Case: RANDALL'S CASE. Daniel Randall, Executor of Alexander Randall, v. The United States
Abbreviation: Randall ex rel. Randall v. United States
Decision Date: 1872-12
Docket Number: 
Citation: 8 Ct. Cl. 539
Volume: 8
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: RANDALL’S CASE. Daniel Randall, Executor of Alexander Randall, v. The United States.
Judges: Losing-, J., did not sit at the trial of this case, and took no part in the decision.
Pages: 539–542

Head Matter:
RANDALL’S CASE. Daniel Randall, Executor of Alexander Randall, v. The United States.
On the Proofs.
During ihe Mexican tear a number of disbursing officers are required to discharge such duties as are usually performed, by officers in the civil department of the Government, involving ihe collection of money. Congress pass a private act, which allows a commission “upon suck amounts of money as were collected and ky tkem diskursed or paid into tke Treasury.” It appears that the claimant’s testator received drafts from the collector at Vera Cruz, given for duties on imports which he collected at the City of Mexico, and that lie paid over or accounted for the money so received to the Government. The aocount-ing officers of the Treasury refuse to allow the commission on these Hems. The executor brings his action.
Where a private act of Congress allows to military officers a commission of “one per cent, upon such amounts of money as were collected and by them disbursed or paid into the Treasury,” tke terms of tke statute are satisfied wkero tke moneys were collected upon drafts sent to an officer ky another. It is not necessary, to satisfy the statute, that he should have performed services of a preliminary nature, ky which the amount to be collected was ascertained.
Mr. William B. Webb and Mr. Enoch Totten for the claimant:
By the Act March 3, 1849, (9 Stat. L., p. 412,) it was made lawful for Army officers exercising civil functions to retain from funds collected in Mexico a fair compensation for such services, but the plaintiffs testator had paid over all the funds so collected by him before the passage of this act, and could therefore derive no benefit from its provisions. Therefore the plaintiff applied to Congress, and by an act for the relief of said executor and one Adam D. Steuart, Act August 18, 1856, (11 Stat. L., p. 469,) the Secretary of the Treasury was directed to pay to the plaintiff a commission of one per centum on the amount of money by Daniel Eandall collected for duties, taxes, and assessments in Mexico by virtue of his said authority, and by him disbursed or paid into the Treasury. In stating the accounts of Daniel Eandall in pursuance of this statute, the accounting officers of the Treasury allowed the commission of one per centum on the sum of $112,069.67 only. In the amount so collected by the plaintiff’s testator in Mexico was the sum of $280,897 collected by him on drafts forwarded to him by other paymasters from Yera Cruz, for collection in the city of Mexico. These drafts were received by the said paymasters from F. M. Diamond, who was collector of the port at Yera Cruz, and were drawn in that city on account of duties due there, and were forwarded to Paymaster Eandall in the city of Mexico, who collected the money on them and “paid it into the Treasury of the United States.”
Upon this last-mentioned sum of $280,897 collected on these drafts the accounting' officers of the Treasury refused to allow the said commission, holding that this money was not “collected” by Daniel Eandall.
Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Goforth for the defendant:
The claimant’s testator was not within the terms of the Act March 3,1849. He did not have the “supervision of the collection of military contributions at any of the ports in Mexicof and, if he had, he did not, “ at the same time,” exercise “ civil functions under the temporary government there established.” Nor did he perform the duties of collector at any of the ports in Mexico. Major J. L. Gardner had the supervision of these collections. All that Colonel Eandall had to do was to receive the money when it was reported due, and give acquittances for the same. Major Gardner, not being a disbursing-officer, could not receive the money. It is not shown, even in the brief for claimant, that the compensation of Colonel Eandall, including his regular pay and emoluments, was not equal to that of officers of customs in the United States where the services were similar in amount arid importance. The President, in whom alone lay the power to determine the additional compensation to be allowed an officer performing the duties alleged to have been performed by Colonel Itaiidall, never made any allowance to iiim.
The only claim that Colonel Randall could have was under and by virtue of the Act August 18, 185G. The accounting officers of the Treasury construed this act very liberally, and allowed the claimant the per centum-fixed by the act on all the moneys collected by Colonel Randall. The items in his account, upon which no per centum was allowed, consisted of moneys collected by other officers, upon which they were entitled to a compensation under the Act March 3, 1849. No argument in favor of the claimant can be derived from the fact that a report of a committee of one House of Congress, or of both Houses, was made in his favor. The Congress did not concur with the Senate committee in this case, and this circumstance indicates that the legislative branch of the Government did not think he had any claim. It must have been plain to that branch that the Judicial Department could afford no remedy, because there was no wrong; and the simple reference by the Senate of the case to this court cannot create a claim.

Opinion:
Nott, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
This case depends entirely upon the construction of a private act of Congress. During the Mexican war a number of disbursing-'officers were required to discharge duties such as are usually discharged by officers in the civil departments of the Government, involving; the collection and custody of money. To compensate them for these extraordinary duties and risks. Congress passed the Act 3d March, 1849, (9 Stat. L., p. 412,) allowing them to retain a percentage to be fixed by the President of the United States. Two of these officers, Col. Daniel Randal], deputy paymaster-general, and Maj. A. D. Steuart, a paymaster, had, however, paid over and disbursed the moneys collected by them before the passage of the act. Accordingly, Congress passed for their benefit the private Act 18th August, 1858, (11 Stat. L., p. 409,) which, differing from the terms and conditions of the general act, directs that there be paid to these two officers "a commission of one per cent, upon such amounts of money as were respectively collected," " and by them disbursed or paid into the Treasury of the United States, in virtue of the authorities specially invested in them by order of the commanding general of the United States Army, and arising from duties ou imports, taxes, or other assessments in Mexico, during the late war with that republic.."
Upon some of Colonel Randall's collections and disbursements the commission was allowed by the officers of the Treasury, but there were some which were rejected and form the subject of the present suit. It seems that the collector at Yera Cruz apparently ñxed and determined the amount of duties upou some importations, and transmitted drafts for the collection thereof to the city of Mexico. These drafts were turned over to Colonel Randall. He collected the moneys due thereon. These moneys he retained, disbursed, and paid over to the Treasury, and the question is whether these services, with the attendant responsibility and risk, bring him within the terms of the private act.
It was undoubtedly the intention of Congress to treat the service of these officers in relation to the Mexican hostilities fund (as it was called) as extra services, for which extra compensation should be given. This compensation they placed in the form of a commission upon the amount collected and disbursed, and in the case before us there seems to have been both collection and disbursement. It may be said that the term collection was intended to cover all of the services of a preliminary nature by which the amount to be collected was ascertained. Undoubtedly, where such services were rendered, no other or additional compensation could be asked, but Congress did not make such preliminary labors a condition to the relief. The intention seems to have been that where the moneys came into the hands of the officer by his own action, whether trivial or laborious, and were faithfully kept and ultimately disbursed or paid over, he should receive his remuneration. In confirmation of this we may note that a subsequent act was passed for the relief of Major Steuart, and that one or two committees of Congress have reported bills for the relief now sought to be recovered. We think a fair construction of the act covers the case of the claimant.
The judgment of the court is that the claimant recover the sum of two thousand eight hundred and eight dollars and ninety-seven cents, ($2j808.97.)
Losing-, J., did not sit at the trial of this case, and took no part in the decision.