Case Name: WILLIAM H. H. HART v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1923-10-29
Citations: 58 Ct. Cl. 518
Docket Number: No. 17326
Parties: WILLIAM H. H. HART v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: Graham, Judge; Hay, Judge; Downey, Judge; and Campbell, Ghief Justice, concur.
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 58
Pages: 518–541

Head Matter:
WILLIAM H. H. HART v. THE UNITED STATES.
[No. 17326 Congressional.
Decided October 29, 1923.]
On the Proofs.
Congressional reference; Mil referred,; items and amount stated.— Where either House of Congress has referred a bill to the Court of Claims to be proceeded with in accordance with section 151 of the Judicial Code, the court is limited in its action thereon to the items and amount stated in said bill.
The Reporter’s statement of the case:
Mr. William H. H. Hart in propria persona.
Mr. M. L. Blake, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Robert H. Lovett, for the defendant.
The following findings of fact and opinion of the court were ordered reported to Congress:
I. The claimant, William H. H. Hart, is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the city of Washington, District of Columbia, of which city he has been a resident since about the year 1876.
II. In the month of March, 1897, claimant purchased a farm of approximately 295 acres, improved by a dwelling house, barns, 'and other outbuildings, located in Prince Georges County, Maryland, near Fort Washington and the Potomac Fiver, about twelve miles below the city of Washington, D. C. Said farm was the eastern part of what had been known as Mount Beverly farm, which was situated on the eastern shore of the Potomac Fiver and adjoining Fort Washington. The remainder, or western part, of said Mount Beverly farm, consisting of about 845 acres next to and bordering on the river, was then owned by the late Senator William M. Evarts, of New York, in whose employ claimant was at that time engaged.
III. The Board of Children’s Guardians of the District of Columbia was created by act of Congress approved July 26, 1892, to provide for the care of dependent children in the District of Columbia, and its wards consisted of children committed to it by the courts of the District of Columbia, or otherwise coming under its guardianship under the provisions of said act. The wards of the board were maintained and cared for by the board through private homes and private or public institutions with whom they were placed by the board, the necessary cost and expense of such care and maintenance being defrayed by the board from funds appropriated by Congress for that purpose. As far as practicable, wards of the board were placed in “ free ” private homes — -that is, private homes where they were maintained and cared for without expense to the board or the Government.
IY. In 1897, and prior thereto, there were a number of institutions in which the Board of Children’s Guardians could place its white wards and its younger colored wards, but there was no institution in which it could place its older male colored wards. The claimant herein had given study and thought to sociological and reform questions, especially as regarded the Negro race, and upon the suggestion of the
Superintendent of Charities of the District of Columbia to the Board of Children’s Guardians, and to claimant, said board, under date of November 10, 1897, entered into a contract with claimant for the teaching and maintenance, at a farm school to be established by claimant on his said farm near Fort Washington, Maryland, of such of the board’s male colored wards as the board might select. Said contract read as follows:
“This agreement, made and entered into this tenth day of November, A. D. 1897, by and between the Board of Children’s Guardians of the District of Columbia, acting under authority of an act of Congress approved July 26, 1892, entitled, “An act to provide for the care of dependent children in the District of Columbia, and to create a board of children’s guardians, party of first part, and William H. H. Hart, of the District of Columbia, party of the second part.
“ Witnesseth: That the party of the first part hereby agrees to place under the care of the party of the second part such male wards of the party of the first part between the ages of eight and eighteen years as it shall select, to be taught and maintained at the farm of the said party of the second part, near Fort Washington, Maryland.
“ That the party of the first part hereby agrees to pay to the party of the second part, for the teaching and maintenance of such wards as aforesaid, at the rate of one hundred and ninety-five dollars ($195.00) per annum, payable quarterly, for each and every ward from one to twenty-five; and at the rate of one hundred and seventy-five dollars ($175.00) per annum, payable quarterly, for each and every ward from twenty-six to fifty, and whenever the number of said wards under the control of said party of the second part shall exceed fifty in number, then they shall all be taught and maintained by the party of the second part at the rate of one hundred and fifty-five dollars ($155.00) per annum, payable quarterly, for each ward.
“And the said party of the first part hereby reserves the right to visit and correspond with its wards at all times, and to remove any ward placed as aforesaid, whenever such change will, in the judgment of the said party of the first part, be of benefit to such ward.
“And the said party of the second part agrees to receive from the party of the first part its wards as aforesaid for the purpose and at the rates of compensation specified.
“ That the said party of the second part hereby agrees that the wards of the said party of the first part, received
under this agreement, shall be suitably and sufficiently fed, clothed, housed, controlled, and attended in sickness and in health; that they shall be treated properly and kindly at all times, and shall be given agricultural training, including plowing, sowing, reaping, care of farm machinery, care and feeding of stock, and all other work incident to farm life. The said party of the second part further agrees that he will make all arrangements to enlarge the scope of the instruction given, so that by the time the number of said wards under his control shall reach twenty-five he will guarantee that in addition to the instruction given as above, instruction shall be given in blacksmithing and wheelwrighting and also in the rudiments of a literary education. That at all times the said wards shall receive good moral training, such as would tend to make them useful members of society. “
“ That the said party of the second part reserves the right to return to said party of the first part any of its wards who may be incorrigible, upon giving ten days’ notice with a statement of facts justifying such return, and he also reserves the right to refuse to receive any ward of the said party of the first part when it is manifest that his presence would endanger the health or morals of those already in his charge. That he will exercise due watchfulness to prevent said wards leaving the farm without permission, and that, if any do leave, he will make a reasonable effort to find them and secure their return.
“ That it is hereby mutually agreed and understood that this contract terminates on the 30th day of June, A. D. 1898, without prejudice to rights vested hereunder.
“ In witness whereof the said party of the first part hath authorized its president to execute these presents and to affix its seal thereto, and the said party of the second part hath affixed his hand and seal hereto on the day and year first above written. Made in duplicate — two copies interchangeably.
“ Wm. KediN Woodwaed, [seal.]
“ President, Board of Children's Guardians.
“Wm. H. H. Hart. [seal.]
“ Witness:
“ MARGARET M. FlTZHUGII.”
In anticipation of and pursuant to this contract, claimant made preparations for the maintenance, care, education, and training, at such farm school, of such wards of the board as might be placed at said school. Senator Evarts placed at claimant’s command and use in the undertaking his said adjoining tract of 345 acres of land on the river— which was later purchased by claimant — thus giving claimant an available tract of about 635 acres for use in connection with his said farm school.
Pursuant to said contract of November 10, 1897, set forth above, the Board of Children’s Guardians placed with claimant at said farm school a number of its wards, the combined time of which was equal to that of between 7 and 8 wards for a full year, and for which claimant was paid at the contract rate of $195 each per year, amounting in all to $1,444.53. The number of wards at said farm school at the close of the fiscal year, June 30, 1898, was 21.
V. On August 2, 1898, a contract was entered into by claimant and said Board of Children’s Guardians to run to the end of that fiscal year, June 30, 1899. This contract was similar to the contract for the preceding year, set forth in Finding IY, except that it changed the prior graduated annual rate of compensation to a uniform rate of $185 per ward, regardless of the number of wards that might be placed at the school by the board, and included additional provisions or requirements of claimant, substantially as follows: That said wards should attend school at least three hours each day, except Sundays and legal holidays, during the months of September to June, inclusive; that a Sunday school should be held for at least one hour on each Sunday for their religious instruction; that none of said wards should be transferred by claimant to the hospitals of the city of Washington except in cases of emergency, nor to other institutions or places, nor to be hired out or placed in control of other persons unless upon authorization by said board; and that claimant should furnish to all wards discharged from his control by order of said board or by termination of the contract, outfits of clothing equal in quantity and quality to those furnished such wards at the time of their reception by claimant at his said farm school. Also, payments were made monthly instead of quarterly.
Under this contract the board placed and kept at said farm school an average of between 32 and 33 wards for the full year. Claimant was paid for these wards at the contract rate of $185 per ward per year, amounting to the sum
of $6,068.10. Tlie number of wards at the school at the end of the year was 42.
VI. By written agreement between claimant and said Board of Children’s Guardians the said contract for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1899, was made effective for the succeeding fiscal year ending June 30, 1900, but with the modification of an increase in the rate of compensation to •claimant from $185 per year to $200 per year per ward.
For this fiscal year claimant was paid, at the contract rate, a total of $8,444.81. The number of the board’s wards kept at the said school during the year averaged between 42 and 43 for the full year, and the number at the school at the close of the year was 47.
VII. On or about July 1, 1900, the Board of Children’s Guardians entered into a contract with claimant for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1901. This contract retained the $200 per capita rate of compensation and was otherwise similar to the contract for the preceding year, except for additional provisions substantially as follows: The former conditional requirement as to instruction in blacksmithing and wheelwrighting Avas changed to a direct and specific requirement for such instruction, or instruction in some •other industrial arts approved by the board or its agents; the claimant was required to report monthly, on forms furnished by the board, the record of each of the wards under his care as to scholastic, industrial, and farm work, and general deportment during the month; and the board was to reimburse the claimant for extraordinary expenses which might be incurred by reason of the introduction of any epidemic or contagious disease by said wards of the board.
Under this contract claimant was paid for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1901, at the yearly contract rate of $200 per ward, the sum of $10,446.58, this being for an average of between 52 and 53 wards for the full year. The number of wards at the school at the end of the year was 52.
VIII. At the close of the fiscal year ending June 30,1901, by mutual understanding between claimant and the board, the provisions of the contract for that year were continued in force, and compensation was paid claimant up to Jan- nary 1, 1902, at the said annual rate of $200 per ward per year.
On account of an anticipated shortage in the board’s funds for the care and maintenance of its wards generally for that year, the board, at a meeting on December 21, 1901, decided to reduce the annual compensation to claimant from $200 per ward to $175 per ward, unless claimant should satisfactorily show the reduced rate to be unfair. At a special meeting of the board on December 28, following, claimant was heard on the question of the fairness of the proposed reduction of the-rate to $175 per ward. Claimant presented an exhibit of receipted bills for certain articles of clothing, provisions, agricultural implements, and freight, for a part of a year, and vigorously protested against the proposed reduction,, claiming it to be unwarranted and unfair. The matter was referred to a committee of the board for consideration and report, which committee was of the opinion that the figures submitted by claimant were in several instances in excess of his actual outlay, and recommended that the rate of compensation be reduced, as proposed, to $175 per ward per year, the reduction to take effect from January 1, 1902. This recommendation was concurred in by the board, and claimant, was requested to consent to the induction. By letter of J anu-ary 13,1902, he reluctantly agreed to the reduction on condition that instruction in blacksmithing be dropped from the-requirements; and later he signed a contract with the board, dated January 1, 1902, for the last half of this fiscal year at the reduced rate of $175 per ward, the contract being otherwise similar to the contract for the preceding fiscal year, the provision for blacksmithing instruction objected to by claimant having been left in the contract.
For this fiscal year ending June 30, 1902, claimant was. paid a total of approximately $10,220.09, this being, at the two different rates of compensation, for an average of about 54 wards for the full year. The number of wards at said farm school at the end of the year, June 30,1902, was 48.
By reason of said reduction of the rate of claimant’s compensation to $175 per ward per annum claimant received during the last half of this fiscal year $650 less than would have- been his compensation at the rate of $200' per ward per an-num.
IX. As a result of an appeal by claimant to Congress for statutory provision for the placing by the Board of Children’s Guardians of a specific number of its wards at claimant’s said farm school at a specific rate of compensation, the following provision was included in the District of Columbia appropriation act of July 1, 1902, for the fiscal year ending June 30,1903:
“ To enable the Board of Children’s Guardians to contract for the care and maintenance of sixty wards of the board at the Hart Farm School, at the rate of two hundred dollars per annum each, twelve thousand dollars.”
The said Board of Children’s Guardians resented claimant’s action in securing this provision of law, which interfered with the board’s discretion, at the least, as to the rate of compensation to be paid claimant for wards placed by the board in this said farm school. In construing this provision the board held that while it definitely fixed the rate of compensation at $200 for as many as 60 wards, it left at the board’s discretion the number of its wards that should be placed in said school, and also left within its discretion the rate of compensation for any wards placed in said school above the number of 60 specified in the statute.
Pursuant to this construction of said provision the board thereupon drafted a form of contract for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1903, containing numerous changes in and additions to the requirements of the preceding contract, substantially as follows: The rate of compensation for the first 60 wards was changed to the $200 rate provided by the statute, and the rate for those in excess of 60 was fixed at $175. In addition to the former general provision that said wards should be “ faithfully attended to, in sickness and in health,” there was included the specific requirement that when sick they should “ be provided with suitable medical attendance during such sickness.” The former requirement of school on Saturdays for literary instruction, that is, common school instruction, was omitted. There was added a positive requirement for instruction “ in the art of carpen: try, or some other industrial arts,” as might be approved by the board or its agent; and specific provision for the providing by claimant of “ proper buildings for a blacksmith shop, wheelwright shop, and carpentry shop,” and of “ all blacksmith forges, bellows, anvils, and other tools of every kind and description necessary to have and to be used” in said shops, the said shops, tools, and equipment to be provided as soon as possible after the date of the contract. In addition to the general provision of the previous contracts for agricultural and other industrial instruction, there was included specific requirement that such instruction be given every day except Sundays and legal holidays; that when the school proper was in session, such industrial instruction should be given for a period of three hours per day; and that at other times said wards should work or be instructed at least six hours per day.
There was added to the prior general provision that said wards should attend school at least three hours per day from the first day of September to the last day of June, a provision specifying the branches of studies to be taught, as follows: “ Heading, writing, history, geography, music, and also ciphering as far as the rule of three.” Also specific requirement that claimant should employ a sufficient number of competent persons, farmers, and others capable of teaching said wards in all the said branches of learning and industrial occupations in question, including “ a competent blacksmith and wheelwright and a competent carpenter.” Also a specific provision for the providing by claimant of “proper schoolrooms, chairs, and desks necessary for the teaching of said wards,” and also all necessary books.
There was added a provision that any ward should be permitted to receive the religious ministrations of a representative of such denomination as he might choose.
There was added a provision that for wards who had remained in said farm school continuously for six months or more there should, upon their discharge from the school, be furnished by claimant, instead of the kind of outfit of clothing provided for other wards, upon their discharge, an outfit which should consist of “ one full suit of clothes, whole and in good condition; one full suit of underwear (light weight in summer and heavy weight in fall or winter) ; one outside shirt, with collar and tie for a boy over 14; one shirtwaist and tie for a boy under 14; one pair of shoes; one hat or cap; one pair of stockings; one nightshirt; and two handkerchiefs.”
There was added a penalty clause reading as follows:
“It is hereby further understood and agreed by the parties hereto that if the said party of the second part shall fail to carry out or perform either of the agreements, provisions, or conditions herein entered into by him with the said party of the first part, in the judgment of the said party of the first part, then and in that case the said party of the second part shall be notified in writing by the said party of the first part that, in the judgment of said party of the first part, such failure has occurred, and what forfeiture of payment should be made in the judgment of the party of the first part by reason of such failure, and the said party of the second part shall forfeit and pay to the said party of the first part such sum of money as shall be adjudged to be fair and reasonable, the said sum, in case of difference of judgment between the said parties, to be ascertained by a board of three arbitrators, one of whom shall be chosen by each party hereto, and the third by the first two, said sum of money to be deducted from the amount due and payable by the said party of the first part to the said party of the second part, and the said award of said arbitrators shall be final, and for which amounts so deducted the said party of the first part shall not in any manner be accountable to the said party of the second part, his executors, administrators, or assigns, nor shall the same be recoverable in any manner, either at law or in equity, from the United States, the District of Columbia, said party of the first part, or either of them.”
There was added a requirement for a property clerk and accountant for the board, as follows:
“ It is hereby further stipulated and agreed that the party of the second part shall render a true and perfect statement in writing to the said party of the first part of all purchases and disbursements made by him for and on account of the ‘ Hart Farm School,’ so called, and the care and maintenance of the wards of the said party of the first part, and shall accompany the same with vouchers. The said statement shall be made monthly for each month within the first seven days of the following month. The said party of the second part shall also furnish board and room to one person, to be selected and paid by the party of the first part, to be designated and known as property clerk and accountant, wbo shall keep an account of all supplies purchased for the maintenance of the farm and the care and support of the wards of the party of the first part, and to whom such supplies are issued, or for what purpose used, the same to be open to inspection of the party of the first part, or anyone duly authorized by it, such property clerk and accountant to render a monthly statement to the said party of the first part, at each regular monthly meeting of the said party of the first part.”
Said proposed contract was submitted to claimant by the board for his acceptance. Claimant vigorously protested against its additional requirements, and especially against the requirement of the proposed property clerk and accountant for the board, and refused to accept the contract. The board informed him that unless he accepted the contract its wards would be withdrawn from his said school. He still persisted in his refusal to accept the contract, and on July 26, 1902, the board withdrew its wards from the school. Claimant having his farm and school plant and equipment and his staff of instructors and other employees for the work, and being under heavy expense for their compensation and maintenance, finally yielded and accepted the contract, which was executed under date of October 13, 1902. The board thereupon gradually returned a portion of its wards to said school, the number at the school during the remainder of the year averaging about 22 per month. By the end of the year the number of wards at the school had reached 60, and the average for the full year was between 18 and 19 wards. The amount paid claimant, at the contract rate during this fiscal year, was $3,741.41.
The provision in the contract relative to the keeping of a property clerk and accountant for the board at said farm school was abrogated by the parties to the contract on or about March 16,1903, and not thereafter enforced.
X. Claimant contended that the said provision in the District of Columbia appropriation act for said fiscal year 1902-3 appropriating $12,000 to “enable ” the Board of Children’s Guardians to contract for the care and maintenance of 60 of its wards at his said farm school, at the rate of $200 per annum each, was an unqualified appropriation of $12,000 to his said farm school, to be paid him in full regardless of whether the full number of 60 of the board’s wards were or were not placed with him by the board for the full year; and in March, 1903, he presented to the accounting officers ■of the Government a claim for $6,332.91, the difference between the amount of compensation paid him by the board, at the contract rate for the first eight months; of the year then just past, and an $8,000 pro rata portion of said $12,000 for said eight months of the year.
This claim was disallowed by the Auditor for the State :and Other Departments, whose decision was concurred in by the Comptroller of the Treasury in an opinion dated April 7, 1903; and no part of the claim appears to have been paid the claimant.
The difference between the amount paid claimant during this fiscal year and the $12,000 appropriated for the year, as .aforesaid, was $8,258.59.
XI. On December 2,1902, claimant presented to the Board ■of Commissioners of the District of Columbia a statement of claim in which he stated that he was under outstanding obligations for supplies, services, and loans for his said farm school amounting to $15,783.59; that he had contributed to said school $10,000 of his earnings during the preceding five .years, and had also sacrified a $1,200 equity in his property in Washington, D. C., and that if he were credited with a •salary of $1,200 a year for himself for said five years it would make a total of $32,983.09 that he had “ lost in the service of the Government.” In conclusion, he stated that he wished the Government “ to stand its half of this loss.”
This statement, or claim, was referred by the District Commissioners to the District Board of Charities, which board, after hearings given claimant in the matter, made a report to the District Commissioners January 6,1903, in the course of which report the said Board of Charities said:
“ After most careful consideration of the statements made and papers submitted in this matter the Board of Charities is unable to recommend favorable action on the claim made by Professor Hart. During a period of less than five years $36,624.11 were paid to Mr. ITart by the Board of Children’s Guardians, and no statement is presented to show how this money is expended. In the absence of such a statement, and
comparing the rate paid to Mr. Hart with that paid by the board to other institutions for similar work, we believe that if the indebtedness exists, as alleged, it is not due to an inadequate compensation for the service rendered, but is the result of bad business methods and financial management.”
No part of this claim appears ever to have been allowed and paid to the claimant.
XII. Upon application to Congress by claimant, and after exhaustive hearings of claimant in favor of it, and of the Board of Children’s Guardians against it, a provision was incorporated in the District of Columbia appropriation act of March 3, 1903, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1904, as follows:
“ The Board of Children’s Guardians is hereby directed to contract for the care and maintenance of sixty wards of the board at the Hart Farm School at the rate of two hundred dollars per annum each, and for this purpose the sum of twelve thousand dollars is hereby appropriated, and the commissioners are required to report to Congress at the first regular session of the Fifty-eighth Congress a general plan for the future care of the delinquent and dependent children in the District of Columbia.”
Pursuant to this provision of law a contract was entered into by claimant and the Board of Children’s Guardians, under date of July 1,1903, for the care and maintenance of the specific number of 60 of the board’s wards, at the rate of $200 per year each. A number of other changes were made in this contract from the terms of the contract of October 13, 1902, for the preceding fiscal year, the principal and material ones being as follows:
There were added: A provision reserving to the board a right to remove its wards from said farm school whenever the conditions of the contract were not faithfully carried out by claimant; a provision that in case of any loss or destruction of property through or by the wards of the board, aside from ordinary wear and tear, the board was to recommend to Congress an appropriation to remunerate claimant for the loss; also provisions that claimant should not be required to accept wards that were criminally incorrigible or that were affected with chronic and contagious diseases.
The following provisions of said preceding contract were omitted: The specification of the particular branches of agricultural training in which instruction was to be given, such as plowing, sowing, reaping, care of farm machinery, and care and feeding of livestock, the provision of the contract being in general terms for “ agricultural training, and instruction in other work incident to farm life.” The provisions for the providing by claimant of workshops and schoolrooms, these probably having been provided under the preceding contract. The provision for a special outfit of clothing for wards who when discharged had been continuously in the school for sis months or more — which left the outfit to be received by them the same as that of ó'ther wards. The penalty clause for forfeiture by claimant of a portion of the contract compensation for failure on his part to carry out any of the provisions of the contract. And the provision for a property clerk and accountant for the board to be kept at said farm school.
Under this contract claimant was paid for this fiscal year, ending June 30, 1904, at the contract rate of $200 per ward, the sum of $11,999.65, this being for an average of substantially 60 wards for the full year.
XIII. The District of Columbia appropriation act of April 27, 1904, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1905, contained the following provisions:
“ The Board of Children’s Guardians is hereby directed to contract for the care and maintenance of sixty wards of the board at the Hart Farm School at the rate of two hundred dollars per annum each, and for this purpose the sum of twelve thousand dollars is hereby appropriated.
“ To enable the Commissioners of the District of Columbia to procure a plan or plans for a plain substantial brick building or buildings for an industrial home school for colored children to cost not to exceed one hundred thousand dollars and to be located on the ground purchased for a municipal almshouse under the provisions of the District of Columbia appropriation act approved March first, nineteen hundred and one, one thousand five hundred dollars.”
Pursuant to the above provisions as to the Hart Farm School, the Board of Children’s Guardians, under date of July 1, 1904, contracted with claimant for the care and maintenance of 60 of the board’s colored wards for said fiscal year at said rate of $200 per annum eacb. This contract was similar to the contract for the next preceding year, with the exceptions that there were omitted the specific requirement for a Sunday school and the provision for wards receiving religious ministrations of a representative of such religious denomination as they might choose, thus leaving merely the. general requirement of “ good moral training and religious instruction which will tend to make them good and useful members of society.”
Under this contract claimant was paid at the statutory and contract rate for this fiscal year the sum of approximately $11,938.13, which was for an average of substantially 60 wards for the full year.
XIY. The appropriation act of March 3, 1905, for the District, of Columbia for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1906, contained the following provisions:
“ The Board of Children’s Guardians is hereby directed to contract for the care and maintenance of sixty wards of the board at the Hart Farm School, at the rate of two hundred dollars per annum each, and for this purpose the sum of twelve thousand dollars is hereby appropriated.
“ Toward the erection of plain, substantial brick building or buildings for an industrial home school for colored children, and the Commissioners of the District of Columbia are authorized to contract for the whole work at a cost not to exceed one hundred thousand dollars, fifty thousand dollars to be immediately avai lable.”
Pursuant to the first above-quoted provision of said act, the Board of Children’s Guardians, under date of July 1,
1905, entered into a contract with claimant for the care and maintenance of 60 of the board’s colored wards between the ages of 8 and 18 years for said fiscal year ending June 30,
1906, at said rate of $200 per annum each. The provisions and requirements of this contract were similar to those of the contract for the preceding fiscal year.
Under this contract claimant was paid, at the statutory and contract rate of $200 per ward per year, the sum of $11,488.75, which was for an average of between 57 and 58 wards for the full year.
Subsequent to this fiscal year no provision was made, either by Congress or the Board of Children’s Guardians for the care and maintenance of any of the board’s wards at claimant’s said farm school. Said wards were thereafter maintained and cared for in the Industrial Home School for Colored Children, established in the District of Columbia, south of the city of Washington, pursuant to the provisions of law' set forth in Findings XIII and in this finding.
XV. During the said nine fiscal years of 1898 to 1906, inclusive, the number of the wards of the Board of Children’s Guardians kept by claimant at his said farm school averaged approximately 43 per year for the full year; the total compensation received by claimant therefor was approximately $75,792.05; and the average rate per ward per year was approximately $196.40.
XVI. During the first four years that said wards of the Board of Children’s Guardians were kept by claimant at his said farm school the care and maintenance, education, and training received by said wards were highly satisfactory to the board and were highly commended by it in its annual reports. Subsequent to that time, and during the years for which Congress made specific provision in the District of Columbia appropriation acts as to the number of the board’s wards to be sent to claimant’s said farm school and the rate of compensation to be paid claimant for thém, the relations between claimant and the board were not as amicable, and the services rendered said wards by claimant’s said school were not as satisfactory to the board as they had been before that time.
XVII. It was the desire, purpose, and intention, both of the claimant and of the Board of Children’s Guardians, that claimant’s compensation for the maintenance, care, education, and training of the board’s wards under the said contracts between claimant and the board should not only meet his legitimate expenditures, but should also compensate him for his services and yield him a profit on his undertaking.
XVIII. At the time of the renewal of the different contracts between claimant and the Board of Children’s Guardians for the succeeding years claimant protested against the rates of compensation in the proposed new contracts as
not being adequate compensation, but finally agreed to and entered into said contracts.
Also, throughout the time of his services under said contracts, claimant contended that the contract pay being received by him was not sufficient compensation for such services and insisted that he ought to be given greater compensation.
XIX. In the vouchers for payment to claimant by the Board of Children’s Guardians, under the said contracts between claimant and said board, the accounts were stated merely as for “ board and care of the following-named children for the time and at the rate specified ”; and in the receipts signed by claimant acknowledging payment, the payment was stated to be “ in full payment of the within account.”
XX. It does not satisfactorily appear from the competent evidence whether or not the amount of compensation received by claimant from the Board of Children’s Guardians for his services in the care, maintenance, education, and training of the board’s said wards at his said farm school during the said fiscal years 1898 to 1906, inclusive, was, as a whole, fair and reasonable compensation for such services.
XXI. It does not satisfactorily appear whether claimant realized out of the said compensation received by him any profit on his undertaking and services in the care, maintenance, education, and training of the said wards of the Board of Children’s Guardians, over and above the cost to him of such undertaking and services; nor does it appear whether he realized out of the compensation received by him any compensation for his own personal time and services expended and rendered in said undertaking.
Claimant having been engaged in other occupations at the same time, a reasonable compensation for his said personal time and services would have been $1,200 per year, or $9,993.33 for the full time during which such time and services were so expended by him.
It is not satisfactorily shown by the competent evidence what would have been a fair and reasonable commercial profit to claimant on his said undertaking.
XXII. On account of the reduction in January, 1902, by the Board of Children’s Guardians in the rate of claimant’s compensation from $200 per ward per year to $175 per ward per year for the last half of that fiscal year, as set forth in Finding VIII; and the board’s withdrawal and withholding of all its wards from claimant’s said school from July 26, 1902, until October 13, following, when claimant finally agreed to and signed the new and more onerous contract insisted upon by the board for that fiscal year, together with the small number of wards kept by the board at said school during the remainder of the year, as set forth in Finding IX; the claimant’s financial returns and resources were so limited that he lost many of his horses and cattle .at said farm school by starvation because of his financial inability to furnish the necessary feed for them. He also gave away some and sold others at prices greatly below value in order to prevent their loss by starvation. His total loss of stock by reason of the above facts was $5,000.
XXIII. On or about April 17, 1903, one of the wards of the Board of Children’s Guardians at claimant’s said farm school set fire to one of the barns in the main group of claimant’s farm buildings, which building, together with their contents of hay, grain, and other feed, and farm implements, machinery, and other equipment, were burned and destroyed, all at a loss to claimant of $8,000.
XXIV. On or about July 26, 1902, the said tract of approximately 345 acres of land which had belonged to Senator Evarts and had been purchased from his estate by claimant in October, 1901, for $3,500, was sold by claimant to a Miss Clementine N. Bartlett, from whom claimant thereafter leased it and continued its use as a part of his said farm school property. On or about January 23, 1904, while this tract of land was under lease and use by claimant as a part of his said school property, a storehouse and an adjoining dwelling house on said tract of land was burned and destroyed. The value of these buildings was $2,400. There was also burned with these buildings personal property belonging to claimant amounting in value to $1,350.37.
XXV. In the spring of 1906 creditors of claimant who had furnished him both money and supplies for his said farm school became so insistent for payment of bis obligations to them that in March, 1906, claimant, being unable to= make such payments, went into bankruptcy, and all of his-property, including his said farm school and property in Maryland and several pieces of improved city property in. Washington, D. C., went into the hands of a trustee in bankruptcy, by whom said farm school was kept in operation during the remainder of the fiscal year, as contracted for by claimant with the Board of Children’s Guardians. The-claimant’s liabilities at the time of his going in bankruptcy totaled approximately $40,839.76, and his assets, as scheduled', by him in the bankruptcy proceedings, amounted to $21,-021.50, outside of a claim of $148,765.05 scheduled by him as-, against the United States for “ services, costs, damages, and expenses incurred in the care and maintenance ” of the said wards of the Board of Children’s Guardians at his said farm-school, upon which claim nothing was realized in said bankruptcy proceedings. Claimant was duly discharged in. bankruptcy.
XXVI. At the time of claimant’s going into bankruptcy-in March, 1906, he was indebted to the said Clementine-N. Bartlett for rent of the said Evarts tract of land, which had been sold by claimant to- her in 1902 and thereafter-leased by claimant and used as a part of his said farm school property, and also for money borrowed from her amounting-in all, as found and approved by the court in said bankruptcy preceedings, to the sum of $900. Of this indebtedness there was paid the said Clementine N. Bartlett, in the bankruptcy settlement of claimant’s debts, the sum of $153, leaving a balance, or loss to her, of $747.
By her last will and testament the said Clementine N. Bartlett left to the claimant all her estate and property of every kind whatsoever. In said last will and testament there was. a specific devise to claimant of the said Evarts tract of land referred to above; but it does not appear whether said land, yet belonged to the testatrix at the time of her death and passed to the claimant under her said will. In March, 1910,. said tract of land was sold under a mortgage given by claimant at the time of his purchase of the tract from the Evarts estate in 1901 to secure the payment of an indebtedness of $3,000, which, mortgage indebtedness had continued on down to the time of said mortgage sale. At this sale said land was sold for the sum of $3,000. It does not appear who held the legal title to said land at the time of its sale under said mortgage.
at said farm school at the time of his going into bankrupty in March, 1906, consisted of approximately 295 acres, substantially all of which was purchased in March, 1897, a short time before the establishment of said school thereon. Shortly after his purchase of this land it was mortgaged by him to secure loans to him aggregating some $7,000, for use in the construction of buildings and improvements thereon and providing equipment for his said farm school and property. In 1905 this land, with the improvements thereon, had an assessed value of $5,460. In claimant’s petition in bankruptcy, in March, 1906, its value is given by claimant in his schedule of his assets as $7,000. At a mortgage foreclosure sale in July, 1906, during the pendency of said bankruptcy proceedings, it sold for $3,100. Its fair and reasonable market value at the time of claimant’s going into bankruptcy was $6,880.

Opinion:
Booth, Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
This case comes to the court under section 151 of the Judicial Code. The reference was by the Senate, as evidenced by the following bill:
"A BILL For the relief of Professor William H. H. Hart, principal of the Hart Farm School and Junior Bepublic for Dependent Children.
" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby is, authorized and directed to pay to Professor William H. H. Hart, principal of the Hart Farm School and Junior Bepublic for Dependent Children, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $1,870,738.60, due him for costs incurred, losses sustained, services rendered, damages suffered, and an annual commercial profit on his undertaking in the ' care and maintenance,' education, vocational, veterinary, mechanical, agricultural, military, and civic training of certain wards of the United States under sundry mandatory acts of Congress (Senate resolution 204, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session), and certain contracts with the Board of Children's Guardians of the District of Columbia, from November 8, 1897, to June 30, 1906."
The findings are indispensably voluminous, and while not necessarily involved, the court feels constrained to add to them this opinion, in order to make plain the exact case as it appears to us under this limited jurisdictional act. A controversy so extensive could not well demand less.
The plaintiff in his pleadings sought to largely increase the sum claimed over and above the sum mentioned in the bill, and! the commissioner of the court to whom the case was referred to take evidence and report findings of fact very properly held that the sum stated in the bill limited the total sum the plaintiff might claim under any of the items for which he might ask findings. The jurisdiction of the court extends only to find the facts with reference to " costs incurred, losses sustained, services rendered, damages suffered, and an annual commercial profit " on the plaintiff's undertaking. We may not extend the inquiry beyond what the bill expressly describes as the alleged items of loss. It is the bill and its terms to which we look and not the reference of the same.
The commissioner reported his findings, the plaintiff filed his exceptions thereto, and the case was argued orally before the court.
In the year 1897, and for some time prior thereto, the Board of Children's Guardians of the District of Columbia could usually find suitable places for caring for its young colored wards, but there were no places available for its older colored wards, and no institution provided for them. The plaintiff, a colored man, owned a farm of about 295 acres twelve miles from Washington, D. C., in Prince Georges county, Maryland, and he subsequently acquired an adjoining tract of 345 acres, and as thus equipped he entered into nine separate written contracts with the Board of Children's Guardians for the care, education, etc., of the older colored male wards, as appears by the contracts set forth in the findings. The first four years of the contractual relationship of the parties progressed with mutual satisfaction, and it was not until July 1, 1902, that serious dif ferences began to arise. Congress, in the appropriation act of July 1, 1902, inserted the following clause:
" To enable the Board of Children's Guardians to contract for the care and maintenance of sixty wards of the board at the Hart Farm School at the rate of two hundred dollars per annum each, twelve thousand dollars."
The Board of Children's Guardians was displeased with this legislation and manifestly resented its enactments. The board adopted a construction of the law, which they followed, holding that under its terms they were only legally bound as to the compensation to be paid the Hart Farm School and not otherwise obligated under it. Pursuant to this attitude, they tendered the plaintiff a formal written contract covering the annual period and expiring on June 30,1903. This contract imposed upon the plaintiff many additional duties and requirements not theretofore mentioned in former contracts, and there was for the first time inserted therein a strict penalty clause for failure to observe its terms. The plaintiff vigorously protested against these additional requirements and withheld his signature from the same until October 13, 1902, when he finally signed it. In the meantime, on July 26, 1902, the board withdrew all of its wards from the school, and from July 26, 1902 until October 13,1902, the plaintiff was without any income whatsoever from said school. The board gradually returned wards to the school, the average number for the year being from 18 to 19 until at the end of the year when 60 were finally placed there. The exact situation is set forth in detail in Finding IX. The following Congress, on June 30, 1904, removed all doubt of its intention as expressed in the act of July 1, 1902, by inserting a mandatory clause in the annual appropriation bill, directing the board to contract with the Hart Farm School for the care and maintenance of 60 wards at $200 per annum each, and this act of Congress was substantially complied with thereafter as to the number of wards and the compensation to be paid.
The plaintiff was hard put to secure the necessary funds to maintain the school, and suffered the financial loss set forth in Findings VIII and XXII, due in part directly to the action of the board as therein stated. As a matter of fact, the undertaking by the plaintiff was from a financial aspect disastrous to him, due to many causes, not all ascribable to the board.
In the contract of July 1, 1903, and subsequent contracts there was inserted a provision that in case of any loss or destruction of property through acts by wards of the board, aside from ordinary wear and tear, the board was to recommend to Congress an appropriation to remunerate the plaintiff therefor. On or about April 17, 1903, as appears by Finding XXIII, one of the wards of the board set fire to one of the barns of the plaintiff, at the time filled with grain, farming implements, etc. The loss was a total one, and the board does not seem to have taken any notice of it. And again, in January, 1904, another fire occurred on the portion of the farm leased by the plaintiff, whereby a dwelling and storehouse were totally destroyed, including a considerable amount of personal property belonging to the plaintiff. There is no evidence in the record that the board took any action respecting this loss. The amount of the-loss, proven by the testimony, is set out in the findings.
There are numerous other claims and findings respecting many other items of loss. We need not discuss them in detail. The record is manifestly too indefinite to warrant the finding of any specific amount as to annual commercial profits. The plaintiff was intellectually and physically capable of negotiating the enterprise; he manifested a deep interest in its success, but just what portion of his loss is. directly due to the wrongful and arbitrary action of the board, and what amount is chargeable to his own mismanagement, is a matter we have been unable to determine from the evidence. It is obvious from the findings that the essential element of consistent cooperation of the contracting-parties did not obtain. There were many controversies, acute and prolonged. The board from 1902 until the close-of the relationship undoubtedly continued the maintenance-of the farm with much reluctance. Whether justified in this; respect is not for the court to say. We are alone concerned with ascertaining the facts and reporting the same to Congress. This we have attempted to do.
Plaintiff's exceptions to the findings are overruled, the report of the commissioner'is approved, and the findings are ordered to be reported to Congress.
Graham, Judge; Hay, Judge; Downey, Judge; and Campbell, Ghief Justice, concur.