that way disallowing more than half of each award. But we must begin de novo here in this court, and go through the whole investigation ourselves, discarding alike all the proceedings heretofore taken in the premises, if we discard any, for it is manifestly inequitable that a party should be permitted to make that portion of a record which favored his case evidence, and discard that portion which was against him. And I have referred to the evidence tending to show that these parties have been overpaid merely to illustrate more strikingly the unfairness of proceeding otherwise. But that is not within the scope of the petition before the court, which proceeds altogether upon the ground that by obtaining the award of the judge he has established his demand by "process of law," and that the disallowance of part thereof by the Secretary of the Treasury, although provided for by the very law under which the petitioner claims, was illegal and void. The decision above referred to in 13 Howard is conclusive of the case as presented. I cite also the opinion of Attorney General Cushing, (Ex. Doc. 82,) and the opinions of Attorneys General Crittenden, Legaré, and Nelson, therein referred to, and to be found at p. 333, vol. 5, Opinions Attorneys General, by Hall; Congress 2d do., p. 1392, 1420; Ed. of 1851, p. 1658. On the subject of the claim of interest against the United States, it is to be observed, that the rules and principles which apply in the present state of municipal law to the relations of individuals have no application to the government. When a debt is ascertained to be due by one man to another, it is the general rule in the courts to allow interest from the date of its maturity, or from the time the money was improperly withheld; and this rule is so commonly applied that it is regarded as a necessary incident to the debt that it should bear But even with respect to individuals this is not true; interest is not a part of the debt. It was unlawful both by the common and civil law prior to the sixteenth century, and is not now sanctioned by express law in England, and eo nomine no one is liable to pay interest, except by contract, express or implied. The existence of such an agreement is a question of fact for a jury under the direction of the court, and they are allowed to imply it from various circumstances, especially from usage.-(See 5 Cowen, 609.) But with respect to the government in its dealing, there is no such usage; on the contrary, its usage is the reverse of that prevailing among individuals on this point, and the one usage is as much the law as the other with respect to the subject of it.-(U. S. vs. McDaniel, 7 Peters.) As respects the fact that such is the usage of the government, see Opinions of Attorneys General, pp. 172, 1159, 1162, 1395, 1663, 1477-'78; 11 Op. 2012; Do. 2031. These opinions are all in accordance with the language of Mr. Rush, (to be found in State Papers, vol. —, Claims, p. 423,) that special words in an act of Congress were always required to authorize the payment of interest: and the committee say in their report that this construction conforms to the intention of Congress. Nothing can be more conclusively settled than that it requires express language to a law to authorize the payment of it, and by express language interest eo nomine is meant. Thus in the claims of the inhabitants of East Florida, which have been passed upon by several Attorneys General, the language relied on was the stipulation to make satisfaction for the injuries to their property, contained in the treaty with Spain of 1819. It was argued with great power that satisfaction could not be made without payment of interest, to indemnify these people for the use of the property. But all the Attorneys General concurred in denying the claim, because interest was not provided for in the law-a construction settled by use so long established in the departments, and acquiesced in by the legislature, and declared expressly by committees to be in accordance with the intention of the legislature, as to have the force of law. But it may be said we are not discussing the rules applicable to executive departments; we wish to find out those applicable to the action of Congress. It will not be controverted, probably, that interest is not payable by the executive departments, except where it is specially directed by law. But this rule for the construction of a law after it is adopted may be said to form no guide for those who have to make the law itself, and the question still remains to be decided in what cases ought Congress to make the special direction required to obtain interest. The general principle which leads to the construction above stated, it will be found, has controlled in legislation. It has been recognized by Congress as well as the executive departments, and adhered to from the beginning of the government, that the government does not pay interest as the mere incident of a debt. The cases in which it has been paid stand upon peculiar circumstances; express contract, inability to pay principal, protection of its officers, where interest has been actually paid as offset, &c. It may be that occasionally an act has been passed paying interest on a liquidated demand duly presented and not questioned; but there are very few of this kind, and I have found none where interest has been allowed for the delay on a demand, arising in consequence of its rejection or being of doubtful validity, either in Congress or by the executive officers. I have examined all the acts specially allowing interest from 1789 to 1851, inclusive, and subjoin a list and abstract of them for the convenience of the court, and think it will be found useful in this and other cases. Cases in which interest has been specially allowed by acts of Congress. Laws U. S. Vol. 6, p. 524. p. 537. R. H. Harrison; under the resolution of Congress of of 1784. Riddle, Bechtell, and Headington; on bill of exchange drawn by quartermaster at New Orleans, and not paid when duly presented. p. 552. Philip Slaughter; on commutation pay as captain in revolution. Laws U. S. Vol. 6, p. 514. 33 66 p. 586. John Laurens; on same, and for diplomatic sei vices, as if funded under act of 4th August, 1790, ch. 34. Walton and De Graff; on advances during revolutionary war. p. 560. James Morrison; as set-off. p. 560. Charles Wilks; same. p. 554. Ed. Willet; repayment of interest paid on bill of ex change. p. 574. Jos. Falconer's heirs; on loan office certificate (lost.) p. 622. Jos. Cooper; interest paid by him. p. 621-'2. Marcius W. Gilbert; money advanced during war. p. 863. Springfield Manufacturing Company; according to contract. p. 544. Thomas Triplett; commutation pay and interest as funded debt. p. 848. Converse and Rees; on post office drafts protested. Vol. 9, p. 28. Gen. Green; on his bond executed during the war of revolution. p. 11. Christopher Green; under resolution of 1785. p. 11. General St. Clair; on balance due for revolutionary service. p. 20. Agnus McLean; same. p. 32. Gen. Kosciusko; same. p. 48. Fulwar Shepwith; advances during war. p. 50. Moses White; as on certificate of final settlement for p. 51. John Coles; on demurrage under charter party. p. 57. Flinn, who was killed in bearing message to Indians; p. 63. Capt. Little; prize money of the Flying Fish.-(See 2 Cranch, 170.) p. 65. Stephen Sayer; on balance due for services during revolutionary war. p. 72. Thomas Barclay; same p. 72. Matthew Smith and Darius Gates; on purchase money of land on failure of title. p. 80. Daniel Cotton; on demurrage under charter party. p. 94. L'Enfant; on compensation for survey of Washington. p. 110. Anna Young, daughter of Col. Durhee; on his half pay. p. 116. Jared Shattuck; on judgment recovered of Captain Laws U. S. Vol. 9, p. 141. Dennis Clark; on purchase money of land without title. p. 146. Rappeleyea; on loan office certificates. p. 146. p. 159. p. 166. Arnold; same. Sands, collector, New York; on judgment recovered Joseph Wheaton; on award against United States. p. 175. John Holkar; on loan office certificate. p. 248. Gen. Wilkinson; on judgment recovered against him on account of official action. p. 247. Samuel Buall; on final certicates. p. 252. Thomas Leiper; loan office certificates. p. 269. Reps. of John Guthrey; final certificate. p. 276. Crute; same. p. 286. McClung; same. p. 285. Seward; on purchase of land without title of U. S. p. 298. Amasa Stetson; on money advanced. p. 307. Archibald Clark, collector; on judgment against. p. 326. Walter S. Chandler; on final settlement certificate. p. 334. John Crain; same. p. 338. Heirs of Chretion; on sum illegally collected by warrant from Treasury. p. 345. p. 347. p. 351. Steinman and others; as per contract with Coxe for Seward; on purchase money of land sold him, no title. p. 365. Bar. J. V. Valkenburg; on certificates. p. 396. William Otis, collector; on settlement of his accounts. p. 411. Baltimore city; money advanced. p. 414. Bank of Chillicothe; on bill of exchange protested. p. 440. John Scott; loan office certificates. p. 450. Samuel Ward; final settlement certificate. p. 455. Whittier, p. 456. Clever et al., p. 513. Warner, on amount improperly collected of them as sureties of D. Evans, collector, &c. p. 466. Gen. Hazen; under resolution of 1781. p. 476. Tharp (sutler;) out of money due soldiers on assigned advances to them. (( p. 448. Same. p. 484. A. Edwards; as credit on bond. p. 516. John J. Jacobs; as if on final certificate. Laws U. S. Vol. 9, p. 537. p. 545. p. 551. John Wilson's heirs; seven years' half pay, as if on Wm. Price; commutation pay and interest, as if p. 551. James Barrett; same. p. 538. p. 562. Richardson (sutler;) interest out of soldiers' pay for advances to them. Elbert Anderson; 1. Interest on balance due October, 1814, on money advanced during the war; 2. On warrants not paid; 3. On allowance by comptroller from date of allowance. p. 570. Christian Ish; on certificate as if funded, under act of 1790, chap. 4. p. 571. Michael Gratz; on loan office certificates. p. 711. Jonathan Taylor; same case as James Morrison's. p. 574. Jacobs & Bayard; loan office certificates. p. 576. Gibbs; same. p. 576. Bird & Pomeroy; same. p. 581. Harnesworth; on purchase money of land without title. p. 587. Gen. Stirling; on final certificate. p. 594. Waddell, marshal U. S.; on judgment recovered against. p. 595. Blaisdell; on judgment recovered by mistake. p. 597. George Reed; on amount of award. p. 621. M. N. Gilbert (sutler;) interest out of soldiers' pay due him. p. 664. David Caldwell; on balance due him as clerk U. S. circuit court in Pennsylvania. p. 672. Delassus; on money taken from him at capture of Baton Rouge. p. 674. Gen. Hurlburt; on certificate under act of 1790, chap ter 34. p. 765. Jos. Pierce; on purchase money of land sold him without title by the United States. p. 796-'7. Eskridge, Fish, Brewer; same. p. 802. Matthew Lyon,, on refunding fine imposed under p. 924. Antony Haswell, p. 931. Charles Holt, alien and sedition laws. p. 837. James Morrow and Jonathan Tipton; on judgment recovered against them on account of acts done by order of commanding general. p. 900. p. 846. Vol. 1. p. 227. Spence; allows credit and offset, interest on pay. |