional control, certainly so in q
case of this nature. But if it is a leg
islative court-that is, court created
by act of Congress for a special pur-
pose and. therefore, not affected by
the constitutional safeguards which sur
round the Federal courts--it is subject
to at least some regulation by Con-
gress. During the depression, for ex-
ample, law was passed reducing the
salaries of judges as an economy meas
ure. This was held invalid as to Fed
eral judges, but the Supreme Court de-
cided that Congress could reduce the
compensation of judges of the Court of
Claims. since that is legislative court.
The decision in the Pope case. writ
ten by Justice Madden, skirts around
this question. The majority judges rec
ognized that the Supreme Court had
held the Court of Claims to be a legis-
lative tribunal, but said they did not
pretend to understand" the ruling. Ap-
parently, however, Judge Madden and
his colleagues reasoned that since the
Supreme Court has a right of review in
cases originating in the Court of Claims
the latter is entitled to the same i'm
munity from congressional interference
that the Supreme Court enjoys. Ger
tainly, If the decision rested on a more
specific constitutional basis, it does not
appear on the face of the opinion,
1t seems more probable that the
courts primary objection ran to a uues-
ton of policy rather than a question
of law. BY implication at least. Judge
Madden took the view that the law
granting the rehearing to Mr.. Pope had
been passed as sort of special favor
to him and that if the court were to
condone this by taking Jurisdiction of
the case 1t would result in grave in
justice to other litigants standing on
the merits of their claims rather than
influence in Congress
Certainly. were this the fact. there
would be substantial justice, if not
legality, to the position of the court.
But there is nothing in the record.
ASIDE from conjecture, to support this
view. On the face of the matter it
seems clear that Congress believed Mr..
Pope had not had square deal" from
the Government and was entitled at
least to be heard in an appeal for addi-
tional compensation for his work. The
Department OF Justice, in passing on the
BILL evidently shared this view. and
presumably the President in signing it.
felt likewise.
Thus, there would seem to be two
questions presented First, is it right
for Congress and the President, as a
matter OF simple justice to take such
step as this to facilitate the hearing
OF a claim which they believe to be
just? This is more question of public
policy than of law. Second, can the
Court of Claims, as legislative tribu-
nal substitute its judgment for the
Judgment of Congress in a matter of
this kind, and, in effect, nullify the
intent of both Congress and the Presi-