Volume 2 — Court of Claims Reports

By agreement these causes are to be heard together, the testimony taken in any of them to be used in the others, as far as the same is relevant and applicable. Some of the questions I propose to consider apply to all — and some again are applicable to only one or two.

<p> On, the Proofs. </p> <p>In September, 1861, at a time of great public exigency and peril in Missouri, the quartermaster of the western department contracts without advertisement for the building of 100 railroad cars, at a 'price agreed upon — 50 to be delivered in eighteen days, and 50 in thirty days. The cars are needed for immediate use in military operations and cannot be purchased in the market, or obtained except by contracting for their construction.</p> <p>The claim is referred by the Secretary of War to the Dapis-Holt- Campbell commission, (see Ft 6-mont contract cases, p. 1, ante,) and the claimant signs the release required by the commission.</p> <p>li. A contract made in a season of great public exigencies and peril, to immediately construct 100 railroad cars at a price agreed upon, 50 to be delivered in eighteen days, and 50 in thirty days, is an immediate performance within the meaning of act 2d March, 1861. (12 Stat. L., p. 220.)</p> <p>31. The decision relative to the Davis-Holt-Campbell commission in the Frémont contract cases, p. 1, ante, affirmed,</p>

This is a suit brought to recover balances on four written contracts made by General Frémont, on behalf of the United States, for building thirty-eight mortar boats and eight tug boats, in aid of his military operations in the Western Military Department, of which lie was then the commanding general. The claimant seeks to recover on Ms contracts, not Upon a quantum meruit. And, therefore, the first question arises as to the authority of General Fremont.

Some of the leading points presented by the evidence in this case may be thus shortly recapitulated: 1. Mr. Stevens was the lawful owner of the arms — free from all complicity with any wrong doing, if there was any wrong doing, (which it is plain there was not,) in Mr. Eastman’s obtaining the arms from the government. 2. Being thus the lawful owner, he sold them to the government at a fair price, and the purchase was a serviceable one to the government. 3.

The rights which these claimants acquired in the property seized was but an inchoate right. It was not a vested right except as against the owner of the property. In every case of this kind the forfeiture for certain purposes relates back to the commission of the offence. As between the violator of the law and all persons claiming as purchasers of the property and the government, the forfeiture attaches at the moment of the commission of the offence.

•I. This contract was made in March, 1853. It was for the transportation of the mails. The parties to it were these plaintiffs, in their’ own behalf, and the Postmaster General on behalf of the United States. He had charge of that particular department, and by law (see acts March 3, 1845, and March 3, 1851) he had specific authority to make absolute contracts.. He made this contract subject only to the contingency of Congress making an appropriation to carry it into effect.

<p>This case is reported 1 Court of Claims Reports, p, 214, and now comes up on the special commissioner's report, from whieh it appears that certain items formerly in doubt are more clearly proved. Under the circmstances stated in the former opinion, the court only intended to reimburse the-party his actual outlay.</p>

This claim is for work and materials done and furnished by the claimant, in the erection of the branch mint at San Francisco, in 1853 and 1854, not included in his contract. The proofs show a contract between the Secretary of the Treasury and the claimant, by virtue of the two papers set out in the petition, the first dated 15th of April, 1853, and the second on the 6th day of July of the same year.

The action of the Congress of the United States shows that it is the intention of Congress that this class of claims shall be paid. On the 29th day of July, 1854, Congress • passed an act to pay General John Charles Frémont $183,850, with interest thereon from the first day of June, 1851, at the rate of ten per centum per annum. (Stat. at L., vol. 10, p. 804.) On the 9th day of June, 1860, Congress passed an act to pay Samuel J. Hensley for a similar claim.

By the terms of the charter-party the “ war risk” was to be borne by the United States; the “ marine risk” by the owner. While the “ Haxall” was-in the military service of the United States, under this contract, it was sunk in the James river by order of Major General B. F. Butler, commanding the department of the James, in which department the said schooner then and there was, and it became a total loss. That the United States was bound to pay does not seem to be disputed.

John Rush, of Philadelphia, was one of the sailing-masters in the navy, appointed in 1805, but being so unfortunate as to kill a man in a so-called affair of honor, at New Orleans, he soon became insane. Just at this time there was no naval government asylum in which such cases could be medically treated, and he was placed by his father in the Pennsylvanian hospital, where he remained from 1810 to the 9th of August, 183?, the day of his death.

About February 9, 1863, claimant purchased, through Joseph W. Nairn, a druggist iu Washington city, D. 0., five boxes of quinine, morphine, gum opium, and nitrate of silver, for which he paid, including commissions and costs of transportation, $2,272, or $2,274. Mr. Nairn had purchased' these medicines (by an agent) in Philadelphia.

The petitioner, Lane, made a contract for the sale of cotton to the United States and the delivery of it at a certain place, and at.a certain price, within a reasonable time.

<p>Petitioner, while on duty in the city of Washington, D. C., on the 5th of September, A. D. 1862, was dismissed, without notice, from the service, under an order from the Secretary of War, for the alleged reason that petitioner was absent from duty. Said order of dismissal was, however, on the 13th day of February, A. D. 1864, wholly revoked by the Secretary of War, under the direction and order of Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, it being ascertained that the alleged reason for his dismissal did not exist. Petitioner claims pay for the time he was suspended from the service by reason of said order of dismissal, during which time he was engaged in obtaining the revocation of said order, and was at all times ready to perform, and awaiting, the orders of the government.</p> <p>By the issuing of a commission, a contract is formed, which contract is obligatory upon both parties. The party agrees, in consideration of certain pay and emoluments, to perform the duties of his office, and the government agrees to pay him for such services until he forfeits such pay by the unfaithful discharge of his duties.</p> <p>The officer cannot retire from service except upon the acceptance of his resignation by the government; nor can the government dismiss an officer except for cause. Under the 17th section of the act of July 17, 1862, the President was authorized to dismiss any officer for any cause. But this officer was not dismissed by order of the President. On the contrary, the order of dismissal was issued by the Secretary of War, which order was, on appeal to the President, revoked by him.</p> <p>The revocation itself, by the highest authority of the land, is significant in showing that the original order of dismissal was unlawful, or at least unwarranted.'</p> <p>It has been held by the Second Comptroller of the Treasury, sec. 890, Digest 1865, that “a soldier of militia or volunteers who is illegally or against his will discharged from service, is entitled to his pay up to the time of the discharge of his company, or to the expiration of his term of enlistment.” (See W. G. Hayse’s Case, June 16, 1849.) In sec. 906, p. 131, same vol.,he decides that “a soldier convicted of a crime and imprisonment, but pardoned,” (and surely a revocation of an order which was issued without foundation or cause, is as forcible as a pardon for a crime which was really committed,) “ on the ground that his innocence of the crime was shown, is entitled to pay for the time he was imprisoned, as he was withdrawn from the service without fault on his part.” (See General Orders, War Department, No. 20, July 27, 1853.) Sec. 907, same decisions, it is decided that “ when a soldier has been tried, convicted, and sentenced to forfeit his pay, &c., and is subsequently pardoned — unconditionally pardoned — the pardon restores him all the rights he would have had if the offence bad not been committed.” Also sec. 3 026, in wbieb it is beld that “when tlie President disapproves of the sentence of a court-martial cashiering an officer, and restores him to duty, the proceedings of the court are to he considered cancelled, and the officer is entitled to pay.” (Passed Midshipman Barney’s case, May 3, 1847.)</p> <p>The President’s order, reinstating this officer in. his former rank after being stricken from the rolls, removes all stigma that may have attached to his reputation; but it breeds no money in the way of pay and emoluments where no service was actual or constructive during all this time when he was discharged from the public service. It may be the misfortune of this claimant to have fallen under unjust censure, requiring his removal from office, but the power to appoint includes the power to remove all military officers, and one may be stricken from the rolls without trial bj' a court-martial, notwithstanding a decision in his favor by a court of inquiry. It is useless to dispute the settled construction as to this power since 1789. {Exparte Dmican N. Hennen, 13 Peters, 230.) The Secretary of War had no such power of dismissal as is alleged in this petition. What Was done from the beginning to the end of this transaction was through the President, with full power in the premises. It is a power well understood in England, (1 McArthur, 128,) and under every other government. It is recognized to its highest extent here, as confirmed by the statutory provisions in the President. (12 Stat. L., 596, act July 17, 1862.) Had this assistant quartermaster with rank of captain been recommissioned by the President, after being summarily dismissed, and had promotion occurred, with the concurrent action of the Senate of the United States, in regard to others of younger date with himself, during the interval while discharged, this promotion of his juniors over him would have been legal. Even with a recommendation from the Senate that the President would give him the rank he had lost, by being dismissed, the same result would have followed. (Case of Dr. Simons, IX Op. Att’ys Geu’l.) Had the order for revocation been accompanied with directions to allow the pay during the period when no service was performed by this claimant, it is possible the Paymaster General might not have gainsaid the commander-in-chief, thus taking the responsibility; but even then the act would have been one of servility to custom, changing in no respect the legal aspect of such a case. The claimant can point to no special legislation of Congress under which this relation back, under the order of revocation, as to pay and emoluments, attaches; and if his reliance be on the same alleged custom for the allowance, a judicial sentence can only put it in its proper light, as more honored in the breach than in the observance.</p>

The claim asserted in the petition in this case is one of tort, and at the* common law the remedy of the claimant would be by action of trespass on the case. He cannot give this court jurisdiction by waiving the tort, and bring assumpsit as upon an implied contract.

The only questions presented by the demurrer which has been filed in this case are as follows : 1st. Were the decisions or judgments of the Court of Claims rendered, prior to the passage of the act of March 3, 1863, amendatory of the act for the establishment of the Court of Claims, final and conclusive 1 2d. Does the presentation of a certified transcript of the finding or judgment of the Court of Claims, rendered prior to the 3d day of March, 1863, furnish conclusive…

This is a claim for expenses incurred in taking care of the public property belonging to the surveyor general’s office in Utah, from October 1, 1857, to September 19, 1S59. The claimant was surveyor general in Utah at the time the Mormon rebellion commenced, and left that Territory with the other federal officers in April, 1859, and returned to Washington.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>The Ruling in the Frémont Contract Cases) p. 1, ante, folloioed.</p>

I shall endeavor to maintain the following propositions : I. Mr. Meade, the intestate, had valid claims on the Spanish government prior to ’February 22, 1819, originating after the year 1802. The evidence on this point is full and very conclusive. He had claims for “ damages ” arising out of breaches of contract; 2d, for “ injuries.” II.

<p>This is a claim arising under an express contract, in writing, by which the United States, having contracted with the claimant for 300 horses to he delivered at Perryville, Maryland, agreed to pay the additional cost of delivery if the claimant would deliver them at Washington instead of Perryville — which he did. This claim is for that additional cost.</p> <p>Harsh testifies that the actual cost to the contractor, including all contingencies, was from $3 74 to $7 per head. Moore, who received and paid the expenses, testifies that the actual outlay in money was #2 per head.</p> <p>That provision of the contract under which it is sought to maintain this suit is as follows :</p> <p>“ It is hereby expressly agreed and stipulated, that if the United States shall elect to have the whole or any part of these horses delivered at Washington, District of Columbia, or at Annapolis, Maryland, instead of Perryville, it shall have the right so to direct, and the contracting parties shall so deliver them; the United States agreeing to pay the additional cost of delivery arising from such change.”</p> <p>The claimant, after said contract had been awarded to him, transferred the same to D. P. Moore, who furnished all the horses required by claimant’s contract, and received from the government the stipulated price therefor, except the “ additional cost consequent upon the change in the place of delivery.”</p> <p>' The claimant cannot recover at all. He has ceased to have any interest in the subject-matter of this contract. The testimony of the witness Moore on this question is as follows :</p> <p>“ 1st cross-int. Did you not succeed to the interests of Mr. Chollar in the contract which he made with the government ?</p> <p>“ Answer. I did j I suppose so; I filled the contract and drew the money upon his vouchers.”</p> <p>The transfer of this contract by the claimant terminated this contract, so far as the United States were concerned. This transfer was prohibited by the act of Congress approved July 17, 1862, which provides as follows, viz:</p> <p>“No contract or order, or any interest therein, shall be transferred,, by the party or parties to whom such contract or order may be given, to any other party or parties, and any such transfer shall cause the annulment of the contract or order transferred, so far as the United States are concerned.” — (12 Stat. at L., p. 596, sec. 14.)</p>

<p> On the 'Proofs. </p> <p> The questions in this case are identical with those in the preceding case of Justus Chollar. </p>

The petition in this case avers : 1st. That the claimant is a citizen of the United States, resident in the State of Missouri, and that he has at all times borne true faith and allegiance to the government of the United States, and that he has never voluntarily given encouragement to rebellion against said government. 2d. That on the 25th day of March, 1863, he received a permit from Major General.U. S. Grant to prepare for market cotton grown on the plantation of William H.…

This suit is brought to recover compensation for the detention by the government of the United States, in the port of New York, of three steamships, belonging to the claimant, for the space of sixty-six days. In the spring of 1855, claimant was the owner of three steamships, the Ocean Bird, of 2,000 tons, the United States, of 1,500, and the St. Lawrence, of 1,000 tons.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>The claimant is employed by an assistant quartermaster to shoe horses and furnish the shoes. The quartermaster dies soon afterioard, leaving the claimant unpaid, and without vouchei's or other evidence. No other question is presented by the case.</p> <p>A blacksmith employed to shoe government horses by an assistant quartermaster who dies before giving the usual voucher for the work, may recover on proof of the work and its value.</p>

On the fifth day of March, 1S63, claimants, Parish and Iluse, entered into a contract for the delivery of ice for the use of the medical department at St. Louis, Missouri, and Cairo, Illinois, and other points on the western rivers, for the year 1863. (See contract, appendix to petition.) It .was further stipulated in said contract (paragraph 9) that the government should be allowed three working days for discharging each cargo at the points mentioned in the contract.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>A quantity of gunpowder is destroyed at Greytown by Captain Hollins, United States navy, in July, 1834. A part of the evidence in the case consists of ex parte affidavits. The only evidence of ownership offered is an assignment, given more than two years after the powder was destroyed.</p> <p>I. Ex parte affidavits are not evidence in this court.</p> <p>II. 'When the evidence of ownership is incomplete a party cannot recover for property taken or destroyed by the government.</p>

The claimant seeks to recover an amount of money, retained as a forfeiture, on a contract made with Captain (now General) Meigs, May 26, 1857, as engineer in charge of the Washington and Georgetown Aqueduct; and also for damages sustained in consequence of breaches, on the part of the defendant, of the same contract.

This cause is founded upon a contract executed by the petitioners and the United States on the 30th day of April, 1852, whereby the petitioners agreed to erect eight light-houses on the Pacific coast.

<p> On Demurrer. </p> <p>The pay of officers' servants is fixed by law at the rate of the pay of a private soldier. An act is passed which increases the pay of private soldiers to $13 per month. (Act 6th August, 1861, 12 Stat. L., p. 326.) A second act is passed which provides that the first shall not thereafter' extend to officers’servants. (Act 17 th July, 1862, 12 Stat., L., p. 594.) A third act is passed which repeals the first and increases the pay of private soldiers to $16. (Act June 20, 1864, 13 Stat.. L. p. 144.) A fourth act is passed, which declares that the pay of an officer’s serva/nt11 is ihe pay of aprivate soldier as fixed by law at the time.” (Act 3d March, 1865, 13 Stat., L., p. 487.)</p> <p>I. Tlio act of Juno 20,1864, (13 Stat. at Large, p. 144,) which. repeals tlie act of August 6, 1861, (12 Stat. at Large, p. 326,) and increases the pay of private soldiers to $16 per month, is not subject to the limitation of the act of July 17,1862, (12 Stat. at Large, p. 594,) but does extend to and increase the pay of officers’ servants.</p> <p>II. The act of March 3,1865, (13 Stat. at Large, p. 487,) which declares the pay of an officer’s servant (,isthepay of aprivate soldier as fixed by law at the time,” means the time the allow.anee is to be made, and is a declaratory statute fixing the construction of former acts imperatively.</p>

On the 27th of November, 1863, the Surgeon General instructed D. L. Magruder, medical purveyor at Louisville, to advertise for proposals for furnishing ice for all the general hospitals at the west. Ma-gruder advertised, as directed, in the leading newspapers in the western States for proposals, to be received until December 20, 1863.

<p>This is an action to recover balances due the claimant on several contracts for the purchase of horses and mules.</p> <p>It appears from the evidence that there were two contracts and one purchase in open market.</p> <p>In the month of April, 1863, Major General Blunt, then commanding the district of Kansas, in the department of the Missouri, directed Captain Insley, the depot quartermaster at Fort Scott, Kansas, to advertise for bids for a sufficient number of mules to make the transportation belonging to that post, as also that with the troops in the field, complete and in good condition for active service.</p> <p>The requirements for the service indicated in this order called for 300 mules, and Captain Insley therefore advertised for bids in the usual manner for that number. The petitioner was the lowest bidder, and a formal contract was entered into between him and the quartermaster in the usual form for 300 mules at $140 each. The petitioner gave bonds in the sum of $50,000, and took the oaths required in such eases, and furnished under the contract 325 mules, the necessities of the service calling for a larger number than was supposed when the contract was let. These mules were all delivered, inspected, and accepted, and put into the government service, and no objection has ever been made as to the manner in which the contract was filled.</p> <p>On the 17th of April, 1863, Captain Insley received another order from General Blunt, directing him to purchase in the same manner 500 cavalry horses.</p> <p>In pursuance of this order, Captain Insley advertised in the usual manner for bids, and the petitioner was the lowest bidder.</p> <p>He gave bond in the sum of $75,000, and fulfilled the contract in a manner highly satisfactory to the officers of the government. The 500 horses were furnished, inspected, accepted, and put into the government service.</p> <p>Again, on the 29th of May, 1863, General Blunt ordered Captain Insley to purchase a sufficient number of horses to fill the requisitions in his office,-at a rate not to exceed the price paid for horses then being delivered on contract.</p> <p>The order states that, as there were several new companies of cavalry that could not be made available for service until mounted, and the demand for more force in the field was immediate and urgent, Captain Insley was expected to procure the horses with as little delay as possible.</p> <p>The number required to fill these requisitions was 400. Captain Insley called upon the business men and horse dealers accessible to him, and found that Mr. Akers was the only person from whom he could purchase horses at the price limited by the commanding general.</p> <p>The quartermaster then purchased four hundred horses of Mr. Akers, at the last contract price, viz: $129 45 each — all of which were delivered, inspected, accepted, and put into the government service.</p> <p>It also appears that Mr. Akers performed all of the stipulations on his part to be performed in the several contracts, and that regular vouchers were issued to him by the depot quartermaster.</p> <p>From these papers in the Quartermaster General’s office, it appears that, after the contracts had been completely executed by the petitioner, payment of his vouchers was refused. The grounds for this action are not very clearly stated.</p> <p>On the 8th of May, 1863, the department directed Major Easton (the chief quartermaster of the district) to inform Captain Insley that his advertisement was objectionable in form, and that the contracts ought to have been made by the chief quartermaster, but that as he had acted under written orders from the general commanding, funds would be supplied to pay the vouchers.</p> <p>It will be observed that this was twelve days before the voucher was issued under the first contract for the mules, and from three to seven weeks before they were given undertthe second contract and the purchase.</p> <p>At this time but a small number of animals had been furnished, and if Mr. Akers bad been promptly notified of tbe intention of the department, he could have exercised his option to complete the contract or not, but he was permitted to go on under the express direction of the Quartermaster General's office that the vouchers should be paid when issued.</p> <p>If the rights of contractors are to depend upon their written agreements and the faithful performance of such agreements by them, there would seem to be no doubt that the sum of $13,021 is now due to Mr. Akers. But if, on the other hand, contracts confer no rights which the Quartermaster General is bound to respect, and there is always an implied understanding that the contractor must take his chances upon being able to manipulate those who may intervene between him and that functionary, it must be expected that so soon as the subject is properly understood, bidding for government contracts will be limited to those who are confident of success in such an undertaking. We do not charge that in this particular case the vouchers were suspended and finally cut down because some one was not propitiated, but we call your attention to the fact that the refusal to acknowledge a contract upon trivial grounds, which were distinctly waived while the contract remained an executory one, has the direct tendency to exclude from competition every man who does not feel assured that he is a favorite.</p> <p>Such action brings into public contracts an element which should not belong to them; that is, the chance of arbitrary exactions, which may or may not be made, according to the disposition of some official.</p> <p>General Blunt’s explanation of the reasons which induced him to direct these purchases to be made is given in an official report made by him to Major General Schofield; and that portion of it which relates to this question is as follows :</p> <p>HEADQUARTERS, DISTRICT OF THE FRONTIER,</p> <p>Fort Scott, Kansas, June 25, 1863.</p> <p>General : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the enclosed papers from the quartermaster’s department, relative to the purchase of horses and mules by Captain M. H. Insley, assistant quartermaster at Fort Scott.</p> <p>For report, I have the honor to state for your information—</p> <p>1st. That circular No. 1, chief quartermaster’s office, department of the Missouri, St. Louis, February 20, 1863, was never sent to my office, nor ever seen by me until to-day.</p> <p>2d. I was in command of the district of Kansas, and not a quartermaster, and, as commander, was supposed to know the wants of the troops under me, and what the interest of the service required in my command. Fort Scott is a permanent military post, with a depot quartermaster, and is properly the base of operations for the troops in the field under my command.</p> <p>3d. The horses and mules have been bought at a less cost to the government, considering the quality, than any horses purchased at St. Louis at $103, if those lately sent here invoiced to Captain Insley are a sample of the one hundred and three dollar horses, which are not worth as much by $50 per head as those purchased here, it being necessary to recruit the former at Fort Leavenworth, to enable them to undergo the trip to Fort Scott, and then several of them died on the way; nor is the price paid on contract by Captain Insley greater than that paid by Major Easton for the same kind of animals, frequently without letting contracts, when he can get a requisition upon him approved by me.</p> <p>In regard to the purchase of horses for the 2d Kansas cavalry, I will state that Colonel Cloud, of that regiment, then commanding the district of southwest Missouri, sent his quartermaster to me with a requisition for five hundred horses, with a statement that he had failed to get them at St. Louis, and had been authorized to purchase them at Springfield, but that they could not be had there.</p> <p>Although the regiment was not in my command, they were expecting to he ordered to me, and being a regiment ■ that, had done hard service with me during the campaign last fall, and to which I was under many obligations for its gallant service, I felt disposed to do what I could to put them in a condition for efficient service.</p> <p>Major General J. M. Schofield,</p> <p> Commanding Department of the Missouri, St. Louis, Mo. </p> <p>The questions in this case are not essentially different from those which arose in the case of Joseph W. Parish v. The United States, (C. Cl’s B,., p. 357, v. 1,) decided at the last term of this court. In that case, as in this, the purchase had been made by the order of the general in command of a military department or district where the purchases were ordered to be made. The orders in that case, as in this, were executed by the chief quartermaster of the district or department. The vouchers in each case were issued by the officer who made the contract, and were approved by such officer.</p> <p>There is, however, a question as to a portion of this claim which did not arise in that. This question arises from the facts stated in the official communication of General Blunt, in which he reveals the fact that Jive hundred, horses, purchased by Captain Insley, under his order, were purchased for troops not under his command or in his department. It is not believed that the authority to make contracts in such a case was conferred upon Captain Insley, acting under the order of General Blunt. Those who have claimed that a general in command of a military department or district may make such contracts or purchases as the efficiency of the troops under their command may require, have never sought to extend the principle so as to give him a right to make purchases for the equipment of troops not under his command and beyond his jurisdiction. It is not believed that this principle will be extended here. There is little warrant either in law or the regulations for the government of the army to sanction th & first of these assumptions, and none at all to sanction the last.</p>

On the 31st day of December, A. D,, 1861, claimants entered into a contract with the United States “ to furnish, without unnecessary delay, after said 31st day of December, to the United States, at Georgetown, D. C., a good and suitable steam ferry-hoat, fitted and equipped in every waj,for the constant and successful crossing of the Potomac river to and from Georgetown, in the District of Columbia, and Fort Corcoran, in the State of Virginia, and when in full operation the…

1. Butler had authority to make the contract. 2. Contract specifies $27 for each gun and bayonet, or such less sum as the Ordnance department had paid, or had contracted to 'pay, to said Garrison. 3. Ordnance department have agreed to pay Garrison $27 for these identical guns. 4. The contract was based on this letter. The agreement was $27, or less, if that letter made it so. The letter does not reduce the sum ; it renders the price certain. 5.

<p> On motion to join others as parties claimant. </p> <p>Turner brings his action to recover the proceeds of certain cotton under the act of 1863, (12 Stat. L.,p. 820.) Clark, Wright fy Co. come into court and move that they he joined as parties claimant. Each party alleges that he was the true owner of the cotton, and contests the right of the other to recover the proceeds.</p> <p>Under the “ captured and abandoned property act,” (12 Stat. L., p. 820,) two parties claiming each to have been the true owner of the cotton and entitled to the proceeds will be joined as parties claimant, aud their conflicting claims be settled in one suit.</p>

The petitioner claims 320 acres of land at the Cascades of the Columbia river, Skamania county, Washington Territory, under the act of Congress approved September 27, 1850. The petitioner settled on the land in question in the year 1850, continued to reside upon and cultivate the same for four consecutive years, and otherwise performed every condition required by the act aforesaid in order to become entitled to a grant for the said land.

The claimant entered into a contract with Colonel Thomas, chief quartermaster, in Baltimore, on the 16th of November, 1863, for the delivery of 200,000 bushels of oats within thirty days from the date of the contract, payment to be made upon the completion of the contract, as follows : 100,000 bushels to be delivered at Baltimore, at 98 cents per bushel, and 100,000 bushels at Fort Monroe, at $1 Olf per bushel.

This is a case brought into court by original petition, and is founded upon a written contract made bétween the claimant and Major Henry C. Symonds, commissary of subsistence, for slaughtering 50,000 hogs. The price to be paid by the United States was 92¡!¡ cents per hundred pounds, or $1 90 for each hog of 207 pounds.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>The pay of officers in the army is increased by statute. The claimant series as an officer after the statute talces effect, but the increase is withheld. Congress subsequently enact that the former statute 1 ‘ shall not be so construed ” as to “ increase the emoluments of the commissioned officers of the army" “at the dale of its passage." (Acts March% 1867,14 Stat. L.,p. 435; April 1816, 3 id., p. 297; June 20, 1864, 13 id., p. 144.)</p> <p>T. The judicial department must determine the construction of all laws involved in cases before them, but it is also their duty to give to a construing act its intended practical operation go far as that is possible.</p> <p>II. The a-et of March 2,1867, (14 Stat. 3D., p. 435,) which declares that the act of June 20, 1864, (13 id., p. 144,) 4 ‘ shall not be so construed" as to increase the emoluments of the commissioned officers of the army 11 at the date of its passage,” must be deemed declaratory and prospective, and to take effect only from its date.</p>

This case comes before the court upon a joint resolution of Con gress, approved June 25, 1866, referring the claim to be decided by this court upon the principles of equity and justice, thus obviating some of the objections made by this court upon a former hearing of this cause as to its jurisdiction.

State of the ¿ase. This claim is for the payment of drafts to the amount of $20,000, with interest, drawn by Adam Johnston, sub Indian agent in California, upon the Secretary of the Interior, in favor of J ohn O. Frémont, in payment for beef and flour furnished at the request of Johnston for the subsistence of Indians under his charge, and actually fed to those Indians. The drafts have not been paid. They were presented and protested for non-acceptance.

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>Reeside, a mail contractor, is engaged in carrying the mail in several of the southern States at the breaking out of the rebellion. He continues to do so till stopped by an order of tho> Postmaster General suspending the postal service. He requests the Postmaster General to a/nnul his contracts. The Postmaster General refuses, and informs him that he will be required to renew the service. The defendants refuse to pay him after the time of suspending the service.</p> <p>This case involves the construction of the act of February 28, 1861, (12 Stat. L., p. 177,) but the court being equally divided on the law, agree on the following finding of facts, and dismiss the petition that the claimant may take his appeal.</p>

This is a claim for money due claimant under charter made by him to the United States, in the fall of 1862, of the steamboat Niagara, then owned by the claimant, for the expedition known as “ the Banks expedition.” The charter on behalf of the United States was made by Cornelius Vanderbilt, a duly authorized agent of the government, on the 26th day of November, 1862, and she went into government service on the following day, November 27, 1862, with her stores, officers, and…

On the 16th of May, 1864, claimant entered into a contract with Dr. McCormick, medical director of Virginia and North Carolina, to furnish ice for the army on the James river, to he delivered in such quantities and at such times as may he required, at the rate of #30 per ton, or lj cents per ponnd. This contract was signed in triplicate, one for each of the parties and one for the Surgeon General.

This is an action brought upon an express contract for the delivery to the United States of ten thousand stand of arms, at the price of twenty-one dollars each. The contract consists of a proposal and acceptance, as follows : Washington, D. C., October SI, 1861.

<p> On the Proofs, </p> <p>D. Golden Ruggles, a paymaster in the army of the United States, was captured October 13,1864, on the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, near Martinsburg, Virginia, by Moseby's geurillas, taken as a prisoner to Danville, Virginia, where he died.</p> <p> The suit is brought in the name of his administrator. </p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>For moneys and pay-rolls or vouchers captured by-Moseby's guerillas, October 13th, 1864, on the Baltimore and Ohio railroad, between Harper's Ferry and Martinsburg.</p>

<p> On, the Proofs. </p> <p>For public moneys received as acting quartermaster and stolen from Mm on or about the 29th day of Septetnber, 1862, wMle confined to Ms bed by an injury received in the service.</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>For public money, vouchers, $c., captured at Catlett's Station, Virginia, on the 22 d of August, 18GQ.</p>

<p> On the Proofs. </p> <p>For money stolen from him on the 13th day of March, 1865, at Bailey's Crossroads, Virginia,</p>

<p> On the 'Proofs. </p> <p>Brought under section 3 of the act of Congress approved March 12,1863, Stat. L, vol. XII\ page 820.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Court of Claims.</p>