Year: 1864

an able and interesting opinion Of the Court of
Claims, delivered by Judge WILMor on Wednes-
| day last, in the case of VIM. s. Grant VS., The
United States, being claim brought against the
Government for the recovery Of the value Of GER
tain property destroyed by the United States
troops in the Territory Of Arizona, in the month
of July, 1861, in order to prevent said pro-
perty from falling into the hands of the insurgents
| 1t will be seen that under these circumstances
majority of the Court hold that the claimant is
entitled to just compensation as for private pro-
perty taken for public uses and they have accord
ingly ordered a Judgment to be entered in favor
Of the claimant for such sum as they deem, after
consideration of the several items of the claim,
adequate to fulfil the requirements Of public JUS
tioe in the premises.


But, in coming to a decision on the merits of
this particular case, the Court was called to dis
cuss and to state certain great fundamental prin-
cpes pertaining to the very essence Of the social
compact in the matter Of those relations which
exist between Government and its SUBJECTS in
all cases whore the former, by its sovereign legis
lative authority or by the administrative acts Of
its authorized agents. to divest the latter
Of privateproperty for the public good or the pub
lie safety. It will be seen that the limitations
which hedge about the exercise of this right on
the part of the Government or its agents, as also
the limitations which attend the right of the
citizen to look to his Government for reimburse
ment in the c,se of property taken or destroyed
by public agents assuming to act for the public
good under an imperious necessity, are stated by
the Court with great clesrness and force, and are
founded on an analysis Of fundamental principles
Of public poty recognised in the structure of all
organized Governments, and expressly embodied
in the Constitution of the United States.


But while these principles belong to the very
nature Of governmental prerogative on the one
hand and of private right on the other, it is plain
that their application to specific must depend
entirely on the circumstances under which the
cases arise. 1t is only by full Knowledge and a
careful consideration of these circumstances that
we can discern in any given whether it is one
which ful6s the conditions required to establish
the just responsibility of the Government in the
premises, or whether it is one in which, the de-
privation of private property having been made
without due authority or without just presumption
of public necessity there is no valid claim against
the Government-the proper resort of the injured
party in such case being action for damsges
brought against the trespas,er as an individual,
setting in his own wrong and rot in virtue of his
official character. Ii l5.l 5.t sa


And in this view we See the necessity Of sub
jecting all such claims to the scrutiny Of an in
vesdgation conducted with the appliances of a
judicial tribunal for the purpose Of elicting all the
facts in any case and of sitting the evidence by
which the facts are substantiated. Without such
an inquiry the Government is pcrretually in dan
ger of doing something more or something less
than justice, either Of which tends to defeat the
great end for which all Governments are formed.
In Government like ours, which purports to be q
Government By the people for the people, every
possible guard should be set up against the allow
ance of doubtful or fraudulent claims, and at the
same time it is equally consonant with the most
primary notions Of public justice and private right
that there should be in every State tribunal before
which the rightful claims of the citizen may be
established against the Government.


Such we understand to be the function of the
Court Of Claims, and unless mis- conceive the tenor
of the learned opinion we print to-day, we think
it will be admitted by all that it has correctly ap-
pretended the theory of its existence by bringing
the discharge of its trust in the delicate matter we
have indicated clear perception Of what is due to
the welfare Of the Government and what is due to
the rights of the citizen.


While referring to this Court we may say that
we understand it has nearly concluded the call O.
the Trial Docket for the present term Such OF
the cases Is were ready for trial the Court ha,
heard, and all others have been either continued
to the next October term for shown or stricken
from the Docket and the petitions dismissed The
rules Of the Court provide that aal cases in which
demurrcrs have been entered, or which have been
traversed, or to which special defence has been


nterposed by the Solicitor, prior to the first day
Of July IN each gear, shall be entered on the law
or trial docket respectively for The succeeding Oc-
tober term, and shall be disposed Of in their order
unless continued for cause shown" and the condi-
| tions Of this rule have been fulfilled by the
Court regards the calendar for the current term


Accordingly Mr.. GIBSON, tho Solicitor for the
United States, has represented to the Court that,
having regard equally to strict Observance OF the
rules prescribed by the Court, and to the present
financial needs Of the country, he will resist the trial


of any case outside of the limits within which il
would naturally fall in the order Of its entry on the