War Claims

As to federal legislation on this subject, see U. S. v. R. Co., 16.3 U. S. 244, 16 Sup. Ct. 993, 41 L. Ed. 145. The act of 1875, Feb. 18, provided that the court of claims should have no jurisdiction over claims growing out of the destruction of property during the civil war; and the act of March 3, 1887, excludes such claims from the jurisdiction of the said court and of the district and circuit courts. Decisions under the act of 1864 will be found in U. S. v. R. Co., 163 U. S. 253, 16 Sup. Ct. 993, 41 L. Ed. 145, which holds that the court of claims has no jurisdiction over a claim for railroad iron appropriated by the army “while suppressing the rebellion.’ 1 The United States is not responsible for the destruction of private property by their military operations during the civil war, committed by either army; nor, where they rebuilt the property (a railroad bridge), can it recover from the owner for the cost; U. S. v. R. Co., 120 U. S. 227, 7 Sup. Ct. 490, 30 L. Ed. 634. See War. Under the prohibitions of the Tucker act of congress, March 3, 1887, the court of claims lias no jurisdiction of claims for seizures made in Santiago, Cuba, after its capitulation, in violation of the president’s proclamation of July 13, 1898, or of the laws of war. Rights of Spanish subjects against the United States for illegal seizures, etc., were taken away by the treaty of peace; Herrera v. U. S.J 222 U. S. 558, 32 Sup. Ct. 179, 56 L. Ed. 316.