Court Opinion

ID: 8639294
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:50:30.915562+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:56:02.650728
License: Public Domain

HOPKINSON, District Judge.
It is unnecessary to give any opinion on the second point, as the first is sufficient to exclude the evidence. The first section of the act of congress referred to, entitled, “An act to provide more effectually for the settlement of accounts between the United States and receivers of public money,” enacts, that when any revenue officer, or other person accountable for public money, shall neglect or refuse to pay into the treasury the sum or balance reported to be due to the United States, upon the adjustment of his account, it shall be the duty of the comptroller, and he is thereby required, to institute suit for the recovery of the same. The reported balance, thus made to the comptroller, is to be his guide and instruction for the amount he is to claim, and sue for, from the delinquent; and this is the whole office and effect of the report It is the direction to the comptroller, but not the evidence for the court
The second section of the act provides the evidence, which shall be received on the trial, in proof of the claim, if it is judicially resisted; and then we hear nothing of the report made to the comptroller, on which the suit is brought; but for this purpose, it is declared, that “a transcript from the books, and proceedings of the treasury, certified by the register, and authenticated under the seal of the department, shall be admitted as evidence;” by which, I understand that the whole accounts, as they appear in the books; the elements out of which the reported balance is formed; together with all the proceedings, which have been had concerning them, shall be certified, and submitted to the court and jury, that they may judge whether the sum or balance, for which the suit is brought, be fairly made up, and is justly due; that they may see and determine whether any unfounded or illegal charges have been made against the defendant; or any credits refused or omitted, to which he is justly or legally entitled. A full transcript from the books, containing the accounts, and also of the proceedings of the treasury in relation to them, in admitting or rejecting disputed vouchers, charges, &c. are indispensable to these objects; they can never, be reached by the mere exhibition of the balance apparent on an adjustment made, ex parte, by the officers of the treasury, and reported to the comptroller for his information of the amount claimed by the United States, and for which he is to bring suit; but which is the very matter complained of; the very adjustment appealed from, by the defendant.
The question to be tried by this jury is the correctness of this adjusted, reported balance; but if it is allowed to prove itself, what is to be tried? If a treasury certificate that such is the balance reported to be due, is enough to entitle the United States to a verdict and judgment for that amount, the trial is a mere pretence; an useless form which might be dispensed with, and the judgment entered at once on the production of the certificate. This cannot be the intention of the law. The whole cause of controversy must be put into the possession of the court, as it exists in the treasury department; and thereupon the court and jury will pass their judgment This construction is further manifest from the fourth section of the act It directs that “no claim for a credit shall be admitted upon trial, but such as shall appear to have been presented to the accounting officers of the treasury, for their examination, and by them disallowed in whole or in part” How appear? Assuredly by the transcript from the books and proceedings of the treasury. But these things will not and cannot appear, and the defendant will be shut out from all the de-fence allowed him by the act, if it be sufficient for the United States to produce a certificate of the balance claimed by them, as reported by their accounting officers to their comptroller; which may not be impeached by denial, nor penetrated by adverse testimony; which cannot be opened to admit credits unjustly refused, nor to withdraw charges unjustly made; which, in short, furnishes nothing to be tried. In other cases, we have seen the whole accounts transcribed and produced, which shows that it is not the usage of the department to give such transcripts as that now offered.
The evidence was rejected, and exceptions were taken by the district attorney.
The juiy found a verdict for the defendants.