th Congress "1 g-g-« ^ j-g J Report No. 1st Session / - I 382 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS REPORTED BY COURT OF CLAIMS UNDER BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS TO ACCOMPANY H. R. 15372 March 16, 1908. — Ordered to be printed WASHINGTON GOA T ERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1908 0£G 1 7 1908 <■ A Calendar No. 421. 60th Congress, ) . SENATE. j Report 1st Session. J j No. 382. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS REPORTED BY COURT OF CLAIMS UNDER BOWMAN AND TUCKER ACTS. Makch 16, 1908. — Ordered to be printed. 77^ Mr. Fulton, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 15372.] The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred iae bill (H. R. 15372) "for the allowance of certain claims reported by the Court of Claims under the provisions of the acts approved March third, eight- een hundred and eighty-three, and March tl d, eighteen I undred and eighty-seven, and commonly known as the Lawman anw the Tucker acts," having had the same under consideration, respectfully report the same back and recommend that it be amended as follows, and being so amended, that it do pass, namely: 1. Amend the title by adding thereto the words "and for other purposes." 2. Strike out all after line 9, on page 1, of the bill, and insert the items herewith submitted in amended bill: ITEMS OMITTED. The following items which appear on the original bill are omitted by the amendment as not being within the rules observed by the com- mittee, as hereinafter explained, namely: GEOKGIA. To Sabibi Jones, of Pike County, two hundred and fifteen dollars. ILLINOIS. To Fannie Pemberton, of Golconda, four thousand dollars. KENTUCKY. To Thomas R. Hill, of Bath County, four hundred and ninety-five dollars. To Saint Andrews Lodge, Numbered Eighteen, Free and Accepted Masons, of Cynthiana, Kentucky, six hundred dollars. To A. W. Richards, administrator of the estate of Kinchen Bell, deceased, late of Union County, one thousand four hundred and twenty dollars. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. To James N. Hall, of Montgomery County, seven hundred and fifty dollars . To Daniel Mans, of Maysville, Kentucky, late of Goochland County, Virginia, two hundred and fifty dollars. T. B. Salyer, of Lawrence County, three hundred and fifty dollars. MISSISSIPPI. To John M. Bass, administrator of the estate of William O. Moseley, deceased, late of Hinds County, four thousand two hundred and eighty- five dollars. MISSOURI. To Nannie, Oscar W., John R., and Emma Cogswell, heirs of O. H. Cogswell, deceased, of Jackson County, one thousand six hundred dollars. TENNESSEE. To W. F. Forbes, administrator of Archie B. Forbes, deceased, late of Memphis, Tennessee, two thousand six hundred dollars. To William H. Landrum, of Gibson County, two hundred and fifty- seven dollars. To the trustees of the First Baptist Church, at Jefferson City, nine hundred and fifteen dollars. To the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Truine, Williamson County, three thousand eight hundred dollars. William M. Moss, administrator of the estate of John Smith, deceased, of Madison County, one thousand six hundred dollars. TEXAS. To Robert E. Williams, John T. Williams, Mary E. Williams, George M. Williams, and Ida Williams-Eddy, heirs of the estate of Robert M. Williams, deceased, of the city of Dallas, one thousand one hundred and forty dollars. VIRGINIA. To John B. Myers, administrator of the estate of Alexander Myers, deceased, late of Charles City County, two thousand six hundred and eighty-two dollars. To Mary S. Bland, Anna Bland, and Sue P. Bland, legal heirs of Theodoric Bland, deceased, late of Prince George County, three thou- sand six hundred dollars. To the trustees of Four Mile Creek Baptist Church, of Henrico County, eight hundred dollars. AMOUNT PROPOSED TO BE APPROPRIATED. The bill as it came from the House provided for appropriations aggregating $315,345.28. The amended bill proposed appropriations aggregating $2,299,601 .82, distributed or classified as follows: Miscellaneous Court of Claims findings, under the Bowman and the Tucker Acts ' $985, 747. 12 Difference between shore and sea pay, as per Court of Claims findings 65, 768. 96 French spoliation claims, as per Court of Claims findings 714, 631. 92 Miscellaneous claims that have heretofore been approved by committee or committees and passed one or both Houses 533, 453. 82 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. State. Number of claimants. Amounts. State. Number of claimants. Amounts. 24 19 9 3 3 36 3 16 15 15 9 8 49 36 4 20 $38,263.00 28,852.67 9,190.69 552. 79 412. 19 12,394.65 16,406.21 34,779.00 4,813.97 4,023.97 2,456.08 21,362.91 28,635.95 155,664.49 12,783.23 26.299.00 Nebraska 2 27 1 3 13 12 1 6 2 1 43 4 1 89 1 1 100 36 1 2 $554.07 New Jersey 8,479.67 20.39 3,157.18 96,676.29 District of Columbia. . North Carolina North Dakota Ohio 12,639.00 260.35 2,163.10 Oklahoma 626.48 Oregon 417.31 Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee _ 46,899.33 10,383.33 391. 31 134,275.33 700.00 Vermont 124.06 31 18.124.20 128,558.39 6 3 25 25 1 1,055.57 826. 10 47,728.00 31,219.46 53.23 42,886.00 115.41 ^ £j 522.76 Total 985,747.12 Difference between shore and sea pay, as per Court of Claims findings, by States. State. Number of claimants. Amounts. 1 State. Number of claimants. Amounts. 6 2 4 1 26 1 1 6 1 2 4 19 33 2 3 1 $1,325.16 282.56 1,116.15 490.74 4,612.25 168.64 97.81 3,758.47. 39.86 91.60 1,866.32 8,703.56 12,491.78 506.31 396.55 259.66 New Hampshire 4 12 1 33 2 9 1 25 1 1 9 3 1 $1,039.95 3,033.83 766.35 7,910.32 705.07 Ohio 4,077.62 936.68 7,397.65 41.20 720.39 2,332.86 457.15 142.47 Total 65,768.96 WAR CLAIMS. The claims grouped above as ' 'Miscellaneous Court of Claims findings " are principally for stores and supplies taken by proper authority for the use of the Army of the Umted States, from loyal citizens residing in States declared in rebellion, and claims for the use and occupation by the Army of buildings within such States owned by loyal citizens residing therein. Stores and supplies. — -In the preparation of this bill in passing on claims for stores and supplies the committee rejected every claim in which it did not affirmatively appear that the original claimant or party from whom the property was taken was throughout the war of the rebellion loyal to the Government of the United States, or where it affirmatively appeared that the claim had not been presented to the Commissioner of Claims or to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress, and that no evidence had been offered in excuse of the delay or laches in presenting the claim. The committee has been liberal rather than severe in applying the doctrine of laches, but where the court has directly f ouncL laches and that no evidence in excuse thereof was offered and that no facts appeared to combat it, the committee has rejected the claim. 4 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Claims for use, occupation, and destruction of ouildings. — Many claims have been presented for use and occupation by the Army of the United States of buildings, principally church and college buildings. The doctrine of laches has not been applied to such claims for the reason that there has never been any tribunal other than Congress to which such claims could be presented. The Southern Claims Com- mission refused to entertain claims of corporations or quasi corpora- tions, such as church organizations, lodges, etc. Hence in considering such claims the doctrine of laches has not been invoked. The commit- tee has declined, however, to allow claims for destruction of buildings, either by the Army or by individual soldiers, holding that only that which was actually used by the Army is to be paid for. Hence where, as in many cases, the findings show that the Army for a time used and occupied a building and then destroyed it, either intentionally or accidentally, and the finding is for the use, occupation, and value of the building, the claim has been disallowed. Where the court has found the value of the use and occupation separately from the finding as to the value of the building, the former has been allowed and the latter rejected. The same rule has been followed in cases where buildings were torn down and the material devoted to the use of the Army. If the value of the material, simply as material, such as boards, bricks, etc., was found by the court, the claim has been included in the bill, but if the finding was for the value of the building only or for the combined values of the building and the material, the claim was rejected. FRENCH SPOLIATION CLAIMS. All claims of this character which appear to be just have been included in the amendment proposed by the committee. The claims of insurance corporations for losses paid on policies of insurance have not been included, as it has not heretofore been the policy of Congress to recognize that class of claims. BUSINESS OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS. Up to the present time there have been referred to the Court of Claims by Congress for finding of facts 13,171 claims, of which there are now pending 2,017. A large proportion of these will probably never be brought to trial because of the inability of the claimants to prove loyalty tkroughout the civil war. Prior to the Fifty-first Congress, claims arising under the Bowman Act aggregating $128,138.73 were appropriated for. The first gen- eral act for the payment of this class of cases was passed in the Fifty- first Congress; other similar acts were passed in the Fifty-fifth, Fifty-seventh, and Fifty-eighth Congresses. The amounts appro- priated were as follows : Fifty-first Congress $573, 763. 30 Fifty-fifth Congress 1, 722, 655. 79 Fifty-seventh Congress : 444, 503. 10 Fifty-eighth Congress 1, 197, 272. 60 During the Fifty-second, Fifty-third, and Fifty-fourth Con- fresses various private acts were passed upon findings of fact made V the Court of Claims in this class of cases, aggregating $75,003.96. Total of $4,216,331.44. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 5 COURT FINDINGS AND PvEPORTS. In the appendix will be found copies of all findings and committee reports relating to items proposed to be inserted by the amendment reported by the committee, excepting findings provided for in the items which appear in the original bill. Such findings will be found in the report of the House Committee on War Claims on this bill, being report No. 543. For the convenient use of the Senate, the committee has embodied in this report copies of the Bowman and Tucker acts: THE BOWMAN ACT. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assemble]. That whenever a claim or matter is pending before any com- mittee of the Senate or House of Representatives, or before either House of Congress, which involves the investigation and determination of facts, the committee or House- may cause the same, with the vouchers, papers, proofs, and documents pertaining thereto, to be transmitted to the ( ourt of Claims of the United States, and the same shall there be proceeded in under such rules as the court may adopt. When the facts shall have been found, the court shall not enter judgment thereon, but shall report the same to the committee, or to the House by which the case was transmitted for its consideration. Sec 2. That when a claim or matter is pending in any of the Executive Depart- ments which may involve controverted questions of fact or law, the head of such Department may transmit the same, with the vouchers, papers, proofs, and documents pertaining thereto, to said court, and the same shall be there proceeded in under such rules as the court may adopt. When the facts and conclusions of law shall have been found, the court shall not enter judgment thereon, but shall report its findings and opinions to the Department by which it was transmitted for its guidance and action. Sec. 3. The jurisdiction of said court shall not extend to or include any claim against the United States growing out of the destruction or damage to property by the Army or Navy during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, or for the use and occupa- tion of real estate by any part of the military or naval forces of the United States in the operations of said forces during the said war at the seat of war; nor shall the said court have jurisdiction of any claim against the United States which is now barred by virtue of the provisions of any law of the United States. Sec. 4. In any case of a claim for supplies or stores taken by or furnished to any part of military or naval forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the petition shall aver that the person who furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom such supplies or stores were taken, did not give any aid or comfort to said rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United States, and the fact of such loyalty shall be a jurisdictional fact; and unless the said court shall, on a preliminary inquiry, find that the person who furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same were taken as aforesaid, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war, the court shall not have jurisdiction of such cause, and the same shall, without further proceedings, be dis- missed. Sec. 5. That the Attorney-General, or his assistants, under his direction, shall appear for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States in all cases which may be transmitted to the Court of Claims under this act, with the same power to inter- pose counter claims, offsets, defenses for fraud practiced or attempted to be practiced by claimants, and other defenses, in like manner as he is now required to defend the United States in said court. Sec. 6. That in the trial of such cases no person shall be excluded as a witness because he or she is a party to or interested in the same. Sec. 7. That reports of the Court of Claims to Congress under this act, if not finally acted upon duiing the session at which they are reported, shall be continued from session to session and from Congress to Congress until the same shall be finally acted upon. Approved March 3, 1883. 6 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. THE TUCKER ACT. [24 Stat. L., p. 505.] AN ACT To provide for the bringing of suits against the Government of the United States. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the following matters: First. All claims founded upon the Constitution of the United States or any law of Congress, except for pensions, or upon any regulation of an Executive Department, or upon any contract, expressed or implied, with the Government of the United States, or for damages, liquidated or unliquidated, in cases not sounding in tort, in respect of which claims the party would be entitled to redress against the United States either in a court of law, equity, or admiralty if the United States were suable: Provided, however, That nothing in this section shall be construed as giving to either of the courts herein mentioned jurisdiction to hear and determine claims growing out of the late civil war, and commonly known as "war claims," or to hear and deter- mine other claims which have heretofore been rejected or reported on adversely by any court, Department, or commission authorized to hear and determine the same. Second. All set-offs, counterclaims, claims for damages, whether liquidated or unliquidated, or other demands whatsoever on the part of the Government of the United States against any claimant against the Government in said court: Provided, That no suit against the Government of the United States shall be allowed under this act unless the same shall have been brought within six years after the right accrued for which the claim is made. Sec 2. That the district courts of the United States shall have concurrent juris- diction with the Court of Claims as to all matters named in the preceding section where the amount of the claim does not exceed one thousand dollars, and the circuit courts of the United States shall have such concurrent jurisdiction in all cases where the amount of such claim exceeds one thousand dollars and does not exceed ten thou- sand dollars. All causes brought and tried under the provisions of this act shall be tried by the court without a jury. Sec 3. That whenever any person shall present his petition to the Court of Claims alleging that he is or has been indebted to the United States as an officer or agent thereof, or by virtue of any contract therewith, or that he is the guarantor or surety or personal representative of any officer or agent or contractor so indebted, or that he or the person for whom he is such surety, guarantor, or personal representative has held any office or agency under the United States or* entered into any contract therewith under which it may be or has been claimed that an indebtedness to the United States has arisen and exists, and that he or the person he represents has applied to the proper department of the Government requesting that the account of such office, agency, or indebtedness may be adjusted and settled, and that three years have elapsed from the date of such application and said account still remains unset- tled and unadjusted, and that no suit upon the same has been brought by the United States, said court shall, due notice first being given to the head of said Department and to the Attorney-General of the United States, proceed to hear the parties and to ascertain the amount, if any, due the United States on said account. The Attorney- General shall represent the United States at the hearing of said cause. The court may postpone the same from time to time whenever justice shall require. The judg- ment of said court, or of the Supreme Court of the United States, to which an appeal shall lie, as in other cases, as to the amount due, shall be binding and conclusive upon the parties. The payment of such amount so found due by the court shall discharge such obligation. An action shall accrue to the United States against such principal or surety or representative to recover the amount so found due, which may be brought at any time within three years after the final judgment of said court. . Unless suit shall be brought within said time, such claim and the claim on the original indebted- ness shall be forever barred. Sec 4. That the jurisdiction of the respective courts of the United States proceed- ing under this act, including the right of exception and appeal, shall be governed by the law now in force, in so far as the same is applicable and not inconsistent with the provisions of this act; and the course of procedure shall be in accordance with the established rules of said respective courts, and of such additions and modifications thereof as said courts may adopt. Sec 5. That the plaintiff in any suit brought under the provisions of the second section of this act shall file a petition, duly verified, with the clerk of the respective court having jurisdiction of the case, and in the district where the plaintiff resides. Such petition shall set forth the full name and residence of the plaintiff, the nature ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 7 of his claim, and a succinct statement of the facts upon which the claim is based, the money or any other thing claimed, or the damages sought to be recovered, and praying the court for a judgment or decree upon the facts and law. Sec. 6. That the plaintiff shall cause a copy of his petition, filed under the pre- ceding section, to be served upon the district attorney of the United States in the district wherein suit is brought, and shall mail a copy of the same, by registered letter, to the Attorney-General of the United States, and shall thereupon cause to be filed with the clerk of the court wherein suit is instituted an affidavit of such service and the mailing of such letter. It shall be the duty of the district attorney upon whom service of petition is made as aforesaid to appear and defend the interests of the Gov- ernment in the suit, and within sixty days after the service of petition upon him, unless the time should be extended by order of the court made in the case, to file a plea, answer, or demurrer on the part of the Government, and to file a notice of any counterclaim, set-off, claim for damages, or other demand or defense whatsoever of the Government in the premises: Provided, That should the district attorney neglect or refuse to file the plea, answer, demurrer, or defense, as required, the plaintiff may proceed with the case under such rules as the court may adopt in the premises; but the plaintiff shall not have judgment or decree for his claim, or any part thereof, unless he shall establish the same by proof satisfactory to the court. Sec. 7. That it shall be the duty of the court to cause a written opinion to be filed in the cause, setting forth the specific findings by the court of the facts therein and the conclusions of the court upon all questions of law involved in the case, and to render judgment thereon. If the suit be in equity or admiralty, the court shall pro- ceed with the same according to the rules of such courts. Sec. 8. That in the trial of any suit brought under any of the provisions of this act no person shall be excluded as a witness because he is a party to or interested in said suit; and any plaintiff or party in interest may be examined as a witness on the part of the Government. Section ten hundred and seventy-nine of the Revised Statutes is hereby repealed. The provisions of section ten hundred and eighty of the Revised Statutes shall apply to cases under this act. Sec 9. That the plaintiff or the United States, in any suit brought under the pro- visions of this act, shall have the same rights of appeal or writ of error as are now reserved in the statutes of the United States in that behalf made, and upon the conditions and limitations therein contained. The modes of procedure in claiming and perfecting an appeal or writ of error shall conform in all respects, and as near as may be, to the statutes and rules of court governing appeals and writs of error in like causes. Sec. 10. That when the findings of fact and the law applicable thereto have been filed in any case as provided in section six of this act, and the judgment or decree is adverse to the Government, it shall be the duty of the district attorney to transmit to the Attorney-General of- the United States certified copies of all the papers filed in the cause, with a transcript of the testimony taken, the written findings of the court, and his written opinion as to the same; whereupon the Attorney-General shall deter- mine and direct whether an appeal or writ of error shall be taken or not; and when so directed the district attorney shall cause an appeal or writ of error to be perfected in accordance with the terms of the statutes and rules of practice governing the same: Provided, That no appeal or writ of error shall be allowed after six months from the judgment or decree in such suit. From the date of such final judgment or decree interest shall be computed thereon, at the rate of four per centum per annum, until the time when an appropriation is made for the payment of the judgment or decree. Sec 11. Tha't the Attorney-General shall report to Congress, and at the beginning of each session of Congress, the suits under this act in which a final judgment or decree has been rendered, giving the date of each, and a statement of the costs taxed in each case. Sec 12. That when any claim or matter may be pending in any of the Executive Departments which involves controverted questions of fact or law, the head of such department, with the consent of the claimant, may transmit the same, with the vouchers, papers, proofs, and documents pertaining thereto, to said Court of Claims, and the same 6hall be there proceeded in under such rules as the court may adopt. "When the facts and conclusions of law shall have been found, the court shall report its findings to the department by which it was transmitted. Sec 13. That in every case which shall come before the Court of Claims, or is now pending therein, under the provisions of an act entitled "An act to afford assistance and relief to Congress and the Executive Departments in the investigation of claims and demands against the Government," approved March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-three, if it shall appear to the satisfaction of the court, upon the facts established, that it has jurisdiction to render judgment or^decree thereon under 8 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. existing laws or under the provisions of this act, it shall proceed to do so, giving to either party such further opportunity for hearing as in its judgment justice shall require, and report its proceedings therein to either House of Congress or to the de- partment by which the same was referred to said court. Sec. 14. That whenever any bill, except for a pension, shall be pending in either House of Congress providing for the payment of a claim against the United States, legal or equitable, or for a grant, gift, or bounty to any person, the House in which such bill is pending may refer the same to the Court of Claims, who shall proceed with the same in accordance with the provisions of the act approved March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-three, entitled an '"Act to afford assistance and relief to Congress and the Executive Departments in the investigation of claims and demands against the Government," and report to such House the facts in the case and the amount, where the same can be liquidated, including any facts bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in presenting such claim or applying for such grant, gift, or'bounty. and any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claim- ant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. Sec. 15. If the Government of the United States shall put in issue the right of the plaintiff to recover, the court may. in its discretion, allow costs to the prevailing party from the time of joining such issue. Such costs, however, shall include only what is actually incurred for witnesses and for summoning the same, and fees paid to the clerk of the court. Sec. 16. That all laws and parts of laws inconsistent with this act are herel re- pealed. Approved, March 3, 1887. (Vol. 30. Stat. L.. pp. 494, 495.) APPENDIX. Wak Claims. ALABAMA. HENRY DAVIS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9299. Henry Davis This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States foi their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Henry Davis, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed January 13, 1908. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 9299. Henry Davis v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 26th day of Feb- ruary, 1895. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 13th day of January, 1908, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of February, 190S. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Clark McKercher, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Madison, State of Alabama; that he resided in said county and State during the late civil war; that dur- ing said war, to wit, in 1863 and 1864, the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from petitioner quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 1 horse and 2 mules $325 1 cow 25 2 sows 30 Total 380 The court upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, by proper author- ity, for the use of the Army, took from the claimant in Madison County, State of Ala- bama, property of the kind and character described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of one hundred and thirty-five dollars ($135). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed February 10, 1908. A true copy. Test this 12th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clepk Court of Claims. 9 10 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. BELLE F. NEIL, ADMINISTRATRIX. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10609. Belle F. Neil, administratrix of the estate of James Watkins Fennell v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim, in the above-entitled case, for stores and supplies alleged to have been taken from the heirs of James Watkins Fennell, late of Marshall County, Ala., for the use of the United States Army, as embodied in the Senate bill No. 104, was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate of May 21, 1902, under the pro- visions of the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. Belle F. Neil, administratrix of the estate of said James Watkins Fennell, appeared by her attorneys, Dudley & Michener, and filed her petition herein February 14, 1905, averring, among other things: That said decedent and such of his heirs as seek to be beneficiaries of this claim were loyal to the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. That said decedent died January 19, 1864, in said county and State, the owner and in possession of a large plantation in said county and State, which was well stocked with farm supplies, consisting of grain, cotton, and live stock. That in November, 1864, subsequent to the death of said decedent, but while his said estate was still unsettled, the U.S. gunboat General Grant, commanded by Captain Watson, carried away from said plantation 31 bales of cotton, weighing 15,500 pounds, belonging to said estate, which cotton was subsequently delivered to Special Agent Eaton of the Treasury Department, and subsequently sold and the proceeds of the sale, amounting to $4,960.59, were turned in to the United States Treasury. That said sum, however, it is averred, does not represent the fair market value of the cotton, the same being worth $12,400, for which cotton no payment has ever been made. That thereafter, during the years 1864 and 1865, there were taken by the military and naval forces of the United States from decedent's estate, which was still unsettled, stores and supplies of the kind and character following, that is to say: 3,450 pounds meat, at 25 cents per pound $862. 50 1,700 pounds bacon, at 50 cents per pound 850. 00 43 hogs, at $20 860. 00 150 bushels corn, at $1 150. 00 2 mules, at $200 400. 00 1 horse, at 150. 00 3 oxen, at $50 150. 00 1 -milch cow, at 30. 00 1 two-year-old steer, at 25. 00 1 two-year-old heifer, at 25. 00 Winter's supply of groceries and provisions, including several barrels of mo- lasses, poultry, lard, preserves, honey, etc 500. 00 Total 4, 002. 50 On behalf of and in defense of the United States the Attorney-General appeared, through Louis A. Pradt, Assistant Attorney-General, with whom was associated F. De C. Faust, special attorney. The foregoing case coming on for trial and the argument of counsel being heard, and the court having examined and considered the evidence and briefs on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT. I. During the late war for the suppression of the rebellion James Watkins Fennell resided in Marshall County, Ala., and was the owner of a large plantation, well stocked with farm products, such as grain, cotton, and live stock. - In January, 1864, said Fennell died the owner and possessor of said property, leav- ing surviving him his widow, Matilda M. Fennell, and ten children, to wit: Charity E. Henry, James William Fennell, Isham Watkins Fennell, Catherine M. Esslinger, Mary Jane Graham, John H. Fennell, ranging from 17 to 30 years of age, and Frank D. Fennell, Belle F. Neil, Caius G. Fennell, and Mattie M. Fennell, ranging from 6 to 15 years of age. II. The decedent, James Watkins Fennell, and his widow, Matilda M. Fennell, as well as Catherine M. Esslinger, Mary Jane Graham, Frank D. Fennell, Belle F. Neil, Caius G. Fennell, and Mattie M. Fennell were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for th e suppression of the rebellion. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 11 The three sons of decedent, to wit: James William Fennell, Isham Watkins Fennell, and John H. Fennell, and his daughter, Charity E. Henry are not proven to have been loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. III. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion there were taken by the military and naval forces of the United States from the unsettled estate of said decedent from his said plantation 31 bales of cotton, without marks, which, as reported by the Treasury Department, was captured November 23, 1864, by the U. S. S. General Grant, in Marshall County, Ala., as the property of Capt. J. W. Fennell, a Confederate officer, who was captured at the same tune, which cotton was afterwards transported to Cin- cinnati, Ohio, where 30£ bales were sold by W. P. Mellen, a Treasury agent, and the net proceeds, $4,960.59, arising therefrom were accounted for to the Treasury. The cotton so captured was raised on the plantation of the claimant's decedent in the year 1860 and at the time of seizure was on the plantation of the late James W. Fennell. IV. Also during said war, and after the death of the claimant's decedent, but before his said estate had been settled, there were taken by the military and naval forces of the United States, for their use, from the plantation of said decedent, stores and sup- plies of the character and kind described m the petition, of which one-third belonged to the widow and the remaining two-thirds, share and share alike, to the ten children of said decedent heretofore named. Thereafter the widow died and her children be- came the owners of her one-third interest, 6hare and share alike. The interest of the six loyal children heretofore named, in their own right and in the right of their deceased mother's one-third, in and to the stores and supplies so taken, including the interest of decedent 's three sons and daughter who are not found to have been loyal, in right of their loyal mother's one-third, was reasonably worth the sum of one thousand three hundred and thirty dollars ($1,330), for which no payment appears to have beenmade. V. The evidence shows that the claimants had at different times after the year 1870 placed their claim in the hands of different lawyers for collection, but nothing appears to have been done by them until the presentation of the claim to the Congress at different sessions, and the final reference of the claim by resolution of the United States Senate to the court, as hereinbefore set forth. And further, in respect to the claim to the proceeds of the cotton accounted for to the Treasury, the same is barred under the provisions of the abandoned or captured property act of March 12, 1863. (12 Stat. L., p. 820.) By the Court. ■t Filed February 19, 1907. A true copy. lest this 25th^day of|February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, AssistantlClerk Court of Claims. MARGARET J. PARKS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No.£10164.;5t Margaret J. Parks^. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Mar- garet J. Parks, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed April 11, 1904. [Court of Claims.^ Congressional case No. 10164.^ Margaret J. Parks v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by resolution of the United States Senate on the 13th day of April, 1900, under the Tucker Act. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 11th day of April, 1904, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. — --' 12 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of May. 1904. Movers and Consaul. esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Geo. M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the de- fense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in Jackson County. State of Alabama, where she resided during the late war of the rebellion; that at different times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from her quartermaster' stores and commissary supplies of the value of S3. 600 and appro- priated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows: 1 house and barn SI, 000 400 pound vmts per pound 200 Growing crop 1 Is. at 40 cents 400 50 head pork h per head 250 30 head of stock hoes 100 15 head of stock cattle 150 100 4 mul 25 per head 500 2 two-year old mul': - a ch 100 2 horses 150 1 wagon and harness 100 200 pounds of bacon, at 10 cents per pound 20 300 pounds of lard, at 10 cents per pound 30 Farming implements 50 Fodder and oats 50 3 miles of rail fencing 300 Household and kitchen furniture 100 Total 3, 600 The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of 1 on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. There was taken from the claimant, in the county of Jackson, State of Alabama, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of ten "hundred 'and sixty-eight dollars ($1,068), for which no payment appears to have been made. II. A claim for said property was never presented to any Department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. By tee Court. Filed May 31, 1904. A true copy. Test this 29ih day of November, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. PRIMITIVE BAPTIST CHURCH OF HUNTSVILLE, ALA. fCourt of Claims. Congressional case No. 11690. Primitive Baptist Church (colored) of Huntsville, Alabama, v. the United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case is for the destruction of a building used by claimant organization as a house of worship during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion. It was transmitted to this court by resolution of the United States Senate on April 27, 1904, under the provisions of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on lovalty and merits on the 5th day of Decem- ber, 1904. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- tion of the interests of the United States. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 13 The petitioners in their petition make the following allegations, to wit: That dining the late war of the rebellion, the Primitive Baptist Church (colored) of Huntsville, Ala., was the owner of a certain church building; that during said war the United States military forces took possession of and tore down the church building belonging to said Primitive Baptist Church (colored) and earned off and converted to the use of the United States Army the materials taken from said building; that the reasonable rental value of said building at the time of taking was $1,987.99. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Primitive Baptist Church (colored) of Huntsville, Ala., was loyal to the Government of the United States during the late war of the rebellion. II. During the war of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, and for the use of the army, took possession of and tore down the church building of the Primitive Baptist Church (colored) of Huntsville, Ala., and used the material thereof, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of $909. It does not appear that payment has ever been made for any part thereof. By the Court. Filed December 12, 1904. A true copy. Test this 21st day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph. Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SAMUEL F. RYAN. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11118. Samuel F. Ryan v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by resolu- tion of the United States Senate on the 3d day of March, 1903, for a finding of facts, in accordance with the provisions of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing upon loyalty and merits on the 12th day of Janu- ary, A. D. 1905. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant and the Attorney-General, by F. W. Col- lins, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- tion of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations, to wit: That he is now and at all times mentioned in his petition has been a citizen of the United States; that he is now a resident of the county of McLennan, State of Texas; that during the late civil war he was a resident of the county of Marshall, State of Alabama; that during said war he was the owner in his own right of an undivided five-sixths interest in and to a certain farm situate in said county and State, and was also the owner of an undivided five-sixths interest in and to the stock and per- sonal p'roperty upon said farm; that his father, John Ryan, was the owner of the othei undivided one-sixth interest in and to said property. That during said war there were taken from petitioner and his coowner, John Ryan, by the United States military forces, acting under proper authority, and converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 8 mules, at $130 each ' $1, 040. 00 2 horses, at $130 each 260. 00 4,015 bushels of corn, at 75 cents per bushel 3, 011. 25 2 yoke of oxen, 2,000 pounds, at 8 cents per pound 160. 00 25 head of cattle, 5,000 pounds, at 8 cents per pound 400. 00 40 pork hogs, 180 pounds each, 7,200 pounds, at 8 cents per pound 576. 00 13,800 rails, 138 cords, at $3 per cord 414. 00 1 good farm wagon 60. 00 1 set of blacksmith tools 40. 00 Total • 5, 961. 25 14 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. That the undivided five-sixths interest of petitioner in and to the property so taken amounts to $4,967.70. That this claim was originally presented by petitioner's father, said John Ryan, in his own name, to the Southern Claims Commission while petitioner was a minor; that said claim was rejected by said Commission, as the commissioners were not satisfied with the proof of loyalty of said John Ryan; that upon becoming advised of his legal rights petitioner presented this claim to the Congress of the United States, and it was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, under the provisions of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following findings»of'fact. I. The plantation in Marshall County, State of Alabama, from which the personal property alleged to be in part owned by the claimant was taken by the military authorities of the United States for the use of the Army originally belonged to Gabriel M. Moore. On the 9th of March, 1850, he conveyed all his property, real, personal, and mixed, including specifically the above-named plantation, to two trustees, such conveyance being made ' ' in view of the uncertainty of all human affairs " and because he was "desirous of securing as far as he could a certain support and maintenance" for his wife and daughter Mary and such other children as might be born. Subse- quently another child was born, named William. In December, 1851, Gabriel M. Moore died, and thereupon, under the laws of Ala- bama, one-third of the property, real and personal, vested in his widow; and she sub- sequently intermarried with one John Ryan, by whom she bore a child, named Samuel F. Ryan, the present claimant, who was born in the lifetime of his half brother and sister. In December, 1855, the child Mary died, and subsequently the child William also died — they both being of tender years — he leaving no brother or sister of the whole blood, but leaving his mother and the claimant, his half brother on the side of the mother. At the June term, 1857, of the chancery court of the northern chancery division of Alabama a decree was rendered in a suit brought by the trustees to obtain construc- tion of the deed of trust, the decree setting forth the legal and equitable rights of the Sarties in interest, whereby it was decided that one-third of the estate of Gabriel M. [oore became vested, under the laws of Alabama, in his widow, now Mrs. Ryan, and that two-thirds descended to his two children, then deceased, and passed on the death of the first to the other, and on the death of the second to the half brother, the present claimant. Subsequently, in 1861, the mother, now Mrs. Ryan, also died, and under the laws of Alabama one-half of her inherited property passed to her second husband and the remaining one-half to her child, the present claimant, thereby vesting five-sixths of the estate of Gabriel M. Moore in the present claimant, Samuel F. Ryan. II. After the death of the child William and of Mrs. Ryan, her second husband, John Ryan, was appointed administrator of their estates. He continued to reside on and manage the plantation, but had been a man without property and contributed nothing of his own to the business. In 1873 he preferred a claim for the property taken from the plantation to the Southern Claims Commission, claiming that he owned the whole of it, which claim was dismissed because his loyalty was not established. III. Samuel Ryan, the present claimant, was born in July, 1855, and at the time of the taking of the property was 8 years old. The court finds him to have been loyal by reason of his tender years. He was living on the plantation when the property was taken. No guardian appears to have been appointed to protect his interests. IV. If the father of the claimant be regarded as his natural guardian the claimant was the equitable owner of five-sixths of the property taken from the plantation, the reasonable value of such five-sixths being the sum of two thousand seven hundred and twelve dollars ($2,712). No payment appears to have been made therefor. V. A claim was originally presented by claimant's father, John Ryan, to the South- ern Claims Commission, in his own name, seeking to recover for the whole of the prop- erty in his own right, said Samuel F. Ryan being at the time of such presentation 18 years of age. It appears that the time allowed by the act of March 3, 1871, for the pre- sentation of claims to said Southern Claims Commission expired while said Samuel F. Ryan was still a minor. Upon becoming advised of his legal rights in the premises the claimant, Samuel F. Ryan, petitioned Congress for relief , which action resulted in the reference of this claim to this court for a rinding of facts in accordance with the provisions of the act approved March 3, 1887, commonly known as the Tucker Act. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 15 These facts are reported as bearing upon the question whether or not there has been laches or negligence in the presentation of this claim. By the Court. Filed January 16, 1905. A true copy. Test this 17th day of January, 1905. [seal.] Archibald Hopkins, Chief Clerk. TRUSTEES OF THEfMISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH OF GRAVELLY SPRINGS, ALA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11707. Trustees of the Missionary Baptist Church of Gravelly Springs, Alabama, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "[S. 4012, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Missionary Baptist Church, at Gravelly Springs, Alabama . "Beit enacted by the Senate and Rouse of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- Eriated, to the trustees of the Missionary Baptist Church, at Gravelly Springs, in auderdale County, Alabama, the sum of one thousand dollars for appropriation and use of the material of their church building by the Federal troops during the civil war between the States." The trustees of the Missionary Baptist Church of Gravelly Springs, Ala., appeared and filed their petition in the court May 26, 1904, in which they make the following allegations: That during the winter of 1864 the military forces of the United States, under command of General Wilson, took possession of the church building of the Mission- ary Baptist Church at Gravelly Springs, Ala., and removed the said building, using the same for building winter quarters; that said building was about 45 by 60 feet, and was comparatively new, having been constructed about the year 1855, and was reasonably worth at the time of its removal the sum of $1,000. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of Decem- ber, 1904. G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Missionary Baptist Church of Gravelly Springs, Ala., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the winter of 1864 the military forces of the United States, under proper authority, tore down the Missionary Baptist Church of Gravelly Springs, Ala., and used the material therein for building winter quarters, the reasonable value of the materials so taken and used being the sum of seven hundred and twenty-five dollars ($725), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. The claim was not presented to any Department or officer of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. W'-' By the Court. Filed December 19, 1904. A true copy. F Test this 20th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 16 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, HUNTSVILLE, ALA. ]Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11017. Trustees of Missionary Baptist Church of Huntsville, Ala., successor to the Primitive Baptist Church of Huntsville, Ala., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. On December 5, 1901, Senate bill No. 1064 was introduced in the Fifty-seventh Congress, which bill reads as follows: ' ' A BILL For the relief of the Trustees of the Primitive Baptist Church of Huntsville, Madison County, Alabama. " Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to J. H. Beadle and J. W. Blake, trustees of the Primitive Baptist Church, of Hunts- ville, Madison County, Alabama, the sum of four thousand dollars, in full compen- sation for use, occupation, and damage to said church building by the United States Army during the late war of the rebellion." On March 3, 1903, said bill was referred to this court, by resolution of the United States Senate, for findings of fact under section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 18th day of Decem- ber, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: That they are citizens of the United States, residing in the county of Madison, State of Alabama, and are the trustees of the Missionary Baptist Church, of Hunts- ville, Ala.; that said Missionary Baptist Church, of Huntsville, Ala., is the successor to the Primitive Baptist Church of Huntsville, Ala., now no longer in existence; that during the late civil war said Primitive Baptist Church, of Huntsville, Ala., was the owner of a certain substantial brick church building, used by said church as a house of worship, standing in the town of Huntsville, Ala.; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took possession of said building and used and occupied the same and later removed therefrom a great portion of the material of which it was constructed, this resulting in the total destruction of said building, which at the time and place of taking and destruction was reasonably worth the sum of four thousand dollars ($4,000). The court upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of coun- sel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. During the late civil war the Primitive Baptist Church, of Huntsville, Ala., remained, as an organization, loyal to the Government of the United States. II. During the said war the military forces of the United States took possession of and used the church building described in the petition for hospital and other purposes, and in consequence of such use and occupation the pews, pulpit, and other furnishings therein were removed and destroyed by said military forces, and the building was otherwise damaged in excess of ordinary wear and tear. The reasonable value of the rental of said building and damages in excess of wear and tear wac then and there seventeen hundred and sixty dollars ($1,760), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. It appears from the evidence that the Missionary Baptist Church of Hunts- ville, Ala., which organization appears before the court as present claimant, is the successor in interest to said Primitive Baptist Church, of Huntsville, Ala. IV. Said claim was never presented to any Department or officer of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed January 14, 1907. A true copy. Test this 21st day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 17 TRUSTEES OF NORTH ALABAMA COLLEGE, HUNTSVILLE, ALA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12408. Trustees of the North Alabama College, of Huntsville, Ala., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for the destruction of a building and the use of its materials for the comfort of the United States Army during the civil war. On the 18th of June, 1906, the United States Senate referred to this court a bill in the following words: " [S. 3341, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of certain churches, Masonic lodges, and colleges in the State of Alabama, and for other purposes. ' 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to claimants in the act named the several sums appropriated herein, the same being in full for and the receipt of the same to be taken and accepted in each case as a full and final release and discharge of their respective claims for use, occupation, and damage to their buildings and grounds by United States military authorities during the civil war, namely: ******* "To the trustees of the North Alabama College, of Huntsville, Alabama, twenty thousand dollars. " * * ***** The claimant appeared in this court July 9, 1906, and filed his petition, in which it is substantially averred that: 1. The North Alabama College was a corporation of purely educational, eleemosy- nary character, and was loyal to the United States, and that the board of trustees of the said North Alabama College never applied any of the corporate funds in aid or comfort of the rebellion, and that as trustees were loyal to the United States. 2. The board of trustees of the said North Alabama College commenced in 1859 to erect a college building; that said building was substantially completed in 1864, and that in 1864 or 1865 the value of said building as it stood was at least $23,000. 3. The United States troops under the command of Brig. Gen. D. H. Stanley were encamped in and around Huntsville, Ala., in 1864-5, and that in, to wit, 1864 or 1865, said Brigadier-General Stanley ordered his troops to tear down the said building of the North Alabama College and to v use the bricks and other materials to build chimneys for hospital tents and for other purposes for the use and comfort of the United States Army, and that in pursuance of said orders from said General Stanley the military forces of the United States did tear down the said building of the North Alabama College and use its materials as so ordered. 4. Claimants therefore claim to be justly entitled from the United States to the sum of $23,000. The case was submitted on loyalty and merits without argument, on February 18, 1907. Messrs. Herbert & Micou submitted evidence and brief for the claimants, and the Assistant Attorney-General, by William H. Lamar, esq., his assistant, submitted brief in behalf of the United States. _ The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs of counsel on both sides, makes, the" following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The court is not satisfied from the evidence that the claimant college was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During the said war the military forces of the United States took possession of the brick building of the claimant situate in Huntsville, Ala., then in an unfinished condition, and tore down the building and appropriated the brick therefrom to the erection of a large number of chimneys and ovens for the use of the military forces of the United States then encamped near said city, and after being so used were left in camp when the military forces removed therefrom. The reasonable value of the brick so taken and used was at the time and place the sum of seven thousand six hundred dollars ($7,600). S. Eep. 382, 60-1 2 18 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore set forth, and no reason was shown why such was not done. . By the Court. Piled Feb. 25, 1907. A true copy. Test this 16th day of January, A. D. 1908. [seai.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, COLORED, HUNTSVILLE, ALA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11601. Trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church (colored), Huntsville, Ala., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for a church building alleged to have been appropriated to the use of the Army by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war. On'the 27th day of April, 1904, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: "[S. 226, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church (colored), of Huntsville, Alabama. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise ap- propriated, to the trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church (colored), of Huntsville, Alabama, the sum of five hundred dollars, for use of and damage to church building by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the re- bellion." The claimants appeared in this court on the 10th day of April, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred: That during the winter of 1863-64 the military forces of the United States, under command of Brig. Gen. D. H. Stanley, took possession of the church building of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church (colored), of Huntsville, Ala., and removed the said building, appropriating the material to the use of the Army in building quarters. That said building, furniture and fixtures, at the time they were so taken and appro- priated to the use of the Army, were reasonably worth the sum of $500 for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 10th day of Feb- ruary, 1908. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. Cox, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. \ I. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church (colored), of Huntsville, Ala., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period, to wit, during the winter of 1863-64, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building de- scribed in the petition and tore down the same and used the material thereof in the building of quarters for troops.' The reasonable value of the building so destroyed was at the time and place the sum of two hundred and twenty dollars ($220), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was presented to the Quartermaster-General's Department and disallowed October 3, 1866, for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter the claim was referred to the court by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore set forth in the statement of the case, April 27, 1904. ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 19 No other competent evidence is adduced respecting the delay in the presentation and prosecution of the claim. - -h By the Court. Filed February 17, 1908. A true copy. Test this 18th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. NANNIE H. JONES AND OTHER HEIRS OF JOHN T. JONES. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11866. Nannie H. Jones, Mary E. Hereford, John D. Here- ford, Mrs. Fannie H. Jones, William F. Hereford, and Mrs. Mattie J. Orman, heirs of John T. Jones, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. On January 14, 1905, Senate bill No. 6629, Fifty-eighth Congress, was introduced in the United States Senate, and on March 3, 1905, said bill was referred to this court by resolution of the Senate for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887. Said bill reads as follows: "A BILL For the relief of the heirs of John T. Jones, deceased. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the heirs of John T. Jones, deceased, late of Madison County, Alabama, the sum of eleven thousand one hundred and fifteen dollars and fifty cents, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late civil war." The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 23d day of Octo- ber, 1907. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Percy M. Cox, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: That all of petitioners are citizens of the United States; that all petitioners, save William F. Hereford, are residents of the county of Madison, State of Alabama; that said William F. Hereford is now residing in the Empire of Japan as a missionary. That during the late civil war petitioners Nannie H. Jones and Mary E. Hereford, with their sisters, Fannie J. Jones and Arie R. Hereford, and their brother, George Jones, owned certain real estate and personalty in common as heirs and distributees of the estate of their father, John T. Jones, deceased; that while said property was so owned in common by the petitioners and said three other children the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said five coowners quar- termaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 15 mules and horses, at $125 each $1, 875 10 mules, at $100 each 1, 000 4 oxen, at $30 each 120 21 large cattle, at $20 each 420 25 hogs, at $5 each 125 25 sheep, at $3 each 75 250 bushels shelled corn, at $1 per bushel 250 1| tons fodder, at $20 per ton : 30 1,000 pounds bacon, at 15 cents per pound 150 1,000 pounds pork, at 10 cents per pound 100 57 cords wood, at $3 per cord 171 Total 4, 316 That of the property above described the petitioners Nannie H. Jones and Mary E. Hereford each owned an undivided one-fifth interest; that an undivided one-fifth interest therein was also owned by the mother of the petitioners John D. Hereford, Mrs. Fannie H. Jones, William F. Hereford, and Mrs. Mattie J. Orman, to wit, by Mrs. Fannie J. Hereford (nee Jones). 20 ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAIN CLAIMS. That throughout the late civil war the petitioners Nannie H. Jones and Mary E. Hereford, and said decedent, Mrs. Fannie J. Hereford, the owners of undivided fifth interests in said property, remained loyal to the Government of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT. I. During the late civil war Fannie J. Hereford (nee Jones), Nannie H. Jones, and Mary E. Hereford (nee Jones), minor children of John T. Jones, deceased, were, by reason of their tender years, loyal to the Government of the United States. II. Subsequent to the taking of the property described in the petition, Fannie J. Hereford (nee Jones) died, leaving as her heirs at law John D. Hereford, Mrs. Fan- nie H. Jones, William F. Hereford, and Mrs. Martha J. Orman. III. During said war there was taken by the military forces of the United States for their use from the claimants herein (and other heirs of John T. Jones, deceased, not parties hereto), in Madison County, Ala., property of the kind and character described in the petition. The reasonable value of the interest of said three minor children of said John T. Jones, deceased, was, at the time and place of taking, the sum of $1,200, of which amount the heirs of said Fannie J. Hereford, to wit, John D. Hereford, Mrs. Fannie H. Jones, William F. Hereford, and Mrs. Martha J. Orman, are entitled to one-third, $400, and the remaining $800 belongs equally to Nannie H. Jones and Mrs. Mary E. Hereford (nee Jones). No payment appears to have been made of any part thereof. IV. The claim embraced herein was never presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the provisions of the Tucker Act, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimants for not having resorted to any established legal remedy except their tender years aforesaid. By the Court. Filed October 28, 1907. A true copy. Test this 20th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ARKANSAS. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, HELENA, ARK. Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11881. First Baptist Church of Helena, Ark., v . The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. On February 2, 1905, the following bill, being Senate bill 7041, Fifty-eighth Con- gress, was introduced in the United States Senate: "A BILL For the relief of the First Baptist Church of Helena, Ark. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the First Baptist Church of Helena, Arkansas, the sum of four thousand four hundred and fifty dollars, in full compensation for use, occupation, and destruction of property by the Federal forces during the late civil war. ' ' On April 27, 1905, said bill was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate for findings of fact under the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of May, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Hon. J. A. Van Orsdel, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- tion of the interests of the United States. The petitioners, being trustees of the First Baptist Church of Helena, Ark., allege that said church has been an organization existing at said place since 1852 ; that during the late civil war said church was the owner of certain lots situated at said place, upon which ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 21 was a certain substantial frame building used and occupied by-said church as a place of worship ; that the United States military forces, under proper authority, took possession of said building on or about July 12, 1862, and used and occupied the same for army purposes until about July 1, 1865, and during said occupation did greatly damage and injure said building; that the reasonable rental value of said building during said period of use and occupation, including damages to said building incident to such use and occupation, amounts to the sum of $4,450. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. During the late civil war the First Baptist Church of Helena, Ark., as an organiza- tion, remained loyal to the Government of the United States. II. During said war the First Baptist Church of Helena, Ark., was the owner of cer- tain lots at Helena, Ark., upon which was situate a substantial frame building used by said church as a place of worship; on or about July 12, 1862, the United States military forces, under proper authority, took possession of said building and used and occupied the same for army purposes until on or about July 1, 1865, and during said occupation did greatly damage and injure said building. The reasonable rental value of said premises during said period of occupation, including damages to said building inci- dental to such occupation, amounts to the sum of seventeen hundred and ninety dollars ($1,790). No payment appears to have been made on account thereof. III. The claim was not presented to any Department or officer of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed May 22,1906. A true copy. Test this 1st day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF PINE BLUFF. ARK. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11701. Trustees of the First Baptist Church of Pine Bluff, Ark., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. " [S. 3643. Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] " A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Baptist Church of Pine Bluff, Arkansas. ' ' Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not, otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Baptist Church of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, the sum of five thousand dollars, for use and occupation of and damage to their church building by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion. ' ' The trustees of the First Baptist Church of Pine Bluff, Ark., appeared and filed their petition in this court September 17, 1904, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the month of October, 1863, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the said Baptist Church, and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes from said date until about May, 1865. That said build- ing was constructed of brick, and was about 50 by 100 feet in dimensions, and contained the usual and necessary church furniture. That by reason of such occupancy the building was badly damaged, and extensive repairs were necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when the troops took possession. That the rental value of said building during the period of said occupancy, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when said occupation commenced, was the sum of $5,000, for which no payment has beenrmade. 22 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 31st day of October, 1905. G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of coun- . sel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the First Baptist Church of Pine Bluff, Ark., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the First Baptist Church of Pine Bluff, Ark., and used and occupied the same for military pur- poses. The reasonable rental value of said church building during the period it was used and occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the con- dition in which it was at the time the military forces of the United States took possession of the same, was the sum of nineteen hundred and sixty dollars ($1,960). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed November 6, 1905. A true copy. Test this 24th day of November, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, CLARKSVILLE, fe£i ARK. Court of Claims.^Congressional case No. 11902. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South of Clarksville, Ark., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The following bill was referred to the court March 3, 1905, by resolution of the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "[S. 6604, Fifty-eighth Congress, third session.] ' ' A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South of Clarksville, Johnson County, Arkansas. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- ated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South of Clarksville, Johnson County, Arkansas, the sum of six thousand dollars, for use, damage, and destruction of their church property by the Union troops during the war between the States." The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South of Clarksville, Ark., appeared and filed their petition in this court July 26, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about Decern ber, 1863, the military forces of the United States under command of Col. Marshall L. Stevenson took possession of the two church buildings of the Methodist Episcopal Church South of Clarksville, Ark., and used the said church buildings as a commissary storehouse until on or about May 19, 1864, when, on the approach of the Confederate forces, the said buildings were totally destroyed by fire, by proper military authority, in order to prevent the capture of the commissary stores contained in said church buildings. The said buildings, at the time of the destruction as aforesaid, were rea- sonably worth the sum of $6,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 24th day of October, 1905. G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 23 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South of Clarksville, Ark., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. The evidence establishes to the satisfaction of the court that during the late war between the States, on or about December, 1863, the military forces of the United States took possession of the church buildings of the Methodist Episcopal Church South of Clarksville, Ark., and used said church buildings as commissary store- houses until about May 19, 1864, when, on the approach of the Confederate forces, the said buildings were totally destroyed by fire, by proper military authority of the United States, to prevent the capture of tbe commissary stores contained in said church buildings. The said buildings at the time of the destruction were reasonably worth the sum of four thousand dollars ($4,000). For the use and occupation of said buildings from December, 1863, to May 19, 1864, the evidence establishes to the satisfaction of the court that the same was rea- sonably worth the sum of four hundred dollars ($400), or in all four thousand four hundred dollars ($4,400), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed October 30, 1905. A true copy. Test this 24th day of November, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF THE OLD SCHOOL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, HELENA, ARK. Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11706. Trustees of Old School Presbyterian Church at Helena, Ark., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: " [S. 3940, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Old School Presbyterian Church, of Helena, Arkansas. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Amer- ica in Congress assevibled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Old School Presbyterian Church, of Helena, Arkansas, the sum of seven thousand dollars, for use of and damage to the church building by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The trustees of the Old School Presbyterian Church, of Helena, Ark., appeared and filed their petition in this court August 22, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about July, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Old School Presbyterian Church, of Helena, Ark., and used and occupied the same for military purposes until May, 1865 ; that by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum $7,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 29th day of January, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 24 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Old School Presbyterian Church at Helena, Arkansas, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the late war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for a period of eighteen' months, used, occupied, and damaged the church building of the Old School Presbyterian Church at Helena, Arkansas. Such use and occupation, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession of the same, was reasonably worth the sum of nineteen hundred dollars ($1,900), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed February 5, 1906. A true copy. Test this 14th day of February, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. CALIFORNIA. JOHN M. FORSYTH. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 9982. John M. Forsyth v. The United States.] . STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the volunteer military forces of the State of Nevada for their use during the war for the suppression of the Piute Indians in Nevada, was transmitted to the Court by the Committee on Claims, United States Senate, of the Fifty-sixth Congress, on the 11th day of April, 1899. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of March, 1904. George A. & William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by George H. Walker, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California. That in the spring of 1860 he was a resident of the Territory of Nevada and volunteered to serve under Maj. William Ormsby in a volunteer organization raised to repel the attacks of the Piute Indians, who were at the time raiding in the Territory of Nevada. That this volunteer organization was raised by the citizens in order to defend the Territory from the attacks of said Indians, there being at the time no United States troops in the Territory or any authorized militia of the Territory. 2. That he furnished for the use of said organization various supplies, as herein- after set forth, and in a battle with said Indians in the spring of 1860 the Indians repulsed the volunteer organization forces and captured the horses, supplies, saddles, and other equipments furnished by this claimant. That he claims pay from the United States for the following property: 5 horses furnished to Captain Ormsby' s rangers, in good condition and sound, of the just value at the time furnished of $125 each. $625 5 large mules furnished to Captain Ormsby' s rangers, in good condition and sound and of the just value at the time they were furnished of $125 each 625 Cash paid out as expenses for the outfit of the Ormsby rangers 1, 000 2 double-barreled shotguns furnished at said time and place, of the just value of $125 each ; '. 250 2 large navy revolvers furnished at said time and place, the just value of same being 150 Powder and shot furnished at said time and place to aid in fitting out said company 100 Blankets, saddles, bridles, furnished to Ormsby rangers at said time, being in good condition and of good quality 900 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 25 Barley, hay, and feed supplied to the horses of said military company at said time, before leaving Carson City to fight the said Piute Indians, of good quality and valued when delivered, at $575 Cash advanced and paid out at said time in equipping the military company organized and commanded by Capt. Jack Hays to suppress said Piute Indians. 750 Services rendered as an enlisted volunteer in the Ormsby rangers, organized to fight Indians then raiding in Nevada, 45 days for self and horse at $10 per day 425 Cash paid, outfit and horse, hire of 2 volunteers supplied by claimant and who served in said Ormsby rangers 45 days each at $10 per day each, the service being rendered at the time and place and of the just value of $425 each 850 Cash paid out and advances to equip 2 men who served in Jack Hays's rangers at the same time and place, 30 days each at $10 per day for their services, horse hire, and equipments '. 600 Total 6,850 3. That a claim for said property, with evidence therein, was on the 24th day of October, 1890, presented to the State board of examiners of Nevada, the items of said claim being as hereinbefore recited and being for sum of six thousand eight hundred and fifty dollars ($6,850), under the act of the legislature of said State as follows, to wit, An act entitled "An act relative to the proving of Indian war claims, " approved February 27, 1885, and February 13, 1889, respectively. (State Statutes of Nevada for 1885, p. 47, and for 1889, pp. 32, 33.) That final action was not taken upon this claim by the State board of examiners of Nevada, but the same was reported to the Governor of Nevada, being one of a list of cases marked "Action deferred. " (Rep. Secretary of State, 1889-90.) The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel of both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. In 1859 and early in 1860 the Indians of the Piute tribe inaugurated a series of raids and massacres of settlers on the Carson River, Nevada Territory, and in April, 1860, they drove off a large amount of stock and killed several people and threat- ened the whites with extermination. II. It became necessary for the protection of the life and property of the settlers in and about Carson City, Virginia City, and the country intervening, to organize a company of volunteers to proceed against the Indians, and a company was organized composed of recruits from Carson City, Virginia City, and other smaller settlements, aggregating 125 or 130 men under the command of Maj. William Ormsby. This company proceeded against the Indians, numbering several hundred; met them in a fight at Pyramid Lake, Nevada, where the volunteer company was defeated with great loss. Whatever property, provisions, and supplies the company took into this cam- paign was used by the volunteers or abandoned or destroyed at or near Pyramid Lake, the survivors returning to their homes. Immediately after these events home guards were formed and a regular force of volunteers were formed recruited from residents of Carson and Virginia City, and other neighboring places, and requests for aid were sent to California, and in response several companies of volunteers and one of the regular United States sol- diers were sent across the mountains and the whole force was placed under the com- mand of Col. John C. Hays. This force, composed of several hundred men, moved against the Indians, who speedily retreated and after some small fights, surrendered and sued for peace, which was granted. III. These forces under Maj. William Ormsby and Colonel Hays were provisioned and equipped by contributions from citizens of both Nevada and California. It was necessary to the success of the expeditions that the soldiers should be furnished with horses and feed, arms, ammunition, clothing, and provisions, all of which was either contributed by citizens upon request or impressed by the officers. IV. In April, 1860, claimant resided at Carson, Nev., and was the owner of a number of horses and mules. He took an active interest in aiding in the organization of the vol- unteers under Major Ormsby and later those under Colonel Hays, and enlisted in each organization. V. At the request of Maj. William Ormsby claimant gave his services to aiding in recruiting volunteers for Ormsby 's company and furnished supplies for the use of said organization, the same being actually used by them in the campaign against the Indians, and being reasonably worth at the time the sum of two thousand seven hundred and twenty-eight dollars ($2,728), for which no payment appears to have been made. 26 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. ^VI. The evidence does not establish to the satisfaction of the court the supply of cash by the claimant. «- By the Court. Filed December 5, 1904. A true copy. Test this 15th day of December, 1904.}' [seal.] John Randolph, • Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. VINNIE J. THOMPSON, EXECUTRIX. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10006. Vinnie J. Thompson, executrix of James M. Thompson, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies, or stores, alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the volunteer military forces of the State of Nevada, for their use during the war for the suppression of the Piute Indians in Nevada, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on Claims of the United States Senate, Fifty-sixth Congress, on the 8th day of February, 1900, under the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 6th day of January, 1904. George A. & William B. King appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: I. That she is the executrix of James M. Thompson, nominated as such in his will, which has not yet been offered for probate, owing to the fact that there was no estate to be administered other than this claim; that said decedent was a citizen of the United States, and during the year 1860 was a resident of the State of Nevada. LL. That the following property, belonging to the said James M. Thompson, was furnished by him in Nevada in the year 1860, for the use of the volunteer troops which were organized for the purpose of suppressing the Piute Indian outbreak in February, 1860: 2 large work mules, at 8750 each §1, 500 2 large work horses, at S700 each 1, 400 1 large fruit wagon 500 2 sets double heavy harness, at $150 300 1,000 pounds bacon, at 50 cents a pound 500 100 pounds barley, at 40 cents a pound 400 500 pounds corned beef, at 40 cents a pound 200 500 pounds corned pork, at 40 cents per pound 250 2,000 pounds flour, at 40 cents a pound 800 12 head American horses, at $300 each. 3, 600 12 riding saddles and bridles, worth S40 each 480 Total 9,930 The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel of both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. In 1859 and early in 1860 the Indians of the Piute tribe inaugurated a series of raids and massacres of settlers on the Carson River, Nevada Territory; and in April, 1860, they drove off a large amount of stock and killed several people, and threatened the whites with extermination. II. It became necessary, for the protection of the life and property of the settlers in and about Carson City, Virginia City, and the country intervening, to organize a company of volunteers to proceed against the Indians, and a company was organized, composed of recruits from Carson City, Virginia City, and other smaller settlements, aggregating 125 or 130 men, under the command of Maj. William Ormsby. This com- pany proceeded against the Indians, numbering several hundred, met them in a fight at Pyramid Lake, Nevada, where the volunteer company was defeated with great loss. Whatever property, provisions, and supplies the company took into this campaign were used by the volunteers or abandoned or destroyed at or near Pyramid Lake, the survivors returning to their homes. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 27 III. A company of soldiers from the United States Regular Army reached the locality some days after these events, crossing the mountains to reach there. IV. A large number of the volunteers under Maj. William Ormsby were not sup- plied with horses and provisions, and it became necessary for the whole company to be supplied with horses, arms, ammunition, rations, feed for horses, and the snow being from ten to twelve feet deep it was necessary to carry all the supplies along. The citizens contributed to the general fund in supplies and money, and Major Ormsby, as commanding officer of the company, received and apportioned the sup- plies and met the expense of subsisting the men and horses during the time between the organization of the company and the departure for Pyramid Lake. V. In the year 1860 James M. Thompson resided in Carson City, Nev., and was engaged in the business of selling merchandise, dealing in live stock and real estate. He was the owner of the property and furnished to Maj. William Ormsby and the volunteers under him for use in the campaign against the Piute Indians, as stated in the preceding findings, the value of said property being the sum of $3,730. No pay- ment appears to have been made therefor. VI. The claimant herein alleges in her petition that she is named as executrix in the will of James M. Thompson, but no evidence has been produced to show that such will has been admitted to probate and she has not produced letters testamentary. By the Court. Filed December 5, 1904. A true copy. Test this 15th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. FRANK J. McWORTHY. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10003. Frank J. McWorthy v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the volunteer forces of the State of Nevada, for their use during the war for the suppression of the Piute Indians in Nevada, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on Claims, United States Senate, of the Fifty-sixth Congress, on the 8th day of February, 1900, under the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 26th day of October, 1903, George A. and William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California, and that during the outbreak of the Piute Indians in 1860 he resided in the State of Nevada. 2. That in the spring of 1860 the Piute Indians raided the stock farms of the set- tlers on Carson River, in the vicinity of Virginia City, Territory of Nevada, and killed several people, and there being no troops in the vicinity to protect the settlers it became necessary to organize a company of volunteers, which company was placed under the command of William M. Ormsby, who proceeded to direct a fight against said Indians, in which battle the white people were totally defeated. 3. That claimant, under the necessity of equipping this organization under Captain Ormsby, furnished for the use of said comapny, at the request of Capt. William M. Ormsby, the property described in the following list, and that said property was taken and used by the members of said organization in the campaign against the Piute Indians and was never returned to the claimant: 1 saddle horse $300 1 mule 300 1 pair of revolvers and holsters 50 1 blanket, saddle, and bridle 50 Total 700 28 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. In 1859 and early in 1860 the Indians of the Piute tribe inaugurated a series Of raids and massacres of settlers on the Carson River, Nevada Territory, and in April, 1860, they drove off a large amount of stock and killed several people and threatened the whites with extermination. II. It became necessary for the protection of the life and property of the settlers in and about Carson City, Virginia City, and the country intervening, to organize a company of volunteers to proceed against the Indians, and a company was organized composed of recruits from Carson City, Virginia City, and other smaller settlements, aggregating 125 to 130 men, under the command of Maj. William Ormsby. This company proceeded against the Indians, numbering several hundred, met them in a fight at Pyramid Lake, Nevada, where the volunteer company was defeated with great loss. Whatever property, provisions, and supplies the company took into this campaign was used by the volunteers or abandoned or destroyed at or near Pyramid Lake, the survivors returning to their homes. III. A company of soldiers from the United States Regular Army reached the locality some days after these events, crossing the mountains to reach there. IV. A large number of the volunteers under Maj. William Ormsby were not sup- plied with horses and provisions, and it became necessary for the whole company to be supplied with horses, arms, ammunition, rations, feed for horses, and the snow being from 10 to 12 feet deep, it was necessary to carry all the supplies along. The citizens contributed to the general fund in supplies and money, and Major Ormsby, as commanding officer of the company, received and apportioned the supplies and met the expense of subsisting the men and horses during the time between the organ- ization of the company and the departure for Pyramid Lake. V. The claimant in 1860 was a rancher and cattle raiser and owner of a horse, mule, saddle, blanket, bridle, and a pair of revolvers, which was in the stable of John All- man at Virginia City, and which was, at the request of Maj. William Ormsby, taken by the agents of said Ormsby for the use of the volunteer company in the campaign against the Indians. Said property being worth at the time the sum of four hundred and fifty dollars ($450), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed December 5, 1904. A true copy. Test this 15th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. THOMAS RODGERS. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10005. Thomas Rodgers v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the war for the suppression of the Piute Indians, was transmitted to the court by the Com- mittee on Claims of the United States Senate of the Fifty-sixth Congress on the 8th day of February, 1900, under the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 19th day of October, 1903. George A. & Wm. B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by E. C. Brandenburg, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: 1. That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of California, and that in 1860 or 1861 he was a resident of the State of Nevada. 2. That in April and May, 1860, the Piute Indians in and about western Nevada were in a state of insurrection, seizing property of the settlers and endangering their lives, and that it became necessary to form a company of volunteer militia to suppress the Indians. This company was organized and placed under the command of Maj. William Ormsby, who proceeded against the Indians and was defeated with a loss of most of his command. That in these operations against the Indians it was necessary to furnish horses, mules, and supplies for the use of the volunteers. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 29 3. That the following property belonging to claimant was furnished by him to the volunteers under Maj. William Ormsby in Nevada in 1860: 1 saddle horse $275. 00 1 saddle 25.00 1 bridle and blanket 10. 00 1 large pack mule 125. 00 1 pack saddle and blanket 40. 00 1 pair of large blankets 16. 00 Total 391.00 This claim was first presented to this court as an Indian depredation claim (No. 5608), but, the Piute Indians not having been in amity, the case was presented to Congress, and was referred to this court by the Fifty-sixth Congress under the act of March 3, 1887, for a finding of facts. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel of both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. In 1859 and early in 1860 the Indians of the Piute tribe inaugurated a series of raids and massacres of settlers on the Carson River, Nevada Territory, and in April, 1860, they drove off a large amount of stock and killed several people and threatened the whites with extermination. II. It became necessary for the protection of the life and property of the settlers in and about Carson City, Virginia City, and the country intervening, to organize a com- pany of volunteers to proceed against the Indians, and a company was organized com- posed of recruits from Carson City, Virginia City, and other smaller settlements, aggregating 125 or 130 men, under the command of Maj. William Ormsby. This com- pany proceeded against the Indians, numbering several hundred, and met them in a fight at Pyramid Lake, Nevada, where the volunteer company was defeated with great loss. Whatever property, provisions, and supplies the company took into this cam- paign was used by the volunteers or abandoned or destroyed at or near Pyramid Lake, the survivors returning to their homes. III. A company of soldiers from the United States Regular Army reached the local- ity some days after these events, crossing the mountains to reach there. IV. A large number of the volunteers under Maj. William Ormsby were not supplied with horses and provisions, and it became necessary for the whole company to be sup- plied with horses, arms, ammunition, rations, feed for horses, and, the snow being from 10 to 12 feet deep, it was necessary to carry all the supplies along. The citizens contributed to the general fund in supplies and money, and Major Ormsby, as com- manding officer of the company, received and apportioned the supplies and met the expense of subsisting the men and horses during the time between the organization of the company and the departure for Pyramid Lake. V. The claimant in 1860 was engaged in business in Virginia City, Nev., and was the owner of the property claimed for. He furnished to the command under Maj. Wil- liam Ormsby supplies, and the same were used by the men in said command in the campaign against the Piute Indians, and were wholly lost and never returned to the claimant; the value of said property being the sum of $440, for which no payment appears to have been made. VI. The claim was presented to the court as an Indian depredation claim in 1891, which has been consolidated with this claim as referred to the court by the Fifty-sixth Congress for a finding of facts under the act of March 3, 1887. By the Court. Filed December 5, 1904. A true copy. Test this 15th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 30 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. RICHARD EMMONS AND TWENTY-NINE OTHERS. Court of Claims. Congressional, Nos. 10375 to 10375-29, inclusive. Richard Emmons, No. 10375; George C. Acton, No. 10375-1; George W. Ballinger, No. 10375-2; Edward R. Barbour, No. 10375-3; James Breast, No. 10375-4; George R. Cook, No. 10375-5; Joshua Cooksey, No. 10375-6; John D. Davis, No. 10375-7; Philip A. Delano, No. 10375-S; Oliver A. Emmons, No. 10375-9; William B. Flood, No. 10375-10; Samuel S. Fowler, No. 10375-11; Theodore Gates, No. 10375-12; Thomas J. Harrison, No. 10375-13; Richard Holland, No. 10375-14; John T. Hardester, No. 10375-15; William Kemp, No. 10375-16; William H. Krepps, No. 10375-17; Abraham Lee, No. 10375-18; George E. Luckett, No. 10375-19; William Morris, No. 10375-20; William E. Miller, No. 10375-21; Charles M. Nicholson, No. 10375-22; John W. Reed, No. 10375-23; Richard Smith, No. 10375-24; Isaac Scott, No. 10375-25; John A. Smith, No. 10375-26; Isaac Smallwood, No. 10375-27; Isaac Tillman, No. 10375-28; Augustus M. Warfleld, No. 10375-29, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. Senate bill 4978, second session, Fifty-sixth Congress, providing for the payment of the claims of the above-named claimants, was referred to the court by resolution of the United States Senate February 14, 1901, under the provisions of section 14 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. Thereafter the claimants named above, and each of them, offered and filed their respective petitions herein, in which they, and each of them, aver substantially as follows: That from the 21st day of March, 1878, to the 21st day of September, 1882, they were employed by the Government of the United States in the Ordnance Department of the Navy, at Washington Navy- Yard, D. C; that on March 21, 1878, the Secretary of the Navy issued the order referred to in claimants' petitions, known as Circular No. 8, and set forth in Finding I herein. That during the six months in each year from the date of said order to the 21st of September, 1882, they worked, during all or a portion of the time they were so employed, ten hours in each calendar day, and that they, and each of them, were paid for only eight hours' work per day for the time they were so employed during said period, and. that they, and each of them, are entitled to the amounts set forth in their respective petitions, being the pay for all time worked during said period in excess of eight hours per day. The case was brought to a hearing on the evidence and merits on the 8th day of May, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by , his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS^OF^ FACT. I. Between the 21st of March, 1878, and the 21st of September, 1882, the claimants, and each of them, above-named were in the employ of the United States in the navy- yard, Washington, D. C, during which time the following order was in force: [Circular No. 8.] Navy Department, Washington, March 21, 1878. The following is hereby substituted, to take effect from this date, for the circular of October 25, 1877, in relation to the working hours at the several navy-yards and shore stations: The working hours will be: From March 21 to September 21, from 7 a. m. to 6 p.m.; from September 22 to March 20, from 7.40 a. m. to 4.30 p. m., with the usual intermis- sion of one hour for dinner. The Department will contract for the labor of mechanics, foremen, leading men, and laborers on the basis of eight hours a day. All workmen electing to labor ten hours a day will receive a proportionate increase of their wages. The commandants will notify the men employed or to be employed of these condi- tions, and they are at liberty to continue or accept employment under them or not. R. W. Thompson, Secretary of the Navy. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 31 II. Said claimants, and each of them, while in the employ of the United States as aforesaid, worked on the average the number of hours set opposite their respective names in excess of eight hours a day, and at the prices below stated, to wit: Name of claimant. Number Rate per of hours. day. 520H $2.75 658J4 3.00 35£ 1.50 294^ 1.75 215§f 2.00 984 2.25 312M 1.25 2834jf 1.50 286 3 3 s 2.25 255 .75 1.00 335 1.25 206J4 1.50 164 2.50 1,12854 3.00 480| 2.75 440if 2.99 44714 3.00 17& 1.75 1,310x3b 2.00 872|| 2.00 39% 2.25 262J4 2.50 ODUsy^jj 2.75 160 3.25 568ff 1.50 10744 1.50 647| 1.75 417^£- 1.50 321 1.75 563J 5 1.50 556y 8 B > 5 1.75 74014 2.75 85 3.00 2.00 419 2.25 261 T 7 B 2.50 78„ 7 5 1.75 405113 2.00 1914 2.25 32 2.25 846 r fs 2.50 3104 2.75 433 T 7 ^ 1.75 207ff 2.00 122 2.25 140| 2.50 l,131f4 2.00 128§| 2.25 326!%% 2.50 96H 744> 2.75 2.00 618# B 2.25 66 2.00 956I- 7 ; 2.25 261& 2.50 743f g 1.75 H9§ 2.00 641|f 2.00 291 2.25 10 1.50 276^ 1.75 48444 2.00 329JI 2.50 86f .96J 29841 1.10 285? 1.50 776| 2.00 284 .50 564J .75 151 1.00 248 1.50 204f 1.75 913/s 2.50 185f 2.75 90 3.00 Richard Emmons . . . George C. Acton George W. Ballinger Edward R. Barbour James Breast George R. Cook , Joshua Cooksey John D. Davis Philip A. Delano Oliver A. Emmons William B. Flood Samuel S. Fowler Theodore Gates Thomas J. Harrison. . Richard Holland John T. Hardester William Kemp William H. Eiepps Abraham Lee George E. Luckett William Morris , William E. Miller Charles M. Nicholson. John W. Reed Richard Smith Isaac Scott John A. Smith Isaac Smallwood Isaac Tillman Augustus M. Warfield 32 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Of the above-named claimants, Edward R. Barbour, James Breast, Richard Smith, and Isaac Scott, and each of them, while in the employ of the United States as afore- said, worked on certain days during said period less than eight hours and were paid for eight hours work on said days. The aggregate number of hours they so worked, the rates of pay per day, and the amount of excess payment is as follows, and has been deducted in arriving at the amounts underpaid, as hereinafter set forth in Finding III: Edward R. Barbour, 29£ hours, at $1.20 per day, making an overpayment of $4.43. James Breast, 11J hours, at $2.75 per day, making an overpayment of $3.87. Richard Smith, 8^ hours, at $2.25 per day, making an overpayment of $2.39. Isaac Scott, 21£ hours at $1.20 per day, making an overpayment of $3.19. III. If it is considered that eight hours constituted a day's work under the order of the Secretary of the Navy as aforesaid, then the claimants and each of them have been underpaid the sums set forth opposite their respective names, as follows: Richard Emmons, four hundred and twenty-five dollars and eighty-four cents George C. Acton, one hundred and fifty- two dollars and fifty-seven cents ($152.57). George W. Ballinger, one hundred and eighty-two dollars and forty-four cents ($182.44). ' Edward R. Barbour, one hundred and ninety-three dollars and fifty-six cents ($193.56). James Breast, four hundred and nineteen dollars and forty-one cents ($419.41). George R. Cook, four hundred and ninety-seven dollars and eighty-eight cents ($497.88). Joshua Cooksey, three hundred and thirty-one dollars and thirty cents ($331.30). John D. Davis, three hundred and thirty dollars and thirteen cents ($330.13). Philip A. Delano, three hundred and thirty-seven dollars and eighty-one cents ($337.81). Oliver A. Emmons, one hundred and six dollars and sixty cents ($106.60). William B. Flood, one hundred and sixty-one dollars and eighty cents ($161.80). Samuel S. Fowler, one hundred and forty-eight dollars and fifty cents ($148.50). Theodore Gates, two hundred and twenty -seven dollars and thirty-one cents ($227.31). Thomas J. Harrison, two hundred and eighty-six dollars and forty-seven cents ($286.47). Richard Holland, two hundred and twenty-two dollars and sixty-eight cents ($222.68). John T. Hardester, one hundred and ninety-four dollars and sixteen cents ($194.16). William Kemp, three hundred and eighty dollars and one cent ($380.01). William H. Krepps, two hundred and twenty-four dollars and ninety-seven cents ($224.97). Abraham Lee, three hundred and nineteen dollars and twelve cents ($319.12). George E. Luckett, one hundred and thirty-five dollars and six cents ($135.06). William Morris, three hundred and fifty-nine dollars and ninety-eight cents ($359.98). William E. Miller, three hundred and sixty-seven dollars and twenty-eight cents ($367.28). Charles M. Nicholson, one hundred and ninety-two dollars and forty-nine cents ($192.49). John W. Reed, two hundred and forty-two dollars and twenty-three cents ($242.23). Richard Smith, two hundred and eighty-four dollars and four cents ($284.04). Isaac Scott, one hundred and one dollars and eighty-three cents ($101.83). John A. Smith, one hundred and ninety-four dollars and sixteen cents ($194.16). Isaac Smallwood, eighty-nine dollars and fifty-four cents ($89.54). Isaac Tillman, ninety-one dollars and twenty-seven cents ($91.27). Augustus M. Warfield, three hundred and eighty-two dollars and ninety-nine cents $382.99). By the Court. Filed December 3, 1906. A true copy. Test this 27th day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 33 ELIZABETH THOMAS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10915. Elizabeth Thomas v. The United States.] STATEMENT OFJJCASE. The following bill was referred to the court on the 27th day of June, 1902, by resolu- tion of the United States Senate under an act of Congress -approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: ~s: "[S. 1853. Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] "A BILL For thejrelief of Elizabeth|jThomas.| 11 Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay to Elizabeth Thomas, of the District of Columbia, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of six thousand nine hundred and thirty dollars, for property and supplies taken and used during the late war." The claimant appeared and filed her petition in this court, in which she makes the following allegations: " That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in Brightwood, in the District of Columbia; that she has always borne true faith and allegiance to the Government of the United States of America and never voluntarily aided or abetted rebellion against said Government, and that she is the sole owner of the claim hereinafter stated, no part of which has ever been aliened or discharged; that during the years 1861, 1862, 1863, 1864, and 1865 claimant, together with her sister, Sarah Proctor Diggs, and her brother, George Proctor, was the owner of and lived upon a parcel of land consisting of about 10 acres and improved by a dwelling house, outbuildings, etc., near said Brightwood, in the District of Columbia; that claimant's said brother, George Proctor, died intestate about the year 1884, leaving surviving him as his only hens at law the claimant and her said sister, Sarah Proctor Diggs, who died intestate about the year 1885, leaving surviving her as her only heir at law the claimant. "That on or about the 1st day of June, 1861, a detachment of United States troops, under the command of Gen. Isaac I. Stevens, came to claimant's said residence, and then and there, under the authority of the United States, took possession of said land and premises, and occupied and used the same until on or about June 1, 1865, thereby wholly dispossessing claimant and depriving her of the use and occupation of the same. "That during the month of July, 1863, a detachment of the Army of the United States tore down and destroyed claimant's said dwelling house and outbuildings and erected on the site thereof a fortification known as Fort Stevens. "That the erection of said fortification permanently injured and damaged claim- ant's said land. "That detachments of the United States Army took and used during the occupancy of said land and premises as aforesaid certain supplies. "That said United States troops, during the period of their occupancy as aforesaid, destroyed claimant's garden, orchard, and shrubbery, and took and used her fences for firewood. §§"That the items of damage and property taken are of the following value, to wit: 1 two-story six-room dwelling house, torn down and destroyed $2, 000 Outbuildings, torn down and destroyed 600 Garden, orchard, shrubbery, and fencing, destroyed and used 1, 000 Rental value of land and premises for four years, at $30 per month 1, 440 Permanent damage to land by erection of fortification 1, 000 And stores and supplies of the value of 4, 467 Amounting in all to - . . 10, 507 "The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 17th day of October, 1904. William Pv. Andrews appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States." S. Rep. 382, 60-1 3 34 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that Elizabeth Thomas, the claimant herein, dur- ing the war for the suppression of the rebellion resided in the Distiict of Columbia and was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. II. During said war, the claimant, her sister, Sarah Catherine Diggs, and her brother, George Proctor, were owners of a farm of 8 acres near Brightwood, in the District of Columbia. On said farm was a dwelling house, outbuildings, garden, and fencing. Sarah Catherine Diggs died in the year 1885 and George Proctor died in the year 1884, leaving the claimant herein the only hen at law. III. Troops belonging to the Army of the United States occupied said land, and during such occupancy it became a military necessity for them to, and they did, tear down a 2\ -story frame house, a stable with a barn over it, a cow shed, a corn house, a henhouse, a post and rail fence that inclosed the land, and a paling fence around a garden of 1 acre. They also cut down a small apple and peach orchard, damson trees, and many kinds of cherry trees, together with a lot of shrubbery, to build a fort. All of said buildings, fences, and trees were the property of claimant and her said brother and sister, and were situate on the said farm, and by inheritance subse- quently became claimant's sole property. A rifle pit was dug across the farm of claimant on the north side from east to west and across the farm on the west side from north to south, and Fort Stevens occupied about 3 acres of said land ; said rifle pits and fortifications greatly decreased the value of said land for farming or any other purpose. IV. The destruction of said buildings and other damage to said land was a matter of military necessity. The commanding officer of the United States forces ordered the destruction of said buildings and damage to said land, founded upon said necessity and in the prosecution of belligerent operations against Confederate forces then threat- ening the city of Washington. V. The reasonable value for the use of the claimant's land and for the personal property taken for the use of the Army during the period stated is the sum of one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five dollars ($1,835), for which no payment appears to have been made. VI. The claim was not presented to the Commissioners of Claims under the act of March 3, 1871, and is consequently barred under the provisions of the act of June 15, 1878. Under the act of March 3, 1887, which provides that where there has been delay or laches in presenting a claim the court shall report whether there are "any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation shall be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy," the claimant has proved that she can scarcely read and can not write; that she put the claim in the hands of Captain Howlett, of the Thirty- sixth New York, after the war; that he stated he would look after it, but died before doing anything; that all papers were put in his hands; that she tried to get the papers back after the death of her attorney, but did not succeed, in consequence of which she thought she would get nothing. As to the question whether the facts so proved are sufficient or insufficient to excuse the claimant the court makes no finding, that question being exclusively within the judgment and discretion of Congress. By the Court. Filed December 5, 1904. A true copy. Test this 13th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 35 HEBER L. THORNTON AND GRAYSON L. THORNTON, TRUSTEES. Court of Claims. No. 10235, Congressional. Heber L. Thornton and Grayson L. Thornton, trustees of the estate of Gottlieb C. Grammer, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The following bill was referred to the court on the 26th day of May, 1900, by reso- lution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: ''ABILL For the relief of the heirs of Gottlieb C. Grammer, deceased. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of ten thousand dollars to the heirs of Gottlieb C. Grammer, late of the District of Columbia, deceased, for property taken for the use of the United States Army, in the war between the States, for the construction of the defenses of the city of Washington. " Sec. 2. That this act shall be in force from and after its passage. ' ' The claimants appeared and filed their petition in this court on the 1st day of November, 1900, in which they make the following allegations: That they are all the heirs at law of Gottlieb C. Grammer, late of the District of Columbia, deceased; that he died in said District in 1858, and by his will appointed Julius E. Grammer and Christopher Grammer to execute the trusts therein contained; that William B. Todd was subsequently substituted by the court in place of Julius E. Grammer, who resigned; that Gottlieb C. Grammer died seized of a farm in the said District and the State of Maryland of about 215 acres, which was in the possession of said Todd and Grammer, trustees, in 1862; that in that year the United States military forces cut off the standing timber on 125 acres thereof and converted a portion of it, amounting to 3,000 cords, of the value of $10,000, to the use of the United States; that this was done by the forces acting under the direction of the chief engineer of defenses of Washington. On December 18, 1905, the court found that Christopher Grammer and William B. Todd, the trustees of the estate of decedent at the time of the taking of the property, were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. Subsequently, with the consent of the original claimants, the court, on the 16th day of March, 1906, substituted as claimants Heber L. Thornton and Grayson L. Thornton, who had been appointed by the supreme court of the District of Columbia, trustees of the will of said Gottlieb C. Grammer, in lieu of William B. Todd and Christopher Grammer, both deceased. The case was brought to a hearing on merits on the 17th day of December, 1906. Mr. Philip Walker appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Mr. F. W. Collins, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT. I. During the civil war timber, as described in the petition, was cut down from the farm of claimants' decedent in the District of Columbia by the military forces of the United States and used in fortifications, and some part of it for fuel; but how much was used for fuel does not appear. It does not appear what uses were made of the timber so used in the fortifications after the same were abandoned. II. The reasonable value of the timber so cut and used was the sum of twenty-three hundred and forty dollars ($2,340), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. Laches. — It appears from the evidence that the trustees of the decedent's estate were informed by Col. B. F. Alexander, in charge of the defenses of Washington, that the number of claims of this nature precluded the possibility of their consideration "except by a general and properly constituted commission appointed by authority of Congress or the War Department;" and that after the passage of the Bowman and Tucker acts the claim was presented to Congress and referred to this court under the provisions of the latter act May, 1900. By the Court. Filed December 24, 1906. A true copy. Test this 9th day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk-Court of Claims. 36 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. GEORGIA. MARY M. BANKS, HEIR OF HENRY BANKS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12554. Mary M. Banks, sole heir of Henry Banks, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court June 27, 1906, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: " [S. 1867, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the estate of Henry Banks, deceased. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise ap- propriated, to the legal representative of the estate of Henry Banks, deceased, late of Fulton County, Georgia, the sum of twenty-four thousand six hundred dollars, the value of one hundred and twenty-three boxes of tobacco taken by the officers of the United States Army at Savannah, Georgia, in the month of December, eighteen hundred and sixty-four. ' ' The claimant appeared and filed her petition in this court July 23, 1906, in which she makes the following allegations: That she is the sole heir of Henry Banks, deceased, and resides in Fulton County, Ga., where her decedent resided during the late civil war. That on or about December, 1864, her decedent was the owner of a certain quantity of manufactured tobacco which was in the office of the Southern Express Company at Savannah, Ga.; that during said month the military forces of the United States, under command of General Geary, took possession of said tobacco and appropriated the same to the use of the United States, as follows :| 123 boxes of manufactured tobacco, averaging 100 pounds each, 12,300 pounds, at $2 : $24, 600 The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 9th day of January, 1907. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It does not appear from the evidence that the claimant's decedent, Henry Banks, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant's decedent in the office of the Southern Express Company at Savannah, Ga., tobacco as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of fifteen thousand three hundred and seventy-five dollars ($15,375). Whether issued to the troops or sold and the proceeds paid into the Treasury of the United States does not appear. III. The claim was originally presented to the Commissioners of Claims, who disallowed the same for the reason that " The jurisdiction of this commission is limited to stores and supplies taken for the use of the Army or Navy * * ■* and does not necessarily embrace all kinds of property that may be valuable to the Government." No other action appears to have been taken by the claimant until the presentation of the claim to Congress and its reference to this court under the bill hereinbefore set out. By the Court. Filed January 14, 1907. A true copy. Test this 31st day of October, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 37 ARCHIBALD A. GRIGGS, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11879. Archibald A. Griggs, administrator of estate of Archibald P. Griggs, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. On February 2, 1905, Senate bill No. 7032, Fifty-eighth Congress, was introduced in the United States Senate, which said bill reads as follows: "A BILL For the relief of Nancy Griggs and the estate of A. P. Griggs, deceased. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to Nancy Griggs and the estate of A. P. Griggs, deceased, late of Cobb County, Georgia, the sum of one thousand one hundred and ninety-five dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late civil war." Said bill was referred to this court on March 3, 1905, by resolution of the United States Senate for findings of fact under the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 10th day of Decem- ber, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by A. C. Camp- bell, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Cobb, State of Georgia; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of Archibald P. Griggs, deceased, late of said county and State; that during the late civil war said Archibald P. Griggs, now deceased, was a citizen of the United States, residing in said county of Cobb, State of Georgia; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent for the use of the Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 1 horse $150 6 head of cattle, at $25 each 150 10 hogs, at $10 each 100 10 sheep, at $4 each 40 200 bushels of corn, at $1 a bushel 200 10 acres of wheat for pasture 200 6 tons of fodder, at $20 per ton 120 16 cords of rails, at $3 per cord 48 Total , 1, 008 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. Claimant's decedent, Archibald P. Griggs, was during the late civil war a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Cobb, State of Georgia, and through- out said war remained loyal to the Government of the United States. II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, tool: from claimant's decedent for the use of the Army, quartermaster stores and commis- sary supplies of the kinds mentioned in the petition, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of seven hundred and sixty dollars ($760). No payment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof. III. The only tribunal which ever had jurisdiction of this claim was the Claims Commission, established by act approved March 3, 1871, and the time allowed for presenting claims to said Commission expired March 3, 1873. It appears in evidence that during said period the decedent was an invalid. The claim was never presented to any tribunal until its presentation to Congress, viz, in the Fifty-eighth Congress. 38 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. These facts are reported as bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in the presentation of the claim. By the Court. Filed December 17, 1906. A true copy. Test this 21st day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALBION W. KNIGHT AND OTHERS. [Court of Claims. No. 11021, Congressional. Albion W. Knight, Thomas E. Walker, Paul Romeri, George H. Noble, W. A. Hansell, Arnold Broyles, Bobert C. Alston, William S. Elkin, jr., Benjamin Owens, Robert Sharpe, and Thomas H. Austin, rector, wardens, and vestrymen of St. Philip's Episco- pal Church, of Atlanta, Ga., v. the United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for da*mage to real estate by the military forces of the United States during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was first transmitted to the court on March 2, 1891, by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives, but was thereafter dismissed by this court. It was again referred to this court on March 3, 1903, by resolution of the United States Senate, under the provisions of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 21st day of Decem- ber, 1903. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in its petition, makes the following allegations: That the above-named persons are the rector, wardens, and vestrymen of St. Philip's Episcopal Church, of Atlanta, Ga. ; that said church was in existence before and during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and has continued ever since to be in existence at said place; that during said war the United States military authorities, acting under proper authority, did take possession of and tear down the following buildings then and there belonging to said church, and then and there of the reason- able value indicated below, to wit: One parsonage, 2 two-room cottages, and 1 office building, $3,925; that during said period the church building belonging to the said church was also used by said forces, as were also the premises upon which the same was situated, and that said building and premises were thereby greatly damaged — to wit, in the sum of $1,000 — all of the total value of $4,925; that said church gave no aid or comfort to the rebellion. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs of counsel for both sides, makes the following jj£$ FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the St. Philip's Episcopal Church, of Atlanta Ga., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and tore down and used the material of certain of the buildings belonging to St. Philip's Episcopal Church, to wit, the parsonage, 2 two-room cottages, and 1 office building, and used the material therefrom in the construction of quarters for the defendant's soldiers, which material was then and there reasonably worth the sum of nineteen hundred dollars ($1,900), while the buildings as they stood before they were so taken possession of and torn down by the said military forces were reasonably worth the sum of thirty -seven hundred and sixty dollars ($3,760). III. In addition to the value of the buildings owned by the claimants so torn down, as aforesaid, the church building proper was injured by the use and occupation thereof by said military forces to the amount of eight hundred dollars ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 39 IV. It is not shown that any claim for the property herein claimed for was ever presented to any Department of the Government until its presentation to Congress and its reference to this court as set forth in the statement herein. By the Court. Filed March 3, 1904. A true copy. Test this 5th day of March, 1904. [seal] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF . THE AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, OF MARIETTA, GA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11631. Trustees of African Methodist Episcopal Church of Marietta, Ga., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the African Methodist Episcopal Church of Marietta, Georgia. ' ' Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the African Methodist Episcopal Church of Marietta, Georgia, the sum of six hundred dollars, for use of and damage to church property by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The trustees of the African Methodist Episcopal Church of Marietta, Ga., appeared and filed their petition in this court October 25, 1905, in which they make the fol- lowing allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about June, 1864, the military forces of the United States under command of General Sherman, took possession of the church building of the African Methodist Episcopal Church of Marietta, Ga., and occupied the same for military purposes for a period of about three months. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession of the same, was the sum of $600, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 21st day of March, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP, FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the African Methodist Episcopal Church, of Marietta, Ga., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and occupied for military pur- poses the church building belonging to the African Methodist Episcopal Church, of Marietta, Ga. The reasonable rental value of said building, together with the repairs incident to such occupation, was the sum of four hundred and twenty-five dollars (|425), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. It does not appear that said claim was ever presented to any officer or depart- ment of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as above set forth. By the Court. Filed March 26, 1906. A true copy. Test this 4th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 40 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF JERUSALEM EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH, EBENEZER, GA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12507. Trustees of Jerusalem Evangelical Lutheran Church, of Ebenezer, Ga., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court June 13, 1906, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of the Jerusalem Evangelical Lutheran Church, of Ebenezer, Ga. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the Jerusalem Evangelical Lutheran Church, of Ebenezer, Effingham County, Georgia, the sum of seven hundred and eighty-six dollars, in payment for the destruc- tion of property of said church at said Ebenezer by the Federal forces in the year eighteen hundred and sixty-four." The trustees of Jerusalem Evangelical Lutheran Church, of Ebenezer, Ga., ap- peared and filed their petition in this court September 14, 1906, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about Decem- ber 15, 1864, the military forces of the United States, under command of General Sherman, took possession of the church building and grounds of the Jerusalem Evan- gelical Lutheran Chruch, of Ebenezer, Ga., and during the use and occupation thereof used and destroyed the fencing and other property belonging to said church, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of |736, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of Feb- ruary, 1907. ' „ G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by George E. Boren, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Jerusalem Evangelical Lutheran Church, of Ebenezer, Ga., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper author- ity, took possession of the building described in the petition and used the same for military purposes. Such use and occupation, together with the damage to same and to the library and furniture and fence surrounding the same, was reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and twenty-five dollars ($225), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why such was not done. By the Court. Filed February 11, 1907. A true copy. Test this 13th day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerh Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 41 CLEMENTINE VAUGHAN, ADMINISTRATRIX. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10439. Clementine Vaughan, administratrix of the estate of William M. Vaughan, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged, to have been taken or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression, of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by resolution of the United States Senate February 27, 1901, under the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of January, 1903. Messers. Ralston & Siddons appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: That she is the administratrix of the estate of William M. Vaughan, deceased, who was a resident of Putnam County, State of Georgia, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion ; that during said war there were taken from her decedent by the mili- tary forces of. the United States under the command of Gen. W. T. Sherman, for the use of the Army, the following-described stores and supplies, to the value of $3,546: 4 mules, at $150 each $600. 00 2 horses, at $150 each 300. 00 15 cattle, at $25 each 375. 00 12 sheep, at $3 each 36. 00 27 hogs, averaging 175 pounds each, 4,700 pounds 581. 50 5 goats, at $1.50 7. 50 30 stock hogs, at $3 each 90. 00 400 bushels corn, at $1 per bushel 400. 00 100 hundredweight fodder, at $1 100. 00 60 gallons sorghum sirup, at 60 cents per gallon 36. 00 500 pounds bacon and lard, at 15 cents per pound 75. 00 200 bushels sweet potatoes, at $1 per bushel 200. 00 1,500 pounds lint cotton, at 30 cents per pound 450. 00 2 buggies and harness 250. 00 100 chickens, at 25 cents each 25. 00 1 barrel of flour 15. 00 1 sack salt 5. 00 Total 3, 546. 00 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of coun- sel on both sides, makes the following : P — gf I. That William M. Vaughan, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. There were taken from the claimant's decedent in Putnam County, State of Georgia, during said war, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, stores and supplies of those above described, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of one thousand nine hundred and one dollars ($1,901), for which no payment appears to have been made. No allowance is made for bacon and lard, buggies and harness, chickens, flour, and salt. III. No evidence has been offered by the claimant under the act of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. L., p. 505, sec. 14), "bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in presenting such claim or applying for such grant, gift, or bounty, or any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy," except that the claim was filed by the deceased claimant with the commissioners of claims under the act of March 3, 1871, but that he did not file any evidence in support thereof within the time fixed by law, and the claim was, consequently, reported as barred. By the Court. Filed March 9, 1903. A true copy. Test, this 14th day of December, 1903.1 [seal.] John^ Randolph. Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 42 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. KANSAS. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11016. The Regents of the University of Kansas v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP THE CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case is for the value of a hotel building in Lawrence, Kans., alleged to have been burned by a United States marshal's posse May 21, 1856, acting under a presentment of a United States grand jury. On March 12, 1903, by resolution of the United States Senate, the following bill was referred to the court under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of the University of Kansas. "Whereas on or about the 20th day of May, 1856, a deputy United States marshal and Sheriff Jones, with a posse, acting directly on the findings of the United States grand jury called by Judge Le Compte of the United States court sitting at Lecompton, entered the town of Lawrence and destroyed the Free State Hotel, owned by the New England Emigrant Aid Company; and whereas some time thereafter said com- pany presented a claim for damages in the amount of twenty thousand dollars to the United States Government; and "Whereas the said company, before its dissolution, transferred said claim to the University of Kansas: Therefore ' 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay to said University of Kansas, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of twenty thousand dollars, in full settlement of said claim." The claimant appeared and filed its petition in this court, in which it makes the following allegations: That it is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Kansas; that on the 21st day of May, 1856, the New England Emigrant Aid Company, a corporation organ- ized and existing by virtue of the act of the legislature of Massachusetts, was the owner in fee simple of lots 21 and 23, on Massachusetts street, in the city of Lawrence, Kans., on which it had erected and owned a certain hotel, with necessary outbuild- ings, known as the "Free State Hotel," or "Eldridge House," which, exclusive of its furniture and exclusive of the value of the land, was worth $25,000; that on the 5th day of May, 1856, the grand jury of Douglas County, Territory of Kansas, made a presentment to the effect that ' ' the building known as the Free State Hotel had been constructed with a view to military occupation and defense, thereby endangering the public safety and encouraging rebellion to the country, and we respectfully recom- mend that steps be taken whereby this nuisance be abated." That subsequent to the making of said presentment J. B. Donelson, marshal of the first district court of the United States for the Territory of Kansas, on the 21st day of May, 1856, took to said city of Lawrence a large posse of border ruffians under the pretext of making the arrest of certain parties then in Lawrence; that said Donelson made the arrests and then turned the posse over to Deputy United States Marshal Samuel Jones, who thereupon, with the aid of said posse, completely destroyed the said Free State Hotel, contents, and outbuildings, the said posse and leader claiming to act under authority of the aforesaid presentment by the grand jury; that the said New England Emigrant Aid Company presented a claim against the United States for the loss thus sustained to the Thirty-seventh Congress of the United States, third session, as. appears in Senate Miscellaneous Document No. 29 thereof; that on the 17th day of February, 1897, the said company transferred and assigned to the Uni- versity of Kansas the said claim, and that thereafter the regents of the University of Kansas, in the name of "University of Kansas," presented the said claim in the sum of $20,000 to the Congress of the United States. The case was brought to a hearing on merits on the 8th day of January, 1907. John C. Nicholson, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the protection and defense of the interests of the United States. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 43 The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimant, the regents of the University of Kansas, is a corporation created under the laws of the State of Kansas, and was such corporation on the 17th day of February, 1897, and is a State institution for the higher education of young men and women of the State of Kansas who are sufficiently prepared for university work. It has no commercial features and is supported in the main by appropriation made by the legislature of Kansas. It has also a small income from an endowment fund , receives the proceeds of sale of certain public lands, and has some income from small fees paid by the students of the University. II. On the 21st day of May, 1856, the New England Emigrant Aid Company was a corporation duly organized and existing by virtue of an act of the legislature of the State of Massachusetts and was the owner in fee simple of lots 21 and 23 on Massa- chusetts street, city of Lawrence, Territory of Kansas, on which it had theretofore erected and then owned a certain hotel structure with necessary outbuildings, known as the "Free State Hotel," or "Eldridge House," which building, exclusive of its furniture and exclusive of the land upon which it stood was reasonably worth the sum of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). III. On the 5th day of May, 1856, Judge Le Compte convened the United States district court at the town of Lecompton, State of Kansas, and delivered a charge to the grand jury of that court, a portion of which was as follows: 'This Territory was organized by an act of Congress, and so far its authority is from the United States. It has a legislature elected in pursuance of that organic act. This legislature, being an instrument of Congress, by which it governs the capital territory, has passed laws. These laws, therefore, are of the United States authority and mak- ing, and all that resist these laws resist the power and authority of the United States, and are, therefore, guilty of high treason. Now, gentlemen, if you find that any per- sons have resisted these laws, then you must, under your oaths, find bills against such persons for high treason." After having been charged by the judge as aforesaid, the grand jury made the fol- lowing presentment on the said 5th day of May, 1856: "The grand jury, sitting for the adjourned term of- the first district court in and for the county of Douglas, in the Territory of Kansas, beg leave to report to the honorable court that from evidence laid before them, showing that the newspaper known as the Herald of Freedom, published at the town of Lawrence, has from time to time issued publications of the most inflammatory and seditious character, denying the legality of the Territorial authorities, addressing and commending forcible resistance to the 8ame, demoralizing the popular mind, and rendering life and prorpety unsafe, even to the extent of advising assassination as a last resort. "Also, that the paper known as the Kansas Free State has been similarly engaged, and has recently reported resolutions of a public meeting in Johnson County, in this Territory, in which resistance to the Territorial laws, even unto blood, has been agreed upon; and that we respectfully recommend their abatement as a nuisance. "Also, that we are satisfied that the building known as the Free State Hotel, in Law- rence, has been constructed with a view to military occupation and defense, regularly parapeted and portholed for the use of cannon and small arms, and could only have been designed as a stronghold of resistance to law, thereby endangering a public safety and encouraging rebellion and sedition in this country, and respectfully recommend that steps be taken whereby this nuisance may be removed. "Omer C. Stewart, Foreman." A search of the records of the said district court, as they have been preserved, was made by one of the witnesses during the year 1906, but said search failed to disclose that any warrant or process of any kind was issued against the said Free State Hotel by reason of said presentment or indictment so found by the grand jury. IV. On the 11th day of May, 1856, United States Marshal J. B. Donelson issued the following proclamation : PROCLAMATION. To the people of Kansas Territory: Whereas certain judicial writs of arrest have been directed to me by first district court of United States, etc., to be executed within the county of Douglas; and Whereas an attempt to execute them by the United States deputy marshal was violently resisted by a large number of citizens of Lawrence ; and as there is every 44 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. reason to believe that any attempt to execute these writs will be resisted by a large body of armed men : Now, therefore, the law-abiding citizens of the Territory are commanded to be and appear at Lecompton as soon as practicable, and in numbers sufficient for the proper execution of the law. Given under my hand this 11th day of May, 1856. J. B. Donelson, United States Marshal for Kansas Territory. On said 11th day of May, 1856, a committee of the citizens of the town of Lawrence, Kans., presented the following letter to the governor of the Territory of Kansas: Lawrence City, May 11, 1856. Dear Sir: The undersigned are charged with the duty of communicating to your excellency the following preamble and resolutions adopted at a public meeting of the citizens of this place at 7 o'clock last evening, viz: Whereas we have the most reliable information from various parts of the Territory and the adjoining State of Missouri of the organization of guerrilla bands, who threat- ened the destruction of our town and its citizens: Therefore Resolved, That Messrs. Topliff, Hutchinson, and Roberts constitute a committee to inform his excellency Governor Shannon of these facts and to call upon him in the name of the people of Lawrence for protection against such bands by the United States troops at his disposal. All of which is respectfully submitted. Very truly, etc., C. W. Topliff. W. Y. Roberts. John Hutchins. Governor Shannon replied to said letter on May 12, 1856, as follows: Executive Office, Lecompton, Kans. T., May l'z, 1856. Gentlemen: Your note of the 11th instant is received, and in reply I have to state that there is no force around or approaching Lawrence except the legally constituted posse of the United States marshal and sheriff of Douglas County, each of whom I am informed have a number of writs in their hands for execution against persons now in Lawrence. I shall in no way interfere with either of these officers in the discharge of their official duties. If the citizens of Lawrence submit themselves to the Territorial laws and aid and assist the marshal and sheriff in the execution of process in their hands, as all good citizens are bound to do when called on "they or all such will entitle themselves to the protection of the laws. But as long as they keep up a military or armed organization to resist the Territorial laws and the officers charged with their execution I shall not interpose to save them from the legitimate consequence of their illegal acts. I have the honor to be, yours, with great respect, Wilson Shannon. On May 14, 1856, the following letter was presented by the said committee to said United States marshal: Lawrence, May 14, 1856. Dear Sir: We have seen a proclamation issued by yourself, dated 11th day of May, and also have reliable information this morning that large bodies of armed men, in pursuance of your proclamation, have assembled in the vicinity of Lawrence. That there may be no misunderstanding, we beg leave to ask, respectfully, that we may be reliably informed what are the demands against us. Wc desire to state most truthfully and earnestly that no opposition whatever will now or at any future time be offered to the execution of any legal process by yourself or any person acting for you. We also pledge ourselves to assist you, if called upon, in the execution of any legal process. We declare ourselves to be order-loving and law-abiding citizens, and only await an opportunity to testify our fidelity to the laws of the country, the Constitution, and the Union. We are informed, also, that those men collecting about Lawrence openly declare that their intention is to destroy the town and drive off the citizens. Of course, we do not believe that you give any countenance to such threats; but in view of the exciting ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 45 state of the public mind we ask protection of the constituted authorities of the govern- ment, declaring ourselves in readiness to cooperate with them for the maintenance of the peace, order, and quiet of the community in which we live. Very respectfully, Robert Morrow. Lyman Allen. John Hutchinson. J. B. Donelson, United States Marshal for Kansas Territory. To said letter last above, dated May 14, 1856, said United States marshal replied by letter, in which, after making certain charges against the citizens of Lawrence, he used the following language: " But I must take the liberty of executing all processes in my hands as the United States marshal, in my own time and manner, and shall only use such power as is authorized by law." On the 17th day of May, 1856, the following letter was sent by a committee of the citizens of Lawrence to the United States marshal: J. B. Donelson, United States Marshal, Kansas Territory. Dear Sir: We desire to call your attention, as citizens of Kansas, that a large force of armed men have collected in the vicinity of Lawrence and are engaged in commit- ting depredations upon our citizens, stopping wagons, arresting, threatening, and rob- bing unoffending travelers upon the highway, breaking open boxes of merchandise and appropriating their contents; have slaughtered cattle and terrified many of the women and children. We have also learned from Governor Shannon that there are no armed forces in the vicinity of this place but the regularly constituted militia of the Territory. This is to ask you if you recognize them as your posse and feel responsible for their acts. If you do not, we hope and trust you will prevent a repetition of such acts and give peace to the settlers. On behalf of the citizens. C. W. Babcock. Lyman Allen. J. A. Perry. To this letter there was no reply by the marshal. On said 17th day of May, 1856, a letter as follows was presented to Governor Shannon by the proprietors of the aforesaid Free State Hotel: Lawrence, Kans. T., May 17, 1856. Gentlemen: Having learned that your reason for assembling so large a force in the vicinity of our town to act as posse in the enforcement of the laws rests on the suppo- sition that we are armed against the laws and the officers in the exercise of their duties, we would say that we hold our arms only for our own individual defense against vio- lence, and not against the laws or the officers in the execution of the same. Therefore, having no further use for them than our protection is otherwise secured, we propose to deliver our arms to Colonel Sumner so soon as he shall quarter in our town a body of troops sufficient for our protection, to be retained by him so long as such force shall remain among us. Very truly, etc., Many Citizens. His Excellency Wilson Shannon, Governor, and -- J. B. Donelson, Esq., United States Marshal for Kansas Territory. V. That on the 21st day of May, 1856, said United States marshal, J. B. Donelson, having in his hands a writ for the arrest of certain persons then residing in said city of Lawrence, organized a posse of several hundred armed men under the pretense of needing the same for making said arrests, and proceeded to said city of Lawrence and camped with said posse near said city; and on the forenoon of said day, leaving said posse in camp, proceeded into said city and made arrests under said writ. That on the afternoon of said day, while the marshal was present, a man went through said posse and dismissed it with the statement that the marshal had no further use for its services, thanking the men and telling them to make out the number of days they had served, and that they would be paid. This same man immediately summoned the same men as the posse of Sheriff Jones, the sheriff of Douglas County. That on the 46 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. afternoon of said day said posse, under the command of the said sheriff, proceeded in a body into said city and destroyed the Free State Hotel by fire, said marshal appearing to give countenance to the same by his presence at the time, and said sheriff announc- ing immediately prior to the burning of the hotel, while the United States marshal was present, that he was a deputy United States marshal, and that he was acting under an order of the United States court for Douglas County, and had a writ from that court; but further than this statement by the sheriff, and the fact of the marshal's presence and giving countenance to the acts of the sheriff and posse, it does not appear that the said sheriff had any official connection with the United States. VI. On the 22d day of May, 1856, the said posse was again enrolled as the posse of the said United States marshal. Also, on the said 22d day of May, 1856, a committee of said town of Lawrence, Terri- tory of Kansas, set forth all of the foregoing facts concerning the conduct of said gov- ernor, marshal, deputy marshal, and posse in a memorial addressed to His Excellency Franklin Pierce, President of the United States, which was on said last-mentioned day forwarded to said President. VII. During the said period of time from May 5, 1856, to and including May 21, 1856, there was no armed force in said town of Lawrence making resistance to the laws of the United States, and there was no concerted action among the citizens of the said town of Lawrence, nor any action by the owners of the said hotel building in opposition to the said laws of the United States. VIII. The said New England Emigrant Aid Company presented to the Thirty- seventh Congress of the United States, third session, a claim against the United States for the value of said hotel building in the sum of $25,000. Said company frequently memorialized subsequent Congresses of the United States in different efforts to secure payment of this claim. IX. On the 17th day of February, 1897, by its deed, the said New England Emigrant Aid Company assigned and transferred the said claim to the present claimant, the regents of the University of Kansas. X. This claim was presented to the Fifty-fifth Congress in the sum of $20,000, where it was Senate bill 2677, upon which bill a favorable report was made by the Senate Committee on Claims, being report No. 763, Fifty-fifth Congress, second session, and the said bill was passed by the Senate of the United States. A similar bill, S. 76, was presented to the Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, which bill was also reported upon favorably by the Committee on Claims in report No. 179 of said Congress and session. The claim was again presented to the Fifty-seventh Congress, first session, where it was Senate bill 687, which last-named bill was on the 12th day of March, 1903, referred to this court for a hearing and determination of facts under and in accordance with the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore set forth. By the Court. Filed January 28, 1907. A true copy. Test this 31st day ol January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. KENTUCKY. BAPTIST CHURCH, CRAB ORCHARD, KY. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11637. Trustees of the Baptist Church of Crab Orchard, Kentucky, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "[S. 1610, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Baptist Church of Crab Orchard, Kentucky. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- ated, to the trustees of the Baptist Church of Crab Orchard, Kentucky, the sum of ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 47 one thousand five hundred dollars, for use of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The trustees of the Baptist Church of Crab Orchard, Ky., appeared and filed their petition in this court April 12, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the fall of 1861, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took pos- session of the church building of the Baptist Church of Crab Orchard, Ky., and used and occupied the same for military purposes until late in the year 1864. That by reason of such use and occupation the building was greatly damaged, and the reasonable rental value thereof during the period of said occupancy, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the same condition in which it was at the time the said military forces first took possession of the same, was the sum of $1,500, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a bearing on loyalty and merits on the 8th day of January, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Baptist Church of Crab Orchard, Ken- tucky, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war of the rebellion. j II. During the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the military forces of the United. States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, used and occupied the church building of the Baptist Church of Crab Orchard, Kentucky, from on or about November, 1861, until the fall of 1864. The reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so used and occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when the said military forces first took possession of the same, was the sum of ten hundred and fifty dollars ($1,050.00), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Coujit. Filed January 15, 1906. A true copy. Test this 14th day of February, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, OF RUSSELLVILLE, KY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12413. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Russellville , Ky., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. On May 1, 1906, this claim was transmitted to this couit by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1883, and commonly known as the Bowman Act. The case pre- sented by said reference was docketed as case No. 12343, Congressional. On January 22, 1906, Senate bill No. 3440, Fifty-ninth Congress, was introduced for the relief of claimant church, said bill reading as follows: ' 'A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Russellville, Kentucky. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Russellville, Kentucky, the sum of two thousand six hundred and forty dollars, for use and destruction of their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." Said bill, with accompanying papers, was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate on June 13, 1906, for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case pre- sented by said second reference was docketed as case No. 12413, Congressional. 48 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. The cases presented by said two references have been consolidated upon claimant's motion under the later number. The case was brought to a hearing upon loyalty and merits on the 10th day of Janu- ary, 1907. Francis L. Neubeck, esq., appeared for the claimant (Moyers & Consaul of counsel), and the Attorney-General, by William H. Lamar, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make the following allegitions: That they are citizens of the United States and reside nts of the county of Logan, State of Kentucky; that they are the duly elected, qualified, and acting trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Russellville, Ky. That during the late civil war said Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Russellville, Ky., was the owner of certain land at Russellville, Ky., on which was situated a cer- tain substantial brick church building used by said organization as a house of worship ; that during said war the United States military forces took possession of said building and premises and used and occupied the same for hospital and other military pur- poses, under proper authority, for a period of four years, during which period said building was greatly damaged ; that in view of said facts petitioners present their said claim to the United States Government as follows, to wit: To use and occupation of house of worship from October, 1862, until November, 1866, with damages incident to such use and occupation $4, 050 That a portion of this claim, for damages only, was presented in 1877 to the Quarter- master-General, but was rejected by that officer for lack of* jurisdiction. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. During the late civil war the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Russellville, Ky., remained, as an organization, loyal to the Government of the United States. II. During and immediately after the close of said civil war the Cumberland Pres- byterian Church, of Russellville, Ky., was the owner of certain land at Russellville, Ky., on which stood the brick house of worship of said church. The record title of the ownership of the said Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Russellville, Ky., was defective in this, to wit, that the conveyance of the grantors, if any was ever made, was not registered in the proper office for the record of deeds in the county where said property was situate. But some time subsequent to the close of the said war the said Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Russellville, Ky., by its trustees, made a con- veyance of said property to one Hugh Barclay, and the trustees of the Baptist Church, in Russellville, Ky., joined in said conveyance as the original grantors to the trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church aforesaid. During said war the military forces of the United States took possession of the church building described in the petition and used and occupied the same for about three years for hospital and barracks purposes, and damaged the same in excess of the ordi- nary wear and tear. The reasonable rental and damage was then and there sixteen hundred and fifty dollars ($1,650), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. In 1877 claimant church presented a claim to the Quartermaster-General for damages to said building, which claim was rejected by the Quartermaster-General for lack of jurisdiction, since which time said claim has not been presented to any officer or Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and refer- ence to this court as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed January 14, 1907. A true copy. Test this 31st day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 49 DEACONS OF FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, BOWLING GREEN, KY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12942. Deacons of the First Presbyterian Church of Bowling Green, Ky., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OE CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the mili. tary forces of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellions On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: " [S. 6620, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the deacons of the First Presbyterian Church of Bowling Green, Kentucky. 11 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the deacons of the First Presbyterian Church of Bowling Green, Kentucky, the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war." The said deacons of said church appeared in this court March 23, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred that — The First Presbyterian Church of Bowling Green, Ky., was loyal to the Govern- ment of the United States and in no way gave comfort or aid to the enemies of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion; that about Sep- tember, 1862, United States military forces took complete possession of said church for hospital purposes and continued to use it for such hospital purposes for a long period of time, to wit, until 1864, which completely prevented the holding of reli- gious services in said church during the period that it was so used for hospital pur- poses; that at the time this church property was taken by United States forces as aforesaid it consisted of a large, well-constructed brick church building about 50 by 40 feet in size, with basement, main floor, and gallery, and that by reason of the occupation by the United States forces as aforesaid the said property was greatly damaged and injured; that a claim was presented to the Quartermaster-General's office during the war, and as a result of said claim some repairs were made by the United States quartermaster, but such repairs only replaced a portion of the injury done the property by the United States troops, and no allowance was made for the use and occupation or rental of said property; that the damages to the property not made good by the United States quartermaster's repairs, together with reasonable rental for the property during the time of occupation as aforesaid, amounts to $1,200. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of November, 1907. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Percy M. Cox, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. • The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP EACT. I. The First Presbyterian Church of Bowling Green, Ky., as an organization, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the army, took possession of the church property described in the peti- tion and occupied and used the same as a hospital, and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value, together with the damage done to said church property in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of one thousand one hundred and twenty-five dollars ($1,125), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any tribunal of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. December 2, 1907. A true copy. Test this 11th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk -Court of Claims. S. Rep. 382, 60-1 4 50 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. DIRECTORS OF PRESBYTERIAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY OF KENTUCKY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13018. The directors of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Kentucky v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the mili- tary forces of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: "[S 7126, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the directors of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Kentucky. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the directors of the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Kentucky, the sum of five thousand dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury of the buildings and grounds of the Presbyterian Theological Semi- nary of Kentucky, at Danville, Kentucky, by United States military forces during the civil war." The said directors of said seminary appeared in this court March 23,1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred that: The Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Kentucky was loyal to the Government of the United States and in no way gave comfort or aid to the enemies of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion; that from the date of the battle of Perryville, Ky., on or about October 8, 1862, until 1864, the property of the said seminary was occupied by United States military forces and used as a hospital, said property consisting of a very large, well-constructed brick building, about 100 by 50 feet in dimensions, containing two chapels, and about fifteen other rooms, with very extensive grounds; that such occupation by the United States military forces greatly injured the said property and prevented its use for seminary purposes during the period of such occupation by military forces, the injuries to said property, together with reasonable rental for the time of such occupation, damaged the said seminary in the sum of $5,000, for which no payment has been made. • The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 11th day of Novem- ber, 1907. Coldren and Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Percy M. Cox, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of Kentucky, as a seminary, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the buildings and grounds of the Presbyterian Theo- logical Seminary of Kentucky and occupied and used the same for military purposes. The reasonable value of the use and occupancy of said property as aforesaid was the sum of one thousand one hundred and fifty dollars ($1,150), for which no payment has been made. The evidence does not establish to the satisfaction of the court that any damages resulted from the use and occupancy of said buildings as stated above, and no allow- ance is made therefor. III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any Department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate as aforesaid, and no reason is given why the bar of the statute of limitations should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimants for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. December 2, 1907. A true copy. Test this 11th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 51 SURVIVING EXECUTORS OF ESTATE OF JOHN G. HOLLOWAY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11468. E. S. Holloway and W. S. Holloway, surviving executors of the estate of John G. Holloway, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The following bill was referred to'the court in April, 1904, by resolution of tbe United States Senate, under act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of John G. Holloway, deceased, and others. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to adjust and settle the claims of the estate of John G. Holloway, deceased, formerly of Henderson County, Kentucky, and of the tenants holding under him and otherwise involved in leases executed to the State of Ohio and grow- ing out of the use and occupation of property adjacent to Columbus, Ohio, which was used and occupied by the United States as Camp Chase, and a sufficient sum to pay any amount found due to the parties entitled thereto is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated." The claimants appeared in court and filed their petition on the 22d day of Novem- ber, 1904, in which they make, in substance, the following allegations: 1. That they are the surviving executors of the estate of John G. Holloway, deceased, late a citizen of the county of Henderson, State of Kentucky, who departed this life on the 17th day of January, 1870. 2. That prior to the commencement of the late war for the suppression of the rebel- lion said decedent owned a tract of land situated in the county of Franklin, Ohio, near the city of Columbus; which said tract of land was, by duly executed indenture, leased by the State of Ohio for one year, to wit, from March 1, 1861, to March 1, 1862, and there was established and maintained thereon a military camp known as Camp Chase; that said lease provided, among other things, for payment to the said decedent of the sum of $4 per acre for rental thereof until said 1st day of March, 1862, and in addition thereto for the payment to him of any and all damages which might accrue to said property, as the same might be assessed by certain referees therein named, and, further, that if said premises were retained by said State after the 1st day of March, 1862, a reasonable rent should be paid therefor. 3. Petitioners further represent that under and by virtue of the terms of said lease said decedent was paid all rents and damages and fully settled with by the State of Ohio from the period from March 1, 1861, to March 1, 1862. 4. Petitioners further represent that on March 1, 1862, the Federal authorities assumed control of the authorities described in said lease, and other and adjoining property belonging to the deceased, and from that time on until sometime in the year 1866 exercised absolute and complete "control thereof; that no lease was exe- cuted between the United States and the said decedent, but the United States assumed and acted under the lease hereinbefore referred to, between the State of Ohio and the said decedent, and full settlement was made thereunder with the said decedent, except as hereinafter set forth. 5. Petitioners further represent that in various settlements under said lease, as made by and between the United States and said decedent, full settlement was made for all items of claim and demand accruing out of said lease between the State of Ohio and the said decedent, and the assumption thereof by the United States, for and on account of items of rent. 6. Petitioners further represent that their claim as executors of the estate of the said decedent for rent and for stores and supplies taken for the use of the Army of the United States, during the period covered by the tenancy of the United States under said lease, was heretofore referred to this court under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1883, commonly called the Bowman Act, and was known and designated as William J. Marshall, et al., executors, v. The United States, No. 355, Congressional, and that, after hearing, a finding of fact was made, of date April 21, 1890, and the sum of $2,520 found to be due said claimants on account of standing timber cut and used for fuel, etc., for which an appropriation has been made and the said amount paid; that the said findings of fact also show that "The claimant has been paid the full rental value of the land so occupied;" and further that the sixth of said findings is as follows: All of the other claims in the case (except that for rent which has been paid) are for damage or destruction to the property of the intestate by the Army during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, of which this court has no jurisdiction." 7. Petitioners further represent that among the items so summarily disposed of by the court for want of jurisdiction was the value of 54,144 rails used by the Army of 52 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. the United States as fuel, and the sum of $802.75 awarded to the decedent for the destruction of his growing crops by the referees appointed for that purpose under the terms of said lease, which said award was under instructions from the Secretary of War, and was duly approved by Captain Burr, A. Q. M., and the governor of the State of Ohio. Claimants' decedent has heretofore been found loyal by the court under the ref- erence of the case under the Bowman Act. This case was brought to a hearing on the 17th day of May, 1906. Pennebaker and Jones appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. Ashford, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of the counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OP FACTS. I. The claimants herein are the surviving executors of the last will and testament of John G. Holloway, deceased, late a citizen of tfae county of Henderson, State of Kentucky, who departed this life on the 17th day of January, 1870. II. The decedent in his lifetime and in the year 1861 entered into a lease with the governor of the State of Ohio, by the terms of which it was provided that therein-described premises belonging to the said decedent should be used by the State of Ohio as a military camp of rendezvous; that the said State of Ohio should be responsible to the said decedent for any and all damages resulting to the said property from its occupation by the State as aforesaid, and that the amount of such damage should be assessed by a board of referees therein named; that if the State should continue in the occupation thereof for a period beyond the term provided in said lease, to wit, for one year, a reasonable rental should be paid. III. On March 1, 1862, the United States Government took possession of the prem- ises so leased to the State of Ohio, under the terms and conditions of said lease, and occupied and used the same as a military camp of rendezvous until after the close of the war, to wit, in the year 1866, and for all of said period paid the decedent a reasonable and proper rental therefor. IV. Subsequently, to wit, on the 29th day of December, 1863, the said board of referees, as provided for by the terms of said lease, assessed the damages which had accrued to the property so leased during the year 1862 at $802.75 (eight hundred and two dollars and seventy-five cents), which said award was, under the instructions of the Secretary of War, referred to Raymond Burr, A. Q. M., and to the governor of the State of Ohio, and was by them duly approved. V. The said tract of land so leased and occupied by the United States Government amounted in the aggregate to 462£ acres, all of which was surrounded by a good sub- stantial rail fence with certain cross fences dividing the same into fields. All the fencing thereon was taken and used as firewood by the United States troops, the fair and reasonable value of which was at the time and place the sum of $1,299.25, making with the damages so assessed the sum of two thousand one hundred and two dollars ($2,102), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed May 21, 1906. A true copy. Test this 31st day of May, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOHN H. MARSHALL. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11532-1. John H. Marshall v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court on the 6th day of May, 1904, by reso- lution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "[S. 1465, 58th Cong., 2d sess.] " A BILL For the relief of the drafted men of Pendleton and other countieB, in the State of Kentucky. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed, through the proper accounting officers, to investigate and ad- just the claims of the drafted men of Pendleton and other counties, in the State v of ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 53 Kentucky, for refundment of commutation money alleged to have been illegally exacted from them in order to escape military service as drafted men during the civil war, and to ascertain and determine what amount, if any, is justly due from the United States on said account; and for the payment of the amounts so found due a sufficient sum is hereby appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- priated." The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court August 25, 1904, in which he makes the following allegations: "2. Petitioner further represents that said Senate bill 1465 was, on April 26, 1904, referred to this honorable court under the provisions of section 13 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, commonly called the 'Tucker Act,' and that he, petitioner, files this suit in his own behalf, and also in behalf of all those other parties, to him by name unknown, who are designated and described in said Senate bill 1465 as 'The drafted men of Pendleton and other counties in the State of Kentucky, ' and that all material allegations of fact in the following petition are true as to himself and as to all the unnamed beneficiaries of said Senate bill 1465. •''3. Petitioner further represents that on the 6th day of June and on the 11th day of July, 1864, certain drafts were made by the military authorities of the United States under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863 (12 Stat. L., 731), and the act amendatory thereof approved February 24, 1864 (13 Stat. L., 6), and en- forced in Pendleton and other counties in the State of Kentucky, but that on those dates, to wit, June 6 and July 11, 1864, the quota of said Pendleton County and all other counties in said State was full and complete, and he, the said petitioner, and the other unnamed beneficiaries of said Senate bill 1465, were not, therefore, legally sub- ject to draft. "4. Petitioner further represents that he and the other unnamed beneficiaries under the said Senate bill 1465 paid to the proper authorities of the. United States, each and every of them, the sum of $300, in order to secure exemption from military service under said draft, as provided by the said acts of Congress thereunto relating and general orders of the War Department; and that under the provisions of the acts of Congress approved February 28, 1867 (14 Stat. L., 417), and March 1, 1869 (15 Stat. L., 282), he and each of the said unnamed beneficiaries of said Senate bill 1465 were entitled to the refundment of the said sum of $300, so paid by each and every of them to secure exemption as aforesaid. "5. Petitioner further represents that he and many of the said unnamed beneficiaries of said Senate bill 1465 made application to the Secretary of War for the refundment of said sums paid as aforesaid, in accordance with the provisions of the said last- mentioned acts of Congress, but the said claims were rejected and disallowed by the Secretary of War upon grounds which said Secretary of War has since held to be wholly insufficient. "6. Petitioner further represents that his claim and the claims of others of the said unnamed beneficiaries of said Senate bill 1465 were heretofore referred to this honor- able court under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863, com- monly called the 'Bowman Act,' and that said case or cases were known and designated in this court as John H. Marshall v. The United States, Congressional, No. 106, and that the same was brought to hearing in this honorable court and dismissed for want of jurisdiction, April 26, 1886 (21 C. Cls. R., 307). "7. Petitioner further represents that he and the unnamed beneficiaries of said Senate bill 1465 never gave aid or comfort to the rebellion against the United States; that he and they are the sole owners of their respective claims, and that he and they have exercised due diligence in the prosecution of the same." The case was brought to a hearing on merits on the 22d day of November, 1904. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimant is a citizen of the United States, and resides in the county of Har rison, in the State of Kentucky. II. On June 6, 1864, claimant, then being a citizen of and residing in the county of Pendleton and State of Kentucky, was drafted into the military service of the United States, and, in order to secure exemption therefrom, paid, on June 26, 1864, to the Government of the United States, the sum of $300, all under the provisions of the act of Congress approved February 24, 1864. (13 Stat. L., 6.) III. Pendleton County, Ky., from which claimant was drafted, had, at the time of said draft, already filled and exceeded its quota. The reason-why the claimant 54 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. was drafted was that at the time of his draft a system of readjustment of the credits of the State of Kentucky had been ordered by the Provost-Marshal-General in April, 1864, and had not been carried out in the State at the time of the draft of the claimant. Had this order been fully complied with the draft would not have been made. IV. The claimant presented his claim under the acts of February 28, 1867 (14 Stat. L., 417), and March 1, 1869 (15 Stat. L., 282), to the Secretary of War for refund of said amount so paid to secure his exemption from military service, by reason of the illegality of said draft as applied to the county of Pendleton, in the State of Ken- tucky, but the same was disallowed by the Adjutant-General June 1, 1869, upon the ground that the redistribution of credits in Pendleton and other counties had not been completed until after the draft had been carried into effect. V. Thereafter, upon a motion for a rehearing, the Adjutant-General of the Army, in a report dated July 11, 1879, advised the Secretary of War that said draft was illegally made, and the Secretary of War, acting thereon, made the following decision: War Department, Washington City, July 30, 1879. Sir: Referring to your letter appealing from the decision of the Adjutant-General of June 1, 1869, in the matter of the claim of John H. Marshall for return of $300 commuta- tion money paid by him to Henry A. Mitchell, acting provost marshal, sixth district of Kentucky, June 26, 1864, in lieu of service as a drafted soldier, I have the honor to inform you that it appears that this claim was rejected by one of my predecessors some ten years ago, and as the present application is but, an appeal from that determination on the theory that it was error in law, and as no new evidence is added in the case, and no new legislation has intervened by which the rights of the claimant are advanced or modified, it is believed that the general rule that a head of a Department can not prop- erly review the decision of a predecessor upon a claim in the absence of new facts or law upon the subject may properly be applied in this case, therefore the claim will be referred to Congress with favorable recommendation. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Geo. W. McCrary. Justus I. McCarty, Esq., Attorney, City. VI. Pursuant to his decision, as set out in finding V, the Secretary of War trans- mitted the following letter to Congress : War Department, December 2, 1879. The Secretary of War has the honor to transmit to the House of Representatives papers relating to the claim of John H. Marshall, of Pendleton County, Ky., to be repaid the amount of $300 paid by him to the United States in June, 1864, by way of commutation money as a drafted man. The claim is recommended to the favorable consideration of Congress. Geo. W. McCrary, Secretary of War. The Speaker of the House oe Representatives. The only action taken by Congress on this recommendation has been to refer the claim to this court. VII. The said sum of $300 paid by the claimant herein as commutation or exemp- tion money to release him from military service under the draft made in the county of Pendleton, in the State of Kentucky, on the 6th day of June, 1864, has never, nor has any portion thereof, been refunded to the claimant, and the same still remains unpaid. VIII. The claim was afterwards referred by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives to the Court of Claims under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1883, commonly known as the Bowman Act, and the petition in the case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction, upon the ground that the provision in the act of February 28, 1867 (14 Stat. L., 417), that the Secretary of War shall refund commuta- tion money "whenever it shall appear that under the rules and decisions of the War Department governing at the time the said person was entitled to discharge from the obligation to render personal service under the draft," vested exclusive jurisdiction in the Secretary of War. By the Court. Filed December 12, 1904. A true copy. Test this 16th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 55 METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, BOWLING GREEN, KY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13027. Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Bowling Green, Ky., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the mili- tary forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: " [S. 7205, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the stewards of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Bowling Green, Kentucky. ' 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- priated, to the stewards of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Bowling Green, Kentucky, the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war. ' ' The stewards of the said church appeared in this court March 23, 1907, and filed their petition in which it is substantially averred that — During the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took posses- sion of the property of the claimant and used and occupied the same for various mili- tary purposes for a long period of time, resulting in much injury to said property, and that the reasonable rental value of said property during the time it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore it to as good condition as before said occupa- tion, was the sum of $1,200, for which no payment has been made; that said property consisted of a well-constructed brick church building, about 62 by 41 feet in size, and was occupied as a hospital by the United States military forces when General Buell passed through Bowling Green in September, 1862, and for a long period of time there- after; that the claimant has, at all times, borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given en- couragement to rebellion against the said Government. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 6th day of January, 1908. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George E. Boren, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Bowling Green, Ky., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the church building described in the pe- tition and used the same for hospital purposes and also damaged the same. The reasonable rental value, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was at the time and place the sum of seven hundred and thirty dollars ($730), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall excuse the claimant for not hav- ing resorted to some established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed January 13, 1908. A true copy. Test this 21st day of January, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, <-J Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 56 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, DANVILLE, KY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13029. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Danville, Ky., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the mili- tary forces of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: ' ' [S. 7207, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session,] "A BILL Eor the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Danville, Kentucky. ' ' Be it enacted by the Senate and Rouse of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Danville, Kentucky, the sum of one thousand dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and inci- dental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war." The said trustees of said church appeared in this court March 23, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred that: The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Danville, Ky., was loyal to the Govern- ment of the United States, and in no way gave comfort or aid to the enemies of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion; that said church was taken possession of by United States military forces and occupied as a hospital from the date of the battle of Perryville, Ky., October 8, 1862, and used for such hospital purposes until the spring of 1863 ; that such occupation for hospital purposes completely prevented the holding in any manner of religious services in said church; that during the time of such occupation for hospital purposes the pews were removed and the property otherwise greatly injured by such occupation; that at the time of such occupation for hospital purposes said property consisted of a well-constructed brick church building about 60 by 40 feet in size, with gallery, and that by reason of the repairs necessary to the said building, and including reasonable rental value of said property during the time of such occupation, the church was damaged to the amount of $1,000. •: The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of Novem- ber, 1907. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Percy M. Cox, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Danville, Ky., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out the late civil war. II. During said war the military forces of the United States by proper authority took possession of the building and grounds of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Danville, Ky., and occupied and used the same for military purposes, and damaged the same. . The use and occupation of the building and grounds as aforesaid, together with the damage incident thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there reasonably worth the sum of five hundred and twenty dollars ($520), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any Department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of .the United States Senate as aforesaid, and no reason is given why the bar of the statute of limitations should be removed, or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. December 2, 1907. A true copy. Test this 11th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of. Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 57 MARGARET P. ROBINSON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11455. Margaret P. Robinson, widow of Richard M. Robinson v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The following bill was referred to the court by resolution of the United States Senate on the 26th day of April, 1904, under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of the legal representatives of Richard M. Robinson, deceased. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to investigate, audit, adjust, and settle the claim of the legal repre- sentatives of Richard M. Robinson, deceased, of Camp Dick Robinson, "Kentucky, for stores and supplies or other property taken by and furnished to the armies of the United States during the civil war; and a sufficient sum to pay the amount thus found due is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- priated." The claimant appeared in this court and filed her petition on the 23d day of Feb- ruary, 1906, in which she makes, in substance, the following allegations: That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in Boyle County, in the State of Kentucky, and is the widow and legal representative of Richard M. Robinson, deceased, late of Garrard County, in said State; that she has a claim against the United States growing out of stores and supplies furnished by her said deceased hus- band to the United States military authorities during the civil war, and stated as follows: 1. For boarding and lodging 23 recruits for the Eighth East Tennessee Volunteers from December 29 to 30, 1862, as for vouchers of Col. Felix A. Reeve $12. 65 2. For pasturage for 50 beef cattle for three days, as for voucher of John Bower 37 . 50 3. For 980 bushels salt, furnished to Capt. Stephen Hoyt, A. C. S., at Tus- cumbia, Ala., in August, 1862, at $1 980. 00 Total 1, 030. 15 The case was brought to a hearing on the 7th day of May, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the United States. The court, upon the evidence^and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent was loyal to the Gov- ernment of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, the claimant's decedent, Richard M. Robinson, furnished to the Army of the United States, in the county of Garrard, State of Kentucky, stores and supplies of the kind and character described in the petition, which were then and there reasonably worth the sum of two hun- dred and twenty-seven dollars ($227), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed May 14,. 1906. °A true copy. . Test this 15th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 58 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF BAPTIST CHURCH OF HARRODSBURG, KY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13000. Trustees of the Baptist Church of Harrodsburg, . Ky., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the military- forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to this court a bill in the following words: " [S. 7033, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Baptist Church of Harrodsburg, Kentucky. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- ated, to the trustees of the Baptist church of Harrodsburg, Kentucky, the sum of three thousand dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war. " The said trustees of said church appeared in this court March 22, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred— That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took possession of the property of the Baptist Church of Harrodsburg, Ky., consisting of a large, well-constructed brick church, and occupied the same directly after the battle of Perry ville, Ky., October 9, 1862, and for a long period thereafter; that it was used for housing commissary stores, including meats, the grease from which so penetrated the walls as to cause great permanent injury to the building; that the pulpit was destroyed and the property otherwise very much damaged by said occupation; that the reasonable rental value of said property during the said occupation, including the repairs necessary to restore said property to the same condition as before said occu- pation, was the sum of $3,000, for which no payment has been made; that the claimants have at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States and have not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 3d of February, 1908. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimants and the Attorney-General, by Percy M. Cox, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT, I. The Baptist Church of Harrodsburg, Ky., as an organization was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of said church building described in the petition and used and occu- pied the same as a commissary and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value of such use and occupation, together with the damage to same in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of six hundred and seventy-five dollars ($675), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed February 10, 1908. A true copy. Test this 11th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 59 TRUSTEES CHRISTIAN CHURCH, DANVILLE, KY. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11718. Trustees of the Christian Church of Danville, Ky., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "[S. 4870, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] "A BILL for the relief of the trustees of the Christian Church of Danville, Kentucky. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Christian Church of Danville, Kentucky, the sum of nine hun- dred dollars, for use and occupation of and damages to church building by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The trustees of the Christian Church of Danville, Ky., appeared and filed their petition in this court October 18, 1904, in which they made the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the 1st of October, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Christian Church at Danville, Ky., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes until about the 1st of May, 1863. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs nec- essary to restore the building to the same condition in which it was when said troops first took possession of the same, was the sum of $900, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of April, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Mal- colm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Christian Church of Danville, Ky., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. II. During the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Christian Church at Danville, Ky., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes. The reasonable rental value of said building during the time it was so occu- pied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when said occupation commenced, was the sum of seven hundred and twenty- five dollars ($725). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed April 10, 1905. A true copy. Test this 2d day of June, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 60 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, DANVILLE, KY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13020. Trustees of the First Baptist Church, of Danville, Ky., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: "[S. 7131, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the First Baptist Church, of Danville, Kentucky. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropria- ted, to the trustees of the First Baptist Church, of Danville, Kentucky, the sum of one thousand nine hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war." The said trustees of said church appeared in this court March 25, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred: That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took possession of the property of the First Baptist Church of Danville, Ky., consisting of a large brick church building, about 60 by 50 feet in size, and occupied it as a hospital from about October 10, 1862, for a long period; that the pews were broken up and consumed, and the property in other respects greatly injured by said occupation. That the reasonable rental value of said property during said occupation, including the repairs necessary to restore said property to the same condition in which it was before such occupation, was the sum of $1,900, for which no payment has been made; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to the rebellion against the said Government. • The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of January, 1908. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimants and the Attorney-General, by William H. Lamar, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. The First Baptist Church of Danville, Ky., as an organization, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building described in the petition and used and occu- pied the same as a hospital, and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value of such use and occupation, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of seven hundred dollars ($700) , no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitations should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed February 3, 1908. A true copy. Test this 6th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 61 TRUSTEES OF FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, HARRODSBURG, KY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12453. Trustees of the First Presbyterian Church of Harrods- burg, Ky., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court June 13, 1906, by resolution of the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as tho Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the First Presbyterian Church of Harrodsburg, Kentucky. ' ' Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the First Presbyterian Church of Harrodsburg, Kentucky, the sum of six thousand dollars for use and occupation of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." The claimants appeared and filed their petition in this court September 27, 190G, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about October 9, 1862, the military forces of the United States, under command of General Buell took possession of the church building of the First Presbyterian Church of Harrodsburg, Ky., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes until about the last of April, 1863. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so oc- cupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the said building, furniture, and fixtures to the condition in which they were at the time the said military forces took possession of the same, was the sum of $6,000, for which no payment has been made. . The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 11th day of Feb- ruary, 1907. G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. H. Lamar, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Presbyterian Church of Harrodsburg, Ky., as a church, was loyal to the Gov ernment of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, for their use, took possession of the church property described in the petition shortly after the battle of Perryville, and used and occupied the same for hos- pital purposes for about five months, removing therefrom the pews, pulpit, and other furnishings which, together with the walls of the building, were materially damaged. The reasonable rental value of the building, together with the damage done thereto in excess of the ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of eleven hundred dollars ($1,100), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why the same was not done. By the Court. Filed February 18, 1907. A true copy. Test this 28th day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 62 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF GREEN RIVER COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE, MUNFORD- VILLE, KY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12944. Trustees of Green River Collegiate Institute, successor to Hart Seminary, of Munfordville, Ky., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the mili- tary forces of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: "[S. 6622, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Green River Collegiate Institute as successor to Hart Seminary of Munfordville, Kentucky. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Green River Collegiate Institute, of Munford- ville, Kentucky, the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to the building then known ~as the Hart Seminary, owned by the educational institution now known as the Green River Collegiate Institute, by United States military forces during the civil war." The said trustees of said collegiate institute appeared in this court March 23, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred that: The Green River Collegiate Institute, as successor to Hart Seminary, as well as Hart Seminary, was loyal to the Government of the United States, and in no way gave comfort or aid to the enemies of the United States during the war for the sup- pression of the rebellion; that said seminary property was taken possession of and occupied by United States military forces as officers' quarters at various times during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, and during the periods of such occupancy was greatly damaged; that at the time said property was first taken by the United States military forces as aforesaid, it consisted of a well-constructed brick building about 70 by 20 feet; that because of the repairs made necessary to restore the prop- erty after it was vacated by the military forces to the condition in which it was before such occupation, together with reasonable rental value of said property during the period of its occupation, the said institute, as successor to the said seminary, was damaged in the sum of |1,200. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of Novem- ber, 1907. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, by Percy M. Cox, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACTS. I. It appears from the evidence that the Hart Seminary of Munfordville, Ky., as an organization, of which the Green River Collegiate Institute is the successor, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the building and grounds of the Hart Seminary of Munfordville, Ky., of which the Green River Collegiate Institute is the successor, and occupied and used the same for military purposes, and damaged the same. Said use and occupation, together with the damages incident thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, were then and there reasonably worth the sum of five hundred and twenty- five dollars ($525), no part of which has been paid. III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any Department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate as aforesaid, and no reason is given why the bar of the statute of limitations should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. December 2, 1907. A true copy. Test this 11th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 63 TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, MOUNT STERLING, KY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13022. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Mount Sterling, Ky., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: "[S. 7133, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] ' ' A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Mount Sterling Ky . ' ' Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Mount Sterling, Kentucky, the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by the United States military forces during the civil war." The said trustees of said church appeared in this court March 22, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred that — During the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took posses- sion of the buildings and grounds of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Mount Sterling, Ky., and used and occupied the same as a hospital for wounded and sick soldiers and also as a barracks, for a long period of time, by reason of which much injury was done to the same, and that the reasonable rental value of said property during such occupation, including the repairs necessary to restore said property to the same condition in which it was before such occupation, was the sum of $1,200, for which no payment was made; that the claimant has at all times borne true alle- giance to the Government of the United States, and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. The case was brought to a hearing on - loyalty and merits on the 6th day of January, 1908. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. Cox, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Mount Sterling, Ky., as an organization was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, occupied said building and used the same as a hospital and barracks. The reason- able rental value of said building, together with the damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of four hundred and sixty dollars ($460), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any Department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate as aforesaid, and no reason is given why the bar of the statute of limitations should be removed or which shall excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed January 13, 1908. A true copy. Test this 21st day of January, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 64 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, MOUNT STERLING, KY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13032. Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Mount Sterling, Ky., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the mili- tary forces of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: " [S. 7210, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] '• A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Mount Sterling, Kentucky. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Mount Sterling, Kentucky, the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war." The said trustees of said church appeared iri this court March 22, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred that: The Presbyterian Church of Mount Sterling, Ivy., was lcyal to the Government of the United States, and in no way gave comfort or aid to the enemies of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion; that from the fall of 1862, during the winter of 1862-63, the said church building and its grounds were occu- pied for camping purposes by the United States military forces, thereby preventing the use of said church property for the holding of religious services, and that the fence surrounding the large grounds of the church was burned by United States military forces for fuel, and the property otherwise greatly injured by said occupa- tion, which injuries to the property as aforesaid, together with reasonable rental value of said property during the time of such occupation, amounted to |1,200, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of Novem- ber, 1907. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Percy M. Cox, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- tion of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Presbyterian Church of Mount Sterling, Ky., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper author- ity, for the use of the Army, took possession of the church property described in the petition and used and occupied the same for quarters and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value of the same at the time and place of occupation, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of six hundred and fifty dollars ($650), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be waived or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to some established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed December 2, 1907. A true copy. Test this 11th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 65 TRUSTEES OF SULPHUR WELL CHRISTIAN CHURCH, NEAR NICHOLASVILLE, KY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12958. Trustees of Sulphur Well Christian Church, near Nich- olasville, Ky., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the mili- tary forces of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: ' ' [S. 6748, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Sulphur Well Christian Church, near Nicholasville, Kentucky. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be. and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appro- priated, to the trustees of the Sulphur Well Christian Church, near Nicholasville, Kentucky, the sum of four hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war. " The said trustees of said church appeared in this court March 22, 1907, and filed their petition in which it is substantially averred that: The Sulphur Well Christian Church, near Nicholasville, Ky., was loyal to the Gov- ernment of the United States, and in no way gave comfort or aid to the enemies of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion; that during the war for the suppression of the rebellion the said church building was taken possession of and occupied by United States military forces as a picket post in the defense of Camp Nelson, Ky.; that said occupation by the United States military forces completely prevented the holding in any manner of religious services therein during the period of such occupation; that during the time the property was thus occupied by United States forces the building was greatly damaged, the benches, carpet, and other fur- nishings therein being completely destroyed, all of which, together with reasonable rental value of said property during the said time, damaged the said church to the value of $400, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of Novem- ber, 1907. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Percy M. Cox, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court upon the evidence and after considering the briefs arid argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Sulphur Well Christian Church, near Nicholasville, Ky., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the church property described in the peti- tion and used and occupied the same as a picket post for a few weeks in the defense of Camp Nelson, Ky. The said use and occupation of the church building, together with the damage thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there rea- sonably worth the sum of three hundred dollars ($300), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any tribunal of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed December 2, 1907. A true copv. Test this 10th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. S. Rep. 382, 60-1 5 L. 66 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. ELIJAH WARREN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 2285. Elijah Warren v. The United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Elijah Warren, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed October, 1893. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 2285. Elijah Warren v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 14th day of February, On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 23d day of October, 1893, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of February, 1908. Brandenburg & Brandenburg appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by M. L. Blake, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : That during the said war he was a resident of Green County, State of Kentucky, and was the owner and possessor in said State and county of certain quartermaster stores and commissary supplies which in the fall of 1862 and the spring of 1863 were seized and appropriated to the use of the military forces of the United States then stationed and operating in said locality, according to the following bill of items: 1 bay horse '. $135 1 brown horse 135 Total 270 The court, upon the evidence and after the consideration of briefs and after the arguments of the respective counsel, makes the following FINDING OP FACT. During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant in Green County, State of Kentucky, property of the kind and character described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of one hundred and seventy-five dollars ($175). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed February 10, 1908. A true copy. Test this 12th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 67 TRUSTEES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF NICHOLASVILLE, KY. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11603. Trustees of the Christian Church of Nicholasville, Ky., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: " [S. 231, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees fo the Christian Church of Nicholasville, Ky. " Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of |the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not other- wise appropriated, to the trustees of the Christian Church, of Nicholasville, Ken- tucky, the sum of five hundred and sixty dollars, for use of and damage to church property by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion. ' ' The trustees of the Christian Church of Nicholasville, Ky., appeared and filed their petition in the court June 14, 1904, in which they make the following allegations: That during the month of November, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the said Christian Church and used and occupied the same for military purposes from said date until November, 1863. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period of said occupancy was the sum of $560. That during said occupancy the furniture and fixtures belonging to said church were removed and appropriated to the use of the Army, and the building was other- wise seriously damaged on account of said occupancy. That the cost to restore the building, its furniture and fixtures, to the condition in which they were when said occupation commenced was the sum of $1,000. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 9th day of January, 1905, found that the church alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out said war. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of January, 1905. G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took and occupied the church building belonging to the Christian Church of Nicholasville, Ky., for a period of about one year, and damaged the same. Said use and occupation, including damages incident thereto, were reasonably worth the sum of nine hundred and forty dollars ($940.) By the Court. Filed January 9, 1905. A true copy. Test this 12th day of January, 1905. [seal.] Archibald Hopkins, Chief Clerk. 68 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN" CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF BRYANTS- VILLE, KY. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11724. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Bryantsville, Ky., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. On March 28, 1904, the following bill was introduced in the United States Senate, being Senate bill No. 5286, Fifty-eighth Congress: "Beit enacted by the Senate and Bouse of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereb3^, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Bryantsville, Kentucky, the sum of two thousand dollars, in full compensation for the use, occupa- tion, and destruction of property belonging to said church by United States military forces during the late civil war. " Said bill was referred to this court on May 6, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, for findings of fact, under the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 18th day of Feb- ruary, 1907. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Mal- colm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Garrard, State of Kentucky. That they are the duly appointed, qualified, and acting trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Bryantsville, Ky.; that during the late civil war said Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Bryantsville, Ky., was the owner of certain land near the town of Bryantsville, on which was situated a certain substantially constructed brick church building, used and occupied by said church as a house of worship; that in the summer or early fall of 1861 the United States military forces, under proper authority, took possession of said premises and building and used the same practically continuously during the remainder of said war as a hospital for the treatment of contagious and other diseases; that during said o'ccupation said building was greatly damaged; that petitioners now present this claim upon behalf of said church as follows, to wit: To use and occupation of church building for hospital purposes during the civil war, during a period of three and one-half years, and damages incident to such use and occupation $2, 050 The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF PACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Bryantsville, Ky., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, occupied said church building and used the same for hospital purposes for about six months. The reasonable rental value of said building, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear was the sum of $410. III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any Department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the Senate as aforesaid, and no reason is given why the bar of the statute of limi- tations should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed February 25, 1907. A true copy. Test this 20th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 69 HANNAH NALLY, EXECUTRIX. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11115. Hannah Nally, executrix of William A. Nally, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The following bill was referred to the court March 2, 1903, by resolution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3. 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "[S. 298U, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the estate of William A. Nally. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- priated, to Hannah Nally, of Zoneton, Bullitt County, Kentucky, widow of William A. Nally, deceased, the sum of three thousand three hundred dollars, for property taken from the said William A. Nally and used by the troops of the United States Army. ' ' The claimant appeared and filed her petition in the court July 25, 1903, in which she makes the following allegations: The decedent, William A. Nally, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout his life, and resided in the State of Kentucky until his decease. During the late civil war the decedent was the proprietor of a brickyard in the city of Louisville, Ky., where he carried on an extensive brick-making business. In the summer of 1862, while the decedent was carrying on his said business, the prem- ises were taken possession of by the United States troops in command of Gen. L. H. Rousseau, then in occupation of the city of Louisville. The decedent at the time had on the premises for use in connection with his business extensive sheds and 600 cords of seasoned wood; the lot, which comprised a city square and a half of land, being inclosed with a staked and ridered ten-rail fence, the property of the decedent. The soldiers, acting under the direction of their officers, carried away and used the wood, the planks of which the sheds were made, and the fencing above mentioned. The following are the items of the property so taken and used by the soldiers and their values: 600 cords of wood, at $5.50 per cord $3, 300 45,000 feet of lumber, at $15 per M 675 250 panels of fencing, at 50 cents each 125 . Total 4, 100 The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 15th day of Janu- ary, 1908. Messers. Dudley & Michener appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General by P. M. Cox, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. William A. Nally, deceased, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period there was taken from the claimant's decedent in Louisville, Ky., by military forces of the United States, for their use, to wit, in December, 1861, 270£ cords of wood, for which said decedent was paid the sum of $811.50. There- after, in 1862, there was taken from said claimant's decedent by said military forces, for their use, property of the kind and character described in the petition, then and there reasonably worth the sum of two thousand and thirteen dollars ($2,013), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. The claim herein was presented to the Quartermaster-General October 8, 1879, and was by that officer disallowed, May 10, 1886, because he was not satisfied from the evidence that the property claimed for had been taken as alleged. Thereafter the same was presented to Congress and referred to this court March 2, 1903, by reso- lution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore set forth in the statement of the case. 70 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. No other competent evidence lias been adduced respecting the delay in the prose- cution of said claim. By the Court. Filed February 10, 1908. A true copy. Test this 11th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ANTIOCH METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OP STEWART, KY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13021. The Antioch Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Stewart, Mercer County, Ky., v. The United States. STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: " [S. 7132, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session. "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Antioch Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Stewart, Mercer County, Kentucky. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Antioch Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Stewart, Mercer County, Kentucky, the sum of five hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occu- pation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war. ' ' The trustees of said church appeared in this court on the 22d day of March, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred — That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took possession of the Antioch Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Stewart, Ky., con- sisting of a well-constructed frame church building, and occupied the same from the date of the battle of Perryville, Ky., October 8, 1862, until March or April, 1863, as a hospital; that all the pews in said church were destroyed and the property otherwise greatly injured thereby; that the reasonable rental value of said property during such occupation, including the repairs necessary to restore said property to the same con- dition as before such occupation, was the sum of $500, for which no payment has been made; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encour- agement to rebellion against the said Government. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 17th day of February, 1908. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence adduced by the claimant, none being adduced by the defendants, and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Antioch Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Stewart, Mercer County, Ky., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building described in the petition and used the same for hospital purposes for a short period of time and damaged the same. The reason- able rental value, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of two hundred and forty dollars ($240), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any department or officer of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by reso- lution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore set forth in the statement of the ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 71 case, and no satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the claim was not earlier prosecuted. Howry, J., not being present on account of illness, took no part in the making up of these findings. By the Court. Filed February 25, 1908. A true copy. Test this 26th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, HARRODSBURG, KY. '•Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13014. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Harrods- burg, Ky., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the mili- tary forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Harrodsburg, Kentucky. "Be it enacted by this Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- ated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Harrodsburg, Kentucky, the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war." The trustees of said church appeared in this court March 22, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred that: ^fj During the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took posses- sion of the building and grounds of the Methodist Episcopal Church South,£of Harrodsburg, Ky., consisting of a large, well-constructed brick building of two floors, and occupied the same as a hospital from on or about October 9, 1862, until March or April, 1863; that all the benches were taken out and the property otherwise greatly injured; that a claim on account of the occupation and injury to said property was forwarded, with evidence, to the Hon. C. D. Tucker, Member of Congress, some years ago, but no payment ever made; that the reasonable rental value of said property during such occupation, including the repairs necessary to restore said property to the same condition as before such occupation, was the sum of $2,500, for which no payment has been made; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 12th day of Feb- ruary, 1908. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Percy M. Cox, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Harrodsburg, Ky., as an organiza- tion, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During the late civil war, and just after the battle of Perryville, Ky.. in Octo- ber, 1862, the claimants' church building, described in the petition, was taken posses- sion of by the military forces of the United States and used as a hospital for about six months for the wounded soldiers of both the Federal and Confederate armies, and while so occupied the building and furnishings were damaged. The reasonable rental value of said building during said period, including the damages in excess, of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750), no part of which appears to have been paid. 72 ALLOWAXCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. III. The claim herein was never presented in any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate as hereinbefore set forth in the statement of the case, and no satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the claim was not presented earlier. By the Court. Filed February 17; 1908. A true copy. Test this 19th day of February, 1908. [SBAi.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF PERRYVILLE, KY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12998. The Presbyterian Church of Perryville, Ky., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: " [S. 7031, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the session of the Presbyterian Church of Peyryville, Kentucky. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assevibled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the session of the Presbyterian Church of Perryville, Kentucky, the sum of one thousand dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by military forces of the United States during the civil war. ' ' The said trustees of said church appeared in this court March 22, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred : That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States occupied the property of this claimant, consisting of a brick church building, as a hospital from directly after the battle of Perryville, Ky., October 8, 1862, until March or April, 1863; that all the pews were taken out and destroyed; that the reasonable rental value of said property during said period, including the repairs necessary to restore said prop- erty to the same condition as before such occupation, was the sum of $1,000, for which no payment has been made; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. The case was brought to a hearing on the 10th day of February, 1908, on loyalty and merits. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. Howry, J., not being present on account of illness, took no part in making up these findings. The court, upon the evidence adduced by the claimant, none being adduced by the defendants, and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Presbyterian Church of Perryville, Ky., as a church, was loyal to the Gov- ernment of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States by proper authority took possession of the church building described in the petition and used and occu- pied the same for hospital purposes for a short period of time and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of three hundred and twenty-five dollars ($325), no part of which seems to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 73 United States Senate hereinbefore set forth in the statement of the case, and no satis- factory reason is adduced showing why the claim was not earlier prosecuted. By the Court. Filed February 25, 1908. A true copy. Test this 26th day of February, 1908. Tseal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, BRANDEN- BURG, KY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13061. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Brandenburg, Ky., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: "[S. 7439, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Brandenburg, Kentucky. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Brandenburg, Kentucky, the sum of five hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war." The trustees of said church appeared in this court March 23, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred: That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took possession of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Brandenburg, Ky., consisting of a well-constructed brick church building about 60 by 40 feet in size, and occupied the same as quarters for a considerable period; as a result the property was greatly injured by reason of numerous portholes being opened in the brick walls and in other respects; that the reasonable rental value of said church, including the repairs nec- essary to restore it to the same condition as before such occupation, was the sum of $500, for which no payment has been made; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States and has not in any way vol- untarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Gov- ernment. The case was brought to a hearing on loyaltv and merits on the 19th day of Feb- ruary, 1908. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by M. L. Blake, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence adduced by the claimant, none being adduced by the defendants, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS Or FACT. I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Brandenburg, Ky., as an organiza- tion, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building described in the petition and used and occu- pied the same for military purposes and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value of said property, together with the damages thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of one* hundred and twenty-five dollars ($125), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore set forth in the statement of the case, and no satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the claim was not earlier presented. 74 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Howry, J., not being present on account of illness, took no part in making up these findings. By the Court. Filed February 25, 1908. A true copy. Test this 26th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric, Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, DANVILLE, KY. Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13066. Trustees of the First Presbyterian Church of Danville, Ky., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the First Presbyterian Church of Danville, Kentucky. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the First Presbyterian Church of Danville, Kentucky, the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war." The trustees of said church appeared in this court March 23, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred — That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took possession of -the property of the First Presbyterian Church of Danville, Ky., consisting of a very large, handsome, finely constructed brick church building, about 75 by 60 feet in size, with extensive galleries, and occupied it throughout as a hospital directly after the battle of Perryville, Ky., October 8, 1862, and for a long time thereafter, the property thereby being greatly injured ; that the reasonable rental value of said prop- erty during such occupation, including the repairs necessary to restore said property to the same condition after such occupation, was the sum of $1,200, for which no pay- ment has been made; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 11th day of February, 1908. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. Howry, J., not being present on account of illness, took no part in making up these findings. The court, upon the evidence adduced by the claimant, none having been adduced by the defendants, and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on each side, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The First Presbyterian Church of Danville, Ky., as an organization was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by. proper authority, took possession of the church property described in the petition and used and occupied the same as a hospital and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value of said 1iee and occupation, together with the damages thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of six hundred and ten dollars ($610), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 75 United States Senate, as hereinbefore set forth in the statement of the case, and no satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the claim was not presented earlier. By the Court. Filed February 25, 1908. A true copy. Test this 26th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. LOUISIANA. VICTORIE C. AVET, ADMINISTRATRIX OF VINCENT AVET. [Court of Claims. Congressional ease No. 11480. Victorie C. Avet, administratrix of estate of Vincent Avet, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. By resolution of the United States Senate adopted on April 26, 1904, Senate bill No. 5201, Fifty-eighth Congress, was referred to this court for findings of fact under the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. Said bill reads as follows: ' ' A BILL For the relief of the estate of Vincent Avet, deceased, and Mrs. Victorie C. Avet. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Amer- ica in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Vincent Avet, deceased, and of Mrs. Victorie C. Avet, of Iberville Parish, Louisiana, the sum of three thousand seven hundred and nineteen dollars and seventy-five cents, in full compensation for stores and supplies and use and occupation of property taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late civil war." The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 29th day of January, 1907. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Mal- colm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in her petition, makes the following allegations: That she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the parish of Iberville, State of Louisiana; that she is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administra- trix of the estate of her deceased husband, Vincent Avet; that during the late civil war said Vincent Avet was a citizen of France, and a resident of said parish of Iber- ville. La.; that during said war said Vincent Avet was the owner of certain real estate in the town of Plaquemine, in said parish and State, being a certain corner lot in said town, upon the front of which lot was situated a brick store building, and upon the rear of which lot and facing upon the side street stood a frame dwelling, all of the rea- sonable worth or value of $7,500; that said premises were taken into the possession of the United States military forces, under proper authority, and were used and occupied by said forces for military purposes from January 1, 1863, until November 14, 1865, a period of two years ten and a half months; that the reasonable rental value of said premises, together with damage incident to said use and occupation, was $2,657; that during said war said military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent, for use of the Army, quartermaster stores, to wit, three horses, of the reasonable value of $150 each; that this claim is stated as follows: To use and occupation of one brick store building and one frame dwelling, for two years ten and a half months, and damages incident to such occupation. . $2, 657 To 3 horses, at $150 each 450 Total 3, 107 That said Vincent Avet became a citizen of the United States by naturalization on November 22, 1866, in the United States court for the district of Louisiana; that by reason of the fact that said decedent was during the civil war an unnaturalized alien, he had not the right to present and prosecute this claim before the Southern Claims 76 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Commission, established by act approved March 3, 1871. the jurisdiction of said com- mission being restricted to the claims of loyal citizens of insurrectionary States during Baid war; that by reason of said naturalization said decedent had not the right to pre- sent and prosecute this claim before the French-American Claims Commission. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and argument of coun- sel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. Claimant's decedent, Vincent Avet, was during the late civil war an alien resid- ing at Plaquemine, parish of Iberville, La. He was a citizen of France, who continued his residence in Louisiana throughout said war, and the evidence establishes that he was neutral throughout said war. II. During said war Vincent Avet was the owner of certain real estate in the town of Plaquemine, parish of Iberville, La., the same being and constituting the south- west corner of Main and Seminary streets, in said town. Upon said lots stood a brick store building and also a frame dwelling, all of the reasonable value of about six thou- sand dollars ($6,000). Said premises were taken into the possession of the United States military forces and used and occupied by said forces for military purposes from January 1, 1863, to November 14, 1865, a period of two years ten months and a half. The reasonable value of the use and occupation of said premises for said period, to- gether with the damage done to the buildings incident to such occupation, was the sum of twenty-two hundred dollars ($2,200). No payment appears to have been made on account of such use and occupation or damage. III. During said war the United States military forces took from claimant's decedent in Plaquemine, parish of Iberville, La., horses as described in the petition, which were then and there reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and twenty-five dollars ($225), no part of which appears to have been paid. IV. The claimant herein being an alien— a citizen of France — residing in Louisiana during the late civil war. did not for that reason present his claim to the Southern Claims Commission or to any other department of the Government until its presenta- tion to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, as bereinbefore set forth in the statement of this case. By the Court. Filed January 13, 1908. A true copy. Test this 22d day of January, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. EUGENE BARROW. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10246. Eugene Barrow, administrator of the estate of Mary J. Barrow, deceased, v. The United States.] The claim in the above-entitled case was referred to the court by resolution of the United States Senate in April, 1900, under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. The following bill accompanied said resolution: "[S. 2239, 56th Cong., 1st sess.] "A BILL For the relief of Mary J. Barrow. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Mary J. Barrow, of Orleans Parish, Louisiana, or to her legal representatives, twenty- three thousand eight hundred and fifty dollars, being for supplies and stores taken from her by the military forces of the United States for their use during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, the same being in full for and the receipt of the same to be taken and accepted as a full and final discharge of her said claim against the Government. ' ' The claimant appeared and filed his petition in court, alleging, in substance, that he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of St. Francisville, West Feliciana Parish, La.; that he is the administrator of Mary J. Barrow, deceased, late a citizen of Orleans Parish, La. ; that the decedent, Mary J. Barrow, was loyal to the Govern- ment of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion; that she owned and ALLOWANCE of certain claims. 77 resided upon a large plantation of over 1,000 acres, before and during the war of trie rebellion, in West Feliciana Parish, La., and was the sole owner of the following prop- erty, which was taken from her by the military and naval forces of the United States: 30 mules, at $200 each $6, 000 2 fine saddle horses, at $500 each 1, 000 2 fine carriage horses, at $300 each 600 4 yoke oxen with wagons, carts, and gears, at $250 1, 000 4 work horses, at $150 each 600 3 saddle horses, at $250 each 750 l*pony, at $150 150 150 head of cattle, at $25 each 3, 750 450 acres of corn and fodder 10, 000 Total 23, 850 (Taken in June, 1863.) The case was brought to a hearing on the 14th day of May, 1906. P. E. Dye appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Felix Brannigan, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following • findings^of'fact. I.IThe evidence shows the claimant's decedent to have been a British subject dur- ing the war for the suppression of the rebellion, and hence neutral. II. There was taken from the claimant's decedent in the parish of West Feliciana, State of Louisiana, during the war of the rebellion by the military forces of the United States for the use of the Army, by proper authority, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of twelve thou- sand six hundred and twenty-five dollars ($12, 625), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed December 17, 1906. A true copy. Test this 24th day of December, A. D. 1906. « [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. STEPHEN D. CLARK, FOR HIMSELF AND AS HEIR OF EMILY C. LOVE- LACE AND CHARLES L. CLARK. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11856. Stephen D. Clark, for himself and as sole heir of Emily C. Lovelace, deceased, and of Charles L. Clark, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. By resolution adopted March 3, 1905, the United States Senate referred to this court Senate bill No. 6459, Fifty-eighth Congress, for findings of fact under the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887. Said bill, so referred, reads as follows: " A BILL For the relief of the heirs af Julia M. Clark, deceased. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the heirs of Julia M. Clark, deceased, late of Catahoula Parish, Louisiana, the sum of nine thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late civil war." The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 10th day of April, 1907. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 78 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the parish of Catahoula, State of Louisiana; that he is the sole heir and representative of his half-sister, Emily C. Lovelace, deceased, and of his brother, Charles L. Clark, deceased; that during the late civil war petitioner and his said half-sister and his said brother were citizens of the United States and were minors of tender years, residing at Sicily Island, Catahoula Parish, State of Louisiana, upon a plantation belonging to peti- tioner and said other minors. That during said war the United States military forces, acting under proper author- ity, took from petitioner and his said coowners quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated and converted the same to the use of the United States Army, to wit: Taken from plantation at Sicily Island, La., about September 26, 1864, by command of Col. H. A. McCaleb, Sixth U. S. Colored Heavy Artillery, and Captain Organ of same command : 30 mules, at $150 each $4, 500 12 horses, at $150 each : 1, 800 5 wagons, at $50 each 250 100 head fat cattle, at $25 each 2, 500 100 sheep, at $4 each 400 50 fattening hogs, at $10 each . m 500 Total 9, 950 That about 1866 petitioner's said brother, Charles L. Clark, departed this life, While still a child of tender years, unmarried and intestate; that thereafter peti- tioner's half-sister, Emily C. Lovelace, departed this life, unmarried and intestate; that all other children of petitioner's father and mother had previously departed this life, without issue, leaving petitioner as the sole heir and representative of his said half-sister, Emily C. Lovelace, and of his said brother, Charles L. Clark; that during the period allowed by the terms of the act approved March 3, 1871, for presentation of claims to the Southern Claims Commission petitioner was a minor, having been born in 1854; that on account of petitioner's minority this claim was not presented to said Commission. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The petitioner, Stephen D. Clark, and the decedents, Emily C. Lovelace and Charles L. Clark, remained throughout the late civil war loyal to the United States Government, their loyalty resting upon their tender ages. II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from petitioner, Stephen D. Clark, and his coowners, Emily C. Lovelace and Charles L. Clark, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds men- tioned in the petition, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of four thousand two hundred and forty dollars ($4,240). No payment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof. III. The decedent, Emily C. Lovelace, was the half-sister of the petitioner, Stephen D. Clark, and the decedent, Charles L. Clark, was the brother of the petitioner. Since the close of said war said Emily C. Lovelace and said Charles L. Clark have departed this life, unmarried and intestate, leaving the petitioner, Stephen D. Clark, as their only heir and representative, said Stephen D. Clark appearing in this case in his own right, as owner of an undivided one-third interest in the above-described property at the time of taking thereof, and also as heir and representative of his said coowners. IV. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and the reason given for such nonpresentation is the tender age of himself and his decedents during the time allowed by law for such presentation. ■ By- the Court. Filed April 22, 1907. A true copy. Test this 19th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 79 ANTOINE DECUIR ET AL. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11549. Antoine Decuir, Joseph Auguste Decuir, and Rose Decuir Maeias, heirs of Antoine Decuir, deseased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. On February 1, 1904, the following bill was introduced in the United States Senate, to wit: "A BILL For the relief of Antoine Decuir, deceased.; "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Antoine Decuir, deceased, *late of Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana, the sum of fourteen thousand eight hundred and seventeen dollars and fifty cents, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late civil war." Said bill was referred to the court by resolution of the United States Senate on April 26, 1904, for findings of fact under the provisions of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. This case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 14th day of May, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Felix Bran- nigan, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- tion of the interests of the United States. The petitioners in their petition make the following allegations: That they are the only heirs of Antoine Decuir, deceased, who departed this life in 1865; that during the late civil war said decedent was a resident of the parish of Pointe Coupee, State of Louisiana; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent, for the use of the Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: Taken from plantation of Antoine Decuir, in Pointe Coupee Parish, La., in February or March, 1863, by Second Rhode Island Cavalry, under Colonel Corliss: 24 large mules, at $150 each $3, 600 8 fine horses at $150 each 1, 200 3 large cane wagons, at $100 each 300 6,000 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel 6, 000 100 merino sheep, at $3 per head 300 6,000 pounds fresh pork, at 10 cents per pound 600 5 barrels of sugar, at $20 per barrel 100 8 cows, at $25 each 200 Total 12, 300 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent, Antoine Decuir, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent, in the parish of Pointe Coupee, State of Louisiana, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds described above, which were then and there reasonably worth the sum of four thousand one hundred and fifteen dollars ($4,115), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. It appears from the evidence than an effort was made in July, 1874, to present this claim to the Claims Commission established by the act approved March 3, 1871, which effort was made after the expiration of the time allowed by law for filing of claims before said Commission, and it also appears that a further effort to present this claim was made in 1879, and that claimant's decedent had no knowledge of the law limiting the time for filing claims before said Commission. These facts are reported as bearing on the question whether there has been delay or laches in the presentation of said claim. 80 AT.T. OW A NTT. OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. IV . The claimants. Antoine Deciiir. Joseph Auguste Decuir, and Rosa Deeuir Macias. are the children and only heirs oi said Antoine Decuir. deceased, the person who owned the property above mentioned a r the time of the taking. By the Court. Filed May 21, 1906. A true copy. Test this 7th day of June. 1906. [seal.] John" .Randolph, Assistarit Clerk Court of Claims. CHAELES E. DELATTE. ADMINISTRATOR. [Court oi Claims. Congressional. No. 10184. Charles R. Delatte. administrator of estate oi Louis Delatte. deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. On January 19, 1900. the following bill was introduced in the United States Senate, to wit: 'A BILL For the relief of the estate of Louis Delatte. "jBe it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury be. and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay. out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Louis Delatte. of East Baton Eouge Parish, Louisiana, the sum of four thousand eight hundred and seventy-five dollars, for stores and supplies taken and used by the United States military forces and damage [to property during the late war of the rebellion.'* Said bill was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate on April 25. 1900. for findings of fact in accordance with the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3. 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 19th day of December. 1904, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, and who owned the property alleged to have been damaged, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late war for the suppression of the rebellion. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of January, 1906. Movers and Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, .and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United Stares. The petition was filed by the representatives of Louis Delatte. deceased, prior to the substitution of the administrator as party claimant, and it is therein alleged that materials were taken by United States military forces from buildings belonging to said Louis Delatte in the city of Baton Eouge. La., and that a building belonging to him. was damaged, and that stores and supplies and property were taken from said Louis Delatte as follows: Materials from building on North and Main streets $1, 300 Materials from building on Main street 1, 000 Damage to real estate 700 Materials from building on Pentatenture street 600 2 horses, at 8100 each 200 5 cattle, at 825 each 125 2 bales cotton, 950 pounds, at |T per pound 950 Total 4, 875 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on each side, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimant's decedent, Louis Delatte. was. during the late war for the sup- pression of the rebellion, a citizen of the United States, residing in the city of Baton Rouge. State of Louisiana, and was throughout said war loyal to the Government of the United States. II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took possession of a certain dwelling house in said city of Baton Eouge belonging to said ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 81 Louis Delatte and used the same for at least two months for hospital purposes. During such occupation the building was considerably damaged, all interior parti- tions being torn out and a kitchen torn down. Said forces also tore down two other dwelling houses in said city belonging to said decedent and converted the materials secured'therefrom to the use of the United States Army, and also took from said decedent certain quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds men- tioned in the petition. The aggregate amount of the reasonable rental value of one building used as a hospital, with incidental damage thereto, of the value of materials taken from the two other buildings, and of stores and supplies taken, is one thousand and ten dollars ($1,010). for which no payment appears to have been made. No allowance is made for cotton charged for in the petition. III. Charles R. Delatte is the duly appointed and acting administrator of the estate of said Louis Delatte. deceased. By the Court. Filed January 15, 1906. A true copy. Test this 20th day of February, 1906. [seal.] Johx Randolph. Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ODILE DESLONDE. [Court of Claim?. Congressional, No. 11092. Odile Deslonde. sole heir of Eloise Deslonde. deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. On March 2, 1903, by resolution of the United States Senate, the following bill was referred to this court for findings of fact under the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, commonly known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of the estate of Eloise Deslonde, deceased. "Be it enacted bij the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Amer- ica in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be. and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Mrs. Eloise Deslonde, deceased, late of New Orleans. Louisiana, the sum of nine thousand three hundred and twenty dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late war of the rebellion." The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 26th day of April, A. D. 1905. Movers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by E. C. Brandenburg, esq , his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United State;. The claimant, in her petition, makes the following allegations, to wit: That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in the parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana: that she is the sole heir and representative of Eloise Deslonde. late of the parish of Iberville. State of Louisiana, where she resided during the late civil war; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 30 mules, at $150 each $4, 500 8 horses, at $150 each 1, 200 2.000 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel 2, 000 50 sheep, at $2.50 per head 125 20 hogs, at $5 per head 100 1 lot of fodder and hay 515 Total 8, 440 That this claim was not presented to any officer or tribunal prior to its presentation to Congress in 1S99 by reason of the fact that during the time allowed for presentation of claims to the Southern Claims Commission said decedent was very old. taking no interest in business matters: that after the death of said decedent petitioner engaged an attorney to present said claim, but that nothing was done by said attorney; that thereafter another attorney was engaged to present the claim to Oongn S. Rep. 382, 60-1 6 82 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that claimant's decedent, Eloise Deslonde, was a free person of color, residing in the parish of Iberville, State of Louisiana, during the late civil war, and that she was throughout said war loyal to the Government of the United States. II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from claimant's decedent property of the kinds described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of five thousand three hundred and twenty-five dollars ($5,325), for which property no payment appears to have been made. III. The claimant, Odile Deslonde, is shown by the evidence to be the sole heir and representative of the decedent, Eloise Deslonde. IV. It is shown by way of explanation of claimant's failure to present this claim to the Southern Claims Commission that claimant's decedent, Eloise Deslonde, between March 3, 1871, and March 3, 1873, was very old, taking no interest in business matters; that after the death of said decedent the present claimant engaged the services of an attorney to prosecute the claim and paid him money therefor, but that he did nothing in the matter and subsequently another attorney was employed. These facts are reported as bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in the presentation of the claim. By the Court. Filed May 15, 1905. A true copy. Test this 12th day of May, 1905. Tseal.] - John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. DAVID P. GAYLE AND SARAH H. GAYLE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10575. David P. Gayle and Sarah H. Gayle, administrators of estate of Alfred Duplantier, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim m the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces ot the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was first transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on February 3, 1886, for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1883, and com- monly known as the Bowman Act. By reason of the failure of the claimant to properly submit proof in support of his claim before the Southern Claims Commission, to which he originally presented his claim, the case presented by said reference was dismissed by this court on March 28, 1892, for lack of jurisdiction. On April 30, 1902, Senate bill No. 856, Fifty-seventh Congress, was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate for findings of fact in accordance with the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. Said bill reads as follows: ■ v "A BILL For relief of the legal representatives of Alfred Duplantier, deceased. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby is, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- ated, the sum of fifty-five thousand six hundred and seventy-five dollars to the legal representatives of Alfred Duplantier, deceased, late of East Baton Rouge Parish, Loui- siana, for stores and supplies taken from his plantation in the years eighteen hundred and sixty-two, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, and eighteen hundred and sixty- four, for the use ot the Army of the United States during the late war." The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 19th day of Novem- ber, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- tion of the interests of the United States. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. . 83 The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: That they are citizens of the United States residing in the parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana; that they are the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrators of the estate of Alfred Duplantier, deceased, late of said parish and State; that during said war the United States military forces, acting under proper authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: Taken from plantation of Alfred Duplantier, about 7 miles below the city of Baton Rouge, by United States troops, to wit, Fourth Wisconsin Cavalry, Second Louisiana Infantry, Twelfth Illinois Cavalry, and Forty-first Massachusetts Infantry, and other commands under command of Capt. Nelson F. Craigue, Captain Sumner, Colonel Montgomery, Colonel Fonda, Major Keating, Colonel Payne, Colonel Hogekins, and Quartermaster Porter : 165,000 new bricks, at $15 per M $2, 475 15 fine sugar mules, at $200 each 3, 000 4 large cane carts, at $150 each 600 5 horses, at $200 each 1, 000 150 head of beef cattle, at $75 each 11, 250 112 tons of hay, at $40 per ton 4, 480 20,000 bundles of fodder, 15 tons, at $40 a ton 600 40,000 feet cypress lumber, at $50 per M 2, 000 200 sheep, at $7 per head 1, 400 60 cords cypress wood, at $4 per cord 240 3,000 bushels shelled corn, at $1 per bushel 3, 000 960 gallons sirup, at $1.50 per gallon 1, 440 36,000 pounds of sugar, at 20 cents per pound 7, 200 1,680 gallons molasses, at $1 per gallon 1, 680 6,000 pounds cotton, at 50 cents per pound 3, 000 1 blacksmith shop and complete set of tools, with bellows 300 Harness and gearing for 15 mules 180 110 large hogs, at $10 each 1, 100 Total 44, 945 That said decedent presented this claim by petition and affidavits to the Southern Claims Commission under the act approved March 3, 1871, but because of the poverty of said decedent he was unable to take witnesses to Washington, D. C, to testify in person before said Commission as required by its rules ; that this claim was referred to this court on February 3, 1886, under the Bowman Act, and was tried on loyalty as case No. 412, Congressional, loyalty being found January 4, 1892; that on March 28, 1892, the case presented by said reference was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; that said finding was certified to Congress February 15, 1896; that in said year 1896 Con- gress was prayed for further relief in the premises, and bills were introduced for relief of legal representatives of said decedent in the Fifty-fourth, Fifty-fifth, Fifty-sixth, and Fifty-seventh Congresses. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. Claimants' decedent, Alfred Duplantier, was during the late civil war a citizen of the United States, residing in the parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana, and remained throughout said war loyal to the Government of the United States. II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent quartermaster stores and commissary supplies for the use of the United States Army, of the kinds mentioned in the petition, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of nine thousand six hundred and seventy-five dollars ($9,675). No payment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof. III. This claim was presented by claimants' decedent to the southern claims commission under the provisions of the act approved March 3, 1871, but it appears in evidence that by reason of his property said decedent was unable to bring witnesses to Washington City to testify in person before said Commission as was required by its rules. The claim was referred to this court under the Bowman Act on February 3, 1886, but was thereafter dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by findings of fact and conclusions of law reported to Congress February 15, 1896. On December 22, 1896, 84 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. a bill for relief of legal representatives of said decedent was introduced in the Fifty- fourth Congress. Bills were also introduced in the Fifty-fifth, Fifty-sixth, and Fifty- Beventh Congresses, Senate bill No. 856, Fifty-seventh Congress, for relief of said representatives, being referred to this court as above set forth. These facts are reported as bearing upon the question whether there has beeD delay or laches in the presentation of this claim. By the Court. Filed December 3, 1906. A true copy. Test this 19th day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. FELIX GUIDRY, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10928. Felix Guidry, administrator of the estate of Louisa Breaux, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by resolution of the United States Senate on the 27th day of June, 1902, for findings of fact, in accordance with the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The bill, which was referred to the court by said resolution of the United States Senate, reads as follows: "A BILL For the relief of the estate of Louisa Breaux, deceased. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Louisa Breaux, deceased, late of Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, the sum of twenty-four thousand five hundred and ten dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late war of the rebellion." The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 7th day of Febru- ary, A. D. 1905. Moyers and Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General by George H. Walker, esq. , his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations, to wit: That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the Parish of Lafayette, State of Louisiana, and is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of Louisa Breaux, deceased; that during the late war for the suppres- sion of the rebellion said decedent resided in the Parish of Lafayette, State of Louis- iana; that said decedent departed this life in June, 1863, leaving surviving her as her heirs four children: Felix Guidry; Arsene Guidry, now Broussard; Cecilia Guidry, ■now Albarado, and Loretta Guidry, now Broussard, said children being then minors of a tender age; that subsequent to the death of said decedent the United States military forces, by proper authority, took from the heirs of said decedent and con- verted to the use of the United States Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 100 cords of rails, at $3 per cord $300 600 barrels of corn, at $2 per barrel 1, 200 25 bales of cotton, average net value to the United States Government, $192 per bale 4,800 40 horses, at $150 each 6, 000 8 mules, at $150 each 1,200 1 wagon and ox cart 150 130 head of cattle, at $20 per head 2,600 400 sheep, at $2.50 per head 1, 000 100 head of hogs, at $10 per head 1, 000 250 bushels of sweet potatoes, at 50 cents a bushel 125 Total 18.375 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 85 That this claim was not presented to the Southern Claims Commission by reason of the fact that the children and heirs of said decedent were ignorant of the existence of such commission, residing in the country and unable to read English, and being financially unable to incur the expense of taking witnesses to Washington, D. C; that said children, Arsene Guidry, now Broussard, Cecilia Guidry, now Albarado, and Loretta Guidry, now Broussard, were minors on March 3, 1873, the expiration of the time allowed for filing claims before said commission. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. The original owner of the property, the alleged taking of which forms the sub- ject matter of this claim, was Louisa Breaux, wife of Alexander Guidry. During the late civil war she resided in the Parish of Lafayette, State of Louisiana, and died during the war and before the taking of the property charged for in this claim. Dur- ing her lifetime, by decree of court her estate was separated from that of her hus- band. She left surviving her the husband, Alexander Guidry, and four children. These four children became the heirs of her estate and were: Felix Guidry, Arsene Broussard (nee Guidry), Cecilia Albarado* (nee Guidry), and Loretta Broussard (nee Guidry). It appears from the evidence that said children were loyal to the Gov- ernment of the United States throughout said war, all being under the age of 16 years in April, 1865. II. During said war there were taken from said four children of said Louisa Breaux, by the military forces of the United States, acting under proper authority, and con- verted to the use of the United States Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds enumerated in the petition, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of seven thousand seven hundred and eighty dollars ($7,780), belonging in equal shares to said four heirs. No payment appears to have been made therefor. III. No allowance is made for cotton, no claim therefor being properly before the court, the bill referred to the court providing for payment of a claim for stores and supplies taken for the use of the United States Army, and the cotton not being shown to have been taken or used as an army store or supply. IV. As bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in the presentation of this claim, it is shown that on March 3, 1873, the date of the expi- ration of the time limited for the filing of claims before the Southern Claims Commission, the children, Arsene Broussard (nee Guidry), Cecelia Albarado (nee Guidry), and Loretta Broussard (nee Guidry) were still minors. It is also shown in evidence that during the time limited for filing claims before said commission said four heirs of Louisa Breaux were unable to read the English language, and were ignorant of the existence of said commission and were also unable to have defrayed the expense of bringing witnesses to Washington City to testify in support of the claim, as would have been required by the rules of said commission, the claim being for more than $10,000. Whether or not these facts are sufficient to excuse claimants' failure to file their claim before the Southern Claims Commission is a matter resting in the legislative discretion of Congress. By the Court. Filed February 13, 1905. A true copy. Test this 2d day of March, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ADOLPH HARTIENS, TUTOR, ETC. [Court of Claims of the United States. (Congressional, No. 1G196.) (Decided January 14, 1901.) (Purged of false testimony on loyalty December 3, 1906.) Adolph Hartiens, tutor to his three infant children, Sydney L., William W., and Mary R. Hartiens, being the issue of his marriage with Mary C. Osborne Hartiens, deceased, his late wife, who was the daughter and only heir at law of William H. Osborne, deceased, v. The United States.] EXPLANATORY. On October 30, 1906, this case came on to be heard under a second reference of the claim by resolution of the United States Senate June 27, 1906, on the question of the loyalty of the claimant's decedent, William PL Osborne. 86 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. On the original reference of the claim by a resolution of the Senate April 25, 1900, the court found the facts, including a finding that the claimant's decedent was not loyal, to the Government of the United States throughout the' late civil war, and reported its findings to Congress January 16, 1901. Under the second reference the claimant shows to the court that the finding of not loyal so reported was based on false testimony, and after purging said finding there- from the claimant is found to have been loyal throughout said war and the finding in that respect is modified accordingly, as fully explained in the opinion hereto. The original findings, except as modified on loyalty, together with a statement of the case as originally reported, are as follows: STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores, alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was originally transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims, House of Representatives, on the 18th day of April, 1884, on behalf of Bell E. Osborne, executrix of the estate of John Osborne, deceased, who was a partner of William H. Osborne, the claimant in this case; and in said case the court made findings of fact in favor of the estate of said John Osborne, as set forth in 24 C. Cls. R., pp. 417, 418. In the case wherein said findings were made no appearance was made on behalf of William H. Osborne, and no allowance was made in his favor, nor was his loyalty passed upon by the court. Thereafter, to wit, April 25, 1900, a bill, No. 4349, was introduced in the Senate of the United States directing the Secretary of the Treasury to pay to the claimant herein the sum of $54,875, in full of the claim of the said William H. Osborne, deceased, for one-half of the stores and supplies taken for army and navy use from the said John and William H. Osborne, deceased, during the late war for the sup- pression of the rebellion, which bill thereafter, to wit, May 2, 1900, by resolution of the United States Senate, was referred to the court under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on the question as to the loyalty of the deceased claimant, William H. Osborne,. and also as to the merits of the claim, on the 22d day of May, 1900. P. E. Dye, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Felix Brannigan, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant avers in his petition, among other things, that during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion William H. Osborne and John Osborne, his brother, were residents of Rapides Parish, La., and were the owners in partnership of a large plantation situated about 10 miles below Alexandria, on the Red River, in said State. The plantation was worked by them in partnership, each having the ownership of one-half of the products thereof. That during the campaign of Gen. N. P. Banks on the Red River in the spring of 1864 there was taken from their plantation by and for the use of the Army of the United States 1,000 hogsheads of sugar, containing 1,000.000 pounds, worth 9 cents per pound, or $90,000; 10,000 bushels of corn, 50 head of mules, 14 head of horses, and 100 head of cattle, all of the value of $109,750, for which he, William H. Osborne, claims one-half. The court, after considering the evidence adduced and the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. ' During the war for the suppression of the rebellion William H. Osborne, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished said supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States. II. The plantation from which the property was taken is situated 10 miles below Alexandria, La., and was the property of John and William H. Osborne. It was worked by them in partnership both before and during the war, up to the time of seizure. The property seized was in bulk on the plantation, and had not been divided between or set off to the respective partners. III. Between the 5th and 13th May, 1864, the military or naval forces of the United States seized and took from the plantation of John and William H. Osborne 1,000 hogsheads, 1,000,000 pounds, of sugar belonging to them as part- ners. This sugar was laden on the naval gunboats or army transports on the Red River- It does not further appear what became of it, nor whether it was ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 87 issued to or used as stores or supplies by the Army or Navy; nor whether it came to the official custody of the chief quartermaster of the Department of the Gulf, in New Orleans, or of the chief commissary of the department; nor whether it was treated as abandoned or captured property and sold, and the proceeds paid into the Treasury. IV. The value of the sugar at the time of capture in the local market of Alexandria has not been shown; but it appears that on the 5th of May, 1864, the commissary department purchased large quantities of sugar in Alexandria at about 9 cents per pound. Private property at that time could not be taken out from the vicinity, for the reason that the evacuation of Alexandria by the military forces of the United States was then taking place, and all of the means of transportation were in the posses- sion and control of the Government. V. During the same campaign of General Banks on the Red River in the spring of 1864 there was taken from the plantation by and for the use of the Army property of the kind described in the petition, consisting of corn, mules, horses, and cattle, like- wise belonging to the said partnership of John and William H. Osborne, the fair and reasonable value of which at the time and place of seizure was $19,750, one-half of which amount, to wit, $9,875, belonging to the claimant's decedent, William H. Osborne. VI. No reason is shown why the claim in this case was not prosecuted before the Commissioners of Claims, or in this court while pending under reference of act of March 3, 1383, other than the death of claimant's decedent, which occurred on the 2d day of December, 1865, leaving his widow, Mary L. A. Duvol Osborne, and their daughter and only child, Mary Corinne Osborne, then less than 1 year of age. VII. In 1868 said Mary L. A. Duvol Osborne intermarried with one Henry H. Rogers, and thereafter in 1872 she died without issue by said second marriage. December 1, 1887, said Mary Corinne Osborne intermarried with Adolph Hartiens, and on February 8, 1892, she died, leaving three minor children, to wit, Sidney L., William W., and Mary R. Hartiens, grandchildren of said William Osborne, deceased. Peele, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of the court: The claim in this case is for stores and supplies alleged to nave been taken "from the plantation of John and William H. Osborne, near Alexandria, La., in May, 1864, by the military forces of the United States. The claim of John Osborne for his one-half of the property so taken was presented to the Commissioners of Claims, who rejected the same because prior thereto the claim- ant had gone into bankruptcy. Thereafter the claim was referred to this court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives under the. act of March 3, 1883, known as the Bowman Act; and the claimant having been found loyal, findings were made on the merits and certified to Congress, and the amount therein allowed has since been appropriated and paid. The claim of William H. Osborne was not presented to the Commissioners of Claims, he having died in December, 1865 (before the creation of the Commissioners of Claims), leaving surviving him his widow and one child, then less than 1 year old. The widow subsequently intermarried with Henry H. Rogers and in 1872 died. The claim not having been presented to the Commissioners of Claims by the widow or by anyone representing her estate or the estate of said minor child was for that reason barred by section 4 of the act of March 3, 1871, creating the Commissioners of Claims (16 Stats. L., 525), as well as by section 3 of the Bowman Act. The first bill (Senate, 4349) first session Fifty-sixth Congress, for the relief of William H. Osborne for his one-half of the property so taken was referred to the court by reso- lution of the United States Senate May 2. 1900, under section 14 of the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. The provision of that section authorizing the court to find "any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy," would seem to imply that claims otherwise barred might be referred to the court under that section. Such being the view of the court with respect to claims of this character, the court entertained the claim. The claimant as tutor, under the laws of Louisiana for the minor heirs of said William H. Osborne, filed his petition setting forth the facts, and the case was docketed as No. 10196 Congressional. Findings were made in the case and reported to Congress, including a finding that the claimant's decedent, William H. Osborne, through whom the claim was made and from whom the stores and supplies were alleged to have been taken, was not loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. But as loyalty is not jurisdictional under the Tucker Act, as it is under the Bowman Act, the court found the facts on the merits of the claim. 88 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Thereafter the claimant filed his motion for a new trial on loyalty with affidavits in support thereof, which was argued and submitted January 7, 1901; and on January 12, 1901, said motion was overruled and the findings as then amended and filed were, on January 16, 1901, on motion of the claimant's attorney, certified to Congress. The foregoing findings are identical with those so certified except on the question of the loyalty of said William H. Osborne. Thereafter, by resolution of the United States Senate, bill 5615, first session, Fifty- ninth Congress, then pending in the Senate, providing for an appropriation to pay said claim, was, on June 27, 1906 — more than five years after the overruling of the motion for a new trial — again referred to the court for examination and report under said act of March 3, 1887. The claimant's contention is that the second reference of the claim operates to grant him a new trial and to reinvest the court with jurisdiction and power to again examine and adjudicate the claim. When the court had complied with the act under which the claim was referred, and reported its findings to Congress, as it did, its jurisdiction was thereby exhausted; and being exhausted, it was not within the power of one branch of Congress by the second reference of the same claim under the same act to again clothe the court with jurisdiction to reinvestigate or consider the claim. But while this is true, such rereference, the court holds, operates to return the findings of fact. The court, by the return of the findings of fact, having thereby regained control of the case, will determine what further steps may be taken. That is to say, if such findings are in any respect based upon false or fraudulent testimony or were procured through the misconduct of any of the parties to the case, their attorneys or witnesses, the court will inquire in respect thereto until the findings so returned are purged therefrom. The claimant contends, and the evidence seems to satisfy his contention, that the unfavorable finding on the question of loyalty of his decedent, William H. Osborne, was necessarily based on the testimony of one Dennis Kelly, as the testimony of all the other witnesses in the case was favorable to the loyalty of said decedent. The witness Kelly, in his first deposition, taken at Alexandria, La., in behalf of the defendants in 1890, testified in substance that said Osborne was by profession a civil engineer; that in 1863, a short time before the raid of the Federal Army under General Banks, said Osborne was employed as engineer superintending the construc- tion of rafts in the Red River at Fort De Roussey, about 30 miles below Alexandria, La., and that he had a foreman under him; that they were at the time expecting a vessel of the United States up the river known as the Queen of the West, and that the rafts were being constructed to prevent the vessels of the United States from coming up the river. In the deposition of said Kelly, taken in Washington, D. C, in March 1906, it appears that a few months prior thereto his attention was called to his former testimony by the claimant's local attorney, and he disclaimed having testified as above indicated, saying that such former testimony was false; that said William H. Osborne was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion; that he so acted and expressed himself, and was so regarded by his neigh- bors and friends; that he was arrested by the Confederate forces and compelled to do what he did; that he saw him under arrest, and further, that he was not engaged as superintendent or otherwise at Fort De Roussey in constructing rafts. He further testifies in detail favorably to the loyalty of said Osborne, and says that he came to Washington, at the claimant's expense, to correct his former testimony. In explanation of why he had so testified on his first examination, he says he was at the time intoxicated and the claimant's local attorney, Mr. H. L. Daigree, who cross-examined said Kelly, says under oath, "When I cross-examined Mr. Kelly in this manner in Alexandria, La., I was forced to ask him very few questions, because during that examination I discovered that he was quite intoxicated. Therefore I ceased further examine him." Aside from the presumption of disloyalty to the United States arising from the residence of said William H. Osborne in an insurrectionary State the finding adverse to his loyalty was based on the testimony of Dennis Kelly, and if the testimony of Kelly is eliminated from the case, the claimant is entitled to have the finding on loyalty modified. In the Le More case (35 C. Cls. R.. 9), wherein a judgment had been rendered against the claimant in the district court for the southern district of Illinois, and on appeal to the Supreme Court had been affirmed, and the claim thus adjudicated was referred to this court under the Tucker Act. the doctrine of res judicata was held applicable, the court saying: "Certainly the Congress, by the language of the section of the act under which the reference was made, did uot intend that the court, in the ascertainment of the ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 89 facts for their information, should be governed by any other rules of evidence than those applicable to cases coming under our general jurisdiction; and if that be true, then it follows that the best evidence of the citizenship and rseidence of Queyrous, through whom the claimants assert title to the cotton, must be found in the case thus determined, which has become res judicata. "The rule is elementary that where* a controverted fact has been judicially estab- lished upon the evidence by a court of competent jurisdiction suGh fact so established can not be again controverted in any other action of a not higher nature between the same parties. (Spicer's case, 5 C. Cls. R., 34, and authorities there cited.) ******* "For the reasons stated we must hold that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to cases referred to the court under the act March 3, 1887. or the Bowman Act, for the reason, among others, that the court in the ascertainment of the facts in cases so referred is governed by the well-established elementary rules of the law of evi- dence, and being so governed the facts in such cases can be found only by judicial means and methods." Later in the same case (39 C. Cls. R.. 484), while that ruling was adhered to, the court said : "We do not believe it was the purpose of Congress by section 14 of the act of March 3, 1887 (supra), that where cases had been adjudicated and become res judicata they should again be the subject of judicial investigation by this court under that act, unless it should be clearly shown that there was such mistake in the judicial pro- ceedings as if known to the court at the time would have affected its judgment." That being the rule with reference to cases which have been determined to judg- ment, there is no reason why the same rule should not apply in cases referred under the Tucker Act, where the court, in the exercise of judicial power in a judicial way finds the facts for Congress; and applying that rule to the facts in this case, respect- ing the loyalty of the claimant's decedent, it is manifest from the evidence origi- nally presented that but for the false testimony of Dennis Kelly this court would not have found adversely to the loyalty of William H. Osborne during the late civil war. In other words, if the testimony of Kelly had not been offered in evidence in the case when it was first tried, or if the present testimony of Kelly had been before the court at that time, the ruling of the court would have been different on the question of loyalty. Therefore, the court reaches the conclusion that the finding in respect to loyalty was based on false and misleading testimony, and being so based, the findings in that respect must be purged therefrom, which is accordingly ordered, and excluding the testimony of Kelly said William H. Osborne is found to have been loyal to the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. The former findings as thus modified in respect to loyalty, together with this opin- ion, wall again be certified to Congress under the original reference as case No. 10196. By the Court. Filed December 3. 1906. A true copy. Test this 11th day of December, 1906. . [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ADOREA HONORE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11859. Adorea Honore, widow and sole heir of Emile Honore, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. On April 26, 1905, Senate bill No. 6498, Fifty-eighth Congress, was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate for findings of fact under the provi- sions of sections 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. Said bill reads as follows: "A BILL For the relief of Emile Honore. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to Emile Honore, of Pointe Coupee Parish, Louisiana, the 90 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. sum of nine thousand five hundred and fifty dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies, and property taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late civil war." The case was brought to a hearing upon loyalty and merits on the 17th day of October, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. Q. Thomp- son, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- tion of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in the Parish of Pointe Coupee, State of Louisiana; that she is the widow and sole heir and representative of Emile Honore, deceased, late of said parish and State; that during the late civil war peti- tioner and her husband, being free persons of color, resided in said parish and State; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent quartermaster stores and commissary supplies for the use of the Army, of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 3 horses, at $150 each $450 3 mules, at $150 each 450 4 cows, at $25 each 100 2 calves, at $8 each 16 12 hogs, at $4 each 48 500 bushels of corn, at 75 cents per bushel 375 1\ tons hay, at $20 per ton 30 50 bushels potatoes, at $1 per bushel 50 Total. 1 1, 519 That, knowing this claim to be just, said Emile Honore during his lifetime prayed Congress for relief in the premises, and the claim was presented in the Fifty-sixth, Fifty-seventh, and Fifty-eighth Congresses. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the decedent, Emile Honore, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late war of- the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion in the parish of Pointe Coupee, State of Louisiana, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from Emile Honore, since deceased, property of the kind and character described in the petition, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of nine hundred and seventy-six dollars ($976). No payment appears to have been made therefor. III. The property so taken was community property of the decedent, Emile Honore, and the claimant herein, Adorea Honore, his wife, in whom title to the property so taken is vested as the survivor of her deceased husband, Emile Honore. IV. While this claim was pending before Congress an affidavit was filed, made by said Emile Honore, who died before the reference of said bill to this court, in which affidavit he states that he was not advised by any tribunal established in the early seventies for the purpose of adjudicating claims of this character, and that as soon as he became advised that such claims could be collected, and as soon as he had means to warrant his undertaking the prosecution of the claim, he placed the same in the hands of an attorney for collection. The claim was not presented to any tribunal until its presentation to Congress in the Fifty-sixth Congress. The only tribunal ever open to the claimant was the Claims Commission, established by the act of March 3, 1871, and the time for presenting claims to said Commission expired March 3, 1873. These facts are reported as bearing upon the question whether there had been delay or laches in the presentation of the claim. By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy. Test this 1st day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 91 AURORE D. KERLEGAN, ADMINISTRATRIX. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11594. Aurore D. Kerlegan, administratrix of estate of Lucien Meuillon, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. On March 12, 1904, the following bill was introduced in the United States Senate: "A BILL For the relief of Lucien Meuillon. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to Lucien Meuillon, of Saint Landry Parish, Louisiana, the sum of seven hundred and ten dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late civil war." On April 26, 1904, said bill was referred to this court, by resolution of the United States Senate, for findings of fact in accordance with the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing upon loyalty and merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: That she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the parish of St. Landry, State of Louisiana; that she is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administra- trix of the estate of Lucien Meuillon, deceased, late of said parish and State; that dur- ing the late civil war said decedent was a free man of color, residing in said parish and State; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army quarter- master stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 1 horse $150 2 horses, at $100 each 200 25 hogs, at $5 each 125 150 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel ' 150 Total 625 That said decedent, a free man of color, was unable to read or write the English lan- guage, spoke said language but little, and had no knowledge of the existence of the Southern Claims Commission. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. Claimant's decedent, Lucien Meuillon, was a free man of color, residing during the late civil war in the parish of St. Landry, State of Louisiana, and remained through- out said war loyal to the United States Government. II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from claimant's decedent, in St. Landry Parish, La., for the use of the United States Army, stores and supplies of the kinds mentioned in the petition, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of two hundred dollars ($200). No payment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof. III. It appears from the evidence that claimant's decedent, a colored man, could not read or write the English language and understood but little of said language. This claim was not filed before the Southern Claims Commission during the period allowed by the act of March 3, 1871. These facts are reported as bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in the presentation of this claim. By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy. Test this 21st day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 92 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. FLORVILLE KERLEGAN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11437. Florville Kerlegan v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. On December 15, 1903, the following bill was introduced in the United States Senate: " A BILL For the relief of Florville Kerlegan. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to Florville Kerlegan, of Vermilion Parish, State of Louisiana, the sum of six thousand six hundred and twenty-six dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies and property taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late civil war." On April 26, 1904, said bill was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate for findings of fact under the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 23d day of April, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. DeC. Faust, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States, now residing in the parish of Lafayette, State of Louisiana; that during the late civil war he resided in the parish of St. Martin, in said State; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from petitioner for the use of the Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values stated, to wit: Taken in 1863, by troops under command of Gen. N. P. Banks, from plantation of petitioner on Bayou Tortue, in the parish of St. Martin, State of Louisiana: 5 horses, at $150 each $750 50 sheep, at $2.50 each : 125 7,500 feet of lumber for bridge, at $30 per M 225 1 saddle and 1 bridle 25 1 corncrib 50 1 pigeon house 15 3,000 rails (30 cords), at $3 per cord 90 50 barrels of corn, at $2 each 100 2,000 pounds of cotton, at 50 cents per pound 1, 000 5 barrels of rice, at $2 each 10 2 dozen cans of paint, at 25 cents each 6 2 boxes glass 5 40 hogs, at $6 each 240 Furniture and bedding 400 1 barrel of molasses 20 Total 3, 061 That petitioner is a colored man and unable to read or write and had no knowledge of the existence of the Southern Claims Commission between March 3, 1871, and March 3, 1873. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counselupon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimant, Florville Kerlegan, was during the late civil war a free colored man, residing in the parish of St. Martin, State of Louisiana, and throughout said war remained loyal to the United States Government. II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from claimant in St. Martin Parish, La., quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of six hundred and seventy-one dollars ($671). No payment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof. III. The claim was never presented to any Department or officer of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. It ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 93 is shown in evidence that the claimant could neither read nor write; that he could not speak English; that he had heard talk of a Southern Claims Commission, but did not make a claim because he had no money. By the Court. Filed May 7, 1906. A true copy. Test this 17th day of May, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. AUGUSTIN LAZARE, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11416. Augustin Lazare, administrator of estate of Jean Baptiste Lazare, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. On April 26, 1904, Senate bill No. 4978, Fifty-eighth Congress, reading as follows, was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate for findings of fact in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act, to wit: "A BILL For the relief of the estate of Jean Baptiste Lazare, deceased. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Jean Baptiste Lazare, deceased, late of Saint Landry Parish, Louisiana, the sum of one thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late civil war. ' ' The case came on for hearing on loyalty and merits on the 6th day of November, 1905. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Mal- colm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the parish of St. Landry, State of Louisiana; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of Jean Baptiste Lazare, deceased, late of said parish and State; that during the late civil war said decedent resided in said parish and State; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States quartermaster stores, com- missary supplies, and property of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 1 young horse $100 200 bushels corn, at $1 per bushel 200 2 work oxen, at $25 each 50 14 cows, at $25 each 350 30 hogs, at $5 each 150 35 bushels sweet potatoes, at $1 per bushel 35 5 bales cotton, at $192 per bale 960 Total 1, 845 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT I. Claimant's decedent, Jean Baptiste Lazare, was, during the late civil war, a colored man residing in the parish of St. Landry, State of Louisiana, and remained throughout said war loyal to the Government of the United States. II. During said war there were taken from claimant's decedent by the United States military forces, acting under proper authority, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds mentioned in the petition, for use of the Army, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of six hundred and ninety- seven dollars ($697), for which no payment appears to have been made. 94 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. III. In respect to the item of 5 bales of cotton claimed in the petition the court finds from the evidence that it is not shown whether it was used by the United States or sold and the proceeds paid into the Treasury of the United States. By the Court. Filed December 4, 1905. A true copy. Test this 27th day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. J. G. LE BLANC, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11857. J. G. Le Blanc, administrator of estate of Jean Crouchet, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. On March 3, 1905, by resolution of the United States Senate, Senate bill No. 6463, Fifty-eighth Congress, for relief of the estate of Jean Crouchet, deceased, was referred to this court for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887. Said bill reads as follows: "A BILL For the relief of the estate of Jean Crouchet deceased. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Jean Crouchet, deceased, late of Iberia Parish, Louisiana, the sum of twelve thousand five hundred and sixty dollars, in full com- pensation for stores and supplies and property taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late civil war." The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 29th day of October, 1907. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Clark McKercher, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the parish of Iberia, State of Louisiana; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of Jean Crouchet, deceased, late of said parish and State. That during the late civil war said decedent had taken from him by the United States military forces, under proper authority, stores and supplies and property of the kinds and values below mentioned, to wit: 10,700 feet of lumber, at $20 per M $214 5 head of gentle milch cows, at $25 per head 125 2 American horses, at $150 each 300 4 American mules, at $150 each 600 5 hogsheads of sugar, at $100 each 500 160 pounds of coffee, at 50 cents per pound 80 200 barrels of corn 200 40 bales of cotton, at $192 per bale r 7,680 Total 9,699 The said decedent died in 1879, prior to the establishment of the French and Ameri- can Claims Commission, which was the only tribunal having jurisdiction of this claim. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT. I. The claimant's decedent, Jean Crouchet, was during the late civil war a French subject, and is shown to have been neutral during said period. II. During the late civil war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, took from the claimant's decedent in the parish of Iberia, State of Louisiana, property of the kind and character described ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 95 in the petition, other than cotton, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of ten hundred and forty dollars ($1,040), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. During said war there was also taken from the said claimant's decedent forty (40) bales of cotton, which was used in the construction of fortifications as a military necessity, the value of which cotton is not established to the satisfaction of the court. IV. The claimant herein being an alien, a citizen of France, residing in Louisiana during the late civil war, did not for that reason present his claim to the Southern Claims Commission or to any other Department of the Government until its presen- tation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Sen- ate as hereintofore set forth in the statement of this case. By the Court. .Filed November 4, 1907. A true copy. Test this 24th day of January, 1908. [seal.] . John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MARIANNE D. LEMELLE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11423. Marianne D. Lemelle, administratrix of estate of Rigobert Lemelle, deceased, v. Trie United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. On March 12, 1904, the following bill was introduced in the United States Senate: "A BILL For the relief of the estate of Rigobert Lemelle, deceased. '%"-Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Rigobert Lemelle, deceased, late of Saint Landry Parish, Louisiana, the sum of five thousand two hundred and five dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Fed- eral forces dining the late civil war. " Said bill was referred to this court on April 26, 1904, by resolution of the Senate, for findings of fact in accordance with the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 9th day of April, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Mal- colm A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. . The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: That she is a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the parish of St. Landry, State of Louisiana; that she is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administra- trix of the estate of Rigobert Lemelle, deceased, by virtue of appointment of the dis- trict court in and for the parish of St. Landry, State of Louisiana; that during the late civil war said decedent was a citizen of the United States, residing in said parish and State; that dining said war the United States military forces took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: Taken from farm of decedent, near Opelousas, La., in April, 1863, by troops under com- mand of Gen. N. P. Banks. 400 bushels corn, at §1 per bushel 3 horses, at $150 each 450 10 ponies, at $50 each 500 4 work oxen, at $30 each 120 30 cattle, at $15 each 450 12 hogs, at $5 each ■ 60 150 bushels of sweet potatoes, at $1 per bushel 150 89 cords of wood, at $3 per cord 267 1 ton of hay and fodder 20 Total 2, 417 96 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent, Rigobert Lemelle, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, under proper authority, took from claimant's decedent, in St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, stores and supplies of the kind and character above described, which were then and there reasonably worth the sum of eleven hundred and six dollars ($1,106), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. The evidence shows that the claimant's decedent departed this life during the civil war, leaving petitioner, his widow, and several children. It is also shown in evidence that the petitioner could only speak the French language and was unable to read or write the English language. These facts are reported as bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in the presentation of the claim, which was never presented to any officer or Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy. Test this 20th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. NICAISE LEMELLE, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11588. Nicaise Lemelle, administrator of estate of Bellot A. Donato, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. By resolution of the United States Senate of April 26, 1904, Senate bill No. 4463, Fifty-eighth Congress, was referred to this court for findings of fact, in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the act approved March' 3, 1887, commonly known as the Tucker Act. Said bill so referred reads as follows: "A BILL For the relief of the estate of Belot Auguste Donato, deceased. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Belot Auguste Donato, deceased, late of Saint Landry Parish, Louisiana, the sum of one thousand seven hundred and fifteen dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Fed- eral forces during the late civil war." The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of Febru- ary, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the parish of St. Landry, State of Louisiana; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of Bellot A. Donato, deceased, who during the late civil war was a resi- dent of said parish and State; that said Bellot A. Donato was a free man of color; that during said war the United States military forces took from said decedent and con- verted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 3 mules, at $150 each $450 2 American horses, at $150 each 300 3 oxen, at $30 each 90 5 cows, at $25 each 125 5 yearlings, at $10 each 50 300 bushels corn, at $1 300 Total 1.315 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 97 That said decedent was unable to read or write the English language, and during the time allowed for presentation of claims to the Southern Claims Commission was ignorant of his right to so present any claim; that this claim was presented to Con- gress in the Fifty-seventh and Fifty-eighth Congresses. The court upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent, Bellot A. Donato, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. This rinding by a majority of the court. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, under proper authority, for the use of the Army, took quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kind and character above described, St. Landry Parish, State of Louisiana, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. The evidence in this case discloses that the claimant's decedent did not pre- sent his claim before the Southern Claims Commission or any other department of the Government, or that any proceedings were had toward the prosecution of the claim during the lifetime of the claimant's decedent. No other explanation is given for this delay than the fact that the claimant's decedent was unable to read and write the English language. By the Court. Filed February 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 3d day of March, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ATHENAIS CHRETIEN LE MORE, ADMINISTRATRIX OF FELICITE NEDA CHRETIEN, DECEASED. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11523. Athenais Chretien Le More, administratrix of Felieite Neda Chretien, deceased, v. The United States.] The following bill was referred to the court on the 16th of December, 1903, by reso- lution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of the estate of Felieite Neda Chretien, deceased. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there be paid to Athenais Chretien Le More, administra- trix of Felieite Neda Chretien, late of New Orleans, Louisiana, deceased, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated , the sum of twenty-eight thousand eight hundred and sixty-three dollars and fifty cents, for property taken from the decedent by the troops of the United States during the years eighteen hundred and sixty-three and eighteen hundred and sixty -four." Under the foregoing reference the claimant appeared and filed her petition in this court, in which it is averred in substance that she is a citizen of the United States, residing at No. 1118 North Rampart street, New Orleans, La., and was duly appointed administratrix of the succession of her mother, Felieite Neda Chretien, deceased. That said Felieite Neda Chretien was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion and never gave any aid or comfort to the rebellion. That the said Felieite Neda Chretien, together with Hypolite Chretien, since deceased, filed their claim June 28, 1872, with the commissioners of claims, under act of March 3, 1871, who reported the same to Congress as barred, because the evi- dence in support of the same was not filed within the time limited by law. The claim was stated to be theirs without any suggestion as to the extent of each one's share. That the said Felieite Neda Chretien and the said Hypolite Chretien did not have money enough to send to Washington the witnesses whose evidence was neces- sary to substantiate this claim. S. Rep. 382, 60-1 7 98 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. That the items of account which were before said commission and which are now presented to the court are as follows: Apr. j 1863. 77 bales of cotton, averaging 438 pounds, at 65 cents per pound. $21, 921. 90 173 hogsheads of sugar, averaging 1,200 pounds, at 10 cents per pound 20, 760. 00 1,600 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel 1, 600. 00 41 mules, at $200 per head 8, 200. 00 6 horses, at $150 per head 900. 00 16 tons of hay - 480. 00 20 head of gentle stock, at $30 per head 600. 00 4 pairs of oxen, at $60 per pair 240. 00 30 head of sheep, at $4 per head 120. 00 2 large wagons, at $250 each 500. 00 5 cane carts, at $100 each 500. 00 Oct., 1863. 40 head of hogs, at $10 per head 400. 00 20,000 fence rails, at $20 per thousand 400. 00 500 bushels of com, at $1 per bushel 500. 00 30.000 fence rails, at $20 per thousand 600. 00 Total 57, 721. 90 That the claim of the aforesaid Hypolite Chretien for his interest in the said prop- erty was referred to this court by a similar resolution in July, 1897 (Senate bill 2278, 55th Cong., 1st sess.), and the proceedings thereunder are numbered 9572 on the files of this court. In said proceedings petitioner on the 23d of July, 1903, filed an inter- vening petition which is still pending. The seizures for which this claim is filed were made in April, 1863, by officers and soldiers acting under orders of Major Webb, acting quartermaster in General Weitzel's Army Corps, and in October, 1863, by offi- cers and soldiers under command of General Franklin. That during the year 1863 and for a long time before, the said Felicite Neda Chre- tien and her son Hypolite Chretien were each the owner of an undivided half of a plantation situated on the Bayou Boeuf in the parish of St. Landry, State of Louisi- ana, in township 3 south of the range 3 east, being part of the Garrigues Flaujac tract (6 Stat. L., 351, 551) containing about 1,000 acres, and another plantation in Prairie Plaisance in the said parish, belonging at one time to the said Gen. Garrigues Flaujac, containing about 1,300 acres. The slaves, utensils, and live stock on said plantations were owned by them share and share alike. The said Felicite and Hypolite formed a partnership for the development and cultivation of said plantations. The property hereinbefore enumerated was owned by the said partners and was taken from the plantation on the Bayou Boeuf first above mentioned. The right of said partners to said property so taken was half and half. That the 77 bales of cotton so seized and constituted a portion of the cotton which in April and May and June, 1863, was shipped from Barre's Landing, Louisiana (about 13 miles from the Bayou Boeuf plantation), by way of Brashear City to New Orleans, to the custody of Quartermaster-General Holabird, the proceeds of which were paid into the Treasury of the United States. It had been carried to Barre's Landing either by the Federal troops or by slaves of the decedents. That Hypolite Chretien, who was the husband of Felicite Neda Chretien, died in the year 1839. Their son, Hypolite Chretien, who was the copartner of his mother, died in the year 1872, and Felicite Neda Chretien died in the year 1881. That claimant has no knowledge why the said Felicite Neda Chretien did not pre- sent her claim for the proceeds of this cotton to the Court of Claims under the act of Congress of March 12, 1863. The case was brought to a hearing on the loyalty of claimant's decedent on the 2d of May, 1905. John S. Blair, esq., appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-Gen- eral, by L. A. Pradt, esq., Assistant Attorney-General, by his assistant, F. W. Collins, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, made the following : "This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Felicite Neda Chretien, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. "Filed May 18, 1905, J. R. " By the Court." ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 99 The case then coming on to be heard on the merits of the case on the 7th of Feb- ruary, 1906, John S. Blair, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., assistant attorney-general, by his assistant, F. W. Collins, esq., and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. Felicite Neda Chretien, since deceased, from whom the stores and supplies here- after mentioned were taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. In April or May, 1863, there were seized by the military forces of the United States, under command of General Banks, on the plantation of the claimants, on Bayou Boeuf, in St. Landry Parish, La., about seventy bales of cotton, one-half of which belonged to the claimant's decedent. But what became of said cotton, and whether it was sold and the proceeds paid into the Treasury of the United States under the abandoned and captured property act of March 12, 1863, does not appear. ^Neither does it appear that the United States appropriated claimant's cotton or applied the same to its own use or derived any benefit therefrom. III. She was in 1863 the owner of an undivided half of a plantation of 1,200 arpents situated in St. Landry Parish, La., from which were taken in April and May, 1863, stores and supplies of the reasonable value of fifteen thousand eight hundred and ninety dollars ($15,890), of which the share of the claimant's decedent was seven thousand nine hundred and forty-five dollars ($7,945). It does not appear that pay- ment has been made for any part thereof. IV. As to whether there was delay or laches in presenting said claim, it does appear that the claimant's decedent originally presented her claim to the commissioners of claims, but through poverty of claimant's decedent, it was impossible to procure the attendance at Washington of the witnesses, which was required by the commissioners in claims amounting to over $10,000. Thereafter the claim was presented to Congress and referred to this court, as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed March 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 30th day of March, 1 906. [seal.] John Randolph, • Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALPHONSE MEUILLON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11422. Alphonse Meuillon v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. By resolution of the United States Senate adopted on April 26, 1904, the following bill was referred to this court for findings of fact in accordance with the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act, to wit: "A BILL For the relief of Alphonse Meuillon. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to Alphonse Meuillon, of Saint Landry Parish, Louisiana, the sum of six hundred and thirty dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late civil war. " jJ^The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 12th day of March, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the parish of St. Landry, State of Louisiana, where he resided during the late civil war; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from petitioner and 100 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 1 horse $100. 00 1 horse 60. 00 1 stallion r 150. 00 1 buggy 150. 00 1 saddle 25. 00 Total 485. 00 The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACTS. I. The claimant was during the late civil war a free person of color residing in the parish of St. Landry, State of Louisiana, and remained throughout said war loyal to the Government of the United States. II. During said war there was taken from the claimant by the United States mil- itary forces, under proper authority, property of the kinds described in the petition, for the use of the United States Army, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and forty-five dollars ($245). No pay- ment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof. III. This claim was not presented to the Claims Commission under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1871, and was not presented to any department of the Government until its presentation to Congress in 1902. It appears in evidence that claimant was during the civil war a free colored man; that he is unable to read or write the English language, and during the time allowed by law for presentation of claims to the Claims Commission had no knowledge of his right to present a claim to that Commission. These facts are reported as bearing on the question whether there has been delay or laches in the presentation of the claim, and as being facts claimed to excuse claimant for not having resorted to any legal remedy. By the Court. Filed March 19, 1906. A true copy. Test this 20th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JACINTHA STROTHER. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9558. Jacintha Strother, for herself and as administratrix of the estate of Joseph T. Strother, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court on July 20, 1897, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. "[S. 2506, Fifty-third Congress, third session.] "A BILL For the relief of Mr. and Mrs. J. T. Strother, of Louisiana. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay to Mr. and Mrs. J. T. Strother, of Louisiana, the sum of sixty- two thousand dollars, for property taken and used by the United States Army in the war of eighteen hundred and sixty-one. " The claimant appeared and filed her petition in this court July 6, 1903, in which she makes the following allegations: That she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana; that she files this petition in her own right and as administratrix of the estate of Joseph T. Strother, deceased; that during the war for the suppression of the rebellion petitioner and her said decedent were citizens of the United States, residing in the parish of Pointe Coupee, State of Louisiana; that during said period the United States military forces, by proper authority, took from petitioner quartermaster stores ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 101 and supplies of the value of $12,217 and converted same to the use of the United States Army, as follows, to wit: Taken by United States troops, under command of Generals Herron, Lawler, Dana, Banks, and Ullman, at Morganza, La., in 1863, 1864, and 1865: 817,700 feet of lumber, at $10 per M $8, 177 808,000 bricks, at $5 per M 4, 040 Total .' 12, 217 That said materials were secured from the demolition of: 1 eighteen-room dwelling; 3 large stables; 1 fodder house; 1 corn house; 1 farm building; 1 sixteen-room hotel building; 1 storeroom and kitchen; 2 large warehouses; 1 tailor shop and dwelling; 2 two-story store buildings with storerooms; 1 billiard saloon; 1 blacksmith shop; 2 cooper shops; 2 eight-room cottages; 1 post-office building and dwelling, 6 rooms. That dming said period there were taken from claimant's decedent, said Joseph T. Strother, by the United States military forces, acting under proper authority, and con- verted to the use of the United States Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $5,540, as follows, to wit: Taken by United States troops under command of Generals Herron, Lawler, Dana, Banks, and Ullman, at Morganza, La., in 1863, 1864, and 1865: 5,400 feet lumber (from three cottages), at $10 per M $540 10 fine horses, at $150 each 1, 500 100 cows, at $10 each 1, 000 100 ponies, at $25 each , 2, 500 Total 5, 540 The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on December 8, 1903, Messrs. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. W. Collins, esq., appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of coun- sel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that Jacintha Strother and Joseph T. Strother were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression oi the rebellion. II. The value of the property belonging to the present claimant and her deceased husband at Morganza, Louisiana, taken by the military authorities of the United States, was six thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars ($6,750).' III. Part of the property, of the value of $2,750, so taken and used belonged to the present claimant's deceased husband, Joseph T. Strother, and the remainder to the claimant in her own right. She has been appointed administratrix of her husband's estate. IV. The claim was not presented to the Commissioners of Claims under the act 3d March, 1871, and is consequently barred under the provisions of the act 15th June, 1878 (20 Stat. L., p. 550, 5). The evidence which has been offered by the claimant bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be re- moved is as follows: The present claimant's husband died in 1866, before the existence of the Commissioners of Claims. The present claimant, after the Board of Commis- sioners had been established, sent the claim to J. Ambler Smith, esq., an attorney at law in the city of Washington, to be presented to the Board, and she supposed and be- lieved that it had been so filed. Being then informed that under the rules established by the Commissioners of Claims it would be necessary for her to bring her witnesses to Washington to testify before the Commissioners, and having no means to bear the ex- pense of so doing, she abandoned the presecution of the claim. By the Court. Filed March 28, 1904. A true copy. Test this 30th day of March, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 102 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. FREDERICK T. WIMBISH, ADMINISTRATOR OF WILLIAM R. WIMBISH. [ Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11521. Frederick T. Wimbish, administrator of William R. Wimbish, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. This is a claim for stores and supplies alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebel- lion. On the 26th day of April, 1904, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: " [S. 4373, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] 'A BILL For the relief of the estate of William R. Wimbish. ''Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America n Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of William R. Wimbish, or to his legal representative, of West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana, nineteen thousand eight hundred and twenty-six dollars, the same being in full for and to be taken and accepted as a full and final discharge of his claim for supplies and stores taken from him by the military and naval forces of the United States for their use during the war for the suppression of the rebellion." The claimant appeared in this court June 14, 1904, and filed his petition, in which it is substantially averred — That dming the war for the suppression of the rebellion William R. Wimbish, deceased, was loyal to the Government of the United States; that while residing on his plantation on Bayou Tunica, parish of West Feliciana, La., about the 5th of November. 1863. the following supplies and stores were taken aboard the United States transport Taylor: 150 head of beef cattle, at $25 $3, 750 4 yoke oxen, $75 per head 600 1 saddle horse 300 ] saddle and bridle 25 1 large mule 200 1 set carriage harness , 50 1 lot of poultry 10 1 boy's saddle 15 List of property taken November 8, 1863, by troops under command of Colonel Bacon, Sixth Michigan Volunteers, and carried on board same vessel for army use: 1,500 barrels corn, at $1.25 1, 875 1 four-mule team, harness, and wagon 750 1 horse, saddle, and bridle 225 1 lady's saddle ■. 25 1 lot ginned cotton 225 2 head beef cattle 150 50,000 feet of cypress lumber, at $2.50 per hundred 1, 250 75 head fattening hogs , at $20 per head 1, 500 2 ponies, saddles, and bridles 200 1 pair of extra fine mules 400 25 mules, at $150 3, 750 3,500 barrels of corn, at. $1.25 per bushel 4, 375 Making a total of 19, 675 The case was argued and submitted on loyalty and merits on the 2d day of April, 1907. Raleigh Sherman, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Felix Brannigan, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. .The court, upon the evidence and after considering the brief and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. Claimant's decedent, William R,. Wimbish, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil wa- 1 ALLOWANCE of certain claims. 103 II. During said period there was taken from claimant's decedent in West Feliciana Parish, La., by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of fifty-one hundred dollars (|5,100). no part of which appears to have been paid. III. It appears that the claim herein was presented by the deceased claimant to General Canby. whose headquarters were in New Orleans, La., through H. C. War- mouth, esq., an attorney at law at that place; that after calling several times for his conclusion, he was informed that his papers were lost in moving from one headquarters to another: that subsequently, year after year, the claim was again made out and for- warded to Col. B. B. Simms. Riggs House. Washington. D. C. , who advised him that his "claim is filed, or registered." In April, 1904, the United States Senate, by resolu- tion, referred the claim to this court under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned. By the Court. Filed December 2, 1907. A true copy. Test this 10th day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. REMY BAGARRY. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10909. Remy Bagarry v. The United States.] The claim in the above-entitled case for cotton, supplies, or stores, alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by resolution of the United States Senate on the 27th day of June, 1902, under the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of February, 1903. Gilbert Moyers, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by E. C. Bran- denburg, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. Claimant, in his petition, makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Iberia Parish, La., where he resided during the late war of the rebellion ; that at different times during said period the. United States forces, by proper authority, took from him cotton and quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $17,274, and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows Taken in May, 1863, by General Banks's army: 24 bales cotton, 12,300 pounds, at $1.08 per pound $13, 284 1 blacksmith shop and tools 730 4 tons iron 640 1,300 pounds § iron, for making plows 130 1 liquor saloon, 1 billiard, glassware, etc 1, 400 6 milch cows and 6 calves, at $35 each 210 17 cows and 11 calves in the pasture 315 2 draft horses , . 300 1 baker's wagon 75 1 hunting gun with bag, etc 45 1 saddle .' 25 70 barrels corn 70 200 head chickens and other fowls 50 Total 17, 274 The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimant, Remy Bagarry, was a foreigner during the late war for the suppres- sion of the rebellion, and was therefore neutral. II. There was taken from the claimant, in Iberia Parish, State of Louisiana, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of 104 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of one thousand five hundred and twenty dollars ($1,520). No payment appears to have been made therefor. No allowance is made for the cotton alleged to have been taken, as it does not appear that the United States received the benefit thereof or that any proceeds therefrom ever came into the Treasury of the United States. III. The claim was not presented to the Southern Claims Commission or any other tribunal of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the act aforesaid ; and no evidence is offered by the claimant under the act 3d March, 1887, " bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in presenting such claim or applying for such grant, gift, or bounty, and any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any estab- lished legal remedy," except that the claimant removed from the United States to Mexico during the civil war and remained in that country until about 1883 or later. The period allowed by law for the presentation of claims to the Southern Claims Com- mission expired during the claimant's absence in a foreign country. By the Court. Filed February 16, 1903. A true copy. Test this 20th day of February, 1903. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ARTHUR TAYLOR, SURVIVING PARTNER. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11479. Arthur Taylor, surviving partner of Arthur Taylor and Louis Taylor, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by resolution of the United States Senate on the 26th day of April, 1904, for a finding of facts in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 188,7, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 21st day of Novem- ber, A. D. 1904. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George H. Walker, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations, to wit: That he is a person of color and a citizen of the United States, residing in the par- ish of Lafayette, State of Louisiana, where he resided during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion; that during said war petitioner and his father, Louis Taylor, as partners, owned certain personal property accumulated by their own labor; that said Louis Taylor was during the war a resident of said parish and State, and departed this life in 1867, and that petitioner presents this claim as surviving partner; that during said war the military forces of the United States, acting under proper authority, took from petitioner and his said partner, Louis Taylor, and con- verted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies, of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: Taken about November, 1863, by a detachment of the army under command of Gen. N. P. Banks, near Vermilionville (now Lafayette), La. - 40 bushels of shelled corn, at $1 per bushel $40 4,000 bundles of fodder, 6,000 pounds, at $20 per ton 60 8 head of cattle, at $20 each 160 4 fat hogs, at 250 pounds each 50 2 mules, at $100 each 200 5 horses, at $100 each 500 Total 1, 010 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 105 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant, Arthur Taylor, and his deceased partner, Louis Taylor, were loyal to the Government of the United States during the war of the rebellion. II. There was taken from the claimant and his decedent, during the war of the rebellion, in Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of seven hundred and eighty-seven dollars ($787), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. The claim was not presented to any Department or officer of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed December 10, 1904. A true copy. Test this 9th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. COMMISSIONERS OF JUDAH TOURO ALMSHOUSE FUND, NEW ORLEANS, LA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12532. The Board of Commissioners of the Judah Touro Alms- house Fund, of New Orleans, La., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for the use and occupation of and damage to the property of an endowed charitable institution by the military forces of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. On the 12th day of June, 1906, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: "[S. 1219, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the Board of Commissioners of Judah Touro Almshouse, of New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana. , "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not other- wise appropriated, to the board of commissioners of the Judah Touro Almshouse, of New Orleans, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the sum of two hundred and eighty-one thousand five hundred and eighty-five dollars, in full compensation for the use and destruction of its buildings and other property by the United States troops during the civil war." The claimant, the Board of Commissioners of the Judah Touro Almshouse Fund, appeared in this court on the 11th day of July, 1906, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred that — By the will of the late Judah Touro, who died in New Orleans, La., on June 18, 1854, a fund was left in trust for the purpose of establishing in the city of New Orleans an almshouse for the relief of the poor and aged. With additional donations said fund was increased to about $200,000, and was placed under the control of a board of direct- ors incorporated by the legislature of Louisiana. A site for the building of the almshouse was donated, valued at $50,000, and on February 22, 1858, the directors commenced the work of constructing the same. The building was substantially completed in the early part of 1862. It was a three-story structure of superior style and materials, and at the time stated the sum of $190,000 had been expended in cash by the said directors and a further indebtedness of $16,000 incurred. During the month of April, 1862, said building and premises were occupied for military purposes by the United States troops, and were so exclusively used and occupied from that time continuously until the 31st day of August. 1865, when the building was destroyed by fire through the gross negligence of the military authorities in charge. 106 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. That claimant is entitled to recover the rental value of said land and premises during the period they were so occupied, and also to recover compensation for the value of the 'building so destroyed, as follows: Rent from April, 1862, to August 31, 1865 f 81, 585 Value of buildings destroyed r 206. 000 Total 287, 585 , On account of the total destruction of said almshouse the trusts declared in the will of said Judah Touro became incapable of execution, so that on March 23, 1867, the legislature of Louisiana passed an act for the relief of the said directors, winding up the affairs of said institution and directing that the balance of the funds on hand, then amounting to $7',575.13, be turned over to the mayor and council of the city of New Orleans, to hold upon the same trusts as declared in said will; that thereafter and until the creation of the Board of Commissioners of the Judah Touro Almshouse Fund by act of July 8, 1902, there was no person competent or authorized to prosecute this claim; that since its incorporation on the latter date the petitioner has made diligent efforts in the prosecution of the case. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on October 5, 1907. Ralston & Siddons appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. DeC. Faust, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant corporation was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. The late Judah Touro, by will dated January 6, 1854, bequeathed a fund of $80,000 to his executors in trust as an endowment and for the construction of an alms- house in the city of New Orleans, La., for the purpose of contributing, so far as possible, to the prevention of mendicity in the city. The fund so created was subsequently largely increased by other private donations of property and money. III. By act of the legislature of the State of Louisiana (No. 134 of 1855) to incor- porate the Touro Almshouse the executors under said will, together with the mayor of New Orleans, were made perpetual directors, and with two other directors to be elected annually by the city council were charged with the execution of said trust. IV. The directors of said institution proceeded in the year 1858 to erect an alms- house building upon certain land, a city block fronting on the levee, which had been donated for the purpose. Plans were adopted and in the following year the structural work was commenced. This work was continued until the spring of the year 1862. V. In August, 1862, after the occupation of the city of New Orleans by the Federal forces, said buildings were designated by official order of General Butler as mustering headquarters for native guards and were used for that purpose. At the time of said occupation by the military authorities of the United States said buildings were in an unfinished condition — the roof on the left wing of the main building, the towers in front toward the river, and the roof on the rear building were uncovered and no doors or window sash were in either of said buildings. On January 15, 1864, said buildings were used by the United States military au- thorities as a recruiting depot for the Corps d'Afrique; a new slate roof was put over the whole building, new floors were laid on each story, and wooden partitions, doors, and window sashes were put in. There were also bunks, gun racks, kitchens, and other necessary improvements, at a total approximated cost to the United States of $49,000. What part of said $49,000 was expended for completing and improving said building and what part for bunks, gun racks, kitchens, etc., does not appear. VI. On the night of September 1, 1865, while in possession of said military authori- ties, said almshouse was destroyed by fire. By special order of Ma]. Gen. E. R. S. Camby, Headquarters Department of Louisiana, dated New Orleans, September 6, 1865, a board, consisting of three army officers, was appointed, and met in that city on September 10, 1865, to investigate and report the circumstances connected with the burning of said almshouse. Eighteen witnesses were examined under oath, consisting of Capt. C. M. Smiley, of the Eighty-first United States Colored Infantry, stationed in the buildings at that time; Lieutenant Roberts, Ninety-second United States Colored Infantry, acting assistant quartermaster, in charge of said buildings when burned; Lieutenant New- man, Eighty-first United States Colored Infantry; Sergeant Alexander and Corporal Moore of the guard on the night in question, four other noncommissioned officers, one ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 107 company cook, one private; Lieutenant Letten and Private Crowley, of the New Olreans police force; Ballinger, chief engineer of the New Orleans fire department; W. A. Freret, architect, formerly in charge of plans and superintendence of buildings prior to said military occupation; James Freret, draftsman; one practical bricklayer, and clerk to the assistant quartermaster. The report of the board is as follows: "The board appointed by Special Orders, No. 50, Headquarters Department of Louisiana, September 6, 1865, respectfully submit the following report of the circum- stances connected with the burning of the Touro Almshouse on the night of Septem- ber 1, 1865: "It appears from the testimony that a fire was discovered in the third story of the right wing of the Touro Almshouse on the night of September 1, 1865, by Policeman John Crowley, of the third district police, at about twenty minutes before 11 o'clock p. m. Crowley repaired at once to the main entrance of the building on Levee street, and having ascertained that no troops were quartered in that story, told the sergeant of the guard that the building was on fire. Policeman Crowley gave the general alarm about five minutes before 11 o'clock p. m. The building at this time was occu- pied by detachments of the Second Maine Cavalry and Company K, First Louisiana Cavalry, numbering in all 53 men. "CompanyB, Eighty-first United States Colored Infantry, Capt. C. H. Smiley and First Lieut. S. A. Newman were on duty at the Touro Almshouse on September 1, 1865. "It appears from the testimony of Captain Smiley, Eighty-first United States Col- ored Infantry, that about half past 10 o'clock p. m., on the night of September 1, 1865, one of the guards (Private Caston, Company B, Eighty-first United States Col- ored Infantry) came to his quarters in a hurried manner and said a policeman was at the gate and wished to see him; that he hastened to the gate, where the sergeant of the guard told him the policeman had gone up the street; that he met Policeman Crowley on Piety street, who told him there was a fire in the building and pointed to a window on the third story of the right wing, facing toward Piety street, through which a fire could be seen on the opposite wall and under the roof. It appeared to be one of the rafters burning. "Captain Smiley at once aroused his company and the detachments of cavalry, informed them where the fire was, and ordered the men to fill buckets with water and assist to extinguish the flames. Procuring the water he proceeded with a squad of men to the third story by a stairway in the left wing. There was no flooring on the third story of the right wing. The place where the fire was could only be reached by walking on the floor sleepers. This Captain Smiley attempted, but as the night was very dark and a high wind prevailing the lights borne by the men were extin- guished, and the attempt to reach the fire by the floor sleepers was abandoned. There were no ladders in or about the building. It is the opinion of Captain Smiley that if the fire could have been reached at this time it might have been extinguished with two buckets of water. Lieutenant Newman coincides with this opinion. "It appears from the testimony that the walls of the first and second stories of the building were covered with tar for a distance of 5 or 6 feet from the floor, and that sparks of coals dropping from the burning rafters upon the walls and igniting the tar caused the fire to spread with great rapidity through the entire second story. The first fire company arrived on the ground about three-quarters of an hour after the dis- covery of the fire. It appears that when the fire companies first arrived the cry of 'powder' was raised, which created a general panic, so that the firemen left their engines and did not return to work until it was too late to render any service in stay- ing the progress of the fire. "It is the opinion of the chief engineer of the fire department that but for the panic created by the cry of powder the fire would have been extinguished. "The testimony shows clearly (and in view of the premises) that the fire originated at a point designated upon the accompanying plan where a ventilator or impure-air flue passes through the roof, and by the side of which is anchored a floor sleeper. It was this floor sleeper or rafter that was discovered to be on fire. "The testimony of Private M. W. Plumley, Company K, First Louisiana Cavalry, is to the effect that when the fire was first discovered he went up to the third story of the building and saw that it was the rafters next to the flue that were burning, and that a blue flame was issuing out of what appeared to be an open joint in the flue. "The cooking for the troops quartered in the Touro Almshouse was performed in the right wing of the building, on the side next to Piety street. On the opposite side of the right wing, near the angle of the wing and main building, a large bake oven was constructed June, 1864, under the orders of Lieut. G. H. Roberts, acting assist- ant quartermaster. It was used for baking purposes until about April 1, 1865, the date of discontinuing the volunteer recruiting service. This oven was oval inside and measured 12 by 12 feet outside. It was built against the ventilator (shown in 108 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. the accompanying drawing), and a raise on the outside conveyed the smoke into the ventilator used as a chimney. No fires were ever used in any other part of the building. "It appears that this bake oven was used on the afternoon of September 1, 1865, by the cooks of the detachment of the Second Maine Cavalry to bake beans, and Private Plumley testifies that he heard enlisted men say ' that sparks were coming out of the place in the flue near the roof, and if they were not careful they would set the build- ing on fire.' It further appears that during the conflagration men of the detachment of the Second Maine Cavalry were heard to say that 'the baked beans had fired the building.' "It was over the ventilator or impure-air flue, used as a chimney to carry the smoke from the bake oven, that Private Plumley discovered a blue flame issuing in the third story, directly under the roof of the building, and where all the witnesses tes- tify they first saw the fire. "At an inspection of the interior facing of the left wall of the right wing "a fissure in the ventilator used as a chimney to the bakehouse may be seen, from about three- fourths of an inch to 1 inch in width, extending from near the top of the ventilator downward about 3 feet. The ventilator is 9 inches in diameter, and where it went through the roof was 4 inches thick on the side toward the interior of the building. "It appears from the testimony of Mr. William A. Freret, an architect by profes- sion, who had charge of the plans and superintendence of the construction of the Touro Almshouse, that it was never the intention to heat the building save by steam; consequently there were no fireplaces nor chimneys in the main building, but there was a separate building in the rear of the main building intended for the culinary department of the institution. His testimony shows that the use of these air flues as fire flues when not intended as such was detrimental to the safety of the building, because the construction of the flues necessary for the escape of impure air (as called for in specification) is different from the mode of construction when prepared for fire flues. "He further says: 'I consider the employment of impure-air flues as fire flues, if not culpable, the result of ignorance, more especially the use of an impure-air flue to convey smoke from a bake oven of this size (12 by 12 feet).' "The use of any flue of the small dimension of 9 inches square, no matter how con- structed, would have been dangerous as a fire flue for a fire of such size. The accu- mulation of soot would render it so. The flue would have been liable to burst. "The testimony shows that no citizen had been seen in or about the building on the day of the fire. Sentinels were posted in the right and left wings of the main building. "It would seem impossible for a person to enter the building without being seen by the guard. Standing instructions were to send a patrol through the buildings and grounds every night. "It appears that every effort was made by officers, soldiers, and citizens to extin- guish the fire, and but for the panic created by the cry of 'powder' their-efforts would have been successful. " From the testimony adduced the board are of the opinion that the burning of the Touro Almshouse on the night of September 1, 1865, was occasioned by a fissure in the ventilator, the impure-air flue used as a chimney for the bake oven erected in the right wing of the building, through which fire was communicated to the rafters. . "Henry W. Fuller, " Colonel Seventy-fifth United States Colored Infantry. "Andrew C. Fitz, " Captain Eighty-first United States Colored Infantry. "Thos. Kanady, " Captain First New Orleans Volunteer Infantry." VII. The land upon which said buildings were erected was valued by its donor at the date of its donation in May, 1855, at $50,000. The invitations for plans, drawings, and estimates issued by the building committee limited the expenditure on said build- ing at $125,000. What portion of this amount had actually been expended by the trustees in the construction of said unfinished building does not appear. VIII. On March 23, 1867, the legislature of the State of Louisiana passed an act (No. 100 of 1867) for the relief of the directors of the Touro Almshouse, reciting the fact that they had expended a large sum of money in the erection of suitable buildings for said institution; that said buildings, being in an unfinished condition, were taken possession of by the United States military authorities and used for military purposes, and while in their possession were entirely consumed by fire, in consequence of which large expenditures and total loss the trusts can not now be carried into effect. The ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 109 act then provided that the directors may transfer to the authorities of the city of New Orleans all money and property belonging to the Touro Almshouse, which shall be used only for the purposes directed by said testator, to be assumed by the city in the act of transfer. The city council by ordinance accepted the transfer upon the terms stated in the act. IX. On November 3, 1882, the city council by ordinance transferred the funds re- maining from said endowment ($7,575.13) to the Touro-Shakespeare Almshouse, then being erected. X. The present claimant, the Board of Commissioners of the Judah Touro Almshouse Fund, was created by act of the Louisiana legislature, passed July 8, 1902, for the pur- pose of collecting all moneys due to the endowment fund originating under the Touro will. Such moneys as are received are to be immediately transferred to the Touro- Shakespeare Almshouse. XI. The reasonable rental value of said property during said period of occupation was the sum of twenty-one thousand dollars ($21,000), or twenty-eight thousand dollars ($28,000) less than the Government had expended thereon in the completion and repair of said building as aforesaid. The reasonable value of said building, including the expenditures so made by the Government, as aforesaid, was at the time of the destruction ninety-four thousand four hundred dollars ($94,400), which said sum of ninety-four thousand four hundred dollars represents the rental value and the destruction of the said building, no part of which appears to have been paid. XII. No demand was made at any time for payment of this claim against the United States after the destruction of said buildings on September 1, 1865, until the year 1902, when the same was presented to Congress and referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore set forth; nor is any reason shown why the same was not sooner presented ; but in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of the United States dated December 19, 1871, the Secretary of War transmitted on February 12, 1872, to the Senate reports of his investigation furnishing the desired information. By. the Court. Filed February 25, 1908. A true copy. Test this 26th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. HEIRS OF ROBERT BRADLEY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11487. Hiram Baldwin, Joseph De France Baldwin, and Richard Robert Baldwin, heirs of Robert Bradley, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. On November 16, 1903, the following bill was introduced in the United States Senate: ''A BILL For the relief of the estate of Robert Bradley and Mary C. Bradley, deceased. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Robert Bradley, deceased, and Mary C. Bradley, deceased, both late of Adams County, Mississippi, the sum of eighty thousand seven hundred dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies and property taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late war of the rebellion." Said bill was referred to this court on April 26, 1904, by resolution of the Senate for findings of fact in accordance with the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 16th of January, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: That they are citizens of the United States; that petitioner Hiram Baldwin is a resident of the county of Adams, State of Mississippi; that petitioner Joseph De France Baldwin is a resident of the parish of Madison, State of Louisiana; that petitioner 110 ALLOWANCE OP CEKTAIN CLAIMS. Richard Robert Baldwin is a resident of the parish of Tensas, State of Louisiana; that petitioners are grandsons and heirs of E-obert Bradley, deceased, formerly a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Adams, State of Mississippi; that said Robert Bradley died intestate in 1863; that in the fall of 1863, and while peti- tioners were the owners of an undivided 16 per cent of the property and estate left by said Robert Bradley, their grandfather, the United States military forces took from said estate, by proper authority, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: Taken from Bradley plantation, about 8 miles southeast ot Natchez, Miss., by troops stationed at Natchez, including the Fifty-eighth Colored Infantry (or Sixth Missis- sippi Infantry) and other commands: 40 mules, at $150 each $6, 000 15 horses, at $150 each . 2, 250 9,000 bushels shelled corn, at 75 cents per bushel 6, 750 75 cattle, at $25 each 1, 875 240 sheep, at $3 each 720 10 hogs, at $8 each 80 150 tons of hay and fodder, at $15 per ton 2, 250 Total 19,925 That petitioners were the owners of an undivided 16 per cent interest in and to said property so taken, said interest amounting to the sum of $3,188. That petitioner Hiram Baldwin is the eldest of petitioners and was born about 1857; that during the time allowed under the provisions of the act approved March 3, 1871, for presenting claims to the Southern Claims Commission, all of petitioners were minors; that this claim was presented to Congress and bills were introduced in the Fifty-seventh and Fifty-eighth Congresses. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT. I. The claimants herein were loyal to the Government of the United States through- out the war for the suppression of the rebellion, they being infants of tender years, under 7 years of age, at the time of the taking of the property here claimed for. II. There was taken from the claimants about 8 miles from Natchez, Miss., in the fall of 1863, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character described in the petition, the reasonable value of the interest of the claimants herein being then and there the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000), same being one-sixth of the value of the property taken at the time. III. Laches. — At the time of the taking of the property mentioned in Finding II the claimants herein were infants of tender years, the eldest being born in 1857 and the other subsequent thereto. No claim appears to have been filed by anyone for them during their minority before the Commissioners of Claims under the act of March 3, 1871, nor do they appear to have presented any claim to Congress after they became of age until the year 1904 and the subsequent reference of said claim to the court by resolution of the Senate April 26, 1904, under the act of March 3, 1887. No evidence is offered otherwise to show why the claim was not presented or prosecuted by some one as guardian for them before the Commissioners of Claims or by them before Congress after they became of age. By the Court. Filed May 15, 1906. A true copy. Test this 23d day June, 1906. [seal.] Archibald Hopkins, Chief Cleric Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF. CERTAIN CLAIMS. Ill DELPHINE A. TAYLOR, AMY A. TAYLOR, AND MARIE C. QUAYS, EXECU- TRIX OF PHILIP D. QUAYS. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11421. Mrs. Delphine A. Taylor, Mrs. Amy A. Taylor, and Marie C. Quays, executrix of Philip D. Quays, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. On April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, Senate bill No. 4971, Fifty-eighth Congress, was referred to this court for findings of fact under the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887. Said bill reads as follows: " A BILL For the relief of the heirs of Adeliza Pickett Quays, deceased. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the heirs of Adeliza Pickett Quays, deceased, late of East Carroll Parish, Louisiana, the sum of twenty-eight thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late civil war." The claimants, in their petition, make the following allegations: That petitioners Mrs. Delphine A. Taylor and Mrs. Amy A. Taylor are residents of the county of Harrison, State of Texas; that petitioner Marie C. Quays is a resident of the parish of East Carroll, State of Louisiana. That petitioners, Mrs. Delphine A. Taylor and Mrs. Amy A. Taylor, present this claim in their own right as heirs of their deceased mother, Mrs. Adeliza Pickett Quays; that petitioner, Marie C. Quays, presents this claim as executrix of the will of Philip D. Quays, deceased, who was a son and an heir of said Mrs. Adeliza Pickett Quays, who departed this life prior to the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, leaving as her only heirs said Mrs. Delphine A. Taylor (then Quays), said Mrs. Amy A. Taylor (then Quays), and said Philip D. Quays. That during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said heirs of Mrs. Adeliza Pickett Quays, to wit, from said Mrs. Delphine A. Taylor (then Quays), said Mrs. Amy A. Taylor (then Quays), and Philip D. Quays, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, and converted the same to the use of the United States Army, to wit: 7 mules, at $150 each $1, 050 25 hogs, at $10 each 250 1 horse 150 7 cows, at $25 each 175 25 sheep, at $4 each 100 22,300 bushels shelled corn, at $1 per bushel... 22, 300 13 barrels molasses, at $20 per barrel 260 400 pounds of sugar, at 10 cents per pound 40 10,000 pounds of bacon, at 20 cents per pound 2, 000 256 cords rails, at $3 per cord 768 20 tons blade fodder, at $20 per ton 400 Total 27, 493 That petitioners had no knowledge of the existence of the Southern Claims Com- mission between March 3, 1871, and March 3, 1873, and were without means of pre- senting and prosecuting this claim during said period; that throughout said war the petitioners, Mrs. Delphine A. Taylor and Mrs. Amy A. Taylor and said decedent, Philip D. Quays, remained loyal to the Government of the United States. The claim was brought to a hearing upon loyalty and merits on the 23d day of April, 1907. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimants and the Attorney-General, by Philip M. Ashford, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. Mrs. Delphine A. Taylor, one of the claimants herein, was not loyal to the Gov- ernment of the United States throughout the late civil war. 112 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. II. Mrs. Amy A. Taylor and Philip D. Quays, deceased, were loyal to the Govern- ment of the United States throughout the late civil war by reason of then tender years. III. During the said war the military forces of the United States, by proper author- ity, for the use of the army, took from the claimants and Philip D. Quays, deceased, in East Carroll Parish, La., property of the kind and character above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of forty-eight hundred and ninety-five dollars ($4,895), no part of which appears to have been paid. IV. It appears from the evidence that some receipts were given for the property taken, and that these receipts were placed in the hands of an attorney about 1868, who thereafter moved to another State, and the papers could not be found. It is con- tended by the claimants that they were without the means to bring witnesses to Wash- ington to testify in support of their claim if same had been filed before the Southern Claims Commission. No other action appears to have been taken by the claimants until petitions for relief were presented to Congress and the reference to this court under the^act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned. These facts are reported as bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in the presentation of this claim. By the Court. Filed April 29, 1907. A true copy. Test this 19th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. HEIRS OF RICHARD TERRILL. {Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10155. Cornelius F. Terrill, Cordelia I. Terrill and Vira R. Terrill- Harper, heirs of Richard Terrill, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court by resolution of the United States Senate, dated March 4, 1900, under the provisions of an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of the heirs of the late Richard Terrill of 'New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the claim of Cornelius F. Terrill, of New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana; Cordelia I. Terrill, of Tarrytown, in the State of New York, and Vira R. Terrill-Harper, of Americus, in the State of Georgia, sole heirs of the said Richard Terrill, deceased, for the use and occupation by the military authorities of the United States of the following property belonging to the said Richard Terrill, situate and being at said New Orleans, namely, certain dwelling houses, with the furniture therein, warehouses, cotton presses, with machinery, and four horses taken by said authorities and never returned to said Richard Terrill. All and singular the said property so taken, used, and occupied between the fifteenth day of June, in the year eighteen hundred and sixtj-two, and the fifteenth day of June, eighteen hun- dred and sixty-five, be referred to the Court of Claims for adjudication." The claimants appeared and filed their petitions in this court May 7, 1900, in which they make the following allegations: That they are the sole heirs of Richard Terrill, deceased, late of New Orleans, La., where decedent resided during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion; that during said period, at various times, the mili- tary forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of and occupied the Terrill cotton press, situate at New Orleans, La. ; that the reasonable rental value of said press was $36,000; that for repairing damages to said property was $7,369.43, and that part payment has heretofore been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 25th day of Novem- ber, 1903. John W. Butterfield, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. Ashford, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 113 The court, after considering the evidence and the arguments and briefs on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the claimants' decedent was neutral in his relations with the Federal and Confederate governments, it not appearing that he said or did anything for or against either, though he resided in the city of New Orleans. II. On or about April 10, 1862, the claimants' decedent, Richard Terrill, resided in the city of New Orleans, and was the owner of a large cotton press. Said decedent was at the time in feeble health and, on advice of his physician, was removed from said city with his family and one servant to Coopers Well, a few miles away from said city, where he remained about a month, when he and his family removed to the house of a friend, Mr. Murray, with whom he resided for about fourteen months. At the time of the departure of the decedent from the city of New Orleans the cotton press owned by him was not being operated, and after the military forces of the United States took possession of the city of New Orleans they did, on or about June 15, 1862, seize and take possession of the real estate upon which the cotton press was located in the city ofjNew Orleans as abandoned property, subject to confiscation, and held the same until on or about September 15, 1863, when the same was turned over by the military authorities to the Treasury Department, and said property was held by the Treasury Department until on or about December 15, 1863, when it was restored to the decedent. For the period from September 15, 1863, to December 15, 1863, when the property was restored to the decedent, he was paid the sum of $2,841.63, for which he gave his receipt, wherein it was recited, among other things, that he released the United States from any claim for damages, and for use and occupation. Notwithstanding said real estate was restored to the claimants' decedent as afore- said, the said military forces of the United States continued to occupy said real estate until about June 1, 1865, and for the period from December 15, 1863, to June 1, 1864, the claimants' decedent was paid at the rate of $500 a month, leaving one year during which time the real estate was so used and occupied for which no payment was made. The reasonable rental for said real estate during such period, to wit, from June 1, 1864, to June 1, 1865, was $500 a month, or $6,000 (six thousand dollars) for the year, inclu- sive of any damage to said real estate by reason of said use and occupation. III. It is not shown that this claim or any part thereof was ever presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to the Senate by bill, which was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate March 4, 1900, under the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore set forth. By the Court. Filed May 15, 1905. A true copy. Test this 1st day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. CHARLTON B. TUCKER, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 9554. Charlton B. Tucker, administrator J. W. Tucker, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by reso- lution of the United States Senate dated February 15, 1897, under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of April, 1902. Gilbert Moyers, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Robert Chisolm, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Lafourche Parish, State of Louisiana, where decedent resided before the late war of the rebellion; that at differ- ent times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from said decedent's estate and the estate of his wife, M. E. Gaudi, in community, quarter- S. Rep. 382, 60-1 8 114 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. master stores and commissary supplies of the value of $344,350 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army. 900 hogsheads sugar, 1,200 pounds each, at 12£ cents per pound $135, 000 3,000 barrels molasses, at $45 per barrel 135, 000 8,000 barrels corn '. 8, 000 200 work mules, at $200 each 40, 000 100 unbroken mules, at $150 15, 000 35 brood mares, at $150 5, 250 16 carts, at $100 1, 600 4 wagons, at $150 each 600 60 double plows 900 400 wagonloads pea-vine hay ■. 3, 000 344, 350 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The plantation in Lafourche Parish, State of Louisiana, from which the property claimed for in this case was taken, contained about 3,000 acres, of which 1,500 were cultivated, and was owned in 1853 and prior thereto by J. W. Tucker and his wife, Marcelline, in community, each owning one-half. In 1853 the said J. W. Tucker died intestate, leaving surviving him his said widow, Marcelline, and six children, namely: Joseph P. Tucker, Henrietta Tucker, Laura E. Tucker, Mary L. Tucker, William P. Tucker, and Charlton B. Tucker. Thereafter, and before the beginning of the late civil war his said widow, Marcelline, intermarried with Caleb Tucker, and by him they had one child, a daughter, Louisa, who was born in 1858. The said Marcelline, mother of said children, died prior to the beginning of the civil war, leaving surviving her said children, who were aged in 1861, respectively, Joseph P., 25; Henrietta, 21; Laura E., 19; Mary L., 17; William P., 15; Charlton B., 13, and Louisa, 3 years of age. The evidence does not satisfy the court that any of said children were loyal to the United States throughout the said war except Charlton B. and Louisa, whose loyalty rests entirely upon their tender age. II. There was taken from the said plantation during the war for the suppression of the rebellion by the military authorities for the use of the Army stores and sup- plies of the kind and character mentioned in the petition, then reasonably worth the sum of sixty -three thousand three hundred and thirty dollars ($63,330), of which the interest of said Charlton B. Tucker (by inheritance from his father and mother) is two-thirteenths, or nine thousand seven hundred and forty-three dollars ($9,743), and said Louisa Tucker Le Forte (by inheritance from her mother alone) is one- thirteenth, or four thousand eight hundred and seventy-one dollars ($4,871), making in all to said two children the sum of fourteen thousand six hundred and fourteen dol- lars ($14,614). III. The claim was not presented to the commissioners of claims under the act 3d March, 1871, and is consequently barred under the provisions of the act 15th June, 1878 (20 Stat. L., p. 550, sec. 4). Under the act 3d March, 1887 (24 Stat. L., p. 505, sec. 14), which provides that where there has been delay or laches in presenting a claim the court shall report whether there are "any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal rem- edy," the claimant has proved that Louisa Tucker-Le Forte during the period allowed for riling claims before the Southern Claims Commission was a minor, and that the claim was placed by other heirs in the hands of an attorney as early as 1870, and that thereafter all the papers in the possession of the heirs relating to the claim were de- stroyed by fire. Ap to the question whether the facts so proved are sufficient or insufficient to excuse the claimant the court makes no finding, that question being exclusively within the judgment and discretion of Congress. By the Court. Filed May 2, 1904. A true copy. Test this 29th day of November, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 115 HENRY J. BROWN, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11429. Henry J. Brown, administrator of estate of Elmyra Brown, deceased, and Henry J. Brown, Sarah Bushnell, Rosa Brown Meeker Brown, Jennie May Brown, Elmyra Jones, William Brown, Bertha Brown, May Brown, and Esther Brown, heirs of William R. Brown, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. In the Fifty-eighth Congress Senate bill No. 3817 was introduced for relief of the estates of W. R. Brown and Mrs. Elmyra Brown, deceased, said bill reading as follows: "A BILL For the relief of the estates of W. R. Brown and Mrs. Elmyra Brown, deceased. ' 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the estates of W. R. Brown and Mrs. Elmyra Brown, deceased, late of Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana, the sum of one hundred and eight thousand nine hundred and thirty-four dollars and seventy-five cents, in full com- pensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late civil war." Said bill was referred to this court on April 26, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate for findings of fact under the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on the 17th day of January, 1907, on loyalty and merits. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Franklin W. Collins, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana; that claimant, Henry J. Brown, appears as the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of his deceased mother, Elmyra Brown, and also in his own right; that during the late civil war, and until his death early in 1863, William R. Brown lived on his plantation in the then parish of Avoy- elles, State of Louisiana, with his wife, Elmyra Brown, and various children; that at his death said William R. Brown left surviving him his widow, said Elmyra Brown, and five children, as follows, to wit: William A. Brown, Henry J. Brown, Sarah Bushnell, nee Brown, Lindsay L. Brown, Talton E. Brown. That said William R. Brown died intestate, his estate thereupon becoming vested in his said widow and five children, their relative interests in said estate being as follows: Mrs. Elmyra Brown, widow, five-tenths; William A. Brown, one-tenth; Henry J. Brown, one-tenth; Sarah Bushnell, one-tenth; Lindsay L. Brown, one-tenth; Talton E. Brown., one-tenth. That during said civil war, and while title to said estate was vested as above set forth, the United States military forces, acting under proper authority, did take from said widow and children of said William R. Brown for use of the Army quarter- master stores and commissary supplies as follows, to wit: 48 mules, at $150 each $7,200 42 horses, at $150 each 6, 300 16 large oxen, at $30 each 480 100 hogs, at $8 each 800 21,300 bushels shelled corn, at 75 cents per bushel 15, 975 100 cords rails for fuel, at $3 per cord 300 18 tons fodder, at $20 per ton 360 100 sheep, at $3 each 300 20,000 pounds cured bacon, at 25 cents per pound 5, 000 Total 36, 815 That subsequent to the taking of said property as aforesaid said Mrs. Elmyra Brown, widow of William R. Brown, died, said petitioner, Henry J. Brown, being the admin- istrator of her estate; that also subsequent to the taking of said property as aforesaid said William A. Brown, son of said William R. Brown, died intestate and unmarried, his interest thereupon becoming vested in his brothers and sisters above named, each of said other four children being thereafter the owner of an undivided one-eighth interest in said estate; That since the war said Lindsay L. Brown died intestate, leaving surving him three children, as follows: Rosa Brown, Meeker Brown, Jennie May Brown, children of Lindsay L. Brown; 116 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. That also since said war said Talton E. Brown died intestate, leaving surviving him five children, as follows: Mrs. Elmyra Jones, nee Brown, William Brown, Bertha Brown, May Brown, Esther Brown, children of Talton E. Brown; That the different and respective interests of the petitioners in this claim now pre- sented are as follows: Henry J. Brown, as administrator of estate of Elmyra Brown, deceased, one- half, or $18, 407 Henry J. Brown, in his own right, one-eighth, or 4, 602 Sarah Bushnell, one-eighth, or 4, 602 Rosa Brown, one twenty-fourth, or 1, 534 Meeker Brown, one twenty-fourth, or 1, 534 Jennie May Brown, one twenty-fourth, or 1, 534 Elmyra Jones, one-fortieth, or 920 William Brown, one-fortieth, or : 920 Bertha Brown, one-fortieth, or 920 May Brown, one-fortieth, or 920 Esther Brown, one-fortieth, or 920 That this claim was not presented to the Southern Claims Commission, established by the act approved March 3, 1871, during the two years allowed for filing of claims before said commission; that during said period of two years said Lindsay L. Brown and said Talton E. Brown were minors, and prior to the establishment of said com- mission said Mrs. Elmyra Brown had departed this life, no administrator having been appointed for her estate until 1904; that this claim was first presented to Con- gress in 1900, and bills were introduced in the Fifty-sixth, Fifty-seventh, and Fifty- eighth Congresses. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. During the late civil war, to wit, in the spring of 1863, William R. Brown, a citizen of the United States, residing in the parish of Avoyelles, La., departed thiB life intestate, leaving surviving him as his heirs, his widow, Mrs. Elmyra Brown, and five children, below named in the order of their ages: William Allison Brown, Henry J. Brown, Sarah Brown (now Mrs. Bushnell), Lindsay L. Brown, and Talton E. Brown. During the said war it appears that Elmyra J. Brown, of whom Henry J. Brown is administrator, was not loyal to the Government of the United States. It further appears that Henry J. Brown and William Allison Brown, aforesaid, were not loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. It does appear that Sarah Bushnell, Lindsay L. Brown, and Talton E. Brown were loyal to the Government of the United States during said war. II. During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from said claimants quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds mentioned in the petition, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of seventeen thousand two hundred and fifty dollars ($17,250), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. At the time of the said taking, Elmira Brown was entitled to one-half of the said property, or eight thousand six hundred and twent3r-five dollars ($8,625), and William Allison Brown, Henry J. Brown, Sarah Bushnell, Lindsay L. Brown, and Talton E. Brown were each entitled to one-tenth, or one thousand seven hundred and twenty-five dollars ($1,725). Said Lindsay L. Brown is now deceased, his heirs being Rosa Brown, Meeker Brown, and Jennie May Brown. Said Talton E. Brown is now deceased, his heirs being Mrs. Elmyra Jones, William Brown, Bertha Brown, May Brown, and Esther Brown. IV. This claim was not presented to the Southern Claims Commission during the time allowed for presentation of claims to said commission. During said period said Lindsay L. Brown and said Talton E. Brown were minors. Prior to the establish- ment of said commission said Mrs. Elmyra Brown had departed this life. This claim was first presented to Congress in 1900, and bills were introduced in the Fifty-sixth, Fifty-seventh, and Fifty-eighth Congresses. By the Couet. Filed January 21, 1907. A true copy. Test this 5th day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 117 MAINE. EDWARD W. LARRABEE, ADMINISTRATOR, ETC. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10877. Edward W. Larrabee, administrator of Stephen Larrabee, deceased, and Charles H. Greenleaf, administrator of Amos L. Allen, deceased, v. the United States.] The following bill was referred to the court on the 17th day of June, 1902, by- resolution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there be paid to Amos L. Allen, surviving partner of Larrabee and Allen, of Bath, Maine, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of eleven thousand seven hundred and eight dollars and ninety-seven cents, in full payment and dis- charge of the claim of the said Larrabee and Allen for work done and material furnished in the construction of the United States double-ender gunboat Iosco, as per report of Thomas O. Selfridge, commodore and president of board, Sen- ate Executive Document Numbered Eighteen, first session of the Thirty-ninth Congress." Under the foregoing reference the claimants filed their petition in this court, in which it is averred in substance that they are citizens of the United States, residing in Bath, Me., and that they are the duly appointed tadministrators of Stephen Larrabee and Amos L. Allen, the original claimants. That said Allen and Larrabee gave no aid to the rebellion, but were at all times loyal to the Government of the United States ; that on September 9, 1862, they contracted with the Navy Department to build the hull of the wooden double-ender Iosco, and received the contract price after the completion of the vessel, $75,000; the delivery of the hull to the engine builders was March 23, 1863, and the final completion in March, 1S64, three hundred and ten days after the time fixed in the contract for the work of completion. During the construction, and thereafter, at the request of the officers in charge, contractors rendered additional services in making alterations and additions to the hull. By reason of such delays in making alterations and additions the contractors did not finish the vessel within the contract time and lost a profit of $10,000, and it cost the contractors $13,787 more than they ever got for it. On account of extra work the contractors received in 1864 from the United States $4,535.84, and for towing the vessel $500 more. The board of naval officers found, December 23, 1S65, that the excess of cost of the hull above such allowances and contract price was $11,70S.97, and the loss to the contractors by reason of the delavs and changes ordered by the United States was $23,787. The contractors were not guilty of laches, as they presented their claim in 1865. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. John S. Blair, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., Assistant Attorney-General, by his assistant John Q. Thompson, esq., and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- tion of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. Edward W. Larrabee, administrator of Stephen Larrabee, deceased, and Charles H. Greenleaf, administrator of Amos L. Allen, deceased, are citizens of the United States residing in the city of Bath, State of Maine. II. Amos L. Allen, named in the bill above set forth as surviving partner of Larrabee & Alleu, died, and on the 4th day of November, 1904, Charles H. Green- leaf was appointed administrator of his estate. Amos L. Allen and Stephen Larrabee resided at Bath, Me., throughout the years 1861 to 1865, inclusive, and gave no aid and comfort to the rebellion. The claimants and the decedents were at all times loyal to the Government of the United States. 118 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. III. The said Amos L. Allen and Stephen Larrabee, partners doing business under the firm name and style of Larrabee & Allen, on the 9th day of Septem- ber, 1862, entered into a contract with the Navy Department to build the hull of the wooden double-ender Iosco within one hundred and twenty-six days from the date of the contract. The contractors performed their contract by so far completing the vessel as to have the same ready for the installation of its ma- chinery, which was to be supplied by independent contractors, by delivering the hull of said vessel to the Globe Iron Works at South Boston, on March 24, 1863, which was two months after the date fixed by the contract for such delivery. It required the Globe Iron Works three hundred and forty-six days to install the machinery of the Iosco, and its work was not completed until March 5, 1864. Thereafter the vessel was finally completed by the said firm of Larrabee & Allen on March 17, 1864. IV. During the construction of the hull of said vessel there were alterations and additions ordered by the Navy Department for which the contractors were paid the sum of $4,535.84, in addition to the full contract price of $75,000, and the further sum of $500 for towage of the vessel, making a total pavment to said contractors of $80,035.84. V. Shortly after the rendition of such services the claimant presented bills to the Navy Department for such extra services and materials. These bills not having been acted upon by the Navy Department and having been allowed only in part, to the extent of $4,535.84, claimant, with other contractors of naval vessels, presented his claim to the Congress of the United States. On March 9, 1865, the Senate of the United States passed the following resolution : " Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be requested to organize a board of not less than three competent persons, whose duty it shall be to inquire into and determine how much the vessels of war and steam machinery contracted for by the Department in the years of 1862 and 1863 cost the contractors over and above the contract price and allowance for extra work, and report the same to the Senate next session. None but those that have given satisfaction to the Department to be considered." The Navy Department thereupon appointed a board consisting of Commodore Selfridge, Chief Engineer Henderson, and Paymaster Eldredge, commonly known as the " Selfridge Board." VI. The claims of the contractors were transmitted to the Selfridge Board, and Amos L. Allen appeared before the said board and testified in person as to the services which he had rendered, the authority by which the changes and alterations were made, the value of the same, etc., and exhibited to said board bills of costs and expenses. VII. The Selfridge Board convened at the navy-yard, New York, June 5, 1865, and continued their investigation of claims without intermission, hearing testi- mony and examining contractors and claims, until December 23, 1865, and shortly thereafter submitted their report to the Secretary of the Navy, by whom it was transmitted to the Senate on January 30, 1866. VIII. The total amount of the bills submitted to the Selfridge Board by the claimant placed the entire cost of the vessel Iosco at $91,845.91. In addition to the contract price of $75,000 the contractors had been paid by the Bureau for extra work $4,535.84, and $500 for towing the vessel to South Boston, as pro- yided for by the contract, and the board found the cost to the contractor of the vessel over and above the contract price and extra bills paid was $11,708.97. IX. No evidence satisfactory to the court has been adduced to impeach the report or conclusions of the Selfridge Board, as above set forth, by either party to this case. X. After deducting the allowance and payment for extra work, the difference between the contract price and the cost of the vessel to the contractors is eleven thousand seven hundred and eight dollars and ninety-seven cents ($11,708.97). By the Court. Filed May 28, 1906. A true copy. Test this Sth day of June, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 119 MARYLAND. EDWARD ANDERSON, ADMINISTRATOR. [In the Court of Claims of the United States. Congressional, No. 11164. Edward Anderson, administrator of Mary Anderson, deceased, v. The United States.] This claim was presented to the Senate of the United States by the bill S. 4497, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session, and on March 4, 1903, by resolu- tion the Senate referred the bill to this court for proceedings in pursuance of the act of Congress entitled "An act to provide for the bringing of suits against the Government of the United States,'' approved March 3. 18S7. The bill is as follows : "A BILL for the relief of the heirs of Mary Anderson. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to the administrator of the estate of Mary Anderson, deceased, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of forty-four thousand one hundred and eighty-seven dollars, for the use and occupancy of a certain tract of land known as Minor's Hill plantation, situate in the counties of Fairfax and Alexandria, in the State of Virgina, and for timber and rails taken therefrom and appropriated to the use of the United States Government by the Union Army during the war of eighteen hundred and sixty -one and eighteen hundred and sixty-five." Thereupon Edward Anderson, one of said heirs, in his capacity of admin- istrator of the personal estate of said Mary Anderson, appeared herein and was allowed, upon his motion, to prosecute the claim. Thereupon the claimant, as such administrator, filed herein his petition and afterwards his amended petition, the material averments of which are in effect as follows : That claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Maryland. That Col. George Minor was at and for many years before the time of his death, which occurred on or about the 1st day of June. 1862, The owner of a tract of land or farm containing 326.56 acres, known as " Minor's Hill planta- tion," and situated in the counties of Alexandria and Fairfax, in the State of Virginia. That in the fall of the year 1S61 troops of the United States entered upon and took entire and exclusive possession of said farm, and thereafter continued in such possession without interruption for the space of four years, ending in the fall of 1865. That said troops while in such possession greatly damaged and practically destroyed the dwelling house and outbuildings on the farm and cut all the timber and consumed the same, together with all the fencing on the farm, so that when the troops abandoned their occupation of the farm it was prac- tically denuded of all timber and fencing. That at the commencement of such occupation by said troops 65 acres of the farm were in cultivation, and the remainder, 261 § acres, covered with a heavy first growth of valuable standing timber; that S7 acres of said timber land contained 431 cords of pine per acre, and the other 175 acres contained 60 cords per acre of hard wood ; that the value of said timber then in the tree was, for the pine, $3.25 per cord, and for the hard wood. $4 per cord ; that the rental value of the dwelling house and outbuildings for ordinary purposes was not less than $100 per annum, and that the damage thereto amounted to $1,600. That, upon the death of Colonel Minor, the said Mary Anderson, claimant's intestate, became sole owner of said farm and was the owner of all the timber and fencing so taken by the troops excepting only 32 acres of the pine timber taken by the troops before Colonel Minor died; that she died on the 15th day of September, 1865, and was at all times during the late war of the rebellion loyal to the Government of the United States. That during the year 1S65 the claim was filed with the Quartermaster- General, United States Army, but he took no action thereon, and no record of the claim is found in his office; that active prosecution of the claim was sus- pended from 1S65 until 1875 pending a contest against Colonel Minor's will devising the farm to said Mary Anderson. Thereafter, in 1S75. her heirs employed an attorney to present the claim to Congress, and from time to time bills were introduced in Congress for the payment of the claim : that two 120 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. attorneys successively employed by the heirs in the premises died, and there- upon the heirs employed their present attorney ; that several sets of papers with affidavits setting forth the claim were prepared and lost or mislaid, some of them being lost or mislaid after being filed before Congress. That the claim has never been rejected or otherwise acted upon adversely and has not been paid or assigned in whole or in part. The claim as itemized in the amended petition is as follows : 46,098 rails, at $60 per thousand $2, 765. 88 2,396f cords of pine timber, at $3.25 per cord, in tree 7, 788. 39 10,500 cords of hard -wood timber, at $4 per cord, in the tree 42, 000. 00 Use and occupation of property, including also damage to buildings, from June 1, 1862, to September 15, 1865 1, S29. 00 Total 54, 3S3. 27 December 12, 1904, in this court the case was submitted upon the issue of loyalty and on the merits, without oral argument, upon stipulation. The claimant appeared by his attorney, Mr. Lorenzo A. Bailey, and the Attorney-General being represented by Mr. W. W. Scott, assistant attorney. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimant's decedent, Mrs. Mary Anderson, was a resident' within the State of Maryland during the period of the civil war and loyal to the Govern- ment of the United States. It has not been proved to the satisfaction of the court that Col. George Minor, hereinafter referred to, as a loyal citizen of the United States. II. At the beginning of the civil war, and for a long time prior thereto, Col. George Minor was the owner of a farm situated in Alexandria and Fairfax counties, Va., about 5 miles from the city of Washington, D. C, and known as " Minor's Hill plantation," consisting of 365 acres, 65 acres of hich were cultivated and 300 of which were covered with timber. In the fall of 1861 the military forces of the United States took possession of such farm and occupied it, together with the buildings thereon. The fences upon such farm were used as fuel, and the troops also cut, during the period of the civil war, all of the timber on the place, some being used to build quarters for the soldiers, but the greater part being consumed on the place. \Such use and occupation continued during the war. The buildings on the farm were also occupied by the troops, and at the close of the war all the buildings, except the dwelling house, had been removed or destroyed, and the farm had been injured and its value impaired by reason of the occupancy. III. On the 1st of June, 1862, Colonel Minor died, devising all of this property by will to his daughter, Mrs. Mary Anderson. The court finds that a portion of the timber was cut and used by the troops prior to the death of Colonel Minor and the remainder after Mrs. Anderson became owner of the premises, and that the value of the timber so cut and taken belonging to Mrs. Anderson was ($7,150) seven thousand one hundred and fifty dollars. The court also finds that the use and occupation of the dwelling house and other buildings, as aforesaid, was reasonably worth three hundred dollars ($300). The court also finds that the injury to the farm for agricultural purposes in- cidental to the use and occupation by the troops, including the loss and destruc- tion of the barns and farm buildings other than the dwelling, was reasonably worth the sum of ($700) seven hundred dollars. The court makes no allowance for property taken or for use and occupation or injury to the premises prior to the time when Mrs. Mary Anderson became the owner of the premises, to wit, June 1, 1862. IV. The claim was presented by Mrs. Anderson to the Quartermaster-General in 1S65, but was not acted upon by him ; and there is no evidence bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in presenting such claim to the Southern Claims Commission further than that she was prevented from so doing by litigation involving the validity of the will of her father, by which ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 121 she acquired title, and such litigation not having been determined in her favor until 1875. She presented the claim by petition to Congress at various times until it was finally referred to this court. By the Cotjrt. Filed January 3, 1905. A true copy. Test this 5th day of January, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ELIZABETH V. BELT, ADMINISTRATRIX OF ALFRED C. BELT. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11567. Elizabeth V. Belt, administratrix of the estate of Alfred C. Belt, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. I This is a claim for rent and for stores and supplies alleged to have been furnished to or taken by the military forces of the United States for the Army during the late civil war. On May 6, 1904, the United States Senate, by resolution, referred to the court under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, a bill, of which the following is a copy: " [S. 43, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] " A BILL For the relief of Miss L. V. Belt, administratrix of Alfred C. Belt, deceased. "Be it enacted by the Senate and, House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Miss L. V. Belt, administratrix of her father, Alfred C. Belt, deceased, ten thousand six hundred and eighty-four dollars, for claim originating in Montgomery County, Maryland, for supplies and stores and rent of land occupied by the military forces of the United States, the supplies and stores being taken for their use and not paid for ; the said sum being in full for and the receipt of the same to be taken and accepted in full and final discharge of said claim." The claimant appeared in this court and filed her petition, in which she makes the following allegations : That she is the administratrix of the estate of Alfred C. Belt, deceased, who resided in Loudoun County, Va., during the late civil war; that her decedent rented and was in possession of and cultivated Harrisons Island, in the Potomac River, Montgomery County, Md., during said war ; that during said war the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, took posses- sion of the island, and took therefrom stores and supplies as hereinafter set forth; that the claim now presented is for rent and for stores and supplies as follows : 14 horses, at $150 $2,100 500 bushels of wheat and the straw ricks, at $2.50 per bushel 1, 250 300 bushels oats, at 75 cents bushel 225 20 tons timothy hay, at $30 600 500 barrels corn, at $4 2, 000 For rent of Harrisons Island, two years (470 acres, worth $80 per acre, or $37,600, at 6 per cent per annum), the buildings all being occupied and the house used for hospital 4, 509 Total 10,684 That the above claim was presented to the Quartermaster-General in Novem- ber, 1874, by her decedent, but that the same was disallowed by that officer on the ground that he was not satisfied that the claim was just. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 31st day of January, 1907. Raleigh Sherman, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Felix Brannigan, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 122 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimant's decedent, Alfred C. Belt, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, took from the farm of claimant's decedent on Harrisons Island, in the Potomac River, Montgomery County, Md., property of the kind and character described in the petition, and used the house situate thereon for hospital purposes for a period of about two years. The reasonable value of the property so taken, together with the rental value of the land and buildings described in the petition, was the sum of twenty-nine hundred and seventy dollars ($2,970), no portion of which appears to have been made. III. A' claim for the property herein was presented to the Quartermaster- General in November, l'S74, but by that officer disallowed because he was unable to certify that he was convinced of the loyalty of the claimant's decedent or that the claim was just. By the Cotjbt. Filed March 11, 1907. A true copy. Test this 4th day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. CHRIST REFORMED CONGREGATION OF MIDDLETOWN, MD. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11627. Trustees of the Christ Reformed Congregation of Middletown, Md., successors to the German Reformed Church of Mid- dletown, Md., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. On February 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, Senate bill 865 was referred to this court for findings of fact under the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1S87, and commonly known as the Tucker Act, said bill reading as follows, to wit : "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the German Reformed Church of Middletown, Maryland. " Be it enacted oy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Tbat the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the German Reformed Church of Middletown, Maryland, the sum of eight hundred and ten dollars, for use of and damage to church building by the military forces of the United States during tbe late war of the rebellion." The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 26th day of April, A. D. 1905. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of tbe interests of the United States. The trustees of claimant church in their petition make the following alle- gations, to wit : That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Frederick, State of Maryland, and are the trustees of the Christ Reformed Congregation of that place, said organization being the successor of the Ger- man Reformed Church of said place, being the' same body under a different name; tbat during the late civil war said German Reformed Church was the owner of certain real estate in Middletown, Md., on which was situated a large, substantial brick building having a seating capacity of from 600 to 700 persons ; that said building was well fitted for purposes of worship, with pulpit and pews, and was well frescoed : that upon said real estate was also a sub- stantial brick building used as a place for holding Sunday school and for other purposes incident to the church; tbat in 1862 said church building was ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 123 reasonably worth $15,000, and said other building was reasonably worth at least $1,800; tbat in the fall of 1862 both of said buildings were used and occu- pied by the United States military forces for hospital purposes for a consid- erable period, such occupation of the church building proper continuing about three month, and the occupation of said other building continuing for a shorter period ; that as an incident to said occupation of said buildings they were greatly damaged; that the reasonable worth or value of the occupation of said buildings during said period, including the injury to the chruch property proper, amounted to the sum of $810 ; tbat claim was presented in the sum of $810 to the Quartermaster-General prior to February, 1863, and was by that officer re- jected. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACT. I. During the late civil war, the German Reformed Church of Middletown, Md., predecessor of the Christ Reformed Congregation of Middletown, Md., was the owner of certain real estate in Middletown, Md., upon which were situ- ated a substantial brick church and also a substantial two-story brick build- ing used for Sunday school purposes and other purposes pertaining to the church. In the fall of 1S62 both of said buildings were used and occupied by the United States military forces for hospital purposes; said occupation of the church building proper continued for a period of from two to three months, the occupation of the other building continuing for a shorter period. The rea- sonable worth of the use and occupation of said buildings and of the injury thereto is four hundred and fifty dollars ($450), for which no payment appears to have been made. II. It appears from the evidence that the Christ Reformed Congregation of Middletown, Md., formerly the German Reformed Church of Middletown, Md., was as a church loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. By the Court. Filed May, 1, 1905. A true copy. Test this 6th day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. CORPORATION OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, HANCOCK, MD. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13043. Corporation of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Hancock, Md., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the follow- ing words : "[S. 7277, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the corporation of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Han- cock. Maryland. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the president of the corporation of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of Hancock, Maryland, the sum of one thousand dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United State military forces during the civil war." The president of the corporation of said church appeared in this court April 30, 1907, and filed his petition, in which it is substantially averred — That during the civil war the military authorities of the United States took possession of the building and grounds of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Hancock, Md., and used and occupied the same for camping and other military purposes for a long period during the civil war ; that the carpet was destroyed, 124 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. the seats taken out and destroyed, and the building generally greatly injured by said occupation ; that the reasonable value of the use and occupation of said property, during said period, including the repairs necessary to restore said property to the same condition it was in before such occupation, was the sum of $1,000 for which no payment has been made; that the said church has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to the rebellion against the Government. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of January, 1908. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by William H. Lamar, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the de- fense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Methodist Episcopal Church of Hancock, Md., as an organization was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building described in the petition and used and occupied the same as quarters, and damaged the same. The reason- able rental value of such use and occupation, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of five hundred and fifty dollars ($550), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by reso- lution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed February 3, 190S. A true copy. Test this 6th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. CORNELIA JONES, ADMINISTRATRIX. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 443. Cornelia Jones, administratrix of John L. T. Jones, deceased, v. The United States.] This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that John L. T. Jones, the person alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed April 30, 1888. r [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11523. Cornelia Jones, administratrix of John L. T. Jones, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, as repre- sented by S. 4847, second session Fifty-seventh Congress, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by resolution of the Senate (act March 3, 1887) on the 6th day of May, 1904. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 30th day of April, 1888, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 125 were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 4th day of December, 1905. P. E. Dye, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Felix Brannigan, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : That she is the widow and administratrix of John L. T. Jones, late of Mont- gomery County, Md. ; that she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Maryland ; that she has a claim against the United States for supplies and stores taken from her said husband in Montgomery County, Md., by the military forces of the United States for army use ; that heretofore she presented her said claim on March 6, 18S6, against the United States before the Court of Claims, Congressional, No. 443, in substance as follows : That her husband, John L. T. Jones, during his lifetime filed his claim before the Quartermaster-General,. U. S. Army^ for 10 stacks of wheat, being 800 bushels at $2.50 per bushel, being $2,000, with such vouchers, papers, and proofs as he had to offer in support of his said claim, said wheat having been taken by and used for the benefit of the Army of the United States for forage during the war of 1861, from Oxleys Island, in the Potomac River, in Montgomery County, Md. The Quartermaster-General disallowed and rejected said claim. The Court of Claims, upon consideration of her said petition, found that her said husband was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war, and, further, "that in the year 1861 the military forces of the United States took for their use from said decedent 800 bushels of wheat ; that the same was used for forage by the Army; that it was taken from Oxleys Island, in the Potomac River, in the county of Montgomery, and that the same was worth, at the time of taking, the sum of $2.50 per bushel." The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following findings of fact : "The court is unable from all the proofs and circumstances of the case to determine that the stores and supplies, as alleged in petition, were taken by the Army of the United States for use of the United States, and the petition is accordingly dismissed." Whereupon your petitioner petitioned Congress, setting forth the facts as found by the court and the action thereon, and Congress referred the claim to the court to find the facts, and the claim now becomes Congressional, No. 11528, for the sum of $2,000, which is justly due and has not been paid. That John L. T. Jones, her husband, was loyal to the Government of the United States and never gave any aid or comfort to the rebellion, as the court found in the former trial. The court, upon the evidence, after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following (No. 11523) FINDINGS OF FACT. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, John L. T. Jones, in Mont- gomery County, State of Maryland, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and forty dollars ($240). No pay- ment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed December 11, 1905. A true copy. Test this 18th day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 126 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. LA GRANGE LODGE, NO. 36, I. O. O. F., BOONSBORO, MD. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11626. La Grange Lodge No. 36, I. O. O. F., of Boonsboro, Md., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use of and damage to a lodge building by the military forces of tbe United States during the late civil war. On the 27th day of April, 1904, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words : " [S. 864, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of La Grange Lodge, numbered thirty-sixth, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, of Boonsboro, Maryland. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That tbe Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to La Grange Lodge, numbered thirty- six, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, of Boonsboro, Maryland, the sum of four hundred and fifty dollars, for use of and damage to lodge property by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The claimants appeared in this court of the 29th day of January, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred : That during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about September 15, 1SG2, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the lodge building of La Grange Lodge, No. 36, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, of Boonsboro, Md., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes for a period of about six months. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $450, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 6th day of January, 190S. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. Cox, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The La Grange Lodge, No. 36, I. O. O. F., of Boonsboro, Md., as an organiza- tion, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the miltary forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the lodge building de- scribed in the petition and used the same for hospital purposes and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value thereof, together with the damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of three hundred and seventy dollars ($370), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was presented to the Quartermaster-General in May, 1873, and by that officer disallowed in 1875 for lack of jurisdiction. Thereafter the same was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate as hereinbefore set forth. By the Court. Filed January 13, 1908. A true copy. Test this 20th day of January, 1908. [seal] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 127 S. SOLLERS MAYNARD, EXECUTOR. r Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11520. S. Sollers Maynard, executor of Augustine D. O'Leary, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for stores and supplies, rent, and occupation, alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. On the 26th day of April, 1904, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words : "[S. 2100, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] " A BILL For the relief of S. Sollers Maynard, executor of Augustine D. O'Leary, deceased. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United- States of America in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized aud directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to S. Sollers Maynard, executor of Augustine D. O'Leary, deceased, late of Frederick County, Maryland, or to his legal representative, eighteen thousand dollars, tbe same being in full for and the receipt of the same to be taken and accepted in full and final release and discharge of said claim." The claimant appeared in this court April 25, 1906, and filed his petition, in which it is substantially averred — That AugustineD. O'Leary, deceased, was a citizen of Frederick County, Md., and during the war for the suppression of the rebellion was loyal to the United States ; that United States troops during said period took possession of the fol- lowing property : Four hundred and fifteen panels of plank fence, 6 feet high $1,245 Two hundred and forty panels post and rail fence 240 Rent of 12-room brick house and outbuildings, two and one-half years__ 1, 400 Occupation, rent, use, and pasturage 25 acres of land for two and one- half years 10, 200 Two tons timothy hay, at $20 40 Total 13, 125 that the use and occupation of the property began in September, 1862, by military troops under Generals Sumner and McClellan and continued until the close of the war. The case was argued and submitted on loyalty and merits on the 30th day of January, 1907. Raleigh Sherman, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Felix Brannigan, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following - FINDINGS OF FACT. I. Claimant's decedent, Augustine D. O'Leary, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion there was taken from the claimant's decedent in Frederick County, State of Maryland, by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, prop- erty of the kind and character described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of fourteen hundred and fifty dollars ($1,450), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was filed before the Quartermaster-General July 25, 1873, and by the officer disallowed because of inability " to certify that the stores charged for were taken and converted to the legitimate use of the United States." Thereafter the claim was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate under the act of March 3, 1887, and hereinbefore mentioned. By the Court. Filed February 11, 1907. A true copy. Test this 23d day of January, A. D. 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 128 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN CHURCH, BURKITTS- VILLE, MD. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13040. Trustees of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Burkittsville, Md., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the miliary forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the follow- ing words: " [S. 7274, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] . "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Burkitts- ville, Md. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of tbe Evangelical Lu- theran Church of Burkittsville, Md., the sum of one thousand dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war." The said trustees of said church appeared in this court April 30, 1907, and filed a petition in which it is substantially averred that — During the late civil war the military forces of the United States took posses- sion of the church building of these claimants, consisting of a fine, large, well- constructed brick structure, and occupied the same as a hospital from the time of the battle of South Mountain, Maryland, in September, 1862, until about May or June, 1863, and thereby greatly injured the property; that reasonable rental value of the use and occupation and incidental injury to said property while so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the property to as good con- dition as before said occupation, was the sum of $1,000, for which no payment has been made ; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to the rebellion against the said Government. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of January, 1908. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by William H. Lamar, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of Burkittsville, Md., as an organiza- tion was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building described in the petition and used and occupied the same as a hospital, and damaged the same. The reason- able rental value of such use and occupation, together with damages thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of two hun dred and twenty-five dollars ($225), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by reso- lution of the United States, as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed, or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed February 3, 1908. A true copy. Test this 6th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 129 TRUSTEES OB' THE UNITED BRETHREN CHURCH OF BOONSBORO, MD. [.Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11625. Trustees of the United Brethren Church of Boonsboro, Md., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the United Brethren Church of Boonsboro, Maryland. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the United Brethren Church of Boonsboro, Maryland, the sum of three hundred dollars, for use of and damage to church building by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The trustees of the United Brethren Church of Boonsboro, Md., appeared and filed their petition in this court September 19, 1905, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about September 15, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper author- ity, took possession of the church building of the United Brethren Church at Boonsboro, Md., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes for a period of about three months. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $300, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 28th day of January, 1907. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The United Brethren Church of Boonsboro, Md., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church property belonging to the United Brethren Church of Boonsboro, Md., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes for a period of about three months. The reasonable rental value for such period, together with the damages in excess of the ordinary wear and tear incident thereto, was then and there the sum of one hundred and seventy dollars ($170.00), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was filed before the Quartermaster-General and by him disallowed for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, on April 27, 1904, the claim was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, as herein- before mentioned. By the Court. Filed February 4, 1907. A true copy. Test this 6th day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. S. Rep. 382, 60-1 9 130 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF FREDERICK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, OF FRED- ERICK, MD. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13073. Trustees of the Frederick Presbyterian Church, of Frederick, Md., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the fol- lowing words: "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Frederick Presbyterian Church, of Fred- erick, Maryland. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Frederick Presby- terian Church, of Frederick, Maryland, the sum of one thousand dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war." The said trustees of said church appeared in this court April 30, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred — That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took possession of the building and grounds of the Frederick Presbyterian Church, of Frederick, Md., and occupied said church as a hospital after the battle of South Mountain, in September, 1862, for a considerable period of time and greatly injured the same by said occupation; that the reasonable rental value of said property during such occupation was the sum of $900, for which no payment has been made ; that the claimant has at all times borne true alle- giance to the Government of the United States, and has not in any way volun- tarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. . The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 11th day of February, 190S. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by William H. Lamar, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The courts upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Presbyterian Church of Frederick, Md., as an organization was loyal to the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building described in the petition and used and occupied the same for four months, and while so occupied damaged the same, for which claimant was paid $359.32. The reasonable rental value of said building during said period, exclusive of the damage so paid, was at the time and place about two hundred dollars ($200), for which latter amount no payment appears to have been made. III. The claim herein for rent was never presented to any department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore set forth in the statement of the case. No satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the claim was not earlier presented. By the Court. Filed February 17, 1908. A true copy. Test this 18th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 13] MASSACHUSETTS. GEORGE T. SAMPSON, SURVIVOR OF FIRM OF GEORGE T. SAMPSON AND AUGUSTUS SAMPSON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10889. (Decided May 6, 1907.) George T. Sampson, as surviving partner of the firm of George T. Sampson & Augustus Sampson.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for work done and material alleged to have been furnished in the construction of the hull of the United States double-ender Mattabessett. On June 17, 1902, the United States Senate, by resolution, referred to the court under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1S87, known as the Tucker Act, a bill reading as follows : " [S. 703, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] "A BILL for the relief of George T. Sampson. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there be paid to George T. Sampson, surviving partner of the firm of A. and G. T. Sampson, of Boston, Massachusetts, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of four thousand and fifteen dollars and thirty-eight cents, in full pay- ment and discharge of the claim of said A. and G. T. Sampson for work done and material furnished in the construction of the hull of the United States double- ender ' Mattabessett,' as per report of Thomas O. Selfridge, commodore and president of board (Senate Executive Document Numbered Eighteen, first session of the Thirty-ninth Congress)." The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court on the 25th day of April, 1905, in which he avers as follows : That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the city of Boston, State of Massachusetts. That Augustus Sampson, who was associated with him in business from the year 1862 to 1S75, died about the year 1894. That they resided at Boston, Mass., throughout the years 1S61 to 1865 and gave no aid and comfort to the rebellion and were at all times loyal to the Government of the United States. That petitioner and said Augustus Sampson, since deceased, entered into a contract with the Navy Department, dated September 9, 1S62, to build and equip the hull of a paddle-wheel gunboat known as a wooden double-ender, subsequently called the Mattabessett, and that they performed their contract by completing the vessel, and the defendants, by their proper officers, paid to them the contract price, $75,000. By the contract she was to be launched Janu- ary 13, 1863, but she was not launched until about six weeks later. The agree- ment allowed fifty days more for completing the vessel, but instead of being completed March 4, 1863, she was not finished until January IS, 1864. That at the outset there was delay by the United States in furnishing the drawings, which on their arrival showed changes. Alterations and changes were ordered by the Government and performed by the contractors. These orders for such alterations and changes were made from time to time from the beginning until the end of the work. Many changes were ordered after the vessel had been delivered by the contractors at the premises of the con- tractor for the machinery, which were more than 200 miles from the shipyard of your petitioner, where the hull had been built. These alterations were ex- pensive to the contractors over and above their direct cost, because they de- layed the completion of the work beyond the contract term into a period when prices of labor and material were higher and because of the cost of the insurance, personal attendance, and other running expenses. That the contractors built this ship as quickly as they could and as economic- ally as possible. By reason of the changes and delays of the Government the cost to the contractors was increased $19,703.24, exclusive of loss of $1,174.25 by reason of delay in payments. Petitioner has received $500 because of the nondelivery at the Boston Harbor and $3,723.70 for extras. The only ascertainment of how much the hull of the Mattabessett cost the contractors over and above the allowance for extra work and the contract price was by a board of naval officers thereunto authorized by the Secretary of the Navy on the 25th of May, 1865. The loss to the contractors by reason 132 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. of the delays and changes ordered by the United States was $15,479.54 over and above all sums heretofore received from the United States, and exclusive of the loss of $1,174.25 by reason of delay in payments. The contractors were not guilty of laches, inasmuch as they presented their claim to said board on the 29th of June," 1865 ; they also presented their memo- rial to Congress March 16, 1864, and have been diligent in asking relief from Congress ever since. No assignment of this claim has ever been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 10th day of April, 1907. John S. Blair, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. George T. Sampson and his brother Augustus Sampson resided in Boston, Mass., and were associated in business from the year 1862 to 1875. They gave no aid or comfort to the rebellion, but were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war — from 1861 to 1865. Augustus Sampson died about the year 1894, and neither his estate nor his heirs are represented in this suit as parties claimant. II. The said George T. Sampson and Augustus Sampson entered into a con- tract with the Navy Department, dated September 9, 1862, to build, launch, deliver to the engine contractor in New York City, and thereafter complete, the hull of the wooden double-ender gunboat Mattabessett, for the sum of $75,500. Under the contract the vessel was to be launched within one hundred and twenty-six days from the date of the contract, or by January 13, 1863, and promptly thereafter delivered at the premises of the contractor for the steam machinery ; but the vessel was not launched until April 3, 1863, two hundred and six days after the date of the contract, and was not delivered to the machinery contractor until May 2, 1863 (reply of Navy Department, filed July 19, 1905, pp. 13, 84, 138). The contract called for the completion of the vessel within fifty days after its delivery to the machinery contractor in New York, May 2, 1863 ; but it was not completed until eight months thereafter, the princi- pal cause of this delay being the delay on the part of the machinery contractor in completing the installation of the engines and machinery of the vessel. III. During the construction and equipment of the hull of said vessel by the contractors there were numerous alterations and additions ordered by the Navy Department and made by the contractors, for which the contractors, upon the completion of the vessel, presented a claim to the Navy Department, upon which claim they were allowed and paid the sum of $3,723.70, this being the full amount of the claim, with the exception of an item of $487 for cost of awn- ings for hurricane deck and an item of $1,325 for additional compensation for delivery of vessel at New York. This allowance and payment of $3,723.70 was in addition to the contract prices of $75,000 for the construction of the vessel and $500 for its delivery to the machinery contractor in New York, thus making a total payment to the contractors of $79,223.70. IV. In consequence of numerous contractors and builders of Government ves- sels during the war having asked additional compensation for the construction of such vessels on the ground that they had cost the contractors more than they had received for them, the Senate of the United States on March 9, 1865, passed the following resolution : "Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be requested to organize a board of not less than three competent persons whose duty it shall be to inquire into and determine how much the vessels of war and steam machinery contracted for by the Department in the years 1862 and 1863 cost the contractors over and above the contract price, and the allowance for extra work, and report the same to the Senate at its next session, none but those who have given satisfaction to the Department to be considered." The Navy Department thereupon appointed a board consisting of Commodore Thomas O. Selfridge, Chief Engineer Henderson, and Paymaster Eldridge, com- monly-known as the Selfridge Board; and the contractors in this case pre- sented to said Board a sworn statement of claims, alleging the entire cost to them of the said vessel, Mattabessett, to have been $83,239.08, thus claiming the ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 133 extra cost to them over and above the $79,223.70 theretofore paid them to have been $4,015.38. Upon consideration said Board decided that the vessel had cost the con- tractors this amount of $4,015.38 over what they had received for it, and the Board so reported to the Secretary of the Navy, by whom said report was trans- mitted to the Senate on January 30, 1866. V. No evidence has been offered by the Government to disprove the findings of the Selfridge Board, but some evidence has been produced by the claimant to confirm it. • VI. The contractors presented this claim to the said Selfridge Board on June 29, 1S65, since which time no action appears from the record to have been taken in the prosecution of the claim until its presentation to the Fifty-seventh Con- gress by Senate bill No. 703, as hereinbefore set forth. Barney, J., delivered the opinion of the court. This case comes to this court under the Tucker Act by a resolution of the Senate. The bill referred is given in full in the statement of case herein, and, briefly stated, is a bill providing for the payment to the claimant of $4,015.38, in full payment and discharge of the claim of the claimant for work done and material furnished in the construction of the United States double-ender Mattabessett, as per report of what is commonly known as the Selfridge Board. This Board consisted of Commodore Selfridge and two other naval officers, and was organized pursuant to a resolution of the Senate passed March 9, 1S65. By the terms of said resolution it was made the duty of this Board to inquire into and report to the Senate how much the vessels of war and steam machin- ery contracted for by the Government during the years 1862 and 1S63 cost the contractors over and above the contract price and allowance for extra work. This Board made investigations of these matters pursuant to said resolution, and its report is embodied in Senate Report No. 1942, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session. Arising from this report several cases have come before this court from Congress under the Tucker Act. The bills so referred have been for the payment of a specified sum, "as per report of Thomas O. Selfridge," or words of similar import, and that is the form of the bill referred in this case. This court, in determining the amount of damages accruing to the claimants in such cases, confines itself to the amount as found by said naval board. These bills generally, if not invariably, correspond in amount to the findings of the Selfridge Board. That Board was appointed and discharged its duties shortly after these questions arose and while all or nearly all of the witnesses to the whole transaction were still living and the facts were fresh in their recollection. After the lapse of more than forty years evidence introduced will be but a faint echo of what was certain at that time. The testimony produced in the case at bar is a good illustration of that fact, being little more than a belief in the verity of the evidence given before the Selfridge Board. We are further constrained not to go beyond the report of the Selfridge Board from the form of and the amount stated in the bill referred to us. It is for •' the sum of four thousand and fifteen dollars and thirty-eight cents, in full payment and discharge of the claim of said George T. Sampson for work done and material furnished, as per report of Thomas O. Selfridge, &c." By the terms of the fourteenth section of the Tucker Act we are required in such case to report to Congress " the facts in the case, and the amount, where the same can be liquidated-" Now, what " case " has been referred to us to report upon? Evidently the case made out by the bill in question and no other. In this case the bill is for $4,015.3S, as per the report of the Selfridge Board, and we do not think we are called upon to go beyond that Board or that amount, especially as no evidence has been offered to impeach the finding of the Board, while some evidence has been produced to support it. Again, if a bill for a greater amount or depending upon any other report or state of facts had been introduced in the Senate, that branch of Congress might not have consented to refer it to the court, but it did consent to confer this bill and this case to this court, and no other. Any other view of the case would authorize this court to return findings for a million dollars when the bill pro- vided for the payment of but one thousand, thus evading the evident intention of the Tucker Act and making possible a fraudulent deception of Congress. Under the Bowman Act the provision is that " whenever a claim or matter is pending," it may be referred to this court, while under the Tucker Act the refer- 134 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN" CLAIMS. ence is of a bill " providing for the payment of a claim against the United States, legal or equitable," which implies the payment of the sum provided for in the bill and no more. It is urgently contended by the claimant that the resolution of reference in this case broadens the jurisdiction of this court in making up its findings, and should be looked to for that purpose. We do not agree with this contention. This court gets its jurisdiction in this class of cases from the Tucker Act, and from that alone. The resolution of reference is but the vehicle by which the bill comes to this court and serves no other purpose; otherwise one branch of Congress alone would be enabled to enlarge the jurisdiction of this court. When the case is in this court we look to the bill referred to us, and no further, to determine the matter before the court for investigation and report. Taking this view of the case, we deem it our duty to report only upon a claim, as reported by the Selfridge Board, for the sum of $4,015.38. The findings and this opinion will accordingly be certified to Congress. By the Couet. Filed May 6, 1907. A true copy. Test this 23d day of November, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. VELMA C. WILLIAMS, ADMINISTRATRIX. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10872. Nelson Curtis, executor of the estate of Paul Curtis, deceased, v. The United States.] It appearing that since the filing of the findings in the above-entitled cause on May 15, 1907, the executor, Nelson Curtis, has died, it is ordered that the claim- ant's motion filed March 3, 1908, to substitute Velma C. Williams as administra- trix be allowed, and that said Velma C. Williams be substituted as administra- trix in the place of said Nelson Curtis, deceased. By the Coukt. Filed March 3, 1908. A true copv. Test this 3d day of March, 190S. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. [Court of Claims of the United States. Congressional, No. 10872. Velma C. Williams, administratrix of Paul Curtis, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for work done and material alleged to have been furnished in the construction of the hull of the United States double-en der Chicopee. On June 17, 1902, the United States Senate, by resolution, referred to the court under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1SS7, known as the Tucker Act, a bill reading as follows : "[S. 5, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the legal representatives of Paul Curtis, deceased. "Be it enacted oy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there be paid to the legal repre- sentatives of Paul Curtis, deceased, of Massachusetts, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of four thousand one hundred and twenty-eight dollars and thirty-nine cents, in full payment and discharge of the claim of said Paul Curtis for work done and material furnished in the construction of the hull of the United States double-ender gunboat Chicopee, as per report of Thomas O. Selfridge, commodore and president of board, Senate Executive Document Numbered Eighteen, first session of the Thirty-ninth Congress." ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 135 The claimant appeared and filed Ills petition in this court on the 28th day of April, 1905, in which he avers as follows : That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the city of Boston, State of Massachusetts. That Paul Curtis, his father, died about the year 1872. . That they resided at Boston, Mass., throughout the years 1861 to 1S65 and gave no aid and comfort to the rebellion, and were at all times loyal to the Government of the United States. That the said Paul Curtis, since deceased, entered into a contract with the Navy Department, dated September 9, 1862, to build and equip the hull of a paddle- wheel gunboat, known as a wooden double-ender, subsequently called the Chico- pec, and that he performed his contract by completing the vessel ; and the defendants, by their proper officers, paid to him the contract price, $75,000. By the contract she was to be launched January 13, 1863, but she was not launched until about six weeks later. The agreement allowed fifty days more for com- pleting the vessel, but instead of being completed March 4, 1863, the machinery was not put on board until April 1, 1864. That at the outset there was delay by the United States in furnishing the drawings, which on their arrival showed changes. Alterations and changes were ordered by the Government and performed by the contractor. These orders for such alterations and changes were made from time to time from the begin- ning until the end of the work. Many changes were ordered after the vessel had been delivered by the contractor at the premises of the contractor for the machinery, which were more than 200 miles from the shipyard of Paul Curtis, where the hull had been built. These alterations were expensive to the con- tractor, over and above their direct cost, because they delayed the completion of the work beyond the contract term into a period* when prices of labor and material were higher and because of the cost of the insurance, personal attend- ance, and other running expenses. That the contractor built this ship as quick as he could and as economically as possible. By reason of the changes and delays of the Government the cost to the contractor was increased $19,6S5.46, exclusive of loss of $612.50 by reason of delay in payments. Paul Curtis received $500 because of the nondelivery at the Boston Harbor and $3,304.20 for extras. That the only ascertainment of how much the hull of the Ghicopee cost the contractor over and above the allowance for extra work and the contract price was by a board of naval officers thereunto authorized by the Secretary of the Navy on the 25th of May, 1865. The loss to the contractor by reason of the delays and changes ordered by the United States was fifteen thousand eight hundred and eighty-one dollars and twenty-six cents ($15,881.26), over and above all sums heretofore received from the United States and exclusive of the loss of $612.50 by reason of delay in payments. That the contractor was not guilty of laches inasmuch as he presented his claim to said board on the 3d of August, 1865 ; he also presented his memorial to Congress March 16, 1864, and has been diligent ever since in asking relief from Congress. No assignment of this claim has ever been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of May, 1907. John S. Blair, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimant, Nelson Curtis, is the executor of the estate of Paul Curtis,, who died about the year 1872. Edwin Wright, who was the coexecutor under the will, died in the year 1899. Paul Curtis, deceased, was loyal to the Govern- ment of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. Said Paul Curtis entered into a contract with the Navy Department Sep- tember 9, 1862, to build and equip the hull of a paddle-wheel gunboat, known as a wooden double-ender and subsequently called the Chicopee, for $75,500. He completed the vessel, and the defendants by their proper officers paid him the contract price of $75,500, together with $3,304.20 for extra work resulting from changes and alterations during the process of the work, making a total pay- ment to him of $78,S04.20. By the contract the vessel was to be launched 136 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. January 13, 1863, one hundred and twenty-six days from the date of the con- tract, but was not launched until March 4, 1863. The contract allowed fifty days more for completing the vessel, but instead of being completed March 4, 1863, she was not finished until April 1, 1864, the principal cause of this delay being the delay of the machinery contractor in completing and installing the machinery of the vessel. III. Changes in the plans and specifications and alterations of work were ordered by the Government and performed by the contractor throughout the progress of the work, many changes being made after the delivery of the vessel in New York City, some 200 miles distant from the contractor's place of busi- ness, which made such work more expensive to the contractor than it would otherwise have been. The vessel remained in New York over a year awaiting completion and installation of the steam machinery before the contractor could finally complete the work on the hull, during which time the prices of labor and materials very greatly increased, thus adding to the cost of the work performed during the period of delay. IV. In consequence of the presentation of claims by a number of contractors for additional compensation for the construction of war vessels for the Govern- ment during the war the United States Senate on March 9, 1865, passed the following resolution : " Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be requested to organize a board, of not less than three competent persons, whose duty it shall be to inquire into and determine how much the vessels of war and steam machinery contracted for by the Department in the years 1862 and 1863 cost the contractors over and above the contract price and allowance for extra work, and report the same to the Senate at its next session. None but those that have given satisfaction to the Department to be considered." The Navy Department thereupon appointed a board consisting of Commodore Selfridge, Chief Engineer Henderson, and Paymaster Eldridge, commonly known as the Selfridge Board; and the contractor in this case presented to said board a claim for $18,870.41, alleging this to have been the amount of the extra cost of said vessel to him over and above the amount received therefor. Upon consideration said board decided that the vessel had cost the contractor over and above the amount he had received for it the sum of four thousand one hundred and twenty-eight dollars and thirty-nine cents ($4,128.39), and the board so reported to the Secretary of the Navy, by whom said report was transmitted to the Senate on January 30, 1866. V. No evidence has been adduced to either impeach or confirm the allowance made by the Selfridge Board as aforesaid. VI. The facts bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in the presentation and prosecution of this claim appear to be that the contractor presented his claim to Congress March 16, 1864; to the Selfridge Board August 3, 1865, and to the Marchand Board in 1867. The claim was also presented to Congress in January, 1901, and later referred to the court by the United States Senate June 17, 1902, as hereinbefore mentioned. By the Court. Filed May 15, 1907. A true copy. Test this 3d day of March, A. D. 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ALFRED D. BULLOCK ET AL. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 13106, subnumbers 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 281, 282, 284, 286, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 297, 298, 301, 303, 304, 306. Boston Navy-Yard. Alfred D. Bullock, Joseph F. Baker, John Clark, William M. Carr, Winslow L. Crafts, Charles H. Crocker, Samuel Dwight, John Plynn, John F. Gilmore, Henry G. Hichborn, Patrick Marrow, Bben P. Oakes, Joseph Riley, William P. Raymond ; Jennie A. Sawyer, widow of Jefferson Sawyer, deceased ; George D. V. Smith, Chester R. Streeter, George K. Sawyer, Albert Sawyer, Samuel J. Cochran, William O. Bailey, William H. Rigby, William N. Winter, John Ward, George H. Young v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for the payment to the above-named claimants for services rendered at the Boston Navy-Yard, Boston, Mass., between March 21, 1878, and September 22, 1882, for extra labor above the legal day of eight hours. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 137 On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words : " [S. 8261, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of Christopher Alexander and others. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Christopher Alexander and to the others who have joined with him in a petition to this Congress dated Jauuary twenty- ninth, nineteen hundred and seven, the amounts that may be found due to each of them were paid for only eight hours' work per day for the time they were so employed by the United States as workmen, laborers, or mechanics at the various navy-yards of the United States, performed by them by reason of and under the provisions of circular numbered eight, issued by the Secretary of the Navy on March twenty-first, eighteen hundred and seventy-eight." Thereafter the claimants named above aud each of them offered and filed their respective petitions herein, in which they and each of them aver substan- tially as follows: That between March 21, 1S7S, and the 21st day of September, 1SS2, they and each of them were employed by the Government of the United States at the navy-yard at Boston, Mass.; that on March 21, 1S78, the Secretary of the Navy issued the order referred to in claimants' petitions, known as Circular No. 8, and set forth in Finding I herein. That during the six months in each year from the date of said order to the 21st day of September, 1882, they worked during all or a portion of the time they were so employed in excess of eight hours per day, and that they and each of tueru were paid for only eight hours' work per day for the time they were so employed during said period, and that they and each of them are entitled to the amounts set forth in their respective petitions, being the pay for all time worked during said period in excess of eight hours per day. The case was brought to a hearing on the evidence and merits on the 13th day of February, 190S. Thomas Dawson appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Percy M. Cox, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. Between the 21st day of March, 1878, and the 22d day of September, 1882, the claimants herein, or their decedents, and each of them were in the employ of the United States in the navy-yard at Boston, Mass., during which time the following order was in force : " Circular No. S.] Navy Depaktment, " Washington, D. C, March 21, 1878. " The following is hereby substituted, to take effect from this date, for the circular of October 25, 1877, in relation to the working hours at the several navy-yards and shore stations : " The working hours will be — " From March 21 to September 21, from 7 a. m. to 6 p. m. ; from September 22 to March 20, from 7.40 a. m. to 4.30 p. m. ; with the usual intermission of one hour for dinner. " The Department will contract for the labor of mechanics, foremen, leading- men, and laborers on the basis of eight hours a day. All workmen electing to labor ten hours a day will receive a proportionate increase in their wages. " The commandants will notify the men employed, or to be employed, of these conditions, and they are at liberty to continue or accept employment under them or not. " R. W. Thompson, " Secretary of the Navy." 138 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. II. Said claimants and each of them, or their decedents, while in the employ of the United States as aforesaid worked on the average the number of hours set opposite their respective names in excess of eight hours a day and at the wages below stated, to wit: Name' of claimant. Alfred D. Bullock .. Do Do .-. Joseph F. Baker — Do Do Do Do Do John Clark Do Do William M. Carr Winslow L. Crafts. Do Charles H. Crocker Do Samuel Dwight John Flynn Do John F. Gilmore . . . Do Do Do Do Henry G. Hichborn Do Patrick Marrow Number of hours. 417 140 373 141 160 73 125 207 220 171 { 338^ 78 362J 232 721 428 418 , 258^ 162 810 293 175 82 89 310 130 873 174 Rate per day. $1.76 2.00 2.26 1.22 1.20 1.40 1.50 1.80 3.00 2.50 1.76 1.50 1.76 3.50 3.00 3.00 3.26 5.00 3.50 3.26 1.76 2.00 2.26 2.50 3.00 3.00 2.76 3.26 Name of claimant. Patrick Marrow Eben P. Oakes Do Joseph Riley Do Do William P. Raymond Do Jefferson Sawyer (deceased) George D. V. Smith Chester R. Streeter Do Do Do George K. Sawyer Do Albert Sawyer Do Samuel J. Cochran William O. Bailey Do William H.Rigby William N. Winter Do John Ward Do George H. Young Do Number of hours. 268 80 251J 424* 177,3 486 ' 241 736 902 88 936 18 180 34 655/, 238 268 T 7 , l,079i' 1,426| 276§ a S 1,449a 445g al 36 112 93 139 Rate per day. 13.00 3.26 3.00 3.00 2.76 3.26 3.50 3.00 2.50 3.00 3.24 3.50 3.74 4.00 2.76 3.00 3.00 2.76 2.50 3.26 3.00 5.00 3.00 2.76 3.50 3.00 3.50 3.00 a Less than 8 hours a day. III. If it is considered that eight hours constitutes a day's work under the said order of the Secretary of the Navy, then the claimants and each of them, or their decedents, have been underpaid the sums set forth opposite their respec- tive names, as follows: Alfred D. Bullock, two hundred and thirty-two dollars and eleven cents ($332.11) ; Joseph F. Baker, two hundred and ten dollars and seventy-seven cents ($210.77) ; John Clark, one hundred and forty- two dollars and sixty -four cents ($142.64) : William M. Carr, seventy-nine dollars and sixty-seven cents ($79.67) ; Winslow L. Crafts, three hundred and seventy-one dollars and eighty-seven cents ($371.87) ; Charles H. Crocker, three hundred and thirty dollars and eighty-three cents ($330.83) ; Samuel Dwight, seven hundred and eighty-six dollars and sixtv-two cents ($786.62) ; John Flynn, four hundred dollars and ninety-four cents ($400.94) ; John F. Gilmore, two hundred and seventy-five dollars and forty-four cents ($275.44) ; Henry G. Hichborn, three hundred and forty-nine dollars and ninety-three cents ($349.93) ; Patrick Marrow,' one hundred and seventy-one dollars and forty cents ($171.40) ; Eben P. ($126.79) Joseph ($418.59) William P. Raymond, three hundred and eighty-one dollars and forty-four cents ($381.44) ; Jennie A. Sawyer, widow of Jefferson Sawyer, deceased, two hundred and eighty-one dollars and eighty-seven cents ($281.87) ; George D. V. Smith, thirty-three dollars ($33) ; Chester R. Streeter, four hundred and eighty-eight dollars and ten cents ($488.10) ; Oakes, one hundred and twenty-six dollars and seventy-nine cents Riley, four hundred and eighteen dollars and fifty-nine cents J. Cochran, four hundred and forty-five dollars and eighty-three cents O. Bailey, one hundred and twelve dollars and twenty-nine cents H. Rigby, nine hundred and five dollars and seventy-eight cents N. Winter, one hundred and sixty-six dollars and sixty-six cents ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 139 George K. Sawyer, three hundred and fifteen dollars and forty-three cents ($315.43) ; Albert Sawyer, four hundred and seventy-three dollars and fifteen cents ($473.15) ; Samuel ($445.83) ; William ($112.29) ; William ($905.78) ; William ($166.66) ; John Ward, fifty-seven dollars and seventy -five cents ($57.75) ; George H. Young, ninety-two dollars and eighty-one cents ($92.81). IV. The claim of the several individuals hereinbefore mentioned, or either of them, were never presented to any Department or officer of the Government prior to the presentation thereof to Congress and reference to this court, as here- inbefore set forth in the statement of the case, nor is any competent evidence ad- duced to show why said claimants did not earlier prosecute their said claims. By the Court. Filed February 20, 1908. A true copy. Test this 20th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. MISSISSIPPI. MRS. J. H. T. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATRIX OF ELIZABETH H. WELFORD. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11441. Mrs. J. H. T. Jackson, administratrix of estate of Elizabeth H. Welford, deceased v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. By resolution of the United States Senate, adopted on April 26, 1904, Senate bill No. 1108, Fifty-eighth Congress, was referred to this court for findings of fact under the provisions of the act approved March 3, 1887. Said bill reads as follows : "A BILL For the relief of the estate of Mrs. Elizabeth Hull Welford, deceased. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Mrs. Elizabeth Hull Welford, deceased, nee Miss Elizabeth Hull Thomas, late of Marshall County, Mississippi, the sum of eighteen thousand and twenty-eight dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late civil war." The claimant, in her petition, makes the following allegations : That she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Mar- shall, State of Mississippi ; that she is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administratrix of the estate of her deceased sister, Mrs. Elizabeth Hull Welford ; that during the late civil war said decedent was a resident of said county of Marshall, State of Mississippi ; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent, for use of the Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit : 3,500 bushels corn, at $1 per bushel $3, 500. 00 10,800 bundles fodder, at 2 cents per bundle 216. 00 1,600 pounds bacon and ham ^ 320. 00 110 hogs, at $10 each 1, 100. 00 500 bushels of wheat, at $1.50 per bushel 750. 00 17 mules, at $150 each _^___ 2, 250. 00 140 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 1 horse $150. 00 166 bushels sweet potatoes, at $1 per bushel 166. 00 35 cattle, at $20 each 700. 00 20 sheep, at $3 each 60. 00 8,000 rails, at $3 per 100 240. 00 3,000 bricks, at $8 per 1,000 24.00 Lumber 100. 00 Cotton, used as bedding 166.00 35 bushels peas, at $1.50 per bushel 52. 50 Total 10, 201. 50 The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 12th day of December, 1907. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Clark McKercher, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. During the late civil war the petitioner's decedent, Mrs. Elizabeth Hull Welford (then Miss Elizabeth Hull Thomas), was a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Marshall, State of Mississippi, and throughout said war remained loyal to the United States Government, her loyalty resting on her tender years during said war. II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper author- ity, took from petitioner's decedent quartermaster stores and commissary sup- plies of the kinds mentioned in the petition, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of thirty-six hundred and fifty dollars ($3,650), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. A claim for the property herein was presented to the Southern Claims Commission by claimant's decedent, but no testimony was submitted, it being alleged that the expense thereof was greater than she was able to bear. There- after the claim was referred to this court under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act, by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore stated. By the Court. Filed January 13, 1908. A true copy. Test this 22d day of January, 1908. , [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. HEIRS OF VERNON H. JOHNSTON. ICourt of Claims. Congressional Case No. 11492. Heirs of Vernon H. Johnston, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. On February 24, 1904, the following bill was introduced in the United States Senate, to wit : "A BILL For the relief of the heirs of Vernon H. Johnston, deceased. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the heirs of Vernon H. Johnston, deceased, late of Hinds County, Mississippi, the sum of seven thou- sand three hundred dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late civil war." Said bill was referred to this court by resolution of the Senate on April 26, 1904, for findings of fact under the provisions of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 14th day of February, 1906. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 141 Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make the following allegations : That they are citizens of the United States ; that petitioner Mary Julia Quick, is a resident of the county of Lauderdale, State of Mississippi ; that petitioner Belle O. Coward is a resident of the county of Leflore, State of Mississippi, and that petitioner John Anderson is a resident of the county of Rusk, State of Texas ; that Vernon H. Johnston departed this life in 1S62, in the county of Hinds, State of Mississippi, leaving surviving him his widow, Fannie J. John- ston, and three children, to wit, Mary J. Johnston, Belle O. Johnston, and Vernon Olivia Johnston ; that by the terms of the will of said Vernon H. John- ston said widow and children were equal beneficiaries in the estate left by said Vernon H. Johnston ; that after the death of said Vernon H. Johnston the United States military forces, under proper authority, did take from said widow and children of said Vernon H. Johnston, from their plantation near Cayuga, Hinds County, Miss., quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds below mentioned, of the total value of $4,320, to wit : Taken by army under command of Generals Grant and Slocum, in spring of 1863, during operations about Vicksburg: 1,000 bushels corn, at $1 per bushel; 10,000 pounds of fodder ; 4 barrels of molasses, at $20 per barrel ; 2 barrels of sugar, 600 pounds; 2 barrels of lard, 600 pounds; 25 bushels of salt; 7,000 pounds of salt meat, at 10 cents per pound; one-half barrel sausage; 4 barrels pickled beef, at $15 per barrel ; 300 bushels sweet potatoes ; 10 bushels dried fruit ; butter, eggs, and poultry ; 5 mules, at $175 each ; 3 horses, at $150 each ; 4 yoke of oxen, at $60 per yoke ; 25 cattle, at $20 each ; 100 hogs ; 75 sheep ; 1 wagon ; 1 cart ; bedding and clothing ; 1 set teaspoons, silver, and butter knives ; 1 set tablespoons ; table cutlery ; tinware ; stone vessels : 25 bales cotton. That after the taking of said property, to wit, October 9, 1874, said child, Vernon Olivia Johnston, died, unmarried, her estate thereupon becoming vested in her two sisters, Mary Julia Johnston and Belle O. Johnston ; that thereafter, to wit, July 4, 1900, said widow, Fannie J. Johnston, died, leaving surviving her said daughter Mary Julia Quick, nee Johnston, and said daughter Belle O. Coward, nee Johnston, said daughters being of the marriage between said Vernon H. Johnston and said Fannie J. Johnston, and also left surviving her the petitioner John Anderson, who is a representative of said Fannie J. John- ston by reason of the following facts: At the time of the marriage of said Fannie J. Johnston and said Vernon H. Johnston said Fannie J. Johnston was a widow, her name prior to said marriage having been Faulkner ; by her first husband (Faulkner) she had a daughter, Jennie Faulkner; said Jennie Faulk- ner married petitioner John Anderson, and by him had a child, which died in infancy ; thereafter said Jennie Faulkner-Anderson died, leaving petitioner John Anderson surviving her ; that the relative interests of the petitioners in and to this claim are as follows : That in their own rights and as representatives of their deceased sister, Vernon Olivia Johnston, each of petitioners, Mary Julia Quick and Belle O. Coward, claims an undivided nine twenty-fourths interest, independently of anything inherited from their mother, Fannie J. Johnston, from whom each of said last-named petitioners inherits an undivided two twenty-fourths interest, thus making vested in each of said petitioners an undivided eleven twenty- fourths interest; that said John Anderson, petitioner, is the owner of an un- divided two twenty-fourths interest in this claim, as representative of said Fannie J. Johnston, deceased, through his deceased wife. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on each side, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. L Vernon H. Johnston died testate in 1862. By the terms of his will all beneficial interest in his estate, after payment of certain legacies, was vested in his widow, Fannie J. Johnston, and his children, Mary Julia Johnston (now Quick), Belle O. Johnston (now Coward), and Vernon Olivia Johnston. Said widow and children remained loyal to the United States Government through- out the late war for the suppression of the rebellion. At the close of said war the eldest of said children was under 10 years of age, and the loyalty of said children rests upon their tender years during the war. II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper author- ity, took from said widow and children of Vernon H. Johnstons-deceased, for the 142 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. use of the United States Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of four thousand three hundred and twenty dollars ($4,320), for which no payment appears to have been made. No allowance is made for cotton, butter, eggs, poultry, bedding, clothing, silverware, or house- hold utensils, the taking thereof not appearing to have been authorized, nor is any allowance made for damages. III. The petitioners before the court are Mary Julia Quick, Belle O. Coward, and John Anderson, whose respective interests are as follows : Mary Julia Quick, eleven twenty-fourths, amounting to $1, 980 Belle O. Coward, eleven twenty-fourths, amounting to 1, 980 John Anderson, two twenty-fourths, amounting to 360 The interests of petitioners Mary Julia Quick and Belle O. Coward are in their own rights and as representatives of their deceased sister, Vernon Olivia Johnston, and of their mother, Fannie J. Johnston, now deceased. The interest of John Anderson is as representative of said Fannie J. Johnston, through his deceased wife, to the extent of one-third of the estate of said Fannie J. Johnston, his. said wife having been Jennie Faulkner, daughter of Fannie J. Johnston by a former marriage. IV. This claim was not presented to the Southern Claims Commission under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1871, though it was placed in the hands of an attorney as early as 1873 or 1874. On March 3, 1873, when the time for filing claims before said Commission expired, all of said three children and heirs of Vernon H. Johnston were minors. These facts are reported as bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in the presentation of the claim. By the Court. Filed March 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 16th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant. Clerk Court of Claims. ROBEBT M. LAY, ADMINISTRATOR OF NANCY LAY. [Court of Claims. Term 1906 and 1907. Congressional, No. 10354. Robert M. Lay, administrator of Nancy Lay, deceased, v. The United States.! STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for stores and supplies alleged to have been taken or furnished to the military forces of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. On the 4th day of February, 1901, the United States Senate by resolution referred to the court a bill in the following words : "[S. 3964, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of Robert Lay, administrator of Nancy Lay, deceased. "Be it enated in the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby is, directed to pay to Robert Lay, administrator of Nancy Lay, deceased, the sum of five thousand one hundred and forty-six dollars, for prop- erty taken from Nancy Lay by the United States Army during the late war." The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : The claimant, Robert M. Lay, jr., respectfully represents — I. That he is the administrator of Nancy Lay, deceased, appointed on the 4th day of March, 1901, by the chancery clerk in vacation of the court, in and for the county of Scott and State of Mississippi, his warrant of authority being herewith brought into court ; that said decedent was, during the late war, a resi- dent of the State of Mississippi, and did not give any aid or comfort to the said ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 143 rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United States. II. That the following property belonging to Nancy Lay, deceased, was taken from her by the United States Army and used by the said Army, the date, place, and command being particularly stated below : In Scott County, in the State of Mississippi, on or about the 10th and 19th days of February, 1S64, by the United States forces, namely, the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Army Corps, under Gen. W. T. Sherman. 1. 2,100 bushels of corn, at $1 per bushel $2, 100 2. 7,000 pounds of bacon, at 15 cents per pound 1, 050 3. 4 fine horses, at $150 each 600 4. 8 large oxen, at $40 each , 320 5. 420 pounds of lard, at 20 cents per pound 84 6. 48 meat hogs, at $4 each 192 7. 3 fine mules, at $150 each 450 8. 5,000 pounds of fodder," at $1 per hundred 50 9. 12 beef cattle, at $15 each 180 10. 70 bushels of oats, at $1 per bushel 70 11. 100 bushels of potatoes, at 50 cents per bushel : 50 5,146 III. That a claim for said property was presented to the Southern Claims Commission, May, 1872, the items of said claim being as heretofore stated. Said claim was not allowed by said tribunal, the ground for said action being that it was not presented until after the time allowed for the presentation of claims to the said tribunal. IV. That the said claim has been presented to the Fifty-sixth Congress and was, by the resolution of the Senate of the said Fifty-sixth Congress — it was on the 4th day of February, 1901 — referred to this court for a finding of the facts in accordance with section 1 of an act approved March 3, 1887, entitled "An act to provide for the bringing of suits against the Government." V. That no other action than as aforesaid has been had on this claim in Congress or by any of the Departments ; that the claimant is the sole owner of this claim and the only person interested therein ; that no assignment or transfer of this claim, or of any part thereof or interest therein, has been made ; that the claimant is justly entitled to the amount therein claimed from the United States after allowing all just credits and offsets ; that the claimant is a citizen of the United States. And the claimant believes that the facts as stated in this petition to be true. And the claimant prays a finding of the facts in accordance with the afore- said act. The case was brought to a preliminary hearing on the subject of loyalty, and on the 26th day of March, 1906, the claimant was found loyal. The case was brought to a hearing oh the merits on the 18th day of February, 1907, George A. & William B. King appearing on behalf of the claimant, and J. A. Van Orsdel, Assistant Attorney-General, by his assistant, F. W. Collins, appear- ing for the defense and protection of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both .sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimant's decedent, Nancy Lay, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period there was taken by the military forces of the United States for the use of the Army, from claimant's decedent in Scott County, State of Mississippi, property of kind and character described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of twenty-eight hundred and four dollars ($2,804), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. A claim for said property was presented to the Southern Claims Com- mission in May, 1872, but by that tribunal disallowed, for the reason that the same was not presented until after the time allowed for the presentation of claims to said tribunal. 144 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. Thereafter the claim was presented to the Ffty-sixth Congress, and on Feb- ruary 4, 1901, was referred to this court under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned. By the Court. Filed February 25, 1907. A true copy. Test this 2d day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MARGARET RAIFORD LOFTIN (NEE MARGARET RAIFORD), ADMIN- ISTRATRIX. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 9592. Margaret Eaiford Loftin (nee Margaret Raiford) administratrix of the estate of Robert Raiford, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled cause, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to to the court by resolution of the United States Senate on the 17th day of July, 1897, under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 30th day of October, 1901. Gilbert Moyers, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant, aud under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in Marshall County, State of Mississippi, where the decedent resided during the late war of the rebellion ; that at different times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from said decedent quartermaster stores and commissary sup- plies of the value of $4,390 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows : Taken on or about October 7, 1863, at or near Collierville, Tenn., by Lieut. John B. Pierce, Third Illinois Cavalry: 12 mules, at $125 $1, 500 1 horse 300 Taken October 9, 1863, by Lieut. W. E. B. Houston, Sixth Tennessee Cavalry. 2 horses 200 Taken on or about February 11, 1864, in Shelby County, Tenn., by Lieu- tenant McGee, Fifth Kentucky Cavalry, acting assistant quartermas- ter, Third Brigade, Cavalry Division, Col. L. F'. McCrillis commanding : 2 mules, at $150 300 2 horses, at $165 330 3,000 pounds fodder, at $2 per hundredweight 60 700 bushels corn, at $1 per bushel 700 Total ._ 3, 390 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimant's decedent, Robert Raiford, the person alleged to have fur- nished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the supression of the rebellion. II. There were taken from the claimant's decedent in Marshall County, Miss., during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, stores and supplies of the kind and character above described which were then and there reasonably worth the sum of two thousand five hundred and seventy-eight dollars ($2,578). No payment appears to have been made therefor. ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 145 III. The claim was presented to the quartermaster's office under the act of July 4, 1864, and by him considered and dismissed for want of jurisdiction. There was no subsequent presentation to any department of the Government prior to its reference to this court under the act of March 3, 1887, and no evi- dence has been offered by the claimant under said act " bearing upon the ques- tion whether there has been delay or laches in presenting such claim, or apply- ing for such grant, gift, or bounty, and any facts bearing upon the ques- tion whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any estab- lished legal renidy." By the Coubt. Filed December 2, 1901. A true copy. Test this 24th day of February, 1902. [seajl.] John Randolph, , Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JAMES M. PRICE. [Court of Claims. Congressional case' No. 11109. James M. Price, sole heir and legatee of Thomas J. Price, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. On February 5, 1902. the following bill was introduced in the United States Senate : "A BILL For the relief of the estate of Thomas J. Price, deceased. u Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treas- ury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Thomas J. Price, deceased, late of Alcorn County, Mississippi, the sum of eleven thou- sand seven hundred and forty-five dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late war of the rebellion." Said bill was referred to this court on March 2, 1903, by resolution of the Senate, for findings of fact in accordance with the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 2Sth clay of March, 1906. Moyers & Consul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Walker, State of Alabama ; that he is sole heir and legatee of Thomas J Price, deceased, late of .the county of Alcorn, State of Mississippi; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States Government and Army, stores, supplies, and property of the kinds and values below stated, to wit : 400 bushels of corn, at $1 per 'bushel $400.00 4 head of horses, at $125 500. 00 6 head of mules, at $125 750. 00 1 yoke of oxen 75.00 4 milk cows and calves, at $20 80. 00 6 head of dry cattle, at $5 30. 00 20 head of hogs, at $15 300. 00 2 wagons 120. 00 1 hack and harness 110. 00 1 buggy and harness : 50. 00 Use and occupation of dwelling for headquarters and hospital 100. 00 Occupancy of farm for camps and general use 100. 00 Timber and fencing taken 250. 00 Damage to farm by loss of land in making breastworks^ 1, 500. 00 S. Rep. 382, 60-1 10 146 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Damage to crops : 3,000 pounds cotton, at $1 $3, 000. 00 600 bushels corn, at $1, $600; 172 bushels cotton seed, at 10 cents, $17.20 ; 2,000 pounds baled cotton, at $1, $2,000 ; 2,000 pounds seed cotton, at $1, $2,000 _ 4,617.00 128 bushels cotton seed in balel cotton, at 10 cents 12. SO Total ___: 11, 995. 00 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent, Thomas J. Price, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the sup- pression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, took from claimant's decedent, Thomas J. Price, in Alcorn County, Miss., property as above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of six hundred and sixty-five dollars ($665), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed April 2, 1906. A true copy. Test this 13th day of June, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. WILLIAM T. RATLIFF, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 9577. William T. Ratliff, administrator of the estate of Sarah G. Clark, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by a resolution of the United States Senate on the 17th day of July, 1897. The court, on the 22d day of October, 1900, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, did nothing throughout that war for or against the United States or the Confederate States except to express herself in favor of the Union and to furnish food to some of the officers and soldiers of the United States Army about the time of the taking of the property for which the claim is made in this case. On the same day the case was brought to a hearing on its. merits. Gilbert Moyers, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George H. Walker, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Hinds County, State of Mississippi, where decedent resided during the late war of the rebellion ; that at different times during the said period the United States forces, by proper au- thority, took from said decedent quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $6,215 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows : Taken from the decedent's premises at or near Jackson, Hinds County, Miss., in May, 1864, by General Grant's raid ,and during the siege in July by the United States troops, and Sherman's raid to Meridian : 4 bales of cotton $1,800.00 Furniture, beds, bedding, carpets, rugs, damask and lace curtains, dry goods, clothing, and table linen 900. 00 1 pair of carriage horses 500. 00 1 pair of mules 350. 00 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 147 1 riding horse $125.00 1 top buggy and harness 300. 00 1 wagon and harness 75.00 600 bushels corn 450. 00 Fooder and hay 20.00 7 cows and calves 350.00 3 hogs 20. 00 2 hogsheads sugar 70.00 2 hogsheads molasses 65. 00 5 barrels of flour 50. 00 11 sacks coffee 60.00 1,600 pounds bacon and hams 142. 00 200 pounds lard 32.00 2 boxes tobacco 36.00 100 pounds rice , 20.00 Sundries 75. 00 Jewelry and silverware 500. 00 China and glassware 150.00 Paintings and bric-a-brac 125. 00 Total 6, 215. 00 The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACTS. I. About two years before the war of the rebellion commenced, the husband of the claimant's decedent departed this life, leaving his widow, said claimant, surviving. During the war the claimant resided in the city of Jackson, State of Mississippi, and was the owner of two or three houses and lots in said city, and was also the owner of a plantation about 15 miles from said city. She died in 1873, never having presented any claim for the property now alleged to have been taken to the commissioners of claims, nor to any other department of the Government, and the only -reason shown therefor is that she was in ill health. II. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, at or near Jackson, in Hinds County, State of Mississippi, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States for the use of the Army, property consisting of 3 horses, 1 mule, 1 wagon, 600 bushels of corn, 7 cows, 2 hogsheads of sugar, and 5 barrels of flour, which then and there was reason- ably worth the sum of one thousand three hundred and fifty-five dollars ($1,355). No payment appears to have been made therefor. The other items of property alleged in the petition to have been taken are not proven to have been taken or used by the United States Army, and no allowance is made therefor. By the Coubt. Filed October 29, 1900. A true copy. Test this 14th day of November, A. D., 1900. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims.. W. T. SMITH. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11434. W. T. Smith, administrator of estate of Maria A. Relnhardt, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. By resolution of the United States Senate of April 26, 1904, Senate bill No. 607, Fifty-eighth Congress, was referred to this court for findings of fact in accordance with the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, commonly known as the Tucker Act, said bill reading as follows: "A BILL For the relief of M. A. Reinhardt " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury 148 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, to M. A. Reinhardt, of Benton County, Mississippi, the sum of eight thousand four hundred dollars, for stores and sup- plies taken and used by the Federal forces during the late war." The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 17th day of December, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : That he is a citizen of the county of Benton, State of Mississippi, that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of Maria A. Reinhardt, deceased, late of said county and State ; that during the late civil war said defendant was a citizen of the United States, residing in that portion of the county of Marshall, State of Mississippi, later embraced in said county of Benton ; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit : 3,450 bushels corn, at $1 per bushel $3, 450 8 mules, at $150 each 1, 200 4 horses, at $150 each 600 28 head of cattle, at $15 each 420 400 bushels wheat, at $1 per bushel 400 5 tons of blade fodder, at $20 per ton 100 1 4-mule iron axle wagon 100 1 6-mule iron axle wagon 100 40 sheep, at $2.50 per head 100 75 fat hogs, at $10 each 750 1,200 pounds cured meat, at 10 cents per pound 120 4J tons sheaf oats, at $20 per ton 90 100 bushels of rye, at $1 per bushel 100 Total 7, 530 That said decedent departed this life in 1870, prior to the establishment of the Southern Claims Commissibn ; that the heirs of said decedent presented this claim to Congress as early as 1878. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent, Maria A. Rein- hardt, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During said war the military forces of the United States, by proper au- thority for the use of the Army took from claimant's decedent in Marshall County (now embraced in Benton County), State of Mississippi, property as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of three thousand three hundred and ninety-five dollars ($3,395), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. That claimant's decedent died in 1870, prior to the establishment of the Southern Claims Commission. Her heirs presented the claim to Congress in 187S. The claim was referred to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives April 10, 1S90, under the provisions of the act of March 3, 18S3 ; and the cause thus referred was numbered on the docket as 7580 Congressional. Said case was, on October 31, 1901, dismissed for want of prosecution. Thereafter bills were introduced in the Fifty-sixth, Fifty- seventh, and Fifty-eighth Congresses for the relief of the claimants and subse- quently referred to the court by resolution of the Senate as hereinbefore set forth. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 149 No other evidence is offered upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in the presentation of said claim. By the Court. Filed December 24, 1906. A true copy. Test this 2d day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. CHARLES O. SPENCER. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9595. Charles O. Spencer v. The United States.] The claim in this case, for stores and supplies alleged to have been taken by the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court in July, 1897, under section 14 of the Tucker Act, by resolution of the United States Senate. The case was brought to a hearing on the 2d day of November, 1899, Gilbert Moyers, esq., appearing for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John G. Capers, esq., his assistant, for the defense. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : That lie is a citizen of the United States, residing in Tippah County, State of Mississippi, where he resided during the late war of the rebellion ; that at differ- ent times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from him quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $4,629 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army. Taken from the claimant's premises near Salem, Tippah County, Miss., by Colonel Deitzler, of General Denver's division, December 23, 1862 ; January 16, 1863 ; June 4, 1863, and June, 1864 ; also by Colonel Hatch and General Sturgis's command : 1 six-horse iron-axle wagon $150 6 sets harness 75 5 head mules 750 270 bushels corn, at 50 cents 135 200 bundles fodder 4 7,500 pounds of pork, at 10 cents 750 50 head of stock hogs, at $10 500 3 cows 60 2 yearlings 20 5 mules 750 5 cows 100 6 yearlings 60 1 fine horse and saddle 175 4 mules 600 250 bushels of corn 250 1 barrel molasses 40 1 barrel of flour : 10 1,000 pounds of bacon, at 20 cents 200 Total 4,609 The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. There were taken from the claimant and another, in Tippah County, State of Mississippi, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, stores and supplies of the kind above described, a part of which was owned by the claimant, and the part so owned by plaintiff and taken from him was then and there reasonably worth the sum of two thousand and thirty-one dollars ($2,031), for which no payment appears to have been made. The claimant was born in February, 1850, and when the property was taken he was still in his minority and took no part in the rebellion. By the Court. Filed December 4, 1899. A true copy. Test this 13th day of March, 1900. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 150 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. HARRIETT MILES. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10406. Harriett Miles v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for use and occupation and damage to property alleged to have been taken by the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was trans- mitted to the court by resolution of United States Senate on the 26th day of February, 1901, under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of October, 1902. Gilbert Moyers, esq., appeared lor claimant, and the Attorney-General, by G. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in Warren County, State of Mississippi, where she resided during the late war of the rebellion ; that at differ- ent times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from her quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $9,092.50 and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows : Four buildings consisting of a one-story frame dwelling, a stable, cow house, and servants' quarters, torn down by the Federal forces and the materials used by the said forces, on square No. 54, Vicksburg, Miss $4, 000. 00 1,370 feet of plank fence, 7 feet high, taken and used around north half of square No. 54, Vicksburg, Miss 342. 50 Destruction of fruit trees, garden, and shrubbery, on N. half of square No. 54, Vicksburg, Miss : 1, 000. 00 Damage to ground, north half of square No. 54, in the city of Vicks- burg, Miss 1,500.00 For the use and occupation of said land, square No. 54, in the city of Vicksburg, for two years and six months by the Federal authorities, at $75 per month 2, 250. 00 9, 092. 50 (Occupation commenced in July, 1863.) The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant was loyal to the Govern- ment of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war of the rebellion, in Warren County, State of Mississippi, the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, took materials from the claimant's buildings, which were reasonably worth at the time and place of taking the sum of one thousand seven hundred and ninety-five dollars ($1,795), for which no payment appears to have been made. No allowance is made for the use and occupation of the premises, and no allowance is made for the alleged damage and destruction to the claimant's property. III. The claim was not presented to any department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore set forth, and no evidence has been offered by the claimant bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in presenting such claim or applying for such grant, gift, or bounty, and any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy, except that in 1863 the claim- ant presented to a military commission appointed by General Grant, in 1863, a ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 151 claim for damages growing out of the destruction of buildings, trees, and fenc- ing in the construction of forts on the premises of the claimant. By the Court. Filed December 1, 1902. A true copy. Test this 17th day of January, 1903. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MISSOURI. C. A. JARRED, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11844. C. A. Jarred, administrator of the estate of Leroy Noble, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the Court of Claims by order of the Com- mittee on Claims, United States Senate, in the Fifty-eighth Congress, third session, on March 3, 1905, under an act of Congress, approved March 3, 1SS7, known as the Tucker Act: " [S. 5796, Fifty-eighth Congress, third session.] "A BILL For the relief of Leroy Noble. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Leroy Noble, of Wicks, Polk County, Arkansas, the sum of three thousand one hundred and seven dollars and fifty cents ($3,107.50), in full for property taken during the civil war for the use of the Union Army." The claimant, Leroy Noble, appeared and filed his petition herein May 23, 1905, in which he makes the following allegations : That he lived during the civil war at Ebenezer, Mo., and was always a loyal citizen of the United States. That at different times during the war the following property was taken from him by the troops designated, to wit : By Missouri State militia : August 22, 1861— 1 mare $200. 00 November, 1862 — 200 bushels of corn 200. 00 Destroying bees and taking honey 30. 00 4 hogs 30. 00 By Kansas troops : December 5, 1862— 1 mare and saddle 225. 00 July 25, 1863— 32 tons of hay 640. 00 By Illinois troops : September, 1S65— 100 bushels of corn 100. 00 100 bushels of oats 100.00 Honey of the value of 30. 00 February, 1864— 220 bushels of wheat 440. 00 100 bushels of oats 100. 00 500 bushels of corn 500. 00 Feeding 39 men, night and morning SO. 00 Feeding 98 mules 24.00 Feeding 34 horses 8. 50 By Missouri State militia : September, 1864 — 2 bay mares 310. 00 Total 3, 107. 50 152 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. That no compensation has ever been made to claimant or anyone else for this property by the United States. That he did not know of the passage of the Tucker Act until just before he presented his claim in the Fifty-eighth Congress, third session. The case was brought to a hearing on January 13, 190S, Ellen Spencer Mussey appearing for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Malcolm A. Coles, his assistant, and under his direction, appearing for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimant's decedent, Leroy Noble, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the miliary forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant's decedent in Ebenezer, Mo., property of the kind and character described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of seven hundred and forty dollars ($740), no part of which appears to have been paid. No allowance is made for meals furnished soldiers or for feed for horses. III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by reso- lution of the United States Senate as hereinbefore set forth, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed February 3, 1908. A true copy. Test this 10th day of February, A. D. 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF CHRISTIAN CHURCH, MARSHALL, MO. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12429. Trustees of the Christian Church of Marshall, Mo., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words : " [S. 2492, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Christian Church of Marshall, Missouri. "Be it enacted by the Senate and, House of Representatives of the United, States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Christian Church of Marshall, Missouri, the sum of three thousand dollars for use of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." The claimants appeared in this court on the 27th day of December, 1906, and filed their petition, in which they substantially aver — That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about March, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Christian Church, of Marshall, Mo., and used and occupied the same for military purposes from said date until on or about August, 1865, said building being occupied by various commands, including the First, Fourth, and Seventh Missouri Cavalry and Seventh U. S. Infantry. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condi- ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 153 tion in which it was at the time the said military* forces took possession, was the sum of $3,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 29th day of October, 1907. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Christian Church of Marshall, Mo., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During said war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the building described in the petition and used and occupied the same from about March, 1862, to about August, 1865, and damaged the same. Such use and occupation, together with the reasonable damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there reasonably worth the sum of twelve hundred and forty dollars ($1,240), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolu- tion of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall excuse the claimant church for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Cottbt. Filed November 4, 1907. A true copy. Test this 7th day of November, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, HARRISON- VILLE, MO. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11649. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, Harrisonville, Mo., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : " [S. 2025, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Harrisonville, Missouri! " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Harrisonville, Missouri, the sum of two thousand dollars, for injury to their church building resulting from the occupation of the same by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Harrisonville, Mo., appeared and filed their petition in this court July 9, 1904, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the said church was the owner of a certain church building 70 feet long and two stories high, situated on the west side of Independence street and north of the public square, in the city of Harrisonville, Mo. That the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of said building and used and occupied the same for a period of three years, during the years from 1861 to 1864, and by reason of said occupancy the 154 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. said building was greatly damaged, and the cost to restore the building to the condition in which it was when said occupancy began was the sum of $2,000. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 24th day of October, 1905. ■ G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. . The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel for both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South of Harrisonville, Mo., was, as a church, loyal to the Government of the United States during the war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and occupied, for military purposes, the church building belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church South of Harrisonville, Mo., from 1861 to 1864, a period of three years. The reasonable rental value of said building, together with the damages incident to such occupation, was the sum of seven hundred and seventy-nine dollars and seventy-five cents ($779.75), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed October 30, 1905. A true copy. Test this 24th day of November, 1905. [seal.] . John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF MEXICO, MO. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13158. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Mexico, Mo., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the follow- ing words : "[S. 8591, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] " A BILL For the relief of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Mexico, Missouri. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Mexico, Missouri, the sum of two thousand dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to the property of said church by United States military forces during the civil war." Said trustees of said church appeared in this court March 25, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred that : During the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took possession of the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Mexico, Mo., consisting of a well-constructed brick church building about 60 or 70 feet in length by 40 feet in width, and occupied the same for about three years, at times as a prison or guardhouse, at times as a commissary, and for other military pur- poses, and thereby greatly injured the property; that a claim was filed in the Quartermaster-General's Office soon after the war, but payment was never made ; that the reasonable rental value of said property during said occupation, including the repairs necessary to restore said property to the same condition as before such occupation, was the sum of $2,000, for which no payment has been made ; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the Gov- ernment of the United States and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against said Government. ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 155 The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 3d day of February, 1908. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. H. Lamar, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following t FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Mexico, Mo., was, as a church, loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During the late civil war there was taken possession of by the Missouri State Militia the church building described in the petition and by them used and occupied from time to time for a period of about two years, and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value thereof during said period, together with damages thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of seven hundred and ten dollars ($710), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. A claim was presented by the claimant church herein to the Quartermas- ter-General for rent and repairs amounting to $2,9S0, and by that officer sus- pended in November, 1896, for want of sufficient testimony. Thereafter the claim herein was presented to Congress and referred to this court March 2, 1907, by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore set forth in the statement of the case. By the Coubt. Filed February 10, 1908. A true copy. Test this 11th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. TRUSTEES METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, SPRING- FIELD, MO. 'I Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11720. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Springfield, Mo., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Ant : " [S. 4994, Fifty -eighth Congress, second session.] " A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Springfield, Missouri. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Springfield, Missouri, the sum of four thousand one hundred and forty-two dollars and ninety-two cents for the use of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Springfield, Mo., appeared and filed their petition in this court January 16, 1905, in which they make the following allegations : That during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the 10th day of August, 1861, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, at Springfied, Mo., and used and occupied the same for hospital and other purposes until on or about the 1st of May, 1864. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied was the sum of $75 per month, amounting to the sum of $2,425. 156 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. That by reason of such use and occupation repairs were necessary, and it cost the sum of $1,717.92 to restore the building to the same condition in which it was when said troops first took possession of the same, and the United States is justly indebted to them in the total sum of $4,142.92, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 8th day of February, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Springfield, Mo., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war of the rebellion, from August, 1861, to May, 1864, United States troops, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, at Springfield, Mo., and used and occupied the said church building for military purposes. By reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said building, in- cluding repairs necessary to restore the church building to the condition in which it was when said troops took possession of the same, was the sum of three thousand one hundred and fifty dollars ($3,150), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Cottet. Filed February 13, 1905. A true copy. Test this 2d day of June, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF STURGEON, MO. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12430. Trustees of the Christian Church of Stur- geon, Mo., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for damage to a church building resulting from the use and occupation of the same by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the United States Senate re- ferred to the court a bill in the following words : "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Christian Church of Sturgeon, Missouri. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Christian Church of Sturgeon, Missouri, the sum of one thousand dollars for damage to their church property resulting from the occupation of the same by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." The claimants appeared in this court on the 27th day of September, 1906,, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred: That during the fall of 1861 the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Christian Church of Sturgeon, Mo., and used and occupied the same for military purposes until the close of the war. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the cost to restore the said building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession of the same was the sum of $1,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the ,11th day of February, 1907. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 157 G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- General, by W. H. Lamar, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Christian Church of Sturgeon, Mo., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church build- ing described in the petition and used and occupied the same for hospital pur- poses and as a stable at intervals the greater part of the time from the summer of 1S61 to October, 1864, for which it was paid through the Quartermaster's Department the sum of $450 for rent, no payment being made for damages. During the occupancy for the purpose aforesaid the flooring was torn out of the church building, the pews and pulpit and the doors and windows dam- aged. Said damages, over and above ordinary wear and tear, were at the time and place reasonably worth the sum of $550. By the Court. Filed February 18, 1907. A true copy. Test this 28th day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, OF JEFFERSON CITY, MO. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11620. Trustees of the First Baptist Church, of Jefferson City, Mo., v. The United States;] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: " [S. 738, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] " A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the First Baptist Church, of Jefferson City, Missouri. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the First Baptist Church, of Jefferson City, Missouri, the sum of two thousand seven hundred dollars, for the use of and damage to church building by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." The trustees of the First Baptist Church, of Jefferson City, Mo., appeared and filed their petition in this court July 30, 1904, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of their church building and used and occupied the same for military purposes for a period of about four years, during the years 1S61 to 1864, inclusive, by reason of which extensive repairs were necessary to restore said building to the condition in which it was when said occupancy began, and the United States is justly indebted to said church, as follows: For rent of church building for four years, at $300 ;__ $1, 200 For repairs to the same 1, 500 Total 2,700 158 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 24th day of January, 1905. C. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by E. C. Brandenburg, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the First Baptist Church, of Jefferson City, Mo., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, from the month of September, 1861, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the First Baptist Church, of Jefferson City, Mo., and used and occupied the same for military purposes from said date until the spring of 1865. The reasonable rental value of said property during the period it was used and occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building in the same condition in which it was when the occupation began, was the sum of one thousand three hundred and eighty dollars ($1,380), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed January 30, 1905. A true copy. Test this 3d day of February, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11632. The University of Missouri v. The United States. ] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court in April, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : "A BILL For the relief of the University of the State of Missouri. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the sum of seventeen thousand four hundred and seventy-five dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to pay to the University of the State of Missouri for property damaged and destroyed by the United States troops during the occupancy by them of the buildings and prop- erty of said university during the civil war." The claimants appeared and filed their petition in this court June 2, 1904, in which they make, in substance, the following allegations : That the University of Missouri is an institution organized under the laws of the State of Missouri ; that during the civil war said university was loyal to the United States ; that during said war United States troops, by proper author- ity, used and occupied the building of said university and damaged the same as follows: Damage to main building and grounds ! $3, 625 Damage to grammar school 300 Damage to apparatus in laboratory 400 Damage to library 2, 000 Damage to trees, fences, grounds 1, 000 Damage to president's house 150 To replace minerals taken from cabinet — 10, 000 Total 17,475 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 159 That the university filed a claim for rent and damages in the War Depart- ment, the claim for rent being settled, but the claim for damages being rejected because the Department could not entertain a claim for damages. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 28th day of February, 1905. Ralston & Siddons appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by F. De C. Faust, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimant is a body corporate under the name of the Curators of the University of the State of Missouri, organized and existing as an institution of learning. During the civil war the president and board of curators of said institution were loyal men, and none of its property was applied to aid or sup- port the rebellion." II. Prior to and during the civil war the said university was the owner of certain lands and buildings at Columbia, Boone County, Mo., which property was being used in its educational work, and which consisted of its main uni- versity building, a grammar school or preparatory department building, a house for the residence of the president of the university, and a campus and ground embracing about 20 acres of land adjacent to the buildings. This property was at the commencement of the war valued at one hundred and sixty-nine thousand ($169,000) dollars. III. Commencing in the fall of 1S61 the campus and buildings of the univer- sity were occupied for headquarters of commanding officers, barracks for troops, hospital, prison, storage, stables, camping, and other military purposes by numerous organizations of United States troops, including both cavalry and infantry, this being continued, except for occasional short intervals, until the close of the war. The commands of troops were in part the Second Missouri Cavalry ("Merrill's Horse," commanded by Col. Lewis Merrill), the Third Iowa, Ninth Missouri State Militia, and Sixty-second Missouri Enrolled Militia. IV. During this occupation the property of the university was severely damaged by the United States forces. They used the fences, plank walks, out- buildings, and shade trees for fuel. They also injured the main building, gram- mar school, and president's house by using the same, by removing the banister on the main stairs, and in other ways, which damages were in addition to the usual wear and tear to which rented premises would be subject. The amount of these damages is the sum of five thousand and seventy-five dollars ($5,075). V. The claimant presented its claim for the damages to the War Department, and at the same time a claim for twelve thousand thirty-seven and 50/100 ($12,037.50) dollars rent for the use and occupation of its buildings. These claims were investigated, and the claim for damages was rejected for want of jurisdiction in the executive officers, and the claim for rent was adjusted and has been paid. Upon the disallowance of its claim for damages, the claimant had presented to Congress a bill (House bill No. 569, 45th Cong., 1st sess.) upon which no action has been taken. No payment or other cfeapensation has ever been made to the university for the damage to and destruction of its property. By the Court. Filed March 20, 1905. A true copy. Teste this 28th day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. KAROLINE MULHAUPT. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11737. Karoline Mulhaupt v. The United States. ] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for use and occupation of real estate at Memphis, Tenn., by the military forces of the United States during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was first transmitted-to this court on 160 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. February 27, 1887, by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Repre- sentatives for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1883, commonly known as the Bowman Act. Under said reference the usual preliminary trial on loyalty was had, loyalty being found, but the case was not brought to trial on merits, as the court could not have entertained jurisdiction of the claim under the terms of the Bowman Act. On November 2, 1903, the following bill was introduced in the United States Senate, to wit: "A BILL For tfre relief of F. X. Mulhaupt and Caroline Mulhaupt, of Jackson County, Missouri. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to F. X. Mulhaupt and Caroline Mulhaupt, of Jackson County, Missouri, the sum of two thousand three hundred and fifty dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies and occupation of real estate for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late civil war." By resolution of the United States Senate said bill was transmitted to this court on January 5, 1905, for findings of fact in accordance with the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 23d day of October, 1905. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Mal- colm A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : That she is now and at all times mentioned in her petition has been a citi- zen of the United States and is now a resident of Kansas City, Jackson County, State of Missouri ; that during the late civil war petitioner was a resident of the city of Memphis, State of Tennessee; that during said war petitioner was the owner of a certain lot in said city of Memphis, designated as lot No. 23 in block No. 10, in the Fort Pickering addition to said city, whch lot had a front- age of 25 feet and a depth of 170 feet; that upon said. lot there was situated a certain double tenement house of six rooms and a shed, and also a stable ; that in the month of June, 1862, the United States military forces, under proper authority, took possession of said premises and continued to occupy the same until sometime in the month of April, 1866, a period of at least forty-five months ; that during said period said premises were reasonably worth a rental of $50 per month, being $25 for each tenement, making a total of $2,250 as the reasonable rental value of said premises while so occupied ; that during said occupation of said premises the house was greatly damaged and the fence around said lot, of the reasonable value of $100, was taken down and used for army purposes. Wherefore petitioner alleges that in justice the United States is indebted to petitioner in the sum of $2,350. The court, after considering the evidence and the briefs and arguments of counsel on each sid^, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant, Karoline Mulhaupt, was loyal to the Government of the United Statse during the war for the suppres- sion of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and occupied, for military piirposes, from June, 1862, until sometime in April, 1S66, a period of forty-five months, a house and lot in the city of Memphis belonging to the claim- ant. The reasonable rental of said premises, together with the damages inci- dent to such occupation, was the sum tf one thousand three hundred and ninety-five dollars ($1,395), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Coukt. Filed October 30, 1905. A true copy. Test this Sth day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 161 NEW HAMPSHIRE. ROBERT BILLINGS ET AL. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 13106, subnumbers 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 313, 314, 315, 316, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 324, 326. 328, 329, 330, 332. 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340. Portsmouth, N. H., Navy- Yard. Robert Billings, Franklin H. Bond, William H. Brown, William C. Bray, Isaac H. Parr, John Grant, Robert M. Ham, Henry H. Ham. Albert Hanscom, Thomas L. Jose, Michael E. Long, Prank E. Lawry, Brackett Lewis, James M. Jarvis, William W. Locke, Walter N. Meloon, George W. Muchmoire, Christopher Remick, Edwin D. Rand, Augustus S. Zara, Augustus Stevenson, George E. Stackpole, William H. Wilson. Benjamin P. Winn; Joseph A. Meloon and Charles O. Meloon, exec- utors of Nathaniel L. Meloon, deceased; Charles Stewart v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. 1 This is a claim for the payment to the above-named claimants for services rendered at the Portsmouth Navy- Yard, Portsmouth, N. H., between March 21, 1878, and September 22, 1882, for extra labor above the legal day of eight hours. I On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: " [S. 8261, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of Christopher Alexander and others. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Christopher Alexander and to the others who have joined with him in a petition to this Congress, dated January twenty-ninth, nineteen hundred and seven, the amounts that may be found due to each of them, respectively, for extra labor, above the legal day of eight hours, while employed by the United States as workmen, laborers, or mechanics at the various navy-yards of the United States, per- formed by them by reason of and under the provisions of circular numbered eight, issued by the Secretary of the Navy on March twenty-first, eighteen hundred and seventy-eight." Thereafter the claimants named above and each of them offered and filed their respective petitions herein in which they and each of them aver substantially as follows: That between March 21 , 1878, and the 21st clay of September, 1882, they and each of them were employed by the Government of the United States at the navy-yard, Boston, Mass.; that on March 21, 1878, the Secretary of the Navy issued the order referred to in claimants' petition known as circular No. 8, and set forth in Finding I herein. That during the six months in each year from the date of said order to the 21st day of September, 1882, they worked during all or a portion of the time they were so employed in excess of eight hours per day, and that they and each of them were paid for only eight hours' work per day for the time they were so employed during said period, and that they and each of them are entitled to the amounts set forth in their respective petitions, being the pay for all time worked during said period in excess of eight hours per day. The case was brought to a hearing on the evidence and merits on the 13th day of February, 1908. Thomas Dawson, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Percy M. Cox, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT. I. Between the 21st day of March, 1878, and the 22d day of September, 1882, the claimants herein, or their decedents, and each of them were in the employ of the United States in the navy-yard at Portsmouth, N. H., during which time the follow- ing order was in force: "Circular No. 8.] Navy Department, . ' "Washington, D. C, March 21, 1878. "The following is hereby substituted, to take effect from this date, for the circular of October 25, 1877, in relation to the working hours at the several navy-yards and shore stations: "The working hours will be — "From March 21 to September 21, from 7 a. m. to 6 p. m.; from September 22 to March 20, from 7.40 a. m. to 4.30 p. m. ; with the usual intermission of one hour for dinner. - S. Rep. 382, 60-1 11 162 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. "The Department will contract for the labor of mechanics, foremen, leading men, and laborers on the basis of eight hours a day. All workmen electing to labor ten hours a day will receive a proportionate increase of their wages. "The commandants will notify the men employed, or to be employed, of these conditions, and they are at liberty to continue to accept employment under them or not. "R. W. Thompson, " Secretary of the Navy." II. Said claimants and each of them, or their decedents, while in the employ of the United States, as aforesaid, worked on the average the number of hours set oppo- site their respective names in excess of eight hours a day and at the wages stated, to wit: Name of claimant. Robert B. Billings Do Do Do Franklin H. Bond. Do Do William H. Brpwn William C. Bray.-. Do Do Isaac H. Farr Do Do John Grant Do Do Robert M. Ham... Do Henry M. Ham Do Albert Hanscom . . Do James M. Jarvis... Thomas L. Jose Do Do '. Number j Rate of hours. | per day. 4324 332± I Gift 4324/ 782 1 3fi 777g ; 3734 ' 377*. 433* S17i 252 ! 2054 ! 3J 3Ui B J irice and allowance for extra work, and report the same to the Senate next session. None but those that have given satisfaction to the Department to be considered." The Navy Department thereupon appointed a board consisting of Commodore Selfridge, Chief Engineer Henderson, and Paymaster Eldredge, commonly known as the " Selfridge Board." 172 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. V. The claims of the contractor were transmitted to the Selfridge Board, and he appeared before the Board and testified in person as to the services which he had rendered, the authority by which changes and alterations were made, the value of the same, etc. VI. The Selfridge Board convened at the navy-yard, New York, June 5, 1865, and continued their investigation of claims without intermission, hearing testi- mony and examining contractors and claims, until December 23, 1865, and shortly thereafter submitted their report to the Secreary of the Navy, by whom it was transmitted to the Senate on the 30th January, 1866. VII. The total amount of the bills submitted to the Navy Department by the •claimant was $22,406.85, but the resolution of the Senate before quoted restricted the examination and computations of the Selfridge Board to inquiring into and determining how much the vessels contracted for by the Navy Department " cost the contractors over and above the contract price and allowance for extra work." The Board accordingly found from their investigations that the addi- tional cost to the contractor of the Mendota over and above the contract price was $17,465.70, from which the Board deducted $2,991.86, which had been allowed by the Navy Department on a bill rendered for extra work and mate- rials, leaving as the additional cost of the vessel " over and above the contract price and allowance for extra work " the sum of $14,473.84. VIII. No evidence either to confirm or impeach the report or conclusions of the Selfridge Board has been produced or offered by either party in this case. By the Court. Filed January 9, 1905. A true copy. Test this 9th day of January, 1905. [seal.] Archibald Hopkins, Chief Cleric Court of Claims. MARIE L. HERMANCE, ADMINISTRATRIX. {Court of Claims. Congressional, 10890. Marie L. Hermance, administratrix of Jeremiah Simonson, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This case was sent to this court under resolution of the United States Sen- ate dated June 17, 1902, referring, under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act, a bill providing for the payment of $16,441.81 to the legal rep- resentatives of Jeremiah Simonson for work and material ' furnished in the construction of the U. S. S. Chenango. On a preliminary inquiry the claimant's decedent, Jeremiah Simonson, was found to have been loyal to the Government of the United States during the late civil war. The case was brought to a hearing on merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. Richard R. McMahon appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Felix Brannigan, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant appeared and filed her petition, in which she avers substan- tially as follows : That she is a citizen of the United States and the duly appointed administra- trix of Jeremiah Simonson, deceased. That on September 9, 1862, said decedent entered into a contract with John Lenthall, Chief of the Bureau of Construc- tion and Repair of the Navy Department, to construct a wooden hull for the United States double-ender Chenango, within -a period of one hundred and twenty-six days from the date of contract, at an aggregate price of $75,000. The contractor, who had other business which would pay much better, hesi- tated to enter into the contract, but it was pressed by the Government and urged very strenuously as a matter of patriotism, and he therefore made it reluctantly. The contract provided that in the event of failure qn the part of the con- tractor to fulfill the stipulations thereof or have the vessel launched or delivered at the premises of the contractors for the machinery, or ready for sea at the stipulated time, he should forfeit $50 per day for each day delayed, and in addition the Navy Department was authorized to take charge and complete the construction of the vessel, and any excess of cost was to be at the expense ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 17 3 of the contractor, provided the delay was not occasioned by an unavoidable accident or the action of the Navy Department. The contractor was ready to launch the hull at the stipulated time, January 33, 1S63, but as he was required by the terms of the contract "to do all the carpenter work necessary in connection with the steam machinery," and the engine builders were not ready to put in the boilers, the hull was detained on the ways by the Government, under orders of United States Naval Constructor and Inspector of Hulls S. M. Pook, and owing to these causes the launching was delayed until March 19, 1863. Tour petitioner further represents that as the contract provided that the hull, equipments, and outfits should be complete and satisfactory to the Navy De- partment before final payment was made, the work of the contractor was en- tirely satisfactory to the Department, since no part of the contract price was withheld, but payment was made in full. The actual cost to the contractor to build the hull, as shown by the items and figures entered in his cost book at the time the work was being done, was $94,969.98, of which he received in payment from the United States the con- tract price of $75,000, and the further sum of $3,52S.17 for extra work not embraced in the contract, leaving the actual loss to the contractor $16,441.81. Petitioner further shows that the excess of cost over and above the contract price and allowance for extra work was due to the continual increase of wages and the price of labor and material, and that no part of the said excess could have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary diligence and prudence on the part of the contractor. In 1S65, a board of naval officers, thereunto authorized by the Secretary of the Navy, made a report on a number of vessels, in which report was included a statement that the excess over the contract price was the .sum of $16,441.81. That claimant's decedent was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. The court upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimant is the administratrix of Jeremiah Simonson, who resided in Brooklyn, State of New York, in the year of 1862. II. In the summer of 1862 the Bureau of Steam Engineering of the Navy Department advertised for proposals for machinery. Following the advertise- ment Benjamin F. Isherwood, Chief of said Bureau, by direction of the Secre- tary of the Navy, visited the principal shops capable of doing the work for which proposals were asked and endeavored by arguments to induce the owners thereof to accept the work, as the Government was greatly in need of the same, and that as loyal supporters of the Government they were bound to meet its needs; that a refusal so to do would place them in the category of those not entitled to the patronage of the Department hereafter. That if they did not respond to the best of their ability he would recommend to the Department what he had already suggested, to take possession of the shops and have them operated exclusively for the Government. III. On September 9, 1862, said Jeremiah Simonson entered into a contract with John Lenthall, Chief of the Bureau of Construction and Repair of the Navy Department, to construct, for and in consideration of the sum of $75,000, a wooden hull for the United States double-ender Chenango, within a period of one hundred and twenty-six days from the date of the contract, said contract price to include equipments and outfits. Without any fault on the part of the Government the vessel was not com- pleted until sixty-five days after the date fixed therefor in the contract. IV. During the progress of the work on the vessel the price of labor and materials greatly increased. The contractor was paid the full contract price for said vessel and equipments and also the sum of $3,528.17 allowed for extra work on the hull of said vessel. V. By virtue of a resolution of the United States Senate adopted March 9, 1865, the Secretary of the Navy, on May 25, 1865, appointed a board of naval officers, afterwards known as the Selfridge board, to inquire into the cost of said vessel and machinery to the contractor, and said board thereafter reported that said vessel and machinery had cost the contractor $16,441.81 in excess of the contract price therefor, not including said sum of $3,528.17 which was allowed for extra work as aforesaid. 174 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. VI. The items of expenditure were submitted to the board of naval officers, afterwards known as the Selfridge board, and the cost of tbe Chenango was shown to that board (according to their report) to be $16,144.81 in excess of the contract price and allowance for extra work as hereinbefore set forth, and that was the amount allowed by the Selfridge board as above stated. No evidence has been offered by the Government to disprove the findings of the Selfridge board. Nor has any sufficient competent evidence been offered by the claimant to affirm or prove the findings of said Selfridge board. VII. Certified copy of limited letters of administration appear to have been issued to Margaret Simonson, of Springfield, Mass., and to Marie Louise Her- nia nee, of the county of New York, by the surrogate's court of the county and State of New York, with power to prosecute only and not with power to collect •or compromise. By the Court. Filed February 11, 1907. A true copy. Test this 13th day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOHN CROSBY BROWN, EXECUTOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10869. John Crosby Brown, executor of the 'will of James Brown, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for work done and materials furnished in the construction of the machinery and boilers for the U. S. monitor Miantonomoh. On June 17, 1902, the United States Senate by resolution referred to the court, under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act, a bill reading as follows : " [S. 1181, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] " A BILL For the relief of the estate of James Brown, deceased. "Be it enacted oy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there be paid to the personal representatives of James Brown, deceased, of the Novelty Iron Works, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of thirty-five thousand eight hundred and thirty-two dollars and four cents, in full payment and discharge of the claim of said personal representatives of James Brown, deceased, of the Novelty Iron Works, for work done and material furnished in the construction of the machinery of the ironclad Miantonomoh, as per report of Thomas O. Selfridge, commodore and president of board (Senate Executive Document Numbered Eighteen, first session of the Thirty-ninth Congress)." The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court on the 10th day of October, 1906, in which he avers as follows : That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the city of New York, in the State of New York, and is the surviving acting executor of the will of the late James Brown, who was a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the city of New York, in the State of New York, and that he departed this life on the 1st day of November, 1877; that both the claimant and his testator re- sided at New York City throughout the years 1861 to 1865 and gave no aid or comfort to the rebellion, and were at all times loyal to the Government of the United States. That the Novelty Iron Works, of which James Brown was the sole owner and sole creditor, and which company has long since ceased to exist, entered into a contract with the United States on the 15th day of September, i862, for the building and construction of the engines and machinery for the U. S. monitor Miantonomoh, the same to be constructed within seven months from the date of the contract, the United States to deliver the vessel to the contractor within five months from date of contract ; that the design of the Miantonomoh was new and experimental as respected its turrets,' and the contractor was delayed in his work by the United States to enable them to work out the new and difficult problems arising from the novelty of the vessel, and the contractor was further ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 175 delayed by changes made by the United States iu the plans, size, and construc- tion of tlie machinery and engines to adapt them to this new construction, so that by these changes and delays, all occasioned by the action of the United States, the work under the contract was not completed and accepted by the United States until August 11, 1865. < That these experiments, delays, and changes postponed the work done by the contractor until prices for labor and material had very greatly advanced be- yond those prevailing during the contract term, so that the actual cost to the contractors of the machinery and engines as finally completed amounted to the sum of $202,845.S4. That the contractor received from the United States for and on account of all said work the sum of $167,000 only, being $35,832.04 less than its actual cost. The only ascertainment of how much the engines and machinery of the Alian- tonomoh cost the contractors over and above the allowance for extra work and the contract price was by a board of naval officers thereunto authorized by the Secretary of the Navy on the 25th day of May, 1865. The loss to the contractors by reason of the delays and changes ordered by the United States was $35,832.04 over and above all sums heretofore received from the United States. ' The contractors were not guilty of laches, inasmuch as they presented their claim to said board on the 10th day of October, 1865, and the same has been pending either before the Navy Department or Congress until its reference under the foregoing resolution. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of May, 1907. John C. Fay, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the proofs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. John Crosby Brown is the duly appointed surviving executor of the will of James Brown, deceased, who was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. The Novelty Iron Works, of New York City, was an incorporated company duly organized and incorporated under the laws of the State of New York, hav- ing a president and board of directors. The president of the company in 1862 was Horatio Allen, of New York City, and the business of the company was the manufacturing of marine and other engines. It does not appear when said company was incorporated, nor does the date and manner of its dissolution ap- pear. The claimant's decedent, James Brown, appears to have owned practi- cally all of the stock and assets of the company at the time of its dissolution, except a small number of shares of stock which were held by five individuals, relatives, and others in the employ of said company, for the purpose of enabling them to act as members of the board of directors of said company. What num- ber of shares were so held and who is the owner or owners thereof at the present time does not appear. III. On or about September 15, 1862, the Novelty Iron Works entered into a contract with the United States, through its Chief of the Bureau of Steam Engineering, for the building and construction of the engines and machinery for a United States monitor, afterwards called the Hiantonomoh, then being or about to be constructed for the United States. IV. The work was to be done within seven months after the date of the con- tract, under onerous penalties, for the sum of $158,500, to be completed within the seven months, provided the vessel was delivered to the contractors within five months from the date of the contract. V. During the construction of the vessel there were alterations aggregating $8,500 and additions aggregating $64,869.08 ordered and paid for by the Navy Department in addition to the full contract price, making a total payment to the contractors, less trial expenses, of $231,869.06. VI. By reason of these delays, over which the contractors had no control, and the necessary changes in the engines and machinery to adapt them to the new work, the work under the contract was not completed and accepted by the United States until August 11, 1865. In consequence of numerous contactors and builders of Government vessels during the war having asked additional compensation for the construction of said vessels on the ground that they had 176 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. cost the contractors more than they had received for them the Senate of the United States on March 9, 1865, passed the following resolution : " Resolved, That the Secretary of the Navy be requested to organize a board of not less than three competent persons, whose duty it shall be to inquire into and determine how much the vessels of war and steam machinery contracted for by the Department in the years 1862 and 1863 cost the contractors over and above the contract price and allowance for extra work, and report the same to the Senate at its next session, none but those that have given satisfaction to the Department to be considered." The Navy Department thereupon appointed a board consisting of Commodore Thomas O. Selfridge, Chief Engineer Henderson, and Paymaster Eldridge, com- monly known as the Selfridge board : and the contractors in this case presented to said board a sworn statement of claim alleging the entire cost to them of the said vessel Miantonomoli to have been $202,832.04, thus claiming the entire cost to them over and above the $167,000 theretofore paid them to have been $35,832.04. Upon consideration said board decided that the vessel had cost the contractors this amount of thirty-five thousand eight hundred and thirty-two dollars and four cents ($35,832.04) over what they had received for it, and the board so reported to the Secretary of the Navy, by whom said report was transmitted to the Senate on January 30, 1866. VII. No evidence has been adduced to impeach or confirm the report or con- clusion of the Selfridge board by either party. VIII. The contractors presented this claim to said Selfridge board on June 29, 1865, since which time no action appears from the record to have been taken in the prosecution of the claim until its presentation to the Fifty-seventh Congress by Senate bill No. 1181, as hereinbefore set forth. By the Court. Filed May 13, 1907. A true copy. Test this 2d day of March, A. D. 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. NORTH CAROLINA. HARDY A. BREWINGTON, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11397. Hardy A. Brewington, administrator of estate of Raiford Brewington, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. Senate bill 4292, reading as follows, was introduced on February 10, 1904, and was referred to this court on April 28, 1904, by resolution of the Senate, for findings of fact under the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of the estate of Rayford Brewington, deceased. " Be it enacted oy the Senate and Rouse of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Rayford Brewington, deceased, late of Sampson County, North Carolina, the sum of two thousand four hundred and three dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late war of the rebellion." The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 8th day of May, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the de- fense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : That? he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Sampson, State of North Carolina ; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of Raiford Brewington, deceased, late of said ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 177 county and State ; that during the late civil war said decedent was a free man of color, residing in said county and State ; that during said war, to wit, about March 15, 1865, the United States military forces,. acting under proper authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 140 bushels of corn, at $1.80 per bushel $252 20 cords fencing, at $3 per cord 60 2,000 pounds bacon, at 25 cents per pound 500 1 horse 150 li tons corn-blade fodder, at $20 per ton 30 Total 992 That said decedent, being an uneducated colored man, was ignorant of his right to present a claim for compensation for said property to the Southern Claims Commission; that upon becoming advised of the right to present this claim the representatives of said decedent pras r ed Congress for relief in the premises. The court upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. Claimant's decedent, Raiford Brewington, was a free colored man, residing during the late civil war in Sampson County, N. C, and throughout said "war he remained loyal to the United States Government. II. During said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from claimant's decedent, in Sampson County, N. C, for the use of the Army, quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of five hundred and thirty dollars ($530). No payment appears to have been made for said property or any part thereof. III. It appears from the evidence that claimant's decedent was a colored man, who was ignorant of his right to present a claim to the Claims Commission established by the act approved March 3, 1871, during the two years allowed by law for filing of claims before said Commission. There was no other oppor- tunity for presentation of this claim save by petition to Congress. These facts are reported as bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in the presentation of said claim. By the Court. Filed May 14, 1906. A true copy. Test this 31st day of May, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, . Assistant Clerk Gourt of Claims. WILLIAM H. BUCKLIN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11548. William H. Bucklin v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 26, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : " [S. 5312. Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] " A BILL For the relief of W. H. Bucklin. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to W. H. Bucklin, of Craven County, North Carolina, the sum of seven hundred dollars, in full S. Rep. 382, 60-1 12 178 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. compensation for the sailing vessel Two Sisters, taken for the use of the United States military forces during the late civil war." The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court July 12, 1904, in which he makes the following allegations : That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Craven County, N. C. ; that during the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military authorities of the United States, for the use of the Army, took from him at Newbern, N. C, about March 11, 1S62, the schooner Two Sisters, of 30 tons burden, of the value of $700; that about two years thereafter claimant presented a claim for said schooner, but for some reason unknown to him said claim was never settled; that throughout the said war claimant was loyal to the Government of the United States. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 2d day of May* 1905. Messrs. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- eral, by P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FA.CT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant, William H. Bucklin, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, took from William H. Bucklin, in Craven County, State of North Carolina, property as above described which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of three hundred and ninety dollars ($390), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed May 15, 1905. A true copy. Test this 6th day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. MARY LEE DENNIS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11542. Mary Lee Dennis, executrix of estate of Levi T. Oglesby, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This' claim for stores or supplies alleged to have been furnished to the United States Government during the late civil war was first presented to the Claims Commission established by the act approved March 3, 1S71, but was not prose- cuted to a final decision before said Commission. It was first referred to this court on June 5, 1890, by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Repre- sentatives for findings of fact unde> the terms of the act approved March 3, 1883, and commonly known as the Bowman Act, being docketed in this court as case No. 7826, Congressional. Owing to the fact that the claim had not been prosecuted to a final determination before said Claims Commission, said refer- ence of the claim to the court conferred no jurisdiction upon the court to de- termine and report the facts of the case, and said case was dismissed on October 31, 1901, for want of prosecution. During the pendency of said claim before this court under said reference Congress was prayed for relief in the premises, and bills for relief of deceased claimant were introduced in the Fifty-first, Fifty- second, Fifty-third, and Fifty-eighth Congresses. On April 26, 1904, Senate bill No. 4082, Fifty-eighth Congress, for relief of claimant's decedent, was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. Said bill so referred reads as follows : "A BILL For the relief of L. T. Oglesby. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the sum of one thousand one ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 179 hundred and ninety-eight dollars and sixty cents be, and the same is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to pay L. T. Oglesby, of Carteret County, North Carolina, for naval stores sold and delivered to the United States Government in October, eighteen hundred and sixty-three." The case was brought to a hearing upon loyalty and merits on the 10th day of December, 1906. Movers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. DeC. Faust, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes tbe following allegations : That she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Carteret, State of North Carolina ; that she is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting executrix of the last will and testament of Levi T. Oglesby, deceased, late of said county and State; that during the late civil war said decedent re- sided in said county and State; that during said war, to wit, about October, 1863, said decedent did deliver to the United States at Newport, N. C, certain naval stores and supplies under an agreement of sale at the prices below speci- fied, to wit : Delivered at Newport, N. C, October, 1863 : 45 barrels dip turpentine, at $12 per barrel $540. 00 72J barrels scrape turpentine, at $8 per barrel 578. 66 10 barrels of tar, at $8 per barrel 80.00 Total 1, 198. 66 The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. Claimant's decedent, Levi T.* Oglesby, deceased, was, during the late civil war, a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Carteret, State of North Carolina, and throughout said war he remained loyal to the Government of the United States. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the claimant's dece- dent, Levi T. Oglesby, in response to an advertisement by the Paymaster of the Navy Department, sold and delivered to the naval forces of the United States at Carteret, N. C, subject to inspection, property of the kind and character described in the petition, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of five hundred and eighty-eight dollars ($588). Before the turpentine so sold had been inspected by the naval authorities the Confederate forces drove them out and seized and took possession of the prem- ises, together with said turpentine, with the exception of 27 barrels, which were used by said naval forces, and which were reasonably worth the sum of one hundred and eighty-two dollars ($182), no part of which appears to have been paid by the United States. III. This claim was first presented to the Southern Claims Commission in 1871, but not prosecuted to a final decision. Its first reference to this court was by the House of Representatives in 1890, under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1883, and dismissed on December 31, 1901, for nonprosecution. It was again referred to the court on April 26, 1906, by resolution of the United States Senate under the provisions of the Tucker Act of March 3, 1S87. By the CotTBT. Filed December 24, 1906. A true copy. Test this 2d day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 180 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, NEWBERN, N. C. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No: 12510. Terms 1906 and 1907. The First Baptist Church of Newbern, N. C] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for stores and supplies alleged to have been taken or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States during the war for the sup- pression of the rebellion. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the United States Senate by resolution referred to the court a bill in the following words : " [S. 4117, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the First Baptist Church, of Newbern, North Carolina. "lie it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the First Baptist Church of Newbern, North Carolina, the sum of six thousand two hundred dollars, in full satis- faction for the use and occupation of their church building as a storehouse for commissary supplies by the military authorities of the United States from October tenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, to May tenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-five." The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : That the First Baptist Church of Newbern is an ecclesiastical corporation existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina. That the said First Baptist Church of Newbern, N. C, as a corporation, did not give any aid or comfort to the Confederacy during the war of the rebel- lion, but throughout that war remained loyal to the Government of the United States. That the said church building was occupied by United States military forces from shortly after the date of the capture of Newbern by the United States military forces, and was by them used as a Warehouse for the storage of com- missary stores throughout the remainder of said war, and that there is justly due the said church rent for the use and occupation of said building for the period of three years, amounting in all to the sum of $6,200 for the period from October 1, 1862, up to December 30, 1865. That no claim for said use and occupation was ever presented to the United States except as hereinafter stated. That the said claim was presented to the Fifty-ninth Congress and by reso- lution of the Senate of the said Fifty-ninth Congress, first session (S. R. No. 144), and was by said resolution referred to the court for findings of fact in accordance with the provisions of the act of March 3, 1S87, commonly known as the Tucker Act. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argu- ment of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The First Baptist Church of Newbern, N. C, as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church build- ing described in the petition the latter part of 1862 or early part of 1863, and used and occupied the same at intervals the greater part of three years for the storage of commissary supplies. The reasonable rental of the building, together with whatever damage was done thereto in excess of the ordinary wear and tear during the period of occupancy was the sum of twelve hundred dollar ($1,200), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Gov- ernment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why such was not done. By the Court. Filed February 18, 1907. A true copy. Test this 29th day of November, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 181 J. W. HOWETT, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9601. J. W. Howett, administrator of William Howett, deceased, v. the United States.] This case being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that William Howett, deceased, the person alleged to have fur- nished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. By the Court. Filed April 17, 1899. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 9601. J. W. Howett, administrator of Wil- liam Howett, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by the resolution of the United States Senate on the 24th day of July, 1897, under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 17th day of April, 1S99, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th dav of October, 1904. George A. and William B. King, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by E. C Brandenburg, esq,, his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : That he is the administrator of William Howett, deceased ; that the follow* ing property, belonging to William Howett, deceased, was taken from him by the Army of the United States and used by the said Army, the date, place, and command being particularly stated below: In Tyrrell County, in the State of North Carolina, in or about the fall of 1863, by the United States Army, to wit : 400,000 No. 1 heart-cypress and white-cedar shingles $6,000 The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Tyrrell County, State of North Carolina, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States for the use of the Army, property of the kind above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of one thousand four hun- dred and eighty dollars ($1,480), for which no payment appears to have been made. II. The claim was not presented to the Commissioners of Claims under the act 3d March, 1871, and is consequently barred under the provisions of the act 15th June, 1878. Under the act March 3, 18S7, which provides that where there has been delay or laches in presenting a claim the court shall report whether there are " any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claim- ant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy," the claimant has proved that he was ignorant of the existence of the Southern Claims Commis- sion, being an illiterate man, unable to read or write, and working in the remote region of the cedar swamps of North Carolina. As to the question 182 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. whether the facts so proved are sufficient or insufficient to excuse the claimant the court makes no finding, that question being exclusively within the judg- ment and discretion of Congress. By the Coubt. Filed December 5, 1904. A true copy. Test this 13th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. O. H. PERRY, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims, Congressional case No. 11152. O. H. Perry, administrator of the estate of George W. Perry, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion was transmitted to the court by resolution of the United States Senate on the 3d day of March, 1903. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 16th day of February, 1904. Moyers and Consaul, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by G. M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is now, and at all times hereinafter mentioned has been, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Craven, State of North Carolina; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of George W. Perry, deceased; that during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion said decedent resided in said county of Craven, State of North Carolina, and was a citizen of the United States; that during said war the United States military forces under proper authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: Taken by troops under command of General Burnside from' the farm of said decedent, near Newbern, in said county and State, during the spring of 1862: 1 stallion $150. 00 4 work horses, at $150 each 600. 00 6 work mules, at $150 each 900. 00 200 beef cattle, at $20 each 4, 000. 00 200 sheep, at $2.50 each 500. 00 2,450 bushels of corn, at 75 cents per bushel 1, 837. 50 10 tons of blade fodder,at $20 per ton. . , 200. 00 2 work carts 50. 00 500 pounds smoked meat, at 12 cents per pound ,. 60. 00 1 ferry flatboat 50. 00 Taken by the same troops in the fall of 1862: 150 bushels of corn from field, at % 75 cents per bushel 112. 50 Total : 8, 460. 00 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that claimant's decedent was loyal to the Govern- ment of the United States during the war of the rebellion. II. There was taken from the claimant's decedent, in Craven County, State of North Carolina, during the war of the rebellion by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of four thousand three hundred and fifty dol- lars ($4,350), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. The claim was not presented to the Commissioners of Claims under the act of March 3, 1871, and is consequently barred under the provisions of the act of June 15, ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 183 1878. No evidence has been offered by the claimant under the act of March 3, 1887, * 'bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in presenting such claim or applying for such grant, gift, or bounty, and any facts bearing upon the ques- tion whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed, or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal rem- edy," except the evidence submitted on behalf of the widow and son of the deceased claimant to the effect that soon after the war the claimant placed in the hands of an attorney the papers in this claim for the purpose of prosecuting the same, but what was done by him does not appear. Thereafter the claim was presented to Congress, and in the year 1903 the Senate referred it to this court, as hereinbefore set forth. By the Court. Filed February 29, 1904. A true copy. Test this 5th day of March, 1904. [seal.] ' John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. i TRUSTEES OF THE METHODIST CHURCH SOUTH, OF MOREHEAD CITY, N. C. {Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11870. Trustees Methodist Episcopal Church South, of More- head City, N. C, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The following bill was referred to the court March 3, 1905, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "[S. 6714, Fifty-eighth Congress, third session.] 'A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Morehead City, North Carolina. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Morehead City, North Carolina, the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars, for use of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Morehead City, N. O, appeared and filed their petition in this court July 25, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the month of March, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Morehead City, N. C, and used and occupied the said building for a period of about eighteen months, and at the end of said period tore down and removed the said build- ing and appropriated the material to the use of the United States Army. That the said building was reasonably worth, at the time the said military forces first took pos- session of the same, the sum of $1,200, for which no payment has been made. JSsThe case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 2d day of January, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Morehead City, N. C, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the ehurch building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Morehead City, N. C, 184 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. and used and occupied the same for a period of about eighteen months, at the end "of which period they tore down the building and used the materials contained therein. Such use and occupation and destruction of the property were reasonably worth the sum of eight hundred dollars ($800). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed January 8, 1906. A true copy. Test this 13th day of January, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES, PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF LUMBER BRIDGE, N. C. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11727. Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Lumber Bridge N. C, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of the Presbyterian Church at Lumber Bridge, North Carolina, for the church edifice destroyed by the Army in eighteen hundred and sixty-five . "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and hereby is, empow- ered, directed, and instructed to pay to the Lumber Bridge Presbyterian Church, at Lumber Bridge, North Carolina, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of three thousand dollars, the value of the church building or edifice destroyed by the Army of the United States on March eleventh, eighteen hundred and sixty-five, and used for constructing a causeway at Lumber Bridge, in Robeson County, North Carolina." The trustees of the Presbyterian Church at Lumber Bridge, N. C, appeared and filed their petition in this court February 2, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about March 10, 1865, the military forces of the United States took possession of the church build- ing of the Presbyterian Church at Lumber Bridge, N. C., tore down the said building and used the material for the use of the Army under command of General Sherman. That at the same time and place and by the same command there was also taken and used for fuel two buildings, known as temperance hall and session house, belong- ing to the said church. That the said buildings at the time they were taken and used as aforesaid were reasonably worth the sum of $3,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 11th day of December, 1905. . G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of coun- sel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF PACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Presbyterian Church of Lumber Bridge, N. C, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of, tore down, and used the materials therein, the buildings belonging to the Presbyterian Church of Lumber Bridge, N. C, which then and there were reasonably worth the sum of eighteen hundred dollars ($1,800). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed December 18, 1905. A true copy. Test this 13th day of January, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 185 LUCY A. DIBBLE, ADMINISTRATRIX. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11396. Lucy A. Dibble, administratrix of estate of Sylvester Dibble, deceased, v. Tbe United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. On April 26, 1904, Senate bill No. 3877, Fifty-eighth Congress, was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887. Said bill reads as follows: "A BILL For the relief of Sylvester Dibble. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Sylvester Dibble, of Beaufort County, North Carolina, the sum of one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken from him and used by the military forces of the United States during the war of the rebellion. ' ' The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: That she is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Beaufort, State of Nortb Carolina; that she is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting admin- istratrix of the estate of Sylvester Dibble, deceased, late of said county and State. That during the late civil war said Sylvester Dibble, a person of color, was a citizen of the United States, residing in said county and State; that after the close of hos- tilities in said war, and after the surrender of Gen. Robert E. Lee, of the Confederate army, the military forces of the United States, under command of General Stoneman, took from said Sylvester Dibble and converted to the use of the Army commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: 10 boxes of tobacco, 1, 000 pounds $1, 000 200 pounds smoking tobacco 250 3, 000 cigars '. 300 Total ' 1, 550' The case was brought to a hearing upon loyalty and merits on the 14th day of Jan- uary, 1908. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by M. A- Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. Sylvester Dibble, deceased, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took from the claimant's decedent in Beaufort County, N. C, property of the kind and character described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of seven hundred and five dollars ($705), no part of which appears to have been paid . III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy except that claimant's decedent stated that soon after the taking of the property he made inquiries and was informed that he could not prosecute a claim against the Government owing to his having been a slave during the war; that he was subsequently advised that his claim might be presented for collection, and that it was placed in the hands of an attorney for collec- tion some years after the close of the war. Thereafter the same was presented to Congress and later referred to this court, as before stated, by resolution of the Senate. By the Court. Filed February 3, 1908. A true copy. Test this 17th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant ClerkrCourt of Claims. 186 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAfMS. PENNSYLVANIA. TRUSTEES OF ST. MARK'S GERMAN REFORMED CHURCH, GETTYS- BURG, PA. Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13004. Trustees of St. Mark's German 'Reformed Church, of Gettysburg, Pa., v. The United States. STATEMENT OP CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to military- forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: [S. 7087, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.. A BILL For the relief of the consistory of Saint Mark's German Reformed Church, of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- ated, to the consistory of Saint Mark's German Reformed Church, of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, the sum of six hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupa- tion, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war. ' ' . The said consistory of said church appeared in this court April 30, 1907, and filed there a petition in which it is substantially averred that — During the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took posses- sion of the property of the St. Mark's German Reformed Church, of Gettysburg, Pa., consisting of a large church building about 40 by 50 feet in size, with gallery, and occupied the same as a military hospital for a considerable period of time following the battle of Gettysburg, Pa., July 3, 1863, and the property was thereby greatly injured. A claim was filed in the Quartermaster-General's office for payment for damages to the property, but no claim was ever presented on account of rent for use and occupa- tion; that the reasonable rental value of said property during said occupation, includ- ing repairs necessary to restore said property to the same condition as before such occu- pation, was the sum of $600, for which no payment has been made; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 22d day of January, 1908. ' Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by William H. Lamar, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- tion of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The St. Mark's German Reformed Church, of Gettysburg, Pa., as an organiza- tion was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of said church building described in the petition and used and occu- pied the same for hospital purposes, and damaged the same. The reasonable reutal value of such use and occupation, together with the incidental injury to said church building in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of two hun- dred and fifteen dollars ($215), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed February 10, 1908. A true copy. Test this 11th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, . ; Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 187 TONOLOWAY BAPTIST CHURCH, FULTON COUNTY, PA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13002. The Tonoloway Baptist Church, of Fulton County, Pa., v . The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: "[S. 7085, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Tonoloway Baptist Church, of Fulton County, Pennsylvania. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appro- priated, to the trustees of the Tonoloway Baptist Church, of Fulton County, Penn- sylvania, the sum of twelve hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war." The said trustees of said church appeared in this court April 30, 1907, and filed their petition in which it is substantially averred that — During the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took possession of the church property of the Tonoloway Baptist Church, of Fulton County, Pa., consisting of a very large brick building, about 60 by 45 feet in size, seating about 1,000 people, and having about 40 acres of timber land, and occupied the same as a hospital and for other military purposes, a part of the time for treatment of contagious diseases; that large quantities of timber were cut off said land and used by the military authorites for fuel, and the property otherwise greatly injured; that the reasonable rental value of said property, while so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore it to the same condition as before such occupation, was the sum of $1,200, for which no payment has been made; that the claimant has, at all times, borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, and had not, in any way, volun- tarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 6th day of January, 1908. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by William H. Lamar, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interest of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Tonoloway Baptist Church, of Fulton County, Pa., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil War. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the church property described in the petition and used the same at different times as a hospital and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value thereof, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of two hundred and twenty-five dollars ($225), no part of which appears to have been paid. p£III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed February 3, 1908. A true copy. Test this 6th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 188 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. KATE REANEY ZEISS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10887. Kate Reaney Zeiss, administratrix of William B. Reaney f survivor of Thomas Reaney and Samuel Archbold, v. United States.] STATEMENT. On June 17, 1902, the United States Senate, by resolution, referred to trie court a bill, No. ]186, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session, providing for an appropriation of the sum of $97,128.78 to pay to Kate Reaney Ziess, administratrix of the estate of Wm. B. Reaney, deceased, surviving partner of the firm of Reaney, Son & Archbold, late of Chester, Pa., said sum as therein recited being the excess of the contract price for work done and material furnished in the construction of the iron double enders, hull and machinery of the Suwanee, Wateree, and Shamokin, as hereinafter set forth. . The claimant appeared and filed her petition, in which, among other things, she avers substantially that she is a sister and administratrix of Wm. B. Reaney, the sur- vivor of Thomas Reaney and Samuel Archbold; that said Wm. B. Reaney died March 26, 1901, the others named having died previous thereto; that on September 9, 1862, in response to advertisements for proposals, said firm entered into a contract with John Lenthall, then Chief of the Bureau of Navigation and Repair of the Navy Depart- ment, whereby they agreed to build an iron paddle-wheel steamer for the United States, except the machinery, within six months from that date, at and for the consid- eration of $130,170, and by a prior contract under date of August 30, 1862, with B. F. Isherwood, then Chief of the Bureau of Steam Engineering of the Navy Department agreed for and in consideration of the sum of $73,000 to furnish the machinery for said vessel; that the vessel and machinery so contracted for were not completed until nine months after the time fixed therefor in the contract ; that the total cost to the claimants for the construction of said vessel and machinery was $237,331.63, or $34,161.63 in excess of the contract price. Said sum of $34,161.63 is in excess of the sum named and also of the allowance of $4,757.62 for extra work. The claimants aver that they are not guilty of laches, having made due diligence and prosecuted their claim before Congress and before the naval board appointed by the Secretary of the Navy to inves- tigate said claim. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 6th day of December, 1906. George de B. Myers appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdfil, Assistant Attorney-General, by his assistant, Felix Brannigan, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimant is the administratrix of William B.' Reaney, surviving partner of the firm of Reaney, Son & Archbold, all of whom resided in Chester, Pa., unitl their respective deaths, the last of which was that of William B. Reaney, who died March 27, 1901. Said decedents were at all times loyal to the Government of the United States II. In the summer of 1862 the Bureau of Steam Engineering of the Navy Department advertised for proposals for machinery. Following the advertisement Benj. F. Isher- wood, Chief of said Bureau, by direction of the Secretary of the Navy, visited the prin- cipal shops capable of doing the work for which proposals were asked and endeavored by arguments to induce the owners thereof to accept the work, as the Government was greatly in need of the same, and that as loyal supporters of the Government they were bound to meet its needs; that a refusal so to do would place them in the category of those not entitled to the patronage of the Department thereafter. That if they did not respond to the best of their ability he would recommend to the Department what he had already suggested, to take possession of the shops and have them operated exclu- sively for the Government. III. On September 9, 1862, said Thomas Reaney, Wm. B. Reaney, and Samuel Archibold, by written contract entered into therefor with John Lenthall, Chief of the Bureau of Construction and Repair of the Navy Department, agreed that for and in consideration of the sum of $130,170 to build an iron paddle-wheel steamer for the United States. And by another written contract with B. F. Isherwood, then Chief of the Bureau of Steam Engineering in said Department, they agreed for and in considera- tion of $73,000 to furnish the motive machinery for said vessel and to complete said vessel with the machinery on board within one hundred and eighty days from said ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 189 September 9, 1862. The vessel so contracted to be built with the machinery on board -was known as an iron double-ender and was called the Waleree. The vessel, without any fault on the part of the Government, was not completed until nine months after the date fixed therefor in the contract. IV. During the progress of the work on the vessel the price of labor and materials greatly increased. The contractors were paid the full contract price for said vessel and machinery, and also the sum of $4,757.62,. allowed for extra work on the hull of said vessel. V. By virtue of a resolution of the United States Senate adopted March 9, 1865, the Secretary of the Navy, on May 25, 1865, appointed a board of naval officers, after- wards known as the Selfridge Board, to inquire into the cost of said vessel and machin- ery to the contractors , and said board thereafter reported that said vessel and machinery- had cost the contractor $34,161.63 in excess of the contract price therefor, not includ- ing said sum of $4,757.62, which was allowed for extra work as aforesaid. VI. No evidence has been offered by the Government to impeach the findings of said Selfridge Board. Nor has the court had access to the books of said contractors showing the items of cost to them on the Wateree. The items of expenditure were submitted to said board by Samuel Archbold on behalf of the firm of which he was a member, in which the cost of the Wateree was shown to be $34,161.63 over and above the contract price and allowance for extra work as hereinbefore set forth, and that was the amount allowed by the Selfridge Board, as above stated. By the Court. Filed December 10, 1906. A true copy. Test this 14th day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims* JOHN H. BURTIS AND OTHERS. jCourt of Claims. Congressional case No. 13106. John H. Burtis, subnumber 345; Cornelius Bennett, subnumber 347; William Croft, subnumber 348; Joseph Clyne, subnumber 350; Jacob Callas, sub- number 352; James A. Driver, subnumber 354; Wellington Griffith, subnumber 360; George W. Heald, subnumber 363; James Hepenstall, subnumber 364; George B. Heald, subnumber 365; John Knight, subnumber 369; Edward Northup, subnumber 372; John D. Post, subnumber 373; Patrick H. White, subnumber 380, Brooklyn Navy- Yard.] STATEMENT OP CASE. This is a claim for payment to the above-named claimants for service rendered at the United States navy-yard at League Island, Pa., above a legal day of eight hours. On March 2, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: " [S. 8261, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of Christopher Alexander and others. ' c Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay. out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Christopher Alexander and to the others who have joined with him in a petition to this Congress, dated January twenty-ninth, nineteen hundred and seven, the amounts that may be found due to each of them, respectively, for extra labor, above the legal day of eight hours, while employed by the United States as workmen, laborers, or mechanics at the various navy-yards of the United States, performed by them by reason of and under the provisions of Circular Numbered Eight, issued by the Secretary of the Navy on March twenty-first, eighteen hundred and seventy-eight." Thereafter the claimants above named and each of them filed their respective petitions in which they and each of them aver substantially as follows: That between March 21, 1878, and September 21, 1882, they and each of them were employed by the Government of the United States at the navy-yard at Brooklyn, N. Y.; that on March 21, 1878, the Secretary of the Navy issued the order referred to in the petition of the claimants and known as "Circular No. 8;" that during sis months in each year from the date of said order, to September 21, 1882, they worked during all or a portion of the time they were so employed in excess of eight hours per day, and that they and each of them were paid for only eight hours' work per day for the time they were so employed during said period; and that they and each of them are entitled to the amounts set forth in their respective petitions, being the pay for^all time worked during said period in excess of eight hours per day. 190 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN' CLAIMS. The case was brought to a hearing on the evidence and merits on February 20, 1908. Thomas Dawson appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Percy M. Cox. his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. Between the 21st of March, 1878, and the 21st of September. 1882. the claimants and each of them above named were in the employ of the United States in the navy- yard at Brooklyn, N. Y., as laborers, workmen, or mechanics, during which time the following order was in force : "Circular No. 8.] ''Navy Department, "Washington, March 21, 1S78. "The following is hereby substituted, to take effect from this date, for the circular of October 25. 1877. in relation to the working hours at the several navy-yards and shore stations: "The working hours will be, from March 21 to September 21, from 7 a. in. to 6 p. m. ; from September 22 to March 20. from 7.40 a. m. to 4.30 p. m.. with the usual inter- mission of one hour for dinner. The Department will contract for the labor of mechanics, foremen, leading men, and laborers on the basis of eight hours a day. All workmen electing to labor ten hours a day will receive a proportionate increase of their wages. ' ' The commandants will notify the men employed or to be employed of these con- ditions, and they are at liberty to continue or accept employment under them or not. "R. W. Thompson, "Secretary of the Navy." II. Said claimants and each of them while in the employ of the United States as aforesaid, worked on the average the number of hours set opposite their respective names in excess of eight hours a day at the prices below stated, to wit: Sub. No. 345 347 350 352 354 360 363 Name of claimant. 364 365 369 372 373 380 Number of hours in excess of iRate per 8 .hours a day. ! day. John H. Burtis 499£ hours . . 323g hours.. 62 hours Cornelius Bennett I 682 J hours . . \ 30} hours . . . i 520} hours.. I 135 hours . . . William Croft , 174,% hours . i 86 -J hours... Joseph Clyne I 263 ^ hours . ' 23| hours... 158 T v hours . Jacob Callas • 52 hours I 108 hours... James A. Driver i 297£ hours . . 739 T % hours . Wellington Griffith ' ; 155} hours.. George W. Heald , James Hepenstall. George B. Heald.. John Knight Edward Northup. John D. Post. Patrick H. White. hours . 263} hours 104^ hours 96 hours 5 hours 259 hours 143j hours 125 hours , 6 hours 3} hours less than 8 hours a day. 1,44SI hours 1,0784 hours 72 hours 305J hours 205| hours 109 hours 41S T V. hours 101 iV hours .' 184 hours 321 T v hours 305} hours 105 hours 190}J hours S3. 00 3.26 3.50 1.50 2.00 2.36 2.60 3.00 2.76 2.50 2.76 3.00 3.00 3.50 2.76 3.00 3.00 0.84 .96 1.10 1.14 1.42 1.50 1.80 1.96 3.40 .98 5.00 3.00 3.26 3.00 3.26 3.50 3.00 3.26 3.50 3.00 3.26 3.50 3.00 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 191 III. If it is considered that eight hours constituted a day's work under the order of the Secretary of the Navy, as aforesaid, during the period from March 21, 1878, to Sep- tember 22, 1882, then the claimants have been underpaid the sums set opposite their respective names, as follows: John H. Burtis, three hundred and forty-six dollars and thirty-nine cents ($346.39)^ Cornelius Bennett, three hundred and thirty-two dollars and eighty cents ($332.80). William Croft, ninety-five dollars and thirteen cents ($95.13). Joseph Clyne, one hundred and fifty dollars and three cents ($150.03). Jacob Callas, sixty-six dollars and seventy-five cents ($66.75). James A. Driver, three hundred and seventy-nine"dollars and eighty cents ($379.80). Wellington Griffith, fifty-eight dollars and twenty-two cents ($58.22). George W. Heald, one hundred and eighty-one dollars and thirty-four eents- ($181.34). James Hepenstall, nine hundred and five dollars and ten cents ($905.10). George B. Heald, four hundred and thirty-three dollars and seventv-seven cents ($433.77). John Knight, two hundred and forty-five dollars and eighty cents ($245.80). Edward Xorthup, two hundred and seventy-eight dollars and forty-seven cents* ($278.47). John D. Post, two hundred and ninety dollars and ninety-two cents ($290.92). Patrick H, White, seventy-one dollars and fifty-nine cents ($71.59). IV. Several of the claimants hereinbefore mentioned filed their claims in this court in September, 1888. In 1906 they were dismissed for want of prosecution, and no- reason is given why said claimants did not prosecute said claims to a final judgment in this court. Except as above stated, the claims were never presented to any department or officer of the Government prior to the presentation thereof to Congress and reference to this court as hereinbefore set forth in the statement of the case, nor is any competent evi- dence adduced to show why said claimants did not earlier prosecute their said claims. By the Court. Filed February 25, 1908. A true copy. Test this 25th day of February, A. D. 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. CHRISTOPHER ALEXANDER AND OTHERS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13106. Christopher Alexander, subnumber 1; Albert O. Cham- berlain, snbnumber 2; David Craig, subnumber 3; William Coates, subnumber 4; Daniel H. Chat- tin, subnumber 6; Josephine Cramp, widow of Martin C. Cramp, deceased, subnumber 7; Thomas Denney, subnumber 8; John J. Garrity, subnumber 9; John B. Grover, jr., subnumber 10; William Lynn, subnumber 12; George W. Margerum, subnumber 13; Theodore Mitchell, subnumber 14; Thomas W. Meyers, subnumber 15; John H. Pettit, subnumber 16; Robert Pogue, subnumber 17; James Spear, subnumber 22; Edward T. Weaver, subnumber 23; Thomas R. Walters, subnumber 24; George A. Zirnberg, subnumber 25 (navy-yard, League Island, Pa.).] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for payment to the above-named claimants for service rendered at the*United States navy-yard at League Island, Pa., above a legal day of eight hours. On March 2, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the fol- lowing words: "[S. 8261, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of Christopher Alexander and others. ' 'Be it enacted by the Senate and Mouse of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author, ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- ated, to Christopher Alexander and to the others who have joined with him in a petition to this Congress, dated January twenty-ninth, nineteen hundred and seven, the amounts that may be found due to each of them, respectively, for extra labor above the legal day of eight hours while employed by the United States as workmen, laborers, or mechanics at the various navy-yards of the United States, performed by them by reason of and under the provisions of circular numbered eight, issued by the Secretary of the .Navy on March twenty-first, eighteen hundred and seventy- eight." 192 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. Thereafter the claimants above named, and- each of them, filed their respective petitions, in which they, and each of them, aver substantially as follows: That between March 21, 1878, and September 21, 1882, they, and each of them, were employed by the Government of the United States at the navy-yard at League Island, Pa.; that on March 21, 1878, the Secretary of the Navy issued the order referred to in the petition of the claimants and known as "Circular No. 8;" that during the six months in each year from the date of said order, to September 21, 1882, they worked during all or a portion of the time they were so employed in excess of eight hours per day, and that they, and each of them, were paid for only eight hours' work per day for the time they were so employed during said period, :and that they, and each of them, are entitled to the amounts set forth in their respec- tive petitions, being the pay for all time worked during said period in excess of eight hours per day. The case was brought to a hearing on the evidence and merits on February 20, 1908. Thomas Dawson appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Percy M. Cox, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- tion of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. Between the 21st of March, 1878, and the 21st of September, 1882, the claim- ants, and each of them, above named, were in the employ of the United States in the navy-yard at League Island, Pa., as laborers, workmen, or mechanics, during which time the following order was in force : Oircular"! Navy Department, No. 8. J Washington, March 21, 1878. The following is hereby substituted, to take effect from this date, for the circular of October 25, 1877, in relation to the working hours at the several navy-yards and shore stations: The working hours will be, from March 21 to September 21, from 7 a. m. to 6 p. m.; from September 22 to March 20, from 7.40 a. m. to 4.30 p. m., with the usual intermission of one hour for dinner. The Department will contract for the labor of mechanics, foremen, leading men, and laborers on the basis of eight hours a day. All workmen electing to labor ten hours a day will receive a proportionate increase of their wages. The commandants will notify the men employed or to be employed of these condi- tions, and they are at liberty to continue or accept employment under them or not. R. W. Thompson, Secretary of the Navy. II. Said claimants, and each of them, while in the employ of the United States as aforesaid, worked on the average the number of hours set opposite their respective names in excess of eight hours a day at the prices below stated, to wit: Sub. ! t. t „„„ . „i„<„,„„ + I Number of hours in excess of No. Name of claimant 8 hours a day. Eate per day. 1 | Christopher Alexander 18hours S2.26 1,286 T V hours 2. 30 Albert O. Chamberlain I 17 hours I 1. 76 74 hours < 2. 00 12 hours i 1.80 3 DavidCraig 79f hours I 3.00 4 William Coates 906^ hours 3.00 83h6urs i 3.26 5 Daniel H. Chattin I 1,069^ hours 3.00 6 Josephine Cramp, widow of Martin C. Cramp, de- 496,1- hours 3.00 ceased. Thomas Denney John J. Garrity. 3| hours 3.00 57 hours 3.26 26 hours .90 267}_ hours 1. 05 269,V hours | 1. 20 241f hours i 1. 50 279f hours | 1. 80 136 hours I 3. 00 80 hours . . . .- I 3. 26 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 193 Sub. No. Name of claimant. Number of hours in excess of 8 hours a day. Rate per] day. John E. Grover, jr. 12 i William Lynn 13 i George W. Margerum. 14 Theodore Mitchell 15 Joseph W. Meyers. . W John H. Pettit 17 i Robert Pogue 22 | James Spear 23 • Edward T. Weaver. 24 ! Thomas R. Walters. 25 George A. Zirnberg. 251 hours . . . 272i hours . . 263s hours. . 264 \ hours . . 256^ hours . . 40 hours 4fil& hours.. 28 hours 633} hours.. 78 hours 638g hours . . 86 hours 5 hours 1 123 V hours. 244| hours . . 1,449$ hours. : ,008§ hours. 158 hours... 604 hours... 52 hours 1,2131 hoars. $0.90 fcl.05 1.20 1.50 1.80 3.00 3.00 3.26 3.00 3.26 3.00 3.26 3.00 3.00 3.00 5.50 3.00 3.50 3.00 3.26 3.00 III. If it is considered that eight hour^ constituted a day's work during the'period from March 21, 1878. to September 22, 1882. under the order of the Seoretary]of the Navy, as aforesaid, then the claimants, or their decedents, have been underpaid the sums set opposite their respective names, as follows: Christopher Alexander, three hundred and seventv-four dollars and eighty-three cents ($374.83). Albert O. Chamberlain, twenty-four dollars and ninety-four cent? ($24.94"). David Craig, twenty-nine dollars and eighty-seven cents ($29.87). William Toates, three hundred and seventv-tbree dollars and ninety-one cents ($375.91). Daniel H. Chattin, four hundred and one dollars and nine cents ($401.09, Josephine Cramp, widow of Martin C. Cramp, deceased, one hundred and eighty-six dollars and six cents ($186.06). Thomas Denney. twenty-four dollars and sixty cents ($24.60). John J. Garrity, two hundred and seventy dollars and fourteen cents ($270.14). John B. Grover, jr., two hundred and twenty-five dollars and eighty-one cents ($225.81). William Lynn, one hundred and eighty-four dollars and sixty cents ($184.60). George W. Margerum, two hundred and sixty-nine dollars and forty-three cents ($269.43). Theodore Mitchell, two hundred and seventy-four dollars and sixty cents ($274.60). Joseph W. Meyers, one dollar and eighty-seven cents ($1.87). John H. Pettit, four hundred and twenty-one dollars and thirty-one cents ($421.31). Robert Pogue, ninety-one dollars and seventy-five cents ($91.75). James Spear, nine hundred and ninety-six dollars and seventy-six cents ($996.76). Edward T. Weaver, four hundred and fortv-seven dollars and thirty-seven cents ($447.37). Thomas R. Walters, two hundred and forty-seven dollars and sixty-nine cents ($247.69). George A. Zirnberg, four hundred and fifty-five dollars and fifteen cents ($455.15). IV. The claims of the several individuals hereinbefore mentioned, except the claims of John B. Grover, jr., John H. Pettit, and George A. Zirnberg, were never presented to any department or officer of the Government prior to the presentation thereof to Congress and reference to this court, as hereinbefore set forth in the state- ment of the case, nor is any competent evidence adduced to show why said claimants did not earlier prosecute their said claims. The claims of said John B. Grover, jr., John H. Pettit, and George A. Zirnberg were filed in this court in September, 1888, and were dismissed for want of prosecution in October, 1906. No reason is shown why said claimants did not prosecute their claims in this court to a final judgment. Br the Court. Filed February 25, 1908. A true copy. Test this 25th day of February, A. D. 1908. [seal.] S. Rep. 382, 60-1 13 John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 194 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. SOUTH CAROLINA. MOUNT ZION SOCIETY. I Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11050. Mount Zion Society of Fairfield County, S. C, v. The United States.] The following bill was referred to the court March 12, 1903, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of Mount Zion Society. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to the president of Mount Zion Society, Fairfield County, South Carolina, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- ated, the sum of eleven thousand dollars, being the amount for rent, use, and occu- pancy of the buildings, lands, and premises of Mount Zion College by United States troops in and during the years eighteen hundred and sixty-five, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, and eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, the same being the property of said Mount Zion Society." i The said society appeared and filed its petition in this court September 24, 1903, in which it makes the following allegations: I. That the said society was organized under its charter from the State of South Carolina on the 13th day of February, 1777, for the purpose of education, and among others enumerated was a provision for the "maintenance and education of such poor and helpless orphans and indigent children as they shall judge proper objects of the •charity hereby intended." II. That under said society's charter there was owned and possessed by it at the time hereinafter mentioned and used for the purposes of the society 30 acres of land, a large main college building with three wings, substantially built, three stories, Vith the usual recitation rooms and paraphernalia and incidentals of a college building, and suitable for said purposes, together with numerous dormitories for the lodgment of boarding pupils and scholars, and the residence of the principal and his family. That in addition thereto there were two out or frame buildings, also used as recitation rooms. III. That the above properties were devoted exclusively to the purposes projected in its-charter and said properties were exceedingly valuable and considerable. IV. That as an educator said college stood second to none in the South of its kind and curriculum, and has educated men for every industry and for nearly every State in the Union, and at that time its reputation as an educator was deservedly high. V. That at the time of its occupation by United States troops on or about the 20th day of February, 1865, the said premises were well equipped and buildings in good condition and repair. That on the said day the forces of the United States entered into possession of said properties for the purposes and benefits of the said United States, and that the buildings were used for residences, hospitals, and for diverse purposes as desired, while the grounds were used and occupied as parade grounds and the woods and timbers used as desired, which said occupations and uses continued in whole or in part with short and immaterial intervals by diverse commands and garrisons until the latter part of the year 1867. That the society was greatly obstructed and pre- vented from the exercise of its functions and suffered great damages therefrom — and the use and occupation of its property was worth for the said time the sum of $11,000. VI. That the said society has not been paid for said use and occupation of its prop- erty, and there is now due and owing to the said plaintiff the sum of $11,000, and that there is no set-off or discount or credit of or on the same. VII. That after having been introduced into Congress on different occasions, being favorably reported by committees twice, which are hereto annexed, the bill for payment of this claim was, by Senate resolution No. 406, Fifty-seventh Congress, second session (1903), referred to the Court of Claims pursuant to the act of March, 1887, with the usual request "to proceed with the same in accordance with the pro- visions of such act and report," etc. VIII. That your petitioner has made no assignment, transfer, or sale of said claim, but is entitled to the payment thereof. IX. That said society has not voluntarily aided or abetted any rebellion against the United States, but, being organized for educational purposes, its functions have been exclusively confined to that purpose and none other. Wherefore the plaintiff prays judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $11,000, and your petitioner will ever pray, etc. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 195 The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 19th day of Decem- ber, 1905. Osmund W. Buchanan, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Mount Zion Society, of Fairfield County, State of South Carolina, as such, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the late war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of, used, and occupied the build- ings and land belonging to the Mount Zion Society, of Fairfield County, South Caro- lina, using the same for military purposes, the reasonable value of such use and occupation being the sum of six thousand dollars (S6,000), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. No claim for said occupation was ever presented to any department or officer of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed January 2, 1906. A true copy. Test this 11th day of January, A. D. 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF BAPTIST CHURCH, OF BEAUFORT, S. C. [Court of claims. Congressional case No. 12463. Trustees of the Baptist Church, of Beaufort, S. C, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the United States Senate referred to the court the following bill: "[S. 3018, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Baptist Church, of Beaufort, South Carolina. ' 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- ated, to the trustees of the Baptist Church, of Beaufort, South Carolina, the sum of four thousand dollars, for use and occupation of and damage to their church property by thg military forces of the United States during the late civil war." The claimants appeared in this court on the 22d day of January, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about November, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Baptist Church, of Beaufort, S. C, and used and occupied the same for quarters until the summer of 1863, when the said build- ing was converted to hospital purposes and so used and occupied until after the close of the war. That among other officers occupying the said building were Gens. Q. A. Gilmor, John P. Hatch, and David Hunter. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occu- pied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $4,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on lovalty and merits on the 1st day of April, 1907. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 196 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Baptist Church of Beaufort, S. C, as a church, was loyal to the Govern- ment of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper author- ity, for the use of the Army, took possession of the church property described in the petition herein and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes for a period of about eighteen months, and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value thereof, together with the damages in excess of the ordinary wear and tear, was at the time and place the sum of twenty-two hundred dollars ($2,200), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to aay department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given for the nonpresen- tation of the same. By the Court. Filed April 8, 1907. A true copy. Test this 18th day of November, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. VESTRY OF TRINITY PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, EDISTO ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12416. Vestry of Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church, on Edisto Island, South Carolina, v. The United States.] statement of case. The following bill was referred to the court June 13, 1906, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL Eor the relief of Trinity Church, on Edisto Island, South Carolina. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- priated, to Trinity Church, on Edisto Island, South Carolina, the sum of three thousand dollars, for use and destruction of church property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." The vestry of Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church, on Edisto Island, South Caro- lina, appeared and filed their petition in this court October 5, 1906, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about March, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church,, on Edisto Island, South Carolina, and used and occupied the same for military purposes until about the close of the war. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occu- pied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession of the same, was the sum of |3,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 24th day of Decem- ber, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. During the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church, on Edisto Island, South Carolina, was, as a church, loyal to the Government of the United States. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 197 TL During the said war the military forces of the United States by proper authority, for military purposes, took possession of and occupied the building belonging to the Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church, on Edisto Island, South Carolina. The rea- sonable rental value of said building, together with the repairs incident to said occu- pation, was the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. It does not appear that said claim was ever presented to any other department or officer of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid; and no evidence is offered to show the reason, if any existed, for such delay. By the Court. Filed January 7, 1907. A true copy. Test this 9th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TENNESSEE. BOILING FORK BAPTIST CHURCH, COWAN, TENN. [Court of Claims. No. 12509 Congressional. Boiling Fork Baptist Church v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the Court of Claims by order of the Senate of the United States on June 13, 1906, under the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: " [S. 4417, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the Boiling Fork Baptist Church. ' ' Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby is, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- priated, to the Boiling Fork Baptist Church, of Cowan, Tennessee, the sUm of two thousand dollars as compensation for the use and destruction of the said church build- ing by the United States Army during the late civil war. " The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court September 25, 1906, by the trustees for the said church, J. W. Sargent, the elder, and Clem Jernigan, the clerk and deacon, the other trustees being Joe Delzell and J. S. Rollins, who con- ' sented to the action, and they make the following allegations: That in the fall of 1863 this church was the owner of a brick building, 30 feet by 60 feet and one and one-half stories high, near Cowan, Tenn., and that the building was used regularly for public worship at that time by the said Boiling Fork Baptist Church. That in the fall of 1863 Gen. W. S. Rosecrans, commander of a portion of the United States Army, came through that part of the country, and by the direction and com- mand of officers to this petitioner unknown, and without the consent of the church, caused the said building to be torn down and the bricks used to make brick ovens for the use of the Union Army, and also for building chimneys for the' larger conva- lescent tents. And the said church building and the bricks were of the fair value of two thousand dollars ($2,000). That they are not informed as to what troops took the property, but knew they were under the command of General Rosecrans. That this claim was presented to the United States for payment in the Fifty-eighth Congress and in the Fifty -ninth Congress at the first session under Senate bill 4417, and was referred to this honorable court on or about September 24, 1906, under the Tucker Act for findings of fact. They claim the sum of $2,000 for the property taken and used by the Union Army, belonging to the said Boiling Fork Baptist Church, in the fall of 1863, in Cowan, Franklin County, Tenn. Under the decision of the court the question of loyalty does not arise in the case of a church claimant. The case was brought to a hearing on the merits and loyalty on March 4, A. D. 1907, Ellen Spencer Mussey appearing for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, 198 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. by Mr. Cox, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Boiling Fork Baptist Church, of Cowan, Tenn., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building described in the petition in the fall of 1863 and tore down the same and used the bricks therein contained for building chimneys and bake ovens. The bricks so used were then and there reasonably worth the sum of thirteen hundred and ten dollars ($1,310), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be waived or which shall excuse the claimant church for not having presented said claim to some department of the Government prior to such presentation to Congress. By the Court. Filed March 11, 1907. A true copy. Test this 21st day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. CLEVELAND MASONIC LODGE, NO. 134, CLEVELAND, TENN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12495. The Cleveland Masonic Lodge, No. 134, of Cleveland, Tenn., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the mili- tary forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: "[S. 5847, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] ' "A BILL For the relief of Cleveland Masonic Lodge, Numbered One hundred and thirty-four, Cleveland , Tennessee. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the Cleveland Masonic Lodge, Numbered One hundred and thirty- four, of Cleveland, Tennessee, the sum of one thousand eight hundred and fifty dollars, in full payment for the use, occupation of, and damage to the property of said Masonic lodge by the United States troops during the late civil war. The worshipful master of said lodge appeared in this court July 7, 1906, and filed his petition, in which it is substantially averred that — During the period from December, 1863, to May, 1865, the Cleveland Masonic Lodge, No. 134, of Cleveland, Tenn., was the owner of a large two-story brick build- ing, with large wing, and 1| acres of land covered with shade trees in Cleveland, Tenn. , and that during said period the said building and grounds were occupied by United States troops; that during said occupancy the said troops burned the picket fence surrounding said grounds for fuel, destroyed the shade trees, destroyed the furni- ture and property of the lodge, and injured and defaced the said building. That the value of the use and occupation of said building and grounds for said period and of the property so destroyed was $1,850, for which no payment has ever been made; that the claimant has, at all times, borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 6th day of January, 1908. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 199* Coldren & Fanning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by William H. Lamar, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Cleveland Masonic Lodge, No. 134, of Cleveland, Tenn., as an organization was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, occupied said lodge building as a guardhouse and for other purposes. The reason- able rental value of said building, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of nine hundred and forty dollars ($940), no part of which appeal's to have been paid. III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress, and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate as aforesaid, and no reason is given why the bar of the statute of limitations should be removed, or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Cotjht. Filed January 13, 1908. A true copy. Test this 21st day of January, 190S. [seal] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric- Court of Claims, ELAM C. COOPER, [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11425. Elam C. Cooper v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court in April. 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of Elam C. Cooper. " Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to Elam C. Cooper, of Lauderdale County, Tennessee, the sum of one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars, in full compensation for stores and sup- plies taken for the use of and used by the Federal forces during the late civil war." The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court June 7, 1905, in which he makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Lauder- dale, State of Tennessee, where he resided during the late civil war; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from him for the use of the United States Army commissary supplies of the "kinds and values below stated, to wit: Taken by troops at Fort Pillow, by the Fiftv-second Indiana Infantry, under Colonel Wolf, about September, 1863, 39 fine beef cattle, $1,250. The case was brought to a hearing on lovaltv and merits on the 19th day of March, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. Brannigan, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, in Lauderdale County, 200 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. State of Tennessee, took property of the kind and character above described which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of eight hundred and fifteen dollars ($815), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. The claim was never presented to any officer or Department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. It is shown in evidence that the claimant could not read or write and had no knowledge of the existence of the Southern Claims Commission. By the Court. Filed March 26, 1906. A true copy. Test this 21st day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. CUMBERLAND UNIVERSITY, OF LEBANON, TENN. [In the United States Court of Claims, Congressional, No. 11003, Cumberland University, of Lebanon, Tenn., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for the occupancy, use, and destruction of Cumberland University, at Lebanon, Tenn., and for the use and destruction of its fur- niture, furnishings, and equipments by the military forces of the United States dur- ing the years of 1862, 1863, and 1864. was transmitted to the court by resolution of the Senate of the United States, dated March 3, 1903, under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 15th day of May, 1905. Burton T. Doyle, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by M. A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. Claimant, in its petition, makes the following allegations: That it is an institution of learning, located at Lebanon, Tenn., under the laws of which State it was incorporated, and is the sole owner of the claim here presented, no part of which has ever been transferred, assigned, or paid. That at the beginning of the war for the suppression of the rebellion claimant owned and was using for university purposes a large, commodious, and imposing university building, three stories high, 150 feet long, with wings at the ends 50 feet deep, sur- mounted by a large central dome and containing a large and well-equipped and. well- furnished central chapel, well-furnished and well-equipped dormitories, class rooms, libraries, laboratories, society halls, and other conveniences and appurtenances of a first-class modern university, sufficiently large and commodious to shelter and accom- modate its three distinct departments of learning, a collegiate department, a law department, and a theological department, with their combined enrollment of over 500 students, the building itself (exclusive of its grounds, furniture, furnishings, and equipments) having but recently cost claimant over $40,000. That each of these three separate and distinct departments had its own separate and distinct furnishings and equipments, including a separate library for each, and each library being well furnished and stocked with books. . That the grounds around the building contained 20 acres; were beautifully set in blue grass, embellished by a systematic grove of handsome shade trees, many of which were of natural growth, and were entirely inclosed by a heavy cedar fence, some 6 or 8 feet high and mostly picket. That said building and grounds were taken and occupied and used almost con- stantly and continuously by Federal troops of one command or another as a fort, headquarters, or barracks,' or all of these combined, from February or early in March, 1862, to some time in the latter part of September, 1864; and that during such occu- pancy and use the Federal soldiers burned as fuel or otherwise used and destroyed all the fencing about the grounds, all the shade trees in the grounds, nearly all of the woodwork and furnishings about the building, such as floors, doors, window frames, door facings, seats, benches, desks, chairs, platforms, blackboards, etc. That they destroyed the blue-grass sodding by cutting trenches and throwing up breastworks through the grounds as well 'as by keeping horses thereon and running wagons through the same; that they defaced, ruined, or destroyed all of the interior finish of the building, and used, scattered, and destroyed the library's furniture and other furnishings to such an extent that in September, 1864, there was nothing left of these once splendid properties except the bare walls and roof of the building itself, ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 201 and the denuded and devastated grounds, cut to pieces by trenches, breastworks, horses' feet, wagon wheels, etc. ; and that, upon the Federal troops leaving the premi- ses in September, 1864, the Confederate soldiers completed the work of destruction by burning what was left by the Federals, claiming that they did so solely because the premises were being used by the Federal soldiers as a stronghold. The values of the properties so occupied, used, and destroyed by Federal troops under the command of Colonel Munday, Colonel Woolford (or Wolford), and others at Lebanon, Tenn., between February, 1862. and September. 1864 (or October, 1864), were as follows: Fair and reasonable values of libraries, furniture, furnishings, trimmings laboratories, doors, floors, windows, seats, fences, trees, grounds, etc., fully $15,000 Fair and reasonable value of rent and use of these premises during the two and a half years they were so occupied and used by Federal troops, being $1,000 a year for thirty months 2, 500 Fair and reasonable value of the parts of the building itself destroyed by Confederate troops because of its occupancy and use by Federal troops for military purposes 12, 500 Making, in the aggregate, the amount claimed of 30, 000 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Cumberland University, of Lebanon' Tenn., as a corporation, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the buildings and grounds owned by the Cumberland University, of Lebanon, Tenn., and used and occupied the same for military purposes. The reasonable rental value of said university build- ings and grounds during the time they were so occupied by the military authorities, and the damage done thereto on account of such occupancy (exclusive of the destruc- tion of the building by the Confederates, for which no allowance is made), was the sum of eight thousand dollars ($8,000), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. The claim was never presented to any Department or officer of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed January 29, 1906. A true copy. Test this 14th day of March, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph. Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, MEMPHIS, TENX. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11887. Board of Deacons of the First Baptist Church of Memphis, Tenn., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for use and occupation of real estate belonging to the First Baptist Church of Memphis, Tenn., by United States military forces during the late civil war, was first transmitted to this court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 2d day of March, 1891, for find- ings of fact under the provisions of the act approved March 3, 1883, and commonly known as the Bowman Act. The case so presented was designated as No. 8409, Congressional. Some testimony was taken under that reference. This court being without jurisdiction of the claim under said reference, however, the occupation in question having commenced prior to January 1, 1863, a bill was introduced in the Fifty-eighth Congress for relief of claimant, being Senate bill No. 7159. Said bill reads as follows: "A BILL For the relief of the First Baptist Church of Memphis, Tennessee. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Aiherica in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, 202 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the Fust Baptist Church of Memphis, Tennessee, the sum of five thousand dollars, in full compensation for the use, occupation, and destruction of property by the Federal forces during the late civil war." Said bill was referred to this court by resolution of the Senate on March 3, 1905, for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887, and com- monly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 15th dav of Janu- ary, 1906. Movers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General by Phillip M. Ashford, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: That during the late civil war the First Baptist Church of Memphis. Term., was the owner of certain real estate in said city of Memphis; that during said war there was situated upon said land a substantially constructed brick church building, about 50 by 68 feet in dimensions, with a large audience room and a basement under the same; that there were also situate upon said land a pastor's study and a certain frame house or dwelling containing two rooms and attic: that the value of said premises during the civil war was about §30,000; that during said war the United States mili- tary forces, under proper authority, took possession of said premises and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes for a period of at least twelve and one-half months: that during said period said premises were reasonably and fairly worth a monthly rental of at least §150: that claim is made as follows: To use and occupation of premises in city of Memphis, Tenn., comprising a two- story brick church building, a pastor's study, and one dwelling house from Novem- ber 12, 1862. to November 27, 1863, a period of twelve and one-half months, at *150 per month. SI. 8 75. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the First Baptist Church, of Memphis, Tennes- see, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. • II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, took possession of the church building and other buildings belonging to the First Baptist Church of Memphis, Ten- nessee, and used and occupied the same for a period of about twelve months. The reasonable rental value of said buildings for the period they were so occupied was the sum of twelve hundred dollars ($1,200), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed January 29, 1906. A true copv. Test this 16th day of February, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MINNA H. GLASSIE. Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10435. Minna H. Glassie and Joseph C. Nash r.The United States . This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that Minna H. Glassie and Joseph C. Nash, the persons alleged to have furnished such supplies or stores, or from whom the same are alleged to have been taken, were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war. being of tender years. By the Court. Filed April 3, 1905. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 203 [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10435. Emma Nash ». The United States.] |?J>This case, being a claim for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or fur- nished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, finds that upon the evidence it does not appear that Emma Nash, the person alleged to have fur- nished such supplies or stores, or from whom they are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout said war; and the case ia dismissed for want of further jurisdiction. By the Court. Filed April 5, 1905. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10435. Minna H. Glassie v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Senate of the United States on the 3d day of March, 1901. under the Tucker Act. On a preliminary inquiry the court, on the 5th day of April. 1905. found that Minna H. Glassie and Joseph C. Nash, two of the persons alleged to have furnished the sup- plies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the said war, and that Emma Nash, one of the parties alleged to have furnished said supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was not loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the said war. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 18th day of January, 1906. Ralston & Siddons, *esqs.. appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations : That on or about April 15, 1859. Minna H. Glassie. Joseph C. Nash, and Emma Nash became the beneficial owners of a certain tract of land, being 69 acres of land fronting on the Nolensville turnpike, 6 miles from Nashville, Tenn.. by deed con- veying the same to Joseph Nash, their father, as trustee. That in the fall and winter of the years 1862 and 1863 forces of the United States Army under the command of > General Sheridan used this land and another tract of 204 acres adjoining this land as a camping ground; that this adjoining tract was under cultivation as a farm, but the tract of 69 acres described above was thickly wooded, had not been under cultiva- tion, and was chiefly valuable for the wood thereon: that there were on said tract of 69 acres several log buildings, and said tract was entirely fenced by a valuable fence built of cedar pickets; that while the Federal troops aforesaid were camping on this and the adjoining tract they tore down the log buildings and the cedar fence which were upon this tract and used the wood of which they were builded for fuel; that they also cut down the trees upon said tract and used them and other logs which had been cut down and corded before their arrival; that all of said property was taken from said tract of 69 acres of which said Minna H. Glasse, Joseph C. Nash, and Emma Nash were the sole beneficial owners; that the items and values of said property they took and used were as follows:] 700 cords of green wood, at $2 $1, 400 348 cords of seasoned wood, at §5 1, 740 38 cords of seasoned logs 190 95 cords of cut wood 390 900 pickets 45 Total 3, 765 The court upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. There was taken from the claimant during the war for the suppression of th e rebel lion by the military forces of the United States in Davidson County, Tenn., for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of two thousand one hundred and fifteen dollars ($2,115), for which no payment appears to have been made. 204 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAHST CLAIMS. Of this amount Minna H. Glassie, who has heretofore been found loyal, is entitled to receive two-thirds, or fourteen hundred and ten dollars ($1,410), the remaining one-third, or seven hundred and five dollars ($705), belonging to Emma Nash, who has heretofore been found disloyal by the court. By the Court. Filed January 29, 1906. A true copy. Test this 1st day of February, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. HIWASSEE MASONIC LODGE, NO. 188, CALHOUN, TENN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12496. Hiwassee Masonic Lodge, No. 188, of Calhoun, Term., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: " [S. 6400, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of Hiwassee Masonic Lodge, Numbered One hundred and eighty-eight, of Cal- houn, Tennessee. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury "not otherwise appro- priated, to Hiwassee Masonic Lodge, Numbered One hundred and eighty-eight, of Calhoun, Tennessee, the sum of one thousand dollars, in full compensation for stores and supplies taken from and furnished by said lodge to United States military forces and the use and occupation of said lodge premises by United States forces during the civil war. ' ' The worthy master of said lodge appeared in this court July 6, 1906, and filed his petition in which it is substantially averred that: During the period from November, 1863, to middle of June, 1865, said lodge was the owner of a brick building at Calhoun, Tenn. , and that during said period said building • was occupied by United States troops for army purposes; that said troops cut numerous portholes through the brick walls of said building on all sides, both of the first and sec- ond stories, and consumed and destroyed the ceiling and partitions, lodge-room fur- niture, stairway, fences, and desks belonging to said lodge, and that the value of the use and occupation of said building during said period was $500 and the value of the prop- erty consumed, damaged, and destroyed by said troops was $500; total, $1,000, for which no payment has ever been made; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, and has not, in any way, voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 9th day ox December, 1907. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George E. Boren, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- tion of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of coun- sel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Hiwassee Masonic Lodge, No. 188, of Cal- houn, Tenn., as an organization, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the building and grounds of the Hiwassee Masonic Lodge, No. 188, of Calhoun, Tenn., and occupied the same as a fort and hospital. The reasonable rental value thereof, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of six hundred and twenty dollars ($620), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 205 United States Senate as aforesaid, and no reason is given why the bar of the statute of limitations should be removed, or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed January 6, 1908. A true copy. Test this 11th day of January, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ROBERT C. JAMESON, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10189. Robert C. Jameson, administrator of the estate of David J. Jameson, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled cause for the use and occupation of real estate by the military forces of the United States was referred to the court by resolution of the United States Senate on the 2d day of May, 1900, under the provisions 6f the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of April, 1902. Gilbert Moyers, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The clahnant in his petition makes the following allegations: That his decedent resided during the late war of the rebellion in the county of Shelby, State of Tennessee; that on or about July 31, 1862, the United States forces, by proper authority, took possession of a certain four-story brick house situated on Front street, in Memphis, Tenn., of which premises said decedent was the owner of an undivided one-half interest, and used and occupied said premises from July 31, 1862, to August 1, 1866, the rental value of said premises during said period being $500 per month; that payment has been made for said use and occupation in the sum of $8,700, and that a balance of $15,300 is still due and owing for said use and occu- pation, of which sum one-half is due to the estate of decedent, to wit, the sum of $7,650. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the brief and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The decedent, David J. Jameson, was the owner of one-half of the building afore- said, and was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, from July 31, 1862, to August 1, 1863, the military forces of the United States used and occupied a four-story brick house, for the use of the Army, situated on Front street, in the city of Memphis, State of Tennessee, of which the decedent owned one-half, the reasonable rental value for said dwelling during said period being the sum of $1,800, one-half of which is nine hundred dollars ($900). The city of Memphis was the seat of war until the 1st day of January, 1863, when it ceased to be such by the proclamation of the President of that date. III. The claim for said use and occupation was presented to Congress in 1874, and was referred to this court under the act of March 3, 1883, known as the Bowman Act, in 1884. On motion of the defendants the case was dismissed for nonpros ecution. By the Court. Filed April 21, 1902. A true copy. Test this 30th day of April, 1902. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 206 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. NATHANIEL W. JONES. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10858. Nathaniel W. Jones v. The United States.] STATEMENT. This claim, which, is for the value of stores and supplies, the property of claimant, alleged to have been taken from him by the military forces of the United States during the war of the rebellion, was originally presented to the Commissioners of War Claims and was disallowed by them because the claimant had in the meantime gone into bankruptcy. It was referred to the court by a resolution of the Senate on June 15, 1902, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved on March 3, 1887, entitled "An act to provide for the bringing of suits against the United States," etc. The claimant in his petition alleges that there were taken from him and used by the Federal Army, under proper authority, during the war, 4,000 pounds of salt pork, of the value of $600 at that time, and 400 bushels of corn, of the value of $400. The case was heard on loyalty and merits by the court on the 2d day of May, 1905. Benjamin Carter, esq. , appearing at this hearing as attorney for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George H. Walker, his assistant, appearing for the protection and defense of the interests of the United States. Upon consideration of the evidence and the briefs and other argument of counsel the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that Nathaniel W. Jones was loyal to the Govern- ment of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant in Maury County, Tenn., property as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of four hundred and eighty dollars ($480). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed May 15, 1905. A true copy. Test this 4th day of May, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. B. F. McGREW, ADMINISTRATOR OF GEORGE W. McGREW. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12931. B. F. McGrew, administrator of estate of George W. McGrew, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for property alleged to have been taken by the military forces of the United States for the use of the Army during the late civil war. On March 2, 1907, the United States Senate, by resolution, referred to the court the following bill: "[S. 6337, Fjfty-ninth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the estate of George W. McGrew, deceased. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- ated, to the legal representatives of the estate of George W. McGrew, late of Giles County, Tennessee, the sum of eleven thousand five hundred and sixty-two dollars and fifty cents, for quartermaster stores and supplies taken from the said George W. McGrew by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court on the 22d day of March, 1907, in which he makes the following allegations: That claimant is the administrator of George W. McGrew, who died intestate at his home in Giles County, Tenn., on the 26th day of August, 1905; that said George W. McGrew, during the war of the rebellion was loyal to the Government of the United States and never voluntarily gave any aid or comfort to the rebellion, and that during aid war said George W. McGrew resided in Giles County, Tenn. , where he was the owner ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 207 of a large farm, whereon lie bad a large number of mules and horses and a large amount of corn, wheat, and hay; that during the month of November, 1863, the military- forces of the United States, under command of Gen. W. T. Sherman, while en route to Chattanooga, Tenn., took from said George W. McGrew mules and horses of the value of $5,675, and that a detachment of said army, left in occupation of the country, while stationed at Prospect, Giles County, Tenn., took corn, wheat, and hay to the value of $5,887.50; that a claim for the property aforesaid was presented to the Quar- termaster-General of the United States for payment and was disallowed by him for the reasons that it was not shown that the horses and mules were taken by proper authority and passed into the sei'vice and use of the Army, and because part of the claim was for commissary stores and supplies and not within his jurisdiction; and that no payment has ever been made therefor. The case was brought to a hearing on the 12th day of December, 1907, on loyalty and merits. F. Carter Pope, esq., appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, by Clark McKercher, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that George W. McGrew, deceased, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the' late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from claimant's decedent in Giles County, Tenn., prop- erty of the kind and character described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of seven thousand three hundred and fifteen dollars ($7,315), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was presented to the Quartermaster-Genral in 1875 and by that officer disallowed August 24, 1878, because he was unable to certify to the just- ness of the same. Thereafter the same was referred to the court by resolution of the United States Senate as hereinbefore stated. By the Court. Filed January 6, 1908. A true copy: Test this, 7th day of January, A. D. 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF CHARLESTON, TENN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12938. Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Charleston, Tenn., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: "[S. 6479, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Charleston, Tennessee. ' 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Charleston, Tennessee, the sum of two thousand five hundred and ten dollars, in full compensation for the property of said church taken, occupied, used, damaged, and consumed by the United States military forces during the civil war." The said church appeared in this court March 21, 1907, and filed its petition, in which it substantially averred that during the civil war the military authorities of the United States took possession of the building and grounds of the claimant and used and occupied the same for various military purposes for a long period of time; that said property consisted of a well-constructed brick church building, about 60 feet by 35 feet in dimensions, with a tower; that the United States troops occupied it for housing commissary stores, and to some extent for barracks, from December, 1863, to about 208 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. May, 1865; that they tore out the inside layer of brick for use in constructing camp chimneys, etc., and piled salt meat against the brick wall;' thus soaking the wall with, grease and oil so as to destroy the mortar, causing the wall to crack and become so un- safe that the entire building, as a result of this usage, had to be torn down; also the seats, pulpit, windows, shutters, and fence were destroyed as a result of said occupa- tion ; that the reasonable rental value of said property during the time it was so occu- pied, including the repairs necessary to restore said property to as good condition as it was before such occupation, was the sum of $2,510, for which no payment has been made; that evidence in support of this claim was sent to Washington years ago without result; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, and has not in anyway aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the Government. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 11th day of Decem- ber, 1907. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by George F. Boren, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- tion of the interests of the United States. t The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argumentfof counsel on both sides, makes the following - j FINDINGS OF FACT. —| I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Charleston, Tenn., as an organiza- tion was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the building and grounds of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Charleston, Tenn., and occupied and used the same for the storing of commissary supplies and for other purposes. The reasonable rental value of said property during the period of occupancy, together with the damages in excess of the ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of nine hundred and sixty dollars ($960). No payment appears to have been made therefor. III. Said claim was never presented to any department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate as aforesaid, and no reason is given why the bar of the statute of limita- tions should be removed, or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not hav- ing resorted to any established legal remedy By the Court. Filed January 6, 1908. A true copy. Test this 13th day of January, 1908 [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. HEIRS OF OSWELL P. NEWBY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10109. Mrs. Mary K. Henry, Mrs. Alice A. Pope, Mrs. Jennie Alexander, and Nannie Newby, heirs of Oswell P. Newby, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This claim was first referred to this court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on June 17, 1886, for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1883, and commonly known as the Bowman Act. Said refer- ence was docketed as Case No. 1105, Congressional, and the case was dismissed by this court February 3, 1896, for lack of jurisdiction. On February 27, 1887, the claim was also made the subject of a further reference to this court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives for findings of fact under said act approved March 3, 1883, and was docketed as Case No. 1799, Congressional, and was dismissed on February 3, 1896, for want of jurisdiction. On March 14, 1900, Senate bill No. 3587, Fifty-sixth Congress, was introduced for relief of the estate of said Oswell P. Newby, which bill reads as follows: "A BILL For the relief of the estate of O. P. Newby, deceased. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of O. P. Newby, deceased, late of Memphis, Tennessee, the sum of six ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 209 thousand dollars for the use and occupation of buildings by the Federal forces during the war of the rebelion." Said bill was referred to this court on March 21, 1900, by resolution of the United States Senate for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of December, 1906. Moyer & Consaul appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by A. C. Campbell, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The petitioners, in their petition, make the following allegations: That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Madison, State of Tennessee ; that they are the sole heirs at law and devisees of Oswell P. Newby , deceased, late of Shelby County, in said State; that during the late civil war petitioners resided in the county of Haywood, State of Tennessee; that during said war the United States military forces, by proper authority, did take possession of certain land then belonging to petitioners, situate in the city of Memphis, State of Tennessee, upon which were situated two store buildings, being Nos. 207 and 209 on Main street, in said city of Memphis, and did hold possession of said premises from the summer or fall of 1862 to the spring or summer of 1865, said possession of said premises continuing for a period of not less than two and one-half years; that the reasonable rental value of said premises during said period of occupancy by the United States was not less than $200 per month, making a total as follows: For use and occupation by United States military forces of two brick store buildings, Nos. 207 and 209 Main street, Memphis, Tenn., for two and one- half years, at $200 per month $6, 000 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. First. It appears from the evidence that Oswell P. Newby, deceased, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war, Second. During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the buildings in Memphis, Tenn., belonging to claimant's decedent and used the same for military purposes from the summer or fall of 1862 to the spring or summer of 1865, a period of about two and one-half years. The reasonable rental value of said buildings for such period was the sum of four thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500), no part of which appears to have been paid. Third. This claim was presented to Congress prior to the passage of the act of March 3, 1887, commonly known as the Tucker Act. The foregoing comprises all the evi- dence relating to the prosecution of this claim prior to its reference to this court. By the Court. Filed December 17, 1906. A true copy. Test this 28th day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, LOUDON, TENN. [Court of-Claims. Congressional, No. 11008. The Presbyterian Church of Loudon, Term., v. The United • States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for the use, occupation, destruction, and consumption of material in above church by the military forces of the United States during the war for the sup- pression of the rebellion. On the 3d day of March, 1903, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: "[S. 102, Fifty-seventh Congress, First session.] "A BILL For the relief of the Presbyterian Church of Loudon, Loudon County, Tennessee. ' ' Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money not otherwise appropriated, the sum of two S. Rep. 382, 60-1 14 210 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. thousand two hundred dollars to A. W. Wood, J. A. Greer, and J. J. Harrison, elders and trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Loudon, Loudon County, Tennessee, as compen- sation for the use, occupation, destruction, and consumption of material, in the winter of eighteen hundred and sixty-three to eighteen hundred and sixty-four, by the United States Army, of the Presbyterian Church building at that place." The claimants appeared in this court on the 24th day of March, 1904, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred that: Said church was loyal to the United States throughout the civil war; during the winter of 1863-64 the convalescent corps of Sherman's army encamped near the town of Loudon, Tenn., and tore down said church and removed the lumber and timbers just outside of the town, and constructed winter quarters; said building was between 35 and 40 feet wide, and between 60 and 70 feet deep, constructed of good material; the loss sustained was $2,200. ^ The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 30th day of April , 1907. Burton T. Doyle, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Presbyterian Church of Loudon, Tenn., as an organization, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church property described in the petition, used and occupied and afterwards tore down the same, and used the materials therein contained in the construction of winter quarters. Said use and occupation and appropriation of material at the time and place was reasonably worth the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given therefor. By the Court. Filed May 6, 1907. A true copy. Test this 18th day of January, A. D. 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. LEONIDAS THOMPSON, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11405. Leonidas Thompson, administrator of the estate of Mathew Brown, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. On February 22, 1904, Senate bill No. 4498, Fifty-eighth Congress, was introduced, which bill reads as follows: "A BILL For the relief of the estate of Mathew Brown, deceased. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury" of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Mathew Brown, deceased, late of Shelby County, Tennessee, the sum of three thousand eight hundred and forty-five dollars, ' in full compensation for stores and supplies taken for the use of and used by the Fed- eral forces during the late civil war." Said bill, with accompanying papers, was transmitted to this court by resolution of the Senate on April 26, 1904, for findings of fact in accordance with the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of Febru- ary, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, Esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 211 The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Shelby, State of Tennessee; that he is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator de bonis non of the estate of Mathew Brown, deceased, late of said county and State; that during the late civil war said decedent was a citizen of the United States, resid- ing near German town, in said county and State; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took from said decedent and converted to the use of the United States Army quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the kinds and values below stated, to wit: Taken from farm of decedent, 1J miles east of Germantown, Tenn., in December, 1862, and January, 3863, by troops under command of Colonel McCrillas and by Seventh Kansas Cavalry and other troops stationed in and about Germantown: 600 bushels shelled corn, at 80 cents per bushel $480 3 tons fodder, at $20 per ton 60 5 mules, at $125 each 625 700 bushels sweet potatoes, at $1 per bushel 700 15,000 feet of lumber, at $10 per 1,000 feet 150 50 hogs, at $5 each 250 40 cords of wood, at $3 each 120 2 cows, at $25 each , 50 Total 2, 335 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the decedent, Mathew Brown, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. II. There was taken from the decedent, in the county of Shelby, State of Tennes- see, during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of one thousand four hundred and twenty dollars ($1,420), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. The claim was not presented to the Quartermaster-General or the Southern Claims Commission. Under the act of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. L., p. 505, sec. 14), which provides that where there has been delay or laches in presenting a claim, the court shall report whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any estab- lished legal remedy, it is shown in evidence that the decedent had no knowledge whatever of the existence of the Southern Claims Commission in the early seventies, and that if he had had such knowledge it would have been impossible for him to have taken any action in the prosecution of his claim against the Government, being physically unable by reason of ill health to have hunted up his witnesses and secured the necessary evidence; that said decedent died in 1872 and that none of the parties interested knew of any means by which they could collect the claim for property taken during the civil war. As to the question whether the facts so stated are sufficient or insufficient to excuse the claimant, the court makes no finding, that question being entirely within the iudgment and discretion of Congress. By the Court. Filed February 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 19th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Bandolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 212 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF CHRISTIAN CHURCH, FRANKLIN, TENN. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 13110. Trustees of trie Christian Church, of Franklin Tenn. v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: " [S. 8150, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Christian Church, in Franklin, Williamson County, Tennessee. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Christian Church, in Franklin, Williamson County, in the State of Tennessee, the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars for use and occupation of and damage to church building and furnishings by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion. ' ' The claimants appeared in this court on the 25th day of March, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred — That during the month of November, 1864, the military forces of the United States, under command of General Opdyke, took possession of the church building of the Christian Church at Franklin, Tenn. , and used and occupied the same for hospital and other purposes until after the close of the war. That during said occupancy the walls of the church were damaged, and the pews, pulpit, furniture, fixtures, doors, and windows were removed and destroyed. That the reasonable rental value of the building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building and contents to the condition in which they were at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $1,500, no part of which has ever been paid. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 3d day of Feb- ruary, 1908. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by George E. Boren, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Christian Church of Franklin, Tenn., as an organization, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building described in the petition, and used and occupied the same for hospital and other purposes, and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value of such use and occupation, together with the damages thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of six hundred and twenty dollars ($620.00), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claim- ant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed February 10, 1908. A true copy. Test this 11th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 213 TRUSTEES OF CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, OF CLARKS- VILLE, TENN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11698. Trustees .of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Clarksville, Term., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887,. known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Clarksville, Tennessee. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- ated, to the trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Clarksville, Ten- nessee, the sum of one thousand two hundred and forty-one dollars and sixty cents, for use of and damage to church property by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Clarksville, Tenn., ap- peared and filed their petition in this court August 29, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about Decem- ber, 1862, the military forces of the United States under command of Col. Landers Bruce took possession of the church building of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Clarksville, Tenn., and by proper anthority the said military forces continued to occupy said building until on or about May, 1865. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $1,241.60, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 19th day of Feb- ruary, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- General, by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Clarksville, Tenn., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, at Clarksville, Tenn., and used and occupied the same for military purposes until about May, 1865. The reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession of the same, was the sum of twelve hundred dollars ($1,200), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. The claim was originally presented to the Quartermaster-General under the act of July 4, 1864, and was by him disallowed on the ground that a majority of the members were disloyal. Thereafter the same was presented to the Treasury Department and was disal- lowed June 26, 1889, on the ground that the claim was not within the jurisdiction of the accounting officers. The claim was thereafter referred to the court as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed March 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 16th day of March, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 21,4 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, OF CLIFTON, TENN. [ Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11009. Trustees Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Clifton, Term., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court March 3, 1903, by resolution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress, approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "[S. 103, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] ' 'A BILL For the relief of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, at Clifton, Wayne County, Tennessee. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay to the trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, at Clifton, Wayne County, Tennessee, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, in full of all claims of said church for the use, occupation, consumption, damage, and destruction of its property during the late war of the rebellion by the military forces of the United States, and the acceptance of said sum shall be a complete and absolute bar to any and all claims of said church for damages against the United States. ' ' The trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Clifton, Tenn., appeared and filed their petition in this court October 31, 1905, in which they make the follow- ing allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the 1st of January, 1864, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, at Clifton, Tenn. , and used and occupied the same for military purposes until the month of August of the same year. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession of the same, was the sum of $1,500, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 19th day of February, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by M. A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. J . It appears from the evidence that during the war for the suppression of the rebellion the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Clifton, Tenn., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building belonging to the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Clifton, Tenn., and used and occupied the same for military purposes. The reasonable rental value of said building, together with repairs rendered necessary by reason of said occupancy, was nine hundred and eighty dollars ($980), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. The claim was never filed before any Department or officer of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed March 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 16th day of March, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 215 TRUSTEES OF CUMBERLAND PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF WAVERLY, TENN. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12487. Trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church of Waverly, Term., v. The United States.] . STATEMENT OF CASE. T This is a claim for use of and damage to a chur.ch building by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: "[S. 3962, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, at Waverly, Tennessee. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church of Waverly, Humphreys County, Tennessee, the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars, in full payment for the use and occupation and for damages done to said church property by the Federal soldiers during the late civil war. " The claimants appeared in this court on the 27th day of December, 1906, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about Sep- tember, 1863, the military forces of the United States, under command of Col. J. B. Dorr, of the Eighth Iowa Cavalry, took possession of the church building of the Cum- berland Presbyterian Church, of Waverly, Tenn., and used and occupied the same for military purposes. That thereafter various other commands of the United States Army used and occupied the said building, the same being almost continuously occu- pied from the fall of 1863 until the spring of 1865. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occu- pied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $2,500, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 11th day of Decem- ber, 1907. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. H. Lamar, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT. I. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Waverly, Tenn., as an organization was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church property of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, of Waverly, Tenn., and occupied and used the same for quarters for the housing of troops and for other purposes. The reasonable rental value of said property during said period of occupancy, together with the damages in excess of the ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of one thousand and forty dollars ($1,040). No payment appears to have been made therefor. III. Said claim was never presented to any department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate as aforesaid, and no reason is given why the bar of the statute of limita- tions should be removed, or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not hav- ing resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed January 6, 1908. A true copy. Test this 9th day of January, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 216 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF HIRAM LODGE, NO. 7, FREE AND ACCEPTED MASONS, OF FRANKLIN, TENN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11697. Trustees of Hirain Lodge, No. 7, F. and A. M., of Franklin, Tenn., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of Hiram Lodge, Number Seven, Free and Accepted Masons, of Franklin Tennessee. ''Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Hiram Lodge, Number Seven, Free and Accepted Masons, of Franklin, Tennessee, the sum of six thousand dollars for use of and damage to lodge property by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The trustees of Hiram Lodge, No. 7, Free and Accepted Masons, of Franklin, Tenn., appeared and filed their petition in this court April 12, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion and on or about the fall of 1861 the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took posses- sion of the lodge building of Hiram Lodge, No. 7, Free and Accepted Masons, situate at Franklin, Tenn., and used and occupied the same for military purposes from said date at various times until the fall of 1865; that by reason of such occupancy the building was greatly damaged, and the reasonable rental value thereof during the period of said occupancy, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military authorities first took pos- session of the same, was the sum of $6,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 6th day of Decem- ber, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that Hiram Lodge, No. 7, F. and A. M., of Frank- lin, Tenn., as a lodge, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, used and occupied the lodge building of Hiram Lodge, No. 7, F. and A. M., of Franklin, Tenn., for military purposes. By reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value thereof dur- ing the period of such occupancy, including the repairs necessary to restore the build- ing to the condition in which it was at the time the military forces of the United States took possession of the same, was the sum of twenty-one hundred and twenty dollars ($2,120), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed January 2, 1906. A true copy. Test this 13th day of January, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 217 TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF CHATTA- NOOGA, TENN. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11700. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Chattanooga, Term., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war. On the 27th day of April, 1904, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: " [S. 3592, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] " A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Chattanooga, Ten- nessee. " Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Amwica in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Chinch South, of Chattanooga, Tennessee, the sum of three thousand five hundred dollars, for use of and damage to church building by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebel- lion." The claimants appeared in this court on the 12th day of January, 1905, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion and on or about the month of September, 1863, the military forces of the United States, by proper author- ity, took possession of the church building and used and occupied the same for hos- pital and other purposes until the close of the war. That by reason of such occupancy the building was greatly damaged, and the reason- able rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when said military authorities first took possession, was the sum of $3,500, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of December, 1907. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. Cox, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT. I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Chattanooga, Tenn., as an organiza- tion, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper author- ity, for the use of the Army, took possession of the church property described in the petition about September, 1863, and used and occupied the same for hospital and other purposes until the close of the war, and damaged the same. The reasonable value of such use and occupation, together with the damages thereto in excess of the ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of $1,800, no part of which appears to have been paid. III. Said claim was originally presented to the Quartermaster-General under the act of July 4, 1864, by whom it was disallowed because of insufficient evidence. There- after the United States Senate by resolution referred the case to this court under the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned. No further action is shown to have been taken by the claimant looking to the prosecution of the claim. By the Court. Filed December 9, 1907. A true copy. ■ Test this 19th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 218 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, FRANKLIN, TENN. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12524. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Franklin.. Term., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The following bill was referred to the court June 13. 1906, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress, approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "[S. 3828, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Franklin, Tennessee. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- priated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, at Franklin, Ten- nessee, the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars, for use of and damage to church building by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the re- bellion." The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Franklin, Tenn., appeared and filed their petition in this court September 14, 1906, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about March, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Franklin, Tenn., and used and occupied the same for military purposes until the spring of 1865, said building being used by Colonel Opedyke, of the One hundred and twenty-fifth Ohio Volunteer Infantry, and others. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occu- pied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $2,500, for which no payment has'been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 22d day of Janu- ary, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United. States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Franklin, Tenn., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church property belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Franklin. Tenn.. and occupied the same for about two years for hospital purposes and barracks. The reasonable rental value thereof at the time and place, together with the damage done to said property in excess of the ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of eight hundred and seventy- five dollars ($875.00), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why such was not done. By the Court. Filed January 28, 1907. A true copy. Test this 18th day of November, 1907. [seal] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 219 TRUSTEES OF MILL CREEK BAPTIST CHURCH. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11696. Trustees of Mill Creek Baptist Church, of Davidson County, Tennessee, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : ' ' fS. 3586. Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Mill Creek Baptist Church, of Davidson County, Tennessee. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of Amer- ica in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Mill Creek Baptist Church, of Davidson County, Ten- nessee, the sum of two thousand dollars, for use of and damage to church property by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The trustees of Mill Creek Baptist Church, of Davidson County, Tenn., appeared and filed their petition in this court July 19, 1904, in which they make the following allegations : That during the fall of 1862 the military authorities of the United States, under command of Generals Wood and Buell and Colonel Cotton, of the Third Kentucky Regiment, took possession of the church building of the said Baptist Church and used and occupied the same for commissary and other purposes from said date until May, 1865, a period of about thirty-one months. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value thereof during said period, including the repairs necessary to restore the said building to the condition in which it was when said occupancy began, was the sum of |2,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits -on the 6th day of Febru- ary, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-Gen- eral, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Mill Creek Baptist Church, Davidson County, Tenn., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the Mill Creek Baptist Church, Davidson County, Tenn., was taken possession of by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, and used for commissary and other purposes for a period of about thirty-one months. Said use and occupation, together with damages inci- dental thereto, were reasonably worth the sum of one thousand six hundred and fifty dollars ($1,650). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed February 13, 1905. A true copy. Test this 24th day of February, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF MOUNT ZION CHURCH, WILLIAMSON COUNTY, TENN. [Courtiof±Claims. Congressional, No. 12483. Trustees of Mount Zion Church, Williamson County, Tenn., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use, occupation, and damage to the Mount Zion Church, of William- son County, Tenn., by the military forces of the United States during the war for the 220 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. suppression of the rebellion. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: "[S. 4241, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] ' A BILL For the relief of the Mount Zion Church, of Williamson County, Tennessee. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Mount Zion Church, of Williamson County, Tennessee, the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, in full payment for the use, occupation, and dam- age to the buildings and property of said church by the United States military authori- ties during the late civil war. ' ' The trustees of said church appeared in this court on the 24th day of September, 1906, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred: That the Mount Zion Church, of Williamson County, Tenn., as a church, was loyal to the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion; that about 1862 or 1863 the military forces of the United States, under proper orders, took possession of said building and property and carried away the materials of which said building was constructed to a place called Daddys Knob, where the said army was in camp, and used said material for the construction of quarters for said troops, and also for fuel and other purposes, the result of which was a total loss to said organ- ization, and for which said church asks that the sum of $2,300 be paid to said trustees. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 29th day of April, 1907.* H. M. Foote appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Felix Branni- gan, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Mount Zion Church, of Williamson County, Tenn., as an organization, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church property described in the petition, used and occupied the same, and used some of the material from said church building in the construction of quarters for said troops. Said use and occupation and appropriation of material was at the time and place reasonably worth the sum of one thousand three hundred dollars ($1,300), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given therefor. By the Court. Filed May 6, 1907. A true copy. Test this 25th day of November, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, FRANKLIN, TENN. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12517. Trustees of the Presbyterian, Church of Franklin, Tenn., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: "[S. 2298, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Franklin, Tennessee. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not atherwise appro- ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 221 priated, to the trustees of trie Presbyterian Church of Franklin, Tennessee, the sum of one thousand two hundred and fifty dollars, for use and occupation of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war. - ' The claimants appeared in this court on the 27th day of December, 1906, and filed their petition in which it is substantially averred — That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion and on or about Novem- ber 30, 1864, the military forces of the United States, by Surgeon Henry, of the One hundred and twenty-fifth Ohio Regiment of Infantry, took possession of the church building of the Presbyterian Church, at Franklin, Tenn., and used and occupied'the same for hospital purposes until February, 1865. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $1,250, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the llthj day of Feb- ruary, 1907. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. Cox, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Presbyterian Church of Franklin, Tenn., as a church, was loyal to the Gov- ernment of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, for then use, took possession of the church property of the Presbyterian Church of Franklin, Tenn., about the time of the battle at that place and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes for a period of about two months, removing therefrom the pews, pulpit, and other furnishings, which, together with the walls of the building, were materially damaged. The reasonable rental value of the build- ing, together with the damage done thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of eight hundred dollars (S800), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why the same was not done. By the Court. Filed February 18, 1907. A true copy. Test this 31st day of October, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF UNION UNIVERSITY, OF MURFREESBORO, TENN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11401. Trustees of Union University of Murfreesboro, Tenn., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 28, 1904. by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: " [S. 5666, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Union University, of Murfreeshoro, Tennessee. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- ated, to the trustees of the Union University, of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, the sum of five thousand four hundred and seventy-four dollars, for the use and occupation of the university buildings and grounds by the Army of the United States during the late war of the rebellion, ana for the injuries to the buildings during such occupation; and also the sum of twelve thousand eight hundred dollars for six thousand four hun- dred books, and the additional sum of three thousand five hundred dollars for philo- 222 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. sophical and chemical apparatus, all of which belonged to said university and were taken from the said buildings during said military occupation; the total amount hereby appropriated being twenty-one thousand seven hundred and seventy-four dollars." The trustees of Union University appeared and filed their petition in this court April 12, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late civil war and in the spring of 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the buildings and grounds of Union University, situate at Murfreesboro, Tenn., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes until on or about the month of December, 1864, when the said buildings were completely dismantled, the furniture, fixtures, books, philosophical and chemical apparatus were taken, used or destroyed, and the windows, doors, flooring, and other woodwork were removed from the buildings and used in the con- struction of a hospital near the town of Murfreesboro. That by reason of such use and occupation and removal of material, etc. . as aforesaid, the United States is justly indebted to the said Union University as follows :_, For rent from the spring of 1862 to December, 1864, and for re pahs $5, 474 For 6,400 books, at $2 per volume 12, 800 For philosophical and chemical apparatus 3, 500 Total 21,774 no part of which has ever been paid. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 3d day of December, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. During the civil war the Union University of Murfreesboro, Tenn. , as such univer- sity, was loyal to the Government of the United States. II. During the said war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the university building of the Union University, at Murfreesboro, Tenn., and used the same for hospital purposes. The reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so used and occupied, including necessary repairs incident to such occupation, was the sum of five thousand four hundred and seventy- four dollars ($5,474). III. The evidence establishes to the satisfaction of the court that at the time of the original occupancy of the building, property of the Union University at Murfreesboro, Tenn., by the military forces of the United States, there was a library of valuable books in the said building, which belonged to the said university, then and there reasonably worth the sum of six thousand five hundred dollars ($6,500). IV. There was also in said building at the time the same was seized and occupied by the military forces of the United States philosophical and chemical apparatus rea- sonably worth the sum of seventeen hundred and fifty dollars ($1,750). V. At some time between the occupation of the buildings by the military forces of the United States and before the same were finally vacated by the said military forces $500 worth of the books disappeared from the buildings, but the evidence does not establish to the satisfaction of the court who took the said books from the said library. VI. That about the time the buildings were being vacated by the military forces of the United States the contents of said buildings, embracing books reasonably worth six thousand dollars ($6,000) and the philosophical and chemical apparatus reasonably worth seventeen hundred and fifty dollars ($1,750), were depredated upon and taken away by an Iowa cavalry regiment. The furniture in the buildings was also taken therefrom by the aforementioned regiment. Included in the necessary repairs inci- dent to the occupation, such as taking away the furniture and benches, an allowance is made as set forth in Finding II. VII. The competent evidence in the case does not establish to the satisfaction of the court what disposition was made of the six thousand dollars ($6,000) worth of books and the seventeen hundred and fifty dollars ($1,750) worth of chemical and philosoph- ical apparatus. VIII. It does not appear to the satisfaction of the courljjipon the competent evidence in the case that the property was taken for the use.of the United States or that the said books reasonably worth six thousand dollars ($6,000) and philosophical and chemical ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 223 apparatus reasonably worth seventeen hundred and fifty dollars (SI. 750) were used by the Army. As to the last two items the evidence does establish a depredation. By the Court. Filed December 10, 1906. A true copy. Test this 12th day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph. Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. BAPTIST CHURCH, TULLAHOMA, TENN. [Court of Chums. Congressional case„No. 11049. Baptist Church of Tullahoma, Teiui., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, arising from the alleged demolition of a certain building used as a house of worship by the Baptist Church of Tullahoma, Tenn., by the military forces of the United States, during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by resolution of the United States Senate, on the 3d day of March, 1903. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 26th dav of October, A. D. 1903. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. Claimant in its petition makes the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, the Baptist Church of Tullahoma, Tenn., was the owner of a certain lot in the town of Tullahoma, State of Tennessee, on which was situated a certain building used as a house of worship; that during said war said building was used and occupied for a time by the United States military forces, and was thereafter, to wit, about the winter of 1864 or 1865, torn down by said military forces and the materials secured from said building and other improve- ments upon said premises, were carried away and converted to the use of the United States Army, to the damage and loss of said church in the sum of $2,000. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Baptist Church of Tullahoma, Tenn., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late war of the rebellion. II. During the war of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority and for the use of the Army, took possession of and tore down the church building belonging to the Baptist Church of Tullahoma, Tenn., and used the material thereof, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars ($1,200). It does not appear that payment has ever been made for any part thereof. III. There is no evidence on file showing that the claim was ever presented to any department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the Tucker Act aforesaid. By the Court. Filed November 2, 1903. A true copy. Test, this 11th day of December, 1903. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 224 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. HOWARD LODGE. NO. 13, INDEPENDENT ORDER ODD FELLOWS, GALLATIN, TENN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11624. Howard Lodge, No. 13, Independent Order of Odd % Fellows, of Gallatin, Tenn., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. In the above-entitled claim for the use, occupation, and damage to the interior fittings of the buildings known as the Howard Female Institute, a girls' school, located in Gallatin, Tenn., and a brick building located on the public square known as the Odd Fellows Hall, by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war, a bill was introduced in the Fifty-eighth Congress, first session, for the relief of the claimant, being Senate bill No. 806. Said bill reads as follows : " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby is, author- ized and directed to pay to the treasurer of Howard Lodge, Numbered Thirteen, Inde- pendent Order of Odd Fellows, of Gallatin, Tennessee, the sum of seven thousand four hundred and forty-eight dollars, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to reimburse said lodge Numbered Thirteen, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, for the use, occupation, and destruction of its buildings and other property consumed and destroyed by soliders of the United States during the late war. ' ' Said bill was referred to this court by resolution of the Senate on the 27th day of April, 1904, for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887, commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of January, 1908. George A. and William B. King, esqs., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by George E. Boren, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: That during the civil war the Howard Lodge, No. 13, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, of Gallatin, Tenn., did not give any aid or comfort to the rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United States. That the following property belonging to said Howard Lodge, No. 13, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, was, by direction of officers of the United States Army, occupied and used by said Army — date, place, and command being particularly stated below: In Gallatin, Tenn., from November, 1862, to August, 1865, by the Eleventh Michi- gan, Sixty-ninth Ohio, and Ninth Indiana Regiments Volunteer Infantry, U. S. Army, to wit: Howard Female Institute sustained the following loss: 40 double desks, at $10 $400 3 blackboards, at $10 30 2 large brick privies, at $200 : 400 1 hothouse, brick and glass 300 Lumber (fencing) " 150 Stable and shed .' 150 1 round center table 20 6 small tables, at $5 30 6 coal grates, at $10 60 Plastering and papering 300 Rent of building occupied by Medical Department, U. S. Army, for hospital purposes from November, 1862, to August 1, 1865, thirty-three months, at $100 per month. 3, 300 The following was taken from Odd Fellows Hall : Counters, shelving, drawers and desk, all taken from room fitted up for dry goods store 300 Counters, shelving, desk and drawers, all taken from room fitted up as drug store 400 1 pair window shutters and transom light 14 1 stove and pipe 25 6 windows, glass and sash (damaged) 25 6 oilcloth window blinds 24 Papering on wall 40 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 225 The lodge room sustained the following loss: 1 bookcase and desk (large) $70 48 dining office chairs, at $5 240 Lodge regalia and emblems 200 8 window shades, $40; window sash and glass, $100 140 2 tables, at $5 : 10 8 door locks 30 Damage to papering, plastering, sprinklers, etc 50 Bethel Encampment, No. 9, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, sustained the following loss: Camp regalia, tent crooks, jewels, furniture, and one large desk 510 Total 7, 448 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. Howard Lodge, No. 13, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, of Gallatin, Tenn., as an organization, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper author- ity, took possession of the lodge buildings described in the petition and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value of such use and occupation, together with damages thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of two thousand three hundred dollars ($2,300), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was originally referred to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 1st day of March, 1889, under the pro- visions of the act of March 3, 1883. known as the Bowman Act. Thereafter the claim was again referred to the court by resolution of the United States Senate on the 27th day of April, 1904, under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act, and upon motion of the claimant, on May 25, 1904, the two causes were consoli- dated. Prior to the first presentation of the same to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid, the claim had never been presented to any department of the Gov- ernment, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should- be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed February 3, 1908. A true copv- Test this 8th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. BAPTIST CHURCH AT BOLIVAR, TENN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11005. Baptist Church at Bolivar, Hardeman Countv, Tenn., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court on the 12th day of March, 1903, by reso- lution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of the Baptist Church at Bolivar, Hardeman County, Tennessee. "Beit enacted by the Senate an d House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay to the trustees of the Baptist Church at Bolivar, Hardeman County, Tennessee, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of four thousand dollars, in full of all claims of said church for the use, occu- pation, consumption, damage, and destruction of its property during the late war of the rebellion by the military forces of the United States; and the acceptance of said S. Rep. 382, 60-1 15 226 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. sum shall be a complete and absolute bar to any and all claims of said church for damages against the United States." The claimant appeared and filed its petition in this court October 9, 1903, in which the following allegations are made : That during the war for the suppression of the rebellion the Baptist Church at Boli- var, Tenn., was loyal to the Government of the United States; that at that time the Baptist Church was the owner of a substantial brick edifice which was well furnished for divine services, and in which its members worshiped until both the church build- ing and its furnishings were taken possession of by Brigadier-General Sturges, of the United States Army, and appropriated to the use of that Army as a pest or smallpox hospital, and afterwards burned; that the said property was taken possession of by the United States forces in the year 1862 or 1863, and used.as such smallpox hospital until May, 1863 or 1864; that said church building and its contents were worth, at the lowest and most reasonable estimate, the sum of $4,000. The court upon the evidence, after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Baptist Church of Bolivar, Hardeman County, Tenn., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States through the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the church building belonging to the Baptist Church at Bolivar, Hardeman County, State of Tennessee, and used the same for about two years as a smallpox hospital, when the same was accidentally burned while in possession of such military forces. The use, occupation, damage to, and destruction of said property was then and there reason- ably worth the sum of three thousand four hundred. ($3, 400) dollars, no part of which appears to have been paid. By the Court. Filed December 4, 1905. A true copy. Test this 30th day of January, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH, MEMPHIS, TENN. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11887. Board of Deacons of the First Baptist Church of Memphis, Tenn., v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for use and occupation of real estate belonging to the First Baptist Church of Memphis, Tenn., by United States military forces during the late civil war, was first transmitted to this court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 2d day of March, 1891, for findings of fact under the provisions of the act approved March 3, 1883, and commonly known as the Bowman Act. The case so presented was designated as No. 8409 Congressional. Some testimony was taken under that reference. This court being without juris- diction of the claim under said reference, however, the occupation in question having commenced prior to January 1, 1863, a bill was introduced in the Fifty-eighth Con- gress for relief of claimant, being Senate bill No. 7159. Said bill reads as follows: "A BILL For the relief of the First Baptist Church of Memphis, Tennessee. "Be it enacted by the Senate and Ho use of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the First Baptist Church of Memphis, Tennessee, the sum of five thousand dollars, in full compensation for the use, occupation, and destruction of property by the Federal forces during the late civil war." Said bill was referred to this court by resolution of the Senate on March 3, 1905, for findings of fact uuder the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearin°i on loyalty and merits on the 15th day of January, 1906. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 227 Moyers and Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General by Phillip M. Ashford, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: That during the late civil war the First Baptist Church of Memphis, Tenn., was the owner of certain real estate in said city of Memphis; that during said war there was situated upon said land a substantially constructed brick church building, about 50 by 68 feet in dimensions, with) a large audience room and a basement under the same; that there were also situate upon said land a pastor's study and a certain frame house or dwelling containing two rooms and attic; that the value of said premises during the civil war was about $30,000; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took possession of said premises and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes for a period of at least twelve and one-half months; that during said period said premises were reasonably and fairly worth a monthly rental of at least $150; that claim is made as follows: To use and occupation of premises in city of Memphis, Tenn., comprising a two- story brick church building, a pastor's study, and one dwelling house from November 12, 1862, to November 27, 1863, a period of twelve and one-half months, at $150 per month, $1,875. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the First Baptist Church, of Memphis, Tennessee, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, took possession of the church building and other buildings belonging to the First Baptist Church of Memphis, Ten- nessee, and used and occupied the same for a period of about twelve months. The reasonable rental value of said buildings for the period they were so occupied was the sum of twelve hundred dollars ($1,200.00), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed January 29, 1906. A true copy. Test this 16th day of February, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. • BOILING FORK BAPTIST CHURCH, COWAN, TENN. {Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12509. Boiling Fork Baptist Church v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the Court of Claims by order of the Senate of the United States on June 13, 1906, under the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "[S. 4417, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] ' 'A BILL For the relief of the Boiling Fork Baptist Church. "Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he hereby is, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the Boiling Fork Baptist Church, of Cowan, Tennessee, the sum of two thousand dollars as compensation for the use and destruction of the said church building by the United States Army during the late civil war." The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court September 25, 1906, by the trustees for the said church, J. W. Sargent, the elder, and Clem Jernigan, the 228 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Clerk and deacon, the other trustees being Joe Delzell and J. S. Rollins, who con- sented to the action, and they make the following allegations: . That in the fall of 1863 this church was the owner of a brick building 30 feet by 60 feet and one and one-half stories high, near Cowan, Tenn., and that the building was used regularly for public worship at that time by the said Boiling Fork Baptist Church. That in the fall of 1863 Gen. W. S. Rosecrans, commander of a portion of the United States Army, came through that part of the country and by the direction and com- mand of officers to this petitioner unknown, and without the consent of the church, caused the said building to be torn down and the bricks used to make brick ovens for the use of the Union Army, and also for building chimneys for the larger convalescent tents. And the said chinch building and the bricks were of the fair value of two thousand dollars ($2,000). That they are not informed as to what troops took the property, but knew they were under the command of General Rosecrans. That this claim was presented to the United States for payment in the Fifty-eighth Congress and in the Fifty-ninth Congress at the first session under Senate bill 4417, and was referred to this honorable court on or about September 24, 1906, under the Tucker Act for findings of fact. They claim the sum of $2,000 for the property taken and used by the Union Army, belonging to the said Boiling Fork Baptist Church, in the fall of 1863, in Cowan, Franklin County, Tenn. Under the decision of the court the question of loyalty does not arise in the case of a church claimant. The case was brought to a hearing on the merits and loyalty on March 4, A. D. 1907, Ellen Spencer Mussey appearing for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Mr. Cox, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- tion of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Boiling Fork Baptist Church, of Cowan, Tenn., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building described in the petition in the fall of 1863 and tore down the same and used the bricks therein contained for building chimneys and bake ovens. The bricks so used were then and there reasonably worth the sum of thirteen hundred and ten dollars ($1,310), no partof which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be waived or which shall excuse the claimant church for not having presented said claim to some Department of the Government prior to such presentation to Congress. By the Court. Filed March 11, 1907. A true copy. Test this 21st day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. UNIVERSITY OF NASHVILLE, OF NASHVILLE, TENN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13135. University of Nashville, of Nashville, Tenn., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the mili- tary forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words : "[S. 8484, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the University of Nashville, of Nashville, Tennessee. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author, ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 229 ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated- to the treasurer of the University of Nashville, of Nashville, Tennessee, the sum of thirteen thousand dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental , injury to the property of said University by United States military forces during the civil war." The said university appeared in this court March 23, 1907, and filed its petition, in which it is substantially averred : That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took possession pf the property of the University of Nashville, of Nashville, Tenn., con- sisting of very large, extensive, and expensive buildings, one building being of stone, two stories in height, 150 feet long by 50 feet wide; another building of brick, 150 feet long by 50 feet wide, having three stories and about 65 rooms; another of brick, about 100 feet by 30 feet in size, of two stories, and 20 acres of highly improved ground, and occupied the same, as shown by records of the institution, February 12, 1862, and continuously from that time until September 11, 1865, for military purposes, when said property, except one of said buildings, was vacated; that General Thomas's division of the Army encamped on said grounds and adjoining grounds in Septem- ber, 1862, and the grounds were used for drill purposes extensively; that, resulting from said occupation, the property was very greatly injured, trees cut down, fences destroyed, etc. ; that the reasonable rental value of said property during such occu- pation, in building the repairs necessary to restore the said property to the same condition in which it was before such occupation, was the sum of §15,000, for which no payment has been made; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 19th day of February , 1908. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George E. Boren, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence adduced by the claimant, none being adduced by the defendants, and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT. I. The University of Nashville, of Nashville, Tenn., as an organization, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period, from about February 12, 1862, to about September 11, 1865, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, occupied and used the buildings and grounds of the claimant institution, and.damaged the same. The reasonable rental value, together with the damages occasioned by said occupation in addition to ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of seven thousand and three hundred dollars ($7,300), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate as hereinbefore set forth in the statement of the case, and no satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the claim was not earlier presented. Note. — Howry, J., not being present on account of illness, took no part in the mak- ing up of these findings. By the Court. Filed February 25, 1908. A true copy. Test this 26th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 230 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. A. A. WADE, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10072. A. A. Wade, administrator S. L. Carpenter deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled cause, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by resolu- tion of the United States Senate on the 21st day of February, 1900, under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 1st day of December, 1902. Gilbert Moyers, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. W. Collins, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Fayette County, State of Ten- nessee, where decedent resided during the late war of the rebellion; that at different times during said period the United States forces, by proper authority, took from said decedent quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of $852 and appro- priated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows: 7,000 pounds fodder, at $1 per hundredweight $70 2 mules, at $200 each 400 700 pounds fodder, at $1 per hundredweight, taken March, 1864 ! 7 1 mule, taken June 4, 1864. 200 1 saddle 10 4 blind bridles, at $2 each 8 700 pounds fodder, at $1 per hundredweight 7 150 bushels corn, at $1 : 150 Total 852 The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments o^ counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent was loyal to the Gov- ernment of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. There were taken from the claimant's decedent, in Fayette County, State of Tennessee, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, stores and supplies of the kind and character above described, which were reasonably worth at the time and place of taking the sum of four hundred and sixty-eight dollars ($468), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. The evidence shows that the claim was presented to the Quartermaster-General, but the petition being unsigned, the same was not considered. Subsequently it was again presented to the Quartermaster-General, but as the time limited for the filing of claims before that officer had expired, the claim was barred. No evidence has been offered by the claimant under the act of March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. L. , 505), "bearing upon the question whether there has been delay or laches in presenting such claim or apply- ing for such grant, gift, or bounty, and any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy." By the Court. Filed January 5, 1903. A true copy. Test this 13th day of January, 1903. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 231 MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH, ANTIOCH, TENN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13140. Tie Missionary Baptist Church, of Antioch, Term., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, ]907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: " [S. 8506, Fifty-ninth Congress, .second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the Missionary Baptist Church, of Antioch, Davidson Canity, Tennessee. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representative* of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- priated, to the trustees of the Missionary Baptist Church, of Antioch, Davidson County, Tennessee, the sum of six hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to the property of said church by United States military forces during the civil war." The trustees of said church appeared in this court March 23, 1907, and filed their petition in which it is substantially averred: That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took possession of the property of the Missionary Baptist Church, of Antioch, Tenn., con- sisting of a well-constructed brick building, about 60 by 40 feet in size, with base- ment, and occupied the same as quarters, and the seats, floor, and windows were greatly injured and the property generally greatly damaged as a result of said occu- pation. A claim for $600 as damages was filed in the Quartermaster-General's office about 1867, but no payment or allowance was ever made; that the reasonable rental value of said property during such occupation, including the repairs necessary to restore said property to the same condition as before such occupation, was the sum of $600, for which no payment has been made; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. The case was brought to a hearing on lovalty and merits on the 25th day of Feb- ruary, 1908. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by William H. Lamar, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Missionary Baptist Church, of Antioch, Davidson County, Tenn., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper author- ity, took possession of the church described in the petition and occupied the same at intervals from the spring of 1862 until the close of the war as quarters, and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value of said building, together with the damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of six hundred dollars ($600), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The foregoing claim was presented to the Quartermaster-General August 31, 1867, and was rejected on the ground that the majority of the congregation was not loyai. The claim was thereafter presented to the Fifty-ninth Congress and referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore set forth in the statement of this case. No satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the claim was not earlier pre- sented to Congress. By the Court. Filed February 25, 1908. A true copy. Test this 10th day of March, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 232 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. TEXAS. MARY A. SHAW. [Court of Claims. No. 10921 Congressional. Mary A. Shaw v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court on the 27th day of June, 1902, by reso- lution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : t " [S. 5322, Fifty-seventh Congress first session.] "A BILL For the relief of Mary A. Shaw. ' ' Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay to Mary A. Shaw, of Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of one thou- sand four hundred dollars, for property and supplies taken and used by Federal troops during the war of the rebellion." The claimant appeared and filed her petition in this court on the 6th day of August, 1902, in which she makes the following allegations: That she is a citizen of the United States, residing in Coipus Christi, Nueces County, State of Texas; that during the latter part of the year 1863 or the early part of the year 1864 a detachment of the United States Army under command of Capt. H. B. Doolittle, of the Twentieth Iowa Infantry Volunteers, took possession of her frame dwelling and tore down and carried away the materials therein, which materials were worth the sum of §1,400. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 1st day of March, 1904. Wm. R. Andrews, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Geo. H. Walker, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that Mary A. Shaw was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the claimant's dwelling in Corpus Christi, Nueces County, State of Texas, and tore down and used the materials therein, which at the time and place of taking were reasonably worth the sum of seven hundred dollars ($700). III. It does not appear from the evidence that the claim was presented to any department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the act aforesaid. It, however, appears that the claimant is a woman of very limited education, not possessing sufficient knowledge of business affairs to conduct a correspondence to protect her interests, and that within a few years after the passage of the act of March 3, 1887, she first learned that there was a possibility of securing compensation for the taking of her property; that in 1894 all the papers were sent to Hon. William H. Grain, the member of Congress from Texas, who acknowl- edged receipt of same January 19, 1895, and who later turned them over to Mr. Phillip B. Thompson. Since that time no trace of the papers can be had. By the Court. Filed March 14, 1904. A true copy. Test this 22d day of March, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 233 VIRGINIA. * HEIRS OF LEMUEL J. BOWDEN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11134. Rosa M. Bowden, Zenobia Porter, Mary E. Bowden, and Mary Bowden Gustin, heirs of Lemuel J. Bowden, deceased, v. The United States.] FINDING OP LOYALTY. I. It appears from the evidences' that Lemuel J. Bowden, deceased, was loyal to the Government of the United States thi'oughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. [seal.] By the Court. Filed May 16, 1904. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11884. Rosa M. Bowden, Zenobia Porter, Mary E. Bowden, and Martha Bowden Gustin, heirs of Lemuel J. Bowden, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred, to the court on the 3d day of March, 1905, by resolu- tion of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "|[S. 7119. Fifty-eighth Congress, third session.] "A BILL For the relief of the heirs of Lemuel J. Bowden, deceased. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay to the heirs of the late Senator Lemuel J. Bowden, of Virginia, the sum of five thousand dollars for the use and occupation of two dwelling houses belonging to the decedent, in the city of Williamsburg, Virginia, and the damage done to the grounds, fruit trees, shrubbery, and so forth, attached thereto, by the United States Army, during the war of eighteen hundred and sixty-one and eighteen hundred and s^xty-five." The claimants appeared and filed their petition in this court March 23, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: That they are the only heirs of Lemuel J. Bowden, deceased, who died in the city of Washington, D. C. , on the 2d day of January, 1864, while serving as a Senator from the State of Virginia in the Senate of the United States. That the said Lemuel J. Bowden was at all times loyal to the United States throughout the civil war. That the said decedent was in his lifetime the owner of two valuable dwelling houses in the city of Williamsburg, Va., which, after the said city came into the possession of the Union forces in the year 1862, were used and occu- pied by the said Union forces until after the termination of the war, during which time they were much abused and injured, together with the fruit trees, grounds, and shrubbery attached thereto. That your petitioners aver, to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief, that the sum of $5,000 would be a reasonable compensation for the said use and occupation and the damages sustained. The case was brought to a hearing on the 15th of May, 1905. John Goode, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants' decedent was found loyal in May, 1904, in case No. 11134. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following gfjj FINDINGS OF FACT. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, used and occupied two dwelling houses belonging to the decedent, in the city of Williamsburg, State of Virginia, and damaged the grounds, fruit trees, shrubbery, and the premises generally. Said use 234 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN" CLAIMS. and occupation and damage beirfg reasonably worth at the time the sum of three thousand five hundred and forty dollars ($3,540), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed December 4, 1905. A true copy. Test this 5th day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. HEIRSfOF LEWIS ELLISON. [Court of Claims. No. 11119, Congressional. Lews Ellison and Helen Louise Craflord, heirs of Lewis Ellison, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF THE CASE. The above-entitled cause was referred to this court under the provisions of the act of March 3,1887, section 14, by resolution of the Senate referring the following bill (S. 4081, 57th Cong., 1st sess.) to the court: "A BILL For the relief of Louis Ellison. "Beit enacted in the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay to Louis Ellison sixteen thousand two hundred and seventy- five dollars, for property taken from Louis Ellison, deceased, by the United States troops during the war between the States." The heirs of Louis Ellison aver, and in their petition make, the following allegations: I. That Lewis Ellison and Helen Crafford are the heirs of Lewis Ellison, deceased, and that said decedent was, during the late war, a resident of the State of Virginia, and did not give any aid or comfort to the said rebellion, but was, throughout the war, loyal to the Government of the United States. II. That the following property belonging to Lewis Ellison was taken from him by the United States Army and used by the said Army, the date, place, and command being particularly stated below: In James City, in the State of Virginia, on or about the years 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, the United States Army took the following property: Frame dwelling house 20 by 18 feet, 1J stories high, used for lumber $1, 500 Stores and wharf house 1J stories high, 20 bv 18 feet 1, 200 Warehouse, 24 by 16 feet 800 Frame dwelling, 32 by 16 feet 1, 600 Stable, crib, corn house 500 150 panels of fence 150 1,500 cords pine wood 6, 000 4 young mules 800 3 young horses 525 1 wagon 100 1 portable steam sawm . 2, 500 Log wagon 200 Log carrier 100 4-horse omnibus 300 Total 16, 275 III. That a claim for said property was presented to the Fifty-seventh Congress, the items of said claim being as heretofore stated. IV. That the said claim has been presented to the Fifty-seventh Congress and was by the Senate resolution of the said Fifty-seventh Congress referred to the Committee on Claims of said Senate by which committee it was on the day of March, 1903, referred to this court for a finding of the facts in accordance with section 1 of an act approved March 3, 1887, entitled "An act to provide for the bringing of suits against the Government of the United States." V. That no other action than as aforesaid has been had on this claim in Congress or by any of the Departments; that the claimant is the sole owner of the claim and the only person interested therein; that no assignment or transfer of this claim, or any part thereof or interest therein, has been made; that the claimant is justly entitled to the ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 235 amount herein claimed from the United States after allowing all just credits and offsets; that the claimant is a citizen of the United States. And the claimant believes the facts stated in this petition to be true. • The case was brought to a hearing on the subject of loyalty, and the court on the 26th day of March, 1906, found that Louis Ellison, deceased, the person alleged to have furnished stores and supplies or from whom same are alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the said war. The case was brought to a hearing on the merits on the 17th day of January, 1907, the claimant appearing by George A. and William B. King, his attorneys, and the United States by Hon. J. A. Van Orsdel, Assistant Attorney-General, by his assistant, Special Attorney Malcolm A. Coles. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. There was taken from the claimants' decedent in James City, Va., during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of five thousand one hundred and twenty dollars ($5,120), no part of which appears to have been paid. II. The foregoing claim was never presented to any department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore stated, and the reason given by the claimants for not doing so is that their decedent was declared a bankrupt in 1869; that he had 19 persons dependent upon him; that he made an effort to collect the claim, but did not have sufficient money to carry it through. By the Court. Filed January 21, 1907. A true copy. Test this 23d day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SAMUEL FITZHUGH. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11583. Samuel Fitzhugh, administrator of estate of Henry Fitzhugh, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This claim was originally presented by claimant's decedent to the Southern Claims Commission under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1871, and was by said Commission rejected. It was subsequently referred to this court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1883, and commonly known as the Bowman Act. The case was tried under said reference, claimant's decedent was found to have been loyal throughout the late civil war, and findings of fact were filed in the sum of $19,975. It was stated in said findings, however, that no allowance was made for tobacco, as it did not appear that it was used by the United States, and that no allow- ance was made for rent or damages, those items not being within the jurisdiction of the court under said reference. On April 26, 1904, Senate Bill No. 1840, Fifty-eighth Congress, for relief of estate of Henry Fitzhugh, was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, for findings of fact under the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. Said bill reads as follows: "A BILL For relief of the estate of Henry Fitzhugh, deceased. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the United States Treasury not other- wise appropriated, to the estate of Henry Fitzhugh, deceased, late of Spottsylvania County, Virginia, the sum of thirteen thousand two hundred and fifty dollars, in full compensation for the use, occupation, and damage to property and for tobacco taken and used by the Federal forces during the late war of the rebellion." The case was brought to a hearing upon lovalty and merits on the 8th day of Jan- uary, 1906. 236 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Stafford County, Va., and that he is the duly appointed administrator of the estate of Henry Fitzhugh, who, during the war, resided in said county and State; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took possession of claimant's dwelling house and farm in the county of Stafford, State of Virginia, and used and occupied the same for hospital and camping purposes; that said occupation of said dwelling continued for a period of three months; that the reasonable rental value of said premises at that time was $100 per month; that the occupation of said farm con- tinued for the period of one year; that the reasonable rental value thereof for said period was $4,500; that the damage incident to such occupation was not less than $1,000; that the United States military forces also took from said decedent 15,000 pounds of tobacco, reasonably worth, at the time and place of taking, 15 cents per pound. That this claim is now stated as follows: Occupation of dwelling for hospital purposes, three months, at $100 per month . . $300 Occupation of farm for one year for camping purposes 4, 500 Damage to real estate incident to said occupation 1, 000 15,000 pounds of tobacco, at 15 cents per pound 2, 250 Total 1 8, 050 That this claim was presented by said decedent to the Southern Claims Commis- sion and was by said commission rejected; that it was referred to this honorable court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives for findings of fact in accordance with the Bowman Act; that said case was docketed in this court as case No. 1201, Congressional; that loyalty was found, and thereafter findings of facts were filed in the sum of $19,975 for stores and supplies, it being expressly stated by the court in said findings that no allowance was made for tobacco nor for rent or damage, these items not being within the jurisdiction of the court under said reference. The court, upon the evidence, and after consideiing the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. Under the former reference of this case under the act of March 3, 1883, known as the Bowman Act, the court, on a preliminary inquiry, found, on November 21, 1892, that the claimant's decedent, Henry Fitzhugh, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the said war, and no evidence has been introduced under the reference of this case under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act, to change the conclusion of the court then reached. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, to wit, on or about Decern ber, 1862, at the time the first battle of Fredericksburg was fought, the military forces of the United States engaged therein were in part camped on the farm of the claimant's decedent, situated in Stafford County, Va., consisting of 600 or 700 acres of land, and the dwelling house on said farm was used as a hospital for the wounded Union soldiers about three months, and some of the outbuildings and slaves' quarters were torn down and used by the troops at the time of the engagement for fuel and cooking purposes. A portion of the Army was likewise camped on the farm of claimants' decedent and in the vicinity thereof at the time of the second battle of Fredericksburg, at which time other outbuildings and slaves' quarters were torn down and used for fuel and cooking purposes. A portion of said farm was occupied by the military forces of the United States for camping purposes at the times of both battles of Fredericks- burg and subsequently at different times, amounting in all to about six months' con- tinuous occupation of different portions of said farm. The reasonable value for the use of the dwelling house for hospital purposes and for damage to and destruction of the property during the engagements as aforesaid was $1,800, for which no payment appears to have been made. III. Also during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, at or about the time of the first and second battles of Fredericksburg, in said Stafford County, Va., various soldiers belonging to the military forces of the United States took for their individual use and purposes, while officers were present, about 15,000 pounds of tobacco in the leaf, a portion of which had been pressed and put into hogsheads, while some was in the tobacco press at the time. A portion was taken away in wagons. h^ ^j ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 237 The reasonable value of the tobacco in the condition in which it was at the time and place was $1,500, for which no payment appears to have been made. IV. Laches. — The claims hereinbefore set forth were presented by the claimant's decedent, together with other claims for quartermaster and commissary stores, to the Southern Claims Commission, then amounting in the aggregate to $75,965. The claim was rejected by that tribunal on the ground of the want of proof of the claimant's loy- alty. The claim was afterwards referred to the Court of Claims by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on or about August, 1886, under' the pro- visions of the act of March 3, 1883, and was docketed in the court as No. 1201, Con- gressional. Under that reference the court, on November 1, 1892, found the claimant to have been loyal, and in January, 1894, the court made and reported to Congress its findings of fact in the case, wherein there was allowed to the claimant the sum of $19,975; but no allowance was made for the items of tobacco, nor for rent and dam- ages to the farm, and in respect to the item of tobacco it was recited in said findings of fact that "No allowance is made in said amount for tobacco, as it does not appear that it was used by the United States. No allowance is made for rent or damages as claimed in said petition, those items not being within the jurisdiction of the court." Thereafter, on April 26, 1906, the claim for rent and damage aforesaid, as well as for the tobacco, was referred to the court by resolution of the Senate, under the pro- visions of the act of March 3, 1887, commonly known as the Tucker Act. By the Court. Filed November 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 1st day of December, 1906. [seal ] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ROBERT G. GRIFFIN AND OTHERS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11140. Robert G. Griffin, Catharine H. Harris, and Isaac P. Cromwell, administrators of the estate of Hannah T. Cromwell, deceased, sole heirs of the estate of Robert Anderson, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The following bill was referred to the court on the 2d day of March, 1903, by resolu- tion of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL for the relief of Robert G. Griffin, Catharine H. Harris, and Isaac P. Cromwell, administra- tors of Hannah T. Cromwell, deceased. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Robert G. Griffin, Catharine H. Harris, and Isaac P. Cromwell, administrators of the estate of Hannah T. Cromwell, deceased, the sum of sixty-one thousand six hundred and eighteen dollars, for the use and occupation of buildings and for stores and sup- plies taken for the use of the Army by the military authorities of the United States during the late war of the rebellion. ' ' The claimants appeared and filed their petition in this court April 24, 1903, in which they make the following allegations: That they have a claim against the United States for property taken, used, and occupied by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, at Yorktown, in the county of York, and State of Virginia, as follows - For one house, known as " Swan Tavern " $3, 000 For one house, known as " Belven House" 1, 000 For use and occupancy of three houses and wharf from May, 1862, to June, 1865 . 5, 000 1,317 acres of timber, 40 cords per acre, 52,680 cords of wood, at $1 per cord 52, 680 Total 61, 680 (TakenfbyiGenerals^Keyes, Wistar, and others.) The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 4th day of May, 1904. G. W. Z. Black appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. Ashford, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- tion of the interests of the United States. 238 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimants herein, Robert G. Griffin, Catharine H. Harris, and Hannah T. Cromwell, deceased, negroes and minors, were loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, used and occupied the claimants' buildings, situ- ate in the county of York, State of Virginia, for a period of about two years, during which time said real estate was not at the seat of war. The reasonable value of said use and occupation during said period was the sum of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500). Said military forces also took for the use of the Army from the claimants' premises, and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, timber of the kind and character above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of sixteen thousand nine hundred and seventy-five dollars ($16,975), or in all the sum of eighteen thousand four hundred and seventy-five dollars ($18,475), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim for the use and occupation of real estate was presented to the Com- missioners of Claims, but as that tribunal did not have jurisdiction no further action was taken thereon with reference thereto. In 1888 the claim was placed in the hands of an attorney of Richmond for the purpose of having the same referred to the Court of Claims; and on March 2, 1903, the claim was referred to the court by resolution of the United States Senate under the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore set forth in the statement. No further action appears to have been taken by the parties looking to the prosecution of their claim, and the same not having been presented to any department of the Government except as above stated is barred. By the Court. Filed May 16, 1904. A true copy. Test this 27th day of April, 1906. [seal.] „ John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MAKEMIE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, DRUMMONDTOWN, VA. [Court of Claims. Term 1906 and 1907. Congressional, No. 11030. Makemie Presbyterian Church, of Drummondtown, Va., v. The United States.] statement of' case. The following bill was introduced in Congress: "[S. 1532, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session!] "A BILL For the relief of Makemie Presbyterian Church. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Makemie Presbyterian Church, at Accomac Court- House, Accomac County, Virginia, four hundred dollars, the same being in full for, and the receipt of the same to be taken and accepted in full and final discharge of, its claim for the occupancy of and damage to the church building by the military forces of the United States during the late war between the States, and for which no payment has been made." That by resolution of the Senate of the Fifty-seventh Congress, first session, on the 31st day of March, 1903, the claim was referred to this court for a finding of. the facts in accordance with the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, entitled "An act to provide for the bringing of suits against the Government of the United States." The plaintiff in its petition makes the following allegations: That the church build- ing was occupied some time in 1861 until the close of the war by United States troops as follows: Company A, Purnell's legion, Maryland Cavalry; a troop of Delaware Cavalry; a troop of Pennsylvania Cavalry, commanded by Captain Skelly,. and a part of a negro regiment, and that while so occupied by said military forces, all the interior fittings and part of the walls were removed and used for the benefit of the United States, and that in consequence of the destruction of the pews and windows and damage to the walls by said, military forces, the building was not again occupied as a ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIjST CLAIMS. 239 place of worship until 1869. That the value of the occupation of said building by the troops and the amount of damage to the building was as follows: Damage to church and interior fittings $770 Use and occupation for four years, at $150 per year A 600 Total... .• 1, 370 That no claim was ever presented to the United States for the use, occupation, and damage to the said church property except as hereinbefore stated, but the church edifice was partly repaired by the claimant and used as a place of worship some time in 1869. The case was brought to a hearing on the 6th day of May, 1907, George A. & William B. King appearing for the claimant, and Malcolm A. Coles, esq., assistant to the Assistant Attorney-General, and by his direction appearing for the defense and pro- tection of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Makemie Presbyterian Church, Of Drummondtown, Va., as an organization was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States by proper authority took possession of the church property described in the petition and used the same at various times for general military quarters and damaged the same. The reasonable value of said use and occupation, together with damages in excess of the ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of four hundred dollars ($400). III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given therefor. By the Court. Filed May 13, 1907. A true copy. Test this 29th day of November, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, MIDDLETOWN, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11686. Trustees of Methodist Episcopal Church of Middle- town. Va., v. The United States.] By resolution of the United States Senate, on April 27, 1904, the following bill was referred to this court for findings of fact in accordance with the provisions of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act, to wit: "[S. 3059. Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Middletown, Frederick County, Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any moneys in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the 'Methodist Episcopal Church of Middle- town, Frederick County, Virginia, the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, in full compensation for use, occupation, and destruction of property by the Federal forces during the late civil war. " The case was brought to a hearing upon loyalty and merits on the 23d day of October, 1905. Movers and Consul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Mal- colm A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make the following allegations: That they are citizens of the United States, and residents of the county of Freder- ick, State of Virginia; that they are the duly elected and acting trustees of the Meth- odist Episcopal Church of Middletown, Frederick County, Va.; that during the late civil war said church was the owner of certain land at Middletown, Va., upon which was situated the house of worship used by said church organization; that during said war the United States military forces, acting under proper authority, took possession 240 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. of said building and used the same as a hospital and later as a commissary depot; that by such use and occupation said building was greatly damaged and injured, and that to repair said building and restore it to its condition at the time said forces took pos- session thereof, actually cost said church not less than $1,500. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church of Middletown, Virginia, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Middletown, Virginia, and used and occupied the same as a hospital, and later as a commissary depot, and damaged the same. Such use and occupation, including damages incident thereto, were reasonably worth the sum of eight hundred and fifty-one dollars ($851). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed October 30, 1905. A true copy. Test this 16th day of February, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. WALTER M. MILLER, ADMINISTRATOR OF LEWIS M. MILLER. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11900. Walter M. Miller, administrator, Lews M. Miller, de- ceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for cord wood and rails alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States during the late civil war. The claim was first referred to this court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives, under the act of March 3, 1883, and on January 18, 1904, was dismissed by the court for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, on March 3, 1905, the United States Senate, by resolution, referred to the court, under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act, a bill in the following words: ' ' [58th Congress, 3d session, S. 5932.] "A BILL For the relief of the estate of Lewis M. Miller, deceased. ' ' Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Lewis M. Miller, deceased, late of Frederick County, Virginia, the sum of seven thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars, for stores and supplies taken by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war. ' ' The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court on the 28th day of April, 1906, in which it is substantially averred: That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in Frederick County, State of Virginia, where his decedent resided during the late civil war; That there was taken from his said decedent by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, at different times during the late civil war, and appro- priated to the use of the Army, property of the kind and value, as follows: 4,500 cords of wood, at $1.50 $6, 750 30,000 rails (333| cords), at $3 1, 000 Total 7, 750 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 241 Taken during the winter of 1864-65 by the Eighth, Fifteenth, and Twenty-second New York Cavalry, and the First Vermont Cavalry. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 22d day of April, 1907. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Percy M. Cox, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimant's decedent, Lewis M. Miller, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war, II. During said war there was taken from the claimant's decedent in Frederick County, State of Virginia, by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, wood as above described, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of twenty-two hundred and forty dollars ($2,240), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was presented by the decedent to the Southern Claims Com- mission in 1871, but it appears that he failed to take testimony and close the same before the claim was barred in 1879. The claim was subsequently referred to this court under the act of March 3, 1883, and was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Thereafter, as hereinbefore stated, the claim was referred to the court by resolution of the United States Senate under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker act. By the Court. Filed April 29, 1907. A true copy. Test this 18th day of November, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF MARSHALL, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11788. Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Marshall, Va. ( v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution of the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Marshall, Virginia. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Marshall, Fauquier County. Virignia, the sum of three hundred dollars, for the use and destruction of their church property by the Union Army during the war between the States." The trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Marshall, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court September 5, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about April 7, 1862, the military forces of the United States, under command of General Blenker, took possession of the church building of the Presbyterian Church at Marshall, Va., and occupied the same for quarters. That the cost to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession was the sum of $3,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of February, 1906. G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the de- fense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Presbyterian Church of Marshall, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war of the rebellion. ■ S. Rep. 382, 60-1 16 242 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, on or about April, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Presbyterian Church at Marshall, Va., and occupied the same for mili- tary purposes. The reasonable rental value of said church building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the con- dition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession of the same, was the sum of three hundred dollars ($300), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. The claim was never presented to any Department or officer of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed March 12, 1906. A true copy. Test tnis 20th day of March, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ST. GEORGE EPISCOPAL CHURCH, PUNGOTEAGUE, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11070. St. George Protestant Episcopal Church of Pungoteague, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the Court of Claims on the 31st of March, 1903, by resolution of the United States Senate under the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. j"A BILL for the relief of Saint George's Episcopal Church of Pungoteague, Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Saint George's Episcopal Church, of Pungoteague, Virginia, five thou- sand dollars, the same being in full for, and the receipt of the same to be taken and accepted in full and final discharge of, its claim for the occupancy of and damage to the church building by the military forces of the United States during the late war between the States, and for which no payment has been made." The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 7th day of May, 1906. George A. and William B. King, esqs., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in its petition makes the following allegations: That St. George Protestant Episcopal Church, of Pungoteague, Va., is an ecclesi- astical corporation existing under the laws of the State of Virginia, and that during the war of the rebellion the said corporation as such did not give any aid or comfort to the said rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United States. That in November, 1861, the St. George Protestant Episcopal Church, of Pungo- teague, Accomac County, Va., which was owned by and was the property of the claim- ant, was occupied by troops under the command of Brig. Gen. Henry H. Lockwood, U. S. Army, to wit, a company of infantry under command of Major Anderson, and Company A, Purcell's Legion, Maryland Cavalry, under command of Captain Duvall. That said church was occupied by the United States troops until the close of the war, and that while so occupied by the military forces of the United States all the interior fittings of the church and a part of the walls were removed and used for the benefit of the United States. That the value of the occupation of said church building by the troops and the amount of damage to the building amounted to $5,000. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the St. George Episcopal Church, of Pungo- teague, Va., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and used and occupied for mili- ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 243 tary purposes the church building of the St. George Episcopal Church, of Pungoteague, Va. During said occupancy the interior fittings and the walls of the church were removed and the material therein used for the Army, the reasonable value of the occu- pation of the said church building and the amount of the damage thereto being the sum of two thousand eight hundred dollars (§2,800), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed May 14, 1906. A true copy. Test this 31st day of May, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOSHUA SHERWOOD, HEIR OF LEWIS A. SHERWOOD. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11553. Joshua Sherwood, heir of Lewis A. Sherwood, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled cause is for stores and supplies alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States for their use during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. The claim was first referred to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives, under the act of March 3, 1883. The case was on October 31, 1901, dismissed by the court for nonprosecution. Thereafter, on April 26, 1904, the United States Senate, by resolution, referred to the court, under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act, a bill in the following words: "[S. 1703, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of Joshua Sherwood and Elizabeth Gray. ' 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay to Joshua Sherwood and Elizabeth Gray the sum of one thousand four hundred dollars for property taken from Lewis A. and Ellen Sherwood by the United States Army during the late war." The claimant appeared in this court and filed his petition, in which he makes the following allegations: I. That he is one of the heirs of Lewis A. and Ellen Sherwood, deceased; that said decedent was, during the late war, a resident of the State of Virginia, and did not give any aid or comfort to the said rebellion, but was throughout that war loyal to the Government of the United States. II. That the following property belonging to Lewis A. and Ellen Sherwood was taken from them by the United States Army and used by the said Army, the date, place, and command being particularly stated below: In Alexandria County, in the State of Virginia, on or about the day of years 1862, 1863, and 1864, by the United States troops, to wit, Twenty-ninth New York Volunteers, General Blanchard and General Sickler, brigades of Garibaldi soldiers, viz: 2 horses, at $125 $250 2 cows, at $35 70 300 panels post and rail fence, at $1 per panel 300 7 tons of hay, at $30 per ton 210 100 bushels of potatoes, at $1.50 per bushel 150 5 hogs, 150 pounds each, at 11 cents per pound 75 50 bushels of onions, at $1.50 per bushel 75 75 bushels of turnips, at 50 cents per bushel 35 50 chickens, at $6 per dozen 24 1,000 feet lumber, at 1\ cents per foot 25 2,000 cabbages, at 10 cents each 200 2 acres of corn, at $30 per acre 60 3 cords of wood, at $4 per cord 12 Total < 1,486 III. That a claim for said property was presented to Congress October 1, 1877, the items of said claim being as heretofore stated. 244 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. IV. That the said claim has been presented to the Fifty-eighth and previous Con- gresses and was. by resolution of the Senate of the said Fifty-eighth Congress, on the 26th day of April, 1904, referred to this court for a finding of the facts, in accordance with section 1 of an act approved March 3, 1887, entitled "An act to provide for the bringing of suits against the United States Government." The case was brought to a preliminary hearing on the question of loyalty, and on the 26th day of March, 1906, the claimant was found loyal. The case was brought to a hearing on the merits on the 7th day of February, 1907. George A. & William B. King appearing on behalf of the claimant and J. A. Van Orsdel, Assistant Attorney-General, by his assistant, F. De C. Faust, appearing for the defense and protection of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. The claimant's decedent, Lewis A. Sherwood, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period there was taken from claimant's decedent in Alexandria. County, State of Virginia, by the military forces of the United States, by proper author- ity, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character described in the petition, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of four hundred dollars ($400), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The within claim was never presented to any department of the Government Srior to its presentation to Congress and first reference to this court under the act of [arch 3, 1883, and no reason is given by the claimant why such was not done, except that it is contended by claimant that his deceased father was in bad health after the second year of the war and hardly ever left home, and that his mother after the death of his father knew nothing regarding the filing of such claims before the Southern Claims Commission. By the Court. - Filed April 1, 1907. A true copy. Test this 29th day of November, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant' Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF BAPTIST CHURCH, WATERFORD, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11669. Trustees of the Baptist Church, of Waterford, Va., i>» The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the- Tucker Act: ' ' A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Waterford Baptist Church, of Waterford, Loudoun County,. Virginia. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Treasurer of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise- appropriated, to the trustees of the Waterford Baptist Church, at Waterford, Loudoun County, Virginia, the sum of one thousand dollars, in full for damages done said church building by the Army of the United States during the late war." The trustees of the Baptist Church, of Waterford, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court November 2, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about May, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession. of the church building of the Baptist Church of Waterford, Va., and used and occu- pied the same at various times from said date until the close of the war for hospital and other purposes. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces first took possession, was the sum of $1,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 21st day of January,. 1907. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 245 G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by T. W. Collins, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. The Baptist Church of Waterford, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States took possession of the church building belonging to the Baptist Church of Waterford, Va., in 1862, and used the same at various times for short periods for hospital purposes. The reasonable rental value thereof for the time of such occupa- tion, together with the damage done to the property in excess of the ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of five hundred and twenty-five dollars ($525.00), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is shown why such was not done. By the Court. Filed January 28, 1907. A true copy. Test this 30th day of January, 1907. Tseal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES BAPTIST CHURCH, WILLIAMSBURG, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11714. Trustees of the Baptist Church of Williamsburg, Va., v . The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL for the relief of the Baptist Church at Williamsburg, Virginia. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and required, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to pay to the trustees of the Baptist Church of Williamsburg, Virginia, or their suc- cessors in office, in trust'for the use and benefit of the Baptist Church of Williamsburg, Virginia, the sum of two thousand dollars, for use, occupation, and damage of the church building while used by the United States Army during the civil war: Pro- vided, That the said sum be accepted in full payment of all claims against the United States down to the date of the passage of this act by the trustees or any other party claiming for or in behalf of the said Baptist Church of Williamsburg, Virginia." The trustees of the Baptist Church, of Williamsburg, Va. , appeared and filed their petition in this court July 25, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the 6th day of May, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Baptist Church, of Williamsburg, Va., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes until the close of the war. That by reason of such occupancy extensive repairs were necessary, and the reason- able rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when said military forces first took possession of the same, was the sum of $2,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 11th day of Decem- ber, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-Gen- eral, by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 246 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Baptist Church, of Williamsburg, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and occupied for military pur- poses the church building belonging to the Baptist Church, of Williamsburg, Va. The reasonable rental value of said building, together with the repairs incident to such occupation, was the sum of one thousand five hundred and forty dollars ($1,540), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed December 18, 1906. A true copy. Test this 16th day of January, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES BEREA BAPTIST CHURCH, STAFFORD COUNTY, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11659. Trustees of Berea Baptist Church, of Stafford County, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: * [S. 2763, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] "A BILL for the relief of the trustees of Berea Baptist Church, of Stafford County, Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay to the trustees of Berea Baptist Church, of Stafford County, Virginia, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of six hundred dollars, for use of, damage, and final destruction of their church prop- erty by the military forces of the United States during the late war." The trustees of Berea Baptist Church, of Stafford County, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court February 8, 1905, in which they make the following alle- gations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about April, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of Berea Baptist Church, of Stafford County, Va., and used and occupied the same for military purposes from said date at various times until the close of the war. That by reason of such use and occupation repairs were neces- sary, and it cost the sum of $1,250 to restore the building to the same condition in which it was when said military forces of the United States first took possession of the same, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 1st day of May, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Berea Baptist Church, of Stafford County, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of and used at various times and damaged the church building belonging to the Berea Bap- ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 247 tist Church, of Stafford County, Va. Such use and occupation and of damage to said property was then and there reasonably worth the sum of six hundred dollars ($600). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed May 15, 1905. A true copy. Test this 2d day of June, 1905. [seal.] . John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF CALVARY EPISCOPAL CHURCH, DINWIDDIE COURT- HOUSE, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11032. Trustees of the] Calvary Episcopal Church, of Dinwiddle Court House, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT. The following bill was referred to the Court of Claims for findings of fact in accord- ance with section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, entitled "An act to provide for the bringing of suits against the United States, " to wit: "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Episcopal Church at Dinwiddie Court House, Dinwiddie Virginia. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- ated, to the trustees of the Episcopal Church, of Dinwiddie Court House, Dinwiddie County, Virginia, the sum of one thousand dollars, in full for damage done said church by the United States troops during the late war. " The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations: The claimants, A. M. Orgain, S. Y. Gilliam, and W. M. Sterne, respectfully repre- sent: I. That they are duly appointed and constituted trustees of Calvary Episcopal Church of Dinwiddie Court House, Va., as will appear from the annexed certificate; that said church was, during the late war, located, as at present, at Dinwiddie Court House, in the State of Virginia. II. That the following property, belonging to said Calvary Episcopal Church, was taken from it by the United States Army and used by the said army, the date, place, and command be'ing particularly stated below: In Dinwiddie County, in the State of Virginia, on or about the 1st day of April, 1865, by the First Maine Cavalry, the church edifice, which was used as a Federal hospital, and its interior fittings, which were damaged and destroyed; that the use of said edifice and the damage done thereto amounted, at a reasonable and just figure, to $1,000. III. That a claim for said property was not presented other than by petition to Congress hereinafter referred to. IV. That the said claim has been presented to Congress, and was by resolution of the Senate of the said Congress referred to this court for a finding of the facts in accordance with section 14 of an act approved March 3, 1887, entitled "An act to provide for the bringing of suits against the Government of the United States. " The case was brought to hearing on the 14th day of January, 1907. Messrs. George A. and William B. King, appearing on behalf of the claimant, and Hon. J. A. Van Orsdel, assistant Attorney-General, by his assistant, Mr. George M. Anderson, special attorney, appearing on behalf of the defense. The court, after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. Throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion the Calvary Episcopal Church of Dinwiddie Court House, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States. II. During said war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of and occupied the building belonging to the claimant for hospital purposes. The reasonable rental value of said church building, together with damages incident to such occupation, beyond ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of five hundred and twenty dollars ($520), no part of which appears to have been paid. 248 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. III. This claim was never presented to any Department or officer of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed January 21, 1907. A true copy. Test this 23d day of January, 1907. [seal.] . John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF CALVARY PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, CULPEPER COUNTY, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11664. Trustees Calvary Protestant Episcopal Church, of Culpeper County, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: " [S. 2768, Fifty-eighth Congress,' second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Calvary Protestant Episcopal Church. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars to the trustees of Calvary Protestant Episcopal Church, of Culpeper County, Virginia, near Mitchells Station, for use, occupation, and final destruction of said church by the Federal troops during the late war." The trustees of Calvary Protestant Episcopal Church, of Culpeper County, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court August 11, 1904, in which they make the following allegations: That oh or about the month of November, 1863, the military forces of the United States, under command of General Meade, took possession of the church building of Calvary Protestant Episcopal Church, situated near Mitchell, Culpeper County, in the State of Virginia, and removed the said building, appropriating all of the mate- rials therein to the use of the Army. That said building at the time of its removal by the Federal authorities was reasonably worth the sum of $2,500. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 27th day of March, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argumentsjof counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Calvary Protestant Episcopal Church, of Culpeper County, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the' military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the church building of Calvary Protestant Episcopal Church, of Culpeper County, Va., in the fall of 1863, and appropriated the materials therein contained to their own use, which were then and there reasonably worth the sum of one thousand six hundred and fifty dollars ($1,650). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed April 10, 1905. A true copy. Test this 20th day of June, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 249 TRUSTEES CEDAR RUN BAPTIST CHURCH, CULPEPER COUNTY, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11604. Trustees of Cedar Run Baptist Church, of Culpeper County, Va., v . The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "[S. 633, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Cedar Run Baptist Church, of Culpeper County, Virginia- "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Cedar Run Baptist Church, of Culpeper County, Virginia, the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars for use of and damage to church property by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion. " The truste.es of the Cedar Run Baptist Church, of Culpeper County, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court May 28, 1904, in which they make the following allegations: That during the winter or 1862 and 1863 tne military forces of the United States, under command of Generals Banks and Pope, took possession of the church building of the Cedar Run Baptist Church, of Culpeper County, Va., and removed the said building, using the same for building winter quarters and other purposes. That said building was comparatively new, having been constructed a few years before its removal at a cost of about twelve hundred dollars ($1,200). The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 24th day of October, 1905. G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the tollowing FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Cedar Run Baptist Church, of Culpeper County, Va. , as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war oL the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the Cedar Run Baptist Church, of Culpeper County, Va., and destroyed the same, and used the material thereof, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of nine hundred dollars ($900), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed October 30, 1905. A true copy. Test this 24th day of November, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES CHRISTIAN CHURCH, FREDERICKSBURG, VA. t [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11607. Trustees of the Christian Church of Fredericksburg Va., v. The United States.] ' STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: " [S. 637, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Christian Church of Fredericksburg, Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- 250 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- ated, to the trustees of the Christian Church of Fredericksburg, Virginia, the sum of four thousand dollars for use of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The trustees of the Christian Church of Fredericksburg, Va., appeared and filed their petition in the court August 2, 1902, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the said Christian Church and used and occupied the same for military purposes for more than two years. That said building was first used as a hospital by General Burnside's army for several months in 1862, and again used for a similar purpose by General Grant's army for a period of about two years from 1864 until the close of the war. That by reason of such use and occupation extensive repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said building during the period of such occupancy, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time said occupation commenced, was the sum of four thousand dollars ($4,000), for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 25th day of October, 1904. G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, apeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Christian Church of Fredericksburg, Va., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Christian Church at Fredericksburg, State of Virginia, and used and occupied the same for hospital pur- poses for a period of about two years. The reasonable rental value of said building during such occupancy beyond the reasonable wear thereof was the sum of two thou- sand one hundred and twenty-five dollars ($2,125). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed October 31, 1904. A true copy. Test this 30th day of June, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, _ Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF DOWNING METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OAK HALL, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12512. Trustees of Downing Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Oak Hall, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. ■ This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the United States Senate referred to the cc^irt a bill in the following words: "[S. 4023, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of- the trustees of the Downing Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Oak Hall, Accomac County, Virginia. "Beit enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropri- ated, to the trustees of the Downing Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Oak Hall, Accomac County, Virginia, the sum of five hundred dollars, in full compensation for the use, occupation, and destruction of property by the Federal forces during the late civil war." ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 251 The claimants appeared in this court March 25, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred: That during the late civil war, and in the fall of 1861, the military forces of the United States under command of Gen. Henry A. Lockwood took possession of the church building of the Downing Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Oak Hall, Accomac County, Va., and used and occupied the same for military purposes for several weeks. That during said occupation the said military forces destroyed the plastering, ceiling, pews, windows, shutters, and otherwise injured the said building. That the cost to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession was the sum of $500, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of Janu- ary, 1908. C. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Downing Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Oak Hall, Va., as an organi- zation, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building described in the petition and used and occu- pied the same, but for what purpose does not appear, and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value of such use and occupation, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of two hundred and thirty-five dollars ($235.00), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed, or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed February 3, 1908. A true copy. Test this 11th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ■ TRUSTEES OF EBENEZER METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF GARRISONVILLE, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11779. Trustees of Ebenezer Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Garrisonville, Va., v. The United States. STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution of the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Ebenezer Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Garrisonville, Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Ebenezer Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Garrisonville, Vir- ginia, the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, for use of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." The trustees of Ebenezer Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Garrisonville, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court July 25, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and in the fall of 1862, the military forces of the United States, under command of General Burnside, took possession of the church building of Ebenezer Methodist Episcopal Church South, of 252 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Garrison ville, Va., and used and occupied the same for military purposes until the spring of 1863. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the con- dition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $1,500. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 18th day of Decem- ber, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT: I. It appears from the evidence that the Ebenezer Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Garrisonville, Va., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of and occupied the church building belonging to the Ebenezer Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Garrisonville, Va. The reasonable rental value of said building, together with the repairs incident to such occupation, was the sum of six hundred dollars ($600), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed January 2, 1906. A true copy. Test this 12th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF FAIRFAX LODGE, NO. 43, A. F. AND A. M., OF CULPEPER, VA. \ [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11783. Trustees, Fairfax Lodge No. 43, A. F. and A. M., of Culpeper, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution of the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of Fairfax Lodge, Numbered Forty-three, Ancient Free and Accepted Masons, of Culpeper, Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Fairfax Lodge, Numbered Forty-three, Ancient Free and Accepted Masons, of Cul- peper, Virginia, the sum of one thousand one hundred and sixty-nine dollars, for use of and damage to lodge building by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war. ' ' The trustees of Fairfax Lodge, No. 43, A. F. and A. M., of Culpeper, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court March 22, 1906, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the summer of 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the lodge building of Fairfax Lodge, No. 43, A. F. and A. M., of Culpeper, Va., and used and occupied the same at various times for military purposes until the close of the war. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the cost to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession of the same was the sum of $1,169, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 14th day of May, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 253 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT, I. It appears from the evidence that Fairfax Lodge, No. 43, A. F. and A. M., of Cul- peper, Va., as such, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the lodge building of Fairfax Lodge, No. 43, A. F. and A. M., of Culpeper, Va., and used and occupied the said building for military purposes. The reasonable rental value of said lodge building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took pos- session, was the sum of seven hundred dollars ($700.00), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. The claim was never presented to any Department or officer of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed May 21, 1906. A true copy. . Test this 29th day of May, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF FREDERICKSBURG BAPTIST CHURCH, FREDERICKS- BURG, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11768. Trustees of Fredericksburg Baptist Church, of Fred- ericksburg, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: " A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Fredericksburg Baptist Church,of Fredericksburg, Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Fredericksburg Baptist Church, of Fredericksburg, Virginia, the sum of four thousand dollars, for the use of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the war between the States." The trustees of Fredericksburg Baptist Church, of Fredericksburg, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court May 18, 1905, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the month of November, 1863, the military forces of the United States, by proper author- ity, took possession of the church building of the Baptist Church of Fredericksburg, Va., and occupied and damaged the same; that the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the same condition in which it was when the said military forces of the United States first took possession of the same, was the sum of $4,000. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 14th day of February, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I I. It appears from the evidence that the Fredericksburg Baptist Church, of Freder- icksburg, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out the war of the rebellion. 254 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. II. During the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Bap- tist Church, of Fredericksburg, State of Virginia, and used and occupied the same for military purposes. The reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was occupied by the military forces, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when said troops first took possession of the same, was the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000.00), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed March 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 20th day of March, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF GROVE BAPTIST CHURCH, OF FAUQUIER COUNTY, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11780. Trustees of Grove Baptist Church, of Fauquier County, Virginia, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CAST:. The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution of the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Grove Baptist Church, of Fauquier County, Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- priated, to the trustees of Grove Baptist Church, of Fauquier County, Virginia, the sum of one thousand dollars, for use of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." The trustees of Grove Baptist Church, of Fauquier County, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court March 13 , 1906 , in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States at different times during the years 1862 and 1863, under command of Generals Meade, Hatch, and Gregg, took possession of and used and damaged the church building belonging to the Grove Baptist Church, of Fauquier County, Va. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the cost to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took pos- session of the same was the sum of $1,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 26th day of March, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by M. A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- tion of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Grove Baptist Church, of Fauquier County, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of and occupied, for military purposes, the church building belonging to the Grove Baptist Church, of Fauquier County, Va. The reasonable rental value of said building, together with the repairs incident to such occupation, was the sum of six hundred dollars ($600), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed April 2, 1906. A true copy. Test this 25th day of May, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 255 TRUSTEES OF HARTWOOD PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, OF STAFFORD COUNTY, VA. [ Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11668. Trustees of Hartwood Presbyterian Church, of Stafford County, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: ["S. 2772, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Hartwood Presbyterian Church, of Stafford County, Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay to the trustees of Hartwood Presbyterian Church, of Stafford County, Virginia, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars for use of and damage to their church prop- erty by the military forces of the United States during the late war." The trustees of Hartwood Presbyterian Church, of Stafford County, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court May 18, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: That during the fall and winter of 1862-63, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of Hartwood Presbyterian Church, of Stafford County, Va., and occupied the same for military purposes during said period and at various times thereafter until the close of the war. That by reason of such use and occupation extensive repairs were necessary and the cost to restore the building to the same condition in which it was at the time the military forces of the United States took possession of the same was the sum of §1,200. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 14th day of February, 1906, G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Hartwood Presbyterian Church, of Stafford County, Va., was loyal, as a church, to the Government of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and occupied, for military pur- poses, the church building belonging to the Hartwood Presbyterian Church of Stafford County, Va. The reasonable rental value of said building, together with the repairs incident to such occupation, was the sum of eight hundred dollars ($800), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed February 19, 1906. A true copy. Test this 23d day of February, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 256 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF KENT STREET PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, WINCHES- TER, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12494. Trustees of Kent Street Presbyterian Church, Win- chester, Va., r. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CA8E. This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: "[S. 5894, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Kent Street Presbyterian Church, of Winchester, Virginia. " Be it enacted by the. Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America ■ assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay. out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Kent Street Presbyterian Church, of Winchester. Virginia, the sum of five thousand dollars, for use and destruction of their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." The claimants appeared in this court January 22, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about March, 1862, the military forces of the United States, under command of General Banks, took possession of the church building of Kent Street Presbyterian Church, of Winchester, V a., and used and occupied the same for military purposes. That thereafter, various other commands of the United States Army used and occupied the said building at intervals until September 19. 1864. when the said army, under command of General Sheridan, took possession of said building and used the same for hospital purposes until May. 1865. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military "forces took possession, was the sum of $5,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 22d day of April, 1907. '.. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. V - j. his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Kent Street Presbyterian Church, of Winchester, Va., as an organization, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, under the commands of Generals Ranks and Sheridan, took possession of the church building described in the petition and used and occupied the same at various times for hospital purposes from March, 1862. to May, 1865. Such use and occupation, together with the reason- able damages in excess of the ordinary wear and tear, was then and there worth the sum of two thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars ($2,750), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court, under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given therefor. By the Couht. Filed April 29, 1907. A true copy. Test this 15th day of November, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 257 TRUSTEES OF LIBERTY CHURCH, OF DRANESVILLE. VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11787. Trustees of Liberty Church, of Dranesville, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act :j [ 'S. 6397, Fifty-eighth Congress, third session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Liberty Church, Dranesville, Virginia. • 'Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Un Ued States of America in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury be. and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay to the trustees of Liberty Church, at Dranesville, Fairfax County, Virginia, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, for the use, occupation, and destruction of their church property by the Union Army during the war between the States." The trustees of Liberty Church, of Dranesville. Va., appeared and filed then- petition in this court May 18, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about Jan- uary 1, 1863. the military forces of the United States under command of Major Taggart, took possession of the church building of Liberty Church, at Dranesville. Va., and used and occupied the same for military purposes. That by reason of such use and occupation repairs were necessary and the cost to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces of the United States first took possession of the same was the sum of $1,500, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 14th day of February, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe. esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following £55 FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Liberty Church, of Dranesville. Va.. as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and occupied, for roilitary purposes, the church building belonging to the Liberty Church, of Dranesville, Va. The reasonable rental value of said building, together with the repairs incident to such occupation, was the sum of seven hundred dollars ($700 1, for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed February 19. 1906. A true copv. Test this 23d day of February. 1906. [seal.] John Randolph. Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF LOUDOUX STREET PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. OF WIN- CHESTER. VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 12472. Trustees of Loudoun Street Presbyterian Chuich. nf Winchester, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court June 13. 1906, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3. 1SS7. known as the Tucker Act: "A^BILL Forthe relief of th trustees of Loudoun Street Pres'. yteriar: Church, of Winchest°r.Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Sfrtat<- and House of Represen tativt .e, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Providence Methodist Episcopal Church, near Suffolk, Nansemond County, Virginia, two thousand "five hundred dollars, for use of and damage to their church building by the military forces of the United States during the late war between the States." Said bill was referred to this court by resolution of the Senate on the 2d day of March, A. D. 1907, for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 9th day of December, A. D. 1907. C. A. and F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- TRUSTEES OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF GARYS, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11772. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at Garys, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : " A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Mthodist Episcopal Church, at Garys, Prince George County, Virginia. ■ "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America m Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at Garys, Prince George County, Virginia, the sum of two thousand dol- lars, for use of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at Garys, Prince George County, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court July 25, 1905, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church at Garys, Prince George County, Va., and removed the said building, appropriating the material to the use of the Army in building winter quarters during the winter of 1864. That said building at the time of its removal as aforesaid was reasonably worth the sum of $2,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 2d day of January, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church at Garys, Va., was, as a church, loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took posses- sion of the church property belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church at Garys, Va., and appropriated the materials contained therein for winter quar- ters during the year 1864. Such materials were then and there reasonably worth the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed January 8, 1906. A true copy. Test this 16th day of January, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAIN CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF CULPEPER, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11665. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Culpeper, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF THE CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: " A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of the town of Culpeper, Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to the trustees of the Meth- odist Episcopal Church South, of the town of Culpeper, Virginia, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of three thousand dollars, for use, damage, and partial destruction of their church property by the military forces of the United States during the war between the States." The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Culpeper, Va., ap- peared and filed their petition in this court February 26, 1906, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about August, 1862, the military forces of the United States, under command of General Pope, and during the winter of 1S63 and 1864 the said military forces of the United States, under command of General Meade, took possession of and used and occupied for military purposes the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Culpeper, Va. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so used and occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession of the same, was the sum of $3,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 14th day of May, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Culpeper, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Culpeper, Va., and used and occu- pied the same for military purposes. The reasonable rental value of said build- ing during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of eighteen hundred and fifty dol- lars ($1,850), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. The claim was never presented to any Department or officer of the Gov- ernment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. By the Cottbt. Filed May 21, 1906. A true copy. Test this 23d day of May, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 287 TRUSTEES OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF JEFFERSONTON, VA. (Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11791. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Jeffersonton, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1906, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress, approved March 3, 1SS7, known as the Tucker Act : "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Jeffersonton, Culpeper County, Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Jeffersonton, Culpeper County, Virginia, the sum of five hun- dred and seventy-two dollars, for use, damage, and destruction of their church property by the Union troops during the war between the States." The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South of Jeffersonton, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court October 5, 1906, in which they make the following allegations : That at various times during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South of Jeffersonton, Va., and used the same as a temporary hospital; that during the winter of 1868-64 the said military forces, under command of General Sedgwick, removed the pews, pulpit, doors, and windows and appropriated the same to the use of the Army. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the time it was occu- pied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possesson, was the sum of $572, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 21st day of January, 1907. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following J FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South of Jeffersonton, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During said war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the church building belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Jeffersonton, Va., and used and occupied the same at parious times from 1862 until 1865 for the tran- sient accommodation of wounded soldiers. The reasonable rental value of said building during the period of occupancy, together with the damage in exces of ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of three hundred and twenty-five dollars ($325), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any department of the Gov- ernment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why such was not done. By the Court. Filed January 28, 1907. A true copy. Test this 30th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 288 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF STEPHENS CITY, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11771. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church . South, of Stephens City, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OE CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation of a church building by the military forces of the United States, and for the destruction of the parsonage connected therewith. On the 23d day of February, 1905, the United States Senate, by resolution, referred to the court, under the act of March 3, 1887, a bill in the following words : "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Newtown, Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Newtown, Virginia, the sum of four thousand dollars, for the use of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." The claimants appeared in this court and filed their petition, in which they make, in substance, the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion and on or about the fall of 1863 the military forces of the United States under the command of Major-General Sheridan, while in possession of the town set fire to and totally destroyed the brick parsonage belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church South, at Stephens City, Va. That thereafter the said military forces removed the brick belonging to the said building and appropriated the same to the use of the army in building quarters. That said building at that time was reason- ably worth the sum of $3,000. That on or about the fall of 1864 the said military forces of the United States took possession of the church building of the said church and used and occu- pied the same for hospital purposes for a period of several months. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $1,000, no part of which has been paid. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 31st day of January, 1907. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The conrt, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Stephens City, Va., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States took possession of the church building and used and occu- pied the same for hospital purposes for three or four months, and after they had vacated the church, but while the troops were still in the vicinity of the church, the parsonage belonging to said church was burned, but by whom and for what purpose does not appear otherwise tban the presence of the troops. The reasonable rental of the church, together with the damage thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was five hundred dollars ($500). The par- sonage so burned was at the time and place reasonably worth the sum of thirteen hundred dollars ($1,300). III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Gov- ernment until its presentation to Congress and reference by resolution of the ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 289 United States Senate under the act of March 3, 1887, as aforesaid; nor- Is any evidence offered to show why the claim was not heretofore presented to some Department of the Government. By the Cotjbt. Filed February 4, 1907. A true copy. Test this 9th day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF SUFFOLK, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11798. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Suffolk, Nansemond County, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. In the above-entitled claim for use and occupation of and injury to real estate belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Suffolk, Nansemond County, State of Virginia, by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war, a bill was introduced in the Fifty-eighth Congress for the re- lief of the claimant, being Senate bill No. 7068. Said bill reads as follows: "Be it enacted by the Senate .and Souse of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Suffolk, Nansemond County, State of Vir- ginia, the sum of five thousand dollars for use of and damages to church build- ings by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." Said bill was referred to this court by resolution of the Senate on the 28th day of February, A. D. 1905, for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 8th day of February, 1906. C. A. & F. W. Brandenburg, esqs., appear for claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- eral, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make the following allegations : That during the late civil war the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Suf- folk, Nansemond County, Va., was the owner p* certain real estate in said city of Suffolk ; that during said war there was situated upon said land two substan- tially constructed brick church buildings, one about 45 by 65 feet, and the other about 35 by 50 feet ; that the value of said two church buildings during the^civil war was about $25,000; that during the said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took possession of said two church buildings and occupied the same as a hospital, ordnanf "^nartnient, storage house, and other purposes. That said claim is made as follows : Injury to old church $2, 000 Rent of old church for two years, being 10 per cent of its value, per annum 1, 000 Injury to new church : • 1, 000 Rent of new church for one year at 10 per cent per annum 1, 400 Total [ 5,400 The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Suffolk, Nansemond County, Va., was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and occupied, for military purposes, two church buildings belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Suffolk, Nansemond County, Va. The reasonable rental value S. Rep. 382, 60-1 19 290 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. of said buildings, together with the repairs incident to such occupation, was the sum of two thousand one hundred dollars ($2,100), for which no payment ap- pears to have been made. By the Court. Filed February 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 17th day of March, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF WARRENTON, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11794. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Warrenton, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Warrenton, Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Warrenton, Virginia, the sum of three thousand dollars, for use of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Warrenton, Va., appeared and hied their petition in this court April 28, 1905, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and in the fall of 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Warrenton, Va., and used and occupied the same for military purposes at various times until the close of the war. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period of said occupancy, including the repairs neces- sary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $3,000. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 30th day of October, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attor- ney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Warrenton, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church build- ing of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Warrenton, Va., and used and occupied the same for military purposes. The reasonable rental value of said building during the period of such use and occupation, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the military forces first took possession of the same, was the sum of eleven hundred and ninety dollars ($1,190). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed November 6, 1905. A true copy. Test this 16th day of January, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 291 TRUSTEES OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF FREDERICKS- BURG, VA. fCourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 11793. Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Fredericksburg, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution of the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 8, 1S87, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Fredericksburg, Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Fredericksburg, Virginia, the sum of three thousand five hundred dollars, for the use of and damage to its church building by the military forces of the United States during the war between the States." Th trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Fredericksburg, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court July 25, 1905, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about December, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Presbyterian Church, of Fredericks- burg, Va., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes ; that by reason of such occupancy extensive repairs were necessary, and the cost to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time said occupation commenced was the sum of $3,500, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 14th day of May, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Presbyterian Church of Fredericks- burg, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Presbyterian Church of Fredericksburg, Va., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes. By reason of such occupancy repairs were nec- essary, and the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs Decessary to restore the building to the con- dition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of two thousand six hundred and twenty-five dollars ($2,625), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. The claim was never filed before any department or officer of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as afore- said. By the Court. Filed May 21, 1906. A true copy. Test this 23d day of May, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 292 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF McDOWELL, HIGHLAND COUNTY, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11613. Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of McDowell, Highland County, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : [S. 645, 58th Cong., 1st sess.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Highland County, Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and Blouse of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treas- ury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Highland County, Virginia, the sum of three hundred dollars, for use of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The trustees of the Presbyterian Church of McDowell, Highland County, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court July 14, 1906, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about May 3, 1862, the military forces of the United States, under command of General Milroy, took possession of the church building of the Presbyterian Church, sit- uate near McDowell, in Highland County, Va., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes for about four weeks. That by reason of said occupancy repairs were necessary, and the cost to restore said building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession was the sum of $300, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 10th day of December, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Presbyterian Church of McDowell, Highland County, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building belonging to the Presbyterian Church of McDowell, Highland County, Va., and used the same for hospital purposes for about four weeks. As a result of such occupancy repairs were necessary to the church building, the same being dam- aged. Such damage was reasonably worth the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars ($150), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. This claim was never presented to any department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress as aforesaid and its reference to this court, and no reason is shown why this was not done. By the Cotjet. Filed December 17, 1906. A true copy. Test this 29th day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 293 TRUSTEES OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, WARRENTON, VA. .[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11676. Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Warrenton, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. " A BILL For the relief of the Presbyterian Church at Warrenton, Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, directed and authorized, out of any money not otherwise appropriated, to pay to the treasurer of the Presbyterian Church at Warrenton, Virginia, the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars, for the use and occu- pation and damage done said church building by the United States troops dur- ing the late war, the said sum of one thousand two hundred dollars being the amount fixed by the officer who assessed the damages." The trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Warrenton, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court February 12, 1906, in which they make the fol- lowing allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about April, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, and under command of General Blenker, took possession of the church building of the Presbyterian Church at Warrenton, Va., and used the same for military purposes, and that said building was used by various commands of the United States Army at various times from said date until the close of the war. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessaiy, and the cost to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces first took possession, was the sum of $1,200, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 14th day of May, 1906. G. W. Z. Black esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the de- fense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Presbyterian Church of Warrenton, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Presbyterian Church of Warrenton, Va., and used and occupied the same for military purposes. The reasonable rental value of said building during the period of said occupancy, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took posses- sion, was the sum of eight hundred and ninety dollars ($890.00), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed May 28, 1906. A true copy. Test this 1st day of June, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 294 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF THE ST. PAUL REFORMED CHURCH, OF WOOD- STOCK, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12520. Trustees of the St. Paul Reformed Church, of Woodstock, Virginia, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. On April 27, 1906, Senate bill No. 5918, Fifty-ninth Congress, was introduced in the United States Senate for the relief of the St. Paul Reformed Church, of Woodstock, Virginia, said bill reading as follows, to wit : "A BILL For the relief of the Saint Paul Reformed Church, of Woodstock, Virginia. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treas- ury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the Saint Paul Reform Church, of Woodstock, Virginia, the sum of one thousand dollars in full com- pensation for the use and occupation of and damage to property by the United States authorities during the civil war." On June 13, 1906, said bill with accompanying papers was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, for findings of fact under the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing upon loyalty and merits on the 9th day of January, 1907. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the de- fense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make the following allegations : That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Shenandoah, State of Virginia ; that they are the duly elected and acting trus- tees of the St. Paul Reformed Church of Woodstock, Va. ; that said St. Paul Reformed Church of Woodstock, Va., existed before and during the late civil war and has continued in existence until the present time ; that during said war said church was the owner of certain land in the town of Woodstock, Va., com- prising two lots, upon which was situated a substantially constructed house of worship, being 40 by 50 feet in dimensions, and with galleries ; that said build- ing was comfortably fitted and furnished, and that the lots upon which said building stood were inclosed by a substantial fence ; that during said war the United States military forces, under proper authority, took possession of said premises and used and occupied the same for military purposes ; that the reason- able worth of the rental of said : premises and of the damages incident to such occupation is $1,000. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The St. Paul Reformed Church of Woodstock, Va., remained, as an organi- zation, loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church property belonging to the St. Paul Reformed Church of Woodstock, Va., and occupied the same for about one month and a half. The reasonable rental value of said building for such period, together with the damage to said building and the fencing inclosing the same, was then and there the sum of three hundred and twenty-five dollars ($325), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. This claim was never presented to any department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court in April, 1906, by resolution of the United States Senate, and no reason is given why such was not done. BY THE COTTBT. Filed January 14, 1907. A true copy. Test this 28th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 295 TRUSTEES OF TRINITY LUTHERAN CHURCH, OF STEPHENS CITY, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11785. Trustees of Trinity Lutheran Church, of Stephens City, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court February 23, 1905, by resolution of the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : "A BILL For the reilef of the trustees of Saint Paul's Lutheran Church, of Stephens City, Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Saint Paul's Lutheran Church, of Stephens City, Virginia, the sum of one thousand one hundred dollars for use and occupation of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." The trustees of Trinity Lutheran Church, of Stephens City, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court September 7, 1905, in which they make the fol- lowing allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about October 19, 1864, the military forces of the United States under command of Major-General Sheridan took possession of the church building of Trinity Luth- eran Church, at Stephens City, Va., and used the same for hospital purposes for a period of about six months. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession of the same, was the sum of $1,100, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of February, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It apears from the evidence that the Trinity Lutheran Church, of Stephens City, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and occupied, for military purposes, the church building belonging to the Trinity Lutheran Church, of Stephens City, Va. The reasonable rental value of said building, together with the repairs incident to such occupation, was the sum of five hundred dollars ($500), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed February 19, 1906. A true copy. Test this 14th day of March, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 296 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. TRUSTEES UNION CHURCH, FALMOUTH, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11670. Trustees of Union Church of Fal- mouth, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : " [S. 2774, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] " A BILL for the relief of the trustees of Union Church of Falmouth, Stafford County, Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and Rouse of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury- be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to the trustees of Union Church of Falmouth, Stafford County, Virginia, out of any money not other- wise appropriated, the sum of one thousand dollars, for the use, occupation, and damage to said church property during the war between the States." The trustees of Union Church at Falmouth, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court May 11, 1905, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the month of April, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Union Church at Fal- mouth, Va., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes for a period of about four months ; that by reason of such use and occupation extensive repairs were necessary, and it cost the sum of $1,000 to restore the building to the same condition in which it was when the said military forces first took possession, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 30th day of October, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Union Church, of Falmouth, in the State of Virginia, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. II. The evidence establishes to the satisfaction of the court that during the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the Union Church, of Falmouth, in the State of Virginia, and used and occupied the said church building for hospital purposes for a period of something like four months, and that by rea- son of such occupancy and use repairs were necessary to restore the building to the same condition it was when the said military forces of the United States first took possession of the same. The reasonable value of said use and occu- pation was the sum of seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Coubt. Filed November 6, 1905. A true copy. Test this 24th day of November, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 297 TRUSTEES OF WASHINGTON STREET METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF ALEXANDRIA, VA. {Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11606. Trustees of Washington Street Metho- dist Episcopal Church South, of Alexandria, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : " [S. 635, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Washington Street Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Alexandria, Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America m Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Washington Street Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Alexandria, Virginia, the sum of six thousand six hundred and fifteen dollars and thirty-nine cents, for use of and injury to church building by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The trustees of Washington Street Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Alexandria, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court October 29, 1904, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about January 1, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of Washington Street Metho- dist Episcopal Church South, at Alexandria, Va., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes from said date until on or about September, 1865. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable .rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when the said military authorities first took possession of the same, was the sum of $6,615, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of January, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attor- ney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Washington Street Methodist Episco- pal Church South, of Alexandria, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took pos- session of and used for hospital purposes the church building belonging to the Washington Street Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Alexandria, Va., from January 6, 1862, until the close of the war, and damaged the same. The said use and occupation, including damages incident thereto, was reasonably worth the sum of four thousand and six hundred dollars ($4,600). By the Couet. Filed January 9, 1905. A true copy. Test this 12th day of January, 1905. [seal.] Archibald Hopkins, Chief Clerk. 298 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. VESTRY AQUIA PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, STAFFORD COUNTY, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11667. Vestry of Aquia Protestant Episcopal Church, of Stafford County, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : ' " [S. 2771, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the vestry of Aquia Protestant Episcopal Church, of Stafford County, Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the vestry of Aquia Protestant Episco- pal Church, of Stafford County, Virginia, the sum of one thousand five hun- dred dollars in full for damages done said church building by the Army of the United States during the late war." The vestry of Aquia Protestant Episcopal Church, of Stafford County., Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court February 8, 1905, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the fall of 1862, the military forces of the United States, under command of General Sigel, took possession of the church building of Aquia Protestant Epis- copal church, of Stafford County, Va., and used and occupied the same during said fall and the following winter for military purposes. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary and it cost the sum of $1,500 to restore the said building to the condition in which it was when said troops first took possession of the same. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of April, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- General, by P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant, and under, his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following I FINDINGS OF FACT . I. It appears from the evidence that the Aquia Protestant Episcopal Church, of Stafford County, Va., was, as a church, loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the church building belonging to the Aquia Protestant Episcopal Church, of Stafford County, Va., was taken possession of by the military forces of the United States by proper authority in the fall of 1862 and used and damaged. The reasonable rental value thereof and the repairs incidental to such use and occupation were the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed April 10, 1905. A true copy. Test this 2d day of June, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 299' VESTRY OF LAMBS CREEK PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, KING GEORGE COUNTY, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11677. Vestry of Lambs Creek Protestant Epis- copal Church, of King George County, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: " A BILL For the relief of the vestry of Lambs Creek Protestant Episcopal Church, Virginia.] " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America m Congress assembled, That the Treasurer of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the vestry of Lambs Creek Protestant Episcopal Church, of King George County, Virginia, the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars, in full for use and damages done said church building by the Army of the United States during the late war between the States." The vestry of Lambs Creek Protestant Episcopal Church, of King George County, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court June 16, 1906, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and in the fall of 1862, the military forces of the United States, under command of General Burnside, took possession of the church building of Lambs Creek Protestant Episcopal Church, of King George County, Va., and used and occupied the same for military purposes until the spring of 1863. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession of the same, was the sum of $2,500, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 29th day of October, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the claimant, the Lambs Creek Protestant Episcopal Church, of King George County, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took posses- sion of the building belonging to said Lambs Creek Protestant Episcopal Church, of King George County, Va., and occupied the same for military pur- poses. The reasonable rental value of the building during said occupancy, to- gether with the repairs incident to such occupation, was the sum of eight hun- dred dollars ($800), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed November 12, 1906. . . A true copy. Test this 16th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 300 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. VESTRY OF ST. LUKE'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, OF REMINGTON, VA. {Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11673. Vestry of St. Luke's Episcopal Church, of Remington, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : J 'A BILL For the relief of the vestry of the Episcopal Church of Remington, Fauquier County, Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States ■of America in Congress assembled, That the Treasurer of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treas- ury not otherwise appropriated, to the vestry of the Episcopal Church at Rem- ington, Fauquier County, Virginia, the sum of two thousand dollars, in full for damages done said church building by the Army of the United States during the late war." The vestry of St. Luke's Episcopal Church, of Remington, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court April 3, 1908, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the fall of 1862, the military forces of the United States, under command of General Bayard, took possession of the parsonage building, and a lot of lumber which had been procured for the purpose of erecting a church building, belong- ing to St. Luke's Episcopal Church, of Remington, Va., and removed the said lumber and a portion of said building, and that thereafter General Pope's army encamped there and completed the destruction of the said parsonage. That said parsonage building and lumber at the time of its removal and de- struction was reasonably worth the sum of $2,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 23d day of April, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments •of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the St. Luke's Episcopal Church, of Remington, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took, used, and damaged the church building and church parsonage of the St. Luke's Episcopal Church, of Remington, Va., and certain lumber designed for the building of a new church at Remington, Va. Said property so taken and used and damaged was reasonably worth at the time of its taking, use, and damage, the sum of six hundred and fifty dollars ($650), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, so in possession of the said church property, and in an artillery firing between the said military forces of the late Confederate States, the said church property was set on fire and completely destroyed. The evidence does not satisfy the court whether the destruction was occasioned by the fire from the military forces opposing the military forces of the United States or whether the property was set on fire and destroyed by the military forces of the United States. The church building and parsonage were destroyed by fire, that is, the destruction by fire ensuing the taking and use and damage of the property set forth in finding II, and the buildings so ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS, 301 destroyed amounted in value at the time of the destruction to the sum of seven hundred dollars ($700), for which no payment appears to have been made. IV. The claim was never presented to any department or officer of the Gov- ernment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as- aforesaid. By the Court. Filed May 7, 1906. A true copy. Test this 29th day of June, 1906. [seal.] Archibald Hopkins, Chief Cleric Court of Claims. VESTRY OF ST. PAUL'S PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, OF HAY- MARKET, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11799. Vestry of St. Paul's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Haymarket, Prince William County, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : " [S. 7243, Fifty -eighth Congress, third session.] "A BILL For the relief of the vestry of Saint Paul's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Haymarket, Prince William County, Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the vestry of St. Paul's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Haymarket, Prince William County, Virginia, the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, for the use and destruction of their church property by the Union Army during the Avar between the States." The vestry of St. Paul's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Haymarket, Prince William County, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court July 14, 1906, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and in the fall of 1862, the military forces of the United States, consisting of the Eleventh Pennsylvania Regiment of Infantry, took possession of the church building of St. Paul's Episcopal Church, of Haymarket, Prince William County, Va., and used and occupied the same for military purposes ; that other commands of the same Army used and occupied the said building at various times from said date until the close of the war ; that by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the cost to restore the said building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces first took possession was the sum of $1,500 ; for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 22d day of October, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq:, appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the St. Paul's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Haymarket, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the late civil war. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of St. Paul's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Haymarket, Va., and used and occupied the same for military purposes. The reasonable rental value of said church building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when the said <302 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. military forces took possession, was the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000) ; for which no payment appears to have been made. III. The claim was never presented to any department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed October 29, 1906. A true copy. Test this 5th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. VESTRY OF ST. STEPHEN'S PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, CUL- PEPER, VA. JCourt of Claims. Congressional case No. 11657. The Vestry of St. Stephen's Prot- estant Episcopal Church, of Culpeper, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : " [S. 2761, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] ""A BILL For the relief of the vestry of Saint Stephen's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Culpeper, Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United ■States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to the vestry of Saint Stephen's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Culpeper, Virginia, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of one thousand dollars, for use of and damage to their church property by the miltary forces of the United States during the late war." The vestry of St. Stephen's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Culpeper, Va., .appeared and filed their petition in this court February .2, 1905, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, under command of General Meade, took possession of the church building of St. Stephen's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Cul- peper, Va., and occupied the same for hospital purposes. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary and it cost the sum of $1,100 to restore the building to the same condition in which it was when said occupation com- menced, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 2d day of May, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant, St. Stephen's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Culpeper, Va., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of and used at various times and damaged the church building belonging to the St. Stephen's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Culpeper, Va. Such use and occupation of and damage to said property was then and there reasonably worth the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed May 15, 1905. A true copy. Test this 3d day of June, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 303 WARDENS MERCHANT'S HOPE PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VA. I Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11615. Wardens and Vestrymen of Merchant's Hope Protestant Episcopal Church, of Prince George County, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : "[S. 647, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] 4 A BILL For the relief of the wardens and vestrymen of Old Merchant's Hope Episcopal Church, of Prince George County, Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Seriate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That tlie Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the wardens and vestrymen of the Old Merchant's Hope Episcopal Church, of Prince George County, \ irginia, tne sum of fifteen hundred dollars, for use of and damage to the cnurch building by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The wardens and vestrymen of Merchant's Hope Protestant Episcopal Church, of Prince George County, Va., appeared and tiled their petition in this court ""August 1, 1904, in wtiich they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the 1st of October, 1804, the military forces of the United States, under com- mand of General Grant, took possession of the cnurch building and parsonage of the Merchant s Hope Protestant Episcopal Church, situated near Gee, Prince George County, in the State of Virginia, and used and occupied the same for a period of about six montbs for military purposes. That bj r reason of such occupancy extensive repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said building during the period ol said occupancy, including the repairs necessary to restore the buildings to the condition in which they were when said occupation began, was the sum of $1,500. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of March, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both^ides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Merchant's Hope Protestant Episcopal Church, of Prince George County, Va., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States during the late war of the rebellion. II. During the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about October 1, 1864, the military forces of the United States, under command of General Grant, took possession of the church buildings of the Merchant's Hope Protestant Episcopal Church, of Prince George County, State of Virginia, and used and occupied the same until the close of the war. By reason of such occu- pancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said church buildings during such occupancy, including the repairs necessary to restore the buildings to the condition in which they were when such occupancy began, was the sum of eleven hundred and fifty dollars ($1,150), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed April 5, 1905. A true copy. Test this 20th day of June, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 304 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. WARDENS OF ST. THOMAS EPISCOPAL CHURCH, MIDDLETOWN, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11684. Wardens of St. Thomas Episcopal Church, of Middletown, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. On April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, the following bill was referred to this court for findings of fact in accordance with the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act, to wit : "A BILL For the relief of the Saint Thomas Episcopal Church, of Middletown, Frederick County, Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the Saint Thomas Episcopal Church, of Middletown, Frederick County, Virginia, the sum of one thousand dollars, in full compensation for use, occupation, and destruction of property by the Federal forces during the late civil war." The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 23d day of October, 1905. Moyers and Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the, defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make the following allegations : That they are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Frederick, State of Virginia ; that they are the duly elected, qualified, and acting wardens of St. Thomas Episcopal Church, of Middletown, Frederick County, Va. ; that during the late civil war said church was the owner of cer- tain real estate in Middletown, Va., upon which was situated a substantial brick church building; that said building was used and occupied at various times and for various purposes by the United States military forces during a period of about three years during said war ; that as the result of such use and occupation said building was greatly damaged, to wit, in the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000). Upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, the court makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. • I. It appears from the evidence that St. Thomas Episcopal Church, of Mid- dletown, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took pos- session of the church building belonging to the St. Thomas Episcopal Church, of Middletown, Va., and used the same for various purposes for a period of about three years and damaged the same. Such use and occupation, together with damages incident thereto, were reasonably worth the sum of six hundred dollars ($600). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Couet. Filed October 30, 1905. A true copy. Test this 27th day of December, 1905. [seal.] . John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 305 WILDERNESS BAPTIST CHURCH, SPOTTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11786. Trustees of the Wilderness Baptist Church, of Spottsylvania County, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court February 28, 1905, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known the Tucker Act : "[S. 6173, Fifty-eighth Congress, third session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Wilderness Baptist Church, of Spottsylvania County, Virginia., "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Wilderness Baptist Church, of Spottsylvania County, Virginia, the sum of six hundred dollars, for use of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the war between the States." The trustees of the Wilderness Baptist Church, of Spottsylvania County, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court June 9, 1905, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the month of May, 1863, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority took possession of the church building of the Wilderness Bap- tist Church, of Spottsylvania County, Va., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes ; that by reason of such use and occupation repairs were neces- sary, and the cost to restore the building to the same condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession of the same was the sum of $600, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 8th day of* January, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attor- ney-General, by M. A. Coles, esq., appeared for the defense and protection »of the interests of the United States. The court upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Wilderness Baptist Church, of Spottsyl- vania County, Virginia, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States took possession of the church building of the Wilderness Baptist Church, of Spottsylvania County, Virginia, and used the same for hospital pur- poses. By reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the cost to re- store the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession of the same was the sum of three hundred dollars ($300.00), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed January 15, 1906. A true copy. Test this 14th day of February, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. S. Kep. 382, 60-1 20 306 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. ROBERT M. WILKINSON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11525. Robert M. Wilkinson, administrator of the estate of Samuel Marsh, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court on the 2<>th day of April, 1°04, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : " [S. 4360, Fifty-eighth Congress; second session.] "A BILL For the relief of Robert M. Wilkinson, administrator of the estate of Samuel Marsh. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the legal representatives of Samuel Marsh, of the city of Norfolk, in the State of Virginia, the sum of two thousand five hundred and seventy-five dollars and sixteen cents, that being the amount to which he is justly entitled for a large quantity of timber, boards, and bricks taken from the said decedent by the Quartermaster's Department of the United States Army and appropriated to the use of the said department in the months of Au- gust, October, and November, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and the month of February, eighteen hundred and sixty-three." The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court October 22, 1904, in which he makes the following allegations : That he is a resident of Norfolk, Va. ; that he is the duly appointed adminis- trator of Samuel Marsh, deceased, late a citizen of the United States, residing in Norfolk, Va. ; that in the years 1862 and 1863 said Samuel Marsh was the owner of lumber and boards and 2,900 feet of Philadelphia pressed brick, all of the value of $2,575.16, which said lumber and brick were in his possession in said city of Norfolk, and were taken from him by the Quartermaster's De- partment of the United States, as appears in the following certificate : Office Assistant Qtjaetermastee, Norfolk, Va., August 15, 1S6S. This is to certify that the articles herein mentioned have been received at the dates specified from Mr. Samuel Marsh, of the city of Norfolk, by and for the use of the Quartermaster's Department, and are to be paid for at the close of the present war on proof of ownership and Joyalty : 1862. Aug. 2. 1,000 feet 1-inch white boards. 6. 3,482 feet 1-inch white pine boards. 1,163 feet P. pine boards. 640 feet 2 by 4 rails. 7. 512 feet white pine boards. 1,000 feet 6-inch dressed and T-grooved boards. 13. 1,000 feet 1\ P. pine boards. 15. 1,000 feet clear W. P. boards. 16. 1,000 feet 6-inch dressed and T-grooved boards. 26. 800 feet 6-inch dressed and T-grooved boards. 28. 500 feet 6-inch dressed and T-grooved boards. Oct. 25. 2,373 feet clear white pine boards. 561 feet 6-inch dressed and T-grooved boards. 28. 3,193 feet clear white pine boards. Nov. 14. 1,011 feet clear white pine boards. 19. 1,073 feet clear white pine boards. 504 feet 6-inch dressed pine boards. 25. 1,000 feet 6-inch dressed and T-grooved boards. 1,000 feet 1-inch clear white pine boards. Dec. 16. 2,500 feet 6-inch clear white pine boards. 500 feet 6-inch dressed and T-grooved boards. 254 feet 1-inch cherry boards. 26. 2,900 feet Philadelphia press brick. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 307 1863. Feb. 7. 3,000 feet li-inch clear white pine. 12. 3,070 feet l^-inch dressed white pine. 1,275 feet f-inch clear white pine. 1,000 feet 6-inch dressed white pine. 8,234 feet 1? and l? inch clear white pine. 710 feet cherry and walnut. Edwin Ludlow, Captain and Assistant Quartermaster. That the said Marsh and jour petitioner have at all times rendered true faith and allegiance to the United States. That after repeated attempts to collect on property taken it was referred to the Court of Claims from the Committee on War Claims of the House of Repre- sentatives, under the Bowman Act, but that under said reference the court held, December 17, 1888, that said Marsh could not recover under that reference. Said case was again referred to the Court of Claims under the Tucker Act, approved March 3, 1887. That the sum named in said bill, to wit, the sum of $2,575.16, is justly due claimant. The case was brought to a hearing on loyaltv and merits and laches on the 8th day of June, 1906. Messrs. F. S. Bright and Ralph H. Riddleberger appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. De C. Faust, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent, Samuel Marsh, was loyal to the Government of the United States, throughout the war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion, in the years 1862-63, in the city of Norfolk, State of Virginia, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from the claimant's decedent property of the kind and character described in the petition, the property of claimant's decedent, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of eight hundred and thirty dollars ($830), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Cotjbt. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy. Test this 15th day of December, A. D. 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOSEPH WILLIAMS. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10218. Joseph Williams v. The United States. ] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court on the 16th day of May, 1900, by resolution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : " [S. 4577. Fifty-sixth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of Joseph Williams. " Be it enacted oy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Joseph Williams the sum of two thou- sand four hundred dollars, for stores and supplies furnished by said Williams to the United States military at Fredericksburg, Virginia, December thirteenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-two." 308 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. The claimant appeared and filed his petition in this court, in which he makes the following allegations : That he is a citizen of the United States, native born, now residing in the city of Washington, D. C. ; that he resided during the late war of the rebellion at Fredericksburg, in the State of Virginia, and that during the battle of Fred- ericksburg, while your petitioner was on the firing line with and rendering service to General Patrick of the Union Army, the United States military forces, under command of General Burnside, by proper authority, took from your petitioner quartermaster stores and commissary supplies of the value of twenty four hundred dollars and appropriated the same to the use of the United States Army, as follows : Beds and bedding, including feather beds and bolsters, pillows, sheets, covers, and blankets . $1,000 Wearing apparel of petitioner, his wife, and daughters 500 Meat, corn, flour, coffee, tea, sugar, and other food, and tableware 500 Tool chest with fuli set of carpenter's tools 200 One fine bay horse 200 Total 2, 400 The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 27th day of October, 1904. C. C. Clements appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by George M. Anderson, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant herein was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. There was taken from the claimant, in Spottsylvania County, State of Virginia, during the war of the rebellion, by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character above de- scribed, which was then and there reasonably worth the sum of eight hundred and twenty-one dollars ($821), for which no payment appears to. have been made. III. The claim was not presented to the Commissioners of Claims under the act of March 3, 1871, and is consequently barred under the provisions of the act 15th June, 1878. Under the act 3d March, 1887, which provides that where there has been delay or laches in presenting a claim, the court shall report whether there are " any facts bearing upon the question whether the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy," the claimant has proved that he placed his claim, in 1864, in the hands of one Howard Skinker, who failed to file it with the Southern Claims Commission. As to the question whether the facts so proved are sufficient or insufficient to excuse the claimant, the court makes no finding, that question being exclusively within the judgment and discretion of Congress. By the Court. Filed December 5, 1904. A true copy. Test this 9th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 309 ZOAR BAPTIST CHURCH, BRISTERSBURG, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11675. Trustees of Zoar Baptist Church, of Bristersburg, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 18S7, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Zoar Baptist Church, of Bristersburg, Fauquier County, Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Zoar Baptist Church, of Bristersburg, Fauquier County, Virginia, the sum of eight hundred dollars, in full for the use and destruction of said church by the United States troops during the late war." The trustees of Zoar Baptist Church, of Bristersburg, Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court December 12, 1905, in which they make the fol- lowing allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and jn the spring of 1S62, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of Zoar Baptist Church, of Bristersburg, Va., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes until the fall of T862. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so used and occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took posses- sion, was the sum of $800, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 12th day of March, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- General, by F. W. Collins, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. It appears from the evidence that the Zoar Baptist Church, of Bristersburg, State of Virginia, as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Zoar Baptist Church, of Bristersburg, Va., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes. That the cost to restore said church building to the condi- tion in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession was the sum of seven hundred dollars ($700.00), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. The claim was not presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed March 19, 1906. A true copy. Test this 23d day of March, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 310 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF ANDREW CHAPEL, METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12424. Trustees, Andrew Chapel, Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Fairfax County, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use of and injury to a church building by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words : "[S. 2591, Fifty-ninth Congress, First session.] "A BILL For the relief of the Trustees of Andrew Chapel, Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Fairfax County, Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the Trustees of Andrew Chapel, Meth- odist Episcopal Church South, of Fairfax County, Virginia, the sum of one thousand dollars for use of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." The claimants appeared in this court on the 31st day of October, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred : That during the winter of 1862 and 1863 the military forces of the United States, consisting of the Sixth Michigan Cavalry and other organizations, took possession of the church building of Andrew Chapel, Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Fairfax County, Va., and used and occupied same for quarters. That during said occupation all of the furniture and fixtures were destroyed, nearly all of the flooring was burnt out, and the walls were badly defaced. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $1,000, no part of which has ever been paid. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 3d day of February, 1908. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. Cox, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense aud protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Andrew Chapel Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Fairfax County, Va., as an organization, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of said church building described in the petition and used the same for quarters and damaged the same. Said use and occupation, together with the damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there reasonably worth the sum of four hundred and fifty dollars ($450), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolu- tion of the United States Senate as hereinbefore mentioned, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed February 10, 1908. A true copy. Test this 25th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 311 TRUSTEES OF FLETCHER CHAPEL, OF KING GEORGE COUNTY, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11611. Trustees of Fletcher Chapel, of King George County, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : [S. 643, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Fletcher Chapel, in King George County, Va. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treas- ury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Fletcher Chapel, in King George County, Virginia, the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, in full for the use of and destruction of said church by the United States troops during the late war." The trustees of Fletcher Chapel of King George County, Va.. appeared and filed their petition in this court July 8, 1904, in which they make the following allegations : That during the fall of 1862 the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the said Fletcher Chapel and used and occupied the same for a smallpox hospital from said date until the spring of 1863, when they destroyed the same by fire to prevent the spread of the smallpox. That said building was about 30 by 40 feet, constructed of frame woodwork, was in a good state of repair at the time the military forces of the United States took possession of the same, and was reasonably worth the sum of $1,500, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 13th day of December, 1904. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that Fletcher Chapel, of King George County, Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war of the rebellion. II. During the fall of 1862 the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of Fletcher Chapel, of King George County, State of Virginia, and used and occupied the same for a small- pox hospital for a period of six months. At the termination of said occupancy the said military forces of the United States destroyed said church building by fire to prevent the spread of contagion. The reasonable rental value of said building during the period of said occupancy, including the cost to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the military forces of the United States took possession thereof, was the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed December 22, 1904. A true copy. Test this 30th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph. Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 312 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF PARIS, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12970. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Paris, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the follow- ing words : " [S. 6764, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Paris, Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and Rouse of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Paris, Virginia, the sum of one thousand dollars, in full com- pensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war." The said trustees of this church appeared in this court on April 30, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred — That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States occupied the church property of the 'Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Paris, Va., for camping and other purposes and used the same as a hospital for the wounded for some time; that many brick were taken out of the wall during said occupation, so that the building finally fell down and became a total loss; that the reasonable rental value of said property during said occu- pation, including the repairs necessary to restore said property to the same condition as before such occupation, was the sum of $1,000, for which no pay- ment has been made ; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Govern- ment. The case was brought to a hearing in loyalty and merits on the 10th day of February, 1908. Messrs. Coldren & Penning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- eral, by William H. Lamar, esq., appeared for the defense and protection .of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Paris, Va., as an organization was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building described in the petition, and used and occupied the same as a hospital and damaged the same. The reason- able rental value of such use and occupation, together with the damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of two hundred dollars ($200), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Gov- ernment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore mentioned in the state- ment of the case. No satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the claim was not presented earlier. By the Court. Filed February 17, 1908. A true copy. Test this 18th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 313 TRUSTEES OF NEW HOPE BAPTIST CHURCH, ORANGE COUNTY, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11795. Trustees of New Hope Baptist Church, of Orange County, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military- forces of the United States during the late civil war. On the 28th day of Feb- ruary, 1905, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in* the follow- ing words : " [S. 6959, Fifty-eighth Congress, third session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of New Hope Baptist Church, of Orange County, Virginia. "J5e it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treas- ury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of New Hope Baptist Church, of Orange County, Virginia, the sum of eight hundred dollars,, for use of and dam- age to their church building by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The claimants appeared in this court on the 31st day of October, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred : That during the late civil war, and on or about November 26, 1S63, the mili- tary forces of the United States, under command of General Meade, took pos- session of the church building of the New Hope Baptist Church, of Orange County, Va., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes until Novem- ber 30; that during said occupancy the pews, window shutters, and doors of said building were removed and appropriated to the use of the Army ; that the cost to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession was the sum of $800, no part of which has ever been paid. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 10th day of February, 1908. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by M. A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The New Hope Baptist Church, Orange County, Va., as an organization was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority took possession of the church building described in the petition and used and occupied the same as a hospital and damaged the same. The reason- able rental value of such use and occupation, together with damages thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars ($150), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolu- tion of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore mentioned in the statement of the case. No satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the claim was not presented earlier. By the Court. Filed February 17, 1908. A true copy. Test this 29th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 314 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, OF UPPER- VILLE, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12987. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Upperville, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military- forces of the United States during the late civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words : "[S. 6892, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Upperville, Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treas- ury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Upperville, Virginia, the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, for use of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." The claimants appeared in this court on the 25th day of March, 1907, and filed their petition in which it is substantially averred : That in the spring of 1862 the military forces of the United States, under command of General Geary, took possession of the church building of the Meth- odist Episcopal Church South, of Upperville, Va., and used and occupied the auditorium room for quarters for the troops and the basement of the building for a stable. That during said occupancy the floors, pews, pulpit, furniture, windows, doors, etc., were destroyed, and the cost to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said miliary forces took possession was the sum of $1,500, no part of which has ever been paid. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 3d day of February, 1908. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants and .the Attorney-General, by Clark McKercher, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Upperville, Va., as an organiza- tion, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of said church building described in the petition, and used and occupied the same for military purposes, and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value of such use and occupation, together with the damages thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of two hundred and ten dollars ($210), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolu- tion of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore mentioned in the statement of the case. , No satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the claim was not pre- sented earlier. By the Court. Filed February 17, 1908. A true copy. Test this 18th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE of certain claims. 315 6* TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, UNISON, VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12984. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Unison, Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the follow- ing words : "[S. 6889. Fifty -ninth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Unison, Va. "Re it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pas 7 , out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Unison, Virginia, the sum of eight hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war." The trustees of said church appeared in this court April 30, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred that : During the late civil war the military forces of the United States took pos- session of the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Unison, Va., consisting of a well-constructed brick church building, and occupied the same as a hospital after a fight near by, some thirty or more wounded soldiers being placed in the church, and amputations and other operations were per- formed there; that the property was so injured as to require new floor, new seats, repainting, and general repairs ; that the reasonable rental value of said property during such occupation, including the repairs necessary to restore it to the same condition as before such occupation, was the sum of $800, for which no payment has been made; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the Unifed States, and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 17th day of February, 1908. Messrs. Coldren & Penning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by William H. Lamar, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence adduced by the claimants, none being adduced by the defendants, and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on each side, makes the following • FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Unison, Va., as an organization, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States by proper au- thority took possession of the church building described in the petition and used and occupied the same as a hospital and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value of said property, together with the damages thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars ($150), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolu- tion of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore set forth in the statement of the case, and no satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the claim was not presented earlier. Howry, J., not being present on account of illness, took no part in making up these findings. By the Court. Filed February 25, 1908. A true copy. Test this 27th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims.' 316 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. WEST VIRGINIA. MARY E. BUCKEY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 9579. Mary B. Buckey v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. By resolution of the United States Senate, adopted July 17, 1897, Senate bill No. 1911, Fifty-fifth Congress, was referred to this court for findings of fact, in accordance with the terms of section 14 of the act approved March 3, 1887, and commonly known as the Tucker Act. Said bill reads as follows : "A BILL For the relief of Mary E. Buckey, of Randolph County, West Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and is hereby, authorized and directed, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to pay to Mary E. Buckey, of Beverly, West Vir- ginia, the sum of one thousand nine hundred and sixty dollars, for the use of buildings as hospital at Beverly, West Virginia, and for hospital stores and sup- plies furnished, and for nursing of the sick and wounded of the Federal Army during the war of the rebellion." The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 17th day of May, 1906. Moyers & Consaul appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition alleges : That she is a citizen. of the United States, residing in Randolph County, W. Va. ; that she resided in said county and State during the late civil war, said county being for a portion of said war, however, in the then State of Vir- ginia ; that between the spring of 1861 and the spring of 1865 petitioner nursed many sick and wounded Federal soMiers at her home; that said services were performed during said period for an aggregate of at least two years ; that said services were reasonably worth the sum of $10 per week, making a total of $1,040; that during said war petitioner furnished hospital stores and supplies at Beverly, W. Va., for the use of the United States hospital at said place of the reasonable worth or value of at least $100; that the Federal military au- thorities took from petitioner at said place, for use of the Army, one horse, reasonably worth the sum of $100; that petitioner also furnished the Federal military authorities lumber for making coffins for Federal dead worth $20; total, $1,260. The court, upon .the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsed upon both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. It appears from the evidence that the claimant was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, in the then State of Virginia, now West Virginia, Randolph County, took one horse and certain lumber, as described in the petition, the property of claimant, the reasonable value of which, at the time and place of taking, was the sum of one hundred and fifteen dollars ($115), for which no payment appears to have been made. No allowance is made for meals voluntarily furnished sick soldiers by the •claimant, nor for services voluntarily rendered thereto. III. The claim was never presented to any department or officer of the Gov- ernment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. By the Coukt. Filed May 21, 1906. A true copy. Test this 31st day of May, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, » Assistant GlerJc Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 317 CALEDONIA LODGE, NO. 4, INDEPENDENT ORDER OF ODD FELLOWS, OF SHEPHERDSTOWN, W. VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12950. Caledonia Lodge, No. 4, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, of Shepherdstown, W. Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the fol- lowing words : " [S. 6643, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of Caledonia Lodge, Numbered Four, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, of Shepherdstown, West Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of , Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the treasurer of Caledonia Lodge, Numbered Four, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, for the benefit of said lodge, the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to the property of said lodge by United States military forces during the civil war." The said lodge appeared in this court April 30, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred : That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took possession of the property of the Caledonia Lodge, No. 4, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, of Shepherdstown, W. Va., and occupied the same as a hospital for a considerable period after the battle of Antietam and occupied it several times thereafter until the close of the war, and that the said building and the property of the said lodge were greatly injured thereby ; that the reasonable rental value of said property during said occupation, including the repairs necessary to restore said property to the same condition as before such occupation, was the sum of $1,200, for which no payment has been made ; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States and has not in any way voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 10th day of February, 1908. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by William H. Lamar, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Caledonia Lodge, No. 4, Independent Order of Odd Fellows, of Shepherdstown, W. Va., as an organization was loyal to the Government of the United States. II. During said period the miliary forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the lodge room described in the petition and used the same as a guardroom and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear,, was then and there the sum of one hundred and fifteen dollars ($115), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any department or officer of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore set forth in the state- ment of the case, and no satisfactory evidence is adduced why the claim was not earlier presented. By the Coubt. Filed February 17, 1908. A true copy. Test this 18th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 318 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. E. P. CHEWNING, ADMINISTRATOR. (Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11559. E. P. Chewning, administrator of the estate of Kelles Chewning, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 26, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : "A BILL For the relief of Kelles Chewning. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the claim of Kelles Chewning, for property destroyed during the war of the rebellion." The claimant, E. P. Chewning, administrator of the estate of Kelles Chewning, deceased, appeared and filed his petition in this court June 29, 1906, in which he makes the following, allegations : • That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion his decedent resided in Roane County, State of West Virginia, and was the owner of certain buildings situated at Spencer, W. Va. That during the summer of 1861 the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of said buildings and used and occupied the same for military purposes until the close of the war, said buildings being occupied by the Fourth and Eleventh Virginia, United States Army, and por- tions of other regiments. That the reasonable rental value of said buildings during the period they were so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the same to the condition in which they were at the time the said military forces took posses- sion, was the sum of $2,500, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 10th day of December, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following i FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that Kelles Chewning, deceased, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took posses- sion of certain buildings belonging to decedent, situate in Spencer, West Vir- ginia, and used the same from about the summer of 1861 until the close of the war. The reasonable rental value of said buildings, together with the repairs necessary to put them in the same condition they were before occupancy, is the sum of one thousand one hundred dollars ($1,100), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. This claim was not presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court aforesaid, and no reason is assigned for not doing so. By the Court. Filed December 17, 1906. A true copy. Test this 16th day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 319 FETTERMAN (NOW WEST MAIN STREET) METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, OF GRAFTON, W. VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12949. Trustees of the Fetterman (now West Main Street) Episcopal Church, of Grafton, W. Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the follow- ing words : " [S. 6642, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] ""A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Fetterman (now West Main Street) Methodist Episcopal Church, of Grafton, West Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and be is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Fetterman (now West Main Street) Methodist Episcopal Church, of Grafton, West Virginia, the sum of one thousand two hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war." The said trustees of said church appeared in this court March 23, 1907, and filed their petition in which it is substantially averred that — During the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took possession of the property of the claimant, consisting of a well-constructed church building, and occupied it, partially as a hospital, partially as quarters, and partially for commissary supplies during a considerable period of the civil war, and it was much injured thereby ; that the reasonable rental value of said property during the time it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore said property to the same condition as before such occupation, was the sum of $1,200, for which no payment has been made; that the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, and has not, in any way, voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 6th day of January, 1908. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by William «H. Lamar, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Fetterman (now West Main Street) Methodist Episcopal Church, of Grafton, W. Va., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States for the use of the Army, by proper authority, took possession of the church property described in the petition and used and occupied the same at various times for hospital and other purposes, and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of four hundred and ninety dollars ($490), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Gov- ernment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to the court by resolution of the United States Senate as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed January 13, 1908. A true copy. Test this 21st day of January, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 320 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. J. W. GARDNER, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11802. J. W. Gardner, administrator of the estate of F. A. Boeder, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court March 3, 1905, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1S87, known as the Tucker Act : "A BILL For the relief of the estate of Frederick A. Roeder, deceased. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Frederick A. Roeder, de- ceased, late of Jefferson County, West Virginia, the sum of five hundred and four dollars, for use and occupation of property by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The claimant appeared and tiled his petition in this court May 4, 1906, in which he makes the following allegations : That he was appointed and duly qualified as administrator of the estate of Frederick A. Roeder, deceased, in the county court of Jefferson County, W. Va. r on the 19th of April, 1906. That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about July 25, 1861, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of certain buildings belonging to the estate of the said F. A. Roeder, deceased, situate at Harpers Ferry, W. Va., and used and occupied the said buildings for military purposes until on or about March 25, 1862, said mili- tary forces at the time being under the command of Colonel Baxter, of the Seventy-second Pennsylvania Zouaves, and others. Tbat the reasonable rental value of said buildings during the period of said occupancy, including the repairs necessary to restore the buildings to the condi- tion in which they were at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $504, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 2Sth day of May, 1906. G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by F. De C. Faust, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. # The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the claimant's decedent was loyal to the Government of the United States during the late war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and occupied, for military purposes, certain buildings belonging to the claimant's decedent, situate at Harpers Ferry, State of West Virginia. The reasonable rental value of said buildings during the period of said occupancy, together with the repairs incident to such occupation, was the sum of three hundred and twenty dollars ($320), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed June S, 1906. A true copy. Test this 10th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 321 HARMON W. HESSEN. fin the United States Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12562. Harmon W. Hessen v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for stores, supplies, and services alleged to have been taken or exacted by or furnished to the military forces of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion, and for the use, occupation, and damage to real estate by said military forces during said war. On the 27th day of June, 1906, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: "[S. 2239, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of Harmon W. Hessen. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembted, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Harmon W. Hessen, of Martinsburg, West Virginia, the sum of six thousand dollars, the same being for use and occupation of buildings owned by him as barracks by the military authorities of the United States and for horses, wagons, harnesses, lumber, iron, locks, horseshoeing, blacksmithing, repairing wagons and artillery pieces for the military authorities of the United States from eighteen hundred and sixty-one to eighteen hundred and sixty-five, both inclusive." The claimant appeared in the court July 11, 1906, and filed his petition, in which it is substantially averred: That during the war for the suppression of the rebellion he was loyal to the Gov- ernment of the United States; that while residing in Oakland, Md., real and personal property owned by him was taken and used or damaged by the United States troops as follows: One dwelling house in Oakland was occupied by the United States officers and soldiers for the space of one year, during which time the partitions thereof were torn down, lathing and plastering removed, and the house generally damaged by the troops so that it had to be practically rebuilt to make it habitable. The rental value of which for the said period and the damage to the house amounting to $400. 00 Lumber taken from him by the troops and used for constructing block- house, for flooring tents, and building stables, and for fuel 497. 50 Iron for blockhouse and other purposes 460. 00 2 wagons 300. 00 6 horses 1, 100. 00 6 harnesses 150. 00 Putting 100 locks or brakes on new wagons, $10 each 1, 000. 00 Blacksmithing, horseshoeing, wagon repairing, artillery repairing, includ- ing the sharpening of picks and mattocks, the making and furnishing chains and rough locks for teams, all kinds of large chains for hauling logs for the fort and blockhouse, furnishing bolts and large bars, repair ing and fixing wagon wheels and tongues, repairing shovels, furnishing new handles 3, 440. 00 Making a total of 7, 347. 50 The case was argued and submitted on lovalty and merits on the 6th dav of Feb- ruary, 1908. Tracy L. Jeffords, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interest of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimant herein, Harmon W. Hessen, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, used and occupied claimant's dwelling house, situate in Allegany Gounty, Md., for S. Rep. 382, 60-1 21 322 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. a period of one year. During said occupancy by the military forces said building was damaged, the partitions removed, and lathing and plastering town down. The reasonable value of said use and occupation and the damage to said building was the sum of two hundred dollars ($200), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. During the late civil war said claimant, by proper authority, performed work and services for the military forces of the United States of the kind and character described in the petition, and during said period there were taken, by proper authority, from claimant's premises in Allegany County, Md., by the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, property of the kind and character described in the petition, which said services and property at the time and place of performance and taking were reasonably worth the sum of eighteen hundred and thirty-five dollars ($1,835), no part of which appears to have been paid. IV. The claim for use, occupation, and damage to the dwelling house was never presented to any Department' of the Government prior to its presentation to Con- gress and reference to this court. Claims for a portion of the services performed and the property taken were presented to the War Department in 1863 and 1879, aggregating $345.86, and were disallowed. In 1865 the whole claim was placed in the hands of an attorney in Washington for collection, by whom no action appears to have been taken before any Department. No further action appears to have been taken by claimant looking to the prosecution of his claim until its reference to this court, as aforesaid, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed. By the Court. Filed February 25, 1907. A true copy. Test this 6th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JAMES M. STEPHENSON. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11569. James M. Stephenson v. The United States.] STATEMENT OE CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Senate of the United States on the 26th day of April, 1904. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits and loyalty on the 24th day of April, 1905. William E. Richardson, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attor- ney-General, by Charles F. Kincheloe, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : That he is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Point Pleasant, Mason County, W. Va. ; that throughout the war of the rebellion he resided at Kanawha County, W. Va., and remained loyal to the United States, giving no aid or comfort to the rebellion. During the said war in Kanawha County, W. Va., near the town of Point Pleasant, in September, 1862, a part of the Second West Virginia Cavalry, acting under competent officers, took for the use of the United States for military pur- poses 600 bushels of corn, then worth $1 per bushel ; that no payment was made for said corn or receipts or vouchers given to the claimant; that this claim has never been assigned or transferred and petitioner was the sole owner of said property and is now the only person entitled to recover therefor. That petitioner did not know of the existence of laws providing a method of obtaining compensation for property so taken, for which reason he has not here- tofore presented his claim. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT . I. It appears from the evidence that James M. Stephenson was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took from ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 323 claimant in Kanawha Comity, W. Va., corn, as above set forth, which at the time and place of taking was reasonably worth the sum of two hundred and forty-four dollars ($244), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed May 1, 1905. A true copy. Test this 15th day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF ELK BRANCH PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, DUFFIELDS, W. VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11*641. Trustees of Elk Branch Presbyterian Church, of Duffields, W. Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill referred to the court April 27, 1904. by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : "[S. 1668, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of Elk Branch Presbyterian Church ,of Jefferson County, West Virginia. "Be it enacted oy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Elk Branch Presbyterian Church, of Jefferson County, West Virginia, the sum of eight hundred dollars, for use of property during the civil war." The trustees of Elk Branch Presbyterian Church, of Duffields, W. Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court November 3, 1904, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the said Elk Branch Presbyterian Church, and used the same for quarters and hospital purposes during the years 1862 and 1863; that by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs neces- sary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when said ocupa- tion commenced, was the sum of $851, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 27th day of March, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attor- ney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion rne military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and used the church building of the Elk Branch Presbyterian Church, at Duffields, W. Va., for quarters and hospital purposes. By reason of said occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable value of said occupancy, including repairs neces- sary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when said occupa- tion commenced, was the sum of six hundred dollars ($600). No payment appears to have been made therefor. II. It appears from the evidence that the Elk Branch Presbyterian Church, of Duffields, W. Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. By the Court. Filed April 10, 1905. A true copy. Test this 20th day of June, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 324 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF BUNKER HILL, W. VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12529. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Bunker Hill, W. Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court June 13, 1906, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 3887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Bunker Hill, formerly Mill Creek, West Virginia. "Be it enacted, by the Senate anil House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Bunker Hill Metho- dist Episcopal Church of Bunker Hill, formerly Mill Creek, West Virginia, the sum of one thousand and forty dollars and fifty-seven cents, being the amount found due said trustees by the Court of Claims." The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Bunker Hill, W. Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court November 1, 1906. in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion different com- mands of the United States Army, consisting of the commands of Generals Williams and Milroy, Major Morris, of the One hundred and sixteenth Ohio Regiment, and others used and occupied for military purposes the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Bunker Hill, W. Va., for a period of about eighteen months at various times from July 15, 1861, until April 1, 1865. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condi- tion in which it was at the time the. said military forces took possession, was the sum of $2,1S6.75, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 17th day of December, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Cnurch of Bunker Hill, W. Va., was loyal as a church to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of and used the church property of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Bunker Hill, W. Va., and used the same for military purposes at various times from July 15, 1861, to April 1, 1865, and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value of said church, including repairs necessary to put the church in the condition it was before military occupancy, less ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. This claim was not presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court, as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed December 24, 1906. A true copy. Test this 8th day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court 'of Claims. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 325 TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, BARBOURS- VILLE, W. VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12444. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Barboursville, W. Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. Tte following bill was referred to the court, June 13, 1906, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : " [S. 1311, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Barboursville, West Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay George E. Thornburg, G. W. Ayers, and J. E. Cyrus, trustees, one thousand five hundred dollars, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for damage to the Methodist Episcopal Church South by Union soldiers during the years of eighteen hundred and sixty-three and eighteen hundred and sixty-four." The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Barboursville, W. Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court November 24, 1906, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the fall of 1861, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Barboursville, W. Va., and used and occupied the said building at various times until the close of the war. That among the troops occupying said building were Company G, Fifth West Virginia Cavalry ; part of the Thirteenth West Virginia Infantry ; part of the Thirty-fourth and Fortieth Ohio Regiment of Infantry. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the con- dition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $1,500, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of February, 1907. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of cousel for both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Barboursville, W. Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said war the military forces of the United States, by proper au- thority, occupied said church property and used the same at intervals for winter quarters. The reasonable rental value of said church property, together with damages in excess of the ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of five hundred dollars ($500.00). III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under the act of March 3, 1887, as hereinbefore set forth, and no reason is shown why such was not done. By the Court. Filed Feb. 25, 1907. A true copy. Test this 15th day of November, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 326 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. D. B. BARBOUR AND ANDREW P. GLADDEN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12561. D. B. Barbour and Andrew P. Gladden v. United States.] STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 1 The Lnited States Senate, on January 27, 1906, referred to the court Senate bil No. 2237, reading as follows: "A BILL For the relief of D. B. Barbour and A. P. Gladden, copartners doing business under the firm name of Brown, Barbour, and Gladden. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, au- thorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appro- priated, to D. B. Barbour and A. P. Gladden, copartners as Brown, Barbour and Gladden, of Clarksburg, West Virginia, one thousand one hundred and eight dollars, with interest thereon at the rate of six per centum per annum, from the first day of January, eighteen huhdred and ninety-nine, to the date of payment, in full satisfac- tion for their claim for the increased cost of labor and materials furnished by them in the performance of a certain contract between the said firm of Brown, Barbour and Gladden and C. P. Miller, quartermaster, United States Army, dated the twenty- first day of March, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, for repairing barracks and constructing bath house and closets at Fort Monroe, Virginia, said increased cost having been caused by the order of said C. P. Miller indefinitely postponing the per- formance by said contractors of the work under said contract and later directing them to proceed after the cost of labor and materials had advanced in the sum before stated, said. Miller reading to said contractors a telegram from the office of the Quartermaster-General directing that the work proceed and promising to settle the advance on materials and labor under the head of equity; said increased cost being the difference between the price at which said contractors could have furnished said labor and material if they had been permitted to prosecute the work without delay, and the price which they were compelled to pay when they were permitted by said C. P. Miller to proceed with the work." The claimants appeared and filed their amended petition January 8, 1906, in which they allege substantially as follows: That they are citizens of the United States; that on the 21st day of March, 1898, they, together with their partner, E. R. Brown, under the firm name of Brown, Bar- bour & Gladden, entered into a written contract with Maj. C. P. Miller, quartermaster of the United States Army, among other work to make certain repairs to barracks at Fort Monroe, Va., which contract provided that the work thereunder should com- mence on or before the — day of , 1898, and that the said repairs should be completed on or before the 31st day of August, 1898. which was approved by the Acting Quartermaster-General May i9, 1898; that before the execution of the work under said contract said E. R. Brown withdrew from the said firm and transferred his interest therein to the remaining partners, the claimants, and the work thereunder was all done and materials furnished by the claimants, under the firm name of Brown, Barbour & Gladden, but said E. R. Brown had no interest in the said work or material and has no interest in the claim, as appears by a disclaimer under his hand and seal filed in this cause; that immediately upon the approval of said contract, the claimants placed orders for the necessary materials to make said repairs, but the quartermaster, on account of the indications of war at that time, indefinitely postponed the said repairs to barracks, stating that the barracks were needed for the soldiers, whereupon the claimants asked that they be released from their said contract, in response to which they were informed by the quarter- master that if there were advances in the prices of materials and labor the Govern- ment would bear the loss; that thereupon the claimants proceeded with their work under the contract and at the same time notified their material men and subcon- tractors of the postponement of said repairs, but the material men and subcontractors canceled their bids and contracts; that in the latter part of June, 1898, the claimants were notified by the quartermaster to proceed with the said repairs, wmereupon they notified him in writing that the cost of the necessary material and labor had increased, and they w r ould not proceed without having an understanding on that subject, sub- mitting statements from their several material men and subcontractors as to the said advanced cost, in response to which, and shortly thereafter, the quartermaster read to them a telegram from the Quartermaster-General directing that the claimants proceed ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 327 with the work and submit the question of equity later, when it would receive due consideration; whereupon the claimants proceeded with and completed the said repairs, furnishing the necessary material and labor at the advanced prices then prevailing; that the increased cost to the contractors of materials and labor for making said repairs was as follows: 60 M feet long-leaf yellow-pine flooring, at $27 per M, the price of which, when orders were first placed in March, 1898, was $22.50 per M; differ- ence $4.50 per M; total difference $270. 00 7 M rifed long-leaf yellow-pine flooring, § stock, $31 per M, the price of which when originally ordered in March, 1898, was $27 per M; differ- ence $4 per M; total difference 28. 00 Increased cost for painting, calcimining, and floor polishing 325. 00 Increased cost of metal ceiling _ 350. 00 Increased cost of skilled labor, 540 days, at 25 cents per day 135. 00 Total increase of cost 1, 108. 00 Of said $1,108 the contractors paid, in the ordinary course of business, all of the foregoing items excepting that for the increased cost of metal ceiling, $350, which metal ceiling was furnished to them by the Penn Metal Ceiling and Roofing Company at a price of $350 greater than the price agreed upon at the time of the original esti- mates, but with the agreement that the contractors need not pay the said $350 unless they should receive the same from the Government. The market price of the metal ceiling used had actually advanced $350 between the time of the first estimates and the time when the ceiling was furnished. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of January, 1907. Tracy L. Jeffords, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by A. C. Campbell, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. I. D. B. Barbour and Andrew P. Gladden are citizens of the United States, and were such citizens at all the times hereinafter mentioned. D. B. Barbour resides at New- port News, Va., and Andrew P. Gladden resides at Clarksburg, W. Va. II. On the 21st day of March, 1898, a written contract was entered into between Maj. C. P. Miller, Quartermaster of the United States Army, on the one part, and E. R. Brown, D. E. Barbour and Andrew P. Gladden, doing business under the firm name of Brown, Barbour & Gladden, whereby said firm of Brown, Barbour & Glad- den agreed, among other things, to make certain repairs to barracks, furnishing the necessary material and labor therefor, at Fort Monroe, in accordance with plains and specifications attached to the contract. The contract provided that work thereunder should commence on or before the 13th day of March, 1898, and be carried forward with reasonable dispatch, and the bath house and water-closets to be completed on or before the 30th day of June, 1898, and the repairs of barracks should be com- pleted ( n or before the 31st day of August, 1898. The contract price for the work was $10,838. The contract was approved bv the Acting Quartermaster-General May 19, 1898. III. Before the commencement of the work under said contract said E. R. Brown withdrew from the said firm and transferred his interest in the firm's business to said C. B. Barbour and Andrew P. Gladden, and the work under said contract was all done arid materials furnished by said D B. Barbour and Andrew P. Gladden, under the firm name of Brown, Barbour & Gladden, but said E. R. Brown had no interest in the said work and materials and has no interest in this claim, as appears by the disclaimer under his hand and seal filed in this cause. IV. Immediately upon the Approval of said contract said D. B. Barbour and A. P. Gladden placed orders for the necessary material to perform the work thereunder, but before the work was actually begun Maj. C. P. Miller, quartermaster at Fort Monroe, notified said contractors that they could not proceed w T ith the repairs to said barracks, as it would have to be postponed on account of the indications of war and the need to use the barracks for the soldiers. Thereupon the contractors noti- fied said quartermaster that they had ordered the material for the work and asked how long the postponement" would be, in response to which they were informed by the quartermaster that the delay would be indefinite. 328 AlaLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. The contractors then asked that they be released from that part of the contract requiring them to make the repairs to the barracks, but the quartermaster informed them that if there were advances in the prices of materials and labor it would be the loss of the Government and not their loss, but that the work would have to be done. Accordingly the contractors proceeded with other work under the contract and left the work on the barracks untouched, and in the meantime notified their material men and subcontractors of the postponement and the reasons therefor; but the mate- rial men and subcontractors refused to hold their bids and contracts open and can- celed the same. Thereafter, in the latter part of June, 1898, Lieut. S. E. Allen, who had succeeded Maj. C. P. Miller as quartermaster at Fort Monroe, notified the contractors to pro- ceed with the work of repairing the barracks, the contractors informing him in writ- ing on the 25th day of June, 1898, of the understanding they had with Maj. C. P. Miller about the postponement of the repairs to the barracks, and that they could not proceed without having an understanding on the increased cost of labor and material. With their letter they submitted statements from their several material men and subcontractors and asked the quartermaster to make good to them the advances in prices of material and labor, informing him that they were ready to begin on receipt of his acceptance of the advance in prices. The quartermaster forwarded the contractors' said notice to the Quartermaster- General, who responded thereto in the following telegram: "Referring to your letter of the 27th instant, the contract is binding. Have the contractors begin the work and submit the question of equity later. It will receive due consideration." Said Lieutenant Allen read said telegram to the contractors and told them to pro- ceed and the Government would do whatever was right in equity. Thereupon the contractors proceeded with and completed the work, furnishing the necessary mate- rial and labor at the advanced prices then prevailing. V. The increased cost to the contractors of material and labor in making the repairs to said barracks as aforesaid were as follows: 60 M feet long-leaf yellow-pine flooring, at $27 per M, the price of which, when orders were first placed in March, 1898, was $22.50 per M, difference $4.50 per M; total difference $270 7 M rived long-leaf yellow-pine flooring, 5/4 stock, $31 per M, the price of which when originally ordered in March, 1898, was $27 per M, difference $4.00 per M; total increased cost : 28 Increased cost for painting, calcimining, and floor polishing 325 Increased cost of skilled labor, 540 days, at 25 cents per day 135 Total increase of cost 758 (Seven hundred and fifty-eight dollars.) VI. No payment has been made to the claimants on account of this claim. VII. The claim was presented by said D. B. Barbour and Andrew P. Gladden, under the firm name of Brown, Barbour & Gladden, to the quartermaster at Fort Monroe, Va. , under date of July 5, 1898, before the work was actually begun upon the repairs to barracks. After the work was completed they pressed this claim before the office of the Quartermaster-General, who, under date of February 7, 1899, submitted a report to the Secretary of War recommending payment of $758 to said firm for increase in cost of material and labor. VIII. From the findings of fact in this case it appears that the claimants might have prosecuted their claim in the Federal courts for the recovery of the damages asked for, and the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations before the reference of same to this court, and no reason or excuse has been given for the delay. By the Court. Filed January 14, 1907. A true copy. • « Test this 26th day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 829 TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, CHARLES TOWN, W. VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11647. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Charles Town, W. Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress, approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Charles Town, West Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Charles Town, West Virginia, the sum of six thousand dollars, for use, occupation, and damage to church property by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Charles Town, Jef- ferson County, W. Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court September 15, 1905, in which they make the following allegations: That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about the spring of 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, at Charles Town, W. Va., and used and occupied the same for military purposes at various times from said date until the close of the war, and during said occupancy damaged the said building; that the cost to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession was the sum of $S03.66, for which no payirient has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 28th day of January, 1907. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by James A. Tanner, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following ■ FINDINGS OF FACT. I. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Charles Town, W. Va., as a church, was loyal to the Govern- ment of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the late civil war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, used and occupied for military purposes the church property of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Charles Town, W. Va., and dam- aged the same. After the use, occupation, and damage to said church property the military forces of the Confederate army used and occupied said church building as a hospital for a period of less than a month. This was subsequent to the battle of Sharpsburg. The evidence establishes to the satisfaction of the court that after this tempo- rary use by the Confederate military forces as a hospital the said church build- ing was again used and occupied by the military forces of the United States for a period of about three months. Said use and occupation, together with the damage thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was reasonably worth the sum of six hundred dollars ($600), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. A claim for repairs to said church was filed with the Quartermaster- General February 24, 1874, and by him rejected for the reason that there was 330 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN" CLAIMS. " no law authorizing the settlement or investigation by this office of claim for repairs arising prior to the 1st of July, 1S72, and no appropriation out of which they could be paid if proved to be just." Thereafter the claim was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore stated. By the Court. Filed February 4, 1907. A true copy. Test this 6th day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. TRUSTEES METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, CLARKSBURG, W. VA. h I | [Court of Claims. Congressional Case No. 11711. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Clarkshurg, W. Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : " [S. 4422, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Clarksburg, West Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episco- pal Church South, of Clarksburg, West Virginia, the sum of two thousand one hundred dollars, for use and damage of property during the civil war." The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Clarksburg, W. Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court April 17, 1905, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and in the spring of 1S62, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Clarksburg, W. Va., and used and occupied the same for hospital, quarters, and other purposes from said date until the close of the war. That by reason of such use and occupation extensive repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said buildiug during the period it was so used and occupied, in- cluding the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when said occupation commenced, was the sum of $2,100, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 24th day of October, 1905. G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South. of Clarksburg, W. Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States by proper authority, for the use of the Army, took possession of the church building belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Clarksburg, W. Va., and used the same for hospital and other purposes from ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 331 the spring of 1862 until the clase of the war and damaged the same. Such use and occupation, together with damages incident thereto, were reasonably worth the sum of one thousand four hundred dollars ($1,400), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed October 30, 1905. A true copy. Test this 24th day of November, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, POINT PLEASANT, W. VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13006. Trustees of Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Point Pleasant, W. Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation, alleged to have been furnished to the military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the follow- ing words : "[S. 7109, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Point Pleasant, West Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Point Pleasant, West Virginia, the sum of two thousand dol- lars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war." The said trustees of said church appeared in this court March 23, 1907, and filed a petition in which it is substantially averred that — During the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took pos- session of the property of the claimant, and used and occupied the same; that by reason of such use and occupation much injury was done to said property, and the reasonable rental value of said property, during the time it was so occu- pied, including the repairs necessary to restore said property to the same condi- tion as before said occupation, was the sum of $2,000, for which no payment has been made ; that said property, consisting of a well-constructed brick church building, was occupied by United States military forces, part of the time as bar- racks, and part of the time as hospital from about — , 1863, until the end of the war, in 1865, resulting in very great injury to the property, requiring construction of new floor, repairs to windows, and woodwork, etc., bunks hav- ing been constructed beside the walls for soldiers' use. That the claimant has at all times borne true allegiance to the Government of the United States, and has not, in any way, aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 11th day of December, 1907. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Clark McKercher, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of Point Pleasant, W. Va., as an organization was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. 332 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. i II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, occupied said church building and used the same for hospital pur- poses and as barracks. The reasonable rental value of said building, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of one thousand and ninety dollars ($1,090), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The foregoing claim was never presented to any Department of the Gov- ernment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate, as- aforesaid, and no reason is given why the bar of the statute of limitations should be removed, or which shall be claimed to excuse the claim for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed January 6, 1908. A true copy. Test this 11th day of January, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOUTH, ST. ALBANS, W. VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12449. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of St. Albans, W. Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court June 13, 1906, by resolution of the United States Senate under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of St. Albans, W. Va. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Epis- copal Church South, of St. Albans, West Virginia, the sum of three thousand dollars, for use and destruction of their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of St. Albans, W. Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court July 5, 1906, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and in the month of February, 1862, the military forces of the United States under com- mand of Gen. J. T. L. Lightburn took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of St. Albans, W. Va., and used and occupied the same for military purposes, and that other commands of the United States Army also used and occupied the said building, covering a period of continuous occupation of over three years from said date. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $3,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 22d day of October, 1906. G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- General, by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. ■ I. It appears from the evidence that the M. E. Church South, of St. Albans, W. Va., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States during the late civil war. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 333 II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, of St. Albans, W. Va., and used and occupied the same for military purposes. The reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said mili- tary forces took possession, was the sum of fourteen hundred dollars ($1,400), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. The claim was never presented to any Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed October 29, 1906. A true copy. Test this 24th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH, MIDDLEWAY, W. VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11642. Trustees of the Methodist Protes- tant Church at Middleway, W. Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1S87, known as the Tucker Act : " [S. 1669, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Protestant Church of Middleway, West Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Protestant Church of Middleway, West Virginia, the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars, for use, occupation, and damage to church buildings by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The trustees of the Methodist Protestant Church of Middleway, W. Va., ap- peared and filed their petition in this court July 23, 1904, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of said Methodist Protestant Church and used and occupied the same at various times during said period for hospital, quarters, and other purposes ; that by reason of such occupancy the building was greatly damaged, and the reasonable rental value thereof during said period, including the repairs neces- sary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the troops took possession of the same, was the sum of $2,500. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of February, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering tbe briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Methodist Protestant Church of Middleway, W. Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the Methodist Protestant Church at Middleway, W. Va., and used and occupied the same 334 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. for hospital, quarters, and other purposes. By reason of such occupancy the church building was damaged, and the reasonable rental value thereof during the time it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the build- ing to the condition in which it was at the time the troops took possession of the same, was the sum of eight hundred and twenty-five dollars ($825). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed March 20, 1905. A true copy. Test this 3d day of June, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF CLARKSBURG, W. VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13025. Trustees of Presbyterian Church of Clarks- burg, W. Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use and occupation alleged to have been furnished to the military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the follow- ing words: " [S. 7158, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Clarksburg, West Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Clarksburg, West Virginia, the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, in full compensation for the occupation, use, and incidental injury to said church by United States military forces during the civil war." The said trustees of said church appeared in this court March 23, 1907, and filed their petition in which it is substantially averred : That during the late civil war the military authorities of the United States took possession of the property of said claimants, consisting of a well-con- structed brick church building, with gallery, and occupied the same for military purposes, beginning about 1862, and their occupation continuing, at intervals, throughout the entire war, and during said occupation greatly injured the same ; that the reasonable rental value of said property during said occupation, including the repairs necessary to restore the property to as good condition as before the occupation, was the sum of $1,500, for which no payment has been made; that the claimant has, at all times, borne true allegiance to the Gov- ernment of the United States, and has not, in any way, voluntarily aided, abetted, or given encouragement to rebellion against the said Government. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of January, 1908. Coldren & Fenning appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by William H. Lamar, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and argument of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Presbyterian Church of Clarksburg, W. Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building described in the petition and used and occupied the same at different times for quarters for troops and dam- aged the same. The reasonable rental value of said building, together with ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 335 damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of five hundred and twenty-five dollars ($525), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any Department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolu- tion of the United States Senate as hereinbefore set forth, and no reason is given why the bar of any statute of limitation should be removed or which shall excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Court. Filed February 3, 1908. A true copy. Test this 6th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, MOOREFIELD, W. VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11682. Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Moorefield, W. Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "[S. 3006, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Hardy County, West Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America m Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Hardy County, West Virginia, the sum of three thousand dollars, for use and occupation of and damage to church building by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The trustees of the Presbyterian Church at Moorefield, Hardy County, W. Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court October 29, 1904, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion and on or about September, 1862, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the said Presbyterian Church and used the same for military purposes until about the close of the war in 1865. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when said military authorities first took possession of the same, was the sum of three thousand dollars, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 9th day of January, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Presbyterian Church of Moorefield, W. Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out the war of the rebellion. 336 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Presbyterian Church, of Moorefield, Hardy County, State of West Vir- ginia, and used the same for military purposes from September, 1862, until about the close of the war. By reason of such occupancy repairs were neces- sary, and the reasonable rental value of said church building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when taken possession of, was the sum of four- teen hundred and thirty dollars ($1,430), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed January 16, 1905. A true copy. Test this 24th day of November, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, SPRINGFIELD, W. VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12440. Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Springfield, W. Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military forces of the United States during the civil war. On the 13th day of June, 1906, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words : " [S. 1316, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Springfield, West Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Springfield, West Virginia, the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, for use of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." The claimants appeared in this court on the 18th day of February, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about December, 1861, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Presbyterian Church at Springfield, Hampshire County, W. Va., and used and occupied the same at various times from said date until the close of the war for quarters, hospital, guardhouse, and finally as a stable. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $1,500, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 20th day of January, 1908, G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Clark McKercher, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Presbyterian Church of Springfield, W. Va., as an organization was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building described in the petition and used and occupied the same for hospital and other purposes, and damaged the same. The reasonable rental value of such use and occupation, together with the damages thereto in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 337 the sum of six hundred dollars ($600), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The claim herein was never presented to any department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolu- tion of the United States Senate, as hereinbefore stated, and no reason is given why the bar or any statute of limitation should be removed, or which shall be claimed to excuse the claimant for not having resorted to any established legal remedy. By the Cotjbt. Filed February 3, 1908. A true copy. Test this 7th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF ST. JOHN'S CATHOLIC CHURCH, OF SUMMERSVILLE, W. VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11645. Trustees of St. John's Catholic Church, of Summersville, W. Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Saint John's Catholic Church, of Summersville, West Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Saint John's Catholic Church, of Summersville, West Virginia, the sum of two thousand dollars, for use and damage to church building by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The trustees of St. John's Catholic Church, of Summersville, W. Va., ap- peared and filed their petition in this court September 7, 1905, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and on or about November, 1861, the military forces of the United States, under command of General Crook, took possession of the church building of St. John's Catholic Church, at Summersville, W. Va., and used and occupied the said building for a period of about two years. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession of the same, was the sum of $2,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of February, 1906. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by P. M. Ashford, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACTS. I. It appears from the evidence that the St. John's Catholic Church, of Sum- mersville, W. Va., was loyal to the Government of the United States during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of St. John's Catholic Church, of Summersville, W. Va., and used and occupied the same at different times for a period of about two years. The reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in- which it was at S. Rep. 382, 60-1 22 338 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of one thousand and fifty dollars ($1,050), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Court. Filed February 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 23d day of February, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF ST. JOHN EPISCOPAL CHURCH, OF CHARLESTON, W. VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12528. Trustees of St. John's Episcopal Church, at Charleston, W. Va., v. United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled cause was referred to this court by resolution of the United States Senate June 18, 1906, under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. The bill relating thereto reads as follows : "A BILL For the relief of Saint John's Episcopal Church, of Charleston, West Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the proper officer or officers of Saint John's Episcopal Church, of Charleston, West Virginia, the sum of three thousand five hundred and fifty-two dollars and fifty cents, for use and occupation of the church build- ing by United States troops during the years eighteen hundred and sixty-one to eighteen hundred and sixty-five, and for damages to the church building, fix- tures, and furniture by reason of its occupancy by said troops." The claimant appeared and filed its petition herein September 12, 1906, in which it is averred, substantially, that the board of trustees of the St. John Episcopal Church, of Charleston, W. Va., is a corporate body, existing under the laws of the State of West Virginia ; that during the war for the suppression of the rebellion the said church was loyal to the United States and did not give any aid or comfort to the rebellion ; that during the years 1861 to 1865, both inclu- sive, the said building was occupied and used by the military authorities of the. United States for a period of four years ; and while it was so occupied, and by reason thereof, its fixtures and furniture were damaged by the United States troops ; and that the reasonable rental value of said house of worship for said four years was $2,000, and the actual cost of repairing the said damage done to the building, fixtures, and furniture made necessary by the said troops was $1,552.50, and there is now due the church from the United States the sum of $3,552.50. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 7th day of January, 1907. Messrs. Crosthwaite and Colladay appeared for the claimant, and the Attor- ney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. St. John Episcopal Church, at Charleston, W. Va., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. In July, 1861, the military forces of the United States took possession of the church building described in the petition and occupied the same as and for a barracks for quartermaster's supplies until the spring of 1865, removing there- from the pews and pulpit or chancel and otherwise damaging the building and the furniture therein. The reasonable rental value of said building during the period of occupancy, together with the damage thereto in excess of the ordinary wear and tear, was at the time and place the sum of eighteen hundred and fifty dollars ($1,850), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. It appears that a claim for a portion of this property in the sum of $1,021, representing the cost of placing pews, damage to organ, and loss of reading desk,, communion table, and other furniture, was presented to the Quartermaster- ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 339 General some time in the year 1880, and was by that official disallowed for want of jurisdiction. No other action seems to have been taken toward the collection of the claim until its presentation to Congress and reference to this court under resolution of the United States Senate as hereinbefore stated. By the Court. Filed January 14, 1907. A true copy. Test this 16th day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. TRUSTEES OF ST. JOHN'S PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, HAR- PERS FERRY, W. VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11644. Trustees of St. John's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Harpers Ferry, W. Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "[S. 1672, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Saint John's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treas- ury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Saint John's Protestant Epis- copal Church, of Harpers Ferry, West Virginia; the sum of three thousand dol- lars, for use of and damage to church building by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The trustees of St. John's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Harpers Ferry, W. Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court October 29, 1904, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of St. John's Protestant Episcopal Church, at Harpers Ferry, W. Va., and used and occupied the same for military purposes. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was when the said military authorities first took possession of the same, was the sum of $3,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 5th day of April, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the St. John's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Harpers Ferry, W. Va., was, as a church, loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the church building of the St. John's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Harpers Ferry, W. Va., Avas taken, possession of by the military forces of the United States, under proper authority, during the year 1862, who used and damaged the same. The reason- able rental value and cost of repairs incident to such use a#d occupation were reasonably worth the sum of one thousand seven hundred dollars ($1,700). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Cotjkt. Filed April 10, 1905. A true copy. Test this 20th day of June, 1905. [seal.] John^Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 340 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF WEBSTER, W. YA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12391. Trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Webster, W. Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court June 13, 1906, by resolution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church of Webster, West Virginia. ''Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church at Webster, West Virginia, the sum of one thousand five hundred dollars, for use and destruction of their church property by the military forces df the United States during the late civil war." The trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of Webster, W. Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court September 5, 1906, in which they make The following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, and from the spring of 1861 to the spring of 1865, various detachments of the United States Army, consisting of the Sixth West Virginia and Eighty-seventh Pennsylvania regiments of Infantry and other regiments, used and occupied, to the exclusion of the congregation, the church building of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of Webster, W. Va. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the con- dition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $1,500, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 22d day of January, 1906. G. W. Hott, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Methodist Episcopal Church, of Webster, W. Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church build- ing of the Methodist Episcopal Church, of Webster, W. Va., and used the same from time to time for military purposes. The reasonable rental value of said building during the period so occupied, together with the damage in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of four hundred and fifty dollars ($450), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. The foregoing claim was not presented to any department of the Govern- ment prior to its presentation to Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the United States Senate as hereinbefore stated. By the Court. Filed January 28, 1907. A true copy. i Test this 30th day of January, 1907. [seat,.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 341 TRUSTEES OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF BEVERLY, W. VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11681. Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Beverly, W. Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: " [S. 3005, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the Trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Beverly, West Virginia. "Be .it enacted oy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Beverly, West Virginia, the sum of two thousand dollars, for use of and dam- age to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The trustees of the Presbyterian Church of Beverly, W. Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court September 14, 1904, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the said Presbyterian Church, at Beverly, W. Va., and used and occu- pied the same as a commissary storehouse, guardhouse, and for other purposes, from 1861 to 1S63 ; that said building was a frame structure, about 33 by 46 feet, and in good state of repair at the time the United States forces took pos- session of the same; that by reason of such occupancy the building was so badly damaged that it could not be repaired and was a total loss to the congregation ; tbat said building was reasonably worth at the time the United States forces took possession the sum of $2,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 9th day of January, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attor- ney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACTS. I. It appears from the evidence that the Presbyterian Church of Beverly, W. Va., as a church was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out the late war of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the Presbyterian Church, at Beverly, W. Va., and used and occupied the same for military purposes from 1861 to 1863. The reasonable rental value of said church building during said occupancy, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the same condition in which it was when said occupation com- menced, was the sum of fifteen hundred dollars ($1,500), for which no payment appears to have been made. By the Coukt. Filed January 16, 1905. A true copy. Test this 3d day of February, 1905. [seal.] ' John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 342 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. TRUSTEES OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF PETERSBURG, W. VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11053. Trustees of the Presbyterian Church, of Petersburg, W. Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court March 3, 1903, by resolution of the United States Senate, under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act: "[S. 4209, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of the Presbyterian Church at Petersburg, West Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Presbyterian Church at Petersburg, West Virginia, the sum of three thousand dollars, in full compensation for church edifice belonging to said congregation and destroyed by the Union Army during the late civil war." The trustees of the Presbyterian Church, of Petersburg, W. Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court November 25, 1904, in which they make the following allegations : That in the spring of 1863 the military forces of the United States under command of General Milroy took possession of the church building of che Pres- byterian Church at Petersburg, W. Va., and used the same as a commissary storehouse and continued to use the same until the fall of 1863, when they destroyed the said building by fire in order to prevent the supplies stored therein from falling into the hands of the Confederate forces. That said building was constructed of brick, was in a good state of repair, and reasonably worth at the time of its destruction, as aforesaid, the sum of $3,000. That after the destruc- tion of the said building, as aforesaid, the brick contained therein were used by the military forces of the United States for building chimneys, ovens, and for other purposes. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 19th day of December, 1904. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by George M. Anderson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS -OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that the Presbyterian Church, of Petersburg, W. Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States through- out the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, under proper authority, took possession of, occupied, and later destroyed the church building belonging to the Presbyterian Church, of Peters- burg, W. Va., and used the materials therein contained, which materials were reasonably worth the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed December 22, 1904. A true copy. Test this 16th day of January, 1905. [seal.] Archibald Hopkins, Chief Clerk. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 343 TRUSTEES OF ZION PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, OF CHARLES TOWN, W. VA. {Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12442. Trustees of Zion Protestant Episcopal Church, of Charles Town, W. Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court June 13, 1906, by resolution of the United States Senate, under act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act. "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Zion Protestant Episcopal Church, of Charles Town, West Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees, of Zion Protestant Epis- copal Church, of Charles Town, West Virginia, the sum of one thousand dol- lars, for use of and damage to their church property by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." The trustees of Zion Protestant Episcopal Church, of Charles Town, W. Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court August 28, 1906, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late civil war, and on or about the fall of 1863, the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of Zion Protes- tant Episcopal Church, of Charles Town, W. Va., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes until the close of the war. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occupied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condition in which it was at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $1,000, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 15th day of January, 1907. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the de- fense and protection of the interests of the United States. . The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments •of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. Throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion the Zion Protes- tant Episcopal Church, of Charles Town, W. Va., was, as a church, loyal to the Government of the United States. ' II. During the said war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the army, took possession of the building belonging to the said Zion Protestant Episcopal Church, of Charles Town, W. Va., and occu- pied the same for hospital purposes. The reasonable rental value of said build- ing, together with the damages incident to said occupation in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was the sum of five hundred and forty dollars ($540), for which no payment appears to have been made. III. It does not appear that said claim was ever presented to any officer or Department of the Government prior to its presentation to Congress and ref- erence to this court as aforesaid. By the Court. Filed January 21, 1907. A true copy. Test this 12th day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 344 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. WARDENS AND VESTRYMEN OF ST. MARK'S PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, OF ST. ALBANS, W. VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 11622. Wardens and vestrymen of St. Mark's Protestant Episcopal Church, of St. Albans, W. Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court April 27, 1904, by resolution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : "£S. 757, Fifty-eighth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Saint Mark's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Saint Albans, West Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of Saint Mark's Protestant Episcopal Church, of Saint Albans, West Virginia, the sum of two thousand five hundred and sixty-five dollars, for use of and damage to church building by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the re- bellion." The wardens and vestrymen of St. Mark's Protestant Episcopal Church, of St. Albans, W. Va., appeared and filed their petition in this court September 22, 1904, in which they make the following allegations : That during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building of the said St. Mark's Protestant Episcopal Church at St. Albans, W. Va., and used and occupied the same for military purposes for a period of about three years. That by reason of such occupancy repairs were necessary, and the reasonable rental value of said building during the period of said occupancy, including the repairs necessary to restore the building to the condi- tion in which it was when the military authorities took possession of the same, was the sum of $2,550, for which no payment has been made. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 16th day of January, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attor- ney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. It appears from the evidence that St. Mark's Protestant Episcopal Church, of St. Albans, W. Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion. II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, took possession of the church buildings belonging to the St. Mark's Protestant Episcopal Church, of St. Albans, W. Va., and used the same for military purposes for a period of about three years. Such use and occupation, including the damages incident thereto during said period, were reasonably worth the sum of two thousand four hundred dollars ($2,400). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed January 23, 1905. A true copy. Test this 3d day of February, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 345 TRUSTEES OF TRINITY PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL CHURCH, MARTINS- BURG, W. VA. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 12899. Trustees of Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church of Martinsburg, W. Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. This is a claim for use of and damage to a church building by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war. On the 27th day of April, 1904, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: " [S. 3200, Fifty-eighth Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Trinity Episcopal Church, of Martinsburg, West Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of RepresentaVves of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, author- ized and directed to pay, out of any money in £he Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the trustees of the Trinity Episcopal Church, of Martinsburg, West Virginia, the sum of one thousand four hundred and fifty dollars, in full satisfaction for the use of and occupation of said church for hospital purposes by the Federal troops from Decem- ber first, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, to May first, eighteen hundred and sixty- five, at the rate of fifty dollars per month." On the 2d day of March, 1907, the United States Senate referred to the court a bill in the following words: " [S, 5180, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] "A BILL For the relief of the trustees of Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church, of Martinsburg, West Virginia. "Be it enacted by the Senate and. House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not other- wise appropriated, to the trustees of Trinity Protestant Episcopal Chnrch, of Mar- tinsburg, West Virginia, the sum of one thousand four hundred and ninety-four dollars and fifty-three cents, on account of repairs rendered necessary to their church building by reason of the occupation of the same by the military forces of the United States during the late civil war." The claimants appeared in this court March 25, 1907, and filed their petition, in which it is substantially averred: That on or about June, 1861, the military forces of the United States, under com- mand of General Patterson, took possession of the church building of Trinity Protes- tant Episcopal Church, of Martinsburg, W. Va., and used and occupied the same for hospital purposes; that thereafter different other commands of the United States, Army continued to use and occupy the said building until the close of the war; that by reason of such occupancy the building was very much damaged, and the pews, pulpit, furniture, and fixtures were destroyed. That the reasonable rental value of said building during the period it was so occu- pied, including the repairs necessary to restore the building and contents to the con- dition in which they were at the time the said military forces took possession, was the sum of $2,944.53, no part of which has ever been paid. The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 25th day of February 1908. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney-General, by Malcolm A. Coles, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The conrt, upon the evidence adduced by the claimant, none being adduced by the defendants, except the report of the Treasury Department relative to the pre- sentation of a claim for damages, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The Trinity Protestant Episcopal Church, of Martinsburg, W. Va., as a church, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war. II. During said period the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took possession of the church building described in the petition and used and occupied 346 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. the same for hospital purposes and barracks for a period of about three years and dam- aged the same. The reasonable rental value of said period, together with damages in excess of ordinary wear and tear, was then and there the sum of thirteen hundred and forty dollars ($1,340), no part of which appears to have been paid. III. A claim by the claimant church herein was filed in the Treasury Department for damages, which claim was disallowed January 20, 1880, by the accounting officers because they had no jurisdiction over the same. Thereafter the United States Senate, by resolution, referred to the court April 27, 1904, a claim for rent, and on March 2, 1907, a claim for damages. No satisfactory evidence is adduced showing why the claims were not earlier presented. By the Court. Filed February 25, 1908. A true copy. Test this 2d day of March, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. COUNTY COURT OF BERKELEY COUNTY, W. VA. T Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11144. The County Court of Berkeley County, W. Va., v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The following bill was referred to the court on the 2d day of March, 1903, by resolution of the United States Senate under an act of Congress approved March 3, 1887, known as the Tucker Act : "IS. 6760, Fifty-seventh Congress, second session.] "A BILL For the relief of the county court of Berkeley County, West Virginia. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to the county court of Berkeley County, West Virginia, the sum of thirteen thousand seven hundred and thirty-three dollars and thirty-three cents, for the use and occupation of and damage to the court-house and jail property in said county by the military forces of the United States during the late war of the rebellion." The claimant appeared in this court and filed its petition on the 26th day of March, 1903, in which it makes the following allegations : That it is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of West Virginia ; that by virtue of the laws of said State said corporation is the owner of and vested of the real and personal estate, rights, interests, and privileges in relation to the real or personal estate, claims, and rights of action hereto- fore or now belonging to said county of Berkeley ; that during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion said corporation was the owner of certain real estate situate in said county and upon which was erected certain buildings, the property of said corporation, consisting of a court-house, jail, and other buildings ; that said property was taken possession of by the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the Army during said period, and that the United States is justly indebted to said corporation as follows: Rent of court-house, three years and four months, at $2,200 per year_ $7, 333. 33 Rent of jail property, consisting of jail building and dwelling house, three years and four months, at $800 per year 2, 666. 66 Repairs to court-house 733. 33 Repairs to jail building 3, 000. 00 Total 13, 733. 32 (First occupied July 2, 1861, by General Patterson's command, and after that date by various commands of the United States Army.) The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on the 2d day of May, 1905. G. W. Z. Black, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by W. W. Scott, esq., appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 347 The court, upon the evidence and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, making the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The county of Berkeley at the beginning of the civil war was a part of the State of Virginia, which was declared in insurrection by the President by a proclamation August 16, 1861. It was among the excepted counties which were not declared in insurrection by the President's proclamation January 1, 1863. It was subsequently, on the 5th of August, 1S63, admitted to and became a part of the State of West Virginia. Apart from the county being technically a part of the State of Virginia it always maintained a loyal adherence to the Union and was controlled by loyal men. (3 W. Va. Court of Appeals P., 461.) II. During the war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States, for the use of the Army, by proper authority, took, used, and occupied for a period of about two years and ten months the court-house and jail of Berkeley County, W. Va., and damaged the same. Such use and occupation of and damage to said property were reasonably worth the sum of seven thousand nine hunded and twenty dollars ($7,920). No payment appears to have been made therefor. By the Court. Filed May 15, 1905. A true copy. Test this 20th day of June, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. Difference Between Shore and Sea Pay. CALIFORNIA. HANNAH M. COON. {Court of Claims. Hannah M. Coon, widow (remarried) of Edward B. Bingham, deceased, v. The United States. Congressional, No. 10942-473.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's husband was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 tf. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $477.39. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the riling of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such read- justment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant out of said appropria- tion, the sum of $168.90, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the pay- ment of the same, was $308.49. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Sonoma, in the State of California, and is the widow (remarried) of Edward B. Bingham, de- ceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 349 350 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $477.39; the amount paid claimant was $168.90; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $308.49 (three hundred and eight dollars and forty-nine cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 18th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. EMILY V. CUTTS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 535. Emily V. Cutts, widow of Richard M. Cutts deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving an an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by penate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for Sroceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress, approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $287.33. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim or such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- ment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $36.37, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $250.96. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT.- The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Mare Island, in the State of California, and is the widow of Richard M. Cutts, deceased, whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $287.33; the amount paid claimant was $36.37; the amount suspended under the ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 351 proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889 (Stat. L.), and which still remains unpaid, is $250.96 (two hundred and fifty dollars and ninety-six cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. FRANCENIA H. DALE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 526. Francenia H. Dale, widow of Frank C. Dale, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent was serivng as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $61.64. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the fol- lowing proviso: ' 'That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $61.64. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the'county'of Merced, in the State of California, and is the widow of Frank C. Dale, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $61.64; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $61.64 (sixty-one dollars and sixty-four cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 352 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. • MARCUS D. HYDE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 475. Marcus D. Hyde v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $225.98. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- ment of the same was $225.98. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the ac- counting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OP FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Ala- meda, in the State of California, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- priated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $225.98; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is $225.98 (two hundred and twenty-five dollars and ninety-eight cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 18th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 353 LOUISA I. LAINE. [ Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—474. Louisa I. Laine, widow of Richard W. Laine, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's husband was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $173.29. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall pe paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17,1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due the sum of $47.74, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $125.55. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OP PACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of San Francisco, in the State of California, and is the widow of Richard W. Laine, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $173.29, the amount paid claimant was $47.74, the amount suspended under the pro- viso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889., and which still remains unpaid, is $125.55 (one hundred and twenty-five dollars and fifty-five cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of facts as filed by the court. Test this 18th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. S. Rep. 382, 60-1 23 354 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. NICHOLAS PRATT. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F. No. 115. Nicholas Pratt v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled cause for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, as mate, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel,. esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being 1352.54. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 211, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriation for such allowance (and others of like character) Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. Whereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the same decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which the claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $352.54. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the' same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and was an officer in the Navy thereof, and a resident of the State of California, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant under said decision was $352.54; the amount sus- pended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is three hundred and fifty-two dollars and fifty-four cents ($352.54). By the Court. Filed December 24, 1906. A true copy. Test this 29th day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 355 COLORADO. JOSEPHINE A. BUELL. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10942—684. Josephine A. Buell, widow of James W. Buell, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States^ upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in her petition, makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S. , 656), the sum thus allowed being $97.61. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by t\e accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $97.61. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OP PACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Jeffer- son, in the State of Colorado, and is the widow of James W. Buell, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- priated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $97.61; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved Sep- tember 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $97.61 (ninety-seven dollars and sixty-one cents). By the Court. Filed November 12, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims.. 356 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. JAMES THAYER. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13093-17. James Thayer v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiv- ing or other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court by Senate reso- lution on the 2d day of March, 1907, referring Senate bill No. 7801 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of February, 1908. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: That he served as a gunner in the United States Navy on the receiving ships New Hampshire and Worcester, and that during the period of such service he received shore pay and allowances instead of sea pay and allowances, to which he is entitled under the decision of this court and the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656). That the difference between sea pay and shore pay, amounting to $184.95, is due claimant, but that payment of same has been prohibited by the act of September 30, 1890. The court, upon the evidence and report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT. I. The claimant is a,citizen of the United States and a resident of Crested Butte. Colo., and is the identical person who served as a gunner on the receiving ships New Hampshire and Worcester from July 2, 1875, to February 11, 1876. For said service claimant has been paid the shore pay and allowances of a gunner, and no claim has ever been presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury for the difference between shore pay and allowances, which he has received, and sea pay and allowances, which he claims to be entitled to under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) had not Congress prohibited the payment of same. II. During the time claimant was attached to said receiving ships as aforesaid, he had, or was required to have, his quarters and to mess on board said vessels, and was required to wear his uniform, and was not permitted by the rules of the service to live with his family. III. The difference between the sea pay and allowances of a gunner from July 2, 1875, to February 11, 1876, and the amount which claimant has received for his serv- ice during that period is one hundred and eighty-four dollars and ninety-five cents ($184.95), no part of which has been paid. By the Couet. Filed February 20, 1908. A true copy. Test this 21st day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. CONNECTICUT. ELIZABETH F. CURTIS, ADMINISTRATRIX. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12013. Elizabeth F. Curtis, administratrix de bonis non, v. United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled cause for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent, William Barrymore, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, refer- ring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 357 This case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of June, A. D. 1906, and Eugene A. Jones, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed for Navy pay being 1603.57. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive Document No. 59, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appro- priating for said allowance (and others of like character) , Congress made the following proviso : "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved September 30, 1890.) Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision of the case of Strong v. United States and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant's decedent on account of navy pay, out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The account- ing officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision of the case of Strong v. United States had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $603.57. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury Department, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OP PACTS. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and the duly appointed administratrix c. t. a. de bonis non of the estate of William Barrymore, deceased; that said decedent was an officer in the Navy of the United States and a resident of the State of Connecti- cut and is the identical person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant for navy pay by the accounting officers under said decision was $603.57; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Con- gress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid is six hundred and three dollars and fifty-seven cents ($603.57). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. HARRIET B. GAYLORD. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—548. Harriet B. Gaylord, sister of Dudley E. Taylor, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 358 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $186.35. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropria- tion, the sum of $43.46, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $142.89. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of New Haven, in the State of Connecticut, and is the sister of Dudley E. Taylor, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $186.35; the amount paid claimant was $43.46; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $142.89 (one hundred and forty-two dollars and eighty-nine cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clcrlt Court of Claims. GIDEON E. HOLLOWAY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — S84. Gideon E. Holloway, son of Gideon E. Holloway, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 359 The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being 1139.50. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $139.50. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of New London, in the State of Connecticut, and is the son of Gideon E. Hollo way, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $139.50; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is $139.50 (one hundred and thirty-nine dollars and fifty cents). By the Coukt. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copv of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JULIUS G. RATHBONE, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 1094 — 2560. Julius G. Rathbone administrator of George C. Campbell, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S. , 656), the sum thus allowed being $230.19. This action 360 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. was reported to Congress by the Secretary of trie Treasury for appropriation. In appro- priating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: B£| "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officersjas the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was 1230.17. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court,, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following] FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Hart- ford, in the State of Connecticut, and is the administrator of George C. Campbell, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. » The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $230.19; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is two hundred and thirty dollars and nineteen cents ($230.19). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. DELAWARE. GEORGE R. GRAY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—488. George R. Gray v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for pro- ceedings, and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $490.74. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: ALLOWANCE OP CEETAIN CLAIMS. 361 That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any portion of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- ment of the same was $490.74. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and aftef considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following 1 FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of New- castle in the State of Delaware, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- priated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was .74; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $490.74 (four hundred and ninety dollars and seventy-four cents.) By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 19th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. OTWAY C. BERRYMAN AND OTHERS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—528. Otway C. and William M. Berryman, Alice B. Brom- well, Columbia N. Payne, children of O. H. Berryman, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the day of , 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $67.25. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable, shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the 362 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimants would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- ment of the same, was $67.25. / Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of Washington, in the District of Columbia, and elsewhere, and are the children of O. H. Berryman, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $67.25; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $67.25 (sixty-seven dollars and twenty-five cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A time copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. JOHN C. BOYD. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10492—466. John C. Boyd v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant, John C. Boyd, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, a surgeon, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of December, 1905. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by L. A. Pradt, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $238.62. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 59, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. " (Act approved March 2, 1899.) Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States v. Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 363 six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States v. Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $238.62. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the ac- counting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OP PACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the city of Washing- ton, in the District of Columbia, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- priated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $238.62; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1899, and which still remains unpaid is $238.62 (two hundred and thirty- eight dollars and sixty-two cents). By the Court. Filed December 18, 1905. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 5th day of January, 1906. [seal. J John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOHN B. BRIGGS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—517. John B. Briggs v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the fol owing allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $16.44. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- ment of the same was $16.44. 364 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the District of Columbia, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $16.44; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $16.44 (sixteen dollar? and forty- four cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 20th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, . Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ROBERDEAU BUCHANAN, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11916. Roberdeau Buchanan, administrator de bonis non of McKean Buchanan, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE, The claim in the above-mentioned case for difference between sea pay and shore duty pay while the late McKean Buchanan was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, a paymaster upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by the Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the pro- visions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of May, 1906. Reginald S. Huidekoper appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $1,115.06. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Execu- tive Document No. 132, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: ' ' That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved March 2, 1889, 25 Stat. L., 934.) Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more ' than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due the sum of $260.06, being the allowance for rations. And at the desire of the accounting officers of the Treasury Department Mrs. F. Selina Buchanan, widow of the late McKean Buchanan, took out letters of administration in the probate court of Washington upon this portion of the estate of her husband, where- upon the accounting officers of the Treasury Department allowed the whole claim of $1,115.06 to her in her name and paid to her the sum of $260.06, being the allowance for rations, upon which no prohibition of payment had been placed by Congress. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 365 The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received for rations, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $855. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the ac- counting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the city of Washing- ton, D. C, and the said McKean Buchanan is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers reported to Congress, and appro- priated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $1,115.06; the amount paid claimant was $260.06; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889 (25 Stat. L., 934), and which still remains unpaid is $855 (eight hundred and fifty-five dollars). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the finding of facts as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOHN D. CAHILL, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—520. John D. Cahill, administrator of Dennis Twiggs, deceased, v . The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $126.58. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been enti- tled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohib- ited the payment of the same was $126.58. 366 ALLOWANCE OP OEETAIN CLAIMS. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the District of Columbia, and is the nephew of Dennis Twiggs, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $126.58; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid is $126.58 (one hundred and twenty- six dollars and fifty-eight cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MARY H. CORBETT. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-513. Mary H. Corbett, granddaughter of Samuel Howard deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant 's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $370.13. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States v. Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the samenvas $370.13. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 367 FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the District of Columbia, and is the granddaughter of Samuel Howard, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $370.13; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $370.13 (three hundred and seventy dollars and thirteen cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 20th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. LOUISA A. CROSBY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 1 C. F. C. Louisa A. Crosby, widow of Pierce Crosby deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's intestate was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 14th day of January, 1907. Charles W. Clagett, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegation: That she s the widow of Pierce Crosby, deceased. This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed- by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $477.17. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. (House Ex. Doc. 59, 50th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 57-63.) In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. " Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such read- justment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's intestate out of said appropriation, the sum of $208, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's intestate would have been en- titled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $477.17. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso , and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 368 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the District of Co- lumbia, and is the widow of Pierce Crosby, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $477.17; the amount paid claimant was $208; the amount suspended under the pro- viso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which, still remains unpaid, is $269.17 (two hundred and sixty-nine dollars and seventeen cents). By the Court. Filed January 14, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 24th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SAMUEL CROSS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-464. Samuel Cross v. the United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protecton of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $26.85. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropri- ation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $26.85. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments o*f counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the District of Columbia, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 369 the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the acc-uunting officers under said decision was $26.85; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid is $26.85 (twenty-six dollars and eighty-five cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 18th day of April, 1906. [seal.] -7; John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. THOMAS T. DIDIER. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. and F. 20. Thomas T. Didier and Frederick W. Didier, heirs of Frederick B. Didier, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimants' deceased father, Frederick B. Didier, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, as paymaster's clerk upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of January, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by L. A. Pradt, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $129.30. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive Document 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved September 30, 1890.) Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States v. Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimants' decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which the claimants would have been entitled under the decision in the United States v. Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $129.30. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OP PACTS. ^Claimants are citizens of the United States, and their decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the District of Columbia, and is the identical person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. S. Rep. 382, 60-1 24 370 ' ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The amount found due claimants' decedent by the accounting officers under said decision was $129.30; the amount paid claimants' decedent was nothing; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $129.30 (one hundred and twenty -nine dollars and thirty cents). By the Court. Filed February 5, 1906. A true copy. Test this 6th day of February, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. WILLIAM S. DIXON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942— C. & F. 157. William S. Dixon v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled cause for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States — to wit, as assistant surgeon — upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of 'the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 4th day of November, 1907. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $248.77. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Docu- ment No. 132, Fiftieth Congress, first session. In appropriating for such allowance (and others of like character) Congress provided that no part of any of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the. date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the same decision in the United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation the sum of $112.33, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which the claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- ment of same, was $136.44. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The -court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following , FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and is an officer in the Navy thereof, and a resident of the District of Columbia, and is the identical person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- priated for, as alleged in the petition. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 371 The amount found due claimant under said decision was $248.77; the amount paid claimant was $112.33; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $136.44 (one hundred and thirty-six dollars and forty-four cents). By the Court. Filed November 4, 1907. A true copy. Test this 5th day of November, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. EDWARD J. DORN. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942— C. & F., No. 51. Edward J. Dorn v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant, Edward J. Dorn, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an ensign upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 9th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in his petition, makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $202.19. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive Document No. 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allow- ance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date-on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- ment of the same was $202.19. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the said proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the District of Columbia and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 372 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 119; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $202.19 (two hundred and two dollars and nineteen cents) . By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy. Test this 21st day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. KATE R. EMMERICH AND PARTHENIA E. ALTEMUS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 467. Kate R. Emmerich, Parthenia E. Altemus, sisters of Charles F. Emmerich, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's brother was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegation: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury, Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in .the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $452.87. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States v. Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $452.87. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following "" FINDINGS OP PACT, The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of Washington, D. C, and are the sisters of Charles F. Emmerich, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 873 The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $452.87; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $452.87 (four hundred and fifty-two dollars and eighty-seven cents). By the Court Filed April 16, 1906 A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 18th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. JAMES M. FLINT. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F., No. 103. James M. Flint v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled cause, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, as mate, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the de- fense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $193.30. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive Document JNo. 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for such allowance (and others of like character) Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid Avhich accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. Whereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the same decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which the claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $193.30. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the District of Columbia, and is the identical person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant under said decision was $193.30; the amount sus- pended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is one hundred and ninety-three dollars and thirty cents ($193.30). By the Court. Filed December 24, 1906. A true copy. Test this 29th day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 374 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS, MARINA B. HARDING. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 587. Marina B. Harding, widow (remarried) of,Henry O. Handy, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $702.47. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims.. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant' s decedent out of said appropria- tion, the sum of $507.24, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $195.23. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, piirsuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the District of Columbia, and is the widow (remarried) of Henry O. Handy, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $702.47; amount paid claimant was $507.24; amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $195.23 (one hundred and ninety-five dollars and twenty -three cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact a? ^led by the court. Test this 2M day o* October, 1906. [seal.1 John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAHsT CLAIMS. 375 ISAAC HAZLETT. [Court of Claims. No. 12058, Congressional. Isaac Hazlett v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, a lieutenant-commander upon receiving ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 5th day of April, 1906. Mr. Bernard P. Mimmack appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this coiut and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., p. 656), the sum thus allowed being $131.51 This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Execu- tive Document No. 159, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of the said claim." (Act approved September 30, 1890.) Thereafter, pursuant to said provision, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the said petition in the case Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference of pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which the claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- ment of the same was §131.51. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provision, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OP FACTS. Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and is an officer in the Navy thereof on the retired list; that he is a resident of the District of Columbia, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $131.51. The amount paid claimant was nothing. The amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $131.51 (one hundred and thirty -one dollars and fifty-one cents). By the Court. Filed April 9, 1906. A true copy. Test this 12th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 376 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. CUMBERLAND G. HERNDON. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942— C. & F. No. 57. Cumberland G. Herndon v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant, Cumberland G. Herndon, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an assistant surgeon upon receiving and other ships belong- ing to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolutions on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 9th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Strong i>. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $442.84. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Ex- ecutive Document No. 59, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which^he judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such read- justment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant out of said appropria- tion the sum of 1238.19, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- ment of the same was 1204.65. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the said proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following ist.Siil FINDING OF FACTS. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and he was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the District of Columbia and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $442.84, the amount paid claimant was $238.19, and the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still re- mains unpaid, is $204.65 (two hundred and four dollars and sixty-five cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy. Test this 21st day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 377 JOHN HUBBARD. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—509. John Hubbard v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiv- ing and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court by Senate res- olution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $107.34. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States v. Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- ment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation the sum of $12, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $95.34. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the District of Columbia, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $107.34; the amount paid claimant was $12; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $95.34 (ninety-five dollars and thirty-four cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 20th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 378 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 515. Alice S. Jordan, widow of John W. Jordan, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Penne baker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being 1340.75. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria - tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adapted by the accounting offi- cers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- ment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of $88.96, being the amount which accrued subsequent to i July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $251.79. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the ac- counting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OP PACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the District of Columbia, and is the widow of John W. Jordan, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $340.75; the amount paid claimant was $88.96; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $251.79 (two hundred and fifty-one dollars and seventy-nine cents.) By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 20th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 379 BELLA A. LEACH. [Court of Clairas. Congressional, No. 10942-485. Bella A. Leach, widow of Bojnton Leach, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $83.83. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said, claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohib- ited the payment of the same, was $83.83. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the District of Columbia, and is the widow of Boynton Leach, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States i>. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $83.83; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid is $88.83 (eighty-three dollars and eighty-three cents). ' By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. • A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 19th day of April, 1906. [seal.] % John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 380 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. FLORENCE MURRAY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-482. Florence Murray, widow of .Alexander Murray deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay- while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceed- ings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906 . Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U- S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $19.80. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $19.80. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OP PACT. • The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the District of Columbia, and is the widow of Alexander Murray, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S. 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $19.80, the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $19.80 (nineteen dollars and eighty cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 19th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. HENRIETTA M. D. OLIPHANT. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 606. Henrietta M. D. Oliphant, widow (remarried) of Henry J. Hunt, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 381 upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949. for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury- Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $95.89. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such read- justment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent, out of said appropriation, the sum of $66.85, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $29.04. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the District of Colum- bia, and is the widow (remarried) of Henry J. Hunt, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $95.89; the amount paid claimant was $66.85; the amount suspended under the pro- viso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid is $29.04 (twenty-nine dollars and four cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. CHRISTINE I. OWEN AND OTHERS. [Court of Claims. Congressional No. 10942—695. Christine I. Owen, Kathleen D. Owen, Albert T. Owen, and Alfred C. Owen, children of Alfred M. Owen, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 382 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 28th day of January, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegation: That they are the children of Alfred M. Owen, deceased. This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $175.89. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : ' ' That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. ' ' Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886. the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimants' decedent would have been en- titled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $175.89. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the ac- counting officers of 'the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously re- fused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP TACT. The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the city of Wash- ington, in the District of Columbia, and are the children of Alferd M. Owen, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $175.89; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $175.89 (one hundred and seventy-five dollars and eighty-nine cents) . By the Court. Filed January 28, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 30th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. CHRISTIANA C. QUEEN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 523. Christiana C. Queeri, widow of W. W. Q.ueen, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case waB brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 383 Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., bis assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in her petition, makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $49.25. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : ' ' That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $49.25. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of consul on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the District of Columbia, and is the widow of W. W. Queen, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $49.25; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved Sep- tember 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $49.25 (forty-nine dollars and twenty-five cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] • John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. PRESLEY M. RIXEY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—647. Presley M. Rixey v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegation: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of 384 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN" CLAIMS. Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $159.59 This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation the sum of $36.30, being the amount which accrued subsequently to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $123.29. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OP FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the District of Colum- bia, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $159.59; the amount paid claimant was $36.30; the amount suspended under the pro- viso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $123.29 (one hundred and twenty-three dollars and twenty-nine cents). By the Court. Filed November 19, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 19th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. WILLIAM F. SWINBURNE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—531. William T. Swinburne v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was" allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $36.16._ This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 385 filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. ' ' Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $36.16. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the District of Columbia, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $36.16; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $36.16 (thirty-six dollars and six- teen cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. • Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. FREDERICK E. UPTON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—583. Frederick E. Upton v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the* Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United State* (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being |134.79. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in S. Rep. 382, 60-1 25 386 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the pay- ment of the same, was $134.79. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Washington, in the District of Columbia, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $134.79; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $134.79 (one hundred and thirty- four dollars and seventy-nine cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. FLORIDA. CATHERINE DELAP, WIDOW OF GEORGE DELAP. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-C. & F. No. 181. Catherine Delap, widow of George Delap, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst the claimant's husband, George Delap, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, a mate upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of January, 1908. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant and the Attorney-General, by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $168.64. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Execu- tive Document No. 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- ment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 387 appropriation the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $168.64. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the said proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OP FACTS. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and her husband was an officer in the Navy thereof, and she is a resident of the State of Florida, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States m the United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $168.64; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $168.64 (one hundred and sixty-eight dollars and sixty -four cents). By the Court. Filed January 13, 1908. A true copy. Test this 14th day of January, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. GEORGIA. JOHN T. PLUNKETT. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-C. and F. No. 31. John T. Plunkett, heir at law of Thomas S. Plunkett, v. The United States.] # STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's deceased brother, Thomas S. Plunkett, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, as ensign upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of March, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $97.81. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive Document No. 59, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following pro- viso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. "Act approved September 30, 1890." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of 388 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN" CLAIMS. Strong v. the United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust ment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $97.81. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and his decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Georgia, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $97.81; the amount paid claimant's decedent was nothing; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $97.81 (ninety-seven dollars and eighty-one cents). By the Court. Filed March 26, 1906. A true copv. Test this 28th day of March, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ILLINOIS. ANTONIA LYNCH AND OTHERS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—470. Antonia Lynch, Margaret Lynch, Charlotte L. Car- mody, Josephine L. Ridgeway, Jane L. Canby, children of Dominick Lynch, deceased, v. The United States. STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimants' father was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. t The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $94.87. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the fol- lowing proviso: ■ ' That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 389 was found to be due, and then paid to claimants, the sum of $20.90, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not' relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $73.97. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP FACT. The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois, and elsewhere, and are the children of Dominick Lynch, de- ceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, re- ported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $94.87; the amount paid claimant was $20.90; the amount suspended under the pro- viso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $73.97 (seventy-three dollars and ninety-seven cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 18th clay of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MARY J. OWEN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-481. Mary J. Owen, widow of Elias K. Owen, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's husband was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $1,984.98. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character), Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such read- justment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of $353.56, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $1,631.42. 390 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN" CLAIMS. Subsequent appropriations statutes have contained the same proviso and the ac- counting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously- refused to allow this and other similar claims and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Ran- dolph in the State of Illinois, and is the widow of Elias K. Owen, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. **• The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $1,984.98; the amount paid claimant was $353.56; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid is $1,631.42 (sixteen hundred and thirty-one dollars and forty-two cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 19th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. MERRILL SPALDING, EXECUTOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 109425 — 77. Merrill Spalding, executor of Enoch G. Parrott, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $2,148.43. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: ''That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims urpon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- ment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of $259.83, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $1,888.60. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 391 Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois, and is the executor of Enoch G. Parrott, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Con- gress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $2,148.43; the amount paid claimant was $259.83; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid is $1,888.60 (eighteen hundred and eighty-eight dollars and sixty cents). By the Court. Filed April 23, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 26th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. HORATIO L. WAIT. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—498. Horatio L. Wait v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceed- ings and report under the provisions -of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Penne baker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $239.53. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such read- justment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant out of said appropri- ation the sum of $75.05, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $164.48. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 392 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following |y FINDINGS OF FACT, The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Cook, in the State of Illinois, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $239.53; the amount paid claimant was $75.05; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $164.48 (one hundred and sixty-four dollars and forty-eight cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 20th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. INDIANA. G. V. MENZIES. Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 489. G. V. Menzies v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers, under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $39.86. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in tbe Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which', being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $39.86. Subsequent appropration statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 393 FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Posey, in the State of Indiana, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $39. S6; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved Sep- tember 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $39.86 (thirty-nine dollars and eighty-six cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 19th day of April, 1906. [seal.] JonN Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. KENTUCKY. THEODORE SPEIDEN AND WILLIAM S. SPEIDEN. [Court of Claims Congressional, No. 10942 — 533. Theodore Speiden and William S. Speiden, sons of William Speiden, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congresss approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong r. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $60.80. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in the United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July. 16, 1880, and that to which claimants' decedent would have been enti- tled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $60.80. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the ac- counting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously re- fused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Jefferson, in the State of Kentucky, and are the sons of William Speiden, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 394 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said decision was $60.80. The amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $60.80 (sixty dollars and eighty cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. HARRY PEARSON AND ELBA P. GASSAWAY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—543. Harry Pearson and Elba P. Gassaway, grandchildren of William Pearson, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $30.80. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the fil- ing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claims for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimants' decedent would have been enti- tled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $30.80. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF PACT. The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Hick- man, in the State of Kentucky, and are the grandchildren of William Pearson, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said decision was $30.80; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $30.80 (thirty dollars and eighty cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 395 MAINE. THOMAS W. BELL. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13093-1. Thomas W. Bell v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiv- ing and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 2d day of March, 1907, referring Senate bill No. 7801, for proceed- ings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of May, 1907. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney -General by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: That he served as acting ensign in the United States Navy on the receiving ship Independence, and that during the period of such service he received shore pay and allowances instead of sea pay and allowances to which he is entitled under the decision of this court and the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656). - That the difference between sea pay and shore pay amounting to $323.02 is due to claimant, but that payment of same has been prohibited by the act of September 30, 1890. The court, upon the evidence and report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Kennebunkport, Me., and is the identical person who served as acting ensign on the receiving ship In- dependence from November 26, 1867, to November 27, 1868. For said service claimant has been paid the shore pay and allowances of an ensign, and no claim has ever been presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury for the difference between shore pay and allowances, which he has received, an'd sea pay and allowances which he claims to be entitled to under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) had not Congress prohibited the payment of same. II. During the time claimant was attached to said receiving ship as aforesaid he had or was required to have his quarters and to mess on board said vessel, and was required to wear his uniform and was not permitted by the rules of the service to live with his family. III. The difference between the sea pay and allowances of an ensign from November 26, 1867, to November 27/1868, and the amount which claimant has received for his service during that period is three hundred twenty-three dollars and two cents ($323.02), no part of which has been paid. By the Court. Filed May 15, 1907. A true copy. Test this 16th day of May, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. DANIEL BUTLAND. Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 536. Daniel Butland, brother of Francis Butland, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by the Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. — 396 ALLOWANCE OF' CERTAIN CLAIMS. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $718.58. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretray of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been enti- tled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $718.58. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of consul on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF PACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of York, in the State of Maine, and is the brother of Francis Butland, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $718.58; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is seven hundred and eighteen dollars and fifty-eight cents ($718.58). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. LORING G. EMERSON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12345. Loring G. Emerson v. United States.] statement op case. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant Loring G. Emerson was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. ._ The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of May, 1906. Mr. Eugene J. Bernhard appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Departmentjor settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $760.61. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 397 In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : "That no part of any of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant, Loring G. Emerson, would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $760.61. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims^ and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OP FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Han- cock, in the State of Maine, and is the identical person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated - for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $760.61; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid is $760.61 (seven hundred and sixty dollars and sixty-one cents). By the Court. Filed May 17, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 18th day of May, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, i Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MERRILL SPALDING AND OTHERS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-578. Merrill Spalding, James A. Spalding, Elizabeth T. Spalding, children of Lyman G. Spalding, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $87.51. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. 398 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such read- justment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimants' decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of $23.40, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimants' decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $64.11. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following findings op Pact. The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Cum- berland, in the State of Maine, and are the children of Lyman G. Spalding, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. - ----- 1 The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said decision was $87.51; the amount paid claimaints was $23.40; the amount suspended under the pro- viso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid is $64.11 (sixty-four dollars and eleven cents). By the Court. Filed April 23, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 26th day ot April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, •Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. FINDINGS IN CASE OF CHARLES H. EVANS. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942— C. & P. 151. Charles H. Evans v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent, William F. Laighton, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, a carpenter, upon receiving and other ships belong- ing to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report, under the pro- visions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 20th day of January, 1908. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United State-. The claimant, in his petition, makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers, under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $576.74. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive Document No. 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropri- ating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim, for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 399 United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was tiled in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference, in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been enti- tled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not pro- hibited the payment of the same was $576.74. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the said proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideraton, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. That this officer, William F. Laighton, died on or about June 25, 1879, leaving a widow, Bessie D. Laighton, and as his only heir at law, a daughter, Alice Evans, and that under the Massachusetts General Statutes, chapter 291, paragraph 16, clause 3, in force at the time of the decease of said officer, the said widow was entitled to one-third of his estate and his said daughter to the other two-thirds; that claimant, Charles H. Evans, is the duly appointed executor of the estate of the said Alice Evans, and is, accordingly, entitled to two-thirds ($384.49) of the amount of this claim, the other one-third being due to Bessie D. Laighton or her heirs. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Maine, and is the executor of one of the heirs of William F. Laighton, as aforesaid, said William F. Laighton being the identical person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of The United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- priated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due said officer, or his heirs, by the accounting officers under the said decision was $576.74; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $576.74 (five hundred and seventy-six dollars and seventy-four cents). By the Court. Filed January 20, 1908. A true copy. Test this 20th day of January, 1908. [seal.] John Bandolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MARYLAND. CHARLES F. BENNETT, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. and F. No. 22. Charles F. Bennett, administrator o Nicholas Lynch, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent, Nicholas Lynch, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, a saihnaker, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 2d day of April, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $289.27. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Docu- ment 132, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date -of the filing of 400 ALLOWANCE OP CEKTAIN CLAIMS. the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved September 30, 1890.) Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of $81.60, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $207 .67. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OP PACTS. Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and his decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof, and a resident of the State of Maryland, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States against Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $289.27; the amount paid claimant's decedent was $81.60: the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $207.67 (two hundred and seven dollars and sixty-seven cents). By the Court. Filed April 9, 1906. A true copy. Test this 12th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JAMES T. BOWLING. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — C.and F. No. 3. James T. Bowling v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant, James T. Bowling, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, as acting ensign upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, refer- ring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of January, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by L. A. Pradt, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers, under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $395.73. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Execu- tive Document No. 199, Fifty-second Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Act approved September 30, 1890. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 401 Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States v. Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- ment there was found to be due, and then paid to the claimant out of said appropria- tion, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in The United States v. Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $395.73. . Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OP FACTS. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Maryland, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $395.73; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act Cf Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $395.73 (three hundred and ninety-five dollars and seventy-three cents). By the Court. Filed February 5, 1906. A true copy. Test this 6th day of February, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MARY A. BRANNAN. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — C. & P., No. 2. Mary A. Brannan, widow of James A. Brannan, deceased, v. The United States.] i: ~, STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's deceased husband, James A. Brannan, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting ensign upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of March, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum them allowed being $1,318.48. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Exec- utive Document 199, Fifty-second Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. ' ' Thereafter, pusuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United S. Rep. 382, 60-1 26 402 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. States against Strong and refused to allow any portion of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $1,318.48. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, make the following^ FINDINGS OP FACT. . Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and her dece'dent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Maryland, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $1,318.48; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is $1,318.48 (one thousand three hundred and eighteen dollars and forty-eight cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy. Test this 21st day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. HARRIET C. BROWN, ADMINISTRATRIX. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-516. Harriet C. Brown, administratrix of Thomas R. Brown, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $256.22. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant, decedent, would have been entitled ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 403 under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $256.22. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Bal- timore City, in the State of Maryland, and is the administratrix of Thomas R. Brown, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $256.22; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $256.22 (two hundred and fifty-six dollars and twenty-two cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 20th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. HENRY H. CLARK. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-504. Henry H. Clark v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiv- ing and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings, and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. the United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $1,390.36. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any portion of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- ment of the same was $1,390.36. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 404 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following: FINDINGS OP PACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Anne Arundel, in the State of Maryland, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- priated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $1,390.36; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $1,390.36 (thirteen hundred and ninety dollars and thirty-six cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court- Test this 20th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. FRANCIS A. COOK. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—704. Francis A. Cook v. The United States ] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for the difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the J3th day of January, 1908. '£§ Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John Q. Thompson, esq. , his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $870.47. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. " Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- ment of the same, was $870.47. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained thes ame proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Anne Arundel, in the State of Maryland, and is the identical person, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- priated for as alleged in the petition. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 405 The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $870.47; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which, still remains unpaid, is $870. 47 (eight hundred and seventy dollars and forty -seven cents). By the Court. Filed January 13, 1908. A true copy oJfthe findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 14th day of January, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. EDWARD A. COUGHLIN, HEIR AT LAW OF PAUL ARMANDT. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. & F., No. 8. Edward A. Coughlin, next of kin and heir at law of Paul Armandt, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP .CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay, while claimant's grandfather, Paul Armandt, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, as a mate, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the day of , 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $63. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document 123, Fifty-second Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allow- ance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Act approved September 30, 1890. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States v. Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States v. Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $63. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso , and the account- ing officers of the Treasury pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following % FINDING OP PACTS. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and his grandfather was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Maryland, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 406 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $63; the amount paid claimant's decedent was nothing; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1880, and which still remains unpaid, is $63 (sixty-three dollars). ' By the Court. Filed February 19, 1906. A true copy. Test this 19th day of February, 1906, • [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. GEORGE T. DOUGLASS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 671. George T. Douglass, son of Daniel T. Douglass, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court. of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $21.40. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. ' ' Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $21.40. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OP PACT The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Balti- more, in the State of Maryland, and is the son of Daniel T. Douglass, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $21.40; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved Sept. 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $21.40 (twenty-one dollars and forty cents). By the Court. Filed November 12, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF "CERTAIN- CLAIMS. 407 HOWARD F. DOWNS, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11918. Howard F. Downs, administrator de bonis non of the estate of James Hutchinson, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF THE CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent, James Hutchinson, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, as a gunner upon the U. S. receiving ship Pennsylvania, from May 3, 1858, to April 9, 1859, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 26th day March, 1906. Messrs. Lyon & Lyon, appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: That this claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum allowed being $321.62. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Execu- tive Document No. 59, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, Which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. " Act approved March 2, 1899. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same has been settled under the said decision in United States v. Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed. in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- ment there was found to be due and then paid to the claimant $85.50 out of said appro- priation, being the amount to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States v. Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $236.12. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant, Howard F. Downs, is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Go vans, in the county of Baltimore, State of Maryland, and is the administrator of the estate of James Hutchinson, deceased. The decedent, James Hutchinson, was in his lifetime a gunner in the United States Navy, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in The United States v. Strong (125 U.S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due said decedent by the accounting officers under said decision was $321.62; the amount paid was $85.50; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid is two hundred and thirty-six dollars and twelve cents ($236.12). By the Court. Filed April 2, 1906. A true copy. Test this 6th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 408 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. MARY J. FIELD. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. and F. No. 4. Mary J. Field, widow of William Field v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's deceased husband, William Field, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an ensign upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of January, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by L. A. Pradt, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protec- tion of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the deci- sion of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being 1694.89. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive Docu- ment 199, Fifty -second Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prit r to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered; " which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. (Act approved September 30, 1890.) Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to the claimant's decedent out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in The United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $694.89. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and her decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Maryland, and is the identical person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $694.89; the amount paid claimant's decedent was nothing; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is ($694.89) six hundred and ninety-four dollars and eighty-nine cents. By the Court. Filed February 5, 1906. A true copy. Test this 6th day of February, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ' ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 409 FANNIE S. B. HALM. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-484. Fannie S. B. Halm, widow (remarried) of John C. Beaumont, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 190C. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $81. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom, which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being afiirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16. 1880, and that to which claimant decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $81. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OP PACT. That claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Wash- ington, in the State of Maryland, and is the widow, remarried, of John C. Beaumont, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $81; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved Sep- tember 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $81 (eighty-one dollars). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 19th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 410 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. CHARLES A. LE COMPTE. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. and F. No. 18. Charles A. LeCompte v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's deceased brother, Granville B. LeCompte, was serving as an officer in "the Navy of the United States, to wit, an assistant surgeon, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the day of , 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. VanArsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $322.93. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Execu- tive Document No. 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved September 30, 1890.) Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- ment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said 'proviso did not relate. The accounting Officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in The United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $322.93. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and his decedent was an officer in the •Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Maryland, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $322.93; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $322.93 (three hundred and twenty-two dollars and ninety-three cents). By the Court. Filed February 19, 1906. A true copy. Test this 19th day of February, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 411 anna Mcdonald. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. Anna McDonald, widow of James McDonald, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's deceased husband, James McDonald, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting master upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 30th day of January, 1905. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by L A. Pradt, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 666), the sum thus allowed being §422.45. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 211, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allow- ance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, - which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. "Act approved September 30, 1890." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay. as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- ment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in The United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- ment of the same was $422.45. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after full consideration makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and her decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Maryland, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $422.45; the amount paid claimant's decedent was nothing; the amount suspended, under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $422.45 (four hundred and twenty-two dollars and forty-five cents). By the Court. Filed February 6, 1905. A true copy. Test this 4th day of November, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 412 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. WILLIAM MOODY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942— C. and F. 10. William Moody v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. i, The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant, AVilliam Moody, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, as ensign, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1903, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Con- gress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of January, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Penning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by L. A. Pradt, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $543.94. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Execu- tive Document No. 199, Fifty-second Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to. which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved September 30, 1890.) ^Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such read- justment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant out of said appropria- tion, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the pay- ment of the same, was $543.94. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the ac- counting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and was an officer in the Navy thereof, and a resident of the State of Maryland, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in The United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due the claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $543.94; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still re- mains unpaid is ($543.94) five hundred and forty-three dollars and ninety-four cents. By the Court. Filed February 5, 1906. A true copy. Test this 6th day of February, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 413 EDWARD K. RAWSON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 505. Edward K. Rawson v. The United States.] STATEMENT OP CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $136.99. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropri- ation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: t That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- ment of the same was $136.99. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel of both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Anne Arundel, in the State of Maryland, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- priated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $136.99; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid is $136.99 (one hundred and thirty-six dollars and ninety-nine cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 20th day of April, 1906. seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 414 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. ALBERT P. SOUTHWICK, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12142 — Sub. No. 1. Albert P. Southwick, administrator of the estate of John Southwick, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled cause, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent, John Southwick, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to this court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, A. D. 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Con- gress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of January, 1907, and Ralston & Siddons appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following averment : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed for Navy pay being $875.89. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Docu- ment No. 132, Fiftieth Congress, second session, pages 41 and 46. In appropriating for said allowance and others of like character, Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved March 2, 1889.) Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted such claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the decision of the case of Strong v. The United States and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- ment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant's decedent, on account of Navy pay out of said appropriation, the sum of $234.21, being the amount which ac- crued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and to which the claimant would have been entitled under the deci- sion of the case of Strong against The United States had not Congress prohibited the payment of the same, was $641.68. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury Department, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and similar claims, and the same are now unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and the duly appointed administrator of the estate of John Southwick, deceased; that said decedent was an officer in the Navy of the United States, and a resident of the State of Maryland, and is the iden- tical person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court in Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. II. The amount found due claimant for navy pay by the accounting officers under said decision was $875.89. The amount paid claimant's decedent for navy pay was $234.21. The amount suspended under the proviso of the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is six hundred and forty-one dollars and sixty-eight cents ($641.68). By the Court. Filed February 11, 1907. A true copy. Test this 12th day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 415 WILLIAM G. SPROSTAN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 478. William G, Sprostan, brother of John G. Sprostan, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's brother was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel. esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $59.25. This action was reported to Congress .by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pa*y as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been enti- tled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was 159.25. *• Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Balti- more City, in the State of Maryland, and is the brother of John G. Sprostan, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $59.25; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $59.25 (fifty-nine dollars and twenty-five cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact' as filed by the court. Test this 18th day of April, 1906. [seal.] • John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 416 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. MARY T. SWEETING. Jin the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942— C. and F. No. 15. Mary T. Sweeting, heir-at-law of John Joins, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's grandfather, John Joins, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, as sailmaker, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the pro- visions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 12th day of March, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the ■decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $245.14. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Docu- ment 132, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of anyone of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved March 2, 1889.) Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropria- tion, the sum of $65.55, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of .the same, was $179.59. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and her grandfather was an officer of the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Maryland, and is the identical person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $245.14; the amount paid claimant's decedent was $65.55; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid is $179.59 (one hundred and seventy-nine dollars and fifty-nine cents). By the Court. Filed March 19, 1906. A true copy. Test this 21st day of March, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 417 LOUIS A. CORNTHWAITE. [Court of Claims of the United States. Congressional, No. 13093— 6. Louis A. Cornthwaite v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiv- ing and other ships belonging to the Navy wae transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 2d day of March. 1907, referring Senate bill No. 7801, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of April, 1907. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: That he^erved as acting ensign in the United States Navy on the receiving ship Alle- ghany, and that during the period of such service he received shore pay and allowances instead of sea pay and allowances, to which he is entitled under the decision of this court and the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656). That the difference between sea pay and shore payi amounting to $861.39, is due to claimant, but that payment of same has been prohibited by the act of September 30, 1890. The court, upon the evidence and report of the Treasury Department and after con- sidering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Baltimore, Md., and is the identical person who served as acting ensign on the receiving ship Alleghany from July 3, 1865, to March 18, 1868. For said service claimant has been paid the shore pay and allowances of an ensign, and no claim has ever been presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury for the difference between shore pay and allowances, which he has received, and sea pay and allowances which he claims to be entitled to under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) had not Congress prohibited the payment of same. II. It does not appear that during the time claimant was attached to said receiving ship as aforesaid he had or was required to have his quarters and to mess on board said vessel, or that he was required to wear his uniform and was not permitted by the rulee of the service to live with his family. III. The difference between the sea pay and allowances of an ensign from July 3, 1865 to March 18, 1868, and the amount which claimant has received for his service during that period, is eight hundred and sixty-one dollars and thirty-nine cents ($861.39), no part of which has been paid. By the Court. Filed April 22, 1907. A true copy. Test the 2d day of March, 1908. [seal.j John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MASSACHUSETTS. MARY J. ABBOTT. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—690. Mary J. Abbott, widow of William A. Abbott deceased, v. The United States] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5849 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. S. Rep. 382, 60-1 27 418 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of December, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $52.59. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting offi- cers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted «eaid claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880. and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the pay- ment of the same, was $52.59. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the ac- counting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OP FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Essex, in the State of Massachusetts, and is the widow of William A. Abbott, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $52.59; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $52.59 (fifty-two dollars and fifty-nine cents). By the Court. Filed December 3, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed bv the court. Test this 6th day of December. 1906. [seal] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOSIAH B. AIKEN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 468. Josiah B. Aiken v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April. 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 419 The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $230.64. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appro- priation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18^6, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such read- justment there was found to be due. and then paid to claimant out of said appro- priation, the sum of $81.60, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pay- ment of the same was $149.04. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Suffolk, in the State of Massachusetts, and is the identical person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Con- gress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers Under said decision was $230.64; the amount paid claimant was $81.60; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress, approved March 2, 1889, and which, still remains unpaid is $149.04 (one hundred and forty-nine dollars and four cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 18th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ADMINISTRATORS OF WELD N. ALLEN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12142. Sub. No. 2. Lucy M". Allen and Joseph A. Holmes, administrators of trie estate of Weld N. Allen, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled cause for difference between sea pay and shore pay .while claimant's decedent, Weld N. Allen, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to this court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, A. D. 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of January, A. D. 1907. Messrs. Ralston & Siddons appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following averment: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury De- 420 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. partment for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the deci- sion of this court, and of the Supreme Court in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed for navy pay being $410.03. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session, pages 136 and 141. In appropriating for said allowance and others of like character Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the. judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supfeme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved September 30, 1890.) Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted such claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the decision of the case of Strong v. The United States, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and to which the claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the case of Strong against the United States, had not Congress prohibited the payment of the same was $410.03. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury Department, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and similar claims, and the same are now unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimants are citizens of the United States and the duly appointed administrators, of the estate of Weld N. Allen, deceased; that said decedent was an officer in the Navy of the United States, and a resident of the State of Massachusetts, and is the identical person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court in Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $410.03; the amoimt suspended under the proviso of the act of Congress approved . March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $410.03 (four hundred and ten dol- lars and three cents). By the Court. Filed January 21, 1907. A true copy. Test this 22d day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MARY ELIZABETH BABBITT, DAUGHTER OF CHARLES W. BABBITT. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—715. Mary Elizabeth Babbitt, daughter of Charles W Babbitt, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of January, 1908. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John Q. Thompson, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: That she is the daughter of Charles W. Babbitt, deceased. This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $97.70. This ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 421 action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $97.70. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Bristol, in the State of Massachusetts, and is the daughter of Charles W. Babbitt, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and apprpriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $97.70; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $97.70 (ninety-seven dollars and seventy cents). By the Court. Filed January 13, 1908. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 14th day of January, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALMENA B. BATES. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—506. Almena B. Bates, daughter of John A. Bates, deceased. v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's father was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the Court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $904.63. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriationis applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years .prior to the date of the 422 ALLOWANCE OE CERTAIN CLAIMS. filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- ment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of $261.59, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $643.04. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Suf- folk, in the State of Massachusetts, and is the daughter of John A. Bates, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $904.63; the amount paid claimant was $261.59; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid is $643.04 (six hundred and forty-three dollars and four cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. • Test this 20th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. GRACE E. AND MARY E. BOLTON, HEIRS OF WILLIAM H. BOLTON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F. No. 145. Grace E. Bolton and Mary E. Bolton, sole heirs at law of William H. Bolton, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent, William H. Bolton, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, a mate, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the pro- visions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of April, 1907. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $164.88. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive Document 171, Fifty-first Congress, second session. In appropriating for said allow- ance (and others of like character) Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. Allowance of certain claims. 423 Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjust- ment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimants' decedent out of said appro- priation, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $164.88. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following: FINDINGS OP FACT. Claimants are citizens of the United States, and their decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Massachusetts, and are the identical persons whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said decision was $164.88; the amount paid claimants' decedent was nothing; the amount sus- pended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is one hundred and sixty-four dollars and eighty-eight cents ($164.88). By the Court. Filed April 8, 1907. A true copy. Test this 10th day of .April, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. HELEN BRYANT. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-585. Helen Bryant, granddaughter of William Black, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $322.40. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the f ollownig proviso : "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting offi- cers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. " 424 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS*. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $322.40. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the ac- counting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Nor- folk, in the State of Massachusetts, and is the granddaughter of William Black, de- ceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $322.40; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $322.40 (three hundred and twenty-two dollars and forty cents.) By the Court. Filed December 24, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court . Test this 29th day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims, WILLIAM F. BURDITT AND OTHERS. {Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—559. William F. Burditt, Eleanora B. Kimball, Albert B. Burditt, Charlotte Ferguson, children of William Burditt, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimants' decedent was serving as, an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations. This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the deci- sion of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $317.10. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appro- priating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. " Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17,1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 425 The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $317.10. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Suffolk and elsewhere in the State of Massachusetts, and are the children of William Burditt, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said decision was $317.10; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $317.10 (three hundred and seventeen dollars and ten cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. VIRGINIA M. CHASE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 539. Virginia M. Chase, daughter of Moses B. Chase, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being- $152. 80. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as a basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $152.80. 426 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the account- ing officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Suf- folk, in the State of Massachusetts, and is the daughter of Moses B. Chase, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $152.80; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $152.80 (one hundred and fifty-two dollars and eighty cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. IDA T. COGGESHALL, DAUGHTER OF JAMES B. RUSSELL. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—710. Ida T. Coggeshall, daughter of James B. Russell, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, between difference for sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer of the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of January, 1908. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $172.09. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same' had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued mor than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $112.09. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 427 FINDINGS OF FACT. I^The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Bristol, in the State of Massachusetts, and is the daughter of James B. Russell, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 1112.09; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $112.09 (one hundred and twelve dollars and nine cents). By the Court. Filed January 13, 1908. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 14th day of January, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. FREDERICK W. COTTON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942—566. Frederick W. Cotton v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiv- ing and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $130.94. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropri- ation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: ' ' That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Siipreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, aneared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: That she is the daughter of William Langdon, deceased. This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treas- ury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $587.50. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropria- tion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: ' ' That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be uaid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 437 than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $587.50. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Suf- folk, in the State of Massachusetts, and is the daughter of William Langdon, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $587.50; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $587.50 (five hundred and eighty-seven dollars and fifty cents). By the Cotjkt. Filed January 28, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 30th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. GEORGE E. LEACH. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — C. & F., No. 53. George B. Leach, admin- istrator estate of Phineas Leach, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled cause, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent, Phineas Leach, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting master upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate reso- lution on the 1st day of February, 1906, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus al- lowed being $1,023.74. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive Document No. 199, Fifty-second Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like charac- ter) Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being aflirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1SS6, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court 438 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to Jury 16, 18S0, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been en- titled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $1,023.74. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have contin- uously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and his decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Massachusetts, and is the identi- cal person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $1,023.74 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress; approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is one thousand twenty- three dollars and seventy-four cents ($1,023.74). ' By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk, Court of Claims. EDWARD D. MARCHANT. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 476. Edward D. Marchant, son of Cor- nelius M. Marchant, deceased, v. The United States. STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's father was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought, to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction^ appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : ■ This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 650), the sum thus allowed being $303.45. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allow- ance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said daim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said ■claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 439 the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was tiled in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $303.45. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Tbe claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Dukes, in the State of Massachusetts, and is the son of Cornelius M. Mar- chant, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $303.45 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is $303.45 (three hundred and three dollars and forty-five cents.) By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 18th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. FERDINAND G. MORRILL. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 683. Ferdinand G. Morrill v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 18S7. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by A. J. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : . This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $11S.9S. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on 440 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN" CLAIMS. which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 18S0, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $118.98. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Suffolk, in the State of Massachusetts, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $118.98 ; the amount paid claimant was nothing ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1S90, and which still remains unpaid is $118.98 (one hundred and eighteen dollars and ninety-eight cents). By the Court. Filed November 12, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ESTHER AND THERESA REDINGTON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. and F. No. 48. Esther and Theresa Redington, only heirs of Robert Redington, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claimant in the above-entitled case for difference betwen sea pay and shore pay while claimants' decedent, Robert Redington, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an assistant surgeon upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1S87. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 2d day of April, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant ; and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. • The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $238. 7S. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document 211, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, fcy J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- •cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum stilus allowed being $305.76. This action was reported to Congress by the Secre- tary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- ■cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has beer /adiopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 451 Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accountiug officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date ou which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1SS0, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $305.76. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Kent, in the State of Michigan, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $305.76 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $305.76 (three hundred and five dollars and seventy-six cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 20th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MISSOURI. MARY S. McQUADE AND OTHERS. [Court of Claims. Congressional No. 10042 — 632. Mary S. McQuade and William A. Chambers, children of William Smith, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th dav of October, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-Gen- eral, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants, in their petition, make substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $188.75. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the. Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Xourt, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 452 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to .July 16, 1880, and that to which claimants' decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $188.75. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the , accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, and the children of William Smith, de- ceased, whose claim Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said deci- sion was $188.75 : the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Con- gress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $188.75 (one hundred and eighty-eight dollars and seventy -five cents). By the Court. Filed November 12, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. BELLE M. RABORG. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 537. Belle M. Raborg, widow of George B. Raborg, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisons of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United .States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $109.20. This action was reported to Congress by the Sec- retary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso:. " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 453 decision iu United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Con- gress not prohibited the payment of the same was $109.20. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have con- tinuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of St. Louis City, in the State of Missouri, and is the widow of George B. Raborg, deceased, whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said de- cision was $109.20. The amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains uupaid, is $109.20 (one hundred and nine dollars and twenty cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MARIA L. RODGERS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 612. Maria L. Rodgers, granddaughter of Andrew K. Long, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 28th day of January, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $98.60. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Trensury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled^under the said 454 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $98.60. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of St. Louis City, in the State of Missouri, and is the granddaughter of Andrew E. Long, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $98.60, the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress ap- proved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $9S.60 (ninety- eight dollars and sixty cents). By the Coukt. Filed January 28, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 30th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. NEBRASKA. WILLARD FOSTER, HEIR OF EDWARD FOSTER. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — C. & F. 109. Willard Foster, heir-at-law of Edward Foster, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled cause for difference between sea pay and shore pay, while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, as paymaster, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th clay of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 4th day of November, 1907. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $259.66. This action was reported to Congress by the Secre- tary of the Treasury in House Executive Document No. 199, Fifty-second Con- gress, first session. In appropriating for such -allowance (and others of like character) Congress provided that no part of any of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 455 Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the same decision in United States v. Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1S86, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong r. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1SS0, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1SS0, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in the United States v. Strong had Con- gress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $259.66. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and his decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof, and a resident of the State of Nebraska, and is the identical person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant under said decision was $259.66 ; the amount paid claimant's decedent was nothing : the amount suspended under the pro- viso to the act of Congress approved July 28, ' 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is $259.66 (two hundred and fifty-nine dollars and sixty-six cents). By the Court. Filed November 4, 1907. A true copy. Test this 5th day of November, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. • NEW HAMPSHIRE. HAZEL O. GOODSOE AND OTHERS. [Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 10942 — 540. Hazel O. Goodsoe, Perle E. Nute r Leonora W. Goodsoe. and E. Shirlet Rundlett, children of Augustus O. Goodsoe, de- ceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the cdurt by Senate resolution on the 4th clay of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the- act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April- 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimants, and 'the Attorney-Gen- eral by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared 1 for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the- Treasuiw Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers- under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus al- lowed being $413.40. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary 456 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopt- ed by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim.*' Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimants' decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of $119.70, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1SS0, and to which said pro- viso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1SS0, and that to which claimants' decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Con- gress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $293.70. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Rockingham, in the State of. New Hampshire, and are the children of Au- gustus O. Goodsoe, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was ad- justed by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said deci- sion was $413.40 ; the amount paid claimant was $119.70 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1SS9, and which still remains unpaid is $293.70 (.two hundred and ninety-three dollars and sev- enty cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906: [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. EMMA G. JENNESS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 495. Emma G. Jenness, widow of Thomas B.. Gammon, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's husband was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of .the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 457 States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $20S.60. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by tbe Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any portion of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Con- gress not prohibited the payment of the same was $208.60. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have con- tinuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Rockingham; in the State of New Hampshire, and is the widow of Thomas B. Gammon, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $208.60; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress, approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid is $208.60 (two hundred and eighty dollars and sixty cents). By the Couet. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 19th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MARIE S. PERRIMOND. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 693. Marie S. Perrimond, widow of Xavier Perrimond, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 28th day of January, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegation : That she is the widow of Xavier Perrimond, deceased This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers 458 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $60. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applica- ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $60. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Rockingham, in the State of New Hampshire, and is the widow of Xavier Perrimond, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $60. The amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $60 (sixty dollars). By the Court. Filed January 28, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 30th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. EMMA M. GAY, EXECUTRIX. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 10942 — C. and F. 172. Emma M. Gay, widow and executrix of Thomas S. Gay, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent, Thomas S. Gay, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting ensign on the receiving ship Van- dalia, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of February, 1908. Messrs. Colden & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 459 cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $477.65. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 211, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which the appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same has been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1SS0, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $477.65. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the said proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of New Hampshire, and claimant's decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. Amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $477.65 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is four hundred and seventy-seven dollars and sixty-five cents ($477.65). By the Court. Filed February 17, 190S. A true copy. Test this 19th day of February, 190S. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. NEW JERSEY. KATHARINE M. BURNETT. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. &. F. No. 98. Katharine M. Burnett, widow of Joseph C. Burnett, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent, Joseph C. Burnett, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an ensign, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant and the Attorney- General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and protection of tbe interests of the United States. 460 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : " The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $140.25." This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive Document 59, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appro- priating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against. Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of $43.94, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 18S0, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been en- titled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $96.31. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and her decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of New Jersey, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due the claimant by the accounting officers under said de- cision was $140.25 ; the amount paid claimant's decedent was $43.94 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 18S9, and which still remains unpaid, is $96.31 (ninety-six dollars and thirty-one cents). By the Court. Filed November 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 13th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claim*. NELSON H. DRAKE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-490. Nelson H. Drake v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 461 General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the .United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $346.S5. This action was reported to Congress by the Sec- retary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character), Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $346.85. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Morris, in the State of New Jersey, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said de- cision was $346.85, the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Con- gress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $346.85 (three hundred and forty-six dollars and eighty -five cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 19th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. LOUISE E. ELDER. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 550. Louise E. Elder, widow of Robert B. Elder, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. 462 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. The claimant hi her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $144.84. This action was reported to Congress by the Sec- retary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : '" That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in the United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent wouid have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $144.84. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the fol- lowing ' FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Essex, in the State of New Jersey, and is the widow of Robert E. Elder, de- ceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $144.84 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $144.84 (one hundred and forty -four dollars and eighty-four cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. CLARA B. HASSLER. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. & F. No. 81. Clara B. Hassler, widow of Charles W. Hassler, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent, Charles W. Hassler, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States — to wit, as paymaster — upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate reso- lution ou the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 463 Tlie claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: The .claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by snch accounting officers under the decisions of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $815.49. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document 132, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior- to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of $249.14. being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The acounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $566.35. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and her decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of New Jersey and is the iden- tical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $815.49; the amount paid claimant's decedent was $249.14; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $566.35 (five hundred and sixty-six dollars and thirty-five cents). By the Court. Filed November 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 13th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ANDREW McCLEARY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-609. Andrew McCleary v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 1906. 464 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Messrs. Penuebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for* settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong r. The United States (125 U. S. 656), the sum thus allowed being $397.45. This action was reported to Congress by the Secre- tary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow' any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 18S0, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $397.45. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Camden, in the State of New Jersey, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $397.45 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $397.45 (three hundred and ninety-seven dollars and forty-five cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. AMANDA E. MacFARLANE. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10942-427. Amanda E. MacFarlane, widow of John MacFarlane, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference, between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, a carpenter, upon receiving and other ships belong- ing to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 24th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by L. A. Pradt, esq., his ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 465 assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : That she is the widow of John MacFarlane, deceased. This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $254.79. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Executive Document No. 59, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved March 2, 18S9.) Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant nothing out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was nothing. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court upon the evidence and report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of New Jersey, and is the widow of John MacFarlane, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $254.79; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended ander the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $254.79. Filed December 19, 1904. A true copy of the finding of facts as filed by the court. Test this 19th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. THOMAS MASON. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 11247. Thomas Mason v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled* cause, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer of the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th of June, 1902, referring Senate bill S. Rep. 382, 60-1 30 466 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1SS7. The claimant in his petition makes specifically the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being . This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury (H. Ex. Doc. No. 144, 51st Cong., 1st sess.). In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance for said claim. " Act approved September 30, 1890, 26 Stat. L., 543." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the deci- sion of Strong v. United States, and refused to allow any of said claims, because the whole of it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- lowing FINDING OF FACTS. The claimant was a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of New Jersey, and is the identical Thomas Mason whose claim under the deci- sion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Strong v. United States (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due the claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $37.94. The amount paid said claimant was nothing. There therefore remains due and still unpaid ($37.94) thirty-seven dollars and ninety-four cents. By the Court. Filed January 14, 1907. A true copy. Test this 17th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. WALTER J. MAYER AND OTHERS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — C. & F. No. 91. Walter J. Mayer, Alfred J. Mayer, and Ida J. Mayer Storch, heirs of William H. Mayer, jr., deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT of case. The claim in the above-entitled cause, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimants' decedent, William H. Mayer, jr., was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States — to wit, a lieutenant — upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- ceedings and report upon the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-Gen- eral, by J. A. Von Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 467 under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong r. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $231.72. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 132, Fiftieth Congress, first ses- sion. In appropriation for said allowance (and others of like character) Con- gress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. Whereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1S86, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimants' decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said pro- viso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $181.92. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. Claimants are citizens of the United States, and their decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of New Jersey, and are the identical persons, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656') was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said de- cision was $231.72 ; the amount paid claimants' decedent was $49.80 : the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is one hundred and eighty-one dollars and ninety-two cents ($181.92). By the Court. Filed November 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 13th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. CLIFFORD C. PEARSON, JR., ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, M. & C, 2. Clifford C. Pearson, jr., administrator of estate of Clifford C. Pearson, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above case, for the difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon a receiving ship belonging to said Navy, was transmitted to this court by resolution of the United States Senate on the 4th day of Jime, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the pro- visions of the act of March'3, 1887, commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of May, 1906. 468 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. Moyers & Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Hon. J. A. Van Orsdel, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations : That he is the. duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator of the estate of Clifford C. Pearson, deceased, late of Plainfield, county of Uuion, State of New Jersey ; that said decedent was late pay clerk in the United States Navy ; that decedent's claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by said officers under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (126 U. S., 656) ; that the sum so allowed was $294.49 ; that this action was reported to Congress under House Executive Document No. 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session ; that in appropriating for said allowance and others of like character Congress provided that said appro- priations should not be applied to the payment of any such claim which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing of petition in the Court of Claims in said case of Strong v. The United States. (See act of Mar. 2, 1SS9, 25 Stat. L., 938.) Subsequent appropriations have contained similar pro- visions. " That thereafter said accounting officers rejected said claim and refused to allow and pay any portion thereof, and said accounting officers of the Treasury Department have refused and do still refuse to pay this claim." The court, upon the evidence, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel upon each side, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimant, Clifford C. Pearson, jr., is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Middlesex, State of New Jersey, and is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting administrator, with the will annexed, of the estate of Clifford C. Pearson, deceased. II. That said Clifford C. Pearson, deceased, is the person whose claim was adjusted by the proper accounting officers in the sum of $294.49, but for the payment of which claim no appropiation has been made, save with the above- noted proviso. The amount found due to the claimant by the proper accounting officers under the decision of the Supreme Court of the .United States in the case of Strong v. The United States was $294.49, which still remains unpaid. By the Court. Filed May 21, 1906. A true copy. Test this 31st day of May, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ROBERT C. RIBBANS, GUARDIAN MINOR HEIRS OF ISAIAH E. CROWELL. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-572. Robert C. Ribbans, guardian of minor heirs of Isaiah E. Crowell, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially ^the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 469 States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $663.96. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claims." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation the sum of $140.82, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said pro- viso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the paymfent of the same was $523.14. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT. , The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Essex, in the State of New Jersey, and is the guardian of the minor children of Isaiah E. Crowell, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U.S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $663.96; the amount paid claimant was $140.14; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $523.14 (five hundred and twenty-three dollars and fourteen cents). By the Court. Piled April 23, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 26th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ROBERT C. RIBBANS, GUARDIAN MINOR HEIRS OF WILLIAM N. MAULL. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 571. Robert C. Ribbans, guardian minor heirs of William N. Maull, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. I The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of April, 1906. 470 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. Messrs. Peunebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $159. This action was reported to Congress by the Secre- tary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any portion of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that tlie difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Con- gress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $159. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon jthe evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Essex, in the State of New Jersey, and is the guardian of the minor heirs of William N. Maull, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said deci- sion was $159 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $159 (one hundred and fifty-nine dollars). By the Court. Filed April 23, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 26th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. WINNIE M. STILLWELL. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 662. Winnie M. Stillwell, widow of James Stillwell, deceased, v. The United States. statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 471 Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and inTder his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The Unted States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $30.75. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of fhe petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States v. Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in. the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States v. Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $30.75. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Essex, in the State of New Jersey, and is the widow of James Stillwell, de- ceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $30.75, the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $30.75 (thirty dollars and seventy-five cents). By the Court. Filed November 12, 1906. A true copy of the findings Of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. NEW MEXICO. CLIFFORD B. GILL. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 518. Clifford B. Gill v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States on receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court 472 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and tbe Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $801.01. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the .iudgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim.!' Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the peti- tion in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $34.66, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $766.35. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Dona Ana, in the Territory of New Mexico, and is the identical person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, re- ported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $801.01 ; the amount paid claimant was $34.66 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still re- mains unpaid, is $766.35 (seven hundred and sixty-six dollars and thirty-five cents). By the Court. Filed October 2-2, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 473 NEW YORK. HEIRS OF JOHN J. ABERNETHY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F. No. 139. Helen S. Abernethy ana Charles H. Abernethy, sole heirs at law of John J. Abernethy, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimants' decedent, John J. Abernethy, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, a surgeon, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of January, 1907. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of tlie United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $614.21. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 132, Fiftieth Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimants' decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of $423.16, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in The United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $191.05. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have con- tinuously refused to allow this and other similar claims and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. Claimants are citizens of the United States, and their decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of New York, and are the iden- tical persons whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said decisions was $614.21; the amount paid claimants' decedent was $423.16; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is one hundred and ninety-one dollars and five cents ($191.05). BY THE COURT. Filed January 21, 1907. A true copy. Test this 22d day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 474 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. WILLIAM H. BACON AND ANNIE M. SMITH. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — C. & F. 191. William EL' Bacon and Annie M. Smith, hdirs at law of Francis H. Bacon, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent, Francis H. Bacon, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting onsign upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and re- port under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of February, 1908. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants, in their petition, make substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $186.22. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive Document No. 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applica- ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $186.22. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the said proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimants are citizens of the United States, and claimants' decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof, and are residents of the States of New York and New Jersey, and claimants' decedent is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimants' decedent by the accounting officers under said decision was $186.22; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is one hundred and eighty-six dollars and twenty -two cents ($1S6.22). By the Court. Filed February 10, 1908. A true copy. Test this 12th day of February, 1908. [seat,.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 475 FANNY BELKNAP. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 522. Fanny Belknap, widow of Charles Belknap, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $68.11. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $68.11. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Queens, in the State of New York, and is the widow of Charles Belknap, deceased, whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $68.11 : the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is sixty-eight dollars and eleven cents ($68.11). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 476 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. A. NELSON BELL. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 669. A. Nelson Bell v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1S87. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $166.' This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applica- ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $35, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the pas^ment of the same, was $131. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States, and a resident of the county of Kings, in the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, re- ported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $166 ; the amount paid claimant was $35 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $131 (one hundred and thirty-one dollars). By the Coukt. Filed November 12, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 477 LOUISA C. BELL. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. & F. No. 100. Louisa C. Bell, widow of Edward B. Bell, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent, Edward B. Bell, was serving as an officer in tbe Navy of the United States — to wit, as ensign — upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to tbe court by Senate resolution of tbe 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill INo. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on tbe 15th day of October, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant and tbe Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. Tbe claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $S75.92. This action was reported to Congress by tbe Secre- tary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document 211, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like charac- ter) Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as tbe basis of allowance of such claims. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in the United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1SS6, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Cqurt of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being tbe amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said pro- viso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $875.92. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon tbe evidence and the report of tbe Treasury Department and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and her decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in tbe petition. The amount found due the claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was. $875.92 ; the amount paid claimant's decedent was nothing ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved Septem- ber 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $875.92 (eight hundred and seventy-five dollars and dinety-two cents). * By the Court. Filed November 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 13th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John ^Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 478 allowance of certain claims, caroline h. broadhead. L Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 503. Caroline H. Broadhead, widow of Edgar Broadhead, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's husband was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1002, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Peunebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $253.33. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom, which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims, upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States r. Strong and refused to allow any portion of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July IT, 18S6, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. \ The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $253.33. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Orange, in the State of New York, and is the widow of Edgar Broadhead, de- ceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $253.33; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is $253.33 (two hun- dred and fifty-three dollars and thirty-three cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 20th day of April, 1906.' [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims, ■ ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 479 CHRISTOPHER BRUNS. [Court of Claims. No. 10942L. Christopher Bruns v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled ease, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5940 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved Mafch 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of April, 1906. Messrs. George A. & Wm. B. King appeared for the claimant and the Attorney- General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $174.24. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applica- ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $32.87, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which the claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $141.37. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have contin- uously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and resides in the county of New York in the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $174.24; the amount paid claimant was $32.87; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $141.37 (one hundred and forty-one dollars and thirty-seven cents). By the Court. Filed April 23, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 26th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Gowrt of Claims. 480 ALLOWANCE OF -CERTAIN CLAIMS. ALBERT BUHNER. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 514. Albert Buhner v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the aft of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $65.17. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applica- ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on Which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 18S0, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $65.17. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Kings, in the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was 65.17. The amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $65.17 (sixty- five dollars and seventeen cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 20th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 481 HEIRS OF JOHN C. CARTER. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 13093 — 4. Charles B. Carter, Elizabeth Crawford Bronson, and Lawrence C. Crawford, heirs at law of John C. Carter v. The United States.] • STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent was serving -as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Na\y, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 2d day of March, 1907, referring Senate bill No. 7801, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of February, 1908. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : That John C. Carter served as a commander in the United States Navy on the receiving ship Vermont, and that during the period of such service he received shore pay and allowances instead of sea pay and allowances, to which claim- ants are entitled under the decision of this court and the Supreme "Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656). That the difference between sea pay and shore pay, amounting to $372.91, is due to claimants, but that payment of same has been prohibited by the act of September 30, 1890. The court, upon the evidence and report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of Washing- ton, D. C, and the State of New York, and claimants' decedent is the identical person who served as commander on the receiving ship Vermont from Novem- ber 23, 1864, to June 30, 1865. For said services, claimants' decedent was paid the shore pay and allowances of a commander, and no claim has ever been presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury for the difference between shore pay and allowances, which claimants' decedent did receive, and sea pay and allowances which claimants claim to be entitled to under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) had not Congress prohibited the payment of same. II. During the time claimants' decedent was attached to said receiving ship as aforesaid he had or was required to have his quarters and to mess on board said vessel, and was required to wear his uniform, and was not permitted by the rules of the service to live with his family. III. The difference between the sea pay and allowances of a commander from November 23, 1864, to June 30, 1865, and the amount which claimants' decedent received for his service during that period is three hundred and seventy-two dollars and ninety-one cents ($372.91), no part of which has been paid. By the Court. Filed February 10, 1908. A true copy. Test this 12th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JliSSIE F. COLE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 591. Jessie F. Cole, sister of Frederick A. Howes, deceased, v. The United States.] statement OF case. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Nayy> was trans- S. Rep. 382, 60-1 31 482 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 1906. • Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Yan Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $194.09. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said deci- sion in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim as it accrued more than six years prior to July IT, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $194.09. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have contin- uously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both- sides, makes the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Dutchess, in the State of New York, and is the sister of Frederick A. Howes, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States o. Strong (125 U. S.. 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $194.09 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is $194.09 (one hundred and ninety-four dollars and nine cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. » A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOHN P. GILLIS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 579. John P. Gillis, son of John P. Gillis, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 483 mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th clay of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1SS7. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of April, 1900. Messrs. Penuebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong r. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $74.14. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six year prior to the date of the tiling of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Con- gress not prohibited the payment of the same was $74.14. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of New York, in the State of New York, and is the son of John P. Gillis, de- ceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $74.14; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $74.14 (seventy-four dollars and fourteen cents). By the Court. Filed April 23, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 26th day of April, 1906. [seal.1 John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. FRANCIS C. GREEN. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 11919. Francis C. Green, executor of estate of Francis M. Green v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea and shore pay while claimant's father and the testator, Francis M. Green, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit. as master lieutenant and lieu- 484 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. tenant-commander upon the receiving ship U. S. S. Ohio and other ships belong- ing to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolutions on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 5th day of April, 1906. J. M. Chamberlin, esq., appeared for the claimant, aud the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, appeared for the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. the United States, the sum thus allowed being $451.23. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive Document 59, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appro- priating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered which being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Act ap- proved September 30, 1890. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said de- cision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the peti- tion in said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon said readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's testator out of said appropriation, the sum of $77.99, being the amount to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been en- titled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of. the same, was $373.24. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the sanTe are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and his father and the testator was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $451.23 ; the amount paid to claimant's testator was $77.99 ; the amount sus- pended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1S90, and which still remains unpaid, is $373.24 (three hundred aud seventy-three dollars and twenty-four cents). By the Court. Filed April 9, 1906. A true copy. Test this 12th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 485 WILLIAM H. HALL AND OTHERS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 534. William H. Hall, Charles G. Hall, Eleanor Darling, and Alexander H. Wells, heirs at law of Michael Hall, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimants' decedent was serving- as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1S87. ' The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. rennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $194.60. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the slate of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1SS6, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimants' decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Con- gress not prohibited the payment of the same was $194.60. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT* The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Kings, in the State of New York, and the heirs at law of Michael Hall, deceased, whose claim under the decision of- the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said decision was $194.60 ; the amount suspended under the pr6viso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $194.60 (one hundred and ninety-four dollars and sixty cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 486 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. HARRIET P. HIBBEN. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-462. Harriet F. Hibben, widow of Henry B. Hibben, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claimant in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States — to wit, as a chaplain, upon practice and other ships belong- ing to the Navy of the United States — was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 24th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- ceedings and report under the» provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 19th day of December, 1904. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by L. A. Pradt, his assistant, under his direction, appeared for the de- fense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : That she is the widow of Henry B. Hibben, deceased, who was, during his life- time, a chaplain in the Navy of the United States ; that the decedent, during his lifetime, served under orders of the Navy Department from about July 9, 1869, to May 19, 1870, on the school-ships attached to the Naval Academy, at Annapolis, t and from about September 22, 1870, to April 12, 1871, on board the U. S. S. Savannah ; that during the whole of said periods decedent was only allowed and paid the shore pay and allowances of his grade, arid that under the authority of the United States agamst Strong (125 U. S., 656) and other cases, he should have been paid the sea pay and allowances thereof. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of New York, and is the widow of Henry B. Hibben, deceased, who was in his life- time a chaplain in the United States Navy. During the decedent's service as such he served under orders of the Navy De- partment on board the school-ships at the Naval Academy, Annapolis, from July 18, 1869, to May 19, 1S70, for which said service he was allowed and paid only the shore pay of his grade; and he also served under orders from the Navy Department from September 22, 1870, to April 12, 1871, on board the U. S. S. Savannah, and for this service also he was only paid the shore pay and allow- ances of his grade. Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States against Strong (125 U. S., 656), he should have been allowed and paid the sea pay and allowances of his grade for the said periods from July 9, 1S69. to May 19, 1870, and from September 22, 1870, to April 12, 1871. The difference between the pay and allowances so received by the claimant and the pay and allowances which he should have received under the decision of the Supreme Court above referred to is $722.45, which said amount remains unpaid. Filed December 19, 1904. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 19th day of December, 1904. [seal.] * John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ROBERT HUDSON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 525. Robert Hudson v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an 'officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 487 bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Con- gress approved March 3, 1S87. -The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $26.03. This action was reported to Congress by the Secre- tary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted bs r the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $26.03. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have con- tinuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Onondaga, in the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $26.03 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1S90, and which still remains unpaid, is $26.03 (twenty- six dollars aud three cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed bv the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. FRANCES R. HUNSICKER. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 629. Frances R. Hunsicker, widow of Joseph L. Hunsicker, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the • United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of Juue, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. _!£ 488 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th clay of October, 3 906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $287.67. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. , In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation. is applica- ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant out of 'said appropriation, the sum of $82.19, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, -1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $205.48. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. . • The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Erie, in the State of New York, and is the widow of Joseph L. Hunsicker, de- ceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 165), was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $287.67 ; the amount paid claimant was $82.19 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still re- mains unpaid, is $205.4S (two hundred and five dollars and forty-eight cents). By the Court. Filed November 19, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 19th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. CAROLINE H. LILLIE AND JULIA W. L. SYMINGTON, EXECUTRIXES. [Court of Claims. No. 10942K. Caroline H. Lillie and Julia W. L. Symington, execu- trixes of the estate of A. B. H. Lillie, deceased, v. the United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst A. B. H. Lillie, deceased, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- ALLOWANCE OP CEETAIN CLAIMS. 489 mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of April, 1906. Messrs. George A. & Wrn. B. King appeared for A. B. H. Lillie, deceased, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $1,071.78. This action was reported to Congress by the Sec- retary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance and others of like character Congress made the following proviso : That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1S86, the date on which the peti- tion in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to A. B. H. Lillie, deceased, out of said appropriation, the sum of $957.81, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which A. B. H. Lillie, deceased, would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $113.97. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of New York, in the State of New York, and are the executrixes of the estate of A. B. H. Lillie, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due A. B. H. Lillie by the accounting officers under said decision was $1,071.78 ; the amount paid A. B. H. Lillie, deceased, was $957.81 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved Sep- tember 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $113.97 (one hundred and thirteen dollars and ninety-seven cents). By the Court. Filed April 23, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 26th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 490 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. GILBERT L. McGOWAN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. & F. No. 92. Gilbert L. McGowan v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled cause for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States — to wit, as mate — upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1SS7. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $23.25. This action was reported to Congress by the Sec- retary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 211, Fifty-first Con- gress, first session. In appropriation for such allowance (and others of like character) Congress provided that no part of any of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgement was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. Whereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the same decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which the claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Con- gress not prohibited the payment of the same was $23.25. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and was an officer in the Navy thereof, and a resident of the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant under said decision was $23.25 ; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is twenty-three dollars and twenty-five cents ($23.25). By the Court. Filed November 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 13th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 491 ROBERT H. McLEAN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-501. Robert H. McLean v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant was serving ;is an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $112.60. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six shears prior to July 17, 1886, the crate on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16. 1880. and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision iu United States v. Strong had Congress not pro- hibited the payment of the same was $112.60. ' Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same protiso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of New York, in the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $112.60. The amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid is $112.60 (one hundred and twelve dollars and sixty cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed bv the court. Test this 20th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 492 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. E. T. T. MARSH. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942; C. and F. No. 36. E. T. T. Marsh v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claimant in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant, B. T. T. Marsh, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting assistant surgeon upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under tbe provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of March, 1906. Messrs, Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by J. A. A r an Orsdel, esq., bis assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in bis petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was- previously presented to tbe proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under tbe decision of this court and of tbe Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. Tbe United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $54.58. This action was reported to Congress by the Secre- tary of the Treasury in House Executive Document 199, Fiftieth Congress, first session, pages 36-3S. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to, which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition iu the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved September 30, 1890.) Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1S80, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to Juty 16, 1S80, aud that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in The United States agaiust Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $54.58. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 659), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $54.58; the amount paid claimant was nothing: the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $54.58 (fifty-four dollars and fifty-eight cents). By the Court. Filed March 26, 1906. A true copy. Test this 28th day of March, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 493 MARY H. NICHOLSON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 500. Mary H. Nicholson, widow of James W. A. Nicholson, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's husband was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5049 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1SS7. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General^ by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting others of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The L T nited States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed" being $339.79. This action was reported to Congress by the Secre- tary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1S86, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong r. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $60.50, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16. 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880. and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States v. Strong, had Congress not pro- hibited the payment of the same, was $273.29. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of New York, in the State of New York, and is the widow of James W. A. Nicholson, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $339.79: the amount paid claimant was $66.50; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $273.29 (two hundred and seventy-three dollars and twenty-nine cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as tiled by the court. Test this 20th day of April, 1906. L seat.. J John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 494 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. EBENEZER S. PRIME, [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 492. Ebenezer S. Prime v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled ease, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to tbe Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th clay of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to tbe proper accounting officers of tbe Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the Uuited States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), tlie sum thus allowed being $387.90. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applica- ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong r. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $62.70, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16. 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $325.20. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Suffolk, in the State of New York, and is the Ebenezer S. Prime whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $387.90; the amount paid claimant was $62.70: the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2. 1889, and which still re- mains unpaid, is $325.20 (three hundred and twenty-five dollars and twenty cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 19th day of April. 1906. [seal.1 John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 495 LOUISA P. SEAMAN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10042. C. & F., No. 41. Louisa P. Seaman, widow of Stephen Seaman, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent, Stephen Seaman, was serving as an officer in the Navy, to wit, a sailmaker, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 20th day of February, 1907. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $465.68. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive Document 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $465.68. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have con- tinuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, under the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and her decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof, and a resident of the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656*) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $465,68 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is four hundred and sixty-five dollars and sixty-eight cents ($465.68). By the Cottbt. Filed February 20, 1907. A true copy. Test this 21st day of February, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 496 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. JOHN M. STEELE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 497. John M. Steele v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennybaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $266.30. This action was reported to Congress by the Secre- tary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $241.10 being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $25.20. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continue ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Kings, in the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Ceurt of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $266.30 ; the amount paid claimant was $241.10 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $25.20 (twenty-five dollars and twenty cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 20th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 497 MARTHA D. STURGIS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 604. Martha D. Sturgis, daughter of Samuel F. Hazzard, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and sbore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of- June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1SS7. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 1906. Messrs. Penuebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General. by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $241.65. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character), Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the" accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1SS6, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Con- gress not prohibited the payment of the same was $241.65. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of New York, in the State of New York, and is the daughter of Samuel F. Kaz- zard, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $241.65; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30. 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $241.65 (two hundred and forty-one dollars and sixty-five cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph. Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. S. Rep. 382, 60-1 32 498 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. ELEANOR R. SWAN AND CHARLES B. SWAN. [Court of Claims. Congressional No. 10942, C. & F. No. 110. Eleanor R. Swan and Charles B. Swan, heirs at law of Robert Swan, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimants' decedent, Robert Swan, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an assistant surgeon, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate reso- lution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceed- ings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 23d day of October, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : The claim was previously presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and has been audited by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus al- lowed being $233.42. In appropriating for allowance of like character Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment is rendered which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. The accounting officers found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimants would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not pro- hibited the paymeiit of the same was $233.42. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, aud the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. Claimants are citizens of the United States, and their decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of New York, and are the identical persons whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, as alleged in petition. The amount due claimants by the accounting officers under said decision was $233.42. The amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress ap- proved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is two hundred and thirty-three dollars and forty-two cents ($233.42). By the Court. Filed November 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 13th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph,. Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 499 EDWARD D. TAUSSIG. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 549. Edward D. Taussig v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1S87. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $33.97. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in the United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 18S0, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the pajonent of the same, was $33.97. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to such provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Kings, in the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $33.97. The amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1SS9, and which still remains unpaid, is $33.97 (thirty-three dollars and ninety-seven cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.1 John Randolph. Assistant, Clerk, Court of Claims. 500 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. HOBART L. TREMAIX. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 494. Hobart L. Tremain v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $295.89. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July IT, 18S6, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference, in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $295.89. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have con- tinuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Sullivan, in the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $295.89 ; the amount paid claimant was nothing ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $295.89 (two hundred and ninety-five dollars and eighty- nine cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 19th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OP CEETAIN CLAIMS. 501 HENRIETTA L. TUCKER. I Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. and F. No. 44. Henrietta L. Tucker, widow of Thomas B. Tucker, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's deceased husband, Thomas B. Tucker, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, as ensign, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate res- olution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought, to a hearing on its merits on the 2d day of April, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition, makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $796.63. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive Document 199, Fifty-second Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved September 30, 1S90.) Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said de- cision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the peti- tion in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 18S0, and that to which claimant would have been en- titled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $796.63. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have contin- uously refused to alow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon such evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and her decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Strong (125 U. S.. 656), was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $796.63; the amount paid claimant's decedent was nothing: the amouut sus- pended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890. 502 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIF CLAIMS. and which still remains unpaid is $796.63 (seven hundred and ninety-six dollars and sixty-three cents.) By the Court. Filed April 9, 1906. A true copy. Test this 12th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. IRA C. WHITEHEAD. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 511. Ira C. Whitehead v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1SS7. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $203.06. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said" allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applica- ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation the sum of $54.30, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $148.76. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Orange, in the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 503 v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $203.06 ; the amount paid claimant was $54.30 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 18S9, and which still remains unpaid is $148.76 (one hundred and forty-eight dollars and seventy- six cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 20th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. FREDERICK W. WUNDERLICH. I Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. & F„ No. 124. Frederick W. Wunderlich v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim for the above-entitled cause for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, as mate, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4h day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court aDd of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $111.01. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive Document No. 59, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriation for such allowance (and others of like character) Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. Whereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the same decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $52.97, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which the claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States v. Strong had Congress not pro- hibited the payment of the same, was $58.04. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 504 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of New York, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant under said decision was $111.01 ; the amount paid claimant was $52.97; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is fifty-eight dollars and four cents ($58.04). By the Court. Filed November 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 13th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. CHARLES A. AND ISABELLE G. WHITE. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — C. and F." 196, Charles A. White and Isabelle G. White, sole heirs at law of Leverett H. White, deceased, v. The United States. statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimants' decedent, Leverett H .White, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting ensign upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of February, 1908. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimants and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants, in their petition, make substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus al- lowed being $250.87. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 211, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating fof said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court (if Claims. Up5n such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same $520.87. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 505 Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the said proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after fuH'consideration, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. Claimants are citizens of the United States and are residents of New York and New Jersey, respectively, and are the sole heirs of Leverett H. White, whose claims under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) were adjusted by the accounting offi- cers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $250.87; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1S90, and which still remains unpaid, is two hundred and fifty dollars and eighty-seven cents ($250.87). By the Coukt. Filed February 17, 1908. A true copy. Test this 19th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ELIZABETH M. PITKIN AND CARRIE PITKIN McDOWELL. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional, 13093-14. Elizabeth M. Pitkin and Carrie Pitkin McDowell, heirs of Henry S. Pitkin, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 2d day of March, 1907, referring Senate bill No. 7801, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Con- gress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th dav of February, 1908. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interest of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : That Henry S. Pitkin served as an assistant surgeon in the United States Navy on the receiving ships North Carolina and Vermont, and that during the period of such service he received shore pay and allowances instead of sea pay and allowances to which he was entitled under the decision of this court and the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656). That the difference between sea pay and shore pay, amounting to $382.21, is due to claimants, but that payment of same has been prohibited by the act of September 30, 1890. The court, upon the evidence and report of the Treasury Department, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the State of New York, and claimants' decedent is the identical person who served as an assistant surgeon on the receiving ship North Carolina from August 12, 1862, to February 25, 1863, and on the receiving ship Vermont from January 14, 1871, to October 10, 1871. For said service claimants' decedent has been paid the shore pay and allow- ances of an assistant surgeon, and no claim has ever been presented to the ac- counting officers of the Treasury for the difference between shorejmy and allow- 506 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. ances, which he received, and sea pay and allowances, which claimants claim to be entitled to under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), had not Congress pro- hibited the payment of same. II. During the time claimants' decedent was attached to said receiving ships as aforesaid he had and was required to have his quarters and to mess on board said vessel, and was required to wear his uniform and was not permitted by the rules of the service to live with his family. III. The difference between the sea pay and allowances of an assistant sur- geon for the periods from August 12, 1862, to February 25, 1863, and from Janu- ary 14, 1871, to October 10, 1871, and the amount which claimants' decedent has received for his service during that period is three hundred and eighty-two dol- lars and twenty -one cents ($382.21), no part of which has been paid. By the Court. Filed February 17, 1908. A true copy. Test this 19th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. NORTH CAROLINA. STEPHEN A. NORFLEET, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-510. Stephen A. Norfleet, administrator of Ernest Norfleet, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by sueh accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $76.16. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applica- ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation the sum of $22.46, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1SS0, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $53.70. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 507 Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the comity of Bertie, in the State of North Carolina, and is the administrator of Ernest Nor- fleet, deceased, whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said deci- sion was $76.16; the amount paid claimant was $22.46; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 18S9, and which still remains unpaid is $53.70 (fifty-three dollars and seventy cents). By the Coukt. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 20th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph. Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. AUGUSTUS RODNEY MACDONOUGH, ADMINISTRATOR. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — C. & F. No. 49. Augustus Rodney Macdonough, administrator of Charles S. McDonough, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent, Charles S. McDonough, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, a lieutenant, upon receiving and other .ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress* approved March 3, 1SS7. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 9th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $651.37. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 211, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In ap- propriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then 508 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS." paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said pro- viso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $651.37. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and his decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of North Carolina, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $651.37; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $651.37 (six hundred and fifty-one dollars and thirty-seven cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy. Test this 21st day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph. Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. OHIO. L. C. BARCLAY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 542. L. C. Barclay, granddaughter of J. O'Connor Barclay, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. the United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $119.45. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 509 Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accouutiug officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1SS6, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under tbe decision in United States against Strong, had Con- gress uot prohibited the payment of the same, was $119.45. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury,. pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Jefferson, in the State of Ohio, and is the granddaughter of J. O'Connor Barclay, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 65G) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $119.45; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $119.45 (one hundred and nineteen dollars and forty-five cents). By the Couet. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph. Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. JAMES F. FITZHUGH, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. — Sub. R. R. M. James F. Fitzhugh, ad- ministrator of William E. Fitzhugh, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for the difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's intestate, William E._ Fitzhugh, commodore, U. S. Navy, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 18S7. Tbe case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of April, 1906. Richard R. McMahon appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Tan Orsdel, esq., Assistant Attorney-General, appeared for the defense an*] protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus al- lowed being $7,279.03. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted bv the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." 510 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States v. Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's intestate out of said appropriation, the sum of $5,597.66, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said pro- viso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's intestate would have been entitled under the decision in United States v. Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $1,681.37. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provision, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Clinton, in the State of Ohio, and is the administrator of the estate of Wil- liam E. Fitzhugh, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was ad- justed by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $7,279.03; the amount paid claimant was $5,597.66 ;• the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889 (25 Stat., 934), and which still remains unpaid is $1,681.37 (sixteen hundred and eighty-one dollars and thirty-seven cents). By the Coubt. Filed April 9, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 12th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MARY S. FRANKLIN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-477. Mary S. Franklin, widow of Gustavus S. Franklin, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's husband was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $324.31. This action was reported to Congress by the Sec- retary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowances (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 511 date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered," which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 18S0, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $824.31. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Ross, in the State of Ohio, and is the widow of Gustavus S. Franklin, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $324.31 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $324.31 (three hundred and twenty-four dollars and thirty-one cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 18th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. CHARLES B. GILMORE, BROTHER OF FERNANDO P. GILMORE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-713. Charles B. Gilmore, brother of Fer nando P. Gilmore, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day o'f June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 18S7. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of Januarv, 1908. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : That he is the brother of Fernando P. Gilmore, deceased. This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $60.44. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and ethers of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the 512 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused, to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $16.33, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1S80, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1SS0, and that to which claimants' decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Con- gress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $60.44. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Jefferson, in the State of Ohio, and is the brother of Fernando P. Gilmore, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $60.44 ; the amount paid claimant was $16.33 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1S89, and which still re- mains unpaid is $44.11 (forty-four dollars and eleven cents). By the Couet. Filed January 13, 190S. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 14th day of January, 190S. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. MRS. GEORGE C. HAGAN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-502. Mrs. George C. Hagan, widow (re- married) of John G. Mitchell, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's husband was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : Tbis claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed . by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $101.88. This action was reported to Congress by the Sec- ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 513 retary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1S80, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $101.88. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Huron, in the State of Ohio, and is the widow (remarried) of John G. Mitchell, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United Slates v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $101.8S ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is $101.88 (one hundred and one dollars and eighty-eight cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 20th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. NOPIE M. LE BRETON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 532. Nopie M. Le Breton, daughter of David McDougal, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's father was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution, on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Con- gress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $49.75. The action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of S. Rep. 382, 60-1 33 514 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (ajtd others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant -to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on which the peti- tion in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $49.75. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Ross, in the State of Ohio, and is the daughter of David M. McDougal, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $49.75 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $49.75 (forty- nine dollars and seventy-five cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. FRED B. McCONNELL. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C.and P. No. 37. Fred B. McConnell, heir at law of Rufus S. McConnell, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claimant in the above-entitled cause, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent, Rufus S. McConnell, was "serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, assistant paymaster and pay- master, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under tbe provisions of the act of Con- gress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing -on its merits on the 22d day of March, 3906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of tin's court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S,, 656), the sum thus ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 515 allowed being $1,585.82. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 132, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like char- acter), Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. "Act approved March 2, 1S89." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States' v. Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due aud then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation the sum of $1,019.79, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1S80, and to which said pro- viso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States v. Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $566.03. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and his decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Ohio, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S. 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. The amount fofmd due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $1,585.82: the amount paid claimant's decedeut was $1,019.79; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2. 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $566.03 (five hundred and sixty-six dollars and three cents). By the Court. Filed March 26, 1906. A true copy. Test this 28th day of March, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk, Court of Claims. MARY P. SHIRLEY, EXECUTRIX. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 ; C. & F., No. 116. Mary P. Shirley, execu- trix of estate of James R. Shirley, only child of Paul Shirley, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent, Paul Shirley, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, a commander, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Nav-y, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1!)02, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1SS7. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st da3* of January, 1907. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant and the Attomey-Generai], by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. — 516 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. The claimant, in her petition, makes substantially the following allegations: Thp clpun was previously presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $1,451.27. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 132, Fiftieth Congress, first ses- sion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Con- gress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of $283.84, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers' also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $1,167.43. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have con- tinuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and her decedent's father was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Ohio, and is the identi- cal person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the peti- tion. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $1,451.27; the amount paid claimant's decedent was $283.84; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is eleven hundred sixty-seven dollars and forty- three cents ($1,167.43). By the Court. Filed January 21, 1907. A true copy. Test this 22d day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MARIA S. WRIGHT. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 507. Maria S. Wright, sister of Arthur H. Wright, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's brother was serving as an officer in the Navy "of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for .proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1SS7. ALLOWANCE of certain claims. 517 The case was brought to a hearing ou its merits ou the 10th day of April, 100U. Messrs. Peimebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $23.29. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to- said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1SS6, tbe date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 18S0, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States v. Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $23.29. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the. Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Franklin, in the State of Ohio, and is the sister of Arthur H. Wright, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $23.29; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1S90, and which still remains unpaid, is $23.29 (twenty- three dollars and twenty-nine cents). By the Couet. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed bv the court. Test this 20th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. OREGON. HEIRS OF DANIEL W. SAMPSON. I Court of Claims of the United States. Congressional, No. 13321. George H. Sampson, Leander P. Sampson, Ellias S. Willis, Henry P. Willis, James M. Willis, jr., and Maria J. Akin, heirs at law of Daniel W. Sampson, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the United States Navy, upon receiving ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 12th day of February, 1908, referring Senate bill 518 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. No. 5177 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th dav of February, 1908. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-Gen era 1, by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : ' That they are the heirs at law of Daniel W. Sampson, deceased, who served in his lifetime as mate, United States Navy, on the receiving ship Ohio, and that during that period of such service he received shore-duty pay and allowance in- stead of sea pay and allowances, to which he was entitled under the decision of this court and the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656). That the difference between sea pay and shore pay for decedent's service on receiving ship aforesaid is $036.68, and that payment of same has been pro- hibited by the act of September 30. 1800. The court, upon the evidence and report of the Treasury Department, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. That the claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the States of New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon, and are the heirs at law of Daniel W. Sampson, deceased, who served as mate on the receiving ship Ohio from March 9, 1870, to April 23, 1873. II. For said service said decedent has been paid the shore pay and allowances of his grade, and no claim has ever been presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury for the difference between shore pay and allowances, which he has received, and sea pay and allowances, which claimants allege he would have been entitled to under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) had not Congress pro- hibited the payment of same. III. It further appears that during the time claimants' decedent was attached to said receiving ship as aforesaid he was required to have his quarters and to mess on board said vessel, to wear his uniform, and was not permitted to live with his family. IV. The difference between the sea pay and allowances of a mate in the United States Navy for the period from March 9, 1870, to April 23, 1873, and the amount which said decedent received for his services during that period, is nine hundred and thirty-six dollars and sixty-eight cents ($936.68), no part of which has been paid. By the Court. Filed February 17, 1908. A true copy. Test this 19th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. PENNSYLVANIA. MARGARETTA D. ABBEY AND OTHER HEIRS OF HENRY LELAR. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. & F. 167. Margaretta D. Abbey, Henry Lelar, jr., William D. Lelar, Mary D. Pierce, and Ellen D. Lelar, children and sole heirs at law of Henry Lelar, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay, whilst claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting master upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of January, 1908. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 519 Messrs. Coldren & Penning appeared for the claimants, and the Attorney- General, by John Q. Thompson, his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $312.37. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive Document No. 199, Fifty-second Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like char- acter) Congress made the following proviso: " Tbat no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim."' Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 18S0, and that to which claimants 1 decedent would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Con- gress not prohibited the payment of the same was $312.37. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the sa'id proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimants are citizens of the United States and their decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, and are the identical persons whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said decision was $312.37, the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $312.37 (three hundred and twelve dollars and thirty-seven cents). By the Couet. Filed January 13, 1908. A true copy. Test this 14th day of January, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. RICHARD ASHBRIDGE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 541. Richard Ashbridge v. The United States.] statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. 520 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Messrs. Peunebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $364.93. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applica- ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $315.62, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been en- titled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not pro- hibited the payment of the same, was $49.31. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, re- ported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $364.93 ; the amount paid claimant was $315.62, the amount suspended un- der the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $49.31 (forty-nine dollars and thirty-one cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. GEORGIANA BONSALL. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 551. Georgiana Bonsall, widow of Edward Bonsall, deceased, v. The United States.] statement op case. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902. referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 521 The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $75.07. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character ) Congress made the following proviso : " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applica- ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $75.07. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Delaware, in the State of Pennsylvania, and is the widow of Edward Bonsall, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $75.07; the amount paid claimant was nothing; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $75.07 (seventy-five dollars and seven cents). By the Coukt. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MATTIE H. CHAPLIN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. & F. No. 65. Mattie H. Chaplin v. The United States.] statement of Case. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's deceased husband, J. Crossan Chaplin, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, a lieutenant, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate reso- 522 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. lution on the 1st day of March, 1906, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1S87. The case. was brought to a hearing on its merits on, the 15th day of October, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $102.50. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive Document Xo. 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like charac- ter) Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the peti- tion in the said case of Strong' v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's deceased husband out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been en- titled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $102.50. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously, refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and her deceased husband was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania and is the identical person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said deci- sion was $102.50; the amount paid claimant's deceased husband was nothing; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved Sep- tember 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is one hundred and two dollars and fifty cents ($102.50). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] . John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 523 WILLIAM CUDDY. (.Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 610. William Cuddy v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant- was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits oa the 22d day of October, 1P0G. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-! : nevnl. by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United .States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $74.79. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " TI:at no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claims." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court claim accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have 'been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $74.79. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have contin- uously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, and is the identical person, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, re- ported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $74.79: the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress ap- proved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid is $74.79 (seventy-four dollars and seventy-nine cents). • By the Coukt. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 524 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. HEIRS OF LAUST E. DEGN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F. No. 70. William L. Degn, Annette N. Degn McCoy, Minnie H. Degn Wilson, and Albert L. Degn, heirs to Laust E. Degn, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimants' decedent, Laust E. Degn, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting master, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 12th day of March, 1906, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1 887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the day of , 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations: The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the stun thus allowed being .$342.16. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary ofthe Treasury in House Executive Document No. 199, Fifty-second Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of said charac- ter) Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered,- which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $342.16. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimants are citizens of the United States, and their decedent was au officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, and are the iden- tical persons whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S.,656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimants by the. accounting officers under said decision was $342.16; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved July 28, 1892,' and which still remains unpaid, is three hundred and forty -two dollars and sixteen cents ($342.16). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy. Test this 24th day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 525 WALTER B. DICK. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F. No. 46. Walter B. Dick v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to-wit, an assistant surgeon, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 9th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $93.65. This action was reported to Congress by the Secre- tary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 132, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like char- acter) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on whicb the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $29.34, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1S80, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $64.31. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, and is the identical person whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appro- priated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $93.65 : the amount paid claimant was $29.34 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress, approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $64.31 (sixty-four dollars and thirty-one cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy. Test this 21st day of" April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 526 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. MICHAEL C. DRENNAN. L Court of Claims. Michael C. Drennan v. The United States. Congressional, No. 10942 — 472.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 14th day of June, 1902, referring Sen- ate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Con- gress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1C06. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant and the Attorney- General, by J. A. Yau Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $24.59. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court 'of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopt- ed by the accounting officers as the basis for the. allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $8.70, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $15.89. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have con- tinuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Northampton, in the State of Pennsylvania, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $24.59 : the amount paid claimant was $S.70 : the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1S89, and which still re- mains unpaid, is $15.S9 (fifteen dollars and eighty-nine cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 18th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 527 EXECUTOR OF HENRY ETTING. [Court of Claims. Congressional Case No. 10942-463. The Pennsylvania Company for insurance on lives and granting annuities, executor of Henry Etting, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, a lieutenant, upon receiving and other ships, belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 4th day of December, 1905. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by L. A. Pradt, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in its petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $665.86. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the tiling of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved September 30, 1890.) Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States v. Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1S86, the date on which the peti- tion in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant nothing out of said appropriation, and nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to- July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in the United States v. Strong had Con- gress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $665.86. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, and is the executor of Henry Etting, deceased, whose claim, under decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due the claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $665.86, and the amount paid claimant was nothing. The amount suspended under the proviso to tbe act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $665.S6 (six hundred and sixty -five dollars and eighty-six cents). Filed December 18, 1905. A true copy of the finding of facts as filed by the court. Test this 5th day of January, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Cowt of Claims. 528 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. ELLEN L. FAUNCE. {Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F. No. 82. Ellen L. Faunce, widow of Peter Faunce, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent, Peter Fannce, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an ensign, upon receiving and other ships be- longing to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in her petition, makes substantially the following allegations : The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $401.76. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 211, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said de- cision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the peti- tion in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum- of $110.67, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been en- titled under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $291.09. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and her decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due the claimant by the accounting officers under said de- cision was $401.76; the amount paid claimant's decedent was $110.67; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $291.09 (two hundred and ninety- one dollars and nine cents). By the Court. • Filed November 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 13th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 529 MARGARET A. HOFFNER, WIDOW OF RICHARD J. HOFFNER. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F. No. 106. Margaret A. Hoffner, widow of Richard J. Hoffner, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedeut, Richard J. Hoffner, was serving as an officer of the Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting master, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of April, 1907. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: The claim was previously presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $255. 7S. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Ex. Doc. 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriation for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of 'Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States v. Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the peti- tion in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 1, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1SS0, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States v. Strong had Congress not pro- hibited the payment of the same, was $255.78. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and her decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amouut found due claimant Uy the accounting officers, under said decision, was $255.7S ; the amount paid claimant's decedent was nothing ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is two hundred fifty-five dollars and seventy- eight cents ($255.78). By the Couet. Filed April 8, 1907. A true copy. , Test this 10th day of April, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. S. Rep. 382, 60-1 34 530 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. SAMUEL W. LATTA. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 499. Samuel W. Latta v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th dav of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $153.89. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriations. In appropriating for such allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same has been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant, out of said appropriation, the sum of $48.21, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 18S0, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1S80, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $105.68. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, re- ported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $153.89; the amount paid claimant was $48.21; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2. 1SS9, and which still remains unpaid, is $105.68 (one hundred and five dollars and sixty-eight cents). „ By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copv of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 20th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 531 JESSIE E. LINNEKIN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F., No. 41. Jessie E. Linnekin, heir at law of Thomas J. Linnekin, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent, Thomas J. Linnekin, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting master upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of May, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $154.92. This action was reported. to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 144, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. "Act approved September 30, 1890." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said de- cision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the peti- tion in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1850, and to which- said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 1820, and that to which claimant would have been en- titled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $154.92. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury pursuant to said provisions have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and her decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, and is the identi- cal person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $154.92 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress, ap- proved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $154.92 (one hun- dred and fifty-four dollars and ninety-two cents). By the Couet. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 532 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. MARY McLEOD. [Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 10942. C. & F. 1S8. Mary McLeod, widow of Norman McLeod v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF THE CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent, Norman McLeod, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an ensign upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5049 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d dav of February, 1908. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. W. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $326.75. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 211, Fifty-first Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: "That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim fof such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to-be due and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $326.75. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the said proviso, and the . accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and her deceased husband was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $326.75; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is three hundred and twenty-six dollars and seventy-five cents ($326.75). By the Court. Filed February 10, 1908. A true copy. Test this 12th day of February, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 533 MARY E. MAXWELL AND BLANCHE M. LEWIS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 530. Mary E. Maxwell and Blanche M. Lewis, daughters of James McClelland, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim iu the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay. and shore pay whilst claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1900. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-Gen- eral, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $684.25. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for tbe allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July IT, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $684.25. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Northampton, in the State of Pennsylvania, and are the children of James McClelland, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said de- cision was $684.25 : the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is six hundred and eighty-four dollars and twenty-five cents ($684.25). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] . John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court, of Claims. 534 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. GEORGIA E. MORRISON, ADMINISTRATRIX. [In the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12642. D. and M. No. 1. Georgia B. Mor- rison, administratrix of George Smith, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent, George Smith, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, boatswain, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 9th day of January, 1907. Messrs. Dudley & Michener appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by William M. Scott, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers, under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $553.48. This action was reported to Congress by the Secre- tary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 211, Fifty-first Con- gress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. "Act approved September 30, 1890." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States , against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1S86, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in The United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $553.48. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have con- tinuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and her decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, and is tbe iden- tical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125, U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $553.48; the amount paid claimant's decedent was nothing; the amount sus- pended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $553.48 (five hundred and fifty-three dollars and forty-eight cents). By the Court. Filed January 14, 1907. A true copy. Test this 17th day of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph. Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 535 REBECCA P. NIELDS, EXECUTRIX. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. and F., No. 63. Rebecca P. Nields, executrix of Henry C. Nields, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. Tlie claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's deceased husband, Henry C. Nields, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, a lieutenant-commander, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceed- ings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1S87. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 2d day of April, 1906. Messrs. Coldren and Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed bj such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S. 656), the sum thus allowed being $967.50. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 132, Fiftieth Congress, second ses- sion. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Con- gress made the following proviso : " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim.'' (Act approved September 30, 1890.) Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said de- cision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of $7.50, being the amount to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 1S80, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress not pro- hibited the payment of the same, was $960. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and her decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Stroug (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting offi- cers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $967.50 ; the amount paid claimant's decedent was $7,50 ; the amount sus- pended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $960 (nine hundred and sixty dollars). By the Court. Filed April 9, 1906. A true copy. Test this 12th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 536 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. ADELAIDE R. SHAW. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 471. Adelaide R. Shaw, widow of Samuel F. Shaw, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's husband was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $886.17. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- plicable shall be paid therefi'om which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon wbich the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed bj the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation the sum of $176.44, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $659.73. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, and is the widow of Samuel F. Shaw, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $836.17; the amount paid claimant was $176.44; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is $659.73 (six hundred and fifty-nine dollars and seventy-three cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 18th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 537 JOHN C. SPEAR. [Court of Claims. Congressional case No. 10942 M. and C. John C. Spear v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant, John C. Spear, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions- of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 21st day of November, 1905. Moyers and Consaul appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Hon. L. A. Pradt, his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the de- fense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers "of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $232.60. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 132, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like charac- ter) Congress made the following proviso : " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." (Act approved March 2, 18S9.) Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers found that the difference in pay between that actually received by said claimant, John C. Spear, and that pay to which he would have been entitled under the decision in the case of United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited payment of the same, was $232.60. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Montgomery, State of Pennsylvania, and is the identical Jobn C. Spear whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in case of United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers and reported to Congress, as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision is two hundred thirty-two dollars and sixty cents ($232.60) which still remains- unpaid. By the Court. Filed December 4, 1905. A true copy. Test this 13th day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph. Assistant Clerk Court of Claims.. 538 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. ROBERT STEEL. Iln the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F. 159. Robert Steel v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant, Robert Steel, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, a mate upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949, for proceedings and report, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1SS7. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of January, 1908. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in his petition, makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of tbe Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $158.83. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive Document No. 171, Fifty-first Congress, second session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like char- acter) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said •decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant, out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress not pro- hibited the payment of the same, was $15S.83. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the said proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $158.83; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $158.83 (one hundred and fifty-eight dollars and eighty -three cents). By the Court. Filed January 13, 1908. A true copy. Test this 14th day of January, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 539 ELIZABETH C. VAN REED. tin the Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. and F. No. 58. Elizabeth C. Van Reed, heir-at-law of George Cochran, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent, George Cochran, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, a paymaster, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and*report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $292.60. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive Document No. 59, Fiftieth Congress, second session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claims. Act approved March 2, 1889. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1SS6, the date on wbich the petition in the said case of Strong r. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation the sum of $78.15, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1S80, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $214.47. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of tbe Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. Claimaut is a citizen of the United States and her decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656). was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $292.60; the amount paid claimant's decedent was $7S,13; the amount sus- pended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, 540 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. and which still remains unpaid, is $214.47 (two hundred and fourteen dollars and forty-seven cents). By the Court. Filed April 23, 1906. A true copy. Test this 26th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk, Court of Claims. PHOEBE N. VER MEULEN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 569. Phoebe N. Ver Meulen, widow of Edmund C. Ver Meulen, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 16th day of April, 3906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $55.89. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1SS6, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1SS0, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $55.89. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have contin- uously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, and is the widow of Edmund C. Ver Meulen, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 541 The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said de- cision was $55.80; the amount paid claimant was nothing, the amount sus- pended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, .$55.89 (fifty-five dollars and eighty-nine cents). By the Court. Filed April 23, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 28th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. HENRY WHELEN. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 619. Henry Whelen v. The United States | , STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 18S7. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th day of October, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $158.12. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 1SS0, and that to which claimant would have been enti- tled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not pro- hibited the payment of the same, was $158.12. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still un- paid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, and* is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. 542 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The amount found clue claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $158.12; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is $158.12 (one hundred and fifty-eight dollars and twelve cents). By the Court. Filed November 12, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of November, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. FRED WHITE. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942. C. & F., No. 97. Fred White, son and heir at law of Edward W. White, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent, Edward W. White, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting master, upon receiving and other ships belongiug to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3. 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 23d day of October, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition make substantially the following allegations : The claim was previously presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and has been audited by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $652.75. In appropriating for allowance of like character Congress pro- vided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment is rendered which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. The accounting officers found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $652.75. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. Claimant is a citizen of the United States and his decedent an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Pennsylvania, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the account- ing officers, as alleged in petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $652.75; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved July 28, 1S92, and which still remains unpaid, is six hundred fifty-two dollars and seventy-five cents ($652.75). By the Court. Filed November 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 13th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 543 P. FENDALL YOUNG, EXECUTOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 529. P. Fendall Young, executor of Wil- liam S. Young, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. I The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 594!) for proceedings and report, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the day of •,. 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-Qeneral, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $231.05. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character), Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 18S6, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $231.05. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, and is the executor of William S. Young, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for, as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $231.05. The amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1S90, and which still remains unpaid, is $231.05 (two hundred and thirty-one dollars and five cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [SEAL.l John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 544 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. RHODE ISLAND. THOMAS DUNN, ADMINISTRATOR. fCourt of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 480. Thomas Dunn, administrator of Charles Hunter, deceased, v. The United States.] « STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, ap- peared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $41.20. This action, was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that receiA*ed prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $41.20. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Newport, in the State of Rhode Island, and is the administrator of Charles Hunter, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. - The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said de- cision was $41.20. The amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $41.20 (forty -one dollars and twenty cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 19th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 545 VIRGINIA. MARGARET A. BLACKMORE, DAUGHTER OF CHARLES F. GUILLON. [Court of Claims. Congressional Case No. 10942-567. Margaret A. Blackmore, dasgn- ter of Charles F. Guillon, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 11th day of March, 1907. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegation : That she is the daughter of Charles F. Guillon, deceased. This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $353.96. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim.*' Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $12S.40, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $225.56. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Elizabeth City, in the State of Virginia, and is the daughter of Charles G. Guil- lon, deceased, whose claim, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $353.96; the amount paid claimant was $128.40; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still S. Rep. 382, 60-1 35 546 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. remains unpaid is two hundred and twenty-five dollars and fifty-six cents ($225.56). By the Court. Filed March 11, 1907. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 13th day of March, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MARY J. FROTHINGHAM, MARGARET E. CAVENDY, AND MARY F. COY, HEIRS OF EDWARD CAVENDY. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — C. & F. No. 64. Mary J. Frothingham, Margaret B. Cavendy, and Mary F. Coy, heirs-at-law of Edward Cavendy, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimants' decedent, Edward Cavendy, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an acting master upon receiv- ing and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 8th day of May, 1906. Messrs. Coldren and Fenning appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $353.59. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive Document No. 199, Fifty-second Congress, first session. In the appropriation for said allowance (and others of like char- acter) Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of such claims. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimants' decedent out of said appropriation, the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said pro- viso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimants' decedent would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $353.59. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. Claimants are citizens of the United States and their decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of Virginia, and said decedent is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 547 of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said deci- sion was $353.59. The amount paid claimants' decedent was nothing. The amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is three hundred and fifty-three dollars and fifty-nine cents ($353.59). By the Court. Filed May 15, 1907. . A true copy. Test this 16th day of May, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JAMES M. ODEND'HAL. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 653. James M. Odend'hal, administrator of John W. Odend'hal, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 15th <1ay of October, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting offiecrs of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $1,101.91. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims, Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation the sum of $430.68, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 1S80, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $671.23. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provision, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 548 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Norfolk, in the State of Virginia, and is the administrator of John W. Odend'hal, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $1,101.91; the amount paid claimant was $430.68; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 18S9, and which still remains unpaid is $671.23 (six hundred and seventy-one dollars and twenty- three cents). By the Court. Filed November 19, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 19th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. MARY E. R. SMITH. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 519. Mary E. R. Smith, widow (remar- ried) of Emory H. Taunt, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the — ■ — day of , 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant, in her petition, makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $105.20. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said de- cision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $105.20. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 549 The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT. The Claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Culpeper, in the State of Virginia, and is the widow of Emory H. Taunt, de- ceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, re- ported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $105.20 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress ap- proved March 2, 1S89, and which still remains unpaid, is $105.20 (one hundred and five dollars and twenty cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. H. S. HERMAN, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 547. H. S. Herman, administrator of William M. King, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 18S7. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $207.99. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay. as the same had been settled under said de- cision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the peti- tion in the said case of Strong v. The United States was' filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $207.99. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provision, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. 550 • ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Norfolk, in the State of Virginia, and is the administrator of William M. King, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $207.99 ; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1S90, and which still remains unpaid, is two hundred and seven dollars and ninety-nine cents ($207.99). Br the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. mary s. Mcintosh and Elizabeth s. taylor. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 555. Mary S. Mcintosh and Elizabeth S. Taylor, children of John L. Saunders, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimants, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented tb the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $210. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treas- ury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which beins affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1S80, and that to which claimants' decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $210. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 551 The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Norfolk, in the State of Virginia, and are the children of John L. Saunders, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656), was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimants by the accounting officers under said decision was $210; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1889. and which still remains unpaid, is two hundred and ten dollars ($210). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph. Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. GEORGE P. BARNES. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 564. George P. Barnes v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serviug as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy was transmitted to the ^ourt by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $569.58. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay, as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886,. the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $209.31, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $160.27. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the_>anie are still unpaid. 552 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Norfolk, in the State of Virginia, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $369.58; the amount paid claimant was $209.31; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $160.27 (one hundred and sixty dollars and twenty-seven cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. CHARLES SCHROEDER, ADMINISTRATOR. [Court of Claims. No. 11911, Congressional. Charles Schroeder, administrator of the estate of Samuel G. City, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent was serving as a gunner in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the llth day of December, 1905. Messrs. Lyon & Lyon appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by L. A. Pradt, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the de- fense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations: This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), in the sum of $332.72. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in House Executive Document No. 59, Fiftieth Congress, second session, page 58. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance. "Act approved March 2, 1889." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in the Strong case, and refused to allow any portion of said claim, it having accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment the accounting officers found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would haA^e been entitled under the decision in the United States v. Strong, had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $332.72. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said proviso, have continuously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. ALLOWANCE Or CERTAIN CLAIMS. 553 The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Norfolk, in the State of Virginia, and is the administrator of the estate of Samuel G. City, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due the claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $332.72, and the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid, is $332.72. By the Coukt. Filed December 18, 1905. A true copy. Test this 15th day of March, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JOHN T. NEWTON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-711. John T. Newton v. The United States.} statement of case. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 13th day of January, 1908. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by John Q. Thompson, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $226.57. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the peti- tion in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due, and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation, the sum of $160.27, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same, was $66.30. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the^same are still unpaid. 554 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel of both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Norfolk, in the State of Virginia, and is the identical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Con- gress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $226.57; the amount paid claimant was $160.27; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid, is $66.30 (sixty-six dollars and thirty cents). By the Court. Filed January 13, 1908. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 14th day of January, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. WEST VIRGINIA. HARRIET S. LYETH, ADMINISTRATRIX. I Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942, C. & F. No. 107. Harriet S. Lyeth, ad- ministratrix of Clinton H. Lyeth, deceased, v. The United States.] statement of case. The claimant in the above entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent, Clinton H. Lyeth, was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, to wit, an ensign, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate reso- lution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for pro- ceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 29th day of October, 1906. Messrs. Coldren & Fenning . appeared for claimant and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in her petition makes substantially the following allegations : The claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement, and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $202.19. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate Executive Document No. 132, Fiftieth Congress, first session. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress provided that no part of any one of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis of al- lowance of such claims. Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong, and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Ctourt of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant's decedent out of said appropriation the sum of nothing, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said pro- viso did not relate. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 555 The accounting officer also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant would have been entitled under the decision in the United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $202.19. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury pursuant to said provisions have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after full consideration, makes the following FINDING OF FACTS. Claimant is a citizen of the United States, and her decedent was an officer in the Navy thereof and a resident of the State of West Virginia, and is the iden- tical person whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $202.19; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved March 2, 1889, and which still remains unpaid is two hundred two dollars and nineteen cents ($202.19). By the Court. Filed November 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 13th day of November, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. THORNTON T. PERRY. [Court of Claims. Congressional. No. 10942 — 590. Thornton T. Perry, son of Roger Perry, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASK. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships beloi;ging to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949, for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 22d day of October, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v . The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $51.80. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso : " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is ap- plicable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which, being affirmed by the Supreme Court, has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said de- cision in United States against Strong and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. 556 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 1SS0, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $51.80. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Jefferson, in the State of West Virginia, and is the son of Roger Perry, de- ceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the account- ing officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said de- cision was $51.80; the amount suspended uuder the proviso to the act of Con- gress approved July 28, 1892, and which still remains unpaid, is $51.80 (fifty -one dollars and eighty cents.) By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. JULIA M. WOODS AND OTHERS. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942-508. Julia M. Woods and Mary E. Hagan, daughters, Mary J. Edelen and William M. Junkin, grandchildren, of David X. Junkin, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for difference between sea pay and shore pay whilst claimants' decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon receiving and other ships belongings to the Navy, was trans- mitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant, and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimants in their petition make substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting officers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $203.16. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury -for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is applica- ble shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judgment was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in the United States against Strong, and refused to allow any part of the claim, as it accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1S86, the date on which the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 557 The accounting officers also found that the difference iu pay between that re- ceived prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Congress not prohibited the payment of the same was $203.16. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso, and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have contin- uously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the fol- lowing FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimants are citizens of the United States and residents of the county of Berkeley, in the State of West Virginia, and the children and grandchildren of David X. Junkin, deceased, whose claim under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under sanl decision was $203.16; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $203.16 (two hundred and three dollars and sixteen cents). By the Court. Filed April 16, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 20th day of April, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claim*. WISCONSIN. CHARLES C. GRAFTON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 10942 — 524. Charles C. Grafton, brother of Edward C. Grafton, deceased, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case for difference between sea pay and shore pay while claimant's decedent was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States, upon receiving and other ships belonging to the Navy, was transmitted to the court by Senate resolution on the 4th day of June, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1887. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 10th day of April, 1906. Messrs. Pennebaker & Jones appeared for claimant, and the Attorney- General, by J. A. Van Orsdel, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition makes substantially the following allegations : This claim was previously presented to thejproper accounting officers of the Treasury Department for settlement and was allowed by such accounting offi- cers under the decision of this court and of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States (125 U. S., 656), the sum thus allowed being $S90.S4. This action was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Treasury for appropriation. In appropriating for said allowance (and others of like character) Congress made the following proviso: " That no part of any one of the claims to which this appropriation is appli- cable shall be paid therefrom which accrued more than six years prior to the date of the filing of the petition in the Court of Claims upon which the judg- ment- was rendered, which being affirmed by the Supreme Court has been adopted by the accounting officers as the basis for the allowance of said claim." Thereafter, pursuant to said proviso, the accounting officers readjusted said claim for such difference of pay as the same had been settled under the said decision in United States against Strong and refused to allow that portion which accrued more than six years prior to July 17, 1886, the date on which 558 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. the petition in the said case of Strong v. The United States was filed in the Court of Claims. Upon such readjustment there was found to be due and then paid to claimant out of said appropriation the sum of $170.45, being the amount which accrued subsequent to July 16, 1880, and to which said proviso did not relate. The accounting officers also found that the difference in pay between that received prior to July 16, 1880, and that to which claimant's decedent would have been entitled under the decision in United States against Strong had Con- gress not prohibited the payment of the same was $720.39. Subsequent appropriation statutes have contained the same proviso and the accounting officers of the Treasury, pursuant to said provisions, have continu- ously refused to allow this and other similar claims, and the same are still unpaid. The court, upon the evidence and the report of the Treasury Department, and after considering briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. The claimant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county of Fond du Lac, in the State of Wisconsin, and is a brother of Edward C. Graf- ton, deceased, whose claim under. the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in United States v. Strong (125 U. S., 656) was adjusted by the accounting officers, reported to Congress, and appropriated for as alleged in the petition. The amount found due claimant by the accounting officers under said decision was $890.84; the amount paid claimant was $170.45; the amount suspended under the proviso to the act of Congress approved September 30, 1890, and which still remains unpaid is $720.39 (seven hundred and twenty dollars and thirty -nine cents). By the Court. Filed October 22, 1906. A true copy of the findings of fact as filed by the court. Test this 31st day of October, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. Miscellaneous. HENRY L. JOHNSON. [Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12338. Henry L. Johnson, claimant, v. The United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for the difference between sea pay and shore pay while the claimant was serving as an officer in the Navy of the United States upon a receiving ship belonging to said Navy, was transmitted to this court by Senate resolution No. 251, on June 4, 1902, referring Senate bill No. 5949 for proceedings and report under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, commonly known as the Tucker Act. The case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 3d day of December, 1906, Mr. Lorenzo A. Bailey appearing for the claimant, and the Attorney- General, by Hon. J. A. Van Orsdel, his assistant, and under his direction, appearing for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States. The claimant in his petition alleges that during the years 1874 and 1875 he was a lieutenant-commander in the United States Navy; that his claim was allowed by the Auditor for the Navy Department, but payment of the same was prevented by the act of Congress of September 30, 1890 ; that the sum so allowed was $142.47. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the arguments of counsel upon each side, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimant, Henry L. Johnson, is a citizen of the United States and was an officer in the Navy thereof, and is the identical person whose claim was adjusted by the proper accounting officers in the sum of $142.47, but for the payment of which no appropriation has been made, the act of September 30, 1890, containing the proviso that no part of any of these claims should be paid which accrued more than six years prior to the date of filing the petition in the Court of Claims in the case of Strong v. United States. II. The amount found by the proper accounting officers to be due to the claimant under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Strong v. The United States was $142.47 (one hundred and forty-two dollars and forty-seven cents), which still remains unpaid. BY the Court. Filed December 3, 1906. A true copy. Test this 6th day of December, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 559 French Spoliation Claims. SHIP CERES. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885 ; 23 Stat. L., 283. Ship Ceres, Roswell Roath, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 281. Charles Francis Adams, jr.. administrator, etc., of Peter Chardon Brooks, v. The United States. 3479. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, etc., r. The United States. 4359. Donald G. Perkins, administrator of Daniel Dnnham, v. The United States. 4359. Donald G. Perkins, administrator of Alphens Dunham, v. The United States. 2218. Edmund D. Roath, administrator of Roswell Roath, v. The United States. 4567. Asahel Willet, administrator of Jedediah Willett, v. The United States. 3925. New York Insurance Company v. The United States. 4120. Daniel Jackson, administrator of Daniel Dunham, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 22d day of April, 1902. The claimants were represented by Curtis & Pickett, J. W. Butterfield, Lawrence Lewis, jr., and John C. Clark, esqs., and the United States, defend- ants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistants in the Department of Justice, Charles W. Russell, and John W. Trainer, esqs., with whom was Assist- ant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and consider- ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows : I. The ship Ceres, Roswell Roath, master, sailed from New London, Conn., June 11, 1797, on a commercial voyage bound for the port of Liverpool, England. While peacefully pursuing said voyage on the high seas the Ceres was captured July 1, 1797, off Cape Clear, in latitude 49' north, longitude 18° west, by the French privateer U Hydra of Nantes, France, taken to the port of La Rochelle, France, and there both vessel and cargo condemned and ordered to be sold by the tribunal of commerce at that place whereby the same became a total loss to the owners. The ground of condemnation was that the r61e d'equipage was not in form as required by the regulations of 1704, 1744, and 1778. II. The Ceres was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 126 f* tons burthen, built at Norwich, Conn., in the year 1796, and owned by Daniel Dunham, Roswell Roath, and Jedediah Willett, citizens of the United States and residing at said Norwich. III. The cargo of the Ceres at the time of capture consisted of potash, pearl ash, coffee, sugar, rice, staves, etc., and was owned by Daniel Dunham and Alpheus Dunham, his son. S. Rep. 382, 60-1 36 561 562 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. IV. Tbe loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Ceres and cargo was as follows : The value of the vessel $5,054.30 The value of the cargo i_ 12,007.69 Freight earnings 2, 066. 66 Premiums of insurance paid 436. 00 . Amounting in all to 19,564.65 Case 4359. — Daniel Dunham owned one-third of the vessel and one-half of the cargo. His losses were as follows : One-third of the value of the vessel " $1,684.77 One-half of the value of the cargo 6, 003. 84 One-third of the value of the freight 688.88 One-third of the premium of insurance on the vessel 145. 33 Amounting in all to__: 8,522.82 Less insurance received 1 1,000.00 Net loss of Daniel Dunham 7, 522. 82 Case 2218. — Rosewell Roath owned one-third of the vessel and freight. His losses were as follows 1 : One-third of the value of the vessel $1, 684. 77 One-third of the value of the freight __ 688. 88 Premium of insurance, one-third on the vessel 145.33 Amounting in all to 2,518.98 Less insurance received 1,000.00 Net loss to Roswell Roath 1, 51S. 98 Case 4567. — Jedediah Willet owned one-third of the vessel and freight. His losses were as follows : One-third of the value of the vessel $1, 684. 77 One-third of the value of the freight 688. 88 One-third of the premium of insurance on the vessel l 145. 33 Amounting in all to 2, 51S. 98 Less insurance received 1,000.00 Net loss of Jedediah Willet 1,518.98 Case 4359. — Alpheus Dunham owned one-half of the cargo. His loss was as follows: $6,003.84. SPECIAL FINDINGS. Case 281. — September 4, 1797, said Daniel Dunham, Jedediah Willet, and Roswell Roath effected insurance in the office of Peter C. Brooks on the said vessel in the sum of $1,500, paying therefor a premium of 14 per cent, by a policy underwritten by the following persons, citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name, viz : Nathaniel Fellowes $800 William Smith 700 July 27, 1802, said Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $1,274 in cash and returned the note given by the assured for the premium, which, together with the commissions due said Brooks, amounted to the sum of $1,500, the face of said policy, as and for a total loss by reason of the premises. December 16, 1801, William Smith, in consideration of $3,715.50 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by the said Brooks of all and any lia- bilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to the said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of the said Brooks. Case 3479. — September 4, 1797, said Daniel Dunham, Jedediah Willet, and Roswell Roath effected insurance in the office of Joseph Taylor on the said ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 563 vessel in the sum of $1,500, paying therefor a premium of 14 per cent, by a policy underwritten by the following persons, citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name, viz : Thomas Perkins $500 Thomas Dickason 1, 000 Thereafter the said Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said assured the full amount of said policy, as autl for a total loss by reason of the premises. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration on the estates of the persons for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfac- tion of the court that the persons whom they represent are the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Ceres. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims which have never been assigned, except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of Sep- tember, 1800 ; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : Donald G. Perkins, administrator of Daniel Dunham $7, 522. 82 Donald G. Perkins, administrator of Alpheus Dunham 6,003. 84 Edmund D. Roath, administrator of Rosewell Roath 1, 518. 9S Asahel Willet, administrator of Jedediah Willet___l 1, 518. 98 Charles Francis Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks 700. 00 A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes S00. 00 H. Burr Crandall, administrator of Thomas Dickason 1, 000. 00 William P. Perkins, executor, etc., of Thomas Perkins 500. 00 Amounting in all to 19,564.62 The other claimants herein have proved no valid claims. By the Court. Filed May 16, 1904. A true copy. Test this 20th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SLOOP ABIGAIL. ICourt of Claims. French Spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Ves- sel, sloop Abigail; master, Silas Jones.] No. of case. Claimant. 196. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 8th day of February, 1906. The claimants were represented by William TT S. Curtis and Theodore J. 564 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Pickett, and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as fol- lows: I. The sloop Abigail, Silas Jones, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about December 4, 1799, from Boston bound to Barbados. While peacefully pur- suing said voyage she was seized on the high seas on or about the 24th day of said month by the French privateer Rieney, Oapt. Francois Triol, and carried to Point Petre, where the said Silas Jones was ordered ashore and not permitted to return to his vessel. January 5, 1800, said vessel and cargo were condemned as good prize by the tribunal of commerce and prizes sitting at Basseterre, Guadaloupe, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners thereof. The grounds of condemnation, as set forth in the decree, were as follows : First. Alleged defects in the vessel's sea letter. Second. Want of a role d'equipage. II. The Abigail was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 65 tons burthen ; was built in Massachusetts in the year 1794, and was owned by Daniel Scudder, a citizen of the United States residing at Boston. III. The cargo of the Abigail consisted of beef, pork, fish, candles, soap, onions, lumber, etc., none of which was contraband, and was owned by said Daniel Scudder, the owner of the vessel. IV. The value of said vessel and cargo exceeded the amount for which it was insured. V. December 5, 1799, said Daniel Scudder effected insurance in the office of Peter C. Brooks on said vessel and cargo in the sum of $1,500, paying therefor a premiums of 18 per cent by a policy undrewritten as here shown, to wit : Nathaniel Fellowes $800 Stephen Gorham 700 Thereafter said Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $1,500 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises. Peter C. Brooks, Nathaniel Fellowes, and Stephen Gorham were citizens of the United States. November 24, 1801, for and in consideration of $2,986.65, to him paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption by said Brooks of all and any liabilities and dis- advantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, the said Stephen Gorham assigned to the said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of the said Brooks. VI. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Abigail, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803 ; were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation were illegal and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of Septem- ber, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 565 the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claim- ants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, seven hundred dol- lars $700. 00 A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, eight hun- dred dollars 800. 00 Amounting in all to one thousand five hundred dollars 1,500. 00 By the Court. Filed March 12, 1906. A true copy. Test this 17th day of March, A. D. 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. SLOOP TWO FRIENDS. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885 ; 23 Stat. L., 283. Sloop Two Friends, Peter Pond, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 2338. George G. Sill, administrator of William Leavenworth, v. The United States. 2861. George G. Sill, administrator of William Coggeshall, v. The United States. 4564. George G. Sill, administrator of Peter Pond, v. The United States. 781. Charles Francis Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 2063. Seth P. Snow, administrator of Cromwell Hatch, v. The United States. 2904. The New Haven Insurance Company v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 4th day of April, 1892. The claimants were represented by George G. Sill, A. H. Cragin, William E. Earle, Shellabarger & Wilson, and George S. Boutwell, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by ,the Attorney-General through his assistant in the De- partment of Justice, Benjamin Wilson, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney- General John B. Cotton. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the argument and considering the same with briefs of counsel on each side, determine the fates to be as follows : I. The sloop Two Friends, Peter Pond, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about the 1st day of May, 1798, from New Haven, Conn., bound for the island of Martinique. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas on the 24th day of said month by the French privateer Sans Pareil and conducted to St. Martin. Subsequently, on the 25th day of June, 1798, said vessel with her cargo were condemned as good prize by the French prize court sitting at Basse Terre, Guadeloupe, whereby both vessel and cargo became a total loss to the owners. The grounds of condemnation as set forth in the decree were as follows : First. That the vessel sailed for Martinique, a conquered country, in rebellion. Second. That the role d'equipage did not conform to the formalities pre- scribed by law. Third. That the signature of David Austin, collector, was entirely different from that appended to the sea letter. II. The Two Friends was a duly' registered vessel of the United States of 85|f tons burthen, built at Milford, Conn., in the year 1793, and was owned in the proportions as here stated by the following persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States : William Leavenworth, one-fourth ; William Cogge- shall, one fourth, and Peter Pond, one-half. 566 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. It appears that at the sale of the vessel under the decree of the French court the vessel was bought in by the master for the benefit of the owners for the sum of $372. III. The cargo of the Tivo Friends at the time of capture consisted of oxen, staves, hoops, cheese, Indian corn, butter, lard, beef, fish, pork, potatoes, and similar articles, and was owned in the same proportions and by the same per- sons as the vessel. In addition to said cargo, the said Peter Pond, master of the vessel, has an adventure on board, consisting of candles, tallow, sole leather, corn, ham, lard, etc. IV. The losses by reason of the condemnation of the Tivo Friends and her cargo were as follows : Cost of vessel at sale $372.00 Value of cargo 3,000.00 Freight earnings , 1, 425. 00 Adventure of Peter Pond 486.75 Premium of insurance paid by Peter Pond 840. 00 Premium of insurance paid by William Coggeshall 720. 00 Amounting in all to 6,843.75 V. May 21, 1798, William Coggeshall and Peter Pond effected insurance on said vessel, cargo, and deck load in the office of Peter C. Brooks in the sum of $5,600, of which $1,500 was on the vessel, $2,600 on cargo, and $1,500 on the deck load, by a policy underwritten by the following persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States, in the sums set opposite their names : Crowell Hatch $1,000 Nathaniel Fellowes $1,000 Benjamin Bussey 1, 000 Samuel W. Pomeroy 600 David Greene 1,000 William Smith 1,000 January 23, 1799, said Peter C. Brooks duly paid to the said Peter Pond the sum of $2,S00, as and for a total loss on said policy, the same being payment in full to the said Pond of his interest in the same. The said William Coggeshall had previously insured his interest in said vessel, cargo, and deck load with the New Haven Insurance Company. One of the conditions of the policy effected in the office of said Brooks was as follows, viz : " And it is the express condition of this policy that the subscribers hereto shall be discharged from every risk, in case the same property should be wholly assured, by any policy or policies actually prior to this ; but should any part of the same property remain unassured, by such prior policy or policies, or if the sum assured by this policy should exceed the true value of the property at risk, then the first subscriber hereto, and those next in succession shall be held to take and bear the risk of the sum written by each respectively, until the real amount of the property at risk shall be fully assured and the subsequent sub- scriber to this, and policies of a later date, shall be discharged from every risk." Under the above clause in said policy no payment was made to the said Coggeshall and the premium paid by him was returned, as further provided in said policy. The loss on said policy paid said Peter Pond was borne by the following underwriters as here stated, viz : Crowell Hatch $1, 000 Benjamin Bussey 1, 000 David Greene 800 VI. May 9, 1798, said William Coggeshall effected insurance with the New Haven Insurance Company by three separate policies, to wit : one in the sum of $1,000 on the vessel at a premium of 30 per cent; one in the sum of $1,500 on oxen on the deck of said vessel at a premium of 25 per cent; and one on the cargo in the sum of $1,000 at a premium of 30 per cent. His total insurance was $3,500, for which he paid a premium of $975. It appearing that the said Coggeshall was overinsured the company finally paid him the sum of $2,336.29 and returned him all of the premium paid by him, except the sum of $720, but as the loss of said Coggeshall growing out of said seizure was only $1,919.25, as hereinafter set forth, he was overinsured the sum of $417.04. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 567 VII. After said payment, to wit, February 15, 1805, for and in consideration of $10,000 and the assumption of all the responsibility of Benjamin Bussey as an insurer in the office of Peter C. Brooks, said Bussey assigned to said Brooks all of his interest in said business. After said payment, to wit, on December 23, 1801, for and in consideration of $6,000 and the assumption of all responsibility of David Greene as insurer in. the office of Peter C. Brooks, said Greene assigned to said Brooks all of his in- terest in said business. VIII. Peter Pond was the owner of one-half of said vessel, cargo, and deck load, and sole owner of an adventure on board. His losses were as follows : Loss on vessel ,. $186.00 One-half of value of cargo and deck load 1, 500.00 One-half of freight earnings 712.50 Value of adventure 486.75 Premium of insurance paid 840.00 Total 3, 725. 25 Deduct insurance received 2,800.00 Balance 925.25 IX. The loss to said William Coggeshall was as follows : One-fourth paid for vessel $93.00 One-fourth value of cargo 750.00 One-fourth freight earnings 356.25 Premium of insurance paid , 720.00 Total 1, 919. 25 But as hereinbefore set forth, said Coggeshall was paid the sum of $2,336.29 by the New Haven Insurance Company. His losses were fully covered, being overinsured the sum of $417.04. The loss to said William Leavenworth was asofollows : One-fourth paid for vessel at sale $93.00 One-fourth value of cargo 750.00 One-fourth freight earnings 356.25 Amounting in all to 1,199.25 XI. The New Haven Insurance Company is a corporation d^uly incorporated under the laws of Connecticut, was existing in the year 1798, and is still existing. XII. The other claimants herein bave produced letters of administration on the various estates and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons whom they represent are the same persons wbo suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Two Friends. XIII. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on tbe 30tb day of April, 1803; they were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1S19, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between tbe United States and France on the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants in their representative capacity are tbe owners of said claims which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of Sep- tember, 1800 ; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of tbe United States by said treaty in part consideration of tbe relinquishment 568 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : George G. Sill, administrator of Peter Pond '_ $925. 25 Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks 1, 800. 00 Seth P. Snow, administrator of Crowell Hatch 1, 000. 00 The New Haven Insurance Company 1, 919. 25 George G. Sill, administrator of William Leavenworth 1, 199. 25 By the Court. Filed April 4, 1904. A true copy. Test this 20th day of December. 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. SHrP SALLY BUTLER. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., p. 283. Ship Sally Butler, Alexander Chisolm, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 3361. Archibald Smith, administrator de bonis non of the estate of James Seagrove, deceased, /-. The United States. 3136. James H. Johnston, administrator de bonis non of the estate of James Johnston, surviving partner of Johnston, Robertson & Co., v. The United States. 4527. W. H. Elliott, administrator de bonis non of William Meins, deceased, surviving partner of Meins & Mackey, v. The United States. ' 3134. W. H. Elliott, administrator de bonis non of the estate of Robert Mackay, of the firm of Mains & Mackay, v. The United States'. 3135. Jordan F. Brooks, administrator ad colligendum of the estate of Thomas Young, deceased, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 22d day of Novem- ber, 1904. The claimants were represented by James Lowndes, esq., and the United States, defendants, by the Attoruey-General, through his asisstant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and consider- ing the same with briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows : I. The ship Sally Butler, Alexander Chisolm. master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about March 23, 1798, from Savannah, Ga., bound for London. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized upon the high seas on or about May 3, 1798, by the French privateer, La Tartare, Captain Leconte, and taken into the port of Bordeaux, where, on the 26th day of June, 1798, said vessel and her cargo were condemned by the tribunal of commerce whereby the same became a total loss to the owners. The grounds of condemnation as set forth in the decree were as follows: First. That the crew list was not in form. Second. That certain papers on board the vessel were found concealed at the time of capture. Third. That there were duplicate bills of lading. II. The Sally Butler was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 140ff tons burden ; was built at St. Simon, in the State of Georgia, in the year 1797, and was owned by James Seagrove, a citizen of the United States and a resident of St. Mary, Ga. III. The cargo of the Sally Butler at the time of capture consisted of cotton shipped by sundry persons at Savannah, Ga., but whether they were the owners of same does not appear ; neither does it appear that the neutrality of ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 569 said cargo was established before the French prize tribunal at the time of the condemnation proceedings. IV. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Sally Butler, so far as is shown by the evidence, were as follows : The value of the vessel $6,311.41 V. The loss to said James Seagrove by reason of said capture and condemna- tion was as follows : The value of the vessel $6,311.41 VI. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the estates of the parties for whom they appear and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose esates they have filed claims are the same persons who suffered loss by the seizure and condemnation of the Sally Butler as set forth in the preceding findings. VII. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803, and were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of January, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims which have never been assigned except as aforesaid ; nor does it appear that said claims are owned by an insurance company. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation of the vessel was illegal, and that the owner had a valid claim of indemnity there- for upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800: that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimant is entitled to the following sum from the United States : Archibald Smith, administrator de bonis non of the estate of James Seagrove, deceased, six thousand three hundred and eleven dollars and forty-one cents $6,311.41 None of the other claimants herein have proved valid claims. By the Court. Filed December 5, 1904. A true copy. Test this 20th day of December. 1904. [seal.] John Randolph. Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. BRIG NEPTUNE. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Brig Neptune, Hezekiah Flint, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 3303. David Pingree, administrator of Thomas Perkins, deceased, v. The United States. 2666. Francis A. Jewett, administrator of James Prince, deceased, v. The United States. 4182. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of John McLean, deceased, v. The United States. 35S4. Charles T. Loveriug, administrator of Joseph Taylor, deceased, v. The United States. 3584. Arthur D. Hill, administrator of Benjamin Homer, deceased, v. The United States. 3584. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of John McLean, deceased, v. The United States. 3584. Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, deceased, v. The United States. — - 570 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 2d dav of March, 1902. The claimants were represented by Edward Lander, Charles W. Clagett, Theodore J. Pickett, and William T. S. Curtis, esqs., and the United States, de- fendants, by the Attorney-General through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. The court, upon the evidence and after considering the same with the briefs and arguments of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows : I. The brig Neptune, Hezekiah Flint, master, sailed on tbe 13th day of De- cember, 1799, from Surinam. South America, on a commercial voyage bound for Salem. Mass. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was captured on the high seas on the 17th day of December, 1799. by the French privateer Jason, commanded by Captain Gayetan. On the 27th day of December, 1799, she was condemned by the tribunal of commerce and prizes sitting at Basse Terre. Guadaloupe, on the following grounds : " First. The captain was the bearer of a commission authorizing him to cap- ture French cruisers and carry them into the ports of the United States. " Second. That the captain had neither invoice nor bill of lading for the commodities which he had on board. " Third. That the cargo of sirups put on board at Surinam, an English country, was destined for Salem, as the captain has declared." It appears, however, that at the time of the seizure and condemnation there were on board the vessel a manifest and invoice showing that the cargo was owned by Peabody & Perkins, of Salem, Mass. II. The Neptune was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 160ff tons burden ; was built at Salem, Mass.. in the year 179S, and was owned by Joseph Peabody and Thomas Perkins in the following proportions : Joseph Peabody, two-thirds, and Thomas Perkins, one-third. III. The cargo of the Neptune consisted of sirups, and was owned by the owners of the vessel. IV. The losses sustained by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Neptune up to the time of said condemnation were as follows: Value of the vessel $7,215.00 Value of the cargo 8,741.04 Freight earnings for the voyage 2, 672.28 Premium of insurance paid on cargo 1,800.07 Amounting in all to 20,428.39 Thomas Perkins was the owner of one-third of the value of vessel, freight, and cargo. His losses up to the time of said condemnation were as follows: One-third the value of the vessel $2, 405. 00 One-third the value of the cargo 2, 913. 68 One-third the value of the freight earnings 890. 76 One-third premium paid on cargo 600.02 Amounting in all to 6,809.46 Less insurance received 6,400.12 Net loss 409.34 Case No. 3585. — On February 15, 1800, said Peabody & Perkins effected insur- ance on said vessel in the office of Joseph Taylor, in Boston, in the sum of $2,500, paying therefor a premium of 12 per cent, by a policy underwritten by the following persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name, viz : Benjamin Homer $1, 000 John McLean 500 John C. Jones 1,000 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 571 On the 21st clay of March, 1800, said Taylor, as agent for the underwriters, duly paid the said insured the sum of $2,500 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises, the same being a loss to each of the said underwriters of the sum underwritten by him. Case No. 2666. — In the year 1800 said Peabody & Perkins effected insurance on said vessel in the office of James King, of Salem, Mass., in the sum of $6,700, at a premium of 6 per cent. On the 20th of May, 1800, said James King, as agent for the underwriters, paid the said assured the sum of $6,700 as and for a total loss. Said Peabody & Perkins also insured the cargo in the office of said James King in the sum of $10,000.40, at a premium of IS per cent. On the 20th day of May, 1800, the said James King, as agent for the under- writers, paid the assured the said sum of $10,000.40 as and for a total loss. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfac- tion of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by the seizure and condemnation of the Neptune, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims Were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, and were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July. 1831. The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid, nor does it appear that any of said claims are owned by an insurance company. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity there- for upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1S00 : and said claims were relinquished to France by the Gov- ernment of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relin- quishment of certain national claims of France against the United States: and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : 3303. David Pingree, administrator of Thomas Perkins, deceased, four hundred and nine dollars and thirty-four cents $409. 34 4182. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of John McLean, de- ceased, fire hundred dollars 500.00 3584. Arthur D. Hill, administrator of Benjamin Homer, deceased, one thousand dollars 1, 000. 00 3584. Thomas N.Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, deceased, one thousand dollars 1. 000. 00 2666. Francis A. Jewett, administrator of James Prince, deceased- Not proven. No allowance is made for the premiums paid for insurance on said vessel, said insurance having been effected subsequent to the date of the condemnation of the vessel, but the insurers having paid the claimants' losses as set forth in the findings are entitled to be subrogated to the claimants' rights to the extent of the loss so paid. (Schr. John Eason, 37 C. Cls. P., 443.) The other claimants herein have proved no valid claims. By the Court. Filed December 12, 1904. A true copy. Test this 20th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 572 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. VESSEL KETCH JOHN. [Court of Claims. French Spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885 ; 23 Stat. L., p. 283. Ketch John, Henry Tibbetts, master. No. 1068. Hasket Derby, administrator de bonis non of Elias Hasket Derby, v. The United States.] PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. This case was tried before the Court of Claims on the 29th day of Novem- ber, 1904. i The claimant was represented by Edward Lander, esq., Frank W. Hackett, esq., and Charles W. Clagett, esq., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. The court upon the evidence and after considering the same with briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The ketch John, Henry Tibbetts, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about the 18th day of September, 1796, from Salem, Mass., bound for Bordeaux, France, and from thence back to Salem. On or about the 5th day of June, 1797, the John sailed from the Isle of France homeward bound for Salem, and while peacefully pursuing said homeward voyage she was captured on the high seas, on the 30th of August, 1797, by the French sloop of war Jean Barb, Captain Lafitte, who put a prize crew on board and ordered her to Guada- loupe. The John proceeded southward until the 15th day of September, 1797, when she was recaptured by the British frigate L 'Amiable, commanded by Capt. Granville Lobb, and carried into Tortola, where, on the 25th October, 1797, she was condemned by the British vice-admiralty court to pay one-eighth part of the gross value of the said vessel and cargo as salvage. II. The John was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 258 tons burthen ; was built at Salem, Mass., in the year 1795, and was owned by Elias Hasket Derby, a citizen of the United States. III. The cargo of the John at the time of capture consisted of indigo, cotton, and sugar, and was owned by said Elias Hasket Derby,' the owner of the vessel. IV. The loss by reason of the capture of the John was as follows : Salvage paid by the vessel and cargo owned bv said Elias Hasket Derby $12, 962. 92 V. The claimant herein has produced letters of administration upon the estate of the party for whom he appears and has otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the person for whose estate he has filed a claim is the same person who suffered loss by the seizure of the John, as set forth in the preceding findings. VI. The said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803, and was not a claim growing out of the acts of France, allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and was not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimant, in his representative capacity, is the owner of said claim, which has never been assigned except as aforesaid, nor does it appear that any of said claim is owned by an insurance company. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as a conclusion of law that said seizure by the French was illegal and that the owner had a valid claim of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claim was relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. . 573 certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimant is entitled to the following sum from the United States : Hasket Derby, administrator of Elias Hasket Derby, twelve thou- sand nine hundred and sixty-two dollars and ninety-two cents $12,962.92 By the Court. Filed December 5, 1904. A true copy. Test this 20th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claim*. ♦ BRIGANTINE ELIZA. [Court of Claims. French Spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885 ; 23 Stat. L., 283. Brigantine Eliza, Thomas Woodbury, master.] No. of claim. Claimant. 2309. Arthur L. Huntington, administrator of William Orne, claimant, v. The United States. 1114. Joseph . Ogden, executor of Jane Ann Ferrers, claimant, v. The United States. 1114. Bayard Tuckerman, administrator of Walter Channing, deceased, sur- viving partner of Gibbs & Channing, v. The United States. 1114. Thomas W. Ludlow, administrator of Thomas Ludlow, claimant, v. The United States. 1114. Walter S. Church and Walter S. Church, administrators of John Barker Church, claimant, v. The United States. 1114. Leopold Mark, administrator of Louis Mark, deceased, surviving partner of Jacob and Louis Mark, late doing business as Jacob Mark & Co., claimant, v. The United States. 159. Louisa A. Starkweather, administratrix of Richard S. Hallett, claimant, v. The United States. 2013. Robert B. Lawrence, administrator of John B. Bowne, claimant, v. The United States. 2013. Walter Bowne, administrator of Walter Bowne, claimant, v. The United States. 3497. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, claimant, v. The United States. 3497. Arthur L. Huntington, administrator of James Dunlap, claimant, v. The United States. 3497. William Ropes Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, claimant, v. The United States. 617. Harriet E. Sebor, administratrix of Jacob Sebor, claimant, v. The United States. 3743. Archibald M. Howe, administrator of Francis Green, claimant, v. The United States. 4602. Sarah L. Farnum, administratrix of the estate of Leffert Lefferts, claimant, v. The United States. 970. John C. Ropes, administrator of Thomas Amory, claimant, v. The United States. 1114. Francis R. Shaw, administrator of J. C. Shaw, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 22d day of Novem- ber, 1904. The claimants were represented by Edward Lander, William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, and Charles W. Clagett, and the United States, defendant, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. I. The brig Eliza, Thomas Woodbury, jr., master, sailed on a commercial voyage from Salem, Mass., on the 5th day of December, 179S, bound for Bilboa, Spain. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was captured on the 20th 574 t ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. day of January, 1799, on the high seas, by the French privateer Les Deux Amis, of Bayonne, France, and carried into Bayonne. The Eliza and cargo were libelled before the tribunal of commerce at Bayonne and, on the 13th day of March, 1799, were released by the decree of that court. The captors appealed from the decree rendered by the tribunal of commerce at Bayonne to the court of appeals at Pau. On the 6th day of April, 1799, the court of appeals at Pau condemned the vessel and cargo upon the following grounds : That part of the cargo of the Eliza consisted of sugar, and that under the law of the tenth Brummaire, year five, refined sugar, whether in loaf or in powder, must be considered to proceed from English manufactures, whatever may be their origin ; that the law of the twenty-ninth Nivose, year six, discloses that the condition of vessels, so far as their neutrality or enmity is concerned, shall be determined by their cargoes, and, therefore, every vessel found upon the sea laden in whole or in part with merchandise reputed to be the product of England or her possessions shall be declared good prize, whoever may be the owner of the commodities or merchandise. From this decree the owner of the vessel and cargo took an appeal to the court of cessation at Paris, which court, on the 1st day of September, 1799, rejected the appeal and finally condemned the vessel and cargo. While the case was pending before the tribunal of commerce at Bayonne, that court ordered the sale of the vessel and cargo to abide the final decree. Under this sale the vessel and cargo realized the sum of 260,464 livres 76 sous, or $48,186. II. The Eliza was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 152 tons burden ; was built at Amesbury, Mass., in 1790, and was owned solely by William Orne, a citizen of the United States, residing in Salem. III. The cargo of the Eliza consisted of sugar, cocoa, salt fish, and one barrel of oil, and was owned, with the exception of the adventures of the crew, by William Orne, a citizen of the United States. IV. The .losses sustained by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Eliza and cargo were as follows : The amount the vessel and cargo sold for in France, 260,464 livres 76 sous, or $48,186 Premiums on insurance paid on vessel and cargo 3, 050 . Amounting in all to 51, 236 V. William Orne, the owner of the Eliza, insured the same on the 23d day of March, 1799, in the office of Joseph Taylor, an insurance broker of Boston, in the sum of $2,000, at a premium of 25 per cent, said policy being subscribed or underwritten by the following persons for the amounts set opposite their names, all of whom were citizens of the United States : James Dunlap $500 Thomas Amory — : 1, 000 Francis Green 500 Amounting in all to 2, 000 Thereafter; on September 21, 1799, by reason of the aforesaid loss, the said underwriters paid the insured the several amounts by them subscribed. That on or about February 15, 1799, the aforesaid owner of the cargo of the said brig Eliza, William Orne, insured his interest therein in the office of John Ferrers, an insurance broker in the city of New York, in the sum of $19,000, at a premium cost of 10 per cent. The said policy was underwritten by various parties, among the number being citizens of the United States who underwrote for the amount set opposite their names : Jacob Sebor $250 Gibbs & Channing 750 Leffert Lefferts 500 Thomas Ludlow 500 Hallett, Bowne & Co 1, 000 Bowne & Embree :- 500 John B. Church 2,000 J. C. Shaw 250 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 575 The underwriters above named are in court, and the amounts by them sub- scribed were paid to the insured as and for a total loss. The other underwriters mentioned in said policy have not presented any claim, except the firm of Jacob Mark & Co., which underwrote for $500, but it appears that said firm did not pay its subscription upon said policy. It likewise appears from the record that certain additional underwriters on said policy did not pay to the insured, William Orne, the sum of $3,500. After deducting the above sum of $3,500 from the policy of $19,000, the actual sum received by the insured from the underwriters on said policy was $15,500. In addition to the above-mentioned insurance the said William Orne, on March 22, 1799, caused further insurance to be effected for his account upon said cargo in the sum of $2,600 in the office of John King, an insurance broker in Salem, Mass., at a premium cost of 25 per cent, said policy being underwritten by sundry persons, none of whom have appeared in this case. On September 24, 1799, said underwriters by reason of said loss paid the insured, William Orne, the sum of $2,600 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises. VI. The firm of Hallett, Bowne & Co. was composed of Richard Hallett and Walter Bowne. The firm of Bowne & Embree was composed of John R. Bowne, Samuel Embree, Walter Bowne, and Richard S. Hallett. The firm of Gibbs & Chauning was composed of George Gibbs and Walter Channing, of whom Walter C. Channing was the surviving partner. VII. The losses of the respective claimants, by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Eliza, were as follows : William Orne : Amount the vessel and cargo sold for in France, 260,461 livres 76 sous, or $4S, 186. 00 Premiums of insurance paid 3,050.00 Amounting in all to 51, 236. 00 From which deduct — The adventures of tbe captain and crew $1, 343. 54 Insurance received from Taylor's office 2, 000. 00 Insurance received from King's office 2, 600. 00 Insurance received from Ferrer's office 15, 500. 00 — 21, 443. 54 Total loss 29, 792. 46 VIII. The losses of the various underwriters, by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Eliza, were as follows : Jacob Sebor $250. 00 Gibbs & Channing 750.00 Leffert Lefferts 500. 00 Thomas Ludlow 500. 00 Hallett, Bowne & Co 1,000.00 Bowne & Embree 500.00 John B. Church 2,000.00 James Dunlap 1 500. 00 Thomas Ambry 1, 000. 00 Francis Green 500.00 IX. The claimants have produced letters of administration upon the estates represented by them and have proven to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they appear are the same persons who suffered loss through the capture and condemnation of the brig Eliza, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 22d day of February, 1819, and were not allowed and paid, in whole or in part, under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th day of July, 1831. The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned. 576 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of Sep- tember, 1800 ; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : Arthur L. Huntington, administrator of William Orne, twenty-nine thousand seven hundred and ninety-two dollars and forty-six cents $29, 792.46 Bayard Tuckerman, administrator of Walter Channing, surviving partner of Gibbs & Channing, seven hundred and fifty dollars 750.00 Arthur L. Huntington, administrator of James Dunlap, five hundred dollars 500. 00 William Ropes Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, one thou- sand dollars 1, 000.00 Archibald M. Howe, administrator of Francis Green, five hundred dollars 500. 00 Harriet E. Sebor, administratrix of Jacob Sebor, two hundred and fifty dollars 250. 00 Sarah L. Farnum, administratrix of Left'ert Lefferts, five hundred dollars 500. 00 Louisa A. Starkweather, administratrix* of Richard S. Hallett, six hundred and twenty-five dollars 625. 00 Walter Bowne, administrator of Walter Bowne, six hundred and twenty-five dollars 625. 00 Robert B. Lawrence, administrator of John B. Bowne, one hundred and twenty-five dollars ±. 125.00 Walter S. Church and Walter S. Church, administrators of John Barker Church, two thousand dollars ' 2, 000. 00 Thomas W. Ludlow, administrator of Thomas Ludlow, five hundred dollars 500. 00 Francis R. Shaw, administrator of J. C. Shaw, two hundred and fifty dollars •_ 250. 00 The firm of Jacob Mark & Co. have proved no valid claim. By the Court. Filed December 12, 1904. A true copy. Test this twentieth day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. BRIG GENERAL WARREN. [Court of Claims. French Spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. (Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471.) Vessel brig General Warren; master, Issachar Stowell.] No. of case. Claimant. 47. Edmund D. Codman, administrator, etc., of William Gray, v. The United States. 1037. Charles F. Adams, administrator, etc., of Peter C. Brooks v. The United States. 2246. George G. King, administrator, etc., of Crowell Hatch r. The United States. 2247. George G. King, administrator, etc., of Crowell Hatch r. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 13th day of De- cember, 1904. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, and" Charles W. Clagett, esqs., and the United States, defendant, by the Attor- ney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney- General Louis A. Pradt. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 577 CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. The court upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments and consider- ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The brig General Warren, Issachar Stowell, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about the 17th day of January, 1797, from Boston, bound either to Surinam, South America, or to one or more points in the West Indies. While peacefully pursuing said voyage in latitude 13° 10' north, longitude 55° west, the General Warren was seized on the high seas on the 12th day of February, 1797, by the French privateer Tintamarre, Captain Moquet, and car- ried into St. Bustatius, and afterwards, on the 12th day of March, 1797, both vessel and cargo were condemned by the tribunal of commerce, sitting at Basse Terre, Guadaloupe, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners. The grounds of condemnation as set forth in the decree was " that the General Warren was bound for the West Indies." The circumstances as to the seizure is set forth in the protest of Captain Stowell as follows : [Extract from the registers of the register office of the municipality of Bassterre, Guadeloupe.] This eleventh day of Ventose, fifth year of the Republic, at the municipal court of Bassterre, Guadaloupe, composed of citizens Patriat, mayor, Negr§, national agent, John Baptist Seignoret, municipal officer, assisted by the dark of the court, has made his appearance Mr. Isecar Stowell, captain of the Ameri- can brig General Warren, of the port of Boston ; owners, Messrs. Gridley & Nolen, merch'ts, of that place. The said captain, assisted by an interpreter of the English language, and, after having taken the usual oath to speak nothing but the truth, declares that he left the said port of Boston the seventeenth day of January (old style), with a cargo of fifty-four mules, good and merchantable, destined for Surinam ; that after he had been out six days he experienced such bad weather, the sea running very high, that it caused the vessel to leak very considerably and he was obliged to keep both pumps going for two hours and a half, and that it was with very great difficulty and fatigue that he succeeded in freeing her from the leak, and even afterwards was obliged to have her pumped more frequently than formerly ; that some days after he had very bad weather, during which he lost four mules of the cargo ; that the eleventh of February following, find- ing himself in the latitude 13 degrees 10 minutes and 55 longitude, the same leak appeared, and in greater abundance, so much so that he was obliged to keep both pumps continually going, which very much fatigued his crew, who, not being able to entirely free her from the leak he saw he should be exposed to eminent danger if he persisted in endeavoring to reach Surinam, which made him determine to quit that course and make sail for the island of Barbadoes, it being the most easy port to fetch ; that the next morning, twelvth of the same month, he was met nearly in the same latitude by the privateer La Tintamarre, Captain Moquet, who boarded him and stationed on board a prize-master and seven men, and made him come with three of his crew, observing that at the moment he was conveyed on board the privateer the brig was sinking, and the two pumps going without intermission ; that the said privateer set sail for Bassterre, and arrived there the twenty-first of February; that he thought he should there find his vessel, but was mistaken, and that since that period he has expected her arrival and has not heard any news of her. For which reason he requests (acts des reserves et protestation) a law term, which he makes as well in his own name as that of his owners : First, on account of the bad weather and leakage he experienced ; secondly, on account of the seizure of said brig, the command of which was taken from him by the said privateer ; thirdly, for his conduct in appearing in the court in this road ; fourthly and lastly, on account of the port charges, demurage, expences, and events, which have been and may still be occasioned by the capture, the business now in hand, reserving himself to make more ample declarations and. protesta- tions when he shall know the fate of the said brig and her cargo, in order to charge them to those to whom they may appertain, which has been by the court signed by the members, the interpreter, and the dark of the court. Signed on the register I. Stowell, Berniere, Patriat, mayor Negre, national agent, Seignoret, permanent officer, and Dechamp, dark of the court. Coll'd. Dechamps. Clark of the Court. S. Rep. 382, 60-1 37 578 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. II. The General Warren was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 116g| tons burthen: was built in the State of Massachusetts in the year 1791, and was owned by William Gridley, Charles Nolen, and Jacob Farnsworth, citizens of the United States, residing in Massachusetts. III. The cargo of the General Warren consisted of 50 mules, lumber, provi- sions, skins, and a small quantity of dry goods, and was owned by the firm of Gridley & Nolen and Freeborn Sisson, also a citizen of the United States. Four of said mules were lost in the course of the voyage prior to the seizure of the vessel by the French. IV. No one claiming to represent the owners of the vessel or cargo have ap- peared herein, but it appears from the evidence that the value of same was equal to at least the amount for which the same was insured. V. January 2, 1797, said Gridley & Nolen and Freeborn Sisson caused insur- ance to be effected on the cargo in the office of Peter C. Brooks, a citizen of the United States, in the sum of $3,500, paying therefor a premium of 10 per cent. Said policy was underwritten as here shown by the following persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States: Crowell Hatch $500 William Smith ^ 500 Stephen Gorham . 500 David Green _" 500 Daniel Sargent ^ ,_ 300 John Brazer 700 Caleb Hopkins___' 500 July 31, 1797, said Brooks paid to the said assured the sum of $3,500, as and for a total loss by reason of the premises. VI. January 1, 1797, said Gridley & Nolen and Freeborn Sisson caused insur- ance to be effected on 50 mules shipped on said vessel in the office of Peter O. Brooks, in the sum of $3,333.33, paying therefor a premium of 15 per cent. Said policy was underwritten as here shown by the following persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States : Crowell Hatch : $500. 00 David Greene 500. 00 Daniel Sargent • 300. 00 John Brazer 700. 00 Tuthill Hubbart 500. 00 Caleb Hopkins 500.00 Clark & Nightingale 333. 33 July 31, 1797, said Brooks duly paid to the said assured the full sum of the said policy, but as four of the mules were lost prior to the seizure of the said vessel by the French, the loss to the underwriters arising therefrom on this policy amounted to the sum of $3,066.66. ■ VII. January 19, 1797, said Gridley & Nolen caused insurance to be effected on said vessel in the office of Peter C. Brooks in the sum of $3,000, paying there- for a premium of 12 per cent. Said policy was underwritten as here shown : Clark & Nightingale $500 David Wood, jr 350 William Bordman 300 William Gray, jr 1, 850 July 31, 1797, said Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $3,000 as and for' a total Joss by reason of the premises. The said Clark & Nightingale, William Bordman, and William Gray, jr., were citizens of the United States. VIII. After the payment of said insurance, to wit, December 16, 1801, for and in consideration of $3,715.15, to him paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assump- tion by said Brooks of all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, the said William Smith assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. After the payment of said insurance, to wit, November 21, 1801, for and in consideration of $2,986.65 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption of ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 579 all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of the said Brooks, the said Stephen Gorham made a similar assignment to said Brooks. After the payment of said insurance, to wit, December 23, 1801, for and in consideration of $6,000 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption of all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of the said Brooks, the said David Greene made a similar assignment to said Brooks. After the payment of said insurance, to wit, September 2, 1805, for and in consideration of $3,000 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption of all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of the said Brooks, the said Daniel Sargent made a similar assignment to said Brooks. After the payment of said insurance, to wit, September 4, 1804, for and in consideration of $5,780.85 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption of all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of the said Brooks, the said John Brazer made a similar assignment to said Brooks. After the payment of said insurance, to wit, December 8, 1801, Isaac Rands, administrator, etc., of Caleb Hopkins, for and in consideration of $3,000 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by said Brooks of all and any lia- bilities and disadvantages arising froin the underwriting of said Hopkins in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by the said Hopkins in the office of said Brooks. After the payment of said insurance, to wit, April 4, 1808, E. Partridge and W. Gooch, administrators, etc., of Tuthill Hubbart, for and in consideration of $60,000 to them paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by said Brooks of all liabilities and disadvantages arising from the underwriting of said Hubbart in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and inter- est in and to all insurance done by said Hubbart in the office of the said Brooks. After the payment of said insurance, to wit, March 21, 1804, for and in con- sideration of $199.04 to them paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by said Brooks of all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from their un- derwriting in the office of said Brooks, the said firm of Clark & Nightingale made a similar assignment to said Brooks. After the payment of said insurance, to wit, November 15, 1804, for and in consideration of $13,250 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by said Brooks of all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from his under- writing in the office of said Brooks, the said William Bordman made a similar assignment to said Brooks. IX. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the General Warren, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France, allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or In part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, -1831. The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation was illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of cer- 580 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. tain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United Sates : Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, six thousand four hundred and six dollars and sixty-eight cents $6, 406. 68 Edmond D. Codman, administrator of William Gray, jr., one thou- sand eight hundred and fifty dollars 1, 850. 00 George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, nine hundred and sixty dollars 960. 00 By the Coubt. Filed December 19, 1904. A true copy. Test this 20th day of December, 1904. [seal.] • John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. SHIP CINCINNATUS. [Court 6f Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885 ; 23 Stat L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel ship Cincinnatus, William Martin, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 887. Richard H. Pleasants, administrator, etc., of Aquila Brown, jr., v. The United States. 1699. David Stewart and John E. Semmes, receivers of Baltimore Insurance Company, v. The United States. 4083. William A. Glasgow, jr., administrator, etc., of William P. Tebbs, v. The United States. . PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 27th day of April, 1904. The claimants were represented by George A. King, William T. S. Curtis, and Theodore J. Pickett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attor- ney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. The court, upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments and considering the same, with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows : I. The ship Cincinnatus, whereof William Martin was master, sailed on a com- mercial voyage, partly in ballast, from London, England, on or about the 16th day of May, 1797, bound to Baltimore, Md. While peacefully pursuing said voy- age she was seized on the high seas, on the 31st day of the said month of May, by the French privateer Aigle, under the command of Captain Dartigue, and carried into L'Orient, and both vessel and cargo thereafter condemned as good prize by the tribunal of commerce of said place. From this decree appeal was taken to the civil tribunal of the Department of Morbihan, where the same was annulled for technical defects and new trial ordered. On the second trial in the tribunal of commerce the cargo was condemned as good prize and the vessel released. Appeal was again made to the civil tribunal of the Department of Morbihan, where, on the 30th day of October, 1797, both vessel and cargo were finally con- demned as good prize and thereby became a total loss to the owners thereof. The grounds of condemnation as set forth in the final decree of the said civil tribunal were the want of a role d'equipage in due form and for the reason that there were three English passengers on board said vessel. II. The Cincinnatus was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 229 f f tons burthen, built in Maryland in 1792, and was owned solely by Aquila Brown, jr., a citizen of the United States, residing in Baltimore, Md. III. The cargo of the Cincinnatus consisted of dry merchandise in cases and bales, the property of sundry citizens of the United States. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 581 With one exception the value and names of the owners of said cargo do not appear. Among the owners of said cargo was William P. Tebbs, a citizen of the United States, whose shipment consisted of an invoice of nine trunks of books, of the value of £577 Is. 4d. sterling, worth in money of the United States $2,562.20. IV. The losses by reason of said seizure and condemnation so far as shown by the evidence were as follows, viz : Value of vessel $11, 465. 00 Freight earnings 21. 75 Invoice of W. P. Tebbs 2, 560. 20 Premium of insurance paid 800. 00 Total _-- 14, 846. 95 V. The loss to William P. Tebbs was as follows : Value of invoice of books $2, 560. 20 VI. The losses to Aquila Brown, jr., were as follows : Value of vessel $11,465.00 Freight earnings 21. 75 Premium of insurance paid 800. 00 Total 12, 286. 75 Less insurance received 9, 800. 00 Net loss 2, 486. 75 VII. October 28, 1796, said Aquila Brown, jr., effected insurance on said vessel with the Baltimore Insurance Company in the sum of $10,000, paying therefor a premium of 8 per cent for the voyage from Baltimore to London and thence back to Baltimore. March 3, 1798, the said company duly paid to the said assured the sum of $9,800 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises, being the ."nee of said policy, less the customary abatement of 2 per cent. The Baltimore Insurance Company was duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Maryland, and authorized to carry on the business of marine and other insurance. David Stewart and John E. Semmes have been appointed re- ceivers of said company by the circuit court of Baltimore, Md. VIII. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the estates of the parties for whom they appear and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by the seizure and condemnation of the Cincinnatus as set forth in the preceding findings. IX. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France on the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity there- for upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800 : that said claims were relinquished to France by the Govern- ment of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relin- 582 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. quishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : David Stewart and John R. Semmes, receivers of the Baltimore In- surance Company, nine thousand eight hundred dollars . $9, 800. 00 Richard H. Pleasants, administrator of Aquila Brown, jr., two thou- sand four hundred and eighty-six dollars and seventy-five cents 2, 486. 75 William A. Glasgow, jr., administrator of William P. Tebbs, two thousand five hundred and sixty dollars and twenty cents 2, 560. 20 Amounting in all to 14,846.95 By the Court. Filed May 2, 1904. A true copj r . Test this 20th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. BRIG PILGRIM. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Brig Pilgrim, Priam Pease, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 4062. Nathaniel H. Stone, administrator of John M. Forbes, v. The United States. 4061. Russell Bradford, administrator of Joseph Russell, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of Decem- ber, 1904. The claimants were represented by George A. and William B. King, esqs., and Russell Bradford, esq., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and consider- ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows : I. The brig Pilgrim, Priam Pease, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from Bordeaux, France, in the autumn of 1798, bound for Cayenne, French Guiana, South America, and arrived at her destination November 22, 1798. On her arrival there she was seized by order of the agent of the executive directory of France in that colony and brought before the tribunal of commerce of that colony sitting at Cayenne. This tribunal rendered a decree dated November 27, 1798, declaring the vessel and her cargo American property, and ordering that decree to be certified to the agent of the executive directory, who was the chief executive authority of the French Government in the colony. That officer, December 23, 1798, ordered that in view of hostile preparations and acts on the part of the authorities of the United States against the French, the vessel and her cargo be sold at public auction and that the proceeds be placed in the national treasury ; that a copy of the proceedings be given to Captain Pease, who, in case it should become notoriously known that the conduct of the Ameri- cans toward the French is no longer aggressive or hostile, should be entitled to receive the proceeds of the same. An appeal was taken by Captain Pease to the court of cassation from the decree of the tribunal of commerce declaring the vessel and cargo to be Ameri- can property, but whether said appeal was ever perfected or what was the re- sult of the same does not appear. Complaint was made to the executive authorities at Paris of the conduct of the agent of the executive directory in ordering the sale of the vessel and cargo and sequestering the proceeds. It appears that the result of these steps was that Talleyrand, then minister of exterior relations of France, advised the min- ister of marine that the action taken by the agent of the directory at Cayenne could only be considered as an embargo and sequestration and that France and the United States were not at war, and that some instructions ought to be sent to the agent of the directory at Cayenne to elucidate his determination and guide his conduct in the future. ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAUS" CLAIMS. 583 It does not appear that the owners of the Pilgrim and her cargo ever received any part of the proceeds of said sale at Cas 7 enne. II. The Pilgrim was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 12-1 tons burden; was built in Philadelphia in the year 1786, and was owned by J. M. & R. B. Forbes, a partnership firm, consisting of John M. Forbes and Robert Bennet Forbes, citizens of the United States, of whom John M. Forbes was the surviving partner. III. The cargo of the Pilgrim at the time of capture consisted of wines and liquors and other articles of commercial produce and manufacture and was owned five-sixths by J. M. & R. B. Forbes, owners of the vessel, and one-sixth by Joseph Russell, also a citizen of the United States. IV. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Pilgrim were as follows : Value of the vessel $3,720.00 Value of cargo , 16,646.64 Freight earnings 3, 100. 00 Total 23, 466. 64 V. The losses of J. M. & R. B. Forbes by reason of said capture were as follows : Value of the vessel $3,720.00 Freight earnings I 3, 100. 00 Five-sixths value of cargo 13,872.20 Total 20, 692. 20 VI. The loss of Joseph Russell by reason of said capture was as follows: One-sixth value of cargo $2, 774.44 VII. The claimants have produced letters of administration on tbe estates of the parties for whom they appear and have otherwise proved to the satisfac- tion of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the capture and the sale of the Pilgrim and her cargo as set forth in the preceding findings. VIII. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between, the United States and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 22d day of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France on the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned, nor does it appear that any of said claims are owned by an insurance company. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure was illegal and the owners had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Republic prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and France, concluded on the 30th of September, 1S00; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part con- sideration of the relinquishmeiit of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : Nathaniel H. Stone, administrator of John M. Forbes, surviving partner of the firm of J. M. & R. B. Forbes, twenty thousand six hundred and ninety-two dollars and twenty cents $20, 692. 20 Russell Bradford, administrator of Joseph Russell, two thousand seven hundred and seventy-four dollars and forty-four cents 2,774.44 By the Court. Filed December 19, 1904. A true copy. Test: This 20th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 584 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. SHIP VENUS. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885 ; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vessel ship Venus, Henry Dashiell, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 1001. David Stewart and John E. Semmes, receivers of the Baltimore Insur- ance Company, v. The United States. 1550. Elizabeth H. Penn, administratrix of Thomas Higinbotham, v. The United States. 169-4. David Stewart, administrator of William P. Stewart, surviving partner of the firm of David Stewart & Sons, v. The United States. 1694. Elizabeth Campbell Murdock, administratrix of Archibald Campbell, v. The United States. 2496. Nicholas L. Dashiell. administrator of Henry Dashiel, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 28th day of March, 1904. The claimants were represented by Curtis & Pickett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the De- partment of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., -with whom was Assistant Attorney- General Louis A. Pradt. CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and consider- ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows : I. The ship Venus, Henry Dashiell, master, although armed with 12 guns and carrying a crew of 25 men, sailed on a commercial voyage on the 29th day of June, 1799, from the port of Gibraltar bound for Batavia, in the island of Java. While in the peaceful pursuit of said voyage, on the 13th day of July following, she put into the harbor of St. Iago, one of the Cape de Verde Islands, for the purpose of obtaining a supply of fresh water and repairing damages to her rig- ging, and found the ship John, Levi Putnam, master, lying at anchor in said port. On the 14th day of said month of July, the Venus then being at anchor, the harbor was entered by three French frigates, the Concorde, the Medee, and the Franchise, under the command of Captain Landolphe. One hour after the arrival of the French fleet the Venus was boarded by a boat from the Medee, who ordered the master, the said Henry Dashiell, with his papers, on board the Concorde, a 50-gun frigate, sent the entire crew of the Venus below, and placed sentinels on board of her, and then went away. Shortly afterwards the said boat returned with 32 Frenchmen, who took out 18 of the crew of the Venus and carried them on board the Medee. The French frigates then hove up anchors, carried the Venus to sea, together with the said ship John. On the following day four others of the crew of the Venus were taken out of her, and a boat of the Concorde with a number of officers and men boarded the Venus and took possession of 31,000 Spanish milled dollars and four bundles of silk stockings, which they carried to the Concorde, hove overboard the guns of the Venus, and put on board 26 men, being the crew of the said ship John, and 34 English pris- oners, and gave the master, the said Henry Dashiell, a passport and ordered her as a cartel for America, where she arrived at the port of Baltimore, Md., on the 25th day of August following. It appears that the Venus at the time of capture carried a commission, a let- ter of authority from the President of the United States, either under the pro- visions of the act of Congress approved June 25, 1798, or that approved July 9, 1798 (1 Stat. L., 578). II. The Venus was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 248ff tons burden; was built in the State of Pennsylvania in the year 1792, and was owned by the firm of David Stewart & Sons in the proportions of three-eighths ; Archi- bald Campbell, three-eighths; and Thomas Higinbotham, two-eighths, all of whom" were citizens of the United States. III. The cargo of the Venus at the time of capture consisted of a small invoice of silk stockings belonging to the master, and 31,000 Spanish milled dollars, of ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 585 which 30,000 were owned by the said David Stewart & Sons, Archibald Camp- bell, and Thomas Higinbotham in the same proportions in which they owned the vessel. The remaining $1,000 was the property of the master. IV. The losses by reason of the seizure of the Venus and her cargo were as follows : Value of specie on board f $31,000.00 Invoice of silk stockings ' 570.00 Premium of insurance paid 3, 500. 00 Freight earnings 4, 144. 00 Amounting in all to 39, 214. 00 V. The said firm of David Stewart & Sons, Archibald Campbell, and Thomas Higinbotham effected insurance on said 30,000 Spanish dollars and a small amount of other cargo on said vessel in the sum of $20,000 with the Baltimore Insurance Company, paying therefor a premium of \1\ per cent. Thereafter, on November 29, 1799, the said company duly paid the said as- sured the sum of $19,600 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises, being the full amount of said insurance, less the customary abatement of 2 per cent. VI. The losses of said David Stewart & Sons, Archibald Campbell, and Thomas Higinbotham were as follows : Value of specie owned by them $30, 000. 00 Premium of insurance paid 3,500.00 Freight earnings 4, 144. 00 Amounting in all to 37,644.00 Less insurance received 19,600.00 Leaving a net loss to them of IS, 044. 00 of which David Stewart & Sons was three-eighths, or $6,766.50; Archibald Campbell three-eighths, or $6,766.50 ; and Thomas Higinbotham, two-eighths, or $4,511. VII. The losses of Henry Dashiell, the master of the Venus, were as follows: Value of specie owned by him $1, 000. 00 Invoice of silk stockings 570. 00 Amounting in all to 1,570.00 VIII. The firm of David Stewart & Sons was composed of David Stewart and his sons, David C. Stewart, John Stewart, and William P. Stewart, the last named being the surviving partner of the firm, but he did not become a member until 1802, a time subsequent to the losses sustained by the firm in consequence of the seizure of the Venus. He died unmarried, and with no heirs or next of kin except the children and descendants of the other members of the firm. All of the members of said firm were citizens of the United States. IX. The Baltimore Insurance Company was duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Maryland and authorized to carry on the business of marine and other insurance. David Stewart and John E. Semmes have been appointed receivers of said company by the circuit court of Baltimore, Md. X. The claimants have produced letters of administration upon the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfac- tion of the court that the persons for whose estates they appear are the same persons who suffered loss through the seizure of the Venus, as set forth in the preceding findings. XL Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treatv between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 586 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure was illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : David Stewart and John E. Semmes, receivers of the Baltimore In- surance Company, nineteen thousand six hundred dollars $19, 600. 00 David Stewart, administrator of William P. Stewart, surviving partner of the firm of David Stewart & Sons, six thousand seven hundred and sixty-six dollars and fifty cents 6, 766. 50 Elizabeth Campbell Murdock, administratrix of Archibald Campbell, six thousand seven hundred and sixty-six dollars and fifty cents 6, 766. 50 Elizabeth H. Penn, administratrix of Thomas Higinbotham, three thousand eight hundred dollars 3, S00. 00 Nicholas L. Dashiell, administrator of Henry Dashiell, one thousand five hundred and seventy dollars 1, 570. 00 Total 38, 503. 00 The defendants have filed a counterclaim, alleging that the original claimant, Thomas Higinbotham, was indebted to the United States in the sum of $1,551 upon certain unpaid custom-house bonds. It appears that the said claimant was principal upon a custom-house bond for $1,551, numbered 1829, May 1, 1819, and it further appears in the collector's office at Baltimore that the said claim- ant made a payment on said bond in the sum of $840, leaving a balance due of $711, of which no record of payment appears in this case, and the said balance of $711 is deducted from the loss of said Thomas Higinbotham, to wit, $4,511, herein, leaving now due him the sum of $3,800, as above shown. By the Court. Filed April 11, 1904. A true copy. Test this 20th day of December, 1904. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SLOOP GENEVA. [Court of Claims. French Spoliation. (Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283.) Vessel sloop Geneva. Master, Giles Savage.] No. of case. Claimant. 189. Charles F. Adams, administrator, etc., of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 204. Charles F. Adams, administrator, etc., of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 1907. George G. King, administrator, etc., of Crowell Hatch, r. The United States. 2653. Margaret R, Riley, administratrix, etc., of Luther Savage, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 20th day of Decem- ber, 1904. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 587 CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. Tlie court, upon the evidence and after bearing the arguments and consider- ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determined the facts to be as follows : 1. The sloop Geneva, Giles Savage being then master, sailed on a commercial voyage on the 5th day of May, 1799, from Hartford, Conn., bound for the Danish island of St. John, in the West Indies. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas by the French. The circumstances attending the voyage and seizure of the Geneva, as set forth in her master's protest, are as follows : " Before the honorable William Hen. Rink, esq., governor of the Dutch part of said island, personally appeared Giles Savage, late commander of the sloop Geneva, who deposeth and saith that he was shipped on board the said sloop by Messrs. Riley, Savage & Co., residents at Hartford, in the State of Connecti- cut, North America, with orders from them to proceed on a voyage for the island of St. Johns, in the West Indies, and there -to dispose of his cargo to the best advantage ; that he accordingly sailed from said port of Hartford on the fifth day of May instant on the said voyage to St. Johns, (winds) being variable and nothing material happening until the 24th of the said month, having fair weather, and on observation at 12 o'clock on the same day, when he found him- self to be in latitude 18 15 north, longitude 62 degrees 52 minutes west, then steering west N. west ; that between 3 and 4 o'clock of same day saw four sail to the southward, one of which proved to be the French privateer the Two Friends, commanded by Charles Mendibow; that this deponent was hailed by the said schooner on her first coming up, and was ordered to heave to, after which they sent their boat on board said sloop Geneva, demanding of him and his mate to deliver all the papers that were on board ; immediately took their register, sail- ing orders, bills of lading, shipping bill, and papers of every description that was on board said sloop, and ordered all hands into the boat; that on his going on board the privateer the French captain asked this deponent where he was from, where he was bound, and to what place his people and cargo belonged ; that this deponent informed him, as before stated ; that after putting a prize master on board with some of his own people the sloop people were then put in irons in the said schooner's hold; that this deponent was then informed that the said privateer was bound immediately for St. Bartholomew with the above sloop Geneva, one other sloop, one schooner, and a ship in tow as prizes to the said privateer, but on the next day the said privateer made St. Martins with this deponent's sloop only in tow, when this deponent was landed amongst the rest of the prisoners on board said privateer, consisting of the master and crews belonging to the before-mentioned vessels in tow of said privateer on preceding evening ; he, this deponent, on the same day above stated, 25 May instant, was taken with his people before the commissary, Citizen Dormay, who, after exam- ining the deponent, asked him if he had any friends who would be security for his appearance when called on, when this deponent got Captain Bruce, a resident of said , to be his security ; that his people were carried, under a guard, to prison, but not ironed or very closely confined ; and this deponent further saith that the cargo on board said sloop Geneva, which was omitted to be men- tioned in the first part of this deponent's affidavit, consisted of horses, provi- sions, and so forth ; and lastly, the deponent further saith that not being able to obtain a regular protest in time from the notary public office, he obliged to take this mode of making his affidavit before the honorable the gov- ernor of the Dutch part of said island, and does thereby protest for himself and in behalf of the owners and underwriters and all others concerned in the sloop Geneva and her cargo against the owners, captain, and all others concerned in the said French privateer schooner Two Friends, and against all and everything else concerning or relating to the capt'r of the said sloop Geneva for all damages that may arise from said capt'r." June 7 following the Geneva and cargo were condemned and ordered sold for the benefit of the privateer Gourageuse, Captain Mendibourg, by the tribunal of commerce and prizes sitting at Basseterre, Guadaloupe, and thereby became a total loss to the owners thereof. The grounds of condemnation, as stated in the decree, were as follows : First. The bill of lading, of which Captain Savage was the bearer, did not show for whose account and risks the cargo was shipped, which rendered it necessary for him to have a charter party, with which he was not provided. Second. That the said captain had neither crew list or sea letter. 588 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. II. The Geneva was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 60 28/95 tons burthen, built in Connecticut in the year 1795, and owned solely by Edward Danforth, Justus Riley, Luther Savage, Jonathan Danforth, Daniel Danforth, Josiah Savage, William Savage, and Edward Savage, composing the firm of Riley, Savage & Co., citizens of the United States, residing in the State of Connecticut. III. The cargo of the Geneva consisted of horses, beef, pork, fish, corn meal, rye flour, cheese, hams, lard, beans, walnuts, candles, soap, cars, grain, hay, pumps, and shoes. With the exception of the shoes, the cargo was owned by Messrs. Riley, Savage & Co. IV. The loss to the firm of Riley, Savage & Co., by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Geneva, was as follows : Value of the vessel $2,480 Freight earnings 1,000 Value of the cargo, exclusive of the invoice of shoes 4, 340 Premiums of insurance paid : : 380 Amounting in all to 8, 150 Deduct insurance received 3,300 Net loss 4, 850 V. June 4, 1799, Messrs. Riley, Savage & Co., through the agency of one Israel Munson, effected insurance on said vessel and cargo in the office of Peter C. Brooks, a citizen of the United States, in the city of Boston, in the sum of $2,300, paying, therefor a premium of 10 per cent, and in the additional sum of $1,000 on horses on the deck of the said sloop, paying therefor a premium of 15 per cent, by a policy underwritten by the following persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name, viz : Crowell Hatch $800 Samuel Wyllys Pomeroy 800 John C. Jones 700 David Greene 500 Benjamin Cobb 500 October 31, 1799, said Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid to the said assured the sum of $3,300, by reason of the premises, the same being a loss to each of said underwriters of the sum subscribed by him. VI. After the payment of said insurance, to wit, February 7, 1804, for and in consideration of the sum of $4,900 to him paid by the said Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption by said Brooks of certain liabilities, the said Pomeroy assigned to said Brooks all advantages arising out of the underwriting of the said Pomeroy in the office of the said Brooks. After the payment of said insurance, to wit, December 23,- 1S01, for and in consideration of the sum of $6,000 to him paid by the said Brooks and the assumption of liabilities by the said Brooks, the said Greene made a similar assignment to the said Brooks. VII. The firm of Riley, Savage & Co. was composed of said Edward Danforth, Justus Riley, Luther Savage, Jonathan Danforth, Daniel Danforth, Josiah Sav- age, William Savage, and Edward Savage, the said Luther Savage being the sur- vivor of the said firm. VIII. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are, in fact, the same persons who suffered loss by reaon of the seizure and condemnation of the sloop Geneva, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain con- cluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 589 the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of Sep- tember, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : Charles F. Adams, administrator, etc., of Peter C. Brooks, one thousand three hundred dollars $1, 300 George G. King, administrator, etc., of Crowell Hatch, eight hundred dollars 800 Thomas N. Perkins, administrator, etc., of John C. Jones, seven hundred dollars 700 Francis M. Boutwell, administrator, etc., of Benjamin Cobb, five hundred dollars 500 Margaret R. Riley, administratrix, etc., of Luther Savage, surviving partner of the firm of Riley, Savage & Co., four thousand eight hun- dred and fifty dollars . 4, 850 Total, eight thousand one hundred and fifty dollars 8. 150 By the Court. Filed January 3, 1905. A true copy. Test this 4th day of January, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk, Court of Claims. SHIP JANE. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885 ; 23 Stat. L., 183. Ship Jane, James Barron, master.] No. of Claimants, case. 2970. James L. Hubard, administrator of William Pennock. 992. David Stewart and John E. Semmes, receiver of the Maryland Insurance Company. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. This case was tried before the Court of Claims on the 13th day of December, 1904. The claimants were represented by George A. King, Simon Lyon, William T. S. Curtis, and T. J. Pickett, esqs., and the United States, defendant, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. The Court upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same, with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows : I. The ship Jane, James Barron, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from Liverpool, England, bound for Norfolk, Va., November, 5, 1797. While peace- fully pursuing said voyage she was captured on the high seas by the privateer Eagle, commissioned by the authority of the French Government, and sailing under the authority thereof, commanded by Captain Mallard, or Mallet, and car- ried to Porto Rico December 25, 1797. The master was there informed by the French consul that the ship having come from Liverpool was of itself fully sufficient to condemn vessel and cargo. The mate and crew were placed upon the privateer and were not permitted to remain in the Jane or to go ashore. Being thus situated, without money or credit, they were compelled to abandon the vessel and cargo, and the same became a total loss to the owners. II. The Jane was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 250 ff tons burthen, was built in Massachusetts in the year 1793, and was owned solely by William Pennock, a citizen of the United States. 590 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. III. The cargo of the Jane consisted of salt, stoneware, and earthenware of the value of 709 pounds, 17 shillings, 6 pence, sterling, amounting to $4.44 to the pound, to the value of $3,151.85, United States currency, and was owned solely by William Pennock, the owner of the vessel. IV. Said vessel was insured by said William Pennock, her owner, in the Mary- land Insurance Company, in the sum of $10,000, and the cargo for $3,333.33, the premium paid in each case being 15 per cent or $2,000, both policies being in the Maryland Insurance Company in favor of William Pennock, the owner of the vessel. Said Maryland Insurance Company afterwards paid to said William Pennock the amount of said policies less the customary abatement, amounting to $9,750 on the vessel and $3,251.33 on the cargo, a total of $13,001.33. V. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Jane were as follows : Value of vessel $10, 000. 00 Value of cargo 3,151.85 Premiums of insurance on vessel and cargo 2,000.00 Freight 4, 000. 00 Total 19, 151. 85 Less insurance received 13, 001. 33 Total loss to William Pennock 6, 150. 52 The Maryland Insurance Company lost : Paid on vessel $9,750.00 Paid on cargo 3, 251. 33 Total loss to the Maryland Insurance Company 13, 001, 33 VI. David Stewart and John E. Semmes are the duly appointed receivers of the Maryland Insurance Company. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the respective parties who suffered the original losses, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons whose estates they represent were the same persons who suffered losses by reason of the capture of the Jane. VII. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, and were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid, in whole or in part, under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed, in whole or in part, under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France on the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners had valid claims of indemnity upon the French Republic prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : No. 2970. James L. Hubard, administrator of the estate of William Pennock, six thousand one hundred and fifty dollars and fifty-two cents $6, 150. 52 No. 992. David Stewart and John E. Semmes, receivers of the Mary- land Insurance Company, thirteen thousand and one dollars and thirty-three cents 13. 001. 33 Total _ 19, 151. 85 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 591 The Court of Claims further reports to Congress : That the defendants have produced in evidence a custom-house bond, bearing date July 14, 1815, to secure the payment of duties on imports given to the United States by William Pennock, of Norfolk, Va. The court finds that the sum of $1,548.85 became due upon said bond and no evidence has been produced to establish the payment thereof. By the Court. Filed January 3, 1905. A true copy. Test this 10th day of January, 1905. [seal.] Archibald Hopkins, Chief Clerk. SCHOONER AMELIA. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. (Act of January 20, 18S5 ; 23 Stat. L., 283). Schooner Amelia, Timothy Hall, master.] i No. of case. Claimant. 5553. Julius C. Cable, administrator of William Walter, deceased, v. The United States. 2927. The New Haven Insurance Company v. The United States 1133. Joseph Ogden, sole surviving executor of Jane Ann Ferrers, v. The United States. 159. Louisa A. Starkweather, administratrix of Richard S. Hallett and Abra- ham S. Hallett, v. The United States. 2013. Robert B. Lawrence, administrator of John R. Bowne, v. The United States. 2013. Walter Bowne, administrator of Walter Bowne, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of De- cember, 1904. The claimants were represented by Edward Lander, Charles W. Clagett, William T. S. Curtis, and John W. Butterfield, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the De- partment of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney- General Louis A. Pradt. The court, upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments and consider- ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows : I. The schooner Amelia, Timothy Hall, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from New Haven, Conn., on the 24th day of October, 1798, bound for the island of Martinique, in the West Indies. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was captured on the high seas on the 23d day of November, 1798, by the French privateers La Resolue, Capt. Antoine Triol, and the Deux Amis, Captain Daubas. On the 2d day of December, 179S, the Amelia and her cargo were condemned by the tribunal of commerce sitting at Basse Terre, Guadaloupe, whereby the said vessel and cargo became a total loss to the owners. The grounds of condemnation as set forth in the decree were as follows: 1. That the Amelia was dispatched from New Haven, bound for Martinique, a country delivered up to the English and occupied and defended by the emigrants. 2. That the vessel was not provided with a role d'equipage, invoice, and bill of lading. II. The Amelia was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 72 \§ tons burthen ; was built at New Haven, Conn., in the year 1796, and was owned by Henry Daggett, William Walter, and Andon Clinton, citizens of the United States. III. The cargo of the Amelia at the time of capture consisted of lumber, 10 horses, oxen, sheep, and provisions, and was owned by sundry persons. It does not appear that the neutrality of the cargo was established before the French prize court. IV. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Amelia was as follows : The value of the vessel $2, SS0 Freight earnings for the voyage 1, 200 Amounting in all to -_., 4,080 592 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. V. On December 22, 1798, the New Haven Insurance Company insured Moses Todd and Hezekiah Todd, in their own names as well as in the names of those interested therein, in the sum of $200 on said vessel at a premium of 21 per cent. Thereafter the New Haven Insurance Company paid to William Walter, one of the owners of the vessel, the said sum of $200 as and for a total loss. VI. The losses of said William Walter by reason of said capture and con- demnation were as follows : One-third value of vessel $960 One-third freight earnings 400 Total 1, 360 Less insurance received 200 Net loss to him of 1,160 VII. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the estate of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are the same persons who have suffered loss through the capture and condemnation of the Amelia, as set forth in the preceding findings. VIII. Said claims, were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803, and were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d day of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned, except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity there- for upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention be- tween the United States and France concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : Julius C. Cable, administrator of William Walter, one thousand one hundred and sixty dollars $1, 160 The New Haven Insurance Company, two hundred dollars 200 The other claimants herein have proved no valid claims. By the Court. Filed January 3, 1905. A true copy. Test this 10th day of January, 1905. [seal.] Abchibald Hopkins, Chief Clerk. BRIG ISABELLA AND ANN. [French Spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Brig Isabella and Ann; master, William Duer.] No. Name of claimant. 508. The President and Directors of the Insurance Company of North America. 3f>97. Alexander Proudfit, administrator Robert Ralston. conclusions of fact. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 28th day of January, 1892. The claimants were represented by Russell Duane. and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 593 Justice, Alexander C. Moore, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General John B. Cotton. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and consider- ing same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows : I. The brig Isabella and Ann of Philadelphia, sailed from the port of Wil- mington, Del., on the 33th of October, 1798, bound for the West Indies. On the 26th of November, when in latitude 13° N. and 57° 30' W., the brig was boarded by the French privateer Le Democrat, which fired a shot over her, removed the captain and crew, and plundered her of her rigging and stores. A prize crew was put on board the brig, who took her to Guadaloupe, where she was con- demned on the 2d of December, 1798, by the tribunal of commerce at Basseterre. The causes assigned were that the vessel had cleared out for the West Indies generally, that she had no role d' equipage, and that her sea letter did not desig- nate the port to which she was bound. No other ground of condemnation was alleged. II. The Isabella and Ann was a duly registered vessel, measuring 131 32/95 tons, built at Philadelphia in 1790, and owned in equal parts by Robert Ralston and William Hemphill, as appears by the register, July 15, 1797. III. The cargo consisted of provisions and merchandise owned in equal parts by Robert Ralston, William Hemphill, and William Duer, of whom the first two were American merchants and the last the master of the vessel. IV. The value of the vessel was $4, 500 The value of the cargo 8, 717 The value of the freight 2, 233 Commissions of the master : 1, 000 Premiums of insurance on cargo 2, 212 Expenses 64 Amounting in all to 18, 726 SPECIAL FINDINGS RELATING TO THE SEVERAL CASES. V. In case No. 1597. — Robert Ralston was the owner of one-half of the vessel and one-third of the cargo. He procured insurance for himself and the other owners to the amount of $3,500 on the vessel and $8,000 on the cargo. For this latter insurance Robert Ralston paid as his portion of the premium $466.66, and subsequently received from the insurers the sums of $1,715 and $2,613.33, respectively. The losses of Robert Ralston by reason of the capture of the Isabella and Ann and her cargo, for which he became entitled to indemnity, are as follows : One-half value of vessel $2, 250. 00 One-third value of cargo 2, 905. 67 One-half value of freight 1, 116. 50 One-third premium paid for insurance on cargo 466. 66 One-half premium paid for insurance on vessel 306. 00 Amounting in all to 7, 044. 83 Less amount received for insurance ($1,715 +$2,613.33) 4,328.33 Leaving amount of losses 2, 716. 50 VI. In case No. 508. — The president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America were, at the time of this capture, in 1798, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, and authorized to carry on the business of marine insurance. On the 3d of December, 1798, they issued to Robert Ralston, for himself and the other owners, a policy of $3,500, upon the brig Isabella and Ann, for a voyage to the West Indies, and a policy of $8,000 upon the cargo of the said vessel, and a policy of $1,000 on commissions. Upon these policies the company subsequently paid to the insured, for the cap- ture of the said vessel and cargo, and loss of commissions, and expenses, the sum of $12,314.59, and the owners abandoned the vessel and cargo as a total loss. The losses of the president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America, by reason of the capture of the Isabella and Ann, and her cargo amounted to $12,314.59. S. Rep. 382, 60 38 594 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. VII. In case No. 1597. — The claimant, Alexander Proudfit, has produced let- ters of administration for the estate of Robert Ralston, deceased, and has other- wise proved to the satisfaction of the court that Robert Ralston, of whose estate he is administrator, was the same person who was an owner of the Isabella and Ann and her cargo in 1798, and a citizen of the United States. The owners William Hemphill and William Duer have not appeared. VIII. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, and were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 22d of February, 1S19, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity there- for upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention be- tween the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Govern- ment of the United States by said treaty in part consideration -of the relin- quishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : The president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America, twelve thousand three hundred fourteen dollars and fifty-nine cents ($12,314.59). Alexander Proudfit, administrator of Robert Ralston, two thousand seven hundred sixteen dollars and fifty cents ($2,716.50). By the Court. Filed November 14, 1892. A true copy. Test this 2Sth day of January, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. SCHOONER ZILPHA. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Schooner Zilpha, Samuel Briard, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 4153. Sarah N. Burleigh, administratrix of Samuel Briard, v. The United States. 2166. Joseph H. Thacher, administrator of John Wardrobe, v. The UnitedStates. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of Decern* ber, 1904. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, John C. Fay, and John W. Butterfield, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney- General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and consider- ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The schooner Zilpha, Samuel Briard, master, sailed on a commercial voy- age on or about the 30th day of November, 1796, from Portsmouth, N. H., bound for the island of Tobago, where she arrived on the 31st day of December fol- lowing. While at Tobago the Zilpha disposed of her outward cargo and took a return cargo on board and sailed thence February 20, 1797, homeward bound to- ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 595 Portsmouth. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas on the 24th day of the said month by the French privateer Hirondelle, Capt Michael Sebor, who took her to a bay on the southwest part of Porto Rico, off Cape Roxo. It does not appear that there were any condemnation proceedings as to said vessel and cargo or what disposition was made of same other than that they became a total loss to the owners. The facts as to the seizure of the Zilpha and the circumstances subsequent thereto are set forth in the protest of the master as follows : [From Am. State Papers, p. 28, vol. 1, Timothy Pickering's report, June 21, 1797 — Schooner Zilpha, Briard.] By this public instrument of protest be it known unto all whom it may con- cern, that on the day of the date hereof, before me, Christopher Ellery, esq., legally elected and engaged public notary, residing in Newport, in the State of Rhode Island, in the United States of America, cometh Samuel Briard, late master of the schooner Zilpha, of Portsmouth, owned by John Wardrobe and the said Samuel Briard, both citizens of the United States, and on his oath, solemnly administered by me, the said notary, deposeth and declareth that he sailed in and with said schooner from Portsmouth aforesaid, which is in the State of New Hampshire, in said United States, on the 30th day of November last, bound to the island of Tobago, the said schooner being laden with beef, oil, fish, lumber, and other things, and properly fitted for the voyage, and arrived there on the 31st day of December following; that there having sold said cargo and received in return for the same and for a part of the cargo left ' there on credit in August last by John Flagg, then master of the said schooner, 42 puncheons of rum, 1 tierce and 1 barrel of sugar on account of said Ward- robe and Briard, and also 2 .puncheons of rum on account of said Flagg, and likewise 2 puncheons of rum belonging to the mate of the said schooner, he left the island on the 20th day of February last, bound to said Portsmouth, and pro- ceeded on his proper course for the Mona Passage, to the leeward of the island of Porto Rico, until the 24th day of said February, when, having said passage clearly in sight, he was intercepted, forcibly seized, and detained by a privateer schooner mounting six carriage guns, belonging to citizens of the French Re- public, named the Hirondale, and commanded by Michael Seber, who, imme- diately on coming up, ordered the course of the schooner Zilpha to be altered, and that she should steer with him close in with the land, sending his boats on board the Zilpha, and directing the captain to come on board his privateer with all his papers and two of his men, and putting on board the Zilpha a prize master and a boat's crew, and conducting her after the privateeer, with the said master and two men in the Hirondale, all night till the next morning, when both vessels came to anchor in a bay on the southwest part of the island of Porto Rico, called Cabo Roxo (or Cape Roxa), and when the said schooner was forthwith stripped of all her sails and rigging, provisions, and other things ; that the following day the schooner was moored by the captors close in with the shore, and the said master and crew of the Zilpha obliged to quit her, by order of the said commander of the said privateer, he having previously taken pos- session of said Zilpha's log book, register, and every other paper concerning or appertaining to her whole voyage, which papers, etc., the said Capt. Seber declared would be sent to St. Domingo, in the island of Hispanolia, but at what time did not say, though at the time there was not even the most distant appear- ance of any opportunity to go down to St. Domingo ; that the said master and crew of tbe said Zilpha having nothing to subsist on, for their maintenance were obliged to go on board the brig Resolution, then lying in said Cabo Raxo, which brig had before been taken by a French privateer, since sold, and com- manded by Capt. Samuel Bowdish, of and bound to New London, and was the only refuge for them ; that the aforementioned privateer sailed on the 27th of said February, leaving said master no other satisfaction than a certificate signed by said captain, stating that he had taken the said Zilpha, and declaring also that he was governed by orders to those by which he acted, and which authorized them to capture all American vessels going to or coming from Eng- lish ports in the West Indies; that said brig Resolution left Cabo Raxo on the 1st day of March instant, on board of which vessel said Briard and the people of his vessel became passengers, together with four other American captains that had been captured by the French privateers; that at the port of Cabo Raxo there was no officer acting as notary public; and that he has not, since his capture aforesaid, found it possible to enter his protest before this day, 596 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. being the day after the arrival of the said brig in Newport aforesaid ; and that his mate and people are prevented joining him in this protest, by reason of their having gone aboard a vessel bound to Newbury, nearer to their homes than the port to which said brig Resolution was bound. Samuel Briabd. II. The Zilpha was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 94|f tons burthen ; was built at Hallowell, Mass., in the year 1794, and was owned by Samuel Briard and John Wardrobe, citizens of the United States, residing in Portsmouth, N. H. III. The cargo of the Zilpha at the time of capture consisted of 42 puncheons of rum, 1 tierce and 1 barrel of sugar owned by said Samuel Briard and John Wardrobe, and 4 puncheons of rum owned by parties who have not appeared in this case. There was also a small amount of provisions on board belonging to said Briard and Wardrobe. IV. The losses by reason of the seizure of the Zilpha and her cargo, so far as claims have been filed in this court, were as follows : Value of the vessel $3,500.00 Freight Earnings 791.00 Value of cargo 6, 181. 48 Amounting in all to 10,472.48 Loss to Samuel Briard 5,236.24 Loss to John Wardrobe 5, 236. 24 V. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure of the Zilpha, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of Sep- tember, 1800 ; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : Sarah N. Burleigh, administratrix, etc., estate of Samuel Briard, five thousand two hundred and thirty-six dollars and twenty-four cents_ $5, 236. 24 Joseph H. Thacher, administrator estate of John Wardrobe, five thou- sand two hundred and thirty-six dollars and twenty-four cents 5, 236. 24 Total, ten thousand four hundred and seventy-two dollars and forty-eight cents 10, 472. 48 By the Court. Filed January 3, 1905. A true copy. Test this 25th day of February, A. D. 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claim*. ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 597 SCHOONER LOVELY LASS. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Schooner Lovely Lass, William Moore, master. 3 No. of case. Claimant. 2864. George H. Barrett, administrator of John Foster, v. The United States. 2662. C. Whittle Sams, administrator of Conway Whittle, v. The United States. 2662. C. Whittle Sams, administrator of Francis Whittle, v. The United States. 3149. Henry A. T. Granbery, administrator of John Granbery, v. The United States. 3149. James L. Hubard, administrator of William Pennock, v. The United States. 3149. R. Manson Smith, administrator of Francis Smith, v. The United States. 3149. John O. G. Allmond, administrator of Harrison Allmond, v. The United States. 3149. Barton Myers, administrator of Moses Myers, v. The United States. 3149. Bassett A. Marsden, administrator of Benjamin Pollard, v. The United States. 2101. Montgomery Fletcher, administrator of John Walter Fletcher, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 7th day of Novem- ber, 1905. The claimants were represented by Edward Lander, Charles W. Clagett, William T. S. Curtis, Theo. J. Pickett, George A. King, John St. C. Bfooks, and Rutherford B. H. Lyon, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attor- ney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and consider- ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The schooner Lovely Lass, William Moore, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on the 4th day of June, 1797, from Port au Prince, Santo Domingo, bound for Norfolk, Va. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas by the French barges Le Furet, Captain Tamblay, and Le Sans Culottise, Captain Michand. On the 14th day of June, 1797, the said vessel and cargo were condemned by the French prize tribunal sitting at Cape Frangois, in the French portion of Santo Domingo, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners. The ground of condemnation as set forth in the decree is as follows : That said schooner had been taken sailing from Port au Prince, the proper place for her destination at the moment of her departure from Norfolk, and that Port au Prince is one of the harbors of the colony in open rebellion against the laws of the Republic, and put in state of permanent siege by decree of the commission delegated by the French Government to the Windward Islands. II. The Lovely Lass belonged to the port of Portsmouth, Va., and was owned by John Foster, a citizen of the United States. III. The cargo of the Lovely Lass at the time of her capture consisted of sugar, and was owned by said John Foster, the owner of the vessel. IV. The loss by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Lovely Lase and her cargo were as follows : The value of the vessel $3,500 The freight earnings 440 The value of the cargo 2,090 Premiums of insurance paid 500 Amounting in all to 6,530 V. May 16, 1797, John Foster insured said vessel in the office of John Gran- bery, at Norfolk, Va., in the sum of two thousand dollars ($2,000), paying therefor a premium of twenty-five per cent. Said policy was underwritten by 598 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. the following persons, among others, all of whom were citizens of the United States, in the amounts set opposite their names : Benjamin Pollard $200 Francis Smith 300 William Pennock 300 Moses Myers 200 Conway Whittle 300 Francis Whittle 300 John Kearnes also underwrote on said policy for one hundred dollars ($100), but failed to pay said insurance. Thereafter all of said underwriters on said policy, with the exception of said John Kearnes, through their agent, John Granbery, paid to the insured the sum of one thousand nine hundred dollars ($1,900), as and for a total loss on said policy. The losses of John Foster were as follows : The value of the vessel $3, 500 The freight earnings 440 The value of the cargo 2,090 Premiums of insurance paid 500 Amounting in all to 6,530 Less insurance received 1, 900 Leaving a net loss of 4, 630 The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the estates of the parties for whom they appear and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Lovely Lass and her cargo, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France on the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemuity there- for upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention be- tween the French Republic and the United States concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800 ; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Govern- ment of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relin- quishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : George H. Barrett, administrator of John Foster, deceased, four thou- sand six hundred and thirty dollars $4,630.00 C. Whittle Sams, administrator of Conway Whittle, deceased, three hundred dollars 300. 00 C. Whittle Sams, administrator of Francis Whittle, deceased, three hundred dollars : 300. 00 R. Manson Smith, administrator of Francis Smith, deceased, three hundred dollars 300. 00 James L. Hubard, administrator of William Pannock, deceased, three hundred dollars 300. 00 Barton Myers, administrator of Moses Myers, deceased, two hundred dollars 200.00 Bassett A. Marsden, administrator of Benjamin Pollard, deceased, two hundred dollars 200. 00 Amounting in all to six thousand two hundred and thirty dollars 6, 230. 00 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 599 The claims of the representatives of the estates of John Granbery, Harrison Alimond, and John Walter Fletcher are not proved. By the Court. Filed November 13, 1905. A true copy. Test this 12th day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SHIP CHACB. / [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Acts of January 20, 1885 ; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d. ed., 471. Vessel ship Ciiace, master, Thomas Johnston.] No. of case. ' Claimant. 419. Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Erooks, v. The United States. 1641. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 2832. David Greene Ha skins, administrator of David Greene, v. The United States. 4267. George G. King, administrator of James Tisdale, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 26th day of January, 1904. The claimants were represented by Theodore J. Pickett and William T. S. Curtis and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. The court, upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments and consider- ing the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows : I. The ship Chace, Thomas Johnston, master, sailed on a commercial voyage laden with lumber on July 29, 1794, from Boston, bound to Norfolk, in Virginia, where she duly arrived and discharged her cargo, and sailed thence for Fal- mouth, in England, laden with a cargo of tobacco, where she duly arrived, and sailed thence for Havre de Grace, in France, laden with the same cargo, and there discharged the same. On sailing from Havre de Grace she made various voyages seeking 'freight to and from ports in France, Spain, and England, and also went to Bremen, and likewise to Portugal, sometimes in ballast and at others laden with cargoes not contraband, and finally sailed from Lisbon on the 29th day of September, 1797, bound to Baltimore. While peacefully pursuing the last-named voyage, she was seized on the 17th day of January, 1798, in sight of the harbor of Basseterre, Guadaloupe, for which port she was steering in distress for want of water and provisions, hav- ing been driven out of her course by storms, by the French privateer Proserpine, Captain Michel, and conducted into said port of Basseterre, and there condemned as good prize on or about the 24th day of January, 1798, by the tribunal of commerce there sitting, whereby both vessel and cargo became a total loss to the owners thereof. The grounds of condemnation, as set forth in the decree, were as follows, viz : Considering that since the month of July, 1794 (old style), the time when the said ship Chace sailed from Boston bound to Norfolk, she has altered her course ; that she did not go to the place of her destination ; that she appears to have been sometimes in to Spain, at others to England and to France, and that by her thus altering her course there is reason to suspect a connivance with the enemies of the Republic, as well in France as elsewhere ; that in the whole pro- ceeding there does not appear a French document from any of the constituted authorities to prove the rectitude of her commerce in France. Considering finally that he (the master) does not possess any sea letter. II. The Chace was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 338 ff f° ns burthen, built in Massachusetts in the year 1791 ; owned solely, except as here- inafter stated, by James Tisdale, a citizen of the United States, and registered at the port of Dighton, Mass. 600 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. It appears that Thomas Johnston, master of the Chace, on the 16th day of September, 1797, executed a bottomry bond on said vessel to James Wilson, of London, by which he received the sum of £2,500, which said bond was duly canceled, payment therein having been made. III. At the time of the seizure of the Chace she had a cargo of salt and mats, but no claim has been filed herein on behalf of any person claiming to represent the owners of said cargo. IV. The 'loss to James Tisdale by reason of the seizure of the Chace was as follows : Value of the vessel $13, 534. 00 Freight earnings 5, 413. 00 Amounting in all to IS, 947. 00 V. It is alleged that one Joseph Blake and David Greene effected insurance in the office of Peter C. Brookes in the sum of $10,000 on the said vessel and $4,000 on the freight for the voyage from Lisbon to Baltimore, paying therefor a premium of 6 per cent, by policies underwritten by sundry persons, citizens of the United States, and were afterwards paid by said underwriters the sum of $14,000 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises. It does not appear that said David Greene and Joseph Blake had any interest in said vessel or the freight ; neither does it appear that they acted as agents for the owner of said vessel. VI. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by the seizure and con- demnation of the ship Chace, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. It was not a claim growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain con- cluded on the 22d of February, 1S19, and was not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treatv between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimant, in his representative capacity, is the owner of said claim, which has never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owner had valid claim of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800 ; that said claim was relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of cer- tain national claims of France against the United States ; and that the claimant is entitled to the following sum from the United States : George G. King, administrator of James Tisdale, eighteen hundred nine hundred and forty-seven dollars $18, 947. 00 By the Court. Filed October 30, 1905. A true copy. Test this 7th day of December, 1905. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 601 SCHOONER WHIM. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. (Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283.) Vessel schooner Whim, John Boyd, master. 1970 : Frances Heiskell Ridout, adminis- tratrix de bonis bon of William Wilson, deceased, v. The United States.] PBELIMINABY STATEMENT. This case was tried before the Court of Claims on the 21st day of May, 1901. The claimant was represented by John St. C. Brookes, esq., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, Charles W. Russell, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering same with briefs of counsel on each side, determined the facts to be as follows : I. The schooner Whim, John Boyd, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about October 18, 1797, from Alexandria, Va., bound for Surinam. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized upon the high seas by the French privateer La Proserpine, Captain Michel, and carried into Guade- loupe, where said vessel and cargo were condemned by the French tribunal of commerce sitting at Basseterre, on December 2, 1797, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners. The decree of condemnation is as follows : " In the name of the French people. " The tribunal of commerce established in the island of Guadeloupe, sitting in the city of Basseterre (in the said island), at its sitting of the 11th. Fri- maire, year six of the French Republic, and one indivisible. " Having seen the minutes of the capture of the schooner Whim, Capt. John Boyd, coming from Alexandria, taken by the privateer La Proserpine, Captain Michel ; the interrogatories made before the municipal administration of this commune on the 6th instant ; the extract of the English papers found on the said schooner by the Citoyen Bernier, interpreter, and the minutes of the naval officers, commissaries, named by the vice-admiral of the date of this day ; the tribunal considering that one-half of the crew in English, as shown by the testimony of a part of the said crew ; that the owner and the captain prove their naturalization only by informal certificate of the months of August and May last ; that since the vessel commanded by the same captain has made a voyage to Barbados, which proves that they had renounced their supposed naturalization ; " Considering that the crew list was for the West Indies, and that the word Surinam has been added on the voyage and is of a foreign hand according to the deposition of part of the crew ; " Considering, further, that according to the deposition of the ship's cook it appears that part of the papers have been burnt. " The tribunal deciding in favor and allowing the requisition of the com- missary of the executive directory, in applying article 9 of the rules of the 23d of June, 1704, which reads as follows : " ' Will also be good prizes' all foreign ships, etc., the crew of which shall be composed of seamen subject of enemy States.' "Article 4 of the decree of the agents of the executive directory of the Wind- ward Islands, of the thirteenth Pluviose last, which reads as follows : 'All vessels captured whose clearances shall be West Indies will be good prizes/ And article 6 of the rules of the 21st October, 1744, which reads as follows : ' His Majesty desires that all vessels taken, of whatever nature, be they enemies, neutrals, or allies, from which it will be shown that papers have been thrown overboard will be good prizes.' In making the burning of the papers similar to their being thrown overboard the tribunal allowing the requisition of the commissary of the executive directory declares the schooner Whim, Capt. John Boyd, a good prize, and orders in consequence thereof that she be sold, with her rigging, apparel, furniture, and cargo, an inventory of the whole being previously made, and that the proceeds of the said sale will be for the benefit of the capturers, owners, and all persons interested in the said privateer La Proserpine." It does not appear that Captain Boyd was interrogated about the circum- stances leading to the finding of the prize court that, according to the deposition of the ship's cook, it appeared that part of the papers had been burned, nor 602 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. that he was called upon for denial or explanation, nor that he had any knowl- edge of any allegation of such burning, or statement, which might form the basis of a conclusion to that effect, had been made. It does not appear who, if anyone, was charged with having burned part of the papers, and at what time, whether sailor or officer. II. The Whim was a duly registered vessel of United States of lOOgV tons burden ; was built at Cohasset, Mass., and was owned solely by William Wilson, a citizen of the United States and a resident of Alexandria, Va. III. The cargo of the Whim at time of capture consisted of flour and bread, and was owned by said William Wilson, the owner of the vessel. IV. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Whim were as follows : Value of the vessel $3,000 Freight earnings i 1, 670 Value of the cargo 5, 773 Total loss 10, 443 V. The said William Wilson was adjudicated an insolvent under the act of Congress for the relief of insolvent debtors within the District of Columbia, and made an assignment in insolvency under the said act on June 1, 1818, of all his property of every description in trust for the use of his creditors. VI. The claimant, Frances H. Ridout, has produced letters of administration for the estate of William Wilson, deceased, and has otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that William Wilson, of whose estate she is adminis- tratrix, was the same person who suffered loss by reason of the capture of the Whim, as set forth in the preceding findings. VII. Said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803, and was not a claim growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and was not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimant in her representative capacity is the owner of said claim, which has never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation were illegal and the owner had a valid claim of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of cer- tain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimant is entitled to the following sum from the United States : Frances Hieskell Ridout, administratrix de bonis non of William Wilson, deceased, ten thousand four hundred and forty-three dollars and no cents ($10,443). By the Coubt. Filed January S, 1906. A true copy. Test this 12th day of January, 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SCHOONER ACTIVE. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Schooner Active, Patrick Drummond, master. No. 1621. William D. Hill, administrator of Mark L. Hill, v. The United States.] PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. This case was tried before the Court of Claims on the 1st day of February, 1906. The claimant was represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Josiah A. Van Orsdel. ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 603 CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with briefs of counsel on each side, determined the facts to be as follows : I. The schooner Active, Patrick Drummond, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on the 11th day of October, 1794, from Hull, England, bound for New York. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas on or about the sixth day of February, 1795, by the French privateers Sans Pareil, Tiranicicle, and Curcus, and taken into Guadaloupe and condemned by the tribunal of commerce, whereby said vessel and her cargo became a total loss to the owners. The grounds of condemnation, as set forth in the decree, were as follows : 1. That the greater part of the merchandise composing the cargo was the property of Englishmen. 2. That two-thirds of the ct-ew was composed of sailors subjects of a hostile state. II. The Active was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 121 f| tons burden ; was built at Georgetown, Mass., in the year 1794, and was owned by Patrick Drummond, John Rogers, Mark L. Hill, and Alexander Drummond, citizens of the United States, residing in Georgetown, Mass., in the proportion of one-fourth each. III. The cargo of the Active at the time of capture consisted of earthenware, lead, iron, hardware, woolens, canvas, and shot, and was owned by sundry citizens of the United States, none of whom have appeared in this case. IV. The loss to said Mark L. Hill, the only claimant in this case, growing out of the seizure and condemnation of the Active, was as follows : One-fourth value of vessel $1, 518. 55 One-fourth freight earnings 121. 47 Total 1,640.02 V. The claimant herein has produced letters of administration upon the estate of said Mark L. Hill, and has otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that said Hill is the same person who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Active as set forth in the preceding findings. VI. Said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1S03, and was not a claim growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain con- cluded on the 22d day of February, 1819, and was not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimant in his representative capacity is the owner of said claim, which has never been assigned. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of Septem- ber, 1800; that said claim was relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claim- ant is entitled to the following sum from the United States : William D. Hill, administrator of Mark L. Hill, one thousand six hundred and forty dollars and two cents $1, 640. 02 Filed February 5, 1906. By the Court. A true copy. Test this 8th day of February, A, D. 1906. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. 604 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. BRIG RUBY. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Ves- sel, brig Ruby, Luke Keefe, master.] No. of case Claimants. 323. Arthur P. Cushing, administrator of Marston Watson, v. The United States. 324. Arthur P. Cushing, administrator of Marston Watson, v. The United States. 1049. Frederic Dodge, administrator of Matthew Bridge, v. The United States. 954. Thomas H. Perkins, surviving executor of Thomas H. Perkins, v. The United States. 1505. James G. Freeman, receiver of the Boston Marine Insurance Company, v. The United States. 3634. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. George G. King, administrator of James S Amounting in all to 20, 447. 00 Less insurance received 20, 447. 00 V. May 18, 1799, James Phillips effected through the office of Hoyt & Tom, in- surance on the vessel in the amount of $4,500, paying therefor a premium of 17£ per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, who, as far as they appear in court are citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name, viz: Henry Sadler & Co $500 William Ogden 500 Benjamin Seaman & Co 500 John Juhel & Co 1, 000 Paschal N. Smith 250 George Scriba & Wm. Henderson 1, 000 Frederick De Peyster & Co 500 Hector Scott 250 Thereafter Hoyt & Tom, as agents, duly paid the said insured the sum of $4,410, being in full for a total loss, less an abatement of 2 per cent. May 14, 1799, Felix Imbert effected through the office of Shoemaker & Berrett, insurance on the cargo in the amount of $11,720 paying therefor a premium of 20 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, who, as far as they appear in court, are citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name, viz: John Savage $800 Jones & Clarke 1, 000 John Miller, jr 1, 000 Thomas Murgatroyd & Sons 1, 000 Prager & Co 1, 000 Pratt & Kintzing 1, 000 Peter Blight 1,000 Morgan & Price 1, 000 Jesse Wain 1, 000 Samuel Meeker 800 Phillips, Carmmond & Co 400 Ambrose Vasse 1, 000 Summerl & Brown 720 Thereafter Shoemaker & Berrett, as agents, duly paid the said insured the sum of $11,485.60, being in full for a total loss, less an abatement of 2 per cent. May 15, 1799, Felix Imbert effected in the office of the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania insurance on the cargo in the amount of $10,000, paying therefor a premium of 25 per cent. Thereafter said insurance company duly paid the said insured the sum of $9,800, being in full for a total loss, less an abatement of 2 per cent. 664 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. VI. The cargo of the Aurora was overinsured in the sum of $5,683, the true value of the same being $16,037, on which there was an insurance of §21,720. The insurers are therefore entitled to a recovery of 73.835 per cent on the amount of their underwritings, respectively. VII. The firm of Henry Sadler & Co. was composed solely of Henry Sadler and William Craig. Said William Craig was the surviver of said firm. The firm of Benjamin Seaman & Co. was composed solely of Benjamin Seaman, Nicholas G. Rutgers, Charles L. Ogden, Herman G. Rutgers, and Thomas Bibby. Said Nicholas G. Rutgers was the survivor of said firm. The firm of George Scriba and William Henderson was composed solely of the parties named. Said George Scriba was the survivor of the firm. The firm of Jones & Clarke was composed solely of William Jones and Samuel Clarke. Said William Jones was the survivor of said firm. The firm of Thomas Murgatroyd & Sons was composed solely of Thomas Murgatroyd, Samuel Murgatroyd, and Daniel Murgatroyd. Said Thomas Murgatroyd was the sur- vivor of the firm. The firm of Pragers & Co. was composed solely of Mark Prager, sr., Michael Prager, and Mark Prager, jr. Michael Prager died in 1793, and the finn was continued by Mark Prager, sr., and Mark Prager, jr.. until May, 1797. when Mark Prager, jr., with- drew, and Mark Prager, jr., jointly with his brother John Prager, took all the concerns of the house and continued in business under the same firm name of Pragers & Co. The firm of Pratt & Kintzing was composed solely of Henry Pratt and Abraham Kintzing. Said Henry Pratt was the survivor of said firm. The firm of Morgan & Price was composed solely of Benjamin Morgan and Chandler Price. Said Chandler Price was the survivor of the firm. The firm of Philips, Crammond & Co. was composed solely of William Crammond, a citizen of the United States, and Thomas Philips. Nathaniel Philips, John Philips, John Philips, jr., Robert Philips, and George Philips, subjects of Great Britain. It does not appear who was the survivor of said firm. No award is made herein on behalf of said firm. The firm of Summerl & Brown was composed solely of Joseph Summerl and Isaac Brown. Said Joseph Summerl was the survivor of said firm. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Aurora as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that the seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800: that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following suras from the United States: Henry E. Young, administrator of William Craig, surviving partner of Henry Sadler & Co., four hundred and ninety dollars $490. 00 George F. Scriba. administrator of George Scriba, surviving partner of the firm of Geoige Scriba and William Henderson, nine hundred and eighty dollars 980. 00 John L. Rutgers), surviving executor of Nicholas G. Rutgers, surviving partner of the firm of Benjamin Seaman & Co., four hundred and ninety dollars 490. 00 Union Trust Company of New York, administrator of William Ogden, four hundred and ninety dollars >. 490. 00 D. Fitzhugh Savage, administrator of John Savage, five hundred and ninety dollars and sixty-eight cents 590. 68 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAI N CLAIMS. 665 Charlotte F. Smith, administratrix of William Jones, surviving partner of Jones & Clark, seven hundred and thirty-eight dollars and thirty-six . cents ; $738. 36 Francis D. Lewis, administrator of John Miller, jr., seven hundred and thirty-eight dollars and thirty-six cents 738. 36 Sarah Learning, administratrix of Thomas Murgatroyd, surviving partner of Thomas Murgatroyd & Sons, seven hundred and thirty-eight dollars and thirty-six cents 738. 36 Charles Prager, administrator of Mark Prager, jr., surviving partner of Pragers & Co., seven hundred and thirty-eight dollars and thirty-five cents 738. 35 William D. Squires, administrator of Henry Pratt, surviving partner of Pratt & Kintzing, seven hundred and thirty-eight dollars and thirty-five cents 738. 35 Francis D. Lewis, administrator of Peter Blight, seven hundred and thirty eight dollars and thirty-five cents 738. 35 A. Louis Eakm, administrator of Chandler Price, surviving partner of Morgan & Price, seven hundred and thirty-tight dollars and thirty-five cents : 738. 35 William Brooke-Rawle, administrator of Jesse Wain, seven hundred and thirty-eight dollars and thirty-five cents 738. 35 Frederick W. Meeker, administrator of Samuel Meeker, five hundred and ninety dollars and sixty-eight cents 590. 68 Charles D. Vasse, administrator of Ambrose Vasse, seven hundred and thirty-eight dollars and thirty-five cents 738. 35 Craig D. Ritchie, administrator of Joseph Summer!, surviving partner of Summer] & Brown, five hundred and thirty-one dollars and sixty-two cents : 531. 62 The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, seven thousand three hundred and eighty-three dollars and fifty-two cents 7, 383. 52 Amounting in all to eighteen thousand one hundred and ninety-one dollars and sixty-eight cents 18. 191. 68 John M. Clinch, administrator of Perez Morton, and Joseph Ogden, executor of Jane Ann Ferrers, have proved no valid claims. Mary Vanuxem, administratrix of James Vanuxem, who insured the commissions of the supercargo herein, has proved no valid claim. No persons claiming to represent John Juhel & Co., Paschal N. Smith, Frederick de Peyster & Co., or Hector Scott, who were underwriters on a policy of insurance herein, have appeared in this court. The owners of vessel, cargo, and freight are n>-t in court. By the Court. ' Filed April 8, 1907. A true copy. Test this 26th day of November, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SLOOP TOWNSEND. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283; vol. 1, Supp. Rev. Stat. 2d ed., 471. Decided February 18, 1907. Vessel sloop Townsend, Daniel Campbell, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 3709. William O. McCobb, administrator of the estates of William McCobb and Jo- seph Campbell, v. The United States, and Jennie E. McFarland, administratrix of the estate of Ephraim McFarland, v. The United States. 3659. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of the estate of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. 3658. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of the estate of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. 3058. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of the estate of Benjamin Cobb, v. The United States. 3739. Archibald M. Howe, administrator of the estate of Francis Green, v. The . . United States. 970. William Ropes Trask, administrator of the estate of Thomas Amory, v. The United States. . 666 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 23d day of October, 1906. The claimants were represented by George A. and William B. King, and Curtis & Pickett, and the United States, defendants by the Attorney- General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice. John W. Trainer, esq. . with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Josiah A. Van Orsdel. CONCLUSIONS OP PACT. The court upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments, and considering the same, with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The sloop Toivnsend Daniel Campbell, master, sailed on a commercial voyage August 28 1798 from Boothbay, Massachusetts (now Maine), bound for the English island of Antigua. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas about the 1st of October, 1798, by the French privateer Le Pelletier and carried to the island of Guadaloupe. and her master was thrown into prison, with the loss of all his sea clothes, books and papers, where he remained for a period of about three months. He was examined in preparatory on the 10th day of October, 1798, while in prison, in which it was shown that the cargo consisted of boards, staves, shingles, and codfish. She was there condemned by the Tribunal of Commerce and Prizes, sitting at Basseterre on said island, and condemned on the ground of a want of a rdle d'equipage, and an invoice of the cargo, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners. II. The Townsend was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of the burthen of 97/^ tons, and was owned by the following persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States: Joseph Campbell Three-eighths. William McCobb ,. Three-eighths. Ephraim McFarland One-quarter. III. The cargo of the Townsend at the time of capture consisted of lumber, shingles, staves, and fish, and was owned by the following persons, to wit: Joseph Campbell One-third. William McCobb One-third. Ephraim McFarland One-third. IV. The loss to the Owners of the vessel and cargo was as follows: Value of the vessel $3, 400. 00 Freight earnings 1, 617. 37 Value of the cargo 688. 81 5, 706. 18 Deduct insurance received 2, 000. 00 Total 3, 706. 18 The loss to Joseph Campbell was as follows: Three-eighths value of vessel _ $1, 275. 00 Three-eighths value of freight earnings 606. 51 One-third value of cargo 229. 60 2, 111. 11 Deduct insurance received 1, 000. 00 Net loss : ... 1,111.11 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 667 The loss to Ephraim McFarland was as follows: One-fourth value of vessel §850. 00 One-fourth value of freight earnings 404. 35 One-third value of cargo 229. 61 1, 483. 96 Deduct insurance received 1, 000. 00 Net loss 483. 96 The loss to William McCobb was as follows: Three-eighths value of vessel $1, 275. 00 Three-eighths value of freight earnings 606. 51 One-third value of cargo 229. 60 Net loss 2, 111. 11 VI. December 11, 1798, Joseph Campbell effected in the office of Joseph Taylor insurance on the vessel and cargo to the amount of $1,000 (one-half on each), paying therefor a premium of 60 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States, to wit: Thomas Amory Francis Green 500- Thereafter the said Joseph Taylor duly paid the said assured the sum of $1,000, being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises, being a loss to said underwriters of the amount subscribed by them, respectively. VII. December 21, 1798, Ephraim McFarland effected in the office of Joseph Taylor insur- ance on the vessel and cargo to the amount of $1,000 (one-half on each), paying there- for a premium of 60 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States, to wit: John C. Jones $500 Benjamin Cobb, jr 50O Thereafter the said Joseph Taylor duly paid the said assured the sum of $1,000,. being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises, being a loss to said underwriters of the amount subscribed by them, respectively. All of the above insurance was effected after the date of the condemnation. VIII. The claimants herein have produced letters upon the estates of their decedents, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the parties they represent are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the capture and condemna- tion of the sloop Townsend as aforesaid. IX. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, and were not claims- growing out of the acts of France, allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provi- sions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 22d day of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France on the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United 668 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. States and the French Republic, concluded cm the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the reliquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the follow- ing sums from the United States: William 0. McCobb, administrator of the estate of William McCobb, two thousand one hundred and eleven dollars and eleven cents $2, 111. 11 William O. McCobb, administrator of the estate of Joseph Campbell, one thousand one hundred and eleven dollars and eleven cents 1, 111. 11 Jennie E. McFarland, administratrix of the estate of Ephraim McFarland. four hundred and eighty-three dollars and ninety-six cents 483. 96 Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of the estate of Benjamin Cobb, jr., five hundred dollars 500. 00 Archibald M. Howe, administrator of the estate of Francis Green, five hundred dollars 500. 00 William Ropes Trask, administrator of the estate of Thomas Amory, five hundred dollars 500. 00 Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of the estate of John C. Jones, five hun- dred dollars '. 500. 00 5, 706. 18 Amounting in all to five thousand seven hundred and six and T l - 5 % dollars. Atkinson, J., delivered the opinion of the court: . The sloop Townsend, a small New England vessel, built and registered in the State of Maine, sailed from the State of Massachusetts August 28, 1798, bound for the Brit- ish island of Antigua. Her cargo consisted of lumber, shingles, staves, and fish. The vessel was owned by three American citizens of the State of Maine, who also were the owners of the cargo. In the early part of October, 1798, while on her outward voyage to Antigua, she was captured by the French privateer lie Pellitier, and was conveyed to Guadeloupe, arriving October 10 of that year, when vessel and cargo were condemned "as good prize"' by a French court sitting at said place, for the reasons that she had not on board "a role d 1 equipage and invoice of cargo," notwith- standing the fact that the evidence showed (translations by the interpreter of the French court) that she' carried the following papers: "No. 1. Her register, showing that Joseph Campbell, from Boothbay, in the State of Massachusetts, mariner, together with William McCobb, esquire, and Ephraim Mc- Farland, mariner, both from Boothbay, in said State, are the owners. Dated at the port of Wiscasset, October 11th, 1797. "No. 2. Her sea letter from the port of Boothbay for Antigua, with a cargo of boards, staves, shingles, and codfish. Dated August 28, 1798. "No. 3. Agreement of the captain with his crew for Antigua. "No. 4. His clearance from the customs-house in Wiscasset for Antigua, with a cargo of sixty thousand feet of boards, four thousand staves, sixty-two thousand shingles, thirty quintals codfish. "No. 5. Instructions from the owners to the captain for Antigua or any other port not prohibited by the laws of the United States, etc. "No. 6. A printed notice concerning the action of masters of American vessels in case of seizure or detention of their men by any foreign power." When the sloop arrived at Guadeloupe, the master, after filing a protest, was im- prisoned, remaining therein for the period of about three months. While in prison he was examined on preparatory interrogatories, and among other things testified that the vessel and cargo were owned by three American citizens, viz, Joseph Campbell, William McCobb, and Ephraim McFarland; that the vessel cleared from Wiscasset, Massa- chusetts, U. S. A., bound for Antigua, and that the cargo consisted of boards, staves, shingles, and thirty quintals of codfish, a part of the latter being the property of the crew. Shortly after his return to the United States he appeared before a notary public and made a sworn protest against the condemnation of the vessel and cargo by the French court. Three points were raised by counsel for the defendants in the trial of this case against any allowance by the court in favor of the claimants, to wit: 1. The decree of condemnation alleges the absence of register as a ground of seizure. 2. There was no invoice on board, and consequently there can be no recovery for the cargo. 3. There can be no recovery for insurance, for the reason that the condemnation took place prior to the payment of the premiums for said insurance. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 669 We do not consider the first objection well founded, because we fail to find in the decree of condemnation any other reason assigned for such action (except a mere quo- tation from the arrete of the agent of the executive directory in the West Indies) than the absence among the ship's papers of a rdle d'equipage and an invoice of the cargo. The translations made by the French interpreter of the court show conclusively that the papers of the vessel were regular; that she -carried everthing, including register, required by the French decree, except a manifest and a role d' equipage; that American ownership of vessel and cargo were conclusively shown; and further, that the cargo was not contraband of war. The absence of a rdle rf' equipage as evidence of the neutrality of a vessel at sea is no longer a debatable question, because it has long ago been settled by this and other courts, including those of France, that the possession of such document in not necessary to establish the neutrality of a vessel on the high seas. (Schooner Sallie, 21 C. Cls. R., 340, 400, and schooner Industry, 22 C. Cls. R., 1, 49.) From what we have said above we are clearly of the opinion that the condemnation of the sloop was illegal; and we are also of the opinion that the condemnation of the cargo, on account of the absence of an invoice of cargo or manifest, was likewise illegal. The evidence before the prize court was both documentary and by depositions. The register, the sea letter, the agreement of the captain with his crew for Antigua, the clearance from the customs-house at Wiscasset, together with the instructions of the owners and freighters of the vessel to the captain thereof prior to sailing, all which were verified by the interpreter at the trial of the case before the prize court at Guadeloupe, clearly show that the owners of the vessel were the owners of the cargo, and that they were all American citizens. This, it seems to our minds, was sufficient evidence to establish the neutral ownership of the cargo, especially in view of the fact that the cargo itself showed that it was innocent commercial property, and was consequently not contraband of war. The French council of prizes, January 18, 1801, in passing upon the absence of one or more papers of a ship at a trial by a prize court, decided that — "The judgment is founded in justice. It is based upon the provisions of the regu- lation of 1778. Its conclusions can not but be approved by the council, which has neither seen nor been able to see in the instruction of the owner to the captain anything but a ship's paper as authentic, as legal, as conclusive of neutrality, as the laws, justice, and reason require. "The denomination of the paper does not destroy its contents. It is not such or such a ship's paper under such or such denomination that the law requires, but proof of neutrality. That of the cargo is clear, since the paper in question combines all the characters of the papers enumerated by the law. ' ' The manifest is not embraced according to the ordinances and regulations in the enumeration by name of ship's papers, but it is impliedly comprised in the general expression of the law ' and other papers establishing neutrality ; ' any other paper estab- lishing this proof fulfills the letter, the spirit, and the purpose of the law. That is so true that the council has received as a bill of lading a general manifest in a case on the report of Citizen La Coste. "If the manifest, of which the law does not speak, is impliedly comprised in the collective expression 'and other papers,' it follows necessarily that the instruction of the owner to the captain should be ranged in the class of other papers, since it comprises everything which the charter party, the invoice, the bill of lading, and the manifest could regularly import." (1 Pistoye & Duverdy, 438, 439.) This court decided in the case of the schooner Hazard (39 C. Cls., 376) that the protest of the master of a vessel as to its neutrality should have great weight as over against the absence of some of the papers of a vessel in condemnation proceedings. The opinion says» "We know now from the subsequent protest of the master that the cargo of this vessel was neutral. The careful representative of the Government concedes this while properly contending that the proceedings resulting in condemnation must not be determined by subsequent developments, but by the proof in hand at the time. Neutrality was the thing to be proved to those rightfully charged with the privilege of considering the fate of the prize. But was neutrality proved? The report of the capture shows that the vessel was seized because the clearance was in contravention of the laws and customs of France. The absence of papers was not suggested nor sus- picion raised at the time in regard to the neutral character of the freight. The vessel was registered, but notwithstanding she showed her sea letter, the prize court con- demned both vessel and cargo on the same ground. The oral testimony before the tribunal was direct that the proprietary interest was in citizens of the United States. While the question of going outside the papers is not free from doubt, we think, on the whole case, this oral testimony was competent and sufficient to exonerate the cargo. 670 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. This seems to us, upon reflection, to be more nearly in consonance with the rules of international law and the reasons which underlie the action of nations in dealing with •each other in time of war than a rule making papers the sole test." It was decided in the case of the Industry (22 C. Cls. R. , 1) that the lack of a particular paper of a vessel may be punishable under certain circumstances within local juris- dictions as a police measure, but never by absolute confiscation, when it is shown that the vessel is innocently pursuing a legitimate voyage. An accident is easily supposable by which, after leaving port and while on the high seas, all the papers of a ship may, by fire or water, be destroyed. On that account should the ship and cargo, or either of them, be confiscated? We know of no rule of law, municipal or international, which would authorize such a course. In Hooper's case (22 C. Cls. R., 1) it was held that, while it is true the onus probandi is upon the captured vessel in all prize-court proceedings, in order to clear herself from suspicion, yet no particular paper is indispensable to accomplish such purpose, and that an honest, commercial, lawful voyage may be shown though no paper of any sort be presented. In the disposition of this class of cases, this court has uniformly decided that all questions of neutrality are questions of good faith, in which actual facts, and not simply appearances, must be looked into, and that the mere absence of a particular ■document, or an irregularity in form, does not authorize condemnation as good prize in any case. The truth must be sought, and that not by technical forms. Simple omissions or irregularities should never obscure the truth if it be otherwise proved. The essential question is whether the cargo is or is not, in fact, neutral. It is not of importance that the municipal law of one government requires the presentation of particular papers. The severity of the legislators is always subordinate to the sur- rounding circumstances, which alone lead to conviction. The neutrality should be proved, but this may be done notwithstanding the omission or irregularity of certain prescribed forms. (Schooner Hazard, 39 C. Cls. R., 376, 380.) The case of the schooner Betsy (36 C. Cls., 256), upon which the defendants rely as sustaining their contention that the seizure of the cargo of the Townsend was a proper procedure, is by no means on all fours with the case before us. The Betsy carried a manifest showing of what her cargo consisted, but she produced no document or other ■evidence which showed that it was owned by American citizens and not by belligerents. The claimants in that case relied mainly upon a New England custom to the effect that among vessels engaged in the trade with the West Indies no proof of ownership was necessary when the cargo belonged entirely to the owners of the vessel carrying it. The court very properly held in that case ' ' that the courts of another nation were not bound to take notice of a local custom utterly at variance with the provisions of the treaty of 1778 and the requirements of international law; " that it was necessary to show whether the cargo was the property of neutral or belligerent owners, and that a prize ■court of a belligerent power was justifiable in condemning property as good prize unless neutrality of ownership is clearly established. The court further held in that case as follows: "Ownership is one thing and neutrality is another. The French prize court was not interested in the question whether the cargo belonged to this or that American citizen, but in the question whether it was the property of neutral or belligerent owners. A prize court of a belligerent power was entitled to have the neutrality of a cargo estab- lished. The treaty of 1778 was based upon the principle that free ships make free goods; but it also required 'that if either of the parties should be engaged in war the ships and vessels belonging to the subjects or people of the other ally must be furnished with a sea letter or passports made out according to the form annexed to the treaty, and likewise that such ships should be provided always with a certificate containing the several particulars of the cargo.' (Art. XXV.) • "The manifest on board answered this last requirement, so that if the vessel had been seized before the abrogation of the treaty and had carried a proper passport her ■cargo would have been exempt from seizure. There is no evidence in the case except a register, a manifest, and the local custom above referred to. It is recited in the decree that she had a sea letter not properly attested, but it does not appear .that the sea letter was that prescribed by the treaty, and if it were it would not have been obligatory, we think, upon France after the abrogation' of the treaty by the act of 7th July, 1798 (1 Stat. L., p. 578), on the part of the United States. "It seems, then, only too apparent, so far as now appears, that the vessel carried nothing to establish the neutrality of the cargo. There is no protest on the part of the master in the case, showing the circumstances of the seizure and condemnation, or that he had asserted the rights of American owners, or offered proof of the neutrality of the cargo, or established any ground upon which this court can hold that the condem- . nation was illegal and unjust. The fault was the vessel's. Upon this evidence, and want of evidence, it must be held that the prize court was justified in decreeing condemnation. ' ' ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 671 In the case at bar the Townsend carried a register, a sea letter, the agreement of the captain with his men, showing the destination of the vessel to be the port of Antigua, clearance papers from Wiscasset, U. S. A., instructions from the owners to the captain for Antigua, a printed notice showing what action should be taken in case of seizure, and after the sloop was seized by the Le Pellitier the evidence of the captain of the Townsend was taken while he was in prison and was read at the trial, which stated positively that the owners of the cargo were the same persons who owned the vessel (which fact was also stated in the decree of condemnation), that all of them were American citizens, and therefore in no respect were belligerents; while, as shown above, the only evidence presented in the case of the Betsy relied upon to establish the neutrality of her cargo was a register, a manifest, and the local New England custom to which we have referred. We agree with the counsel for the defendants that the claim for the insurance on the sloop and cargo is not valid as against France, for the reason that the same was effected by two policies dated the 11th and 21st of December, 1798, and as the con- demnation of sloop and cargo took place October 18 prior to the issuance of the same, France can not be made liable for the premiums therefor, nor is the United States chargeable therewith. Consequently no allowance can be made in favor of claimants for premiums of insurance so paid. (Schooner John Eason, 37 C. Cls. R., 443, 447.) The theory upon which a premium of insurance has been deemed recoverable in this class of cases is that the payment of the premium adds so much to the value of the property insured; but the liability of France is limited to the value of the property at the time of its illegal seizure or condemnation and can not be augmented by sub- sequent transactions between owners and insurers. There was another question of vast importance raised in the trial of this case, viz, that immediately following the capture of the Townsend and her arrival at Guadeloupe her captain was imprisoned and was not allowed to be personally present at the trial before the prize court, although it is established that his deposition was taken while he was in prison and was read at the hearing of the case. Counsel for the United States insists that he was duly heard in his own defense, although not personally present at the trial, yet he was nevertheless legally heard, and, as a matter of fact, "had his day in court. " He further insists that it is a privilege and not a right for a litigant to ap- pear in court by counsel. Without attempting to pass upon the statement of counsel as to the rights of litigants to appear in legal tribunals personally or by authorized attorneys, under the customs and rules formerly and at the present time which prevail in this and other countries, we shall advert only to the decisions of this court in such matters. In the case of the brig Sally (37 C. Cls. R., 74) it was held that when a vessel is seized the master should have the right to appear and defend his ship and its cargo against the alleged illegality of the voyage, and by refusing him such privilege he was denied due process of law. It was also further decided in that case that '' the fact of sale and the absence of the master from the judicial proceedings in which it may be the ship was condemned. " In the case of the snow Thetis (Ibid., 470) the right of the master, or some other officer of the vessel in duress, to be present in a court during condemnation proceedings is clearly and unequivocally reaffirmed, by emoting with approval from Sir William Scott the following paragraph: "Before the ship or goods can be disposed of by the captor there must be a regular judicial proceeding, wherein both parties may be heard, and condemnation thereupon as prize in a court of admiralty, judging by the law of nations and treaties. " The right of an officer to defend his vessel after seizure has been made is carefully set forth in the case of the schooner Maria (39 C. Cls. R., 147). In that case it was ■ decided substantially that while it is true the seizure and condemnation of a vessel may have been made for good cause, yet it was a right of the master to be present at the prize court to defend the owners, and where he was prevented by imprisonment from so doing the proceeding was ex -parte and wholly void. A prize proceeding is an action in rem, and where the master of a captured vessel* absents himself on his own volition, such act would not operate to defeat a condem- nation otherwise valid. And while the examination of a master in preparatorio, while under that duress which is implied from the mere capture of his vessel, would be competent evicfence to be considered in the first instance for the condemnation of the vessel, it would not be if the master, in addition to such implied duress, were im- prisoned and the examination in preparatorio was behind prison bars, because in such case the master would be deprived of his liberty, and his answers might bear the im- press of such imprisonment. The latter is this case, and, therefore, if the seizure and condemnation were otherwise legal, that of itself, under the decisions of this court, is sufficient to justify the court in holding that such condemnation was illegal. A prize 672 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. proceeding is no exception to the universal principle of justice, which requires a proper legal hearing before condemnation can be ordered. {The Snow Thetis, 470, supra; The Good Intent, 36 C. Cls., 262, 265.) The findings of fact and conclusions of law will be reported to the Congress, together with a copy of this opinion. Howry, J., concurring as to the sloop, but dissenting as to the cargo: I concur as to the illegality of the condemnation of the sloop, because its nationality was sufficiently proven to the prize court by its register and other papers. I dissent as to the cargo, because the belligerent rights of the French (which became American rights under the act of our jurisdiction) are shown by the decree and the sur- rounding circumstances and have not been disproved under the rule that the decree of a prize court is conclusive against all the world as to all matters decided and within its jurisdiction ( Williams v. Armroyd, 7 Cranch, 603). Such decree does not usually state the grounds of condemnation, but where it does is conclusive of its own correctness. The fact of real title is open to investigation only as to those matters not concluded by the recitals of the decree {Matey v. Shattuck, 3 Cranch, 642;. The decree recites want of a r6le d'equipage and the absence of an invoice. The majority say the absence of a r61e d'equipage is no longer a debatable question. (Neither side makes it a question.) But the invoice was quite material, because its absence is strong presumptive evidence against neutrality. What, then, do we find? No sufficient proof of property, no muster roll, no bill of lading, no manifest, no invoice. These are some of the papers which are always expected to be found on board. (Baker's Halleck's Int. Law, sec. 98; 1 Chitty^s Com. Law, 487.) The case is not sustained by the Hazard, Campbell (39 C. Cls. B., 376). Froof aliunde the vessel's papers was admitted in the Hazard, not to contradict the recitals of the decree as to the invoice, but, as the papers were not deemed the sole test of neu- trality, the court looked to all other papers and some subsequent testimony to deter- mine neutrality. In the case at bar we do the same thing. But here the master's protest only alleges ownership of the vessel, and does not claim neutrality for the cargo. There is no subsequent paper disclosed except a general statement at the time of the sloop's clearance that its owners were freighterers. "Freighter," in French law, is the owner of the vessel, and the merchant who hires it is called the "affreighter" (Emerigon-Traite, Des. Assurances; Black's Law Dictionary). That there was no paper on board which showed the neutrality of the cargo, and that the master's protest and the circumstances confirmed the truth of the decree, establishes the condemna- tion legal as to the cargo. The good faith of the French is shown by the subsequent delivery of every paper in this case to the American owners of the sloop. The Hazard, Campbell, supra — Howry, J., speaking for the court — was the extreme of liberality in this class of cases. There it appeared that the Supreme Court had said that the law of nations presumed and required that in time of war every neutral vessel should have on board papers showing her character, and should also have officers and crew able to testify to facts establishing neutrality. This court gave effect to that other decision of the Supreme Court in the Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat., 561, where it appeared that the mere want of papers could not afford a just cause of condemnation, but a circumstance of suspicion explainable by the preparatory examinations of the officers and crew, and by the fact of a voluntary arrival. Accordingly, the decision went off on the ground that, while the absence of papers was strong presumptive evi- dence against the ship's neutrality, the want of any one of them was not absolutely conclusive (1 Kent's Com., 157). In the case at bar the absence of the invoice was suggested, and it has never been accounted for — not even in the subsequent protest of the master. Hence, the decree is conclusive. So much of the opinion of the majority as rests the supposed illegal action of the prize tribunal upon the alleged imprisonment of the master is a matter too important to be passed over. It says that the master was not allowed to be personally present at the trial. The master does not say so. There is not a syllable in the entire evi- dence which supports that statement. The master merely states in general terms that he was imprisoned three months. How, where, whether on the island in duress, like nearly every blockade runner or shipmaster violating the laws of neutrality, does not appear. The record shows that there was a regular judicial proceeding and that the master was there. He must have been there delivering testimony, because his deposition shows him to have been there. These considerations take the case out of that class where this court has decided that imprisonment and absence operated to prevent the master from being heard in his defense, and where we have held that the matter of imprisonment was necessary ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 673 to be considered to prevent confiscation. Not a single case has ever been decided by this court where it has appeared that if the master's evidence was taken and the record shows that he was there the duress of his person made void the proceeding. When a vessel is on trial for violating the laws of neutrality the master and crew are all under duress and practically in restraint. It is upon the ship's papers and the examination taken in preparatorio that the case is tried. In Dos Hermanos, 2 Wheat., 76, the Supreme Court has held that in prize cases the cause is to be heard exclusively upon the ship's papers, and the examination of the principal officers and seamen of the captured vessel taken on the standing interroga- tories. This is the established rule. In the case of the Ann, in 3 Wheat., 434, the vessel was captured by an American privateer while at anchor near the Spanish part of the island of St. Domingo and car- ried into New York for adjudication. The master and supercargo were put on shore at St. Domingo, and all the rest of the crew, except the mate, carpenter, and cook, were put on board the captured vessel. After arrival at New York the deposition of the cook only was taken, which, with the ship's papers, were transmitted by the com- mander to the judge of the district of Maryland to which the case of the Ann was removed. The trial upon prize proceedings being instituted, the testimony of the carpenter was taken by the claimants, and the captors were also permitted to give testimony. The separation of the master and. the principal officers and the crew from the vessel was not held fatal to the regularity of the proceedings. These decisions from the Supreme Court prove that the award in this case, pred- icable upon the alleged imprisonment, is an innovation in prize law. Numberless prize proceedings during the war between the States would now appear to be illegal if this award is law. And when we come to consider that the awards of this court in these cases are not the subject of review by the Supreme Court and that this erroneous decision on a matter so vital (as I view it) will some time or other 4;um to vex the Gov- ernment, it is of more than passing importance that the reasons of my dissent shall be recorded. No case decided by us is authority for this award. The conclusions are squarely against the ruling in the Betsey, 36 C. Cls. R.., 256, where Nott, Ch. J., said that though that vessel carried a manifest showing of what the cargo consisted and that it was an innocent or commercial cargo, nevertheless she carried no document whatever to show neutrality. The conclusion there was that the prize courts of a belligerent nation were not bound to take notice of a local custom at variance with the require- ments of international law or to infer, in the absence of an invoice, that the cargo belonged to the owners of the vessel. That is this case. Nor are the conclusions of the court supported by the snow Thetis, 37 C. Cls. E.., 472, where Howry, J., speaking for the court, said that "where the decree of a prize tribunal is silenf as to the presence of the parties in interest and there is neither protest nor proof equivalent to it showing that the owners or their agents were denied a hearing, the presumption is that they were present and given an opportunity to defend. But where it can be gathered from the action of the prize court or from proof contempo- raneous with the transaction that the proceeding was one of those which justified the American complaint of that period respecting condemnations without notice to ves- sel owners, no effect will be given to the summary disposition of a vessel under such a decree. " Then followed the statement that, though the decree showed on its face that the decision upon its announcement was to be notified to the master, there was nothing to show his presence or the presence of any other person in interest at the hearing. There is nothing to change in the Thetis opinion. The failure to notify the decision of the prize court to the master there was merely intended by this court to emphasize the fact that neither the master nor other person in interest was present at the hearing. The master was even denied the opportunity to see his ship or the authorities who took it away from him while he was imprisoned elsewhere, and the statement as to the notice given to the mate was an immaterial statement. The extract from the Thetis by the majority is as defective (in not stating enough) as the citation from the same case of counsel for claimant is inapposite. No court holds itself bound by any part of an opinion not needful to the ascertainment of the right or title in question between the parties. (Carroll v. Lessee, 16 How., 286.) Common-law principals and common-law rules of evidence have frequently been objected to in these cases, because counsel have argued (present counsel included) that common-law proceedings were relaxed by the statute of our jurisdiction. Now it appears that common-law proceedings are invoked by way of precedent to sustain this finding as to the cargo. But prize proceedings are summary and differ materially from common law rules of procedure. "Notice is only for the purpose of affording the party axr opportunity of S. Rep. 382, 60-1 43 674 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. being heard upon the claim or the charges made. ' ' The books are full of cases showing that in a libel pending in an admiralty jurisdiction, the manner of the notification! s immaterial. The late Justice Gray decided legal questions, including those pertaining to admi- ralty, so satisfactorily to the people of Massachusetts, that he was called to the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States. Speaking for that tribunal, he said: ' ' The law of nations presumes and requires that in time of war every neutral vessel shall have on board papers showing her character, and shall also have officers and crew able to testify to facts establishing her neutrality. The captors are therefore required immediately to produce to the prize court the ship's papers, and her master, or some of her principal officers or crew, to be examined on oath upon standing interrogatories and without communication with or instruction by counsel. The cause is heard in the first instance upon these proofs, and if they show clear ground for condemnation or for acquittal no further proof is ordinarily required or permitted. If the evidence in preparatorio shows no ground for condemnation and no circumstances of suspicion the captors will not ordinarily be allowed to introduce further proof, but there must be an acquittal and restitution. When further proof is ordered, it is only from such, witnesses and upon such points as the prize court may, in its discretion, think fit." (Cushing v. Laird, 107 U. S., 77.) The conclusions of the majority proceed upon the inconsistent assumption that the master was not there to be believed, but if he was there that he 'should have been believed. Belief of a witness is always a matter of discretion in any kind of court having jurisdiction. There is a final observation not justified by the opinion of the majority. There is no proof that the master was behind prison bars. There is a mere inference arising from the general statement set forth in the master's protest after he got home, that he was imprisoned. , He may have been, but the record shows him to have been at the trial. As to the cargo, therefore, the award is erroneous. I am authorized to say that Booth, J., concurs in the findings and conclusions expressed in this dissent. By the Court. Filed February 18, 1907. A true copy. Test this 25th day of November, 1907. [seal.] John Eandolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SCHOONER BETSIE. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d Ed., 471. Vessel, schooner Betsie, George Hastie, master.] No. of case. Claimants. 459. The President and Directors of the Insurance Company of North America v. The United States. 487. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvaina v. The United States. 1339. Henry Pettit, administrator of Andrew Pettit, et al, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were heard before the Court of Claims on the 19th day of March, 1907. The claimants were represented by Wm. T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, and Thomas Stokes, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Josiah A. Van Orsdel. CONCLUSIONS OP PACT. The court upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The schooner Betsie, George Hastie, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about April 29, 1800, from Philadelphia, bound for Cape Francais. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was captured on the high seas on May 17, 1800, by the French privateer L } Union, plundered of a quantity of dry goods, wines, cordage, etc., manned by a prize crew, and ordered to proceed to Guadaloupe. On May 22, 1800, she was ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 675 recaptured by the United States frigate Philadelphia, ordered to St. Christopher's, and there delivered to the custody of David M. Clarkson, United States naval agent, for the collection of salvage. Salvage was awarded in the amount of one-eighth of the value of the vessel and cargo. II. The Betsie was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 94|| tons burden, was built at Barnstable, Mass., in 1796, and was owned solely by Thomas Jones and Stephen Smith, citizens of the United States. III. The cargo of the Betsie consisted of provisions, dry goods, soap, claret, etc. Jones & Smith were the owners of a consignment of soap, candles, lard, butter, tobacco, etc., of the value of at least $1,240.54, exclusive of premiums of insurance. Richard Milne was the owner of a consignment of two trunks of ginghams, of the value of at least $1,176, the amount of insurance effected thereon. Martin & Holmes were the owners of a consignment of 4 hogsheads of tobacco, of the value of $309.85, exclusive of premiums of insurance. James Hutton was the owner of a consignment of lard, hams, and candles. Nicholas Diehl & Son were the owners of a consignment of pork and flour, of the value of $768.75, exclusive of premiums of insurance. James and Robert Adams were the owners of a consignment of soap, lard, hams, and candles. John Selsman was the owner of a consignment of claret, of the value of at least $1,470, the amount of insurance effected thereon. Samuel Archer was the owner of a consignment of dry goods, of the value of $3,550.20, exclusive of premiums of insurance. George Hastie was the owner of an adventure of merchandise, of the value of $440.96, exclusive of premiums of insurance. IV. April 29, 1800, Jones & Smith effected insurance on the vessel in the amount of $3,000, in the office of the Insurance Company of North America, paying therefor a premium of 132 P er cent. Thereafter said insurance company paid the said insured $2,940 for a total loss, less an abatement of 2 per cent. Subsequently said insurance company recovered $1,172.35 under the abandonment executed by the insured, reducing the loss of said company on said policy to $1,767.65. May 24, 1800, Jones & Smith effected insurance on the vessel in the sum of $500 in the office of the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, paying therefor a premium of 7 2 per cent. Thereafter said insurance company paid the insured $490 in full for a total loss, less the customary 2 per cent abatement. Subsequently said insurance company recovered $200.41, under the abandonment executed by the insured, reducing the loss of said company on said policy to the net amount of $289.59. April 29, 1800, Jones & Smith effected insurance on the cargo in the amount of $3,000 in the office of the Insurance Company of North America, paying therefor a premium of 13 2 per cent. Thereafter said insurance company paid the insured $2,940, being in full for a total loss, less the customary 2 per cent abatement. Sub- sequently said insurance company recovered $2,128.46 under the abandonment executed by the insured, reducing the loss of said company on said policy to the sum of $811.54. May 24, 1800, Jones & Smith effected insurance on the cargo in the amount of $1,500 in the office of the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylyania, paying therefor a premium of 7J per cent. Thereafter said insurance company paid the insured $1,470, for a total loss, less the customary 2 per cent abatement. Subse- quently said insurance company recovered $1,041, under an abandonment executed by the insured, reducing the loss of said company on said policy to $429. April 22, 1800, Richard Milne effected insurance on cargo in the amount of $1,200 in the office of the Insurance Company of North America, paying therefor a premium of 14 per cent. Thereafter said insurance company paid the insured $1,176, in full for a total loss, less the customary 2 per cent abatement. April 25, 1800, Martin & Holmes effected insurance on cargo in the sum of $360 in the office of the Insurance Company of North America, paying therefor a premium of 13| per cent. Thereafter said insurance company paid the insured $352.80 in full for a total loss, less the customary 2 per cent abatement. Said cargo was worth $309.85, and was overinsured in the sum of $42.95. May 5, 1800, Nicholas Diehl & Son effected insurance on cargo in the sum of $800 in the office of the Insurance Company of North Anierica, paying therefor a premium of 7 2 per cent. Thereafter said insurance company paid the insured $784, being in full for a total loss, less the customary 2 per cent abatement. Subsequently said insurance company recovered $613.95, reducing said company's loss on said policy to $170.05. Said cargo was worth $768.75, and was overinsured in the sum of $15.25. Amount recoverable is therefore $154.80. 676 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. James & Robert Adams effected insurance on cargo in the office of the Insurance Company of North America. There is no proof of American citizenship of said James & Robert Adams, and no recovery based upon their loss can be maintained. May 3, 1800, Keen & Stillwell, as agents for George Hastie, effected insurance on cargo in the sum of $600 in the office of Shoemaker & Berrett, paying therefor a pre- mium of 13| per cent. The policy was underwritten as follows: Samuel Meeker : $600. 00 Thereafter Shoemaker & Berrett, as agents, paid the insured $534.54 for a general average loss of 89.09 per cent. Said cargo was worth $440.96 and was overinsured in the sum of $93.58. May 8, 1800, John Slesman effected insurance on cargo in the sum of $1,500 in the office of Shoemaker & Berrett, paying therefor a premium of 13J per cent, the policy being underwritten as follows: Ambrose Vasse $750. 00 Morgan & Price 750. 00 Thereafter Shoemaker & Berrett, as agents, paid the insured $1,470, being in full for a total loss, less the customary 2 per cent abatement. May 23, 1800, Samuel Archer effected insurance on the cargo in the sum of $4,000 in the office of Shoemaker & Berrett, paying therefor a premium of 13| per cent, the policy being underwritten as follows: Miller & Murray $1, 000. 00 Ebenezer Large 500. 00 Pettit & Bayard 800. 00 William Wain 500. 00 Daniel W. Coxe 500. 00 William Read & Co 700.00 Thereafter Shoemaker & Berrett, as agents, paid the insured $3,920, being in full for a total loss, less an abatement of 2 per cent. Said cargo was worth $3,550.20 and was overinsured in the sum of $369.80. The losses to the above underwriters on this policy were therefore as follows: Miller & Murray $887. 55 Ebenezer Large 443. 78 Pettit & Bayard .' 710. 04 William Wain 443.77 Daniel W. Coxe 443.77 William Read & Co 621.29 V. The losses by reason of the capture of the Betsie were as follows: Insurance Company of North America $4, 219. 84 Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania 718. 59 Samuel Meeker 440. 96 Ambrose Vasse 735. 00 Morgan & Price 735. 00 Miller & Murray 887.55 Ebenezer Large 443. 78 Pettit & Bayard 710. 04 William Wain 443.77 Daniel W. Coxe 443.77 William Read & Co 621. 29 10, 399. 59 VI. The firm of Morgan & Price was composed solely of Benjamin Morgan and Chandler Price, said Chandler Price being the surviving partner of the firm. The firm of Miller & Murray was composed solely of William Miller and Alexander Murray, said Alexander Murray being the surviving partner of the firm. The firm of Pettit & Bayard was composed solely of Andrew Pettit and Andrew Bayard. Said Andrew Pettit was the survivor of the firm. The firm of William Read & Co., was composed solely of William Read and Matthew Pearce. Said William Read was the survivor of the firm. The Insurance Company of North America was and is duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania was and is duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 677 The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Betsie, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims grow- ing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the follow- ing sums from the United States: The president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America, four thousand two hundred and nineteen dollars and eighty-four cents . . $4, 219. 84 The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, seven hundred and eighteen dollars and fifty -nine cents : 718. 59 Frederick W. Meeker, administrator of Samuel Meeker, four hundred and forty dollars and ninety-six cents 440. 96 Charles D. Vasse, administrator of Ambrose Vasse, seven hundred and thirty-five dollars. _ ._ 735. 00 A. Louis Eakin, administrator of Chandler Price, surviving partner of Mor- gan & Price,- seven hundred and thirty-five dollars 735. 00 George W. Guthrie, administrator of Alexander Murray, surviving partner of Miller & Murray, eight hundred and eighty-seven dollars and fifty-five cents. 887. 55 William Mifflin, adminstrator of Ebenezer Large, four hundred and forty- three dollars and seventy-eight cents 443. 78 Henry Pettit, administrator of Andrew Pettit, surviving partner of Pettit & Bayard, seven hundred and ten dollars and four cents 710. 04 Richard C. McMurtrie, administrator of Daniel W. Coxe, four hundred and forty-three dollars and seventy-seven cents. 443. 77 William R. Fisher, administrator of William Read, surviving partner of William Read & Co., six hundred and twenty-one dollars and twenty- nine cents 621. 29 9, 955. 82 Amounting in all to nine thousand nine hundred and fifty -five dollars and eighty- two cents. Thomas Jones, Stephen Smith (firm of Jones & Smith); Robert C. Martin, Abel Holmes (firm of Martin & Holmes); James Hutton; Nicholas Diehl, John Diehl (firm of Nich. Diehl & Son) ; Robert Adams, James Adams (firm of James and Robert Adams) ; Richard Milne; John Slesman; Samuel Archer; and George Hastie, are not in court. William Wain is indebted to the United States Government on certain unpaid bonds. This indebtedness being greater than the amount of his claim herein, his administrator is entitled to no recovery. By the Court. Filed April 1, 1907. A true copy. Test this 25th day of November, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 678 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. BRIG HOPE. , [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel brig Hope, Joseph Bright, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 805. The President and Directors of the Insurance Company of North America v. The United States. 1349. Francis A. Lewis et al., administrators of Peter Blight et al., v. The United States. 1832. E. Francis Biggs, administrator of James Lawrason, deceased, surviving part- ner of Shreve & Lawrason, v. The United States. 2130. Lawrence Stabler, administrator of William Hartshorne, deceased, remaining partner of William Hartshorne & Sons, v. The United States. 2628. William C. Hill, surviving executor of William W. Corcoran; James M. John- ston, surviving administrator of George W. Biggs; and Robert S. Chew, administrator of Richard Smith, v. The United States. 4385. Julian T. Burke, administrator of George Taylor, deceased, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 20th day of March, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Bickett, John St. C. Brookes, and Thomas Stokes, and The United States, defendants, by the Attor- ney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. CONCLUSIONS OP PACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The brig Hope, Joseph Bright, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about May 19, 1797, from Alexandria, Va., bound for Martinico and St. Croix. While peace- fully pursuing said voyage she was captured on the high seas June 22, 1797, by the French privateer Le Pandour, Captain Gariscan, and carried into Jacqmel, Hispaniola. On July 6, 1797, the vessel and cargo were condemned as good prize by the Commission of the French Government sitting at Cape Francois. The sole ground of condemnation, as stated in the decree, was as follows: "That the vessel was bound for Martinico, which island had been declared by a decree of the Commission to be in a state of siege." II. The Hope was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 160 tons burthen, built at Falmouth, Mass., in 1783, and owned by the firm of Shreve & Lawrason, com- posed of Benjamin Shreve and James Lawrason; the firm of William Hartshorne & Sons, composed of William Hartshorne, William Hartshorne, jr., and Mordecai Miller; George Slacum and Abram Hewes, in the following proportions: The firm of Shreve & Lawrason, one-sixth part; the firm of William Hartshorne & Sons, one-half part; George Slacum, one-sixth part; and Abram Hewes, one-sixth part. All of said persons were citizens of the United States and residents of Alexandria, Va. III. The cargo of the Hope at the time of seizure consisted of flour, crackers, and shingles, and was owned by Edward Dunant, Joshua Gilpin, and Mordecai Miller, all citizens of the United States. IV. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation were as follows:. Value of vessel $4, 000. 00 Freight earnings 2, 690. 00 Value of cargo (to amount of insurance paid) 11, 552. 52 Premium of insurance paid on vessel and freight 64. 50 ' Amounting in all to 18, 307. 02 V. The loss to Shreve & Lawrason was as follows ' One-sixth value of vessel 1666. 67 One-sixth value of freight earnings 448. 33 Premium of insurance paid 64. 50 Amounting in all to 1, 179. 50 Deduct insurance received 430. 00 Net loss 7,479.50 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 679 The loss to William Hartshorn e & Sons was as follows: One-half value of vessel $2, 000. 00 One-half value of freight earnings 1, 345. 00 Net loss 3,345.00 VI. The firm of Shreve & Lawrason effected insurance on the vessel and freight in the sum of $430, of which amount George Taylor assumed $125, being insurance on the vessel. Thereafter the firm of Shreve & Lawrason received the sum of $430, being in full for a total loss as aforesaid. May 24, 1797, Edward Dunant, for himself and Joshua Gilpin, effected insurance in the office of the Insurance Company of North America on the cargo in the sum of $6,000, paying therefor a premium of 12 J per cent. Thereafter said insurance company duly paid the said assured the sum of $5,917.52, being in full for a total loss, less certain charges. May 24, 1797, Edward Dunant, for himself and Joshua Gilpin, effected through the office of Shoemaker & Berrett insurance on the cargo, but no proof is made that pay- ment of the above policy was made, either by the underwriters or by Shoemaker & Berrett as their agents. May 24, 1797, Edward Dunant, for himself and Joshua Gilpin, effected insurance, through the office of Wharton & Lewis, on the cargo in the sum of $5,750, paying there- for a premium of 12J per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following-named persons, who, as far as they appear in court, are citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name, respectively: Peter Blight $500 Thomas & John Clifford Samuel Blodgett 500 John G. Wachsmuth 500 Thomas Murgatroyd 500 Abijah Dawes 400 John Leamy 500 James Crawford & Co 500 Thomas & Eli Canby : 500 Charles Pettit , 850 John Savage 500 Thereafter Wharton & Lewis, as agents for the underwriters, paid to said assured the sum of $5,635, being in full for a total loss on the above policy, less an abatement of 2 per cent, being a loss to said underwriters of 98 per cent of the amount underwritten by them, respectively. About July, 1831, said George Taylor, being unable to pay his debts in full, executed an assignment to the president, directors, and company of the Bank of the United States, a corporation chartered by act of Congress approved the 10th day of April, 1816, "his claims against the Government of the United States for French spoliations com- mitted prior to the treaty of the 30th September, 1800," a schedule of which was attached, and included "claims as underwriter." Said assignment was to the use of the several parties named, in payment and discharge of their respective demands against him, and in proportion thereto, as follows: Bank of the United States $5, 870. 05 Bank of Alexandria 900. 00 Bank of Potomac, say 750. 00 Indorser, Njatkaniel] W[attles] 4, 500. 00 John Corse 350. 00 Total ' 12, 370. 05 Subsequently, to wit, March 2, 1836, said Bank of the United States, chartered by act of Congress, as aforesaid, assigned and transferred, among other property, to the bank of the same name, chartered by an act of assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the said claim of said Bank of the United States, chartered by act of Congress, as aforesaid, against the said George Taylor, and said spoliation claims of said Taylor, then held by said Bank of the United States, chartered by act of Congress, as collateral security for the said Taylor's debt, as aforesaid. Subsequently, to wit, May 1, 1841, said Bank of the United States, chartered by act of assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as aforesaid, assigned and trans- ferred, among other property, to- James Dundas, Mordecai D. Louis (Lewis), Samuel W. Jones, Robert L. Pitfield, and Robert Howell the said claim of said Bank of the United States, chartered by act of Congress, against the said George Taylor, and said spoliation claims of said George Taylor, then held by said Bank of the United States, chartered by act of Congress, as collateral security for the said Taylor's debt, as afore- said. 680 ALLOWANCE OP CEKTAIN CLAIMS. Subsequently, to wit, August 29, 1846, said James Dundas, Mordecai D. Louis (Lewis), Samuel W. Jones, Robert L. Pitfield, and Robert Howell, by deed, assigned and transferred to said William W. Corcoran said claim against George Taylor for $5,870.05, together with said collateral security. Although said claim against said George Taylor, and said claim of said George Tay- lor against the United States, before referred to, were assigned and transferred to said William W. Corcoran, in severalty, the consideration paid to the said James Dundas, Mordecai D. Louis (Lewis), Samuel W. Jones, Robert L. Pitfield, and Robert Howell for the assignments and transfers aforesaid, was contributed equally by said William W. Corcoran, George W. Riggs, and Richard Smith, under an agreement existing between them that the money or property transferred by virtue of said assignments, should be divided equally between the three persons named, and all property thus far recovered under said assignments and transfers has been so divided. The firm of Shreve and Lawrason was composed solely of Benjamin Shreve and James Lawrason; said James Lawrason was the surviving partner of the firm. The firm of William Hartshorne & Sons was composed solely of William Hartshorne, William Hartshorne, jr., and Mordecai Miller; said William Hartshorne was the re- maining partner. The firm of James Crawford & Co. was composed solely of James Crawford and William Rusk; said James Crawford was the surviving partner of the firm. The firm of Thomas & John Clifford was composed solely of Thomas Clifford and John Clifford; said John Clifford was the surviving partner of the firm. The Insurance Company of North America was and is duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the brig Hope, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention 'between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were. not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: E. Francis Riggs, administrator of James Lawrason, deceased, surviving partner of Shreve & Lawrason, seven hundred and forty-nine dollars and fifty cents $749. 50 Lawrence Stabler, administrator of William Hartshorne, deceased, re- maining partner of William Hartshorne & Sons, three thousand three hundred and forty-five dollars 3, 345. 00 D. Fitzhugh Savage, administrator of John Savage, four hundred and ninety dollars 490. 00 Francis A. Lewis, administrator of Peter Blight, four hundred and ninety dollars ' 490. 00 Charles McCafferty, administrator of Samuel Blodgett, four hundred and ninety dollars 490. 00 Sarah Learning, administratrix of Thomas Murgatroyd, four hundred and ninety dollars 490. 00 J. Bayard Henry, administrator of John Leamy, four hundred and ninety dollars 490. 00 Francis R. Pemberton, administrator of John Clifford, surviving partner of Thomas & John Clifford, four hundred and ninety dollars 490. 00 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN" CLAIMS. 681 Samuel Bell, administrator of John G. Wachsmuth, four hundred and ninety dollars. $490. 00 Crawford D. Hening, administrator of James Crawford, surviving partner of James Crawford & Co. , four hundred and ninety dollars 490. 00 Crawford D. Hening, administrator of Abijah Dawes, three hundred and ninety-two dollars 392. 00 Henry Pettit, administrator of Charles Pettit, eight hundred and thirty- three dollars 833. 00 William C. Hill, surviving executor of William W. Corcoran, assignee of George Taylor, thirty-two dollars and fifty-two cents 32. 52 James M. Johnston, surviving administrator of George W. Riggs, assignee of George Taylor, thirty-two dollars and fifty-two cents 32. 52 Robert S. Chew, administrator of Richard Smith, assignee of George Taylor, thirty-two dollars and fifty-two cents 32. 52 The president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America, five thousand nine hundred and seventeen dollars and fifty-two cents. . 5, 917. 52 Amounting in all to fifteen thousand two hundred and fifty-four dollars and fifty-eight cents 15, 254. 58 No person claiming to represent George Slacum, Abram Hewer,, Edward Dunant, Joshua Gilpin, James K. Hamilton, or Thomas & Eli Canby have appeared herein. No allowance is made for the insurance underwritten by the Insurance Company of North America on the commissions of the supercargo. No valid claims have been established on behalf of the estates of George Rundle, Thomas Leech, Charles Ross, John Simson, Alexander Murray, surviving partner of Miller & Murray, John Miller, jr., Jacob Baker, surviving partner of Baker & Comegys, and Mark Prager, jr., surviving partner of Pragers & Co. The cargo owners are not in court. The assignment of George Taylor hereinbefore set forth in the conclusions of fact, to the extent of the debts of Nathaniel Wattles and John Corse, for which he had been personally liable as surety, and which assignment, to that extent, was made in lieu of his personal liability as such surety, can not at this day be carried out and must be held to have failed. It -would be inequitable, considering the circumstances of the case, to make any deduction on that account, and none is made. No allowance is made to Julian T. Burke, administrator of George Taylor, as the assignment of the latter beyond the part thereof regarding the debts of Nathaniel Wattles and John Corse, is held operative applying to his own indebtedness, which has not yet been fully extinguished. By the Court. Filed May 13, 1907. A true copy. Test this 30th day of November, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SCHOONER KITTY. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel, schooner Kitty, Jacob Singleton, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 834. The President and Directors of the Insurance Company of North America v. United States. 1992. Ormes B. Keith, surviving executor of Samuel Keith, v. United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 18th day of March, 1907. The claimants were represented by Thomas Stokes, esq., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General, Josiah A. Van Orsdel. CONCLUSIONS OF PACT. The court, upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments and considering the same, with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The schooner Kitty, Jacob Singleton, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about May 11, 1797, from Philadelphia, bound to Kingston, Jamaica. - While peace- 682 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. fully pursuing said voyage, she was captured on the high seas May 28, 1797, by the French privateer Les Trois Republicaines, and sent into Santiago, Cuba. The vessel and cargo were condemned by the commission at Cape Francois on June 11, 1797, wherebysthe vessel and cargo became a total loss to the owners thereof. The grounds of condemnation, as set forth in the decree, were as follows: That the vessel was proceeding to Jamaica, an English port. That the cargo was English property. II. The Kitty was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 90 tons burthen, was built at Choptank, Md., in the year 1791, and was owned by the firm of William and Samuel Keith, citizens of the United States and residing in Philadelphia. III. The cargo of the Kitty at the time of capture consisted of corn meal, rice, lard, shooks, hoops, staves, and lumber, and was owned by William and Samuel Keith. Jacob Singleton, the master, also had an adventure on board, the value of which was in excess of the amount of insurance effected thereon. IV. The loss of William and Samuel Keith by reason of the capture and condemna- tion of the Kitty was as follows: Value of vessel $2. 700. 00 Freight earnings 1, 192. 00 Value of cargo 2, 918. 00 Premium of insurance paid on vessel 405. 00 Premium of insurance paid on value of cargo 437. 70 Amounting in all to 7, 652. 70 Less insurance paid on vessel $2, 646. 00 Less insurance paid on cargo 3, 544. 94 6,190.94 Net loss to William and Samuel Keith 1, 461. 76 V. May 12, 1797, William and Samuel Keith insured the vessel in the sum of $2,700 in the office of the Insurance Company of North America, paying therefor a premium of 15 per cent. Thereafter said insurance company paid the said William and Samuel Keith the sum of $2,646, for a total loss as aforesaid, less an abatement of 2 per cent. May 12, 1797, William and Samuel Keith insured the cargo in the sum of $3,700 in the office of the Insurance Company of North America, paying therefor a premium of 15 per cent. Thereafter the said insurance company paid to William and Samuel Keith the sum of $3,544.94 on said policy, but the actual value of said cargo being only $2,918, the said cargo was therefore overinsured in the sum of $626.94. May 12, 1797, William and Samuel Keith, as agents for Jacob Singleton, insured said Singleton's property and effects on board in the sum of $300 in the office of the Insurance Company of North America, paying therefor a premium of 15 per cent. Thereafter the said insurance company paid the said Keiths, on behalf of said Single- ton, the insured, the sum of $294, being for a total loss as aforesaid, less an abatement of 2 per cent. VI. The losses to the Insurance Company of North America by reason of the seizure and condemnation aforesaid were as follows: Amount paid William and Samuel Keith on vessel $2, 646. 00 Amount paid said Keiths on cargo $3, 544. 94 Less over insurance on cargo 626. 94 2,918.00 Amount paid Jacob Singleton on property and effects 294. 00 Total loss to Insurance Company of North America 5, 858. 00 VII. The firm of William and Samuel Keith was composed solely of said William and Samuel Keith, said Samuel Keith being the surviving partner. The Insurance Company of North America was duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Kitty, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France, allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 22d of ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 683 February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831 . The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned, except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: Ormes B. Keith, surviving executor of Samuel Keith, surviving partner of the firm of William and Samuel Keith, one thousand four hundred and sixty-one dollars and seventy -six cents $1, 461. 76 The president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America, five thousand eight hundred and fifty-eight dollars 5, 858. 00 7, 319. 76 Amounting in all to seven thousand three hundred and nineteen dollars and seventy- six cents. Jacob Singleton, the master and owner of an adventure on board, is not in court. By the Court. Filed April 1, 1907. A true copy. Test this 25 day of November, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SCHOONER GREYHOUND. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Greyhound , Sylvanus Snow, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 1653. George C. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 1811. Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of March, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney- General J. A. Van Orsdel. CONCLUSIONS OF PACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determines the facts to be as follows: I. The schooner Greyhound, Sylvanus Snow, master, sailed on a commercial voyage February 14, 1798, from Newbern, N. C, bound for St. Bartholomew. While peace- fully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas April 10, 1798, by the French privateer Le Destin, Captain Augusto, and the master taken from on board his vessel and put ashore at St. Martins, and, not being provided with means of sustenance, was obliged by motives of self-preservation to leave St. Martins before the disposition of his vessel and cargo was known. Said vessel and cargo were afterwards condemned and sold at St. Martins, and various attempts were made to get a copy of her condem- nation, but the authorities refused to give such copy. The grounds upon which said vessel and cargo were condemned do not appear. II. The Greyhound was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 35&f tons burden, built at Hingham, Mass., in the year 1784, and owned solely by Sylvanus Snow, jr., a citizen of the United States. 684 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. III. The value of the vessel and the freight earnings were $1,450, for which insur- ance was effected as set out below. IV. May 14, 1798, Sylvanus Snow, jr., owner of vessel and freight, effected insur- ance on said vessel and freight in the office of Peter C." Brooks, insurance broker, of Boston, to the amount of $1,450 ($750 on vessel and $700 on freight), paying therefor a premium of 25 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following-named per- sons, each in the sum set opposite their names, respectively: Crowell Hatch $700. 00 Nathaniel Fellowes 750.00 Thereafter Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $1,450, being in full for a total loss on said policy by reason of the premises. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are, in fact, the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Greyhound, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in # part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: George C. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, seven hundred dollars $700. 00 A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, seven hundred and fifty dollars 750. 00 Amounting in all to one thousand four hundred and fifty dollars 1, 450. 00 The owners of vessel, cargo, and freight are not in court. By the Court. Filed March 18, 1907. A true. copy. Test this 11th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SLOOP HONOR. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Sloop Honor. William Kimball, master.] No. of ease. Claimant. 300. Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, v. The United States. George G. King, administrator of James Tisdale, v. The United States. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Joseph Cordis, v. The United States. 1914. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 685 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of March, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney- General J. A. Van Orsdel. CONCLUSIONS OP PACT. The court, upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The sloop Honor, William Kimball, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on July 31, 1796, from New London, Conn., bound to Hispaniola. While peacefully pur- suing said voyage she was seized on the high seas August 31, 1796, by the French pri- vateer V Adelaide, Captain Chetard, and carried into Petit Trou and condemned on December 31, 1796 (11th Nivose, year 5), by the tribunal of prizes sitting at Cape Francois, on the following ground: " That the vessel was bound to the port of Jeremie, which had been declared to be in a state of siege." II. The sloop Honor was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 53 22/95 tons burthen, built in Connecticut in the year 1791, and was owned solely by Joseph Howland, a citizen of the United States. III. The cargo of the Honor at the time of capture consisted of sheep, hogs, provi- sions, shingles, and hoops, and was owned by the said Joseph Howland. IV. The value of the vessel was in excess of $1,200 and the cargo in excess of $2,800, in which amounts, respectively, insurance was effected thereon as set out below. V. August 3, 1796, Joseph Howland, owner of vessel and cargo, effected insurance on said vessel and cargo in the sum of $4,000 ($1,200 on vessel and $2,800 on cargo) in the office of Peter C. Brooks, insurance broker, of Boston, paying therefor a premium of 6 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following-named persons, each in the amount set opposite their names, respectively, viz: William Smith $500. 00 Stephen Gorham 500. 00 David Greene 500. 00 Nathaniel Fellowes 500. 00 Crowell Hatch 500. 00 John Brazer 700. 00 James Tisdale 400. 00 Joseph Cordis 400. 00 Thereafter said Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $3,800, being a loss to each of the above-named underwriters of 95 per cent of the amount subscribed by them, respectively. December 16, 1801, William Smith, for and in consideration of $3,715.50 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption of any and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. November 21, 1801, Stephen Gorham, for and in consideration of $2,986.65 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption by said Brooks of any and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. December 23, 1801, David Greene, for and in consideration of $6,000 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption of any and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. September 4, 1804, John Brazer, for and in consideration of $5,708.85, to hiri paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption by the said Brooks of all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who Buffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the sloop Honor, as set forth in the preceding findings. 686 ALLOWANCE OE CERTAIN CLAIMS. ' Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid m whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. The court .decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France aganist the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, two thousand and ninety dollars $2, 090. 00 A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, four hundred and seventy-five dollars 475. 00 George G. King, administrator of James Tisdale, three hundred and eighty dollars 380. 00 Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Joseph Cordis, three hundred and eighty dollars 380. 00 George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, four hundred and seventy- five dollars 475. 00 Amounting in all to three thousand eight hundred dollars 3, 800. 00 The owners of the vessel, "cargo, and freight arejiot in court. By the Court. Filed March 18, 1907. A true copy. Test this 6th day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SCHOONER HIRAM. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Hiram, Ebenezer Barker, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 5551. Moses Sherwood, administrator of the estate of David Coley, jr., deceased, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. This case was tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of November, 1907. The claimants were represented by Charles W. Clagett, esq., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General through his assistants in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer and Stanhope Henry, esqs., with whom was Assistant Attor- ney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. FINDINGS OP PACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The schooner Hiram, Ebenezer Barker, master, sailed on a commercial voyage in the year 1798, bound for Martinique. While peacefully pursuing said voyage on the high seas the Hiram was captured by the French privateer Le Pelletier. On the 26th day of July, 1798, the Hiram was condemned by the tribunal of prizes at Guadaloupe on the following grounds: pg First. That she was documented for Martinique. Second. That she had neither invoice nor bill of lading and that her r61e d'equipage was not in order. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 687 II. The Hiram was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 80f§ tons bur- then; was built at Stratford, Conn., in 1785, and was owned by David Coley, jr., a citizen of the United States. III. The decree of condemnation shows that there was a cargo on board at the time of capture, but what it consisted of and to whom it belonged does not appear. IV. The loss of David Coley, jr., by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Hiram was as follows: Value of the vessel $2, 000. 00 No allowance is made for cargo, as it*is not shown of what it consisted or who the owners were, and for the same reason no allowance is made for freight. The claimant has produced letters of administration on the estate of the party for whom he appears, and has otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the f>erson for whose estate he has filed claim is in fact the same person who suffered oss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Hiram, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. It was not a claim grow- ing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and was not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty be- tween the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimant in his representative capacity is the owner of said claim, which has never been assigned except as aforesaid. . CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claim was relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimant is entitled to the following sum from the United States: Moses Sherwood, administrator for the estate of David Coley, jr., two thousand dollars $2, 000. 00 Two thousand dollars. By the Court. Filed December 2, 1907. A true copy. Test this* 11th day of December, 1907. [seal] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SLOOP FARMER. . Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel sloop Farmer, John Grow, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 2489. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Benjamin Cobb, v. The United States. Nathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargent, v. The United States. 2997. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of William Marshall, jr., v. The United States. 3512. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, v. The United States. Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, v. The United States. James C. Davis, administrator of Cornelius Durant, v. The United States. Arthur D. Hill, administrator of Benjamin Homer, v. The United States. George G. King, administrator of James Scott, v. The United States. William Ropes Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, v. The United States. Charles K. Cobb, administrator of Stephen Codman, v. The United States. 688 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAI2ST CLAIMS. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before tile Court of Claims on trie 13th day of March, 1907 . The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, esqrs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. CONCLUSIONS QP PACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The sloop Farmer, John Grow, master, sailed on a commercial voyage January 12, 1800, bound from Boston to Trinidad. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas by the French privateer Bijoux, Captain Dupuy, and car- ried to Guadaloupe, where both vessel and cargo were afterwards condemned by the prize court sitting at Basseterre in said island, and thereby became a total loss to the owners thereof. The grounds of condemnation do not appear, but the examination of the master and supercargo of the Farmer by the French authorities show that she had violated none of her obligations of neutrality, that she was bound on a commercial voyage, and that she carried a cargo no part of which was contraband, and that the vessel and cargo were the property of an American citizen and that no papers were thrown into the sea or hidden on board. The report of the prize master of the privateer shows that no resistance to search was made and that the Farmer came to immediately at the summons of the privateer. The analysis of the Farmer's papers by the French authorities shows that she carried a register, sea letter or passport, agreement with the crew (shipping list), invoice of the cargo, certificate of clearance from the custom-house at Boston and Charleston. The vessel was carried into Guadaloupe on the 16th day of February, 1800, where the master remained until the 16th day of March, when he went to the island of St. Thomas, arriving there on March 19. It appears from the report of Somerville P. Tuck that said vessel was condemned, but a copy of the condemnation is not produced. II. The Farmer was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 76 tons burthen, built in the State of Connecticut in the year 1791, and owned solely by William Mar- shall, jr., and Benjamin Hooper, both citizens of the United States. III. The cargo of the Farmer at the time of seizure consisted of beef, bacon, lard, flour, tobacco, gin, rice, hams, butter, salmon, biscuit, shingles, boards, wine, staves, hoops, soap, and plank, and was the property of William Marshall, jr. IV. The loss to William Marshall, jr., by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Farmer was as follows: Value of the cargo $5, 395. 57 One-half value of vessel 1, 545. 00 One-half freight earnings ' 950. 00 Premiums of insurance (on actual value of vessel, etc.) 1, 027. 75 Amounting in all to 8, 918. 32 Deduct insurance received .. 6, 500. 00 Net loss . 2, 418. 32 V. January 14, 1800, said William Marshall, jr., effected in the office of Joseph Tay- lor insurance on said vessel and cargo in the sum of $6,500 ($2,000 on vessel and $4,500 on cargo), paying therefor a premium of 17 per cent, by a policy underwritten by the following persons, who, as far as they have appeared in this court, were citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite their names, respectively: Benjamin Cobb $500. 00 Ebenezer Francis 500. 00 Nicholas Gilman 1, 000. 00 Leech & Hilton 300. 00 Daniel Sargent 500. 00 John C . Jones 500. 00 Samuel.W. Pomeroy 500. 00 Cornelius Durant 500. 00 Benjamin Homer 500. 00 Thomas Amory 700. 00 James Scott 500. 00 Stephen Codman 500. 00 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 689' Thereafter, Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $6,500, being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises, but the one-half of the vessel so insured herein being only of the value of $1,545, there was an overinsurance on the same to the amount of $455. - The losses to said underwriters on this policy were therefore as follows: Benjamin Cobb $465. 00 Ebenezer Francis 465. 00 Nicholas Gilman 930. 00 Leech & Hilton 279. 00 Daniel Sargent 465. 00 John C. Jones 465. 00 Samuel W. Pomeroy 465. 00 Cornelius Durant 465. 00 Benjamin Homer 465. 00 Thomas Amory 651. 00 James Scott 465. 00 Stephen Codman 465. 00 The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the sloop Farmer, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States: and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: • Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of William Marshall, jr., two thousand four hundred and eighteen dollars and thirty-two cents $2, 418. 32 Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Benjamin Cobb, four hundred and sixty-five dollars 465. 00 William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, nine hundred and thirty dollars 930. 00 Nathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargent, four hundred and sixty-five dollars 465. 00 Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, four hundred and sixty- five dollars 465. 00 Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, four hundred and sixty-five dollars 465. 00 James C. Davis, administrator of Cornelius Durant, four hundred and sixty- five dollars 465. 00 Arthur D. Hill, administrator of Benjamin Homer, four hundred and sixty- five dollars '.. 465. 00 William R. Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, six hundred and fifty- one dollars 651. 00' George G. King, administrator of James Scott, four hundred and sixty-five dollars 465. 00 Charles K. Cobb, administrator of Stephen Codman, four hundred and sixty-five dollars 465. 00 Amounting in all to seven thousand seven hundred and nineteen dollars and thirty-two cents 7, 719. 32 S. Rep. 382, 60-1 44 690 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. Ebenezer Francis and Leech ifc Hilton, underwriters on the policy of insurance herein, are not in court. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, has proved no valid claim other than for those who underwrote the insurance in said Taylor's office, as herein- before set forth. Benjamin Hooper, the other half owner of the vessel and freight, is not in court. By the Court. Filed April 1, 1907. A true copy. Test this 6th day of December, 1907. £seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SCHOONER FRIENDSHIP. {Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Sta/t. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Friendship, William Blanchard, master.] No. of . F * i case. Claimant. 230. Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 3328. Daniel W. Waldron, administrator of Jacob Sheafe, v. The United States. 3517. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. Arthur D. Hill, administrator of Benjamin Homer, v. The United States. James C. Davis, administrator of Cornelius Durant, v. The United States. Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, v. The United States. George G. King, administrator of James Scott, v. The United States. William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of March, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney- General J. A. Van Orsdel. conclusions of fact. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The schooner Friendship, William Blanchard, master, sailed on a commercial voyage November 11, 1799, from Norfolk, Va., bound to Tobago and Trinidad. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas, December 24, 1799, by the French privateer Le Soliel, Captain Lafitte, who took from on board the Friend- ship her master, supercargo, and three of her crew and carried them to St. Bartholo- anew, where they were liberated. Vessel and cargo afterwards condemned February :8, 1800, by the tribunal of prizes sitting at Basseterre, Guadaloupe, upon grounds which •do not appear. II. The Friendship was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 101f| tons burthen; built at Kingston, Mass., in the year 1792, and owned by William Blanchard, Jeremiah Stimson, and Thomas Callender, each one-third. III. The cargo of the Friendship at the time of capture consisted of lumber, biscuit, ■and grain, and was owned by Laurie & Telfer, of Norfolk. The value of said cargo does not appear. IV. The losses to the owners of vessel and freight by reason of said seizure and con- demnation were as follows: Value of vessel $3, 622. 00 Freight earnings : 1, 700. 00 Premiums of insurance paid ■ 778. 00 Amounting in all to 6, 100. 00 Deduct insurance received 6, 100. 00 V. October 26, 1799, Jeremiah Stimson and Thomas Callender effected in the office of Joseph Taylor, insurance broker, of Boston, insurance on two-thirds of the vessel and freight to the amount of $4,000, paying therefor a premium of 10 per cent, said ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 691 policy being underwritten by the following-named persons, each in the sum set oppo- site their names., viz: John C. Jones $700. 00 Benjamin Homer 500. 00 Cornelius Durant 500. 00 Samuel W. Pomeroy 800. 00 James Scott. 500. 00 Nicholas Gilnian 500. 00 Jacob Sheafe. 500. 00 Thereafter said Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $4,000, being in full for a total loss on said policy by reason of the premises. VI. November 27, 1799, George Blanchard, on behalf of William Blanchard, effected in the office of Peter C. Brooks, insurance broker, in the city of Boston, insurance on one-third of vessel and freight to the amount of $2,100, paying therefor a premium of 18 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following-named persons, each in the sum set opposite their names, respectively, viz: William Smith $1, 100. 00 Stephen Gorham 500. 00 Tuthill Hubbart 500. 00 Thereafter said Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $2,100, being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises. December 16, 1801, William Smith, in consideration of $3,715.50, to him paid by Peter G. Brooks, and the assumption by the said Brooks of all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of the said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. April 4, 1808, Tuthill Hubbart, in consideration of $60,000, to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by the said Brooks of all and any liabilities and disadvan- tages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. November 21, 1801, Stephen Gorham, in consideration of $2,986.65, to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by the said Brooks of all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of the said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Friendship, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government piior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, two thousand one hundred dollars , $2, 100 Daniel W. Waldron, administrator of Jacob Sheafe, five hundred dollars 500 Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, seven hundred dollars . . . 700 Arthur D. Hill, administrator of Benjamin Homer, five hundred dollars 500 692 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. James C. Davis, administrator of Cornelius Durant, five hundred dollars $500 Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy , eight hundred dollars . . 800 George G. King, administrator of James Scott, five hundred dollars 500 William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, five hundred dollars 500 Amounting in all to six thousand one hundred dollars 6, 100 The owners of the vessel, freight, and cargo are not in court. By the Court. Filed March 18, 1907. A true copy. Test this 6th day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. BRIG DOVE. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel brig Dove, William McN. Watts, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 291. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, v. The United States. 1900. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 3010. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Thomas Geyer, v. The United States. 3493. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. William R. Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, v. The United States. William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 13th day of March, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assist- ant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. conclusions op pact. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The brig Dove, William McN. Watts, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from Edenton, N. C, on or about May 4, 1798, bound to St. Croix. While peacefully pur- suing said voyage she was seized on the high seas May 29, 1798, by the French privateer Neptune, John Jacque, master, taken to St. Martins, and afterwards condemned as good prize June 22, 1798, by the tribunal of commerce sitting at Basseterre, in the island of Guadeloupe, whereby a loss arose on both vessel and cargo to the owners thereof. The sole ground of condemnation, as set forth in the decree, was that the vessel's r6le d'e"quipage was not signed by a marine officer. II. The Dove was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 94 14/95 tons burthen, built in Massachusetts in the year 1796, and owned solely by Thomas Geyer, a citizen of the United States residing in Boston. III. The cargo of the Dove consisted of shingles, boards, beef, fish, pork, flour, Indian corn, meal, hams, apple sauce, boots, shoes, dry goods, and live hogs, and was owned by said Thomas Geyer and William McN. Watts, master of the vessel. IV. The losses to said Thomas Geyer, as far as shown by the evidence, by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Dove were as follows: Loss on vessel $2, 000. 00 Value of his portion of cargo 3, 301. 75 Freight earnings 1, 183. 00 Premium of insurance paid 1, 500. 00 Amounting in all to 7, 984. 75 Deduct insurance received . . . .■ 5, 000. 00 \ Netloss* 2,984.75 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 693 It appears from the evidence that subsequent to the sale of the Dove under the decree of the prize court she was reregistered at Boston in the name of said Thomas Geyer and one Frederick W. Geyer, jr., on December 6, 1798. It likewise appears that the under- writers who insured the vessel through their agent at Boston, where said insurance was effected, on December 12, 1798, six days after such reregistration, paid the said Thomas Geyer the sum of $2,000 as a loss arising thereon by reason of her seizure and condemna- tion by the French. The loss on said vessel by reason of the premises was the sum in which the said Thomas Geyer was reimbursed by said underwriters. ' V. April 25, 1798, Thomas Geyer effected insurance on said vessel and cargo in the office of Peter C. Brooks in the sum of $5,000, viz, on the vessel in the sum of $2,000 and on cargo in the sum of $3,000, paying therefor a premium of 30 per cent, by a policy underwritten as follows: Crowell Hatch : $1, 000 Tuthill Hubbart .• 1, 000 William Smith „ 1, 000 Nathaniel Fellowes '. 1, 000 David Greene 1, 000 December 12, 1798, said Crooks, as agent, duly paid said assured the sum of $5,000 in full for a total loss by reason of the premises. June 12, 1798, Samuel Harris, as agent of William McN. Watts, effected insurance on a portion of said cargo in the office of Joseph Taylor in the sum of $1,000, paying there- for a premium of 30 per cent, by a policy underwritten as follows: Thomas Amory $500 Nicholas Gilman 500 June 24, 1799, said Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said insured the sum of $1,000 in full for a total loss by reason of the premises. The property at risk was of the value of at least the sum for which insured. All of the above-named underwriters were citizens of the United States. April 4, 1808, the administrators of Tuthill Hubbart, for and in consideration of $60,000 to them paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption of any and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him in the office of said Brooks. December 16, 1801, William Smith, for and in consideration of $3,715.50 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption of any and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. December 23, 1801, David Greene, for and in consideration of $6,000 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption of any and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the brig Dove, as get forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims grow- ing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty be- tween the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of 694 ALLOWANCE. OP CEKTAIET CLAIMS. France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, one thousand dollars $1, 000. 00 Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, three thousand dollars.. 3,000.00 A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, one thousand dollars 1, 000. 00 William R. Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, five hundred dollars. . 500. 00 William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, five hundred dollars. . 500. 00 Amounting in all to six thousand dollars 6, 000. 00 The defendants have filed a counterclaim alleging that the original claimant, Thomas Geyer, was indebted to the United States in the sum of $5,134.59 on certain unpaid custom-house bonds. No record of payment thereof has been produced from the collector's office at Boston. No one is in court claiming for the invoice of merchandise shipped by Samuel Harris on said vessel and consigned to William McNeil Watts, master of said vessel, said mer- chandise being separate and distinct from that owned by Thomas Geyer. By the Court. Filed April 1, 1907. A true copy. Test this 11th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SCHOONER NEPTUNE. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1. Supplement to- ll. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Neptune, Comfort Bird, master.] No. of case. Claimant. .201. Brooks, Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, v. The United States. 521. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes,'^. The United States. 1502. James G. Freeman, receiver of the Boston Marine Insurance Company, v. The United States. 1934. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 2227. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Abraham Touro, v. The United States. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of John McLean, v. The United States. William Smith Carter, administrator of William Smith, v. The United States. John Lowell, administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, v. The United States. 3756. Archibald M. Howe, administrator of Francis Green, v. The United States. 5269. Samuel Abbott Fowle, administrator of George Makepeace, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 13th day of March, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, Frank W. Hackett, and Charles W. Clagett, esqrs., and the United States, defend- ants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice. John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General, J. A. Van Orsdel . CONCLUSIONS OP PACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same, with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The schooner Neptune, Comfort Bird, master, sailed on a commercial voyage March 27, 1800, from Boston, bound to St. Bartholomew. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas April 24, 1800, by the French privateer Unique, Lafitte, commander, who took from the Neptune her master, mate, and two men and detained them on board the privateer until the latter arrived at Basseterre, Guadeloupe, on the 5th day of May following, when they were put in prison. While in the possession of the privateer the Neptune was robbed of eight bales of dry goods, some butter, candles, soap, oil, shoes, hams, potatoes, crackers, a trunk of ladies' s andals, a trunk of Indian cottons, gloves, etc., composing a part of her cargo, and ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 695 all the ship's papers were carried away by the privateer. A prize master and crew were then placed on the Neptune with orders to carry her to Basseterre, Guadeloupe, and while so proceeding she was retaken on the 3d day of the said month of May by the English privateer Peggy, Peter Christian, commander, and carried to St. John on the island of Antigua, and vessel and cargo condemned, by the court of vice-ad- miralty there sitting, to pay a salvage of one-half the true value thereof, together with all costs and charges. II. The Neptune was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 53f| tons, built in Massachusetts in the year 1784, and owned solely by Israel Jenkins and Calvin Turner, citizens of the United States. III. The cargo of the Neptune at the time of seizure consisted of beef, hearts, bread, brandy, cheese, fish, dry goods, lumber, shingles, staves, pork, bacon, soap, shoes, and wine, and was owned by George Makepeace, Martin Blake, Charles Sigourney r Freeborn Sisson, Asa Hammond, I. & I. Jenkins, John Fowle, Nathan Tufts, and Comfort Bird, all of whom were citizens of the United States, and by Eben Francis,. Henry Lee, Augustus Lovett, Ebenezer Barker, and Samuel Bright, whose American citizenship is not established. IV. The loss suffered by George Makepeace, by reason of the seizure of the Nep- tune, was as follows, viz: Value of 4 bales dry goods and 179 pounds cheese $1, 509. 86 Premium of insurance paid 180. 00 Amounting in all to 1, 689. 86 Deduct insurance received 1, 200. 00 Net loss 489. 86 V. May 13, 1800, George Makepeace effected in the office of Peter C. Brooks insur- ance on his merchandise in the sum of $1,200, paying therefor a premium of 15 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name, A'iz: John C. Jones $600. 00 Samuel W. Pomeroy 600. 00 Thereafter said Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said insured the sum of $1,200, being in full for a total loss arising by reason of the robbery by the French and payment of salvage. April 9, 1800, Israel Jenkins, Comfort Bird, John Fowle, and Nathan Tufts effected in the office of Peter C. Brooks insurance on the vessel and their merchandise in the sum of $4,000, apportioned as follows: For Isreal Jenkins, $2,330; for Comfort Bird r $1,200; for John Fowle, $270; for Nathan Tufts, $200. The premium paid was 20 per cent, the policy being underwritten by the following persons, citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name, viz: Crowell Hatch $1, 000. 00 Tuthill Hubbart 1, 000. 00 Cornelius Durant 1, 000. 00 Benjamin Homer 500. 00 Nathaniel Fellowes 500. 00 Thereafter said Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said insured the sum of $3,494.73, but this payment included $88.20, the* value of the deck load of lumber owned by Comfort Bird and Isreal Jenkins and thrown overboard in a storm and for which loss the French could not be held responsible. The underwriters on this policy are therefore entitled to recover but $3,406.53 by reason of the seizure by the French, being 85.163 per cent of the amount underwritten by them, respectively. Their loss on this policy are therefore as follows, viz : Crowell Hatch $851. 63 Tuthill Hubbart 851. 63 Cornelius Durant 851. 63 Benjamin Homer 425. 82 Nathaniel Fellowes 425. 82- The value of the property at risk exceeded the amount for which insured, and the loss paid by the underwriters arose from the robbery by the French and payment of salvage. 696 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. March 21, 1800, Charles Sigourney and Martin Blake procured from the Boston Marine Insurance Company insurance on their merchandise in the sum of $1,300, paying therefor a premium of 9 per cent. Thereafter the Boston Marine Insurance Company duly paid the said insured SI. 300. being in full for a total loss by reason of the robbery by the French and payment of salvage. The value of the property at risk exceeded the amount for which insured. March 31, 1800, Asa Hammond effected in the office of Abraham Touro insurance on his merchandise in the sum of SI. 200. paying therefor a premium of 18 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name, viz: William Smith $600. 00 Tuthill Hubbart 600. 00 Thereafter Abraham Touro, as agent, paid the insured the sum of $1,064 for a loss by reason of the robbery by the French and payment of salvage. The value of the prop- erty at risk exceeded the sum for which insured. Each of the above-named underwriters suffered a loss of $532.00 on this policy. April 10, 1800. Freeborn Sisson effected in the office of Abraham Touro insurance on his merchandise in the sum of S300, paying therefor a premium of 12^ per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following person, a citizen of the United States: John McLean $300. 00 Thereafter Abraham Touro, as agent, duly paid the said insured the sum of $266 for a loss on this policy by reason of the robbery by the French and payment of salvage. The value of the property at risk exceeded the sum for which insured. The insurance alleged to have been effected in the office of Abraham Touro by Ebenezer Barker, Samuel Bright, and William Howard, on which Charles Paine and Francis Greene were underwriters, is not established by competent evidence. April 4, 1808, the administrators of Tuthill Hubbart, in consideration of $60,000 to them paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption by the said Brooks of all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to the said Brooks all the right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by the said Hubbart as an underwriter in the office of the said Brooks. January 7, 1804, Cornelius Durant, for and in consideration of $181.77 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by the said Brooks of any and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his. right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an under- writer in the office of said Brooks. July 23, 1805, Benjamin Homer, in consideration of $5,000 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by the said Brooks of any and all liabilities and disadvan- tages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Neptune, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in then representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which .have never been assigned except as aforesaid. COXCLUSIOXS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 697 France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States : • Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter 0. Brooks, two thousand one hun- dred and twenty -nine dollars and eight cents : $2, 129. 08 George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, eight hundred and fifty- one dollars and sixty-three cents 851. 63 A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, four hundred and twenty-five dollars and eighty- two cents 425. 82 Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, six hundred dollars. . . 600. 00 Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Poineroy, six hundred dollars. . 600. 00 James G. Freeman, receiver of the Boston Marine Insurance Company, one thousand three hundred dollars \, 300. 00 William S. Carter, administrator of William Smith, five hundred and thirty- two dollars 532. 00 John Lowell, administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, five hundred and thirty- two dollars 532. 00 Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of John McLean, two hundred and sixty- six dollars 266. 00 Samuel Abbott Fowle. administrator of George Makepeace, four hundred and eighty-nine dollars and eighty-six cents 489. 86 Amounting in all to seven thousand seven hundred and twenty-six dollars and thirty-nine cents 7, 726. 39 The owners of the vessel and cargo (with the exception of George Makepeace) are not in court. By the Court. Filed April 1, 1907. A true copy. Test this 11th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SCHOONER SALLY, DAVIS, MASTER. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 18S5; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Sally, Timothy Davis, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 1628. Charles F. Trask, administrator of Samuel Babson, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. This case was tried before the Court of Claims on the 13th day of March, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, esqrs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assist- ant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. CONCLUSIONS OP FACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determines the facts to be as follows: I. The schooner Sally, Timothy Davis, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from Guernsey, bound to Dieppe, arriving in the roadstead of the latter place on the 30th day of March, 1797, and on the next day, while peacefully lying in the said road- stead, was seized by the French privateers Vengeur, Intrepide, Eminchet, and Auda- cieux, and thereafter condemned as good prize for the benefit of the captors by decree of the tribunal of commerce at Dieppe, dated June 5, 1797. * The grounds of condemnation as stated in the decree, were as follows: That the neutral ownership of the cargo was not proved; That the vessel's role d'equipage was not in good form. II. The Sally was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 57 45/95 tons burthen, built in the State of Massachusetts prior to the 16th day of May, 1789, and was owned solely by Samuel Babson, a citizen of the United States, residing at Glou- cester, Mass. 698 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. III. The cargo of the Sally at the date of seizure consisted of 50 puncheons of brandy and 60 casks of wine, and was owned by Alexander Fraser, of Boston. The value of the cargo does not appear, nor is any claim filed therefor. IV. The loss to. Samuel Babson by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Sally was as follows: Value of the vessel $1, 650 Freight earnings 950 Amounting in all to 2, 600 The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Sally, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. This was not a claim growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and was not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimant in his representative capacity is the owner of said claim, which has never been assigned, except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claim was relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimant is entitled to the following sums from the United States: Charles F. Trask, administrator of Samuel Babson, two thousand six hun- dred dollars '. |2, 600. 00 Amounting in all to twenty-six hundred dollars. The owner of the cargo is not in court. By the Court. Filed April 1, 1907. A true copy. Test this 11th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SHIP SARAH. [Court of Claims. French, spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel ship Sarah, James Breck, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 934. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Benjamin Cobb, v. The United States. James S. English, administrator of Thomas English, v. The United States. Arthur P. Gushing, administrator of Marston Watson, v. The United States. Walter Hunnewell, administrator of John Welles, v. The United States. Morton Prince, administrator of James Prince, v. The United States. Gordon Dexter, administrator of Samuel Dexter, v. The United States. 3346. Nathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargent, v. The United States. Daniel W. Waldron, administrator of Jacob Sheafe. v. The United States. 3651. Charles K. Cobb, administrator of Stephen Codman, v. The United States. George G. King, administrator of James Scott, v. The United States. Edward I. Browne, administrator of Israel Thorndike, v. The United States. Arthur D. Hill, administrator of Benjamin Homer, v. The United States. Henry W. Edes, administrator of John May, v. The United States. AULOWANCB OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 699 No. of case. Claimant. 3651. John 0. Shaw, administrator of Josiah Knapp, v. The United States. William Ropes Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, v. The United States. H. Burr Crandall, administrator of Thomas Cushing, v. The United States. Jonathan I. Bowditch, administrator of Benjamin Pickman, v. The United States. Arthur T. Lyman, administrator oi Theodore Lyman, v. The United States. Charles K. Cobb, administrator of John Codman, v. The United States. William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, v. The United States. Elisha Whitney, administrator of Thomas Stephens, survivor of the firm of John and Thomas Stephens, v. The United States. John Lowell, administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, v. The United States. Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, v. The United States. W. Rodman Peabody, administrator of Daniel D. Rogers, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 21st day of October, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, and Charles W. Clagett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdcl. CONCLUSIONS OF PACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The ship Sarah, whereof Joseph Breck was master, sailed on a commercial voyage from Norfolk, Va., August 24, 1799, bound for London, England. While peacefully pursuing said voyage the Sarah was seized on the high seas on the 17th day of October, following, by the French privateer Vengeance, Captain Grandideau, and a prize master and crew placed on board with instructions to conduct her to France. While in the possession of the French the Sarah was robbed of some hawsers, coils of rope, a top- mast, medicine chest, and sundry portions of tobacco, the last composing a part of her cargo. On the 22d day of said month of October the Sarah was retaken from the French by the British ship of war Cambrian, under the command of the Hon. Arthur Kayc Legge, and conducted to Plymouth, in England, and said vessel condemned by the British admiralty court to pay a salvage of one-eighth, exclusive of costs and charges. II. The Sarahw&s a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 310 tons burthen, built in the State of Massachusetts in the year 1795, and owned solely by Joseph Rus- sell, jr., and Patrick Jeffrey, citizens of the United States residing m Boston. III. The cargo of the Sarah consisted of tobacco and staves, but it does not appear who were the owners thereof, nor what was the value of the same. IV. August 9, 1799, said Patrick Jeffrey and Joseph Russell effected insurance on said vessel in the office of Peter C. Brooks, insurance broker, in the sum of $12,000, paying therefor a premium of 9 per cent by a policy underwi'itten by the following persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name, viz: John C. Jones $1, 000 Marston Watson $1 , 000 Cornelius Durant 1,000 Benjamin Bussey 1,000 Tuthill Hubbart 1,000 Samuel W. Pomeroy 1,000 Benjamin Cobb 1,000 j John Welles 500 John McLean 1,000 James Prince 500 William Smith 1,000 | Samuel Dexter 500 Thomas English 500 | Stephen Gorham , 1,000 Thereafter said Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $2,013.60 as and for a loss arising by reason of the premises, the same being a loss to each of said underwriters of 16.78 per cent of the amount underwritten by him. September 9, 1799, said Patrick Jeffrey and Joseph Russell effected insurance on the freight of said vessel in the office of Joseph Taylor, insurance broker, in the sum of $12,000, paying therefor a premium of 9 per cent, by a policy underwritten by the 700 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. following persons, all of whom, were citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name, viz: Benjamin Pickman $500 Theodore Lyman 500 John Codman 1, 000 Nicholas Gilman 1, 000 Jacob Sheafe 500 John & Thomas Stephens 600 Tuthill Hubbart 500 Samuel W. Pomeroy 1, 000 Daniel D. Rogers 800 Stephen Codman $500 James Scott 500 Daniel Sargent 700 Israel Thorndike 500 Benjamin Homer 500 John C. Jones 500 John May 500 Josiah Knapp 500 Thomas Amory 1, 000 Thomas Cushing 400 Thereafter said Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $1,992, as and for a loss arising by reason of the premises, the same being a loss to each of said under- writers of 16.60 per cent of the amount underwritten by him. V. After said payment, to wit, April 4, 1808, the administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, for and in consideration of $60,000. to them paid by Peter G. Brooks, and the assump- tion of all responsibiltiy of said Hubbart as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all the interest of said Hubbart in said business. After said payment, to wit, January 7, 1804, for and in consideration of $181.70 and the assumption of all responsibility of Cornelius Durant as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks, the said Durant assigned to the said Brooks all his interest in said business. After said payment, to wit, February 8, 1892, for and in consideration of $3,000 and the assumption of all responsibility of John McLean as an underwriter in the office of Peter C. Brooks, Isaiah Knapp, executor, etc., of John McLean, assigned to said Brooks all the interest of said McLean in said business. After said payment, to wit, December 16 1801 for and in consideration of $3,715.50 and the assumption of all responsibility of William Smith as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks, said Smith assigned to said Brooks all his interest in said business. After said payment, to wit, February 15, 1805, for and in consideration of $10,000 and the assumption of all responsibility of Benjamin Bussey as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks, said Bussey assigned to said Brooks all his interest in said business. After said payment, to wit. February 7, 1804, for and in consideration of $4,900 and the assumption of all responsibility of S. W. Pomeroy as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks, said Pomeroy assigned to said Brooks all his interest in said business. After said payment, to wit, November 21, 1801, for and in consideration of $2,986.65 and the assumption of all responsibility of Stephen Gorham as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks, said Gorham assigned to said Brooks all his interest in said business. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the ship Sarah as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819. and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 701 of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, one thousand one hun- dred and seventh-four dollars and sixty cents $1, 174. 60 Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, two hundred and fifty dollars and eighty cents 250. 80 Francis M. Boutwell. administrator of Benjamin Cobb, one hundred and sixty-seven dollars and eighty cents 167. 80 James S. Eriglish. administrator of Thomas English, eighty-three dollars and ninety cents 83. 90 Arthur P. Gushing, administrator of Marston Watson, one hundred and sixty-seven dollars and eighty cents 167 . 80 Walter Hunnewelk administrator of John Welles, eighty-three dollars and ninety cents 83. 90 Morton Prince, administrator of James Prince, eighty-three dollars and ninety cents 83. 90 Gordon Dexter, administrator of Samuel Dexter, eighty-three dollars and ninety cents 83. 90 Xathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargent, one hundred and sixteen dollars and twenty cents 116. 20 Daniel W. Waldron administrator of Jacob Sheafe. eighty-three dollars. . . 83.00 Charles K. Cobb, administrator of Stephen Codman. eighty-three dollars. . 83.00 George G. King, administrator of James Scott, eighty-three dollars 83. 00 Edward I. Browne administrator of Israel Thorndike. eighty- three dollars. 83.00 Arthur D. Hill, administrator of Benjamin Homer, eighty-three dollars ... 83. 00 Henry W. Edes administrator of John May. eighty-three dollars 83. 00 John O. Shaw, administrator of Josiah Knapp. eighty-three. dollars 83. 00 William Ropes Trask. administrator of Thomas Aniory. one hundred and sixty-six dollars .' 166. 00 H. Burr Crandall, administrator of Thomas Cushing. sixty-six dollars and forty cents 66. 40 Jonathan I. Bowditch. administrator of Benjamin Pickman. eightv-three dollars 83. 00 Arthur T. I Annan, administrator of Theodore Lyman, eighty-three dollars. . 83. 00 Charles K. Cobb, administrator of John Codman. one hundred and sixty- six dollars 166. 00 William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, one hundred and sixty-six dollars 166. 00 Elisha Whitney, administrator of Thomas Stephens for and on behalf of the firm of John and Thomas Stephens, ninety-nine dollars and sixty cents. . 99. 60 John Lowell, administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, eighty-three dollars 83. 00 Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, one hundred and sixty-six dollars - 166. 00 W. Rodman Peabody, administrator of Daniel D. Rogers, one hundred and L. thirty-two dollars and eighty cents 132. 80 Amounting in all to four thousand and five dollars and sixty cents. . 4, 005. 60 No person claiming to represent the vessel and cargo owners have appeared herein. By the Court. Filed October 28. 1907. A true copy. Test this 6th day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. SCHOONER SYLVANUS. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Sylvanus, Edward D. Baker, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 2230. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Abraham Touro, v. The United States. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. James C. Davis, administrator of Cornelius Durant, v. The United States. 3644. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. Henry Parkman. administrator of John Lovett, v. The United States. 702 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. No. of ease. Claimant. 3644. Arthur D. Hill, administrator of Benjamin Horner, v. The United States. Edward I. Browne, administrator of Israel Thorndike, v. The United States. Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. James C. Davis, administrator of Cornelius Durant, v. The United States. John Lowell, jr., administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, v. The United States. 3645. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. 3646. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. Charles K. Cobb, administrator of Stephen Codman, v. The United States. William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, v. The United State?. Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. 2403. Nathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargent, v. The United States. 4193. Chandler Robbins, administrator of Joseph Russell, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of March, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney- General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq.,, with whom was Assistant At- torney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. CONCLUSIONS OP PACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The schooner Sylvanup, Edward D. Baker, master, sailed on a commercial voy- age on or about April 27, 1800, from the island of Martinique bound to Boston. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on May 1, 1800, by the French pri- vateer L' Industrie, Captain Gavotte, and carried into the island of Guadaloupe. May 4, 1800 (Floreal 15, year 8), said vessel and cargo were condemned by the tribunal of commerce and prizes sitting at Basseterre, Guadaloupe, on the following grounds : "That the master of the vessel has no role d'equipage but simply an agreement with his crew. "That the vessel had taken on board at Martinique, an English island, a cargo of molasses, sugar, and coffee of the growth of said island." II. The schooner Sylvanus was a duly registered vessel of the United States of G9f| tons burthen, built in Massachusetts in the year 1798, and was owned by Edward D. Baker, Baker Baker, Scollay Baker, Calvin Turner, and Ichabod Thomas, all citizens of the United States. III. The cargo of the Sylvanus at the time of capture consisted of molasses, coffee, and sugar., and was owned by William P. Smith and Edward D. Baker, citizens of the United States. IV. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Sylvanus were as follows: Value of vessel $2, 760. 00 Freight earnings 1, 150. 00 Value of cargo -. . 5, 207. 24 Premiums of insurance paid 1, 196. 00 Amounting in all to •. 30, 313. 24 Deduct insurance received 8, 600. 00 Net loss 1, 713. 24 V. February 24, 1800, Edward D. Baker, Baker Baker, Scollay Baker, Calvin Turner, and Ichabod Thomas, owners of the vessel, effected insurance thereon in the office of Joseph Taylor, insurance broker of Boston, in the sum of $2,500, paying there- for a premium of 15 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, each in the sum set opposite their names, respectively, viz: Daniel Sargent $600. 00 John C. Jones 500. 00 Stephen Codman 700. 00 Nicholas Gilman 700. 00 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 703 October 15, 1800, said Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $2,500, being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises. VI. February 24, 1800, Edward D. Baker, owner of certain property on board said vessel, effected insurance on the same in the office of Joseph Taylor, in the sum of $700, paying therefor a premium of 8 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the follow- ing person, viz: John C. Jones :...■. $700. 00 Thereafter said Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $700, being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises. VII. February 26, 1800, William P. Smith, owner of the cargo, effected insurance on said goods in the office of Joseph Taylor, in the sum of $4,500, paying therefor a pre- mium of 15 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, each in the sum set opposite their names, respectively, viz: Israel Thorndike $600. 00 John Lovett 300. 00 Tuthill Hubbart 800. 00 John C. Jones 500. 00 Benjamin Homer 500. 00 Cornelius Durant 1, 000. 00 Jeffrey & Russell 800. 00 August 28, 1800, said Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $4,500, being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises. The firm of Jeffrey & Russell was composed of Joseph Russell and Patrick Jeffrey, of which firm said Russell was the survivor. VIII. June 10, 1800, William P. Smith, owner of the cargo, effected insurance on said goods in the office of Abraham Touro, insurance broker of Boston, in the sum of $3,000, paying therefor a premium of 10 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the follow- ing-named persons each in the sum set opposite their names, respectively, viz: Crowell Hatch $500. 00 Cornelius Durant 500. 00 William Smith 500.00 John C . Jones 500. 00 James Scott. 500. 00 Samuel W . Pomeroy 500. 00 February 19, 1801, said Touro, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of ! as and for a total loss by reason of the premises, the said William P. Smith, having been previously insured to the value of his said property less said sum of $900, the same being a loss to Crowell Hatch, the first underwriter on said policy, in the sum of $500, and to Cornelius Durant, the second underwriter thereon, in the sum of $400. William Smith, John C- Jones, James Scott, and Samuel W. Pomeroy suffered no loss on this policy. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Sylvanus, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. ' CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France 704 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: Nathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargeant, six hundred dollars. $600. 00 Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, one thousand seven hundred dollars 1, 700. 00 Charles K. Cobb, administrator of Stephen Codman, seven hundred dollars. . 700. 00 William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman. seven hundred dollars. . 700. 00 Edward I. Browne, administrator of Israel Thorndike, six hundred dollars. . 600. 00 Henry Parlanan, administrator of John Lovett. three hundred dollars 300. 00 John Lowell, jr., administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, eight hundred dollars. . . 800. 00 Arthur D. Hill, administrator of Benjamin Homer, five hundred dollars < 500. 00 James C. Davis, administrator of Cornelius Durant, one thousand four hun- dred dollars 1, 400. 00 Chandler Robbins. administrator of Joseph Russell, eight hundred dolllars. . 800. 00 George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, five hundred dollars 500. 00 Amounting in all to eight thousand six hundred dollars 8, 600. 00 The owners of the vessel, freight, and cargo are not in court. By the Court. Filed March 18, 1907. A true copy. Test this 6th day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SCHOONER VENUS. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Venus, Benjamin Hooper, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 879. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John. C. Jones, v. The United States. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Benjamin Cobb, v. The United States. 2066. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 3060. Daniel W. Waldron, administrator of Jacob Sheafe, v. The United States. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Benjamin Cobb, -v. The United States. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of John McLean, v. The United States. 3687. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. W. Rodman Peabody, administrator of Daniel D. Rogers, v. The United States. Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, v. The United States. William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, v. The United States. Elisha Whitney, administrator of Thomas Stevens, v. The United States. William R. Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, v. The United States. Edward I. Browne, administrator of Moses Brown, v. The United States. Charles K. Cobb, administrator of Stephen Codman, v. The United States. Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, v. The United States. 5027. George G. King, administrator of James Scott, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 13th day of March, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, and Charles W. Claggett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-Gen- eral, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. CONCLUSIONS OF PACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I: The schooner Venus, Benjamin Hooper, master, sailed on a commercial voyage June 6, 1799, from Boston bound for Barbadoes. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas, July 2, 1799, by the French privateer Italie Conquise, and conducted to Port Liberty, and afterwards, to wit, July 10, 1799, both vessel and cargo were condemned as good prize for the benefit of the captors by the tribunal of commerce sitting at Basseterre, in the island of Guadaloupe, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners thereof . The grounds of condemnation as set forth in the decree were as follows, viz: "That the neutral ownership of the cargo was not sufficiently proven. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 705 "That the vessel carried no rdle d Equipage." II. The Venus was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 110| | tons burthen, built in Massachusetts in the year 1795, owned by William Marshall, jr., and Benjamin Hooper in the proportion of two-thirds and one-third, respectively, and in the same proportion they were the owners of the cargo of said vessel at the date of seizure, con- sisting of beef, flour, and other provisions, tobacco, and lumber, the reasonable value of which vessel was at the time at least $4,500 and the value of said cargo at the time was at least $8,900, on which insurance was effected as stated below. Both of said owners were citizens of the United States, residing in Boston. III. June 3, 1799, Benjamin Hooper effected through the'office of Peter C. Brooks insurance on one-third of the vessel and cargo in the sum of $5,000, paying therefor a premium of 20 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States, each in the sums set opposite his name, viz: John C. Jones $1, 000 Crowell Hatch 1, 000 Thomas English 500 Daniel D. Roarers 500 Benjamin Cobb $500 Benjamin Homer 500 Tuthill Hubbart 1, 000 Thereafter the said Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $5,000, as and for a total loss by reason of the premises. June 4, 1799, William Marshall, jr., effected through the office of Joseph Taylor, insurance on two-thirds of the vessel and cargo in the sum of $8,400, paying therefor a premium of 17 J per cent: the policy was underwritten by the following-named per- sons, all of whom were citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name, viz: Jacob Sheafe $500 Thomas Amory 500 Moses Brown ' 500 ■ Stephen Codman 400 John C. Jones 900 Tuthill Hubbart 400 John McLean $1, 000 Daniel D. Rogers 500 Samuel W. Pomeroy 1, 000 Nicholas Gilman 1, 000 John and Thomas Stevens 600 Benjamin Cobb 500 James Scott 600 \ Thereafter the said Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the insured the sum of $8,400, as and for a total loss by reason of the premises. The firm of John and Thomas Stevens was composed solely of John Stevens and Thomas Stevens, the last named being the surviving partner of the firm. October 19, 1804, Daniel D. Rogers, for and in consideration of $3,400 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by the said Brooks of any and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of the said Brooks. July 23, 1805, Benjamin Homer, for and in consideration of $5,000 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by the said Brooks of any and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an under- writer in the office of said Brooks. April 4, 1808, the administrators of Tuthill Hubbart, for and in consideration of $60,000 to them paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by the said Brooks of any and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from the underwriting of said Hubbart in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all the right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by the said Hubbart as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered # loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Venus, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their respective capacity, are the owners' of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the S. Rep. 382, 60-1 45 706 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty, in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are t entitled^to^the following sums from the United Statee Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, two thousand dollars $2, 000.00 James S. English, administrator of Thomas English, five hundred dollars. . 500. 00 George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, one thousand dollars 1, 000. 00 Daniel W. Waldron, administrator of Jacob Sheafe, five hundred dollars. . 500.00 Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Benjamin Cobb, one thousand dol- lars 1, 000. 00 Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of John McLean, one thousand dollars. 1, 000. 00 W. Rodman Peabody, administrator of Daniel D. Rogers, five hundred dol- lars 500. 00 Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, one thousand dollars. 1, 000. 00 William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, one thousand dollars. 1, 000. 00 Elisha Whitney, administrator of Thomas Stevens, for and on behalf of the firm of John and Thomas Stevens, six hundred dollars 600. 00 William R. Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, five hundred dollars. . 500. 00 Edward I. Brown, administrator of Moses Brown, five hundred dollars 500. 00 Charles K. Cobb, administrator of Stephen Codman, four hundred dollars. . 400. 00 Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, one thousand nine hun- dred dollars 1, 900. 00 A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, four hundred dol- lars 400. 00 George G. King, administrator of James Scott, six hundred dollars 600. 00 Amounting in all to thirteen thousand four hundred dollars 13, 400. 00 Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, has proved no valid claim other than in favor of those who underwrote the insurance effected through the office of said Taylor, as hereinbefore set forth. The owners of the vessel, cargo, and freight are not in court. By the Court. Filed April 1, 1907. A true copy. Test this 13th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SCHOONER SYREN. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Syren, Jared Arnold, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 3087. Charles J. Bonaparte, administrator of Benjamin Williams, v. The United States. 3087. David Stewart, administrator of William Wood, jr., v. The United States. 3409. Antoinette Williams, administratrix of John McFadon. Henry W. Ellicott, administrator of William McFadon, v. The United States. James Lawson, administrator of Richard Lawson, v. The United States. 4848. David Stewart, administrator of Henry Payson, v. The United States. 2555. Richard Delafield, administrator of John Delafield, v. The United States. 5559. William H. S. Elting, administrator of Peter Elting, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of March, 1907. The claimants were represented by Frank P. Clark, William T. S. Curtis, and Theo- dore J. Pickett, and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. CONCLUSIONS OP PACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The schooner Syren, Jared Arnold master, sailed on a commercial voyage in the latter part of September, 1798, from Norfolk, Va. , bound to Laguira. While peacefully ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 707 pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas on or about October 22, 1798, by the French privateer L' Amour de la Patrie, Captain Souloumide, who conducted said vessel to Basseterre, Guadaloupe, and she was thereafter on October 26, 1798 (5 Brumire, year 7), condemned by the tribunal of commerce and prizes sitting at that place on the following ground : "That the crew of the Syren was composed of eight men, two of whom were Portu- guese and one an Englishman, enemies of the French Republic." II. The Syren was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 113*§ tons burthen; built in the State of Massachusetts in year 1794, and owned by the following persons: Benjamin Williams, one-fourth; William Wood, jr., one-fourth; Henry Payson, one- fourth; and William McFadon & Co. (composed of William McFadon, John McFadon, and Richard Lawson), one-fourth. III. The cargo of the Syren at the time of seizure consisted of flour, and was of the value of $6,128.33. Said cargo was owned by Benjamin Williams, William Wood, jr., Henry Payson, and William McFadon & Co. in the same proportions as the vessel. IV. The loss to the owners of the vessel and cargo by reason of the seizure and condemnation aforesaid was as follows: Value of vessel $4. 520. 00 Freight earnings 1, 610. 00 Value of cargo. 6, 128. 33 Premium of insurance paid 250. 00 Amounting in all to 12, 508. 33 Deduct insurance received 1, 716. 80 Net loss 10, 791. 53 V. October 24, 1798, William McFadon & Co. effected in the city of New York insur- ance on the cargo in the sum of $2,000, paying therefor a premium of 12£, said policy being underwritten by the firm of Church & Del afield to the full amount of said policy. Thereafter, to wit, June 10, 1799, said Church & Delafield duly paid the said assured the sum of $1,716.80, being for a loss by reason of the premises. VI. Benjamin Williams was the owner of one-fourth of vessel and cargo. His losses were as follows: One fourth value of vessel $1, 130. 00 One-fourth freight earnings 402. 50 One-fourth value of cargo 1, 532. 08 Total 3, 064. 58 Henry Payson and William Wood, jr., were likewise each the owner of one-fourth of vessel and cargo, and their losses therefore each amount to the sum of $3,064.58, as above. William McFadon & Co. were the owners of one-fourth of vessel and cargo. Their losses were as follows. One-fourth value of vessel $1, 130. 00 One-fourth freight earnings 402. 50 One-fourth value of cargo : 1, 532. 09 Premium of insurance paid 250. 00 Amounting in all to 3, 314. 59 Deduct insurance received 1, 716. 80 Net loss to firm 1, 597 . 79 The loss to said firm of William McFadon & Co., being the sum of $1,597.79, the indi- vidual loss of said members is as follows: John McFadon $532. 59 William McFadon 532. 60 Richard Lawson 532. 60 On April 10, 1839, John McFadon, being largely indebted to the United States, for and in consideration of the sum of ten dollars to him paid by the United States, assigned and transferred to the United States all his right, title, and interest in and to any claim for indemnity for spoliations by the French prior to 1800, that he, the said John McFadon, may have against the said United States. No recovery can therefore be had herein for the estate of said John McFadon. 708 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. VII. The firm of Church & Delafield was composed of John Delafield and John Barker Church, of which John Delafield was the surviving partner. The claimants have produced letters of ad ministration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Syren, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1808. They were not claims grow- ing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were ille- gal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefore upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: Charles J. Bonaparte, administrator of Benjamin Williams, three thousand and sixty-four dollars and fifty-eight cents $3, 064. 58 David Stewart, administrator of William Wood, jr., three thousand and sixty-four dollars and fifty-eight cents 3, 064. 58 David Stewart, administrator of Henry Payson, three thousand and sixty- four dollars and fifty-eight cents 3, 064. 58 Henry W. Ellicott, administrator of William McFadon, five hundred and thirty-two dollars and' sixty cents 532. 60 James Lawson, administrator of Richard Lawson, five hundred and thirty- two dollars and sixty cents 532. 60 Richard Dalafield, administrator of John Dalafield, surviving partner of Church & Dalafield, one thousand seven hundred and sixteen dollars and eighty cents 1, 716. 80 Amounting in all to eleven thousand nine hundred and seventy-five " dollars and seventy-four cents 11, 975. 74 William H. S. Elting, administrator of Peter Elting, has proved no valid claim. By the Court. Filed March 18, 1907. A true copy. Test this 14th day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] . John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. BRIG BROTHERS. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel brig Brothers, George Parsons, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 936. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. Chandler Robbins, administrator of Joseph Russell, v. The United. States. Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. 1895. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 2834. David G. Haskins, administrator of David Greene, v. The United States. 3449. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. [preliminary statement. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of March, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, esqrs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his- ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 70& assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer,"esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. jgjj CONCLUSIONS OP FACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The brig Brothers, whereof George Parsons was master, sailed from the port of Savannah, Ga., September 15, 1799, bound for Martinique. On the 11th day of Octo- ber following the Brothers arrived at Bermuda, and on the 24th of the same month she departed from Bermuda on her intended voyage to Martinique, and on the 6th day of November following, while peacefully pursuing said voyage, was seized by a French privateer from Guadaloupe, which placed a prize master on board, with orders to proceed to said island; but on the same day was retaken by the United States brig Pickering and conducted to the island of St. Christopher and upon payment of the usual salvage was released, and on the 19th day of December following sailed there- from, bound to Martinique, and while peacefully pursuing her said voyage was seized on the 23d day of said month by the French privateer Cygne, Captain Lora- illes, and a prize crew placed on board, which conducted the Brothers to the island of Guadaloupe, and on the 29th day of the said month both vessel and cargo were condemned as good prize and ordered sold for the benefit of the captors by the tri- bunal of commerce and prizes, sitting at Basseterre, in the said island, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners thereof. The grounds of condemnation as stated in the decree were as follows, viz: Considering that from the said analyzed papers and from the aforesaid report of examination it is evident that everything demonstrates that the cargo belongs to Messrs. Richard Shelmerding and Andrew Charrurier, merchants of Martinique, who have chartered the vessel in question pursuant to a charter party which is appended to the said papers and which was entered into at the island of Martinique July 7, 1799, and from the statement made by the captain of the said vessel, who says that he believes that the said cargo is for the account of merchants of Martinique. Considering that the captain has no r61e d'equipage whatever, having admitted in his examination that he had none, but only agreements made with his crew, an imperfect document, not being invested with the signatures of public officers. II. The Brothers was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 150 tons burthen, built at Alexandria, in the. State of Virginia, in the year 1785, and owned solely by David Greene, a citizen of the United States residing m Boston, in the State of Massa- chusetts. III. The cargo of the Brothers consisted of rice, tobacco, and shingles and was owned by the firm of Dennison & Williams, for whom no claim has been filed. The value of the cargo does not appear. John Blanchard, a citizen of the United States, was the owner of an adventure on board consisting of soap and beef of the value per invoice of $130.70, exclusive of pre- mium of insurance paid. IV. The loss to David Greene by the seizure and condemnation of the Brothers was as follows, viz : Value of the vessel $4, 000. 00 Freight earnings (none allowed). Premium of insurance paid 648. 00 Amounting in all to 4, 648. 00 Deduct insurance received . 3, 600. 00 Net loss to David Greene 1, 048. 00 V. September 23, 1799, David Greene effected, through the office of Peter C. Brooks, insurance on the vessel in the sum of $3,600, paying therefor a premium of 18 per cent, the policy being underwritten as follows, viz: Jeffrey & Russell $500. 00 John C. Jones 1, 000. 00 Benjamin Bussey 1, 000. 00 Stephen Gorham ' 600. 00 William H. Bordman 500. 00 Thereafter said Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $3,600 as and for a total loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of said vessel by the French. ;*710 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. September 23, 1799, David Greene effected, through the office of Peter C. Brooks, insurance on the freight, but, the neutrality of the cargo not being shown, the insur- ance thereon is not allowed. January 6, 1800, John Blanchard effected, through the office of Joseph Taylor, in- surance on the cargo in the sum of $140, paying therefor a premium of 14 per cent, the policy being underwritten as follows, viz: John C. Jones $140. 00 Thereafter said Taylor, as agent, duly paid to said assured the sum of $140 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises. The value of said cargo so insured was $136.70, and said Blanchard was therefore overinsured in the sum of $3.30. The amount recoverable on this policy is therefore the said sum — $136.70. All of the above-named underwriters were citizens of the United States. After said payment, to wit, February 15, 1805, for and in consideration of $10,000 to him paid and the assumption of all his responsibility as an underwriter in the office of said Peter C. Brooks, said Benjamin Bussey assigned to said Brooks all his interest in said business. After said payment, to wit, November 21, 1801, for and in consideration of $2,986.65 to him paid and the assumption of all his responsibility as an underwriter hi the office of said Peter C. Brooks, said Stephen Gorham assigned to the said Brooks all his interest in and to said business. After said payment, to wit, November 15, 1804, for and in consideration of $13,250 to him paid and the assumption of all his responsibility as an underwriter in the office of said Peter C. Brooks, said William H. Bordman assigned to said Brooks all his interest in said business. The firm of Jeffrey & Russell was composed solely of Patrick Jeffrey and Joseph Russell, the last named being the surviving partner of the firm. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Brothers, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the follow- ing sums from the United States: Brooks Adams, adminstrator of Peter C. Brooks, two thousand one hundred dollars $2,100.00 Chandler Robbins, administrator of Joseph Russell, surviving partner of Jeffrey & Russell, five hundred dollars 500. 00 Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, one thousand one hun- dred and thirty-six dollars and seventy cents 1, 136. 70 David G. Haskins, administrator of David Greene, one thousand and forty- eight dollars :. 1,048.00 Amounting in all to four thousand seven hundred and eighty-four dollars and seventy cents 4, 784. 70 The owners of the cargo are not in court. By the Coukt. Filed April 1, 1907. A true copy. Test this 13th day of December, 1907. [seal.1 John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 711 SCHOONER ISABELLA. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Isabella. Lewis Lombard, master.] No. of . case. Claimant. 3101. Charles L. De Normandie, administrator of estate of Benjamin Smith, deceased, v. the United States. 499. Brooks Adams, administrator of the estate of Peter C. Brooks, deceased, v. The United States. ]501. James G. Freeman, receiver of the Boston Marine Insurance Company, v. The United States. 3030. Nathan Matthews, administrator of the estate of Daniel Sargent, deceased, v. The United States. 3554. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of the estate of Joseph Taylor, deceased, v. The United States. 3554. George G. King, administrator of the estate of James Scott, deceased, v. The United States. 3554. William G. Perry, administrator of the estate of Nicholas Gilman, deceased, v. The United States. 3554. Jonathan Bowditch, administrator of the estate of Benjamin Pickman, de- ceased, v. The United States. 3554. Edward I. Browne, administrator of the estate of Israel Thorndike, deceased, v. The United States. 3554. Augustus P. Loring, administrator of the estate of W. H. Boardman, deceased, v. The United States. 3555. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of the estate of Joseph Taylor, deceased, v. The United States. 3555. David G. Haskins, administrator of the estate of David Greene, deceased, v. The United States. 3555. Charles K. Cobb, administrator of the estate of Stephen Codman, deceased, v. The United States. 3555. A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of the estate of Tuthill Hubbart, deceased, v. The United States. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 7th day of November, 1907. The claimants were represented by Charles W. Clagett, Wm. T. S. Curtis, and Theodore J. Pickett, esqrs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney- General, through his assistants in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer and Stan- hope Henry, esqrs., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. FINDINGS OP PACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The schooner Isabella, Lewis Lombard, master, sailed on the 29th day of April, 1800, on a commercial voyage from Boston, Mass., bound for the island of St. Thomas. While peacefully pursuing said voyage, she was captured on the 30th day of May, 1800, on the high seas by a squadron of three war ships of the French Republic and a schooner of four guns from Cayenne, under command of Captain Bordeson, who acted as commodore of said squadron. The master was ordered aboard said French schooner, and then ordered before the commodore of said squadron. While he was on board the commodore's ship the boats of the whole French squadron boarded the Isabella, broke open the hatches, and plundered said vessel of provisions and every article they could lay their hands on. After the Isabella had been plundered, the master was ordered aboard his vessel, and he and the mate of the Isabella were directed to get their things, and were then put aboard the American schooner Sally, Capt. Jesse Smith, from Philadelphia. The Sally, which had been captured and plundered by said squadron, was directed to proceed on her voyage. Nothing was thereafter heard of said schooner Isabella, and she became a total loss to her owners. II. The Isabella was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 83|| tons bur- then; was built at New Castle, Mass., in 1791, and was owned by Benjamin Smith one-half, John Smith one-fourth, and Daniel Sargent one-fourth, all of whom were citi- zens of the United States. III. The cargo of the Isabella at the time of capture consisted of fish, beef, pork, shooks, hoops, lard, and dry goods, and was owned by the said Benjamin Smith, John Smith, and Daniel Sargent, and was valued as set forth below. 712 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Lewis Lombard, the master of the Isabella, also a citizen of the United States, had. an adventure on board, which was of the value of at least the sum insured thereon. IV. The losses to the owners by reason of the capture of the Isabella were as follows: Value of vessel $2, 490. 00 Freight earnings 1, 383. 33 Value of cargo 3, 478. 87 Value of individual invoice owned by Benjamin Smith 424. 16 Value of master's adventure (as far as covered by insurance) 100. 00 Premium of insurance paid (on insurance effected before capture) 260. 00 Amounting in all to. 8, 136. 36 Deduct insurance received 5, 600. 00 Total loss 2, 536 . 36 The loss to Benjamin Smith by reason of said seizure was as follows: One-half value of vessel $1, 245. 00 One-half freight earnings 691. 66 One-half value of cargo 1, 739. 43 Value of individual invoice 424. 16 Premium of insurance paid. 260. 00 Amounting in all to 4, 360. 25 Deduct insurance received 2, 600.00 Net loss "'. 1, 760. 25 The loss to Daniel Sargent by reason of said seizure was as follows: One-fourth value of vessel $622. 50 One-fourth freight earnings 345. 84 One-fourth value of cargo 869. 72 Amounting in all to 1, 838. 06 Deduct insurance received 1, 500. 00 Net loss 4 338. 06 V. On the 18th day of June, 1800, Daniel Sargent insured his interest in the vessel and cargo in the Boston Marine Insurance Company in the sum of $1,500, at a premium of 20 per cent. Thereafter, on the 26th day of September, 1800, said company duly paid the insured the sum of $1,500, being in full for total loss on the above policy. VI. On the 20th day of May, 1800, Benjamin Smith effected in the office of Joseph Taylor insurance on his interest in the vessel and cargo in the sum of $2,600, paying therefor a premium of 10 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following- named persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name: James Scott ' $600.00 Nicholas Gilman 600. 00 Benjamin Picknian 500. 00 Israel Thorndike 500. 00 William H. Boardman 400.00 Thereafter, on October 13, 1800, the said Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said insured the sum of $2,600, being in full for total loss on the above policy. VII. On the 13th day of May, 1800, John Smith insured his interest in the vessel and cargo in the office of Joseph Taylor in the sum of $1,400, paying therefor a premium of 10 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following-named persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name: David Greene $500. 00 Stephen Codman 400. 00 Tuthill Hubbart 500. 00 Thereafter, on October 13, 1800, the said Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said insured the sum of $1,400, being in full for a total loss on the above policy. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 713 VIII. On the 29th day of April, 1800, Lewis Lombard, the master of said vessel, effected insurance in the office of Peter C. Brooks on his adventure on board said vessel, in the sum of $100, paying therefor a premium of 20 per cent, said policy being under- written by John C. Jones, a citizen of the United States, for the sum of $100. Thereafter, on October 30, 1800, Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said insured the sum of $100, being in full for a total loss on the above policy. There was also included in the above policy an insurance on the commissions of the master, but no recovery can be had therefor. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure of the Isabella, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, were the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: Charles L. De Normandie, administrator of Benjamin Smith, one thousand seven hundred and sixty dollars and twenty-five cents $1, 760. 25 Nathan Matthews, administrator of Daniel Sargent, three hundred and thirty-eight dollars and six cents 338. 06 Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, one hundred dollars . . . 100. 00 James G. Freeman, receiver of the Boston Marine Insurance Company, one thousand five hundred dollars 1, 500. 00 George G. King, administrator of James Scott, six hundred dollars 600. 00 William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Oilman, six hundred dollars. . 600. 00 Jonathan I. Bowditch, administrator of Benjamin Pickman, five hundred dollars , 500. 00 Edward I. Browne, administrator of Israel Thorndike, five hundred dollars . 500. 00 Augustus P. Loring, administrator of William H. Boardman, four hundred dollars 400. 00 David G. Haskins, administrator of David Greene, five hundred dollars .. . 500. 00 Charles K. Cobb, administrator of Stephen Codman, four hundred dollars. . 400. 00 A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, five hundred dol- lars 500.00 Amounting in all to seven thousand six hundred and ninety-eight dollars and thirty-one cents 7, 698. 31 No person claiming to represent John Smith, part owner of vessel and cargo, has appeared herein. The estates of Peter C. Brooks and Joseph Taylor have proved no valid claims. By the Court. Filed December 2, 1907. A true copy. Test this 13th day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 714 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. SCHOONER COLLY. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Colly, William Mariner, master.] No. of case. 1822. 2024. 3476. Claimant. / Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, v. The United States. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, v. The United States. George G. King, administrator of James Scott, v. The United States. William P. Perkins, administrator of Thomas Perkins, v. The United States. Charles A. Welsh, administrator of William Stackpole, v. The United States. Walter Hunnewell, administrator of Arnold Welles, jr., v. The United States. Walter Hunnewell, administrator of John Welles, v. The United States. Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, v. The United States. David G. Haskins, administrator of David Greene, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of March, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney- General J. A. Van Orsdel. CONCLUSIONS OF PACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The schooner Colly, William Mariner, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about March 7, 1798, from Boston, bound to Surinam. Seized in the harbor of Cay- enne, where the vessel had put in distress, by the officers of that port, on the 12th day of April, 1798. Condemned by the tribunal of public arbitrators of the department of the colony of Cayenne same day — April 12, 1798 — (23 Germinal, year 6) on the fol- lowing ground: "That the r61e d'equipage carried by the said master was not in the required form, it not having contained the names of two passengers on board." II. The schooner Colly was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 59 tons burthen; built in the State of Virginia in the year 1789, and owned solely by Peter William Mariner, master of said vessel, who was a citizen of the United States. III. The cargo of the Colly at the time of seizure and condemnation consisted of cables, butter, cordage, copper, nails, pork, staves, and cheese, and was owned by the master, William Mariner. IV. The cargo was overinsured, as shown below, but the actual loss on the cargo was $8,154, plus $1,630.80, premium of insurance paid on the actual value of the cargo, makes total loss thereon $9,784.80; insurance received, $9,784.80. V. March 7, 1798, Mungo Mackay, as agent for William Mariner, effected insurance in the office of Joseph Taylor, an insurance broker of Boston, to the amount of $5,000 on the cargo, paying therefor a premium of 20 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, each in the sum set opposite their names, respectively, viz: Nathaniel Fellowes $1, 000 James Scott 500 Thomas Perkins 500 William Stackpole 500 John Welles Arnold Welles, jr 500 Samuel W. Pomeroy 500 David Greene 1, 000 Thereafter said Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $5,000, being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises; but there being an over- insurance on this policy and the one in the Brooks office, the loss on this policy amounted only to the sum of $3,763.38, and the pro rata loss to each underwriter is as follows: Nathaniel Fellowes $752. 68 James Scott 376. 34 Thomas Perkins 376. 34 William Stackpole 376. 34 John Welles 376. 34 Arnold Welles, jr $376. 34 Samuel W. Pomeroy 376. 33 David Greene 752.67 3, 763. 38 ALLOWANCE of certain claims. 715 VI. March 7, 1798, Mungo Mackay, as agent for William Mariner, effected insurance in the office of Peter C. Brooks, insurance broker of Boston, to the amount of $8,000 on the cargo, paying therefor a premium of 20 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, each in the amount set opposite their names, respectively, viz: Daniel Sargent $600 Caleb Hopkins 1,000 Matthew Bridge 400 Benjamin Homer 600 David Greene 1, 000 Crowell Hatch $1, 000 Tuthill Hubbart 1, 000 Nathaniel Fellowes 1, 000 William Smith 1, 000 DanieLT). Rogers 400 Thereafter said Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $8,000, being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises; but there being an over- insurance on this policy as well as the one in the Taylor office, the loss on this policy amounted only^to the sum of $6,021.42, and the pro rata loss to each underwriter is as follows: Crowell Hatch $752. 68 Tuthill Hubbart 752. 68 Nathaniel Fellowes 752. 68 William Smith 752. 68 Daniel D. Rogers 301. 07 Daniel Sargent 451. 61 Caleb Hopkins $752. 67 Matthew Bridge 301. 07 Benjamin Homer 451. 61 David Greene 752. 67 6, 021. 42 After said payment, to wit, December 16, 1801, for and in consideration of $3,715.50 and the assumption of the responsibility of William Smith as an underwriter in the office of Peter C. Brooks, said Smith assigned to said Brooks all his interest in said business. After said payment, to wit, April 4, 1808, for and in consideration of $60,000 and the assumption of the responsibility of Tuthill Hubbart as an underwriter in the office of Peter C. Brooks, said Hubbart assigned to said Brooks all of his interest in said business. After said payment, to wit, October 19, 1804, for and in consideration of $3,400 and the assumption of the responsibility of Daniel D. Rogers as an underwriter in the office of Peter C. Brooks, said Rogers assigned to the said Brooks all of his interest in said business. After said payment, to wit, November 23, 1804, for and in consideration of $3,180.37 and the assumption of the responsibility of Matthew Bridge as an underwriter in the office of Peter C. Brooks, said Bridge assigned to the said Brooks all of his interest in said business. After said payment, to wit, July 23, 1805, for and in consideration of $5,000 and the assumption of the responsibility of Benjamin Homer as an underwriter in the office of Peter C. Brooks, said Homer assigned to the said Brooks all of his interest in said business. After said payment, to wit, December 23, 1801, for and in consideration of $6,000 and the assumption of the responsibility of David Greene as an underwriter in the office of Peter C. Brooks, said Greene assigned to said Brooks all his interest in said business. After said payment, to wit, December 8, 1801, the administrator of Caleb Hopkins, for and in consideration of $3,000 and the assumption of the responsibility of said- Hopkins as an underwriter in the office of Peter C. Brooks, said administrator assigned to the said Brooks all the interest of the said Hopkins in said business. After said payment, to wit, September 2, 1806, for and in consideration of $3,000 and the assumption of the responsibility of Daniel Sargent as an underwriter in the office of Peter C. Brooks, said Sargent assigned to said Brooks all of his interest in said business. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizi&e and condemnation of the schooner Colly as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 716 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the follow- ing sums from the United States: Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, four thousand five hun- dred and sixteen dollars and six cents „ $4, 516. 06 George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, seven hundred and fifty- two dollars and sixty-eight cents 752. 68 A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, one thousand five hundred and five dollars and thirty-six cents 1, 505. 36 George G. King, administrator of James Scott,, three hundred and seventy- six dollars and thirty-four cents .' 376. 34 William P. Perkins, administrator of Thomas Perkins, three hundred and seventy-six dollars and thirty-four cents 376. 34 Charles A. Welsh, administrator of William Stackpole, three hundred and seventy-six dollars and thirty-four cents 376. 34 Walter Hunnewell, administrator of John Wells, three hundred and sev- enty-six dollars and thirty-four cents 376. 34 Walter Hunnewell, administrator of Arnold Wells, jr., three hundred and seventy-six dollars and thirty-four cents 376. 34 Frank Dabney, administrator of Samuel W. Pomeroy, three hundred and seventy-six dollars and thirty-three cents 376. 33 David G. Haskins, administrator of David Greene, seven hundred and fifty- two dollars and sixty-seven cents 752. 67 Amounting in all to nine thousand seven hundred and eighty-four dollars and eighty cents 9 784. 80 The owners of vessel, cargo, and freight are not in court. By the Court. Filed March 18, 1907. A true copy. Test this 13th day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SCHOONER JUNO. {Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d Ed., 471. Vessel schooner, Juno, William Burgess, master.] No. of . case. Claimant. 2360. Cazenove G. Lee, administrator of the estate of James Patton, surviving partner of James Patton and James Dykes, deceased, v. The United States. ■3556. Charles G. Lovering, administrator of the estate of Joseph Taylor, deceased, v. The United States. 3556. John W. Apthorp, administrator of the estate of William Foster, deceased, v. The United States. 3556. William I. Monroe, administrator of the estate of John Brazer, deceased, v. The United States. 3556. William S. Carter, administrator of the estate of William Smith, deceased, v. The United States. 3556. H. Burr Crandall, administrator of the estate of Thomas Dickason, deceased, v. The United States. 3556. Nathan Matthews, administrator of the estate of Daniel Sargent, deceased, v. The United States. 3556. Augustus P. Loring, administrator of the estate of William Boardman, deceased, v. The United States. 3556. Lawrence Bond, administrator of the estate of Nathan Bond, deceased, v. The United States. 3556. David Greene Haskins, administrator of the estate of David Greene, deceased, v. The United States. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 717 No. of case. Claimant. 3556. William G. Perry, administrator of the estate of Nicholas Gilman, deceased, v. The United States. 2102. Montgomery Fletcher, administrator of the estate of John Walter Fletcher, deceased, partner of Fletcher & Otway, v. The United States. 3035. Horace B. Sargent, jr., administrator of the estate of Daniel Sargent, deceased, v. The United States. 3035. William I. Monroe, administrator of the estate of John Brazer, deceased, v. The United States. 5510. William A. Hayes, 2d, administrator of the estate of Eliphalet Ladd, deceased, v. The United States. 4374. Julian T. Burke, administrator of the estate of George Taylor, deceased, v. The United States. 2628. William C. Hill, surviving executor of William W. Corcoran, deceased, v. The United States. 2628. James M. Johnston, administrator of the estate of George W. Biggs, deceased, v. The United States. 2628. Bobert S. Chew, administrator of the estate of Bichard Smith, deceased, v.. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 19th day of March, 1907. The claimants were represented by Charles W. Clagett, William T. S. Curtis, Theo- dore J. Bickett, John St. Clair Brookes, and George S. Boutwell, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer and Stanhope Henry, esqs., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. CONCLUSIONS OP PACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The schooner Juno, William Burgess, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from Alexandria, Va., June 15, 1796, bound for Bort au Prince. While peacefully pursu- ing said voyage she was captured on the high seas on the 18th day of July, 1796, by the French barge La Bonne, Nouvelle, and carried into the port of Leogane, Hispaniola. The following is the protest of James Merrihew. the mate of the schooner Juno: "By this public instrument of protest, be it known and manifest that on Saturday, the fifth day of November, anno Domini 1796, before me, Samuel Chace, esq., public notary, duly appointed for the town and county of Brovidence. in the State of Bhode Island and Providence Plantations, personally appeared and came James Merrihew, late mate of schooner Juno, of Boston, belonging to Dix and Haskins, merchants there, and being engaged in due form of law doth depose and declare that he sailed out from Boston as mate aforesaid in said schooner under William Burgess, and went to Alex- andria, and took in a cargo there for Bort au Prince, and on the fifteenth day of June left the Cape of Virginia, vessel and cargo then in good order. During our passage passed Cape Nicholas July the fifteenth, and fell in with a fleet of Americans and Engli^n vessels bound to the same Port au Prince under convoy of English armed vessels, and on the eighteenth we were boarded by a French barge named Bonnewal, Peter Tourois, master. They put on board us four armed men, soldiers and a corporal, all French, and we were not any of us allowed to speak with any other American in that place. The captain. William Burgess, was carried on shore and examined and returned that evening; the 19th carried on shore again, when he was abused for that he refused to let them have the cargo at a price they were pleased to offer him. They took from us all our protections and every paper they could find and carried them away in the captain's trunk. "On the twenty-second day the commissary came on board and demanded the captain to set a price on the flour, which he did. They were to give him sixteen dollars a barrel for the superfine and fifteen dollars for the fine and to pay him in coffee at 31 sue in forty-five days, after which the captain attempted to go on shore, but was stopped by the guard and ordered again on board; and on the twenty-third the captain sent me on shore with a line for the privilege to come on shore, but the answer was, No; and on the twenty -fourth the commissary sent on board for four barrels of bread, but the captain would not let it go, so upon this refusal they came on the twenty-fifth on board and took it away by force, and on the twenty-sixth they came on board again and demanded the flour, which we also began to deliver; and on the thirtieth the 718 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. captain got liberty to go on shore, and on July second finished landing our flour; and on the third the captain got a receipt for it, but they took it from him in two hours after and never returned it again; and on the 22d August the commissary sent a boat on board and began to take our bread and meal without asking any questions, and on the eighth September they finished; and on the fifteenth September Captain Burgess died ; and on the twenty-first they told me that they "should give me a receipt for the cargo if I would render an account of the cargo to the administration, which I did, after which they refused to give me any; and whether that I signed was a receipt or not it was not in my power to say, but it was translated as an accompt; agreeable to my accompt; I applied to the administration for meat three times, and he refused to supply me ; and on the twenty-eighth I abandoned the vessel , having nothing on board to subsist on except bread and water; then took passage with Captain Samuel Davis in sloop Union, bound to Providence, and on the evening of the fourth of November arrived and report accordingly." It further appears by letter from William Burgess, master of the schooner Juno, addressed to Patton and Dykes, dated Leogane, Hispaniola, July 26, 1796, that on the 18th of July, 1796, he got within 20 miles of Port au Prince in company with three sails of American vessels bound for that place ; that he was captured by a French pri- vateer and carried into Leogane ; that six armed men were put on board to guard him, and that he was not allowed to advise with any Americans in that port, there being twenty American vessels present, nor even to speak to them from his vessel; that he was carried by a guard of soldiers to the commandant every day for examina- tion; that he was kept as closely confined as a prisoner of war and was not allowed to enter a protest nor even to go on shore without the commandant sending for him, and that then he was driven before a guard of negroes like a dog. On the 9th day of January, 1797, the Juno was condemned by the tribunal of com- merce sitting at Cape Francois, on the following grounds: That the Juno was bound for Port au Prince, and that Port au Prince is one of the places in the colony of San Domingo that have rebelled against the laws of the French Republic and are under the protection of the British Government, and have been declared in a state of permanent seige by the decree of the commission of the 6th of this month. II. The Juno was a duly registered vessel of the United States of lllff tons burthen; was built in the United States and was owned by Dix & Haskins, citizens of the United States, and residents of Boston, Mass. III. The cargo of the Juno consisted of flour, meal, and bread, and was owned by Patton & Dykes, citizens of the United States and residents of ■ Alexandria, Va., to the amount of $8,000 and Dix & Haskins to the amount of $1,800. IV. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Juno were as follows: Value of vessel (to amount of insurance paid) $3, 000. 00 Freight earnings (to amount of insurance paid) 2, 000. 00 Value of cargo owned by Dix & Haskins 1, 800. 00 Value of cargo owned by Patton & Dykes 8, 000. 00 Premium of insurance paid by Patton & Dykes 66. 66 Amounting in all to 14, 866. 66 V. On the 10th day of June, 1796, Dix & Haskins effected insurance in the office of Joseph Taylor, of Boston, Mass., in the sum of $6,800, of which $3,000 thereof was on the vessel, $2,000 on the freight, and $1,800 on the cargo, paying therefor a pre- mium of 7 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States, viz: William Foster $1, 000. 00 John Brazer 1, 000. 00 William Smith 800. 00 Thomas Dickason, jr 500. 00 Daniel Sargent 500. 00 William Boardman 1, 000. 00 • Nathan Bond 500. 00 Nicholas Gilman 500. 00 David Greene 500. 00 Eliphalet Ladd 500. 00 6, 800. 00 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 719 On the 14th day of March, 1797, said Taylor, as agent for the underwriters, paid to Dix & Haskins the said sum of $6,800 as and for a total loss. VI. The firm of Fletcher & Otway for a premium, the amount of which is unknown, insured the said Patton & Dykes £100 or $333.33 on their portion of the cargo on board the Juno at the time of the capture, against said loss. Thereafter the said firm duly paid the said Patton & Dykes the sum of $333.33 as and for a total loss. The said firm of Fletcher & Otway, formerly of Alexandria and Norfolk, in the State of Virginia, was composed of John Walter Fletcher and Robert Otway, both of whom were citizens of the United States, and was dissolved during the lifetime of the mem- bers thereof. VII. George Taylor, a citizen of the United States and resident of Alexandria, Va., for a premium of 10 per cent underwrote to the amount of £200 or $666.67 on a policy of insurance effected on account of said Patton & Dykes, in the office of James Bruce Nichols, insurance broker in said Alexandria, on the 14th June, 1796, on their portion of the cargo on board the Juno at the time of capture, against the said loss. Thereafter the said Taylor duly paid the said Patton & Dykes the sum of $666.67, as and for a total loss. VIII. About July, 1831, said George Taylor, being unable to pay his debts in full, executed an assignment to the president, directors, and company of the Bank of the United States, a corporation chartered by act of Congress approved the 10th day of April, 1816, his claims against the Government of the United States for French spolia- tions committed prior to the treaty of the 30th September, 1800, a schedule of which was attached and included claims as underwriter. Said assignment was to the use of the several parties named, in payment and discharge of their respective demands against him, and in proportion thereto, as follows: Bank of the United States $5, 870. 05 Bank of Alexandria 900. 00 Bank of Potomac, say 750. 00 Indorses, N(athaniel) W(attles) 4, 500, 00 John Corse '. 350. 00 Total 12, 370. 05 Subsequently, to wit, March 2, 1836, said Bank of the United States chartered by act of Congress, as aforesaid, assigned and transferred among other property, to the bank of the same name chartered by an act of the assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, as aforesaid, assigned and transferred, among other property, to James Dundas, Mordecai Louis (Lewis), Samuel W. Jones, Robert L. Pitfield, and Robert Howell the said claim of said Bank of the United States chartered by act of Congress, against the said George Taylor, and said spoliation claims of said George Taylor, then held by said Bank of the United States chartered by act of Congress, as collateral security for the said Taylor's debt, as aforesaid. Subsequently, to wit, August 29, 1846, said James Dundas, Mordecai D. Louis (Lewis), Samuel W. Jones, Robert L. Pitfield, and Robert Howell, by deed, assigned and transferred to said William W. Corcoran said claim against George Taylor for $5,870.05, together with said collateral security. Although said claim against said George Taylor, and said claim of said George Taylor against the United States, before referred to, were assigned and transferred to said William W. Corcoran in severalty, the consideration paid to the said James Dundas, Mordecai D. Louis (Lewis), Samuel W. Jones, Robert L. Pitfield, and Robert Howell for the assignments and transfers aforesaid was contributed equally by said William W. Corcoran, George W. Riggs, and Richard Smith under an agreement existing be- tween them, that the money or property transferred, by virtue of said assignments, should be divided equally between the said three persons, and all property thus far recovered under said assignments has been so divided. IX. The losses to Patton & Dykes, by reason of said seizure and condemnation, were as follows: Value of the cargo owned by them $8, 000. 00 Premium of insurance paid by them 66. 66 Amounting in all to 8, 066. 66 Deduct insurance received 1, 000. 00 Net loss 7, 066. 66 The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who 720 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Juno, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their respective capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty, in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States ; and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: Cazenove G. Lee, administrator of James Patton, surviving partner of the firm of Patton & Dykes, seven thousand and sixty-six dollars and sixty- six cents 1 $7, 066. 66 John W. Apthorp, administrator of William Foster, one thousand dollars. . 1, 000. 00 William I. Monroe, administrator of John Brazer, one thousand dollars 1, 000. 00 William S. Carter, administrator of William Smith, eight hundred dollars. . 800. 00 H. Burr Grandall, administrator of Thomas Dickason, jr., five hundred dol- lars 500. 00 Nathan Matthews, administrator of Daniel Sargent, five hundred dollars.. 500. 00 Augustus P. Loring, administrator of William Boardman, one thousand dol- lars ....._ 1, 000. 00 Lawrence Bond, administrator of Nathan Bond, five hundred dollars 500.00 David Greene Haskins, administrator of David Greene, five hundred dollars 500. 00 William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Oilman, five hundred dollars. 500. 00 William A. Hayes, 2d, administrator of Eliphalet Ladd, five hundred dol- lars • 500. 00 Montgomery Fletcher, administrator of John Walter Fletcher, for and on behalf of the firm of Fletcher & Otway, three hundred and thirty- three dollars and thirty -three cents 333. 33 William C. Hill, surviving executor of William W. 'Corcoran, assignee of George Taylor, one hundred and seventy-three dollars and forty-six cents 173. 46 James M. Johnston, administrator of George W. Riggs, assignee of George Taylor, one hundred and seventy -three dollars and forty-six cents 173. 46 Robert S. Chew, administrator of Richard Smith, assignee of George Taylor, one hundred and seventy-three dollars and forty-six cents 173. 46 — * Amounting in all to fourteen thousand seven hundred and twenty dollars and thirty-seven cents 14, 720. 37 The assignment of George Taylor, hereinbefore set forth in the conclusions of fact, to the extent of the debts of Nathaniel Wattles and John Corse, for which he had been personally liable as surety, and which assignment to that extent was made in lieu of his personal liability as such surety, can not, at this day, be carried out and must be held to have failed. It would be inequitable, considering the circumstances of the case, to make any deduction on that account, and none is made. No allowance is made herein to Julian T. Burke, administrator of George Taylor, as the assignment of the latter, beyond the part thereof regarding the debts of Nathaniel Wattles and John Corse, is held operative, applying to his own indebtedness, which has not yet been fully extinguished . By the Court. Filed May 13, 1907. A true copy. Test this 14th day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] . John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 721 SLOOP FOX. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel sloop Fox, Nathaniel Dennis, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 40. Edmund D. Codnian, administrator of William Gray, v. The United States. 1039. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 1651. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 7th day of November, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, and Charles W. Clagett, esqrs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. FINDINGS OP PACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel.on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The sloop Fox, whereof Nathaniel Dennis was master, sailed on a commercial voyage June 20, 1798, from Ipswich, Mass., bound to the port of Martinico, with a cargo consisting of codfish, wood, oil, beef, etc. On July 4, 1798, while peacefully pursuing said voyage, she was seized on the high seas by the French privateer Le Pelletier, Capt. Pierre Mounier, and conducted into the port of Basseterre, in the island of Guadaloupe. Thereafter, on the 28th day of July, 1798 (Thermidor 4, year 6), said vessel and cargo were condemned by the tribunal of commerce sitting at Basseterre on the following ground : "That on board the American sloop Fox were found neither invoice, bill of lading, nor role d ' equipage . " II. The sloop Fox was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 73 tons burthen, built at Ipswich, Mass., in the year 1785, registered at Salem in the year 1794, and owned solely by John Heard and Jonathan Ingersoll, citizens of the United States. III. The cargo of the sloop Fox at the time of capture consisted of codfish, wood, oil, beef, etc., but the value and ownership of the same do not appear. IV. July 19, 1798, John Heard and Jonathan Ingersoll obtained a policy of insurance in the office of Peter C. Brooks to the amount of $2,000 on the said sloop Fox, paying therefor a premium of 33J per cent. The underwriters, all of whom were citizens of the United States, who underwrote the said insurance, each in the amount set opposite his name, were as follows: William Gray, jr $600 Crowell Hatch William Smith 400 , Caleb Hopkins 200 Benjamin Bussey 400 January 24, 1799, said insurers duly paid the said insured the sum of $2,000, being in full for a total loss on said policy, and a loss to each of said underwriters of the amount underwritten by them respectively, by reason 'of the capture and condemnation as aforesaid. There was also included in the above policy an insurance on the cargo of said vessel, but it not appearing who were the owners of said cargo or of the value thereof, no recovery can be had therefor, nor is the neutrality of said cargo shown. V. After said payment, to wit, December 8, 1801, the administrator of the estate of Caleb Hopkins, in consideration of $3,000, transferred to Peter C. Brooks all the interest of said Hopkins, with its advantages and disadvantages, as an underwriter in said Brooks's office. After said payment, to wit, December 16, 1801, for and in consideration of $3,715.50, and the assumption of all responsibility of William Smith as an insurer in the office of Peter C. Brooks, said Smith assigned to said Brooks all his interest in said business. After said payment, to wit, February 15, 1805, for and in consideration of $10,000, and the assumption of all responsibility of Benjamin Bussey as an insurer in the office of Peter C. Brooks, said Bussey assigned to said Brooks all his interest in and to said business. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the sloop Fox, as set forth in the preceding findings. S. Rep. 382, 60-1 46 722 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never beep assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished, to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: Edmund D. Codman, administrator of William Gray, jr., six hundred dollars $600. 00 Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, one thousand dollars 1, 000. 00 George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, four hundred dollars 400. 00 Amounting in all to two thousand dollars 2, 000. 00 No persons claiming to represent the owners of the vessel and cargo have appeared herein. By the Court. Filed December 2, 1907. A true copy. Test this 20th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. BRIG MARY, HOLMES, MASTER. . [Court of Claims. French, spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel brig Mary, Robert Holmes, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 1014. Edmund D. Codman, administrator of the estate of William Gray, deceased, v. The United States. 2417. William I. Monroe, administrator of the estate of John Brazer, deceased, v. The United States. 3574. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of the estate of Joseph Taylor, deceased, v. The United States. 4097. William Seton, administrator of the estate of William Seton, deceased, v. The United States. William Seton, administrator of the estate of William Magee Seton, deceased, v. The United States. Henry H. Porter, administrator of the estate of David Maitland, deceased,, v. The United States. 4179. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of the estate of John McLean, v. The United States. preliminary statement. These cases were tried before the Court of claims on the 20th day of March, 1907. The claimants were represented by Charles W. Clagett, William T. S. Curtis, Theo- dore J. Pickett, and J. Bayard Henry, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq. , with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. conclusions of fact. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The brig Mary, Robert Holmes, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about the 1st of June, 1797, from Boston, Mass., bound for Naples, Italy. While ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 723 peacefully pursuing said voyage the said vessel was captured on the high seas on the 23d day of June, 1797, by the French privateer L' Intrepid, Captain Candeau, and carried into Nantes, France, where said vessel and her cargo were condemned by the tribunal of commerce of the canton of Nantes on the 28th day of September, 1797, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners. The decree sets forth the grounds of condemnation as follows: "Whereas: First. All the papers of which Captain Holmes is the bearer have not been attested; "2. That all the papers show that the vessel as well as the cargo belonged to citi zens of the United States; "3. That this cargo was destined for Naples, a friend of the Republic; "4. That the captain has only one bill of lading, comprising all his cargo, but that it has no signature; "5. That he had also a crew list containing the names, but without legal signature, or names, places of birth, or residence of the men; ''6. That this list was not in conformity with the regulations for the navigation of neutrals required by law : "7. That article 4 of the decree of the executive directory on the 12th Ventose declares lawful prize all American ships not furnished with a crew list and passport as prescribed and annexed to the treaty of February 6, 1778, and required by the regulations relating to the navigation of neutral vessels; " 8. That article 7 of chapter 9 of book 3 of the ordinance of 1681 decrees that all ves- sels loaded with property belonging to our enemies and all merchandise of our subjects and allies which shall be found upon an hostile vessel shall be a lawful prize: There- fore, "In accordance with article 15 of the law of the Thud Brumaire in the year 4, and with the decree of the executive directory on the 12th Ventose in the year 4, we do adjudge and declare the capture of the Mary, her rigging and appurtenances, by the privateer L' Intrepid, to be valid." This decree of condemnation sets out that the master of the Mary carried the follow- ing papers: A crew list which did not designate the place of birth of the men, a register, a sailing permit, or clearance, from the port of Boston, a bill of health from the port of Boston, a passport, an order from the owner of the vessel to the master to proceed to Naples, a bill of lading of merchandise of the cargo, and a manifest of the cargo. The decree further sets out that the master claimed that the vessel and cargo were owned by- American citizens and that the cargo consisted of sugar, pepper, coffee, and nankeens. The said decree of condemnation was confirmed on appeal on the 26th day of Octo- ber, 1797. II. The Mary was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 99 tons burthen, was built at Kittery, Mass., in 1791, and was owned by John B. Marshall, a citizen of the United States and a resident of Boston. The value of the vessel at the time of cap- ture was in excess of $4,000. for which amount insurance was effected thereon, as set forth below. III. The cargo of the Mary at the time of capture consisted of coffee, sugar, peppers, and nankeens, owned by several citizens of the United States. No persons have established a claim for the cargo. The value of the adventure of John Hart at the time was at least $115, for which insurance was effected thereon as set forth below. IV. On the 26th day of May. 1797. John B. Marshall, owner of the vessel, effected insurance on the same in the office of Joseph Taylor in the sum of $4,000, said policy being underwritten by William Gray, a citizen of the United States, for $4,000. At various times after the condemnation of said vessel and before the 2d of May, 1798, said Joseph Taylor, as agent for William Gray, paid to the said insured different sums aggregating in all the sum of $3,960, as and for a total loss, less a deduction of 1 per cent. V. On the 20th day of July, 1797, John Hart, a citizen of the United States, insured his adventure on board said vessel in the office of Joseph Taylor at a premium of 25 per cent in the sum of $115. Said policy was underwritten by John Brazer, a citizen of the United States, in the said sum of $115. On the 28th day of December, 1798, Joseph Taylor, as agent for said underwriter, paid to John Hart the said sum of $115, as and for a total loss. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the brig Mary as set forth in the preceding findings. 724 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September. 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: Edmund D. Cod man, administrator of the estate of William Gray, deceased, three thousand nine hundred and sixty dollars $3, 960. 00 William I. Monroe, administrator of the estate of John Brazer, deceased, one hundred and fifteen dollars 115. 00 Amounting in all to four thousand and seventy-five dollars 4, 075. 00 The owners of the vessel and cargo are not in court. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, has proved no valid claim other than in favor of those who underwrote the insurance effected through the office of said Taylor, as hereinbefore set forth. The administrators of the estates of John McLean, William Seton. William Magee Seton, and David Maitland have proved no valid claims. By the Court. Filed April 1, 1907. A true copy. Test this 16th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. BRIG GEORGE, GREENLEAF, MASTER. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20., 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel brig George, Jacob Greenleaf, master.] No. of ease. Claimants. 247. William Ropes Track, administrator of Thomas Amorv, v. The United States. 251. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. 3154. Helen N. Pike, administratrix of John Pettingel, v. The United States. 3875. Francis A. Jewett, administrator of James Prince, v. The United States. 4313. Franklin A. Wilson, administrator of John Pearson, v. The United States. Joseph W. Thompson', administrator of David Coffin, v. The United States. Joseph L. Wheelwright, administrator of Moses Savory, v. The United States. James S. Gerrish, administrator of Edward Toppan, v. The United States. George Otis, administrator of Joseph Marquand, v. The United States. Amos Noyes, administrator of Zebedee Cook, v. The United States. Amos Noyes, administrator of William Cook, v. The United States. Eben F. Stone, administrator of Nathan Hoyt, v. The United States. . Henry B. Reed, administrator of Andrew Frothingham, v. The United States. Luther R. Moore, administrator of William Boardman, v. The United States. Charles C. Donnelly, administrator of Joseph Toppan, v. The United States. Fritz H. Jordan, administrator of Leonard Smith, v. The United States. Franklin A. Wilson, administrator of John Pearson, jr., v. The United States. Jeremiah Nelson, administrator of Jeremiah Nelson, v. The United States. Henry P. Toppan, administrator of Joshua Toppan, v. The United States. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 725 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 11th day of November, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, Charles W. Clagett, and John W. Butterfield, esqs., and the United States, defend- ants, by tbe Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. =7§gpiNDINGS OP FACT |§g The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The brig George, whereof Jacob Greenleaf was then master, sailed on a commer- cial voyage in the month of April, 1798, from Newburyport bound to St. Thomas. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas on tbe 7th Floreal, year 7, (April 27, 1799,) by the French privateer L' African, Capt. Mathin Covelein, and both vessel and cargo condemned as good prize and ordered sold for the benefit of the captors May 9, 1799, by decree of the tribunal of commerce and prizes sitting at Basseterre, Guadeloupe, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners thereof. The ground of condemnation as stated in the decree was "that the r61e d'equipage, of which Jacob Greenleaf is the bearer, is an informal paper, in this that it is only signed by a notary and consequently it does not conform to the treaty of February 6, 1778. " II. The George was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 91f§ tons burthen, built in Massachusetts in the year 1797, and owned solely by John Pettingel, a citizen of the United States, residing in Newburyport, Mass. III. The cargo consisted of lumber, fish, beef, etc., none of which was contraband, and was of the value per invoices of 18,152.65 and was owned by said John Pettingel and Jacob Greenleaf, a citizen of the United States, in the proportion of one-half each. IV. The losses of said John Pettingel by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the George were as follows, viz: Value of vessel $3, 660. 00 Freight earnings 1, 516. 66 One-half value of cargo 3, 649. 88 One-half of premium of insurance paid on value of cargo 376. 49 Amounting in all to. . 9, 203. 03 Deduct one-half of insurance received 4, 050. 00 Net loss 5, 153. 03 V. March 27, 1799, John Pettingel, for himself and Jacob Greenleaf, obtained a policy of insurance in the office of John Pearson, of Newburyport, Mass., on cargo on board this vessel in the sum of $4,100, paying therefor a premium of 9 per cent. October 19, 1799, and September 27, 1800, the said insured received from John Pearson, agent to the underwriters, the sum of $4,100 as and for a total loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation by the French. The underwriters on said policy who have appeared in this case by their legal rep- resentatives and the loss sustained by each are as follows, viz David Coffin $100.00 William Boardman $100.00 Moses Savory 200.00 Joseph Toppan 100.00 Edward Toppan 300.00 Leonard Smith 500.00 Joseph Marquand 100. 00 James Prince 500. 00 ZebedeeCook 200.00 John Pearson, jr 300.00 William Cook 100.00 Jere Nelson 200.00 Nathan Hoyt 100.00 Joshua Toppan 100.00 Andrew Frothingham 100.00 April 22, 1799, John Pettingel, for himself and Jacob Greenleaf, obtained a policy of insurance in the office of Peter C. Brooks on the cargo on board this vessel in the sum of $4,000, paying therefor a premium of 12 per cent, said policy being underwritten as here stated : John C. Jones $1, 000. 00 j Thomas Amory $1, 000. 00 David Greene 1,000.00 I John McLean 1, 000. 00 726 ALLOWANCE OF CERTATST CLAIMS. October 8, 1799, said insured received from Peter C. Brooks, agent to the under- writers above named, the sum of $4,000 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises. The cargo's value having been the sum of $7,299.76 and there having been insurance to the amount of $8,100 effected thereon, there was an overinsurance on the above policy in the sum of $800.24. The premium is therefore calculated on the value of the cargo. The said John Pearson, Peter C. Brooks, and all of the underwriters named in the above two policies were citizens of the United States. December 23, 1801, said David Greene, in consideration of $6,000 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption by the said Brooks of all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from the underwriting of the said Greene in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. February 8, 1802, Isaiah Knapp, executor, etc., of John McLean, for and in con- sideration of $3,000 to him paid, transferred to Peter C. Brooks all of the interest as an assurer of him, the said John McLean, in the office of him, the said Peter C. Brooks, together -with any interests of said McLean in any property which was or might be received as an assurer to any adjudicated or condemned property. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the brig George, as set forth in the preceding findings. , Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid, in whole or in part, under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed, in whole or in part, under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as' conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France aganist the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States :3 Helen N. Pike, administratrix of John Pettingel, five thousand one hun- dred and fifty-three dollars and three cents $5, 153. 03 Joseph W. Thompson, administrator of David Coffin, one hundred dollars. . 100. 00 Joseph L. Wheelwright, administrator of Moses Savory, two hundred dollars. 200. 00 James S. Gerrish, administrator of Edward Toppan, three hundred dollars. . 300. 00 George Otis, administrator of Joseph Marquand, one hundred dollars 100. 00 Amos Noyes, administrator of Zebedee Cook, two hundred dollars 200. 00 Amos Noyes, administrator of William Cook, one hundred dollars 100. 00 Eben F. Stone, administrator of Nathan Hoyt, one hundred dollars 100. 00 Henry B. Reed, administrator of Andrew Frothingham, one hundred dollars 100. 00 Luther R. Moore, administrator of William Boardman. one hundred dollars. 100. 00 Charles C. Donnelly, administrator of Joseph Toppan, one hundred dollars. 100. 00 Francis A. Jewett, administrator of James Prince, five hundred dollars 500. 00 Fritz H. Jordan, administrator of Leonard Smith, five hundred dollars 500. 00 Franklin A. Wilson, administrator of John Pearson, jr., three hundred dol- lars 300. 00 Jeremiah Nelson, administrator of Jeremiah Nelson, two hundred dollars. . 200. 00 Henry P. Toppan, administrator of Joshua Toppan, one hundred dollars 100. 00 Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, two thousand dollars 2, 000. 00 William Ropes Track, administrator of Thomas Amory, one thousand dol- lars 1, 000. 00 Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, one thousand dollars. . . 1, 000. 00 Amounting in all to twelve thousand one hundred and fifty-three dollars and three cents 12, 153. 03 ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 727 No person claiming to represent Jacob Greenleaf, master and part owner of the cargo, has appeared herein. By the Court. Filed December 2, 1907. A true copy. Test this 16th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Coutt of Claims. BRIG PEGGY. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel brig Peggy, John Hourston, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 1290. The President and Directors of the Insurance Company of North America, v. The United States. 1394. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, v. The United States. 4159. Charles F. Mayer, administrator of Henry Konig, v. The United States. 4997. Charles F. Mayer, administrator of Henry Konig, v. The United States. Charles F. Mayer, surviving executor of Frederick Konig, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of November, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, esqrs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assist- ant Attorney-Genera! J. A. Van Orsdel. ' FINDINGS OF FACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same, with the briefs of the counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The brig Peggy, whereof John Hourston was then master, sailed on a commercial voyage April 2, 1798, from Baltimore bound to Curacoa. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas April 27, 1798, by the French privateer Bonapart, and carried to St. Eustatia. May 21, 1798, the Peggy and cargo were condemned as good prize and ordered sold for the benefit of the captors by the decree of the tribunal of commerce sitting at Basseterre, in the island of Guadaloupe, and thereby became a total loss to the owners thereof. John Hourston, master, and August Witte, supercargo of the Peggy, made their way to Basseterre to lay claim before the tribunal of commerce there sitting, but were refused a hearing and not permitted to produce their means of defense. The grounds of condemnation as stated in the decree were as follows, viz: First. That the captain of the said brig in his articles of agreement with his crew has mentioned his destination to be Curacoa and three ports in Hispaniola, while none of his papers mentioned any other place but Curacoa. Second. That the act of naturalization of the two supercargoes pro-ved to be of 1797, which leaves room to believe that they were born in an enemy's country, and that there is no act amongst the papers pointing out the place of nativity. Third. That agreeable to the certificate of the commissioners of the marine the course which he steered by his log book carried him to St. Kitts. II . The Peggy was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 139 |f tons burthen, built in the State of Maryland in the year 1793, and owned solely by Henry Konig and Frederick Konig, citizens of the United States, residing in Baltimore, composing the firm of Frederick & Henry Konig. III. The cargo of the Peggy consisted of dry goods, claret, glassware, bagging, and barley of the value at the place of shipment of $22,439.69, the same being the sole property of the said firm of Frederick & Henry Konig. A few days prior to the sailing of the Peggy her cargo was robbed of goods to the value of $1,165.27, making the cargo at the time of seizure of the value of $21,274.42 728 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. IV. The losses to the^owners, Frederick & Henry Konig, by reason^of the seizure and condemnation aforesaid were as follows: Value of vessel $5, 600. 00 Freight earnings 2, 333. 33 Value of cargo ". . . '. . 21, 274. 42 Premiums of insurance paid 7, 080. 20 Amounting in all to ... . 36, 287. 95 Less insurance received 28, 692. 21 Net loss 7. 595. 74 V. March 7, 1798, said Frederick and Henry Konig effected insurance on said cargo for said voyage with the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania in the sum of $18,000, paying therefor a premium of 23 per cent. July 20, 1798, said company duly paid the said assured the sum of $17,640 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises, being the face of said policy less the abate- ment customary with said company. It would appear, however, that the sum of $1,106.98, being the sum of $1,129.57 less the abatement of 2 per cent, was paid on account of the robbery prior to the sailing of the vessel, leaving the sum of $16,534.02, as loss paid by reason of the actions of the French. The premium paid on that part of the said policy which covered the loss arising by the said actions of the French amounted to the sum of $3,880.20. The said assured were likewise paid by the said company an additional sum of $219.02 as the proportion due from said policy of the expense incurred in attempted defense, etc., of said cargo before the prize tribunal at Guadaloupe. March 7, 1798, said Frederick & Henry Konig effected insurance on the freight of said vessel for said voyage with the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsyl- vania, in the sum of $6,000, paying therefor a premium of 23 per cent. July 20, 1798, the said company duly paid the said assured the sum of $2,740, as and for a total loss by reason of the premises, being the face of said policy less the abatement customary with said company. The said assured were likewise paid by the said company an additional sum of $36.50 as the proportion due from said company on said policy of the expense incurred in attempted defense, etc., of said vessel before the prize tribunal at Guadaloupe. March 7, 1798, said Frederick and Henry Konig effected insurance on said vessel for the said voyage with the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania in the sum of $4,000, paying therefor a premium of 23 per cent. July 20, 1798, said company duly paid the said assured the sum of $3,920, as and for a total loss by reason of the premises, being the face of said policy less the abate- ment customary with said company. The said assured were likewise paid by the said company an additional sum of $48.67, as the proportion due from said company on said policy of the expense incurred in attempted defense, etc., of said vessel before the prize tribunal at Guadeloupe. March 26, 1798, said Frederick & Henry Konig effected insurance on said cargo for the said voyage with the Insurance Company of North America in the sum of $5,300, paying therefor a premium of 30 per cent. August 20, 1798, said company duly paid said assured the sum of $5,194, as and for a total loss by reason of the premises, being the face of said policy less the abatement customary with said company. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the brig Peggy, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole in or part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAAV. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefore upon the ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 7'29 French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claim was relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to^the following sums from the United States: The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, twenty-three thousand four hundred and ninety-eight dollars and twenty-one cents. $23, 498. 21 The president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America, five thousand one hundred and ninety-four dollars 5, 194. 00 Charles F. Mayer, administrator of Henry Konig, thrc*e thousand sevm hundred and ninety-seven dollars and eighty-seven cents 3, 797. 87 Charles F. Mayer, surviving executor of Frederick Konig, three thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven dollars and eighty-seven cents 3, 797. 87 Amounting in all to thirty-six thousand two hundred and eighty- seven dollars and ninety-five cents 36, 287. 95 By the Court. Filed December 2, 1907. A true copy. Test this 16th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. SCHOONER WILLIAM LOVEL. [Court of .Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner William Lovel, John K. Hill, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 1763. Gustavus W. Ridgely, administrator of George P. Keeports, v. The United States. Antoinette Williams, administratrix of John McFaden, v. The United States. William Clayton Lawson, administrator of Richard Lawson, v. The United States. David Stewart, administrator of George Sears, v. The United States. 2179. David Stewart and John E. Semmes, receivers of the Maryland Insurance Company, v. The United States. 3144. William D. Lee, Thomas D. Lee, Henry A. Lee, Joseph A. Lee, Virginia Waters, administrators of William Duncan, v. The United States. Luke Tiernan Brian, administrator of Luke Tiernan, v. The United States. 2555. Richard Delafield, administrator of John Delafield, surviving partner of the firm of Church & Delafield, v. The United States. ^PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of November, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, esqs., and The United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assist- ant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. FINDINGS OP PACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The schooner William Lovel, whereof John K. Hill was then master, sailed on a commercial voyage in the month of October, 1797, from Fredericksburg, Va., bound to Antigua. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas on or about the 21st day of November, 1797, by the French privateer Victorieuse, the captain of which removed the said John K. Hill from on board the William Lovel, and carried him on board the privateer. A prize crew was then placed in charge of the William Lovel with orders to conduct her to Guadeloupe. The privateer then bore 730 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. away to St. Bartholomew, where the said John K. Hill was landed, and from whence he tried his best to get to Guadeloupe to learn the fate of his vessel, but could not reach there until the 6th day of December following, and where he learned that his vessel had been condemned by the tribunal of commerce sitting at Basseterre in the said island, by decree dated on the 3d day of said month, whereby both vessel and cargo became a total loss to the owners thereof. The grounds of condemnation as stated in the decree were as follows, viz: Considering that the supercargo was born a Scotchman, and doth not prove his American naturalization conformably to the 12th article of the law of the 21st Octo- ber, 1744, comprised in these terms: "All foreign ships shall be good prize upon which there shall be a supercargo, merchant, clerk, or marine officer of an enemy's country, Ac.;" Considering the irregularity of her papers, the want of invoices, of the r61e d'6quipage, which appears to have been thrown into the sea after the proces verbal of the capture, and of the false route which he appeared to keep after the said proems verbal: II. The William Lovel was a duly registered vessel of the United States, as appeared by her register on board at the time of said seizure, but it does not appear who were her owners or owner at the said date, nor are her age and tonnage given; III. The cargo, as far as established by the evidence, consisted of 79 barrels of flour and 2,954| bushels of corn, of the value at the place of shipment of $2,743.11, the same being the property of William Duncan, a citizen of the United States. IV. The losses to said William Duncan by reason of said seizure and condemnation were as follows, viz: Value of cargo 12,743.11 Premium of insurance paid : 525. 00 Advance freight paid 700.00 3, 968. 11 Deduct insurance received 3, 339.40 Net loss 628. 71 V. October 25, 1797, said William Duncan effected insurance on said cargo for the said voyage with the Maryland Insurance Company in the sum of $3,500, paying there- for a premium of 15 per cent. April 25, 1798, the said company duly paid the said assured the sum of $3,339.40, as and for a total loss on said policy by reason of the premises. November 30, 1797, said William Duncan, as agent, effected insurance on said vessel and freight in the office of George P. Keeports, insurance broker of Baltimore, but it is not shown who the owners of said vessel were or that the persons for whom said insurance was made had any interest in said vessel and freight, and hence no allow- ance is made therefor. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner William Lovel, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831 . The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 731 of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the fol- lowing sums from the United States: William D. Lee, Thomas D. Lee, Henry A. Lee, Joseph A. Lee, and Vir- ginia Waters, administrators of William Duncan, six hundred and twenty- eight dollars and seventy-one cents 1628. 71 David Stewart and John E. Semmes, receivers of the Maryland Insurance Company, three thousand three hundred and thirty-nine dollars and forty cents. ..'.. , . 3, 339. 40 Amounting in all to three thousand nine hundred and sixty-eight dol- lars and eleven cents 3, 968. 11 George P. Keeports, George Sears, Richard Lawson, John McFadon, Richard Dela- field, surviving partner of Church & Delafield. and Luke Tiernan, surviving assignee, have proved no valid claims. By the Court. Filed December 2, 1907. A true copy. Test this 14th day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. BRIG ABIGAIL. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 2Q, 1885: 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S. 2d ed., 471. Vessel brig Abigail, Jeremiah Tibbets, jr., master.] No. oi case. Claimant. 2708. William H. Sise, administrator of Ebenezer Tibbetts, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. This case was tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of November, 1907. The claimant was represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, esqrs., and the L T nited States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. FINDINGS OF FACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The brig Abigail, whereof Jeremiah Tibbetts, jr., was then master, sailed on a commercial voyage January 19, 1797, from Portsmouth bound to the island of St. Croix. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas Feb- ruary 9, 1797, by the French privateer Furet, Capt. Jean Davignon, who took the master of the Abigail and three of his crew on board and detained them on the privateer and put the Abigail under the charge of a prize master and crew. Thereafter the Abigail, together with the privateer, arrived at Basseterre, Guadaloupe, where the said Jeremiah Tibbetts, jr., was detained for three days on the said privateer, and then taken on shore and examined by the authorities, after which he was not per- mitted to go on board the Abigail and no provision was made for his support. On February 17, 1797, trial was had before the tribunal of commerce in the said island and a decree was passed that the said vessel should be detained three months in order to allow Edward Sise, supercargo of the Abigail, to obtain from America a certificate from the French consul that he, the said supercargo, has been naturalized- according to law, and in the meantime directed that the cargo should be sold to avoid deterioration. Thereafter the said Edward Sise did produce satisfactory evidence that he had been legally naturalized a citizen of the United States since 1784, and on the 24th Floreal. 5th year (May 13, 1797), the said tribunal of commerce released the vessel and the proceeds of the sales of the cargo to the owner thereof, but at the same time decreed that the demands for damages were not well founded, for the reason that the said supercargo"was not in good form, being obliged to return to America to procure papers which were indispensable for the navigation of the vessel and without which l\e could not sail. 732 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. In all, the brig Abigail was detained by the French for a period of ninety-five days II. The Abigail was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 92.\i tons bur- then, built in New Hampshire in the year 1796, and owned solely by Ebenezer Tib- betts, a citizen of the United States. III. The cargo of the Abigail consisted of vats and heads, oak butts with heads, shooks and heads, staves, hoops, boards, shingles, soap, beef, rye meal, Indian meal, and three saddles and bridles and was of the value per manifest of $2,060.67, the same being the property of the said Ebenezer Tibbetts. The cargo when sold at Guadaloupe produced the sum of 17,420 livres 8 sols, or $1,935.40, being a loss to said owner on said cargo in the sum of $125.27. IV. The losses to the said owner of the Abigail and cargo by reason of said seizure, etc., were as follows: Loss on cargo $125. 27 Freight earnings 1, 533. 33 Detention of vessel 1, 456. 00 Amounting in all to 3, 115. 00 The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the brig Abigail as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and* the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants in then representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimant is entitled to the following sum from the United States: William H. Sise, administrator of Ebenezer Tibbetts, three thousand one hundred and fifteen dollars ' $3, 115. 00 Three thousand one hundred and fifteen dollars. There is no claim for the vessel herein, the same having been released. By the Court. Filed December 2, 1907. • A true copy. Test this 13th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SCHOONER COLUMBUS. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Columbus, Benjamin Mason, master.) No. of case. Claimants. 216. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 218. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 1898. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 2324. Herbert E. Bourne, administrator of Jacob Fisher, v. The United States. Stephen F. Fairfield, administrator of William Taylor, v. The United States. Samuel M. Came, administrator of John Low, v. The United States. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 733 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 13th day of November, 1907. The claimants were represented by Edwin B. Smith, William T. S. Curtis, and Theodore J. Pickett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-Gen- eral, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. FINDINGS OF FACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The schooner Columbus, whereof Benjamin Mason was then master, sailed on a commercial voyage from Kennebunk on or about October 26, 1797, bound to one or more ports in the Windward Islands. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas on or about December 3, 1797, by the tribunal of commerce and prizes sitting at Basseterre, in the island of Guadeloupe, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners thereof. The ground of condemnation, as set forth in the decree, was that the vessel was sail- ing for Martinique, instead of to Curasao, her destination. II. The Columbus was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 113 30/95 tons burthen, and was owned by John Low one-third, and Parker Webster one-eighth, citizens of the United States, and by other persons whose names are unknown. III. The cargo of the Columbus at the time of capture consisted of lumber, but the value and ownership thereof is not shown by any competent evidence, nor does it appear that the neutrality of the same was shown to the French court. IV. The losses to the owners of the Columbus by reason of the seizure and condem- nation by the French, in so far as they have appeared herein, were as follows: Loss to John Low: One-third value of vessel $1, 506. 00 One-third value of freight earnings 627. 00 Amounting in all to 2, 133. 00 Deduct insurance received 550. 00 Net loss 1, 583. 00 Loss to Parker Webster: One-eighth value of vessel (as far as covered by insurance) 125. 00 Insurance received 125. 00 V. December 14, 1797, said John Low effected insurance on his portion of the ves- sel in the office of Peter C. Brooks in the sum of $550, paying therefor a premium of 25 per cent, by a policy underwritten as follows: Tuthill Hubbart $300 Crowell Hatch 250 Thereafter, on April 26, 1798, said Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $550, being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises. There was also included in the above policy an insurance on the cargo, but the neu- trality, value, and ownership of the same not having been shown no recovery can be had for sai'd insurance-. December 18, 1797, said Parker Webster effected insurance on his portion of the vessel in the office of Peter C. Brooks in the sum of $125, paying therefor a premium of 25 per cent by a policy underwritten as follows: Caleb Hopkins $125 Thereafter, on April 26, 1798, said Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said insured the- sum of $125, being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises. There was also included in the above policy an insurance "on the cargo, but the neutrality, value, and ownership of the same not having been shown no recovery can be had for said insurance. The said Peter C. Brooks and all of the above underwriters were citizens of the United States. April 4, 1808, E. Partridge and W. Gooch, administrators of Tuthill Hubbart, for and in consideration of $60,000 to them paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption by the said Brooks of any and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from the under- 734 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. writing of said Tuthill Hubbart in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooke all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by said Hubbart as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. December 8, 1801, Isaac Rands, administrator of Caleb Hopkins, for and in con- sideration of $3,000 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption by the said Brooks of any and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from the underwriting of the said Hopkins in the office of the said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all the right, title and interest in and to all insurance done by said Hopkins in the office of said Brooks. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Columbus as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April. 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part, under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831 . The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation of the vessel were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France. by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: -Z Samuel M. Came, administrator of John Low, one thousand five hundred and eighty-three dollars $1, 583. 00 Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, four hundred and twenty- five dollars 425.00 George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, two hundred and fiftv dollars 250.00 Amounting in all to two thousand two hundred and fifty-eight dollars . 2, 258. 00 The estates of Jacob Fisher and William Taylor have proved no valid claims, and Parker Webster is not in court. ^5 By the Court. Filed December 2, 1907. A true copy. Test this 16th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant. Clerk Court of Claims. SCHOONER TWO COUSINS. [Court of Claims of the United States. French Spoliations. Decided Mav 13, 1907. Act of January 20> 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. I, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Schooner Two Cousins. Elijah Devall, master. No. 569. Horace E. Hayden, administrator of David H. Conyngham, surviving partner oi Conyngham, Nesbitt & Co., v. United States. No. 1330. The President & Directors of the Insurance Company of North America v. United States.] PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were heard before the Court, of Claims on the 19th day of March, 1907. The claimants were represented by Thomas Stokes, and the United States, defend- ants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, fohn W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Josiah A. Van Orsdel. ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 735 CONCLUSIONS OF PACT. The court, upc n the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The schooner Two Cousins, Elijah Devall, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about February 11, 1797, from Jeremie bound for Philadelphia. It appears, from the master's protest, that a few days thereafter, while peacefully pursuing said voyage, she was captured on the high seas by the French privateer La Magdelaine and manned with a prize crew; that on the 27th of February, near the island of Cuba, said schooner met with a Spanish wailvessel, the Gloria, which fired several cannon shots at her; that the prize crew ran the Two Cousins aground and ordered the American seamen to go in the boat with them; the master refused to consent thereto; that the prize crew cut away the fasts of the boat on deck, the standing and running rigging, sunk the anchors, and abandoned the schooner with her American flag flying as aforesaid ; that the master resumed command of the schooner after such abandonment, put the main topsail back, put the vessel about to leeward, and in a short time got her off from being aground. Shortly thereafter the boat of the Spanish war vessel reached the schooner and, taking her in tow, carried her alongside of said war vessel, where the master was examined; that after the Spanish officers had left the schooner the master called his crew, who had been forced to go on shore by the Frenchmen, to come on board, with which command they refused to comply. Thereupon the schooner was taken to Habana. The French privateer proceeded to Cape Francois and obtained a condemnation of the vessel and cargo upon the ground that she had come from Jeremie in violation of the decree of the commission of the executive directory declaring Jeremie to be in a state of siege. He appeared at Habana and claimed the schooner as his prize. Upon trial by the Spanish authorities and the production of said French decree of condemnation said schooner and cargo were delivered to the French privateer (each party being required to pay his own costs and to share equally the costs made in common) . By virtue of the condem- nation by France the vessel and cargo became a total loss to the owner thereof. II. The Two Cousins was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 80^ tons burthen, was built in Somerset County, Md., in 1795, and was owned by David H.. Conyngham and John M. Nesbitt, composing the firm of Conyngham, Nesbitt & Co. III. The cargo of the Two Cousins at the time of capture consisted of coffee and was owned by the firm of Conyngham, Nesbitt & Co., owners of the vessel. IV. The losses of Conyngham, Nesbitt & Co., by reason of the capture and condem- nation, were as follows: Value of vessel $3, 200. 00 Freight earnings 1, 333. 33 Value of cargo 13, 278. 80 Amounting in all to 17, 812. 13 Less insurance received 9, 800. 00 Net loss 8, 012. 13 V. March 9, 1797, Conyngham, Nesbitt & Co. effected insurance in the office of the Insurance Company of North America on the cargo in the sum of $10,000, paying therefor a premium of 10 per cent. Thereafter said insurance company paid the said insured the sum of $9,800, being in full for a total loss, less an abatement of 2 per cent. As the said insurance was effected subsequent to the date of the illegal capture, France is not chargeable with the premium of insurance thereon, and hence no pre- mium is allowed herein against the United States. VI. The firm of Conyngham, Nesbitt & Co. was composed solely of David H. Conyng- ham and John M. Nesbitt, said David H. Conyngham being the survivor of the said firm. v The Insurance Company of North America was and is duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania. The above claims were presented to the Commissioners of Claims appointed by authority of the treaty between the United States and Spain of 1819, both of which were disallowed because of insufficient testimony. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Two Cousins, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims 736 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. # growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in then respective capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned, exceptjas'aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the follow- ing sums from the United States: Horace E. Hayden, administrator of David H. Conyngham, surviving partner of Conyngham, Nesbit & Co $8, 012. 13 The president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America, nine|thousand eight hundred dollars 9, 800. 00 17. 812. 13 Amounting in all to seventeen thousand eight hundred and twelve dollars and thirteen cents. Peele, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of the court: The facts upon which the decision in this case is founded are set forth in finding 1, the material substance of which is that after the Two Cousins had been captured by a French privateer the privateer was fired upon by a Spanish vessel of war, whereupon the prize crew ran the captured vessel aground and compelled her seamen to go on the boat with them, but the master refused and remained on the vessel. After the prize crew had cut away the fasts of the boat on deck, the standing and running rigging, and sunk the anchor they abandoned the vessel, with the American flag flying. The master resumed command and soon got the vessel off from being aground, when the Spanish war vessel came alongside and took the vessel in tow. The master of the American vessel tried to get his crew to come aboard, but they refused, and thereupon the Spanish vessel of war towed the Two Cousins to Habana. In the mean- time the privateer proceeded to Cape Francois and obtained a condemnation of the vessel. The captor appeared in Habana and claimed the vessel so captured, insisting that he had not abandoned the vessel or lost sight thereof, and produced the decree of condemnation, whereupon the question as to which was entitled to the possession of the vessel, the master or the captor, was submitted to a Spanish court, who decided in favor of the captor, and the vessel and cargo were delivered to him and were sub- sequently sold and became a total loss. The single question is, Which of the two nations, France or Spain, is primarily liable. The capture and condemnation of the vessel and cargo by the French were both illegal independently of the absence of the master and the vessel from the jurisdiction of the prize court at the time of condemnation. The taking of the vessel into the port of Habana by the Spanish vessel of war was not an unfriendly act, especially as they had forced the French to abandon the vessel, and the master was unable to induce his crew to return. The controversy over the vessel in the Spanish port was not as to the title of the vessel, but as to the possession thereof, which was clearly within the jurisdiction of the Spanish court. Respecting this question Mr. Justice Story, in the case of The Tilton (5 Mason, 455), said: "Suits in admiralty, touching property in ships, are of two kinds — one is called petitory suits, in which the mere title to the property is litigated and sought to be enforced independently of any possession which had previously accompanied or sanctioned that title; the other called possessory suits, which seek to restore to the owner the possession of which he had been unjustly deprived when that possession has followed a legal title, or, as it is sometimes phrased, when there has been a pos- session under a claim of title with a constat of property. Until a comparatively recent period the court of admiralty exercised undisturbed jurisdiction over both classes of cases, as upon principle it is still entitled to do. * * * No doubt exists that the admiralty possesses authority to decree restitution of ships wrongfully withheld from the owners. And if so, it ought to possess plenary jurisdiction over all the incidents." ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 737 That questions of prize in general belong to the capturing power there can be no question, and this was the view of the court in the case of The V Invincible (1 Wheat., 238). In the case of the Brig Alexia (9 Cranch, 359) a libel was filed in the district court at New Orleans by a Spanish subject, setting forth that he was the owner of the brig Alexia and cargo, and that while on a voyage from Africa to Habana in 1810 he was captured by a French vessel and taken into the port of New Orleans. The libelant alleged that the French vessel was not commissioned to capture the property of Spanish subjects and that she was armed and equipped in the port of New Orleans by American citizens contrary to the law of nations. The prayer was for the restitu- tion of the vessel with damages. The prize master admitted the capture of the Alexia as lawful prize of war and asserted that the French vessel at the time of the capture was legally authorized to capture all vessels and their cargoes belonging to the subjects of Spain as enemies to France; that after the capture he was compelled to enter the port of New Orleans by stress of weather, owing to the inability of the Alexia to keep the sea. The court below decreed restitution to the libelant of the ship and cargo, and that decree was affirmed by the Supreme Court. And so in the case of the Amy Warwick (2 Sprague, 150) the court in substance held that a prize court could look beyond the legal title and deal with the beneficial interests. In the case of the schooner Maxy, Thomas, master (2 Wheat., 122, 129), the vessel, commanded by British subjects, was captured by the private armed schooner Cadet, an American vessel. The convoy under which the Mary sailed was in sight of her at the time of her capture. The Cadet, however, came up to the Maxy so suddenly that she had no opportunity to make resistance or give notice to the convoy of her danger. On the next day, the Cadet and Maxy being in company, the Paul Jones, an armed brig bearing sails of English canvas, pursued the Mary, firing at her. The prize master, being convinced that it was an English cruiser, left the Maxy for the shore after throw- ing over her anchor. Within ten minutes after the prize crew had left the Maxy the British master hoisted the English colors and steered the schooner toward the Paul Jones, and she was boarded by a boat from the Paul Jones; and being informed that the Maxy was an English vessel the Paul Jones immediately stood off from the land, with the Maxy in company, with English colors flying. Libels were filed against the Maxy and her cargo in the district court for the district of Maine by the master in behalf of himself, the owners and crew of the Cadet, the cap- tor, and the Maxy was condemned; but on appeal the decree was reversed, the court saying: "We are of opinion that the facts stated in this appeal make a clear case of tortious dispossession on the part of the Paul Jones. The privateer Cadet had, with great gallantry, captured the Maxy and been in possession of her half of a night and day. The prize was close in upon the American coast and making for a port which was open before her. It was not until the superior sailing of the Paul Jones made it manifest that the prize must be cut off from this port, and until she had been repeat- edly fired upon, that the prize crew abandoned her. There exists not a pretext in the case that this abandonment was voluntary, or would have taken place but for the hostile approach of the Paul Jones. Whether the vis majox acted upon the force or the fears of the prize crew is immaterial, since actual dispossession ensued. * * * 'We are of the opinion that the decisions of the circuit and distnict courts should be reversed; that the prize should be adjudged to the Cadet, and the case remanded for the assessment of reasonable damages in favor of the Cadet. But, considering that the prize arrived in safety, and probably in a more secure harbor than that for which she was sailing when seized by the Paul -Tones (although it is certainly a case for damages), we are of opinion the damages should be moderate." The facts in that case are quite similar to the facts in the present case. Here the dispossession of the French privateers by the Spanish armed vessel was clearly tor- tious as against France, but it was that tortious act against France that released the Tiro Cousins and hence as against the United States was not tortious. Nor was the friendly act of towing the vessel to Habana a tortious act against the United States, especially as the vessel was without a crew except her master. . As the Spanish court clearly had jurisdiction to determine the question of posses- sion, such decision can not be held a tort, even though possession was restored to the captor. Had Spain permitted the captor to resume possession of the vessel and sail her out of the port of Habana without judicial determination such act would have been a violation of her treaty obligations with the United States to protect American vessels in Spanish waters, and a claim might then have arisen against Spain as a jointfeasox with France. S. Hep. 382, 60-1 47 738 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The Two Cousins having been captured by the French privateer in the open sea, the decision to restore the vessel to the captor was strictly within the rules of inter- national law, as abandonment of a captured vessel can only take place by the volun- tary act of the captor and without cause. Hence the forced abandonment of a vessel, as in the present case, can not be regarded as a desertion thereof by the captor, nor would a belligerent captor under such circumstances be deprived by a neutral of any rights they might have acquired by virtue of the capture. (The Mary, Thomas, supra.) In other words, in the language of the court in the case of McDonough v. Dannery (3 Dall., 188, 198), "In determining the question of property, we think that immediately on the capture the captors acquired such a right as no neutral nation could justly impugn or destroy; and, consequently, we can not say that the abandon- ment of the Mary Ford, under the circumstances of this case, revived and restored the interest of the original British proprietors." We think the same rule may be applied in the present case: France, through her privateer, having made the capture, the captor had plenary dominion over the cap- tured property, and that right cculd not be diminished by the subsequent forcible abandonment, even though the act of Spain be deemed a capture. (The Mary, Thomas, supra, 1 C. Rob.. 135, 189; The Cosmopolite, 3 C. Rob., 333.) If the captor has abandoned the prize, Spain, when her vessel of war took posses- sion, would have been entitled to salvage (McDonough v. Dannery, supra), but Spain did not regard the vessel as a deserted one. On the contrary, the Spanish court held that the captor had not abandoned the vessel and was therefore entitled to possession. If the action of the Spanish vessel had been wrongful as against the Two Cousins, the master of the latter would have been entitled not only to restitution but to damages under the authorities heretofore cited, but no such claim was made. On the contrary, each party was required to pay the costs he had made and to share equally the costs made in common. The capture of the vessel by the French privateer being illegal was a tort, and the forcible abandonment of the vessel can not be taken advantage of by France as a defense on the theory of the primary liability of Spain, who forced the abandonment, as the captor not only denied the abandonment but persisted in claiming the vessel by procuring her condemnation in French territory and then relying upon that decree to secure both from the Spanish authorities and the master of the Two Cousins the release of the vessel. It is therefore clear that France could not set up by way of defense that, because Spain is liable therefore France is exonerated . Nor can it be said that the facts of this case render Spain liable at all, unless she has made herself liable by subsequent treaties, and as to that-let us examine. By the treaty of August 11, 1802 (8 Stat. L., 198), a board of commissioners was provided for to receive all claims by the subjects and citizens of the respective nations claiming "compensation for the losses, damages, or injuries sustained by them in consequence of the excesses committed by Spanish subjects on American citizens." That treaty was followed by the one of February 22, 1819 (8 Stat. L., 252), by which Florida was ceded to the United States in consideration of $5,000,000, to be applied by the United States in exonerating Spain from all demands in future on account of the claims of their citizens to which the renunciations contained in the treaty extend, and by the ninth article of said treaty the respective parties renounced "all claims for damages or injuries which they themselves, as well as their respective citizens and subjects, may have suffered until the time of signing the treaty." On behalf of the United States it was provided therein that the renunciations should extend — "1. To all the injuries mentioned in the convention of August 11, 1809., heretofore referred to. "2. To all claims on account of prizes made by French privateers and condemned by French consuls within the territory and jurisdiction of Spain. "3. To all claims of indemnities on account of the suspension of the right of deposit at New Orleans in 1802. "4. To all claims of citizens of the United States upon the Government of Spain, arising from the unlawful seizures at sea, and in the ports and territories of Spain, or the Spanish colonies. "5. To all claims of citizens of the United States upon the Spanish Government, statements of which, soliciting the interposition of the Government of the United States, have been presented to the Department of State, or to the minister of the United States in Spain, since the date of the convention of 1802 and until the signa- ture of this treaty." No "losses", damages, or injuries" were sustained by the claimants herein by reason of excesses committed by Spanish subjects under the treaty of 1802. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 739 Nor did the claim herein arise under the second or third-class mentioned in the treaty of 1819, or under the fourth class, as the forcible dispossession of the captor, followed by towing the Two Cousins into Habana. was not a wrongful seizure at sea. The claim does not fall within the fifth class, as it is not shown that the claim was presented to the State Department, as therein provided, as a claim against Spain, prior to the signing of the treaty of 1819. But the defendants contend that because the claim was presented to the commis- sioners appointed under the treaty of 1819, therefore the claimants elected to look to Spain and by that act released France. The claim herein was not a claim against Spain either separately or jointly, and therefore did not fall within the class of claims renounced by the United States. Hence its presentation to the commissioners under the treaty of 1819 did not operate as an election, as an election in such a case presupposes a joint liability. France was alone liable for the illegal capture and condemnation, and continued to persist in her wrongful act, and therefore the filing of the claim before the commissioners under the treaty of 1819 and its disallowance because of insufficient testimony can not avail as a defense to France, and therefore not to the United States. Where one has inconsistent rights or remedies of which he may avail himself, a choice of one is held an election not to pursue the other, but that rule does not apply to coexisting and consistent remedies. ( F. C. Austin Mfg. Co. v. Decker, 80 N. Y., 8; N. Y. Land Improvement Co. v. Chapman, 118 N. Y., 288.) But here the question is not one of inconsistent remedies or rights against the same party, but whether two nations are liable as joint tort feasors for unlawful captures of American vessels or whether Spain is liable separately for the loss of the Two Cousins and her cargo by reason of excesses committed by Spanish subjects on America'n citizens. As Spain is not shown to have aided France in any unlawful way, she can not be charged with joint liability therewith, and as the act of Spain was not unlawful as against the United States no separate liability arose against her in favor of the claimants; and hence the filing of a claim against Spain under the treaty of '1819 under the circumstances of this case did not operate as an election releasing France. In the case of the Reliance (37 C. Cls. R., 262), where the vessel was seized in Swedish waters and carried into a Swedish port, and while there condemned by a French court sitting in French territory, the court held, on the motion for a new trial (41 C. Cls. R., 67), that the United States had the right to present the claim either to Sweden, who owed protection to the American vessel, or to France, who seized the vessel; and, further, that the owners had the right to ask their Government to prosecute the claim against either one or the other offending parties; and, having filed the claim in the State Department requesting the United States to ask satis- faction from the Swedish Government, it was an election, so far as the owners of the vessel could make it, to hold the Swedish Government; and that being true, it was not one of the claims relinquished by France in consideration of the relinquishment of France of her claims against the United States. In that case the seizure was in Swedish waters, and therefore Sweden by not pro- tecting the vessel violated her treaty with the United States, which rendered her a tort feasor with France, if not primarily liable, and hence the owners by electing to look to Sweden, it was held, thereby relinquished their claims against France. Tn the present case, as the claim was never one against Spain, either separately or jointly, but arose by reason of the illegal capture and condemnation by France, it was one of the claims released by the second article of the treaty of 1800 in considera- tion of the release by France of certain claims of her citizens against the United States. \r Spain being a neutral, her wrong was against France, which she judicially recog- nized by decreeing possession of the vessel to the captor. That is to say, the status quo of the captured vessel was restored to the captor, and no damages were claimed by the master of the Two Cousins against Spain for her acts. jjpFven if the master of the privateer had directed the prize master to take the cap- tured vessel into a Spanish port, it would not have been an illegal act (The Hiram, 41 C. Cls. R., 12). If not, and while there a controversy had arisen as to who was enti- tled to the possession of the captured vessel, the courts of Spain would have been open to adjudicate that question. Nor would Spain have rendered herself liable by permitting the sale of an American vessel under a decree of a prize court sitting in French territory (Ship Star, 35 C. Cls., 387). !H Respecting the insurance on the vessel effected subsequent to the capture, the court in the case of the schooner John Eason (37 C. Cls. R., 443) held that where the captured vessel had been insured after its condemnation, the premium therefor was not a charge against France, as the liability of France was limited to the value of the property at the time of the illegal seizure or condemnation. In that case the insur- ance was effected after the condemnation, while in the present case the insurance was 740 allowance of certain claims. effected before the condemnation but after the illegal seizure, and we think the same principle applies, as the liability of France could not be augmented subsequent to the illegal seizure, though the insurance between the parties was valid. The court's conclusions are that the claimants are entitled to the allowance set forth in the findings, which findings, together with this opinion, will be certified to Congress. By the Court. Filed May 13, 1907. A true copy. Test this 31st day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SCHOONER UNITY. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Unity, J. W. Latouche, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 921. David Stewart, administrator of Henry Messonnier, v. The United States. 4026. Antoinette Williams, administratrix of John McFadon, ?;. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of November, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, esqs , and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assist- ant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney- General J. A Van Orsdel. \ FINDINGS OP FACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the fa,cts to be as follows: I. The schooner Unity, whereof J. W. Latouche was then master, sailed on a com- mercial voyage December 20, 1794, from Baltimore bound to Monte Christo. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high 'seas January 21, 1795, by the French privateer Ambuscade, Captain Daligand, and carried into Port de Prix and both vessel and cargo thereafter condemned as good prize and ordered sold for the benefit of the captors by decree of the tribunal of prizes sitting at Cape Francois, dated February 18, 1795, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners thereof. The grounds of condemnation as stated in the decree were as follows, viz: "Considering that from the papers and from the orders given to Captain Latouche by Messonnier the conclusive proof appears of the unfortunate prediction (predilec- tion?) of this owner for the ports of ihe colony sold to the enemies of the Republic; that the truth of this is confirmed by the reply of Pierre Jenson to the question as to what the voyage was, to this effect — that he had made two voyages for the same house (Messonnier) to Leogane since the month of June last, and this particular voy- age is the third; the same conclusion can be inferred from the deposition of John S. Chany. "Considering that the letter of Com. Creuze to Cazimio Creuze, his son, at St. Mark, though without signature, a letter which Mairant. in his second examination has not denied to be that with which he had been charged by her contains the proof, as it were, that Mairant is the owner of the Unity. 'Monsieur Mairant,' said this woman, 'has just informed me, my dear son, that he must leave to-day for St. Mark in a vessel of which he is the owner, and has promised to take you my letter with certainty and likewise to charge himself to bring to me everything you can send me by him. Lad. Lau. Mairant was connected with the C — Creuze, which he had known at the Cape, under the government of M. Bellecombe.' He told her that he wa& going to St. Mark in a vessel owned by him — no secrets between those individuals! He promised her to charge himself with everything her son could send her; perhaps likewise he promised her to take charge of the servants which she asks from her 3on, and would take them from the colony as citizens to become slaves in America. " Considering that Mairant, having emigrated at the time of the proclamation of Civil Commissioner Sonthanax of April 28, 1793, being under the ban of proscription pro- nounced against all emigrants, had been obliged to masque his operations, as it were, ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 741 in order to avoid confiscation, and that it had not been difficult for him to obtain, under the cloak of Messonnier, the document which Captain Latouche carries. "Considering that if Mairant had not feared the penalties pronounced against emi- grants and if he had really had the intention of returning into the French Republic, he had a multitude of opportunities to go to the Cape, opportunities which he doubt- less had preferred to that of Monte Christo, with which the Republic had no relations, if his personal interests did not determine the preference of the one over the other. "That the passport which he obtained for [illegible] proved nothing if not the desire he had to come to the Mole, where it is well known that he had connections and large interests. "Considering that the omission of the name of this passenger (Mairant) on the role d'6quipage of the schooner Unity is an intentional omission, a concerted ruse between Messonnier, Captain Latouche, and Mairant, to conceal the course of the latter, to screen from the knowledge of the Republic the return of Mairant into the colony, and a protection by this means from any confiscation; but this omission, whatever may be the object, is an infraction of the [illegible] by Captain Latouche, as likewise a crime against the French Republic. " Considering that it is an open violation of the laws of neutrality to give his name to an emigrant to facilitate his entry into the colony and to favor his relations and commerce with the city sold to foreign powers, that to tolerate this strategem and all those which are daily employed to circumvent France is to expose the colony to a realization of the misfortunes against which the ambassador of the Republic to the United States of America has wished to provide by his official correspondence. It tends to foil the criminal courts, which exist for this purpose and to punish the authors and participants by ordering the confiscation of everything which appears suspicious from the conclusions without fear of injuring the rights of neutrals. "Considering, finally, that the provisions of Article VII of the marine ordinance, title 3, as to prizes, is applicable to the present case." II. The Unity was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 54f-i tons burthen; built in the year 1793 and owned solely by Henry Messonnier, a citizen of the United States, residing in Baltimore. III. The cargo of the Unity consisted of dry goods, flour, herring, claret, beef, salmon, candles, empty bags, hats, and boots and was the property of the said Henry Messonnier and was of the value (as far as proven) of $1,407.08. IV. The losses to said Henry Messonnier by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the -Unity and cargo were as follows; Value of vessel $2, 160. 00 Freight earnings 900. 00 Value of cargo (as far as proven) 1, 407. 08 Amounting in all to 4, 467. 08 The claimant has produced letters of administration on the estate of the party for whom he appears, and the said David Stewart has otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the person for whose estate he has filed claim is in fact the same person who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Unity as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. It was not a claim growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimant, in his representative capacity, is the owner of said claim, which has never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claim was relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimant is entitled to the following sum from the United States: David Stewart, administrator of Henry Messonnier, four thousand four hun- dred and sixty-seven dollars and eight cents $4, 467. 08 742 ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAHST CLAIMS. Antoinette Williams, administratrix of John Mcfadon, has proved no valid claim, and the petition is dismissed. f"** By the Court. Filed December 2, 1907. A true copy. Test this 16th day of December, 1907. [seal.] f John Randolph, < Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. BRIG FANNY. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel brig Fanny, John Gould, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 2334. Mary Wise Moody, administratrix of the estate of Daniel Wise, deceased, v. The United States. 2522. Albert M. Welch, administrator of Thomas Perkins 3d, deceased, v. The United States. 37. Edward D. Codman, administrator of William Gray, deceased, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of November, 1907. The claimants were represented by Edwin B. Smith, William T. S. Curtis, and Charles W. Clagett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistants in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer and Stanhope Henry, esqs., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. FINDINGS OP FACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determines the facts to be as follows: I. The brig Fanny, John Gould, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from Ken- nebunk, in the then State of Massachusetts, on the 27th day of November, 1796, bound for Leogane, Hispaniola. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was captured on the high seas on the 30th day of December, 1796, by the French privateer Loyaute, Captain Dolhabaret, and carried into Port de Paix. On the 28th day of January, 1797, the Fanny and her cargo were condemned by the French prize tribunal sitting at Cape Francois on the following grounds: "That the master of said vessel did not have a certificate of the cargo authenticated in the usual style by the officers of the port whence he sailed, as required by the twenty-fifth article of the treaty of commerce and amity between France and the United States of America, of 1778, in the following words: 'In case either of the parties should be engaged in a war it has been equally agreed that the vessels as mentioned shall be provided not only with passports but with certificates containing the details of cargo and the place whence the vessel sailed. Certificates shall be made out by the officers of the port whence the vessel sailed in the accustomed form.' " II. The Fanny was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 143|§ tons bur- den, and was owned by Daniel Wise, (^ 5 ) three twenty-seconds; Oliver Keating, (Jz) eight twenty-seconds; Thomas Perkins 3d, (^j eight twenty-seconds, and Joseph Perkins, (^ 2 ) three twenty-seconds, all of whom were citizens of the United States. Said vessel was registered in the year 1796, but it does not appear when she was built. III. The cargo of the Fanny ^ at the time of capture consisted of lumber, but the amount and ownership thereof is not shown by any competent evidence. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Fanny and cargo were as follows; Value of vessel $5, 005. 00 Freight earnings 2, 383. 33 Premium of insurance paid 275. 00 Total loss 7,663.33 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 743 The losses sustained by Thomas Perkins 3d were: 2 8 3 value of vessel $1, 820. 00 75 of freight earnings 866. 66 7,% of premium of insurance 100. 00 Amounting in all to 2, 786. 66 Less insurance received ( ^) 941. 66 Net loss 1,845.00 The losses sustained by Daniel Wise were: A value of vessel $682. 50 A of freight earnings 325. 00 ■$$ of premium of insurance 37. 50 • Amounting in all to 1 , 045. 00 Deduct insurance received (A) 256. 82 Net loss 788. 18 IV. William Gray insured said vessel for the owners thereof on said voyage in the sum of £550, or $1,883.33, at a premium of 15 per cent. Thereafter said William Gray, who was a citizen of the United States, paid to the said owners the sum of $1,883.33 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises. It does not appear who composed the firm of Daniel Wise & Co. , or that said firm had any interest in said vessel or cargo. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persona who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Fanny, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spam concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States. Mary Wise Moody, administratrix of Daniel Wise, seven hundred and eighty- eight dollars and eighteen cents $788. 18 Albert M. Welch, administrator of Thomas Perkins 3d, one thousand eight hundred and forty-five dollars 1, 845. 00 Edmund D. Codman, administrator of William Gray, one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three dollars and thirty- three cents 1, 883. 33 Amounting in all to four thousand five hundred and sixteen dollars and fifty-one cents 4, 516. 51 Oliver Keating and Joseph Perkins, part owners of the vessel herein, are not in court. By the Court. Filed December 2, 1907. A true copv: Test this 16th day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John ^Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. 744 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. SCHOONER SWAN. [Court of Claims. French Spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel, schooner Swan, Samuel Shaw, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 2231. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of Abraham Touro, v. The United States. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. Morton Prince, administrator of James Prince, v. The United States. William P. Dexter, administrator of Samuel Dexter, v. The United States. Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. 2884. Mary E. Carter, administratrix of Thomas Carter, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of March, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attor- ney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. CONCLUSIONS OP FACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of cotmsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The schooner Sivan, Samuel Shaw, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from Swans Island July 20, 1799, bound to St. Bartholomew. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized by the French privateer L'Espoir and carried to Point-a- Pitre, Guadaloupe. On August 16, 1799, said vessel and cargo were condemned by the tribunal of commerce and prize sitting at Basseterre, Guadaloupe, on the follow- ing grounds: "That the neutrality of the cargo is not sufficiently established. "That the passport carried by the said captain is not in conformity with the treaty of February 6, 1778. "That the captain has no rdle d'equipage/' II. The schooner Swan was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 90 |J tons burthen; built at Swans Island, Mass., in the year 1797, and owned solely by Joseph Prince, a citizen of the United States. III. The cargo of the Swan at the time of seizure consisted of lumber, but the quan- tity and value of the same is not shown by the evidence. IV. The value of the vessel was in excess of $1,500, for which insurance was effected thereon as stated below. V. September 6, 1799, Joseph Prince, owner of the vessel, effected insurance on the same in the office of Abraham Touro, insurance broker of Boston, to the amount of $1,500, paying therefor a premium of 25 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, each in the sum set opposite their names, respectively, viz: Crowell Hatch $500. 00 James Prince 300. 00 Samuel Dexter 300. 00 John C. Jones 400. 00 Thereafter said Abraham Touro, as agent for the underwriters, paid the said assured the sum of $1,500, being in full for a total loss on said policy by reason of the premises. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Swan, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 745 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1880; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the follow- ing sums from the United States: George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, five hundred dollars $500. 00 Morton Prince, administrator of James Prince, three hundred dollars 300. 00 William P. Dexter, administrator of Samuel Dexter, three hundred dollars. 300. 00 Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, four hundred dollars... 400.00 Amounting in all to one thousand five hundred dollars 1, 500. 00 Petition No. 2884, Mary E. Carter, administratrix of Thomas Carter, is dismissed, his ownership of the vessel not having been shown. The owner of the cargo is not in court. By the Court. Filed March 18, 1907. A true copy. Test this 6th day of December,^. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court nf Claims. SCHOONER HANNAH, VOAX, MASTER [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1 Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Hannah, James H. Voax, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 286. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter Chardon Brooks, v. The United States. Morton Prince, administrator of James Prince, v. The United States. A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, v. The United States. Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. Chandler Robbins, administrator of Joseph Russell, v. The United States. 1908. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 2399. Nathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargent, v. The United States. 2983. Charles U. Cotting, administrator of David Child, otherwise called David W. Child, v. The United States. Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of William Marshall, jr., v. The United States. 3529. Charles T. Loveiing, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. Edward I. Browne, administrator of Israel Thorndike, v. The United States. Henry Parkman, administrator of John Lovett, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 13th day of March, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney- General J. A. Van Orsdel. CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. The court, upon the' evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: The schooner Hannah, James H. Voax, master, sailed on a commercial voyage April 7, 1800, from Boston bound to the island of Saint Thomas. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas May 1, 1800, by the French privateer L' Amour de la Patrie, Captain Hirigoyen, taken to Guadeloupe by a prize master, and there condemned as good prize by the tribunal of commerce and prizes on May 11, 1800, whereby both vessel and cargo became a total loss to the owners thereof. The grounds of condemnation as stated in the decree were: ' ' That the sea letter was not signed by an officer of marine . "That the vessel carried no role d'equipage." 746 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. II . Tlie Hannah was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 45ff tons burthen, built in Massachusetts in the year 1799, and owned solely by William Marshall, jr., and David Child, citizens of the United States, residing in Boston. III. The cargo of the Hannah consisted of beef, bacon, salt, butter, cheese, flour, tobacco, candles, pork, salmon, and lard and was owned solely by said William Mar- shall, jr., and David Child. IV. The losses to the said owners of vessel and cargo by reason of the premises were as follows, viz: Value of vessel - $1, 800. 00 Freight earnings 750. 00 Value of cargo 5,268.55 Premiums of insurance paid 800. 00 Amounting in all to , 8, 618. 55 Deduct insurance received 8, 000. 00 Net loss 618.55 Net loss of William Marshall, jr 309. 28 Net loss of David Child 309. 27 V. April 7, 1800, William Marshall, jr., and David Child, effected through the office of Peter C. Brooks, insurance in the sum of $6,500, to wit, $1,500 on the vessel and $5,000 on the cargo, paying therefor a premium of 10 per cent, the policy being under- written as follows: Crowell Hatch $1,000 j Tuthill Hubbart $1,000 James Prince 500 ' John C. Jones 1, 000 Benjamin Sumner 500 Jeffrey & Russell 1,000 Nathaniel Fellowes 1, 000 ! William Smith 500 Thereafter, Peter C. Brooks, as agent as aforesaid, paid to William Marshall, jr., and David Child $6,500 in full for a total loss on the policy. February 1, 1804, Benjamin Sumner, for and in consideration of $600 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by the said Brooks of any and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. April 4, 1808, the administrators of said Tuthill Hubbart for and in consideration of $60,000 to them paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption by the said Brooks of all and any liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all the right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by said Hubbart as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. December 16, 1801, William Smith, in consideration of $3,715.50, to him paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption by said Brooks of all and any liabilities arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. April 28, 1800, William Marshall, jr., and David Child effected further insurance through the office of Joseph Taylor, in the sum of $1,500, to wit, $500 on the vessel and cargo, and $1,000 on the freight, paying therefor a premium of 12 per cent, the policy being underwritten as follows: Daniel Sargent $500 Israel Thomdike 700 John Lovett 300 Thereafter, Joseph Taylor, as agent, paid the said assured the sum of $1,500 in full for a total loss on the policy, but the freight being valued at $750 there was an over- insurance on this policy in the sum of $250, and the respective underwriters are there- fore only entitled to recover 83 J per cent of the amount underwritten by them. Their loss is therefore as follows: Daniel Sargent .' $416. 67 Israel Thomdike 583. 33 John Lovett 1 250. 00 All of the above underwriters were citizens of the United States. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 747 the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Hannah, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: Charles U. Cotting, administrator of David W. Child, three hundred and nine dollars and twenty-seven cents. . . , $309. 27 Francis M. Boutwell, administrator of William Marshall, jr., three hundred and nine dollars and twenty-eight cents 309. 28 Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, two thousand dollars 2, 000. 00 Morton Prince, administrator of Jame Prince, five hundred dollars 500. 00 A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, one thousand dollars 1, 000. 00 Chandler Robbins, administrator of Joseph Russell, for and on behalf of the firm of Jeffrey & Russell, one thousand dollars 1, 000. 00 Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, one thousand dollars. . 1, 000. 00 George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, one thousand dollars 1, 000. 00 Nathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargent, four hundred and sixteen dollars and sixty-seven cents 416. 67 Edward I. Browne, administrator of Israel Thorndike, five hundred and eighty-three dollars and thirty-three cents 583. 33 Henry Parkman, administrator of John Lovett, two hundred and fifty dol- lars 250. 00 Amounting in all to eight thousand three hundred and sixty-eight dollars and fifty-five cents 8, 368. 55 The difference between the total loss as set forthlin Paragraph IV and the amount allowed herein arises from the fact of overinsurance on freight as set out in Paragraph V, By the Court. Filed April 1, 1907. A true copy: Test this 13th day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SLOOP SCRUB. Court of Claims. French spoliation. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vessel sloop Scrub, John Russell, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 4458. Newton Dexter, administrator of the estate of Joseph Martin, deceased, v. The United States. Supplementary Findings. conclusions of pact. This case was tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of February, 1907. The claimant was represented by Edward Lander, esq., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of 748 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A*. Van Orsdel. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The sloop Scrub, a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 71|| tons bur- den, whereof John Russell was master and Benjamin Williams was owner, both citi- zens of the United States, sailed on a commercial voyage on the 5th of April, 1797, from Kingston, Jamaica, having on board a cargo of merchandise bound for Habana and thence to some port in Connecticut. II. The cargo was the property of said Benjamin Williams, and was of the value of $1,307. Said vessel while peacefully pursuing her voyage, laden as aforesaid, was captured on the 10th of April, 1797, by the French corsair La Revanche, Capt. Louis Nadal, and carried into Habana, and on or about the 20th of April, 1797, was, together with the cargo, condemned by a French tribunal and the maritime agent of the French Republic at the island of Cuba, resident at Habana, charged with the entire execution of the decree. ' III. The following is a copy of the decree of condemnation: "Having seen the procedure had the 22d Prairial last by Maurice Rondineau, maritime agent of the Republic at the island of Cuba, residing at Havana, in regard to the prize of the ship Scrub, from the port of Wilmington, Capt. Jno. Russell, cap- tured the 30th Germinal last by the corsair La Revanche, Capt. Louis Nadal, and brought into Havana; • "Considering that it results from the procedure that the said ship had been captured coming out of the port of Kingston, island of Jamaica, whence she had been despatched the 3d of April, 1797; "Considering that the resolution of the executive directory of the 14th Messidor, year 4. prescribes to all commanders of the ships of the Republic and to all captains of corsairs particular to treat all neutral ship in the same way that they have allowed themselves to be treated by the English; ' ' Considering that it is of wide notoriety that the agents of the British Government in the Antiles do not respect any neutral flag, and notably those of the United States; that this notoriety is confirmed by numerous declarations made or deposed to the secretary-ship general of the commission; that even various commanders of English men of war have furnished material proof of this conduct towards the ships of the United States of America, which proofs will be found again likewise in the archives of the commission; ' ' Considering that it is only since the official reception of the said resolution of the executive directory, and after the notoriety of the conduct of the agents of the English Government in the Antilles toward neutral ships, and especially towards those of the United States of America, that the commission has made its decree of the 18th Nivose last, by which it declares good prize all neutral ships going into English ports or which are coming out; "The commission has decreed and does decree that the ship Scrub, of Wilmington, Capt. Jno. Russell, taken the 30th Germinal last by the corsair La Revanche, Capt. Louis Nadal, and taken into Havana, is a good prize, as well as her cargo, and all that which can appertain thereto, and that all shall be sold to the profit of the captors, owners, and interested parties in the outfit of the said corsair; that consequently all guardians or other detainers of the said ship, in whole or part, of her cargo, circumstances, and appendages, are held to give up the possession of it, into the hand of the said captain captor or his representatives. "The present decree will be notified to whom it may concern at the diligence of the said captain captor or his representative. "The maritime agent of the Republic at the island of Cuba, resident at Havana, is charged with the entire execution of the present decree." IV. In 1797 Benjamin Williams obtained a policy of insurance from John Mason, insurance broker, of Providence, R. I., in the sum of $3,500 "on the sloop Scrub and her appurtenances; also on her cargo on board from Newburn, North Carolina, to Jamaica, at and from thence to any one port in the United States, with liberty to touch at Habana on her homeward passage, against all risks." Said policy was underwritten, among others, by Joseph Martin in the sum of $300. V. On October 10, 1797, Joseph Martin, through his agent, John Mason, paid to said Benjamin Williams the said sum of $300. Said Joseph Martin was a native citizen of the United States. VI. The claimant has obtained letters of administration for the party whom he represents, and has otherwise proven to the satisfaction of the court that the person on whose estate he is administrator, is the same person who suffered loss through the ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 749 capture of the sloop Scrub and cargo, as set forth in the preceding findings, to wit, in case No. 4458, Newton Dexter, administrator of the estate of Joseph Martin, deceased. Said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, and was not a claim grow- ing out of the acts of France allowed and paid, in whole, or in part, under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 22nd day of February, 1819, and was not allowed, in whole or in part, under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimant below named in the conclusion of law in his representative capacity, is the owner of said claim, which has never been assigned. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owner and insurer had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimant is entitled to the following sum from the United States: Newton Dexter, administrator of the estate of Joseph Martin, deceased, to the sum of three hundred dollars $300.00 By the Court. Filed February 18, 1907. A true copy. Test this 14th day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. BRIG LUCY, GRANT, MASTER. (Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel brig Lucy, Christopher Grant, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 59. Robert Codman, administrator of William Gray, v. The United States. 1038. Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 2042. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, v. The United States. 2985 i Daniel W. Salisbury, executor of Samuel Salisbury, v. The United States. (Louis Higginson, administrator of Stephen Higginson, v. The United States PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 23d day of October, 1906. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, Edward Lander, and Charles W. Clagett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Josiah A. Van Orsdel. ^CONCLUSIONS OI< FACT. The majority of the court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same, with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The brig Lucy, whereof Christopher Grant was master, sailed on a commercial voyage August 18, 1798, from Penobscot River bound to Martinico. While peace- fully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas on or about the 26th day of September, 1798, by the French privateer La Revanche, Captain Liebbe, who took the master and his crew from on board their vessel and carried said brig Lucy into Guadaloupe, where the said master and his crew were sent on board a prison ship, without being allowed to get a protest or a copy of the condemnation. He was exam- ined in preparatorio September 28, 1798, while imprisoned. Thereafter, to wit, September 30, 1798 (Vendemaire 9, year 7), said vessel and cargo were condemned as good prize by the tribunal of commerce and prizes sitting at Basseterre, Guadaloupe, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners. |f 750 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The grounds of condemnation, as set forth in the decere, were as follows: First. That the said brig Lucy was bound for Martinique, an island in the possession of the English. Second. That her sea papers were not in order, there being no list of the crew, no invoice, nor bill of lading. II. The brig Lucy was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 139^§ tons burthen, was built at Kennebunk in the year 1792, and was owned by Stephen Hig- ginson, jr., and Samuel Salisbury, jr., citizens of the United States, each one-half. III. The cargo of the brig Lucy at the time of capture consisted of oil, shingles, boards, fish, beef, and pork, and was owned by said Salisbury and Higginson. IV. The loss to the said Salisbury and Higginson, the owners of the vessel and cargo, was as follows: Value of vessel $4, 865. 00 Value of cargo '. 2,435.00 Freight earnings 2, 318. 00 Premiums of insurance paid 2, 061. 66 11, 679. 66 Deduct insurance received ' 7, 500. 00 Loss to Salisbury and Higginson 4, 179. 66 V. June 16, 1798, Salisbury and Higginson effected insurance on said vessel and cargo in the sum of $7,500 (half on each) in the office of Peter C. Brooks for said voyage, paying therefor a premium of 33J per cent. . The underwriters on said policy, all of whom were citizens of the United States, and the amounts subscribed by each are as follows: Crowell Hatch $1, 000. 00 Caleb Hopkins 1,000.00 William Smith 1,000.00 David Greene 1,000.00 William Gray, jr 1, 000. 00 William Stackpole 500.00 Tuthill Hubbart 1,000.00 Nathaniel Fellowes 1,000.00 Thereafter the said Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the sum of $7,500, being a total loss to each of said underwriters of the amount underwritten by them. Said Salisbury and Higginson insured the cargo in the sum of $3,750, the value of the said cargo being $2,435. They were therefore overinsured in the sum of $1,315. VI. December 8, 1801, the administrator of the estate of Caleb Hopkins, in consid- eration of the sum of $3,000 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption by the said Brooks of all disadvantages arising from the underwriting of said Hopkins in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all the right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by the said Hopkins in the office of the said Brooks. December 16, 1801, William Smith, for and in consideration of $3,715.50, and the assumption of all disadvantages arising from the underwriting of said Smith in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all the right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him in the office of said Brooks. December 23, 1801, David Greene, for and in consideration of $6,000, and the assump- tion of all disadvantages arising from the underwriting of said Greene in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him in the office of said Brooks. April 14, 1808, Tuthill Hubbart, for and in consideration of $60,000, and the assump- tion of all disadvantages arising from the underwriting of said Hubbart in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all the right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him in the office of said Brooks. February 1, 1804, William Stackpole, for and in consideration of $8,000, and the assumption of all disadvantages arising from the underwriting of said Stackpole in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all the right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him in the office of said Brooks. VII. The claimants herein have produced letters upon the estates of their decedents, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the parties they repre- sent are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the capture and con- demnation of the brig Lucy as aforesaid. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 751 VIII. Said claims wore not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, and were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d day of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The majority of the court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and con- demnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention be- tween the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of Sep- tember, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: Daniel W. Salisbury, surviving executor of Samuel Salisbury, two thou- sand and eighty-nine dollars and eighty-three cents. $2, 089. 83 Louis Higginson, administrator of Stephen Higginson, two thousand and eighty-nine dollars and eighty-three cents 2, 089. 83 Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, four thousand five hundred dollars ' 4, 500. 00 Robert Codman, administrator of William Gray, one thousand dollars 1, 000. 00 George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, one thousand dollars 1, 000. 00 A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Nathaniel Fellowes, one thousand dollars ' 1, 000 . 00 Amounting in all to eleven thousand six hundred and seventy-nine dollars and sixty -six cents 11, 679. 66 By the Court. \ Filed February 18, 1907. A true copy. Test this 13th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SLOOP JAMES. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stat. L., 283. Vessel sloop James, Robert Palmer, master.] No. of case. . Claimant. 4797. George Meade, administrator of the estate of Anthony Butler, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. This claim was tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of November, 1907. The claimant was represented by William T. S. Curtis, and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, with whom was associated Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. FINDINGS OP PACT. The court, upon the evidence and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The sloop James, Robert Palmer, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about the 18th day of February, 1797, bound from the port of Philadelphia, Pa., to L'ance a Vean, laden with a cargo of flour, beef, wine, and similar merchandise. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas on March 15, 1797, by the French privateer L Enfant Trouve, Capt. Pierre Brard, and conducted into the French port of Jean Rabel, and thereafter, on the 26th day of April, 1797, both vessel and cargo were condemned by the French prize tribunal sitting in the French port of Cape Francois, and became a total loss to the owners thereof. 752 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The ground for said condemnation, as set forth in the decree, was as follows: That she was bound, when captured, for Cape Nicholas Mole, a place under the protection of the French Government. II. The sloop James was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 80f § tons burthen, built at Perth Amboy, in the State of New Jersey, in the year 1793, and was owned solely by Anthony Butler, a citizen of the United States. III. The cargo consisted of wine, fruit, oil, beef, shooks, flour, dry goods, and silversmiths' tools, but the value of the same and the owners thereof do not appear. IV. The loss to Anthony Butler by reason of the capture and condemnation afore- said was as follows: Value of vessel $3, 200 Freight earnings .' 1, 333 Amounting in all to 4, 533 The claimant has produced letters of administration on the estate of the party for whom he appears, and has otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the. f)erson for whose estate he has filed claim is in fact the same person who suffered oss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the sloop James, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. It was not a claim growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and was not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimant, in his representative capacity, is the owner of said claim, which has never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claim was relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimant is entitled to the following sum from the United States: George Meade, administrator of the estate of Anthony Butler, four thousand five hundred and thirty-three dollars $4, 533 Amounting in all to four thousand five hundred and thirty-three dollars ($4,533). By the Court. Filed December 2, 1907. A true copy. Test this 6th day of February, A. D. 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. BRIG ELIZA. Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Brig Eliza, Christopher O'Conner, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 737. President and Directors of the Insurance Company of North America v. The United States. 831. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. The United States. 2318. Samuel Bell, administrator of John G. Wachsmuth, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of November, 1907. The claimants were represented by Thomas Stokes, esq., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 753 FINDINGS OF FACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same, with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. Brig Eliza, Christopher O'Conner, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from Philadelphia on March 12, 1798, bound for St. Nicholas" Mole and Port au Prince. While peacefully pursuing her said voyage she was seized on the high seas on April 8, 1798, by the French privateer L' Union, Capt Andrew Scean (or Sceau), and car- ried into Port de Paix. On April 13, 1798, vessel and cargo were condemned by the French tribunal of prize sitting at Cape Francais. The grounds of condemnation, as stated in the decree, were as follows: "Considering that there does result from the papers, as well maritime as commercial of the said brig, the undeniable proof that she was bound for Port au Prince and the Mole; "Considering that Port au Prince and the Mole are ports rebels to the Republic, given up to the British, occupied and defended by the emigrants under the protection of the British Government; "Considering, finally, that the decree of the commission delegated by the French Government to the Leeward Islands, dated the 6 Nivose by the fifth year, and con- firmed by the decree of the commission, dated the 27th Vendemaire last, does declare to be good prize all neutral vessels taken bound to or from the ports of the Wind- ward and Leeward Islands, given up to the English, occupied and defended by the emigrants." II. The brig Eliza was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 134 tons burden, built at Falmouth, Mass., in the year 1793, and was owned solely by Her- man Bake and John Testart, citizens of the United States, composing the firm of Bake, & Testart. The value of the vessel and freight was at least the amount of insurance effected thereon. III. The cargo of the brig Eliza at the time of her capture consisted of flour, oil, gin, brandy, salmon, candles, soap, tea, lard, hams, sausages, almonds, marble mor- tars, herring, claret, looking-glasses, playing cards, traveling cases, glassware, cheese, fruits, meats, perfumery, sweetmeats, and hair powder. John G. Wachsmuth, a citizen of the United States, was the owner of an invoice consisting of 270 baskets of fine oil and 64 cases of red wine, composing a part of the cargo. The value of this invoice, estimated from prices current, was $2,793. Lewis Clapier, a citizen of the United States, was the owner of an invoice com- posing part of said cargo, consisting of miscellaneous articles of merchandise, none of which were contraband, the value of which was $17,719.83, excluding charges and premiums of insurance. IV. The loss to the said John G. Wachsmuth consisted of the value of the cargo shipped by him, amounting to $2,793. No claim for loss is filed by Herman Bake and John Testart, the owners of this vessel, or Lewis Clapier, owner of part of the cargo. V. March 7, 1798, Bake & Testart effected in the office of the Insurance Company of North America insurance on the vessel in the sum of $5,000, paying therefor a premium of 28 per cent. Thereafter, July 3, 1798, the said insurance company paid to the said insured the sum of $4,900, being in full for a total loss, less the customary abatement of 2 per cent. On March 7, 1798, Bake & Testart effected in the office of the Insurance Company of North America insurance on the freight in the sum of $2,000, paying therefor a premium of 28 per cent. Thereafter, July 3, 1798, the said insurance company paid to the said insured the sum of $1,960, being in full for a total loss, less the customary abatement of 2 per cent. March 3, 1798, Lewis Clapier effected insurance on his portion of the cargo in the sum of $22,000, paying therefor a premium of 15 per cent. Of this insurance $20,000 was effected in the office of the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. It does not appear where the remaining $2,000 was insured, nor have any claims been filed therefor. Thereafter, July 2, 1798, the said insurance company duly paid the said insured the sum of $18,906.64 in full for a total loss, which was an overpayment of $1,186.81, the value of the cargo being $17,719.83. The Insurance Company of North America was duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania and empowered to carry on the business of marine insurance. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania was duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania and empowered to carry on the business of marine insurance. S. Rep. 382, 60-1 18 754 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the brig Eliza, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: Samuel Bell, administrator, etc., of John Godfrey Wachsmuth, two thou-' sand seven hundred and ninety-three dollars $2, 793. 00 The president and directors of the Insurance Company of North America, six thousand eight hundred and sixty dollars 6, 860. 00 The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, seventeen thousand seven hundred and nineteen dollars and eighty-three cents 17, 719. 83 Amounting in all to twenty-seven thousand three hundred and seventy-two dollars and eighty-three cents .27, 372. 83 By the Court. Filed December 2, 1907. A true copy. Test this 11th day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SCHOONER LITTLE FANNY. Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Little Fanny, Peter Fosdick, master.l No. of case. Claimant. 657. Elijah K. Hubbard, administrator of Jacob Sebor, v. The United States. 865. The President and Directors of the Insurance Company of North America v. The United States. 917. Richard Irwin, administrator of James Scott, v. The United States. 1256. T. B. Bleeker, jr., and Charles 0. Leary. receivers of the New York Insurance Company, v. The United States. 1446. The Pennsylvania Company of Insurance for Lives, etc., administrator of Thomas M. Willing, v. The United States. William Brooke-Rawle, administrator of Jesse Wain, v. The United States. Samuel Bell, administrator of John G. Wachsmuth, v. The United States. George Blight, administrator of Peter Blight, v. The United States. Thomas F. Bayard, administrator of Thomas W. Francis, v. The United States. George Willing, administrator of George Willing, v. The United States. Robert W. Smith, -administrator of Robert Smith, v. The United States. Charles D. Vasse, administrator of Ambrose Vasse, v. The United States. Charles Prager, administrator of Mark Prager, v. The United States. Crawford Dawes Henning, administrator of James Crawford, v. The United States. Francis R. Pemberton, administrator of John Clifford, v. The United States. Crawford Dawes Henning, administrator of Abijah Dawes, v. The United States. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 755 No.ol case. Claimant. 1446. A. Louis Eakin, administrator of Chandler Price, v. The United States. 1682. Henry E. Young, administrator of William Craig, v. The United States. 2148. Joseph Ogden, surviving executor, etc., of Jane Ann Ferrers, v. The United States. 2701. George F. Scriba, administrator of George Scriba, v. The United States. 4270. Samuel J. Randall, administrator of Matthew Randall, v. The United States. 5189. Joseph Ogden, surviving executor, etc., of Jane Ann Ferrers, v. The United States. 5190. Joseph Ogden, surviving executor, etc., of Jane Ann Ferrers, v. The United States. 5419. Henry Ogden, administrator of James Seton, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of November, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, and Thomas Stokes, esqs.-, and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. FINDINGS OF FACT. The court, upon the evidence, and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The schooner Little Fanny, whereof Peter Fosdick was then master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about December 8, 1798, bound for Surinam, where she duly arrived, and sailed from thence early in the month of April, 1799, bound for Philadel- phia. While peacefully pursuing her said voyage to Philadelphia she was seized on the high seas by the French privateer Alliance and conducted to St. Johns, P. R. Thereafter, to wit, June 9, 1799, both vessel and cargo were condemned as good prize by decree of the tribunal of commerce and prizes sitting at Basseterre in the island of Guadeloupe, and ordered sold for the benefit of the captors, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners thereof. , The grounds of condemnation as stated in the decree were as follows, to wit: "That the vessel carried a commission from the President of the United States. "That according to the role d'equipage it appears that Benjamin Lewis, supercargo of the vessel, is an Englishman, and that there does not exist any document which proves that he is a naturalized citizen of the United States as is stated in the r61e d'equipage, as there has not been found any paper proving since what time' he has become an American, and at what time he has transferred his residence to the United States. "That among the papers delivered by the captain at the time of his seizure there was no sea-letter, invoice, nor bill of lading, except a bill of lading relating to aprevious voyage." II. The Little Fanny was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 102ff tons burthen, built in the State of Virginia in the year 1795, and owned solely by Matthew Randall, a citizen of the United States, residing in Philadelphia. III. The cargo of the Little Fanny at the time of said seizure consisted of salt, beef, hams, corn, and similar articles, together with coffee and cotton, but the neutrality and ownership of the same is not established by competent evidence. IV. The losses to said Matthew Randall by reason of the seizure and condemnation of said vessel were as follows: Value of vessel $4, 080 Freight earnings 1, 700 Premium of insurance paid (excluding premium on insurance effected after capture) 400 Amounting in all to 6, 180 Deduct insurance received 3, 920 Net loss 2, 260 V. December 11, 1798, Matthew Randall effected, through the office of Wharton & Lewis, insurance on the vessel in the sum of $2,000, paying therefor a premium of 20 756 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, each in the sum set opposite his name, viz: James Yard $1, 000 Simon Walker 500 Ambrose Vasse 500 Thereafter Wharton & Lewis, as agents, paid the insured $1,960, being in full for a total loss on the above policy, less the customary abatement of 2 per cent. May 6, 1799, Matthew Randall effected insurance through the office of Wharton & Lewis on the vessel in the sum of $2,000, paying therefor a premium of 10 per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, each in the sum set opposite his name, viz: Pragers & Co $1,000 Peter Blight 1, 000 Thereafter Wharton & Lewis, as agents, paid the insured $1,960, being in full for a total loss on the above policy, less the customary abatement of 2 per cent. There was also effected by Matthew Randall insurance on the cargo in the offices of Wharton & Lewis, of John Ferrers, insurance broker of New York, the Insurance Com- pany of North America, and the New York Insurance Company, but the neutrality of the cargo not having been shown no recovery can be had for insurance effected thereon. There was also effected by Matthew Randall insurance on the freight of said vessel in the office of John Ferrers, of New York, the same being underwritten by various per- sons, but no proof of the payment of said policy is shown. The firm of Pragers & Co. was composed of Mafk Prager, jr., and John Prager. Mark Prager, jr., was the surviving partner. Ambrose Vasse, Pragers & Co., and Peter Blight, insurers on the above policies, were citizens of the United States. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Little Fanny as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims grow- ing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that the seizure and condemnation of the cargo were legal and claimants are not entitled to recover therefor under the authority of the Betsey, Wyman (36 C. Cls. R., 256); that the seizure and condemnation of the vessel were illegal and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: Samuel J. Randall, administrator of Matthew Randall, two thousand two hundred and sixty dollars $2, 260. 00 Charles D. Vasse, administrator of Ambrose Vasse, four hundred and ninety dollars 490. 00 Charles Prager, administrator of Mark Prager, jr., for and on behalf of Pra- gers & Co. , nine hundred and eighty dollars 980. 00 Francis A. Lewis, administrator of Peter Blight, nine hundred and eighty dollars 980. 00 Amounting in all to four thousand seven hundred and ten dollars 4, 710. 00 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 757 James Yard and Simon Walker, underwriters on the above-named policy, are not in court. The other claimants herein have proved no valid claims. By the Court. Filed December 2, 1907. A true copy. Test this 11th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SCHOONER BENJA. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Benja, Samuel O. Row, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 301. Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 2244. George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, r. The United States. 2999. Nathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargent, v. The United States. Chandler Robbins, administrator of Joseph Russell, surviving partner of Jeffrey & Russell, v. The United States. 3462. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. John Lowell, jr., administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, v. The United States. William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 25th day of February, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, with whom was Assistant Attorney- General Josiah A. Van Orsdel. CONCLUSIONS OP PACT. I. The schooner Benja, whereof Samuel O. Row was master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about the 1st day of July, 1799, bound to Barbadoes. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas on or about the 9th day of August, in the year 1799, by the French privateer Espoir, Captain Melse, and carried to the island of Guadaloupe, and on the 13th day of the said month of August, both vessel and cargo were condemned and ordered sold for the benefit of the captors by the tri- bunal of commerce and prizes sitting at Basseterre, Guadaloupe, whereby they became a total loss to the owners thereof. The ground of condemnation as set forth in the decree was as follows: "Considering from the papers analyzed and those examined it is certain that the captain of the said schooner had no role d'equipage, but a simple agreement not bearing the signature of any public officer." II. The Benja was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 46f 4 tons burthen, built in the State of Massachusetts in the year 1798, and was owned solely by Ezra Whitney, a citizen of the United States, residing in Boston, in the said State. III. The cargo of the Benja consisted of beans, candles, fish, flour, rice, and tobacco, and was owned by the said Ezra Whitney and Joseph Clark, likewise a citizen of the United States. IV. The losses to the owners by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Benja and cargo were as follows: Value of vessel $1, 840 Value of cargo 2, 084 Freight earnings 767 Premiums of insurance paid 666 Amounting in all to 5, 357 Deduct insurance received 3, 700 Net loss 1,657 758 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. V. July 12, 1799, said Joseph Clark effected insurance in trie office of Peter C. Brooks in the sum of $1,300 on the cargo and outfits of the said schooner, paying therefor a premium of 18 per cent, by a policy underwritten by the following persons, citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name, viz: William Smith $700 Crowell Hatch 600 November 27, 1799, said Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said assured the amount of said policy, as and for a total loss, the same being a loss to each of said underwriters of the sum subscribed by him. December 16, 1801, William Smith in consideration of $3,715.50 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by said Brooks of all disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of the said Brooks. VI. July 27, 1799, said Ezra Whitney effected insurance in the office of Joseph Taylor in the sum of $2,400, whereof one-half was on the said vessel and one-half on the cargo, paying therefor a premium of 18 per cent by a policy of insurance underwritten by the following persons, citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name, viz: John C. Jones $500 Jeffrey & Russell 500 Tuthill Hubbart 500 Daniel Sargent 500 Nicholas Gilman 400 December 31, 1799, said Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said assured the amount of said policy, as and for a total loss, the same being a loss to each of said underwriters of the sum subscribed by him. The firm of Jeffrey & Russell was composed of Patrick Jeffrey and Joseph Russell, the last named being the survivor of said firm. VII. The claimants herein have produced letters of administration upon the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satis- faction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Benja, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th day of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d day of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: Charles F. Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, seven hundred dollars. $700. 00 George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, six hundred dollars 600. 00 Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, five hundred dollars. . 500. 00 John Lowell, jr., administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, five hundred dollars. .". 500. 00 Chandler Robbins, administrator of Joseph Russell, surviving partner of Jeffrey & Russell, five hundred dollars 500. 00 Nathan Matthews, jr., administrator of Daniel Sargent, five hundred dollars. 500. 00 William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, four hurfared dollars.. 400. 00 Three thousand seven hundred dollars 3, 700. 00 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 759 No persons claiming to represent Ezra Whitney and Joseph Clark, owners of the vessel and cargo respectively, have appeared herein. By the Court. Filed March 4, 1907. A true copy. Test this 11th day of December, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SCHOONER HERO. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885. 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed\, 471. Vessel schooner Hero, Convers Lilly, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 1625. Nathan Matthews, administrator of Daniel Sargent, v. The United States. 2981. Walter L. Hall, administrator of Samuel Davis, v. The United States. Ann W. Davis, administratrix of Jonathan Davis, v. The United States. 3331. Nathan Matthews, administrator of Daniel Sargent, v. The United States. Daniel W. Waldron, administrator of Jacob Sheafe, v. The United States. 3541. Charles T. Lovering, administrator of Joseph Taylor, v. The United States. William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, v. The United States. Elisha Whitney, administrator of Thomas Stevens, v. The United States. Thomas N. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, v. The United States. William Ropes Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, v. The United States. Henry B. Cabot, administrator of Daniel D. Rogers, v. The United States. James G. Davis, administrator of Cornelius Durant, v. The United States. H. Burr Crandall, administrator of Thomas Cushing, v. The United States. Edward I. Browne, administrator of Israel Thorndike, v. The United States. A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, v. The United States. George G. King, administrator of James Scott, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of November, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, and Charles W. Clagett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney- General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. FINDINGS OP PACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The schooner Hero, whereof Convers Lilly was then master, sailed on a commer- cial voyage December 9, 1799, from Bath, bound to Demarara, where she duly arrived and sailed thence March 4, 1800, bound for Martinique. While peacefully pursuing her said voyage and in sight of Martinique on the 9th day of the said month of March she was seized by the French privateer Favorite, Captain Landro, and carried to Port Liberty, Guadaloupe. On arrival at Port Liberty the prize mas- ter plundered the vessel of her furniture and stores, and the owners of the privateer robbed the said Convers Lilly of $272 in cash out of his chest. While under inter- rogatories the said Convers Lilly requested that he be informed where he could find a notary public in order that he might make protest, whereupon he was informed by the justice of the peace who was conducting the examination that that was more than he would be allowed to do, that nothing was being done but what was sanc- tioned by the Government. The next morning the said Convers Lilly was more effectually deprived of doing anything even if permitted, as every farthing of money was taken from him. Thereafter, to wit, March 20, 1800, the said vessel and cargo were condemned as good prize and ordered sold for the benefit of the captors by decree of the tribunal of commerce sitting at Basseterre, in the said island, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners thereof. The grounds of condemnation as stated in the decree were as follows: That the affidavit at the bottom of the sea letter of said vessel was not in good form. That the vessel had contravened her passport in that it does not appear that she went to Surinam, the port for which she sailed. 760 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. That there was neither invoice nor bill of lading relative to goods which were a part of the cargo. . That the vessel had come from Demarara, a colony occupied by the English, and that she had a cargo of sugar, coffee, and provisions as shown by her manifest from the custom-house of said place. That the vessel had no role d'equipage. II. The Hero was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 130^4 tons burthen, built at Bath, Mass. (now Maine), in the year 1796, and owned solely by Samuel Davis and Jonathan Davis, citizens of the United States. III. The cargo of the Hero at the time of the seizure consisted of coffee, sugar, firewood, pork, beef, and osnaburgs, but the neutrality and ownership of the same is not shown by competent evidence. IV. The losses to the said Samuel Davis and Jonathan Davis by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Hero, as aforesaid, were as follows: Value of the vessel. 15,200.00 Freight earnings 2, 167. 00 Premium of insurance paid on vessel 350. 00 Amounting in all to „ 7,717.00 Deduct insurance received 2, 000. 00 Net loss 5,717.00 Loss of Samuel Davis, one-half 2, 858. 50 Loss of Jonathan Davis, one-half 2, 858. 50 V. December 21, 1799, Samuel and Jonathan Davis effected insurance in the office of Joseph Taylor in the sum of $2,000 on the vessel, paying therefor a premium of 17£ per cent, said policy being underwritten by the following persons, all of whom were citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name: Nicholas Gilman $250 ( Daniel Sargent $125 Jacob Sheafe 125 | Daniel D. Rogers 125 John and Thomas Stevens 150 Cornelius Durant 250 Leech & Hilton 75 Thomas dishing 100 John C. Jones 150 Israel Thorndike 125 Thomas Amory 250 Tuthill Hubbart 150 James Scott 125 | Thereafter Joseph Taylor, as agent, duly paid the said insured the sum of $2,000, being in full for a total loss by reason of the premises, the same being a total loss to each of said underwriters of the amount so stated to have been underwritten by them, respectively. There was also included in the above policy an insurance on the cargo, but the neutrality and ownership of said cargo not being shown no recovery can be had for the insurance effected thereon. VI. The defendants have filed a counterclaim, alleging that the original claimant, Thomas Cushing, was indebted to the United States in the sum of $7,301.94 upon cer- tain unpaid custom-house bonds. It does not appear what amount, if any, of such indebtedness was paid. This indebtedness being greater than the amount of his loss herein, his administrator is entitled to no recovery. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Hero, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France, allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation of the vessel were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 761 upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800, that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: Walter L. Hall, administrator of Samuel Davis, two thousand eight hundred and fifty-eight dollars and fifty cents $2, 858. 50 Ann W. Davis, administratrix of Jonathan Davis, two thousand eight hun- dred and fifty-eight dollars and fifty cents 2, 858. 50 William G. Perry, administrator of Nicholas Gilman, two hundred and fifty dollars 250. 00 Daniel W. Waldron, administrator of Jacob Sheaf e, one hundred and twenty-five dollars 125. 00 Elisha Whitney, administrator of Thomas Stevens, for and on behalf of the firm of John & Thomas Stevens, one hundred and fifty dollars 150. 00 Thomas H. Perkins, administrator of John C. Jones, one hundred and fifty dollars 150. 00 William Ropes Trask, administrator of Thomas Amory, two hundred and fifty dollars : 250. 00 George G. King, administrator of James Scott, one hundred and twenty-five dollars •. 125. 00 Nathan Matthews, administrator of Daniel Sargent, one hundred and twenty-five dollars 125. 00 Henry B. Cabot, administrator of Daniel D. Rogers, one hundred and twenty-five dollars 125. 00 James C. Davis, administrator of Cornelius Durant, two hundred and fifty dollars 250. 00 Edward I. Browne, administrator of Israel Thorndike, one hundred and twenty-five dollars 125. 00 A. Lawrence Lowell, administrator of Tuthill Hubbart, one hundred and fifty dollars 150. 00 Amounting in all to seven thousand five hundred and forty-two dollars 7, 542. 00 No person claiming to represent Leech & Hilton has appeared herein. By reason of the counterclaim against Thomas Cushing, hereinbefore mentioned, no award is made to his estate. By the Court. Filed December 2, 1907. A true copy. Test this 7th day of January, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SCHOONER FORTUNE. [Court of Claims of the United States. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885, 23 Stats. L., 283, vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Schooner Fortune, William Hubbard, master.] No. of case. Claimants. 38. Edmund D. Codman, administrator of William Gray, v. The United States. 2333. Mary W. Moody, administratrix of Daniel Wise, v. The United States. 2573. John C. Lord, administrator of Tobias Lord, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were heard before the Court of Claims on the 13th day of November, 1907. The claimants were represented by Charles W. Clagett, Edwin B. Smith, Wm. T. S. Curtis, and Theodore J. Pickett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, and Stanhope Henry, esqs., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Josiah C. Van Orsdel. 762 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. FINDINGS OF FACT. The court upon the evidence, after hearing the arguments and considering the same, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The schooner Fortune, William Hubbard, master, sailed upon a commercial voyage from Kennebunk, in that part of Massachusetts since erected into the State of Maine, for a port in the West India Islands in the year 1799, prior to July 16, 1799. Sometime prior to the 16th of July, 1799, said vessel was captured by the French privateer La Legere, Captain Pairandeau, carried into the port De la Liberte, and was by the tribunal of commerce and prizes established and sitting at Basseterre, Guadaloupe, condemned with her cargo. The grounds of condemnation, as set forth in the decree, were that it appeared from a paper and from an examination that said schooner had no invoice or bill of lading, as the master had admitted in his interrogatory, so that it was impossible to know the true owner of said cargo, which is not sufficiently proven to be a neutral one, and that the captain had no list of the crew. II. The Fortune was a registered vessel of the United States of 93 tons burden, but the ownership thereof is not shown save to the amount of $600 insurance effected thereon by Daniel Wise, a citizen of the United States. III. There was a cargo on board the Fortune at the time of capture, but the quan- tity, quality, and ownership thereof is not shown. IV. The losses to the owners of the Fortune and her cargo, so far as appears by the evidence, are as follows: Value of vessel, to amount insured $600. 00 Premium of insurance paid 108. 00 Amounting in all to 708. 00 Deduct insurance received 600. 00 Net loss 108. 00 V. On May 30, 1799, Daniel Wise obtained from William Gray insurance upon the vessel in the sum of $600 at a premium of 18 per cent. On the 2d of September, 1799, said William Gray paid to said Daniel Wise the sum of $600 in full for a total loss upon said policy. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same peseons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Fortune, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that the seizure and condemnation of said vessel was illegal, but that the ownership of said vessel is not established by sufficient evidence, except in Daniel Wise to the amount of insurance paid thereon; that the condemnation of the cargo of said vessel was not illegal, no proof of the neutrality of said cargo having been produced before the prize court, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: Mary W. Moody, administratrix of Daniel Wise, one hundred and eight dollars .' $108. 00 Edmund D. Codman, administrator of William Gray, six hundred dollars..., 600. 00 Amounting in all to seven hundred and eight dollars 708. 00 John C. Lord, administrator of Tobias Lord, has proved no valid claim. By the Court. Filed December 2, 1907. . A true copy. Test this 9th day of January, A. D. 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 763 SLOOP ANNA CORBIN. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel sloop Anna Corbin, master, Thomas Justice.] No. of case. Claimant. 2459. John J. Wise, administrator of John Cropper, v. The United States. 5131. Henry G. White, administrator of Thomas Cropper, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 12th day of November, 1907 . The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis, Theodore J. Pickett, and Charles W. Clagett, esqrs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. FINDINGS OF PACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The sloop Anna Corbin, whereof Thomas Justice was then master, sailed on a commercial voyage from Folly Landing, State of Virginia, on the 11th day of February, 1798, bound for the island of Antigua, with a cargo of 2,500 bushels of corn, where she duly arrived and disposed of said cargo and sailed thence for St. Bartholomew, and thence for Folly Landing, in the State of Virginia. While peacefully pursuing said voyage she was seized on the high seas March 24, 1798, by the French privateer La Poule, and both vessel and cargo condemned as good prize April 19, 1798, by decree of the tribunal of prizes of Guadaloupe, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners thereof. The ground of condemnation as stated in the decree was that the vessel had sailed on a false route. II. The Anna Corbin was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 30 tons burthen, built in Virginia in the year 1794, and owned solely by John Cropper in the proportion of three-fourths and Thomas Cropper in the proportion of one-fourth. III. The outward cargo of corn sold at Antigua was owned by John Cropper and Thomas Cropper, and an unknown quantity of rumTwas taken on board there. At St. Bartholomew the vessel took on board 9 hogsheads, 7 tierces, and 9 barrels of sugar, or 14,206 pounds, of the value of |2,130.90, and 3 bags of coffee, weighing 299 pounds, of the value of $44.85, being the sole property of said John Cropper. IV. The loss to John Cropper by reason of said seizure was as follows, viz: Three-fourths value of vessel. $750. 00 Three-fourths freight earnings 375. 00 Value of cargo as far as proved 2, 175. 75 Amounting in all to 3, 300. 75 The losses to Thomas Cropper by reason of said seizure were as follows, viz: One-fourth value of vessel $250. 00 One-fourth freight earnings 125. 00 Amounting in all to 375. 00 Thomas Custis is not in court. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the sloop Anna Corbin, aa set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France, concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. 764 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: John J. Wise, administrator of John Cropper, three thousand three hundred dollars and seventy-five cents $3, 300. 75 Henry G. White, administrator of Thomas Cropper, three hundred and seventy-five dollars 375. 00 Amounting in all to three thousand six hundred and seventy-five dollars and seventy-five cents 3, 675. 75 By the Court. Filed December 2, 1907. A true copy. i Test this 17th day of January, 1908. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. BRIG ELIZA. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Brig Eliza, Benjamin English, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 2841. George P. Marvin, administrator of Ebenezer Peck and Stephen Ailing, v. The United States. 2841. Elihu L. Mix, administrator of Thomas Atwater, v. The United States. 2841. John C. Hollister, administrator of Elias Shipman, Austin Denison, and Robert Townsend, v. The United States. 2935. The New Haven Insurance Company v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 19th day of November, 1906. The claimants were represented by John W. Butterfield, esq., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Josiah A. Van Orsdel. FINDINGS OP PACT. ^ The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The brig Eliza, Benjamin English, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on June 26, 1798, from New Haven, Conn., bound for St. Nicholas Mole. While peace- fully pursuing said voyage on July 24, 1798, she was seized on the high seas by the French privateer La Confiance, Captain Chollet, and taken to Cape Francois, where she with her cargo was condemned as good prize by the tribunal of commerce at that place, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners. The ground of condemnation as set forth in the decree was as follows: That she was destined for the Mole St. Nicholas, a rebel port, handed over to the English. II. The Eliza was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 88 tons burthen; was built at Guildford in the year 1791 and was owned, among others, by Ebenezer Peck, Stephen Ailing, Thomas Atwater, and Shipman & Denison, citizens of the United States. III. The cargo of the Eliza at the time of capture consisted of cattle, sheep, grain, and other merchandise, and was owned by the owners of the vessel. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 765 IV. The losses by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Eliza were as follows: The value of the vessel $3, 000. 00 Freight earnings for the voyage 1, 456. 00 Value of the cargo 2, 235. 40 Premiums of insurance paid 954. 50 Total 7, 645. 90 V. The New Haven Insurance Company, a body corporate then and still' existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut, on the 7th July, 1798, insured the owners of the vessel and cargo to the amount of $5,000. Thereafter said insurance company paid the assured the sum of $4,900 as and for a total loss by reason of the premises. VI. Ebenezer Peck was owner of one-third of the vessel and a portion of the cargo. The losses sustained by him were as follows : One-third value of vessel $1, 000. 00 One-third freight earnings 485. 33 Value of his share of cargo 743. 83 Premium of insurance paid by him 300. 34 Total 2, 529. 50 Less insurance received 1, 576. 68 Leaving net loss to him 952. 82 VII. Stephen Ailing was the owner of one-sixth of the vessel and a portion of the cargo. His losses were as follows: One-sixth value of vessel $500. 00 One-sixth freight earnings 242. 66 Value of his portion of cargo 371. 92 Premium of insurance paid byhim 150. 17 Total 1,264.75 Less insurance received 788. 33 Leaving net loss to him 476. 42 VIII. Thomas Atwater was the owner of one-sixth of the vessel and cargo. His losses were as follows: I One-sixth value ot vessel $500. 00 One-sixth freight earnings 242. 66 Value his portion of cargo 371. 92 Premium of insurance paid 150. 17 Total 1, 264. 75 Less insurance received 788. 33 Leaving net loss to him 476. 48 IX. The firm of Shipman & Denison was the owner of one-sixth of the vessel and cargo. Their losses were as follows: One-sixth value of vessel $500. 00 One-sixth freight earnings. 242. 66 Value their portion of cargo 371. 92 Premium of insurance paid 150. 17 Total 1, 264. 75 Less insurance received 788. 33 Leaving net loss to them 476. 42 The share in the above balance of the partner Elias Shipman was $238.21. The share of the partner Austin Denison was $238.21. X. The firm of Shipman & Denison, above referred to, consisted of Elias Shipman and Austin Denison. The claimant John C. Hollister is the administrator of the several estates of the two partners. It does not appear which was the surviving party. 766 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. XI. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons whom they represent are the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Eliza as set forth in the preceding findings. XII. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain, concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants in their representative capacity are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the fol- lowing sums from the United States: George P. Marvin, administrator of Ebenezer Peck, nine hundred and fifty-two dollars and eighty-two cents $952. 82 George P. Marvin, administrator of Stephen Ailing, four hundred and seventy-six dollars and forty-two cents 476. 42 Elihu L. Mix, administrator of Thomas Atwater, four hundred and seventy- six dollars and forty-two cents 476. 42 John C. Hollister, administrator of Elias Shipman, two hundred and thirty- eight dollars and twenty-one cents 238. 21 John C. Hollister. administrator of Austin Denison, two hundred and thirty- eight dollars and twenty-one cents 238. 21 The New Haven Insurance Company, four thousand nine hundred dollars. . 4, 900. 00 Amounting in all to seven thousand two hundred and eighty-two dollars and eight cents 7, 282. 08 The defendants have produced in evidence a custom-house bond bearing date December 18, 1820, to secure the payment of duties on imports given to the United States by Elias Shipman. The court finds that a sum of $938.58 became due on said bond, and no evidence has been produced to establish the payment thereof. By the Court. Filed December 3, 1906. A true copy. Test this 19th day of December, 1906. . [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Cleric Court of Claims. SCHOONER JENNY. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Jenny, George .Walker, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 890. Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, v. The United States. 1630. Alice S. Wheeler, administratrix of Abiel Winship, v. The United States. 2038. George G. King, administrator of Crowed Hatch, v. The United States. 4204. William I. Munroe, administrator of John Brazer, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 13th day of March, 1907. The claimants were represented by William T. S. Curtis and Theodore J. Pickett, esqs., and the United States, defendant, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq. , with, whom was Assistant Attorney- General J. A. VanOrsdel. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN -CLAIMS. 767 CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows : I. The schooner Jenny, George Walker, master, sailed on a commercial voyage November 21, 1796, from Boston bound for Jamaica. While peacefully pursuing said voyage, she was seized on the high seas in December, 1796, by the French privateer schooner La Picarde, Captain Calinichi. and sent into Gonaives, under a prize master. The captain of the Jenny was taken to Gonaives on the privateer; his papers were taken from him, and he was kept under guard on the privateer. While still in custody, he was examined by the justice of the peace of Gonaives and compelled to sign his answers to the interrogatories, although the inter- preting had been very imperfect and he could not know what his answers had been made to contain. On January 1, 1797, the vessel and cargo were condemned by the commission of the executive directory at the Cape as good prize for the benefit of the captors, and thereby became a total loss to the owners thereof. The grounds of condemnation as stated in the decree were as follows: That the cargo was of English ownership; that the vessel was not provided with passport and invoices. So far as the above conclusions were ground for legal condemnation they were incon- sistent with the facts, which facts the master was not given an opportunity to present to the tribunal that condemned the vessel and cargo. II. The Jenny was a duly registered vessel of the United States of 63f A tons burthen, built in Massachusetts in the year 1784, and owned solely by Abiel Winship and Charles Winship, citizens of the United States, in the proportions, respectively, of three-quarters and one-quarter. III. The cargo of the Jenny at date of said seizure consisted of beef, provisions, flour, hoops, similar merchandise, and specie, and was owned by said Abiel Winship and Charles Winship in the same proportions as they owned the vessel and by other persons Whose names do not appear. The specie consisted of 1,500 Spanish milled dollars, of which 1,200 were the property of said Abiel Winship and Charles Winship, owned by them in the same proportions as they owned the vessel. IV. The losses to said Abiel Winship by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Jenny were as follows : Three-fourths value of the vessel $1, 420. 00 Three-fourths freight earnings 787. 50 Value of his proportion of cargo, including specie 1, 462. 56 Amounting in all to 3, 670. 06 February 2, 1797, Charles Winship, owner of one-fourth of vessel and one-fourth of that portion of the cargo shipped by him and Abiel Winship, procured through the office of Peter C. Brooks insurance on one-quarter part of the vessel and merchandise in the sum of $1,000, paying for such insurance a premium of 15 per cent. The policy was underwritten by the following persons, citizens of the United States, each in the sum set opposite his name : Caleb Hopkins Crowell Hatch 500 Thereafter Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid the insured §1,000 in full for a total loss by reason of the premises. The value of the property at risk exceeded the sum for which insured. December 8, 1801, the administrator of the estate of Caleb Hopkins, in consideration of $3,000 paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by the said. Brooks of any and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from the said intestate's underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to the said Brooks all his intestate's right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by his said intestate as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Jenny, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the pro- visions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22a of 768 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacityjare the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid. \ CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against *the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: Brooks Adams, administrator of Peter C. Brooks, five hundred dollars $500.00 George G. King, administrator of Crowell Hatch, five hundred dollars 500. 00 Alice S. Wheeler, administratrix of Abiel Winship, three thousand six hun- dred and seventy dollars and six cents 3, 670. 06 Amounting in all to four thousand six hundred and seventy dollars and six cents 4, 670. 06 Charles Winship, part owner of the vessel and cargo, is not in court. Petition No. 4204, William I. Monroe, administrator of John Brazer, is dismissed, no evidence having been produced to show that he suffered loss on this vessel. By the Court. Filed April 1, 1907. A true copy: Test this 6th day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, {Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SCHOONER LIBERTY. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel schooner Liberty, Asa Williams, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 58. Edmund D. Codman, administrator of the estate of William Gray, jr., de- ceased, v. The United States. 2133. David Greene Haskins, jr., administrator of the estate of David Greene, de-' ceased, v. The United States. 2208. Brooks Adams, administrator of the estate of Peter Chardon Brooks, deceased, v. The United States. 3334. George G. King, administrator of the estate of Crowell Hatch, deceased, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 14th day of March, 1907. The claimants were represented by Charles W. Clagett, William T. S. Curtis, and Theodore J. Pickett, esqrs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney- General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. CONCLUSIONS OP FACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows" I. The schooner Liberty, Asa Williams, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from Port au Prince to New England in December, 1796. While peacefully pursuing said voyage the Liberty was captured on the high seas on the 12th day of December, 1796 , by the French barge Le Poisson Vollant, Captain Duluc. Said vessel was condemned in the year 1797 by the commission of the executive directory sitting at Cape Francois, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners. The grounds of condemnation as set forth in the decree were as follows: 1. That the official papers of said schooner established conclusively that the said schooner departed from two ports of the colony of San Domingo in rebellion against the laws of the French Republic and under the protection of the British Government. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 769 2. That Mole, St. Nicholas and Port au Prince, from which the said schooner de- parted, are of those ports declared in a state of permanent blockade by the decree of the commission. II. The Liberty was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 115 tons and 64 feet burthen; was built at Penobscot, in the State of Massachusetts (now Maine), in the year 1794, and was owned by David Greene, of Boston, a citizen of the United States. III. At the time of capture of the Liberty she was returning from Port au Prince to New England in ballast. IV. The losses to David Greene by reason of the capture and condemnation of the Liberty were as follows: Value of the vessel •...,. $4, 600 Premium of insurance paid .....' 360 Amounting in all to 4, 960 Deduct insurance received 3, 000 Net loss 1, 960 V. On the 26th day of October, 1796, David Greene effected, through the office of Peter C. Brooks, insurance in the sum of $5,000 on the vessel, freight, and cargo, pay- ing therefor a premium of 12 per cent. Of this insurance, $3,000 was specified to be on the vessel, and by the terms of the policy the first underwritten thereon to the extent of said $3,000 were to be held liable for the loss on the vessel, there being no loss on freight or cargo. The under- writers so held to be liable, and the amounts underwritten by them, were as fol- lows, viz: Crowell Hatch $500 I Caleb Hopkins $500 Tuthill Hubbart 500 | Stephen Gorham 500 William Smith 500 John Brazer 500 All of the said underwriters were citizens of the United States. On the 23d day of August, 1797, Peter C. Brooks, as agent, duly paid the said David Greene the sum of $3,000 as and for a total loss on the vessel, and no payment was made by the underwriters on the freight and cargo. VI. On April 4, 1804, the administrators of said Tuthill Hubbart, for and in con- sideration of $60,000 to them paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by said Brooks of any and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from the underwriting of said Hubbart in the office of said Brooks, assigned to said Brooks all the right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by said Hubbart as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. On December 16, 1801, William Smith, in consideration of $3,715.50 paid to him by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption of all and any liabilities and disadvantages aris- ing from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to the said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. On December 8, 1801, the administrator of the estate of Caleb Hopkins, in consid- eration of $3,000 paid to him by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption by the said Brooks of any and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from the underwriting of Caleb Hopkins in the office of said Brooks, assigned to the said Brooks all his intestate's right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by said intestate as an under- writer in the office of said Brooks. On November 21, 1801, Stephen Gorham, in consideration of $2,986.65 to him paid by Peter C. Brooks and the assumption of said Brooks of any and all liabilities and disadvantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to the said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. • On September 4, 1804, John Brazer, for and in consideration of $5,708 paid by Peter C. Brooks, and the assumption of said Brooks of any liabilities and disad- vantages arising from his underwriting in the office of said Brooks, assigned to the said Brooks all his right, title, and interest in and to all insurance done by him as an underwriter in the office of said Brooks. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the parties for whom they appear,- and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons for whose estates they have filed claims are in fact the same persons who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the schooner Liberty as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claims are not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803. They were not claims S. Rep. 382, 60-1 49 770 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or In parfunder the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty betweenfthe United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said, claims, which have never been assigned except as aforesaid.!* CONCLUSIONS OP}LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States; and that the claimants are entitled to the follow- ing sums from the United States:] ""$ Brooks Adams, administrator of the estate : of Peter Chardon Brooks, deceased, two thousand five hundred dollars $2, 500. 00 George G. King, administrator of the estate of Crowell Hatch, deceased, five hundred dollars 500.00 David Greene Haskins, administrator of the estate of David Greene, de- ceased, one thousand nine hundred and sixty dollars 1, 960. 00 Amounting in all to four thousand nine hundred and sixty dollars. . 4, 960. 00 The other claimants herein have proved no valid claims. There being no cargo on board at the time of capture, there is no allowance made for freight earnings herein. By the Court. Filed April 1, 1907. A true copy. , Test this llthMay of December, 1907. [seal.] ■ John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. BRIG SALLY. [Court of Claims of the United States. French spoliations, No. 1874. (Decided January 7, 1907.) Brig Sally, John V. Villett, master. Henry Audley Clarke, administrator de bonis non on the estate of Peleg Clark, v. The United States.] PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. This case was tried before the Court of Claims on the 15th day of January, 1906. The claimants were represented by C. G. Lee, Frank W. Hackett, and Charles W. Faulkner, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistant in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer, esq., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. p CONCLUSIONS OP PACT- The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same, with briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The brig Sally, John V. Villett, master, sailed on a commercial voyage on or about the 7th day of June, 1796, from Newport, R. I., bound for Africa, where she arrived on the Gold Coast in the month of August following. The master of the Sally purchased a cargo of slaves and set sail for Savannah, Ga., intending to touch on the way at the Danish island of St. Thomas, probably for supplies. While peace- fully pursuing said voyage she was seized upon the high seas on or about the 6th day of March, 1797, by the French privateer Avenger of the French, Captain Laurent, and carried into Guadeloupe, where said vessel and her cargo were condemned as good prize by the tribunal of commerce sitting at Basse-Terre, in said island, whereby the same became a total loss to the owners. ' The grounds of condemnation were "that said vessel coming from the coast of Africa with a cargo of blacks was taken within 2 leagues to windward of Antigua." The prize tribunal then declared that the brig Sally and everything that belonged to her was a good prize "in pursuance to a resolution of the agents of the executive directory bearing date of the 27th of the present month." The decree provided ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 771 "that all the blacks of whom consisted the cargo shall be delivered to Government, without any exception, to be employed in cultivating the national plantations." The competent evidence in the case establishes that the brig Sally, Villett, master, was steering for the island of St. Thomas, pursuant to orders, without the intention of selling or disposing of the slaves in said island, but that the ultimate destination of the vessel was Savannah, Ga., and that the purpose of the master was to deliver said cargo at the port of Savannah, in the State of Georgia. II. The Sally was a duly registered vessel of the United IS tates of 124 tons burden; was built at Plymouth, Mass., in the year 1784, and was owned by Peleg Clark, a citizen of the United States and a resident of Newport, in the State of Rhode Island. III. The cargo of the Sally at the time of capture consisted of 167 slaves, but no claim has been filed on behalf of any of the owners of same. One hundred and forty of the slaves belonged to Peleg Clark (owner of the vessel), of Newport, R. I., and 21 were the proceeds of the master's adventure and 6 belonged to the crew. IV. Before the clearance of the Sally a statutory bond for the lawfulness of the voyage was given, which bond subsequently was, in the year 1845, cancelled at the Treasury under the regulations in such cases made and provided. V. The loss by reason of the capture of the Sally anS. her cargo, so far as claims have been filed in this court, was as follows: The value of the vessel $4, 300 The value of the freight earnings 2, 300 VI. The claimant herein has produced letters of administration upon the estate of Peleg Clark, and has otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that said Clark is the same person who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the Sally, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, and was not a claim grow- ing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provision's of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d day of February, 1819, and was not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty be- tween the United States and France on the 4th of July, 1831. The claimant in his representative capacity is the owner of said claim, which has never been assigned. CONCLUSIONS OP LAW. The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and that the owners had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty, in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimant is entitled to the following sum from the United States: , Henry Audley Clark, administrator de bonis non of Peleg Clark, sixty-six hundred dollars ($6,600). OPINION. Howry, J., delivered the opinion of the court: The findings show that the Sally, Villett, master, sailed from Newport, R. I., bound for Africa, where a cargo of slaves was purchased. While on the return voyage with the slaves to the neutral island of St. Thomas and from there to Georgia (pursuant to orders received from the owners of the vessel before sailing from this country) the brig was captured by a French privateer and taken to Guadaloupe, where the brig and everything belonging to her was condemned as good prize. The reasons alleged for condemnation were that the brig was coming from the coast of Africa with a cargo of blacks and was taken within two leagues to windward of Antigua. The prize tribunal decreed condemnation in pursuance of a resolution of the agents of the executive directory. The questions in this case are whether the United States had a valid diplomatic claim against France, and did this Government assume to pay the claim .under the act of January 20, 1885 (23 Stat. L., 283)? At the time of the capture the slave trade was lawful, not only in this country, but by the law of nations, according to the Supreme Court (10 Wheat., 66). That is, when the ship sailed it was lawful to bring slaves to our own shores, but not lawful by our domestic statutes to transport inhabitants of a foreign country to another foreign coun- try for the purpose of selling or disposing of them as slaves. It was not until 1808 that the general prohibition against domestic importat on became operative. The State of Georgia was eight years in advance of the United States in that respect, for within a very short time after this adventure Georgia adopted a constitution which prohibite^ 772 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. the future importation of slaves from Africa or ary foreign place after October 1, 1798. (Sec. 11, Art. IV, Cons, of Ga., May 30, 1798. Poore's Compilation of Constitutions.) Colonial Rhode Island was sixteen years in advance of Georgia with respect to the gradual abolition of slavery (10 R. I. Col. Rec, 7). The grounds assigned by the decree of the prize tribunal which condemned the ves- sel are clear enough in language. But what was meant by the resolution of the agents of the French Directory, unless it be that no neutral coming from the coast of Africa with a cargo of blacks had a right to be within 2 leagues to windward of Antigua, we do not know. This resolution could not make unlawful the act of a neutral engaged in commerce lawfully authorized by the country from whence the neutral sailed. The ship was therefore unlawfully seized and condemned, and a valid diplomatic claim against the seizing government arose in behalf of the citizen of the country to which the vessel belonged, unless treaty rights could not be claimed for the vessel, this capture being before the abrogation of the treaty between France and the United States. But an act passed by the colonial assembly of Rhode Island provided that no citizen or resident therein should receive on his vessel with intent to cause to .be imported or transported from their native country any inhabitants in that part of the world called Africa as slaves without their voluntary consent (10 R. I. Col. Rec, 262). The act was passed in 1874. But Rhode Island, by adopting the Constitution of the United States in 1792, surrendered the privilege of regulating foreign commerce. Congress alone were invested with that power (Art. I, sec. 6, Cons. U. S.). The vital question arises under an act (1 Stat. L., 347) approved March 22, 1794, by which Congress prohibited the importation of the inhabitants of any foreign king- dom, place, or country to another port in a foreign country for the purpose of selling or disposing of such inhabitants as slaves. What, then, was the purpose of the parties? The intent is the essence of the con- troversy, and by this intent the act must be governed in the absence of any effort to sell or dispose of the cargo. Was it the purpose of the owners to send or the intent of the agents of the owners to go to a foreign country to procure and transport any of the inhabitants of that country to another foreign country to sell or dispose of such a cargo as slaves, or was it the design to bring this cargo to the domestic port of Savannah. Ga.? Rejecting as inadmissible the testimony offered by claimants to show the special reason for attempting to put into St. Thomas, we pause long enough in this connection to say that if there is any proposition better established than another in connection with spoliation cases under the act of our jurisdiction it is that which excludes from consideration memorials, affidavits, and ex parte statements made by the shipowners of those days, and others in their behalf, long after the occurrence to which they are supposed to relate. (The ship Parlcman, 35 C. Cls., 406; The Hiram, Whitney, 41, ibid. 12.) The competent evidence offered does establish, however, that the return voyage of this ship was to St. Thomas and from thence to Georgia, pursuant to orders. Out of this alone we are unable to make the act of the parties an unlawful act. The home port was Savannah, Ga. That was the place of ultimate destination. It was lawful to make it so by the owners, and it was unlawful to order a stop on the way^in the port of any for- eign country for the purpose of doing that which might lawfully be done at home. The lawful character of the act under such orders must be presumed. The unlawful char- acter can not be inferred, but must be proved. The statute, being highly penal in its terms, must be strictly construed. The courts can not search for an intention not suggested by the language of the orders and the conduct of the master under them. It is not reasonable to believe that the purpose existed on the part of this shipowner when the sailing orders were given, or on the part of the shipmaster when he attempted to execute them, to carry these persons from the gold coast to foreign territory and there endeavor to sell them as slaves, because it appears that the market was wanting at the time in this foreign country. France in following the doctrines of her Revolution had abolished colonial slavery in 1793, and though Xapoleon attempted to undo the work of the convention, slavery for a time did not exist by law. From 1794 until the consulate preceding the First Empire the institution did not lawfully obtain in the possessions of the French. Its sickly existence in the West Indies about the time of this seizure forbids he belief that attempts to land and sell savage blacks would have met with success. Though slavery did exist in a small way in St. Thomas until a later period, the island itself was neutral at the time of the seizure of this vessel. If any- - body understood the conditions and hazards surrounding such an attempt to sell slaves there, this shipmaster and the owners undoubtedly did. The recitals of the decree confirm the want of market opportunity in the foreign port. When the authorities took possession of the cargo the captives were not sold, but put to work on the national plantations. ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 773 There is a final view to be noted which strengthens the conclusion that the vessel was not violating the prohibitive act under consideration. The statutory bond given before the clearance of the vessel for the lawfulness of the voyage was subsequently canceled at the Treasury. The officials charged with that duty must have been sat- isfied that the obligation of the bond had not been infringed. Reluctant as the court is to deal with this ancient demand, not merely because of the nature of the ship's employment, but because of the doubts suggested as to the intent of the master in making for St. Thomas, there is nothing to do but to give effect to the will of Congress. For the discharge of its duty the court does not need to be reminded of the words of Chief Justice Marshall, who, speaking for the Supreme Court in a case where the right of a foreign vessel engaged in the slave trade was asserted as against an American cruiser, said that the court must not yield to feelings, but must obey the mandate of the law. (The Antelope, 10 Wheat., 114.) Still less does the court need for the performance of its duty the argument of counsel that the question of the moral nature of the business of shipping slaves at the time of this capture has no proper place in the determination of the rights of the parties. True, this argument emphasizes the respectability of the traffic at the time (Rhode Island alone having 150 vessels engaged in it in 1770); that- the trade in human species was the first wheel of commerce in Newport; that the town was built up and flrourished by that trade (Spears's American Slave Trade, Scribner, 1900, p. 19), and that if prospective purchasers could be found in Georgia for savage labor Rhode Island ship- owners were willing to violate public sentiment there and go with rum and tobacco to barter with some savage king for his subjects, to be transported where such labor could be profitably employed. The doubt has arisen as to the meaning of the sailing orders and the purpose of the master in making for the foreign port. There is a case where the original design and purpose of the voyage have been veiled by the pre- tense of the owner as well as the shipmaster (the Amedie, 1 Acton, 240), and likewise a case where, on account of the alleged tumultuous disposition of the slaves, the master altered his course to a more convenient port (the Nancy, 2 Acton, 4), and likewise a case where the vessel had touched the settlements of European nations and in attempting to make for a foreign port was captured (the Ann, 2 Acton, 6). But these cases were examined in the Antelope, ante, and it was held that one nation would not execute the penal laws of another. It will be found upon further exam- ination that these cases have no application beyond the real purpose which took the vessels to foreign ports, and we must turn at last to the objects in view when this ship was ordered to a foreign country to bring slaves back to our own. ' There is no claim for the cargo, but the waiver does not include freight earnings. These are allowable on merchandise attempted to be brought from Africa to Savannah, Ga. Passenger rates can not be claimed for 1 the cargo of slaves, but rates strictly for merchandise can be claimed as of the time. Freight earnings on this theory are as much a lawful claim under the act of our jurisdiction as the value of the vessel. The minority of the court is of opinion that as claimants have waived compensation for the cargo the waiver extends to freight earnings, as the vessel and cargo were owned by the same parties. The findings of the court will be reported to Congress, together with a copy of this opinion. Barney, J., dissents. By the Court. Filed January 7, 1907. A true copy, Test this 31st clay of January, 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. SNOW ELIZA. [Court of Claims. French spoliation. Act of Ja.nuary 20, 1885; 23 Stat. L., p. 283. Vessel, snow or brigantine Eliza, Capt. Ephraim Perkins.] No. of claims. Claimant. 4054. Theodore B. Moody, administrator of Joseph Moody, deceased. Walter L. Dane, administrator of Ephraim Perkins, deceased. 2328. Stephen F. Fairfield, administrator of William Taylor, deceased. 32. Robert Codman, administrator of William Gray, deceased. 774 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 22d of May, 1901. The claimants were represented by George A. King, Edwin B. Smith, and Charles W. Clagett, esqs., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistants in the Department of Justice, Charles W. Russell and John W., Trainor, esqs., with whom was Assistant Attorney-General Louis A. Pradt. CONCLUSIONS OF PACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with briefs of counsel on each side, determine the facts to be as follows: I. The snow or brigantine Eliza, Ephraim Perkins, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from Kennebunk, Me., on the 19th day of May, 1799, bound for the island of Barbados, with a cargo consisting of lumber. While peacefully pursuing her said voyage she was captured on the high seas by the French armed man-of-war La Legere, Captain Parandeau, and taken into Guada- loupe, where, on her arrival the 2d day of July, her master was imprisoned, after which, on July 19, he was put on board a Swedish sloop to go to the island of St. Bar- tholomew, but during the passage was seized by the English privateer Lydia and brought to the island of St. Christopher on July 23. On July 19, 1799, the Eliza and her cargo were condemned by the tribunal of com- merce and prizes at the island of Guadaloupe, on the ground that she had no r6le d'6quipage or other proper papers, and was not satisfactorily proved to be a neutral vessel, whereby said vessel and cargo became a total loss to the owners. II. The Eliza was an American vessel of 135 tons burden, and was owned one-fourth by Joseph Moody and three-fourths by Ephraim Perkins. III. The cargo consisted of lumber and belonged to the owners of the vessel and in the same proportions. IV. The owners of said vessel and cargo obtained from William Gray insurance on said vessel and cargo — $4,000 upon the vessel and $2,000 upon the cargo — for the respective proportions in which thay owned the same, viz, Joseph Moody one-fourth, amounting to $1,500, and Ephraim Perkins three-fourths, amounting to $4,500, pay- ing for the same a premium of 18 per cent, amounting to $1,080 — one-fourth, amounting to $270, being paid by said Joseph Moody, and three-fourths, amounting to $810, by said Ephriam Perkins. The said William Gray paid to the insured the full amount of $6,000, in the proportions in which they were respectively insured, as and for a total loss. V. The losses by reason of the capture, condemnation, and loss of the Eliza were as follows: Value of vessel $3, 500 Value of cargo 2, 500 Freight earnings 2, 232 Premium of insurance 1, 080 Total 9, 312 VI. The losses of the several parties by reason of the capture, condemnation, and loss were as follows: Joseph Moody: One-fourth of vessel $875 One-fourth of cargo 625 One-fourth of freight 558 One-fourth premium of insurance 270 Total . 2, 328 Less one-fourth insurance collected 1, 500 Total loss -. 828 The claim of Ephriam Perkins was not filed until March, 1889. William Gray: Insurance paid : $6, 000 VII. The claimants have produced letters of administration on the estates of the respective parties who suffered the original losses, and have otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the persons whose estates they represent were citizens of the United States and were the same persons who suffered losses by reason of the capture of the Eliza, and that they represent the next of kin of such persons respectively. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 775 Said claims were not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded on the 30th of April, 1803, and were not claims growing out of the acts of France, allowed and paid, in whole or in part, under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and were not allowed, in whole or in part, under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimants, in their representative capacity, are the owners of said claims, which have never been assigned, nor does it appear that any of said claims are owned by an insurance company. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides, as conclusions of law, that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Republic prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800 ; that said claims were relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimants are entitled to the following sums from the United States: No. 4054. Theodore B. Moody, administrator of Joseph Moody, deceased, eight hundred and twenty-eight dollars $828. 00 Walter L. Dane, administrator of Ephraim Perkins, deceased; no allowance is made for the reason that the claim was not filed within the limitation of the statute. 32. Robert Codman, administrator of William Gray, deceased, six thousand dollars 6, 000. 00 2328. Stephen F. Fairfield, administrator of William Taylor, deceased, has proved no valid claim. By the Court. Filed December 2, 1901. A true copy. Test, this 31st day of January, A. D. 1902. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. FINDINGS IN CASE OF BRIG BETSEY, BOYER, MASTER. [Court of Claims. French spoliations. Act of January 20, 1885: 23 Stat. L., 283. Vol. 1, Supplement to R. S., 2d ed., 471. Vessel brig Betsey, Daniel Boyer, master.] No. of case. Claimant. 5268. Samuel Abbott Fowle, administrator of the estate of George Makepeace, deceased, v. The United States. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. These cases were tried before the Court of Claims on the 20th day of March, 1907. The claimants were represented by Charles W. Calgett, esq., and the United States, defendants, by the Attorney-General, through his assistants in the Department of Justice, John W. Trainer and Stanhope Henry, esqs., with whom was Assistant Attor- ney-General J. A. Van Orsdel. CONCLUSIONS OF FACT. The court, upon the evidence and after hearing the arguments and considering the same with the briefs of counsel on each side, determines the facts to be as follows: I. The brig Betsey, Daniel Boyer, master, was a duly registered vessel of the United States, of 140 tons burthen, was built at Newburyport, Mass., in 1785, and was owned by Samuel Dowse, a citizen of the United States. The brig Betsey, Daniel Boyer, master, sailed on a commercial voyage from Boston, Mass., on the 16th day of February, 1794, bound for Cape Francois. On March 16, 1794, said vessel arrived at Cape Francois, where, on the 24th day of May, 1794, by the order of the French administration at that place, the cargo of the Betsey was confiscated. The circumstances attending the confiscation are stated in the order of Bignon, the head of the administration, as follows: ' ' In the name of the French Republic, Captain Daniel Boyers, commander of the brig Betsey, is ordered to land immediately all his cargo that it-may be brought to 776 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. succor the troops who are destitute of everything, the magazines of the Republic being entirely exhausted, and to this effect a guard is sent on board the said brig suffi- cient for the prompt execution of our orders. And the said captain shall be paid at the current rate of the place, by all the means that may be in our power. "The Cape, March 23, 1794, the third year of the French Republic. "By the head of the administration. "(Signed) Bignon. ' 'Approved by us, commandant of the place. ' ' ( Signed) Village. ' ' Daniel Boyer, the master, in his protest, states the circumstances of the seizure' of the cargo in the following language: ' ' That I sailed from Boston in said^brig on the 16th day of February last, and meeting with nothing very remarkable on my passage I arrived in good order at the port or harbor of Cape Francois, in the island of Hispaniola, on the 16th clay of March last, having on board fish, beef, pork, flour, candles, soap, lard, bacon, cheese, butter, boards, etc.; that on my arrival at the cape I was prevented by the Government from selling my cargo to the most advantage, and Government insisted on my delivering the whole of it to the officers of said Government; that I refused doing it, alleging that it was an infringement on my right, and presented a memorial to the Government by which I offered to deliver to the Government the articles most necessary to life and demanded the privilege granted to others before me of selling the rest of my cargo to the inhabitants. My demand was not granted, and an ordinance of the chief of the administration, Mr. Bignon, dated the 23d of March and revised by the commander in chief, Mr. Villate, was produced to me by a detachment of armed men sent on board of my vessel to unload immediately all my cargo for the use of the garrison, con- taining a promise that I should be paid at the current price of the place, in conse- quence of which my cargo was taken by force by the Government at the prices men- tioned in the account annexed, made by the storekeeper of the public magazine, accepted by Mr. Bignon, chief of the administration, at much lower rates than I could have obtained from the. inhabitants; that I was promised to be paid in produce and waited from the 4th April (that I was unloaded) till the 18th May to receive the pay- ment, but was finally answered that it was not in the power of the Government to pay me, not being able to get the produce, the enemy being master of the country round them, and they could not give me the money and accordingly gave me the certificate of the same date annexed to certify it. I then prepared to get away and made out the night of the 24th May through the squadron of Spaniards, which were then cruising off the harbor, without being discovered, and arrived at Boston' on the 11th of June current. And the said Daniel Boyer, for the causes aforesaid, has requested me to protest against the aforesaid Mr. Villate, commander in chief, and Mr. Bignon, the chief of the administration, for all damages, losses, cost, and charges sus- tained or to be sustained by reason of the seizing and taking away by an armed force the cargo of said brig, as aforesaid, and refusal to pay him the just value thereof, as aforesaid. (Signed) Daniel Boyer, Andrew Gardner, Thomas Woodman, Lewis Burn. "Wherefore I, the said notary, at the request aforesaid, have protested, and do hereby solemnly protest, against the said Mr. Villate, commander in chief of Cape Francois at the time aforesaid, and Mr. Bignon, chief of the administration at the same time and place, and all others concerned, for all damages, injuries, losses, costs, and charges suffered and sustained, or to be suffered and sustained, by the owners, freighters, insurers, and all others whom it doth or may concern by reason or in con- sequence of the taking away by armed force the cargo of the said brig Betseji and refusing to make, and the not having made, payment in w T hole or in part for any of the said articles of said cargo so forcibly taken and carried away as aforesaid. This done and protested at Boston aforesaid, on the day and year aforesaid, in the pres- ence of the said Daniel Boyer, master of the said brig, and Andrew Gardner, mate, and Thomas Woodman and Levi Burn, seamen on hoard the said brig at the time of her mirfortune, who severally made oath to the truth of the foregoing declaration by them subscribed. In faith of the premises. (Signed) Samuel Barrett, Notary Pub- lic, as aforesaid. (Seal.)" II. The cargo of the Betsey, at the time of capture, consisted of pork, hog's lard, butter, bacon, cheese, soap, candles, fish, beef, flour, and pine boards; was owned by Samuel Dowse, a citizen of the United States, and was of the value at the time ot seizure of $11,250.75. III. On the 12th day of June, 1794, said Samuel Dowse sold, transferred, andassigned said claim for the cargo so taken at Cape Francois to Stephen V r ernon, of Boston, Mass., in consideration of the. sum of £4,000, or $13,320, paid by said Vernon to said Dowse. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 777 On the 25th day of July, 1797, said Stephen Vernon sold and assigned said claim to David Stearns, of Charlestown, Mass., in consideration of the sum of £4,000, or $13,320, paid by said Stearns to said Vernon. Thereafter the said Dowse repurchased said claim from said David Stearns and trans- ferred it to George Makepeace, a citizen of the United States. At the date of said repurchase by said Dowse of said Stearns, said Samuel Dowse was indebted to said George Makepeace, in a sum exceeding $11,400, and assigned said claim to said Make- peace in payment thereof; that from the said 17th of May, 1798, until the prerent time said claim has been in the possession of and held by the said George Makepeace and his heirs. IV. The loss of the said George Makepeace, who was a citizen of the United States, by reason of said confiscation was: The value of the cargo $11,250.75 The claimant has produced letters of administration on the estate of the party for whom they appear and has otherwise proved to the satisfaction of the court that the person for whose estate he has filed the claim is in fact the same person who suffered loss by reason of the seizure and condemnation of the brig Betsey, as set forth in the preceding findings. Said claim was not embraced in the convention between the United States and the Republic of France concluded, on the 30th of April, 1803. It was not a claim growing out of the acts of France allowed and paid in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Spain concluded on the 22d of February, 1819, and was not allowed in whole or in part under the provisions of the treaty between the United States and France of the 4th of July, 1831. The claimant in his representative capacity is the owner of said claim, which has been assigned except as aforesaid. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. The court decides as conclusions of law that said seizure and condemnation were illegal, and the owners and insurers had valid claims of indemnity therefor upon the French Government prior to the ratification of the convention between the United States and the French Republic, concluded on the 30th day of September, 1800; that said claim was relinquished to France by the Government of the United States by said treaty in part consideration of the relinquishment of certain national claims of France against the United States, and that the claimant is entitled to the follow- ing sum from the United States: Samuel Abbott Fowle, administrator of the estate of George Makepiece, deceased, assignee of Samuel Dowse, eleven thousand two hundred and fifty dollars and seventy-five cents $11, 250. 75 The owners of the vessel and freight are not in court. By the Court. Filed April 1, 1907. A true copy. Test this 14th day of December, A. D. 1907. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. Miscellaneous Claims for Direct Appropriation and for Other Purposes. PAYMENT OF OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. [Senate Report No. 82, Sixtieth Congress, first session.] The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2802) to provide for the payment of overtime claims of letter carriers excluded from judgment as barred by limitation, respectfully report the bill back and recommend that the same do pass. A similar bill was introduced in the Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, and favorably reported from this committee on June 2, 1900 (S. Rept. 1623, 56th Cong., 1st sess.). No further action was taken in the Senate during that Congress. In the Fifty-seventh Congress another bill, also precisely similar in terms, was intro- duced and favorably reported by this committee on June 27, 1902. Senate bill 2429 was passed by the Senate January 31, 1903, but was not reached on the Calendar in the House of Representatives. In the Fifty-ninth Congress another bill, also precisely similar in terms, was intro- duced and favorably reported by this committee on January 31, 1907. A copy of the report on that bill, Senate Report No. 5834, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session, is annexed to this report and made a part hereof. The bill reported, Senate bill 1181, was passed by the Senate February 27, 1907, but was not reported back in the House of Representatives. Similar bills have been introduced in the House of Representatives in the Fifty-sixth and Fifty-seventh Con- gresses, and have been favorably reported in each instance. The purpose of all these bills has been the payment of certain claims of letter carriers for services found by commissioners of the Court of Claims to have been performed by them in excess of eight hours per day and for which they are entitled to be paid extra under the act of May 24, 1888, entitled " An act to limit the hours that letter carriers in cities shall be employed per day," but which have been excluded or excepted from judgment for the sole reason that they were barred by the statute of limitations. Summarizing the reports of this committee hereinbefore referred to, the following facts appear: First. The Attorney-General states that the investigation of these claims was of precisely the same character as that of those upon which judgments have been entered and paid, and so far as the proof of the service is concerned they stand upon exactly the same fooling. Second. The Postmaster-General reports that the claimants were invited by the Department itself to present their claims to the Post-Office Department, and that their failure to present their claims to the Court of Claims being thus due to the invita- tion of the Department itself, in the belief then entertained that Congress would appropriate for a sufficient clerical force to investigate the claims, it is only just to the claimants that relief should be afforded them. Third. Some of the parties also failed to present their claims from the fact that their immediate superiors in office represented to them that to present their claims might jeopardize their official positions. Your committee therefore reiterates its former conclusions and recommendations contained in Senate Report No. 5834, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session, and recom- mends the passage of the bill. OVERTIME CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. [Senate Report No. 5834, Fifty-ninth Congress, second session^ The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill' (S. 1181) to provide for payment of overtime claims of letter carriers excluded from judgment as barred by limitation, respectfully report the bill back and recommend that the same do pass. A similar bill was introduced in the Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, and favorably reported from this committee on June 2, 1900 (S. Rept. 1623, 56th Cong., 1st sess.). No further action was taken in the Senate during that Congress. 779 780 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. In the Fifty -seventh. Congress another bill, also precisely similar in terms, was intro" duced and favorably reported by this committee on June 27, 1902. A copy of the report on that bill (S. Rept. 2111, 57th Cong., 1st sess.) is annexed .to this report and made a part hereof. Senate bill 2429 was passed by the Senate January 31, 1903, but was not reached on the Calendar in the House of Representatives. Similar bills have been introduced in the House of Representatives in the Fifty-sixth and Fifty-seventh Congresses, and have been favorably reported in each instance. The purpose of all these bills has been the payment of certain claims of letter carriers for services found by commissioners of the Court of Claims to have been performed by them in excess of eight hours per day and for which they are entitled to be paid extra under the act of May 24, 1888, entitled "An act to limit the hours that letter carriers in cities shall be employed per day." but which have been excluded or excepted from judgment for the sole reason that they were barred by the statute of limitations. Summarizing the reports of this committee hereinbefore referred to, the following facts appear: First. The Attorney-General states that the investigation of these claims was of precisely the same character as that of those upon which judgment have been entered and paid, and so far as the proof of the service is concerned they stand upon exactly the same footing. Second. The Postmaster-General reports that the claimants were invited by the Department itself to present their claims to the Post-Office Department, and that their failure to present their claims to the Court of Claims being thus due to the invitation of the Department itself, in the belief then entertained that Congress would appropri- ate for a sufficient clerical force to investigate the claims, it is only just to the claim- ants that relief should be afforded them. Third. Some of the parties also failed to present their claims from the fact that their immediate superiors in office represented to them that to present their claims might jeopardize their official positions. Your committee therefore reiterates its former conclusions and recommendations contained in Senate Report No. 2111, Fifty -seventh Congress, first session, and recom- mends the passage of this bill, f [Senate Report No. 2111, Fifty-seventh Congress, first session.] The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S, 2429) to provide for (lie payment of overtime claims of letter carriers excluded from judgment as barred by limitation, respectfully report the bill back with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. A bill precisely similar to the present bill was introduced in the last Congress, and was favorably reported by this committee June 2, 1900. The report on that bill (No. 1623) is annexed to this report and made a part hereof. Also annexed are extracts from House Report No. 1182, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, to accompany H. R. 10315. Since the date of above reports an additional and final list of similar claims was transmitted to the Senate by the Attorney-General, at the second session of the Fifty- sixth Congress, constituting Senate Doc. No. 158 of that session. The letter of the Attorney-General transmitting that list is as follows: L*,., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C, February 8, 1901. To the Senate: I have the honor to transmit herewith a list in further response to Senate resolu- tion No. 40 of December 18, 1899, calling upon this Department for a list showing the amounts which have been reported by the commissioners of the Court of Claims, or found by the court, as representing services actually performed by letter carriers in excess of eight hours per day, under the act of May 24, 1888, entitled "An act to limit the hours that letter carriers in cities shall be employed per day," but which have been excluded or excepted from judgment for the sole reason that the same were barred by the statute of limitations. The list herewith transmitted represents claims of precisely the same character as those contained in the list transmitted by this Department on the 10th of March, 1900, and contained in S. Doc. No. 216, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session. They were examined by a commissioner of the Court of Claims in precisely the same man- ner as those contained in that list, and are contained in reports filed by the commis- ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 781 sioner since the date of the transmission of that list, with the exception of a few cases accidentally omitted from the first list, and which are herewith included. As the investigation of this entire class of claims has now been completed, the present list, and that contained in S. Doc. No. 216, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, comprise all claims of the description mentioned in the resolution of the Senate. My views on these claims, as stated in my letter of April 18, 1900, to the chairman of the Senate Committee on Claims, printed in S. Report No. 1623, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, apply equally to those embodied in the accompanying list. Very respectfully, John W. Griggs, Attorney-General. Together these two lists comprise all the claims of the description called for in the resolution of the Senate. of December 18, 1899. That resolution was as follows: "Resolved, That the Attorney-General be directed to transmit to the Senate a list showing the amounts which have been reported by the commissioners of the Court of Claims or found by the court as representing services actually performed by letter carriers in excess of eight hours per day under the act of May twenty-fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-eight, entitled ' An act to limit the hours that letter carriers in cities shall be employed per day,' but which have been excluded or excepted from judgment for the sole reason that the same were barred by the statute of limitations." The report of the Committee on Claims in the last Congress in favor of these claims was based upon the grounds assigned by both the Attorney-General and the Post- master-General in their reports upon the bill then before the Senate, showing that the reason for the nonpresentation of these claims within the proper time by the several claimants was due to the fact that the Post-Office Department officially informed the letter carriers throughout the country that — " It is not necessary to present these claims to the Court of Claims. If they are sent to this Department, they will receive proper attention. ' ' These representations, based upon the belief, in good faith, entertained by the Post- Office Department, that a sufficient appropriation for both the investigation and settle- ment of these claims would be made by Congress, were continued until the statute of limitations had barred a portion of the claims from presentation to the Court of Claims. When the claims therefore came to be presented to that court, as all of them ultimately had to be, they were met in whole or in part by the defense of .the statute of limitations. The peremptory provisions of that statute are such that although in ordinary cases the defense might have deemed it unconscionable to plead the statute of limitations, yet the Court of Claims was itself bound to refuse to allow a claim or part of claim which was more than six years old at the time the petition was filed. The Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Finn v. United States (123 U. S. Rep., pp. 227, 233), thus states the stringent character of the statute of limita- tions governing the Court of Claims : " It is a condition or qualification of the right to a judgment against the United States in the Court of Claims that the claimant, when not laboring under one of the disabilities named in the statute, voluntarily put his claim in suit, or present it at the proper Department for settlement, within six years after suit could be commenced thereon against the United States. "The general rule that limitation does not operate by its own force as a bar, but is a defense, and that the party making such a defense must, plead the statute if he wishes the benefit of its provisions, has no application to suits in the Court of Claims against the United States. An individual may waive such a defense, either expressly or by failing to plead the statute ; but the Government has not expressly or by impli- cation conferred authority upon any of its officers to waive the limitation imposed by statute upon suits against the United States in the Court of Claims. "Since the Government is not liable to be sued, as of right, by any claimant, and since it has assented to a judgment being rendered against it only in certain classes of cases, brought within a prescribed period after the cause of action accrued, a judgment in the Court of Claims for the amount of a claim which the record or evi- dence shows to be barred by the statute would be erroneous." The presentation of the claim to the Post-Office Department did not in any of the cases operate to save the case from the bar of the statute of limitations. The decision of the Supreme Court in the case just referred to was thus construed by the circuit court of appeals for the third circuit in the case of United States v. Utz (80 Fed. Rep., pp. 848, 851), as follows: "The presentation of the claim to the Treasury Department in the year 1893 did not stop the running of the statute, nor was the petitioners' right of action suspended during the investigation of the claim by the executive officers. The forbearance of 782 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. the claimants to sue was altogether voluntary on their part, and it is not within the power of the court to relieve them from the consequence of their failure to comply with the condition of the statute." The Court of Claims also maintains the same strict construction of the statute of limitations, as shown by the following extracts from its opinion in the case of Car- lisle v. United States (29 C. Cls. Rep., pp. 414, 415, 416): ' "A claim first accrues when money becomes payable, unless a special demand is required by law. It is so by the common law, which allows a suit to be brought upon a promissory note without a special demand, although the note itself contains a promise to pay on demand. A demand or presentation to the Treasury Department before bringing suit in this case was not necessary. "We know of nothing that prevents the running of the statute of limitations other than the disabilities specified in the statute itself (Wilder's Case, 13 Wall., 254), and nothing which makes it cease to run when once begun, other than the filing of a peti- tion in this court, except in cases transmitted by the head of an Executive Depart- ment under Revised Statutes, section 1063, as to which the Supreme Court held in Lippitt's Case (100 U. S., 633) that the presentation of such claim to the proper depart- ment within six years after it first accrued stops the running of the statute. ' "But the decision in Lippitt's case has no reference to a case commenced here, like the one now before us, by the voluntary petition of the claimant. We so held in the case of Green, whose voluntary petition, not filed within six years after his claim first accrued, was dismissed (17 C. Cls. R.. 174), but upon the same claim, afterwards transmitted by the Secretary of War under Revised Statutes, section 1063, he recovered judgment (18 C. Cls. R., 93)." T W\ Under ordinary circumstances it may well be true that the statute of limitations is a statute which should be enforced, and which is one of just and proper policyfon the part of the Government. Wherever the failure of the party to sue was due to his own neglect to take advantage of the legal remedy there can be no question he may properly be held to the consequences of his failure. Circumstances, however, may arise, which it is impossible for a court governed by the strict rules of the law to take into consideration and which may yet present themselves as just and indeed irresistible grounds for the equitable interposition of Congress. It is hardly possible to suggest a stronger ground of this character than a representation held out by a supe- rior officer in the public service, to his inferior officer, under which the latter forbears to seek his legal remedy for the adjudication of his claim. In the present instance, the Postmaster-General on the 8th of November, 1893, in a communication printed as House of Representatives Executive Document No. 8, Fifty-third Congress, second session, and quoted in full in the report of this committee in the last Congress, hereto annexed, informed Congress that the adjudication and settlement of these claims can be made by the Free Delivery Division of this Depart- ment direct, if afforded an adequate clerical force for their investigation and a' sufficient appropriation for their payment. No such appropriation was ever made, but while waiting for and expecting the same, the Department continued to inform letter car- riers throughout the country that it was not necessary to present the claims to the Court of Claims, and that they would receive proper attention if sent to the Depart- ment. That these representations were made in good faith there can be no doubt. They were not, however, realized, because Congress never made any appropriation for the investigation of these claims by the Post-Office Department. Neither was any appro- priation ever made for their payment save the regular appropriations for judgments of the Court of Claims. Under these circumstances the Postmaster-General has stated: "As to the merits of the claims, I am of the opinion that the claimants are as a matter of justice entitled to relief in some form." In this opinion your committee concur, and believe that the good faith of the Gov- ernment requires that claimants should Dot be made to suffer from reliance upon the representation of their superior officer. They therefore adopt the report of the Committee on Claims in the last Congress. In addition to that report there is annexed hereto extracts from a House report in the last Congress, and also a consolidated list of all the claims embraced in Senate Documents 216, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, and 158, Fifty-sixth Congress, second session, with a recapitulation by cities and States. A careful calculation shows that the amount of the claims is $282,943.88. Your committee therefore recommend an amendment, to the pending bill, inserting that as the amount. They therefore report back the bill (S. 2429) with that amendment and recommend its passage. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 783 | {[Senate Report No. 1623, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session.] p The^Comrnittee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 4018) to provide?for the payment of overtime claims of letter carriers excluded from judgment as barred by limitation, respectfully report as follows: This bill proposes to pay to the several parties named in Senate Document No. 216, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, the amounts set opposite their names, respec- tively, aggregating $220,674.24, for services as letter carriers in excess of eight hours per day, and reported by commissioners of the Court of Claims as due them under the provisions of an act entitled "An act to limit the hours that letter carriers* in cities shall be employed per day," approved May 24, 1888 (Supp. Rev. Stat., second edition, Vol. I, p. 587), but which have been excluded or excepted from judgment for the sole reason that the same were barred by the statute of limitations. Your committee referred this bill to the Postmaster-General for a report on the facts, with his opinion on the merits of the bill, in response to^'which they received the following letter: Office of the Postmaster-General, Washington, D. C, April 14, 1900. Sir:*I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 6th instant inclosing a copy of Senate bill No. 4018 and requesting that papers on file in this Department relating to the subject-matter of the bill be forwarded to your committee. In reply I have the honor to state that between the years 1889 and 1894 numerous claims for overtime were filed in this Department by letter carriers and ex-letter carriers. These claims were made out on blanks furnished by this Department to postmasters, and postmasters were required to certify on the blanks to the correct- ness of the claims. It was clearly the intention of the Department at that time to adjust and pay these claims, and an unexpended balance of an appropriation having been made available for this purpose in 1890 (26 Stat. L., p. 676) a number of such claims arising at Washington and Philadelphia were adjusted and paid. - No further appropriations were made to enable this Department to pay the claims, and there arose also questions as to the proper interpretation of the act of May 24, 1888, "An act to limit the hours that letter earners in cities shall be employed per day." These questions were judicially determined by decisions of the Court of Claims in the case of Post v. United States (27 Ct. Cls. R., p. 244) and by the Supreme Court in United States v. Post (148 U. S. R., 124) and in United States v. Gates (148 U. S. R., 134). After the decisions of the Supreme Court were announced the Postmaster-General issued an order to prevent the further making of overtime in the light of the decisions above mentioned. This order was followed by a circular letter of instructions to postmasters, dated April 5, 1893, and signed by the First Assistant Postmaster-General, in which the following reference to overtime claims is made : "In this connection, with a view to minimizing the correspondence, confusion, and delay incident to an equitable adjustment of valid claims for overtime services actually and necessarily performed, letter carriers may be informed that a new, and it is to be hoped a correct, form of claim blank will soon be sent by the Department, for the benefit of claimants, to the postmasters at all free-delivery offices whence overtime claims have emanated, upon which particular blank all claims heretofore submitted should be restated and upon which any subsequent claims may also be presented to the Department for adjustment." The intention of the Department to adjust these claims is further shown in a com« munication of the Postmaster-General to the Speaker of the House of Representatives- dated November 8, 1893 (Ex. Doc. No. 8, Fifty-third Congress, second session), and by letters sent out by this Department in answer to inquiries from claimants. As a sample of these letters, I quote one written to J. F. O'Connor, Springfield, Mass., under date of March 21, 1894: "Yours of the 27th ultimo received. You can not present your claims for back pay to the Court of Claims without having counsel to represent you. It is not nec- essary, however, to present these claims to the Court of Claims. If they are sent to this Department they will receive proper attention." As to the merits of the claims, I am of the opinion that the claimants are, as a matter of justice, entitled to relief in some form. Very respectfully, Ch. Emory Smith, Postmaster-General. Hon. Francis E. Warren, Chairman Committee on Claims, United States Senate. 784 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Your committee also called upon the Attorney-General for his views upon the bill, which are shown by his response, as follows: Department op Justice, Washington, D. C, April 18, 1900. Sir: I acknowledge receipt of your communication of April 16, inclosing a copy of bill S. 4018, for the payment of overtime claims of letter carriers excluded from judgment as barred by limitation. You request that I will cause to be forwarded, for the use of your committee, all papers on file in my Department relating to these claims, and also that I will favor the committee with my opinion as to the merits of the same. In reply, I have the honor to state that the list of persons and amounts to which this bill is intended to apply, contained in Senate Doc. No. 216, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session, to which the bill refers, was made out in response to a resolution of the Senate of the date December 18, 1899, calling upon this Department for a list of the amounts which have been reported by the commissioners of the Court of Claims as representing services actually performed by letter carriers in excess of eight hours per day. This list was prepared under my direction by an expert employee of this Department, who has, during the past five years, assisted the commissioners of the Court of Claims in preparing their reports to the court of overtime of letter carriers. The list was made out by Mm from an examination of each one of the two thousand or more reports of overtime of letter carriers which have been made to the Court of Claims by the commissioners appointed for the purpose during the past six years, and was based upon the statements contained in such reports of the amount and value of overtime services performed by letter carriers for which claim was barred by the statute of limitations governing actions in the Court of Claims. These statements of barred services were made by the commissioners upon an investigation of exactly the same facts as were inquired into by them in reporting upon claims. not barred, and, in fact, are a part and parcel of each report. The result of this work is undoubtedly correct, and the total amount of such claims as ascertained by careful computation, is 1220,674.24. . There are no papers on file in this Department relating to these claims, and the papers from which computation of the same was made are part of the files of the Court of Claims; hence I am unable to forward, for the use of your committee, any papers in the premises. As regards the merits of these claims, they were excluded from the consideration of the Court of Claims solely by reason of the statute of limitations, above referred to. The various amounts were ascertained by commissioners of the Court of Claims, who were appointed by the court for the purpose of inquiring into the facts relating to the claims of letter carriers throughout the United States for overtime sendees, and the correctness of their work is evidenced by the fact that their reports have almost invariably been accepted, not only by the claimants, but by the United States, as being just and fair. I am satisfied, too, that these reports were eminently conserva- tive. As the only objection that I am aware of to these claims is a technical one, it is my opinion that, provided the failure of the claimants to present their claims to the court before the statute of limitations commenced to run against the same can be satisfactorily explained, these claims are as meritorious as any of those upon which judgment has heretofore been rendered by the court. Very respectfully, John W. Griggs, Attorney-General. Hon. Francis E. Warren, Chairman of the Committee on Claims, 'United States Senate. Your committee also deem it pertinent to this report to quote the response of the Postmaster-General sent in 1893 to the House of Representatives in answer to a resolution inquiring the mode of settlement of these claims, and printed as House of Representatives Ex. Doc. No. 8, Fifty-third Congress, second session, as follows: Office of the Postmaster-General, Washington, D. C, November 8, 1893. Sir: Replying to resolution of inquiry on the part of the House of Representa- tives, dated November 3, 1893., as to whether the claims of letter carriers for compen- sation for services in excess of eight hours per day, under act of May 24, 1888, as construed by the Court of Claims March 7, 1892, are being received, and whether in ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. 785 the settlement of these claims the services of attorneys are necessary, I have the honor to state: (1) That claims are now, from time to time, being received, which are additional to a large number already on file in this Department, including those adjudicated by the honorable Court of Claims but not yet paid. (2) I am of opinion that the services of attorneys are unnecessary, either in behalf of claimants or the Government, for the reason that the settlement of these claims will necessarily be made from records kept in the several post-offices, in connection with the departmental records, and will be a matter for clerical rather than legal capacity. It is true that in very many, perhaps nine-tenths of the claims on file, powers of attorney were filed simultaneously with the claims, but no action has yet arisen in the settlement thereof in which attorneys have been recognized, except informally, by the Department. The adjudication and settlement of these claims can be made by the free-delivery division of this Department direct, if afforded an adequate clerical force for their investigation and a sufficient appropriation for then payment. The adjudication of similar claims heretofore paid was affected in this manner. Very respectfully, W. S. Bissell, Postmaster-General. Hon. Chas. F. Crisp, Speaker of the House of Representatives. No such general appropriation as was suggested by the last paragraph of this response was ever made, either for the purpose of affording a sufficient clerical force or for the payment of the claims. All claimants, therefore, necessarily had to take their cases into the Court of Claims. Wherever the claim was presented more than six years after the rendition of the services the carrier was unable to obtain judgment for such part as accrued more than six years before the filing of the petition, under the provisions of section 1059 of the Revised Statutes, which is in the following words: "Every claim against the United States cognizable by the Court of Claims shall be forever barred unless the petition setting forth a statement thereof is filed in the court * •* * within six years after the claim first accrues." In order to facilitate the settlement of this very numerous class of claims, com- missioners were appointed to examine and report fully the amounts due the several claimants. The form of their commission will be found printed in the report of the case of Adams v. United States (33 Ct. Cls. R., pp. 411, 415), as follows: "Upon motion of the Assistant Attorney-General, on behalf of the Government, it is hereby ordered that be, and- is hereby, constituted a commissioner of this court in the above-entitled action and such other actions as may be brought before him by consent of the parties or order of court. "He shall investigate such claims, upon any books, records, or documents relating thereto, and upon such evidence, oral or written, as he may deem material, and shall report the facts found by him to exist, together with a computation of the amounts due the several claimants therefor. "He shall have power to examine claimants and other witnesses, at any place within the county of their respective residences; to exercise the powers of a commissioner of the court; he may in any case where he deems it material, or at request of either party, attach to his' report any depositions or other evidence taken by him. In case any claimant shall in writing request of such commissioner opportunity to be repre- sented by counsel upon the taking of testimony, said referee shall allow reasonable time for procuring the attendance of such counsel. "Upon the coming in of any report of such referee, either party shall have the right to object to any detail of such report and computation and to take any evidence in support either of the claim or the defense in the same manner as if no such report had been made. "This appointment may be revoked at any time by order of this court." The commissioners in the examination of the claims reported on the amount of overtime made by the carriers and the statutory compensation therefor, and judg- ments were entered upon these reports for all amounts which had been earned within the six years before the time the petition had been filed in each case, respectively. Wherever a portion of the claim was over six years old, the amount representing such portion was excluded or excepted from judgment under the bar of limitation enacted by section 1059 of the Revised Statutes as above quoted. The report of the Attorney-General, contained in Senate Doc. No. 216, contains the tabulated statement of the amounts thus reported by commissioners as having been actually earned for overtime made under the act of May 24, 1888, but excluded or excepted S. Rep. 382, 60-1 50 786 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. from judgment on the sole ground of limitation. The Attorney-General states that the reports of the commissioners were eminently conservative, and have almost invari- ably been accepted, both by the claimants and by the United States, as just and fair. Also that — "These statements of barred services were made by the commissioners upon an investigation of exactly the same facts as were inquired into by them in reporting upon claims not barred, and, in fact, are a part and parcel of each report." The total amount for which judgments have been entered by the Court of Claims is about $3,000,000, as shown by the Report of the Postmaster-General for 1897, page 95, leaving as excluded or excepted from judgment, for the sole reason that the claims were barred by limitation, the amount of claims contained in Senate Document No. 216 and provided for by the present bill, aggregating $220,674.24. As the inves- tigation upon which these claims were found due was of precisely the same char- acter as that which , resulted in the entry of the large amount of judgments which have been paid by appropriations in the regular deficiency bills, and as the failure of these claimants to present their claims to the Court of Claims in time was not due to their own fault, but to the belief, for which they had a good apparent foundation, in many written statements of the Department itself, that the claims would be settled by the Department without contest, and without the necessity of suing in the Court of Claims, it is evident that the facts fully support the opinion of the Postmaster- General "that the claimants are, as a matter of justice, entitled to relief in some form." Since January 1, 1895, no appreciable overtime has been made by letter carriers. This fact is stated in the Postmaster-General's annual report for 1897, page 95. Your committee annex to this report a copy of the opinions delivered by the Su- preme Court of the United States on March 13, 1893, in which the act of May 24, 1888, under which these claims arise, is set forth and fully construed. These opin- ions are reported in 148 United States Reports, pages 124 to 137. The examination of these claims by commissioners of the Court of Claims, upon which the judgments were based, from which the amounts provided for in the pend- ing bill were excluded or excepted,, were all made subsequently to the rendition of these opinions by the Supreme Court and in accordance therewith. Your committee therefore report back the bill, S. 4018, favorably and recommend its passage. [Supreme Court of the United States. No. 1061. October term, 1892. The United States, appellant, v. Aaron S. Post. Appeal from the Court of Claims.] [March 13, 1893.] Mr. Justice Blatchford delivered the opinion of the court: This is a suit brought in the Court of Claims by Aaron S. Post against the United States by an original petition filed March 26, 1891. A traverse of the petition was filed May 23, 1891, and an amended petition January 11, 1892. In the latter it is set forth that the claimant was, from May 24, 1888, to December 31, 1889, a letter car- rier in the post-office at the city of Salt Lake City, in the Territory of Utah, of the class entitled to a salary of $850 a year; that during that period he was from time to time actually and necessarily employed in excess of eight hours a day in the perform- ance of the duties assigned to him as such carrier, aggregating an excess of a specified number of hours; that by the act of Congress of May 24, 1888, chapter 308 (25 Stat., 157), entitled "An act to limit the hours that letter carriers in cities shall be em- ployed per day," he became entitled to extra pay for all the time during which he was so employed in excess of eight hours a day, and that he had applied to the Post- Office Department for payment of the same, and it had not been paid, and he claimed judgment for a specified amount and costs. A traverse of the amended petition was filed February 21, 1892. Eight other cases were before the Court of Claims and tried at the same time, with petitions in the same form and claiming various amounts, the claimants serving for various periods and their classes and salaries being various. The Court of Claims found that Post was a letter carrier at the post-office at Salt Lake City between May 24, 1888, and December 21, 1889, of the second class, at a salary of $850 a year. The other findings were as follows: "2. During their aforesaid terms of service said claimants were actually employed in the performance of their duties more than eight hours a day, the excess over such eight hours being shown in the following finding: "3. The manner, time, and nature of their employment was generally as follows: "They were required to report for duty at the post-office at 7 a. m. From 7 to 7.30 they were employed within the post-office in the distribution of mail matter, that is ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 787 to say, in taking letters and papers from newly arrived pouches, assorting them, and placing them in the boxes for box and general delivery. "From 7.30 to 8 they were severally engaged in arranging their own mail matter for carrier delivery by streets and numbers, and where the residence of a person was not expressed in the direction of a letter and was not known or remembered, in looking it up in the directory. "From 8 to 11 they were occupied on their routes in delivering and collecting mail matter. "From 11 to 11.30 they were engaged within the post-office building in making returns of persons not found and other things connected with their route delivery. "From 11.30 to 1 they were employed within the post-office in the general distri- bution of mail matter. "From 1 to 2 they were absent and off duty. "From 2 to 3.30 they were again employed on the post-office work of distributing general mail matter. "From 3.30 to 4 they were severally engaged in arranging their own mail matter for delivery/ "From 4 to 6 they were again occupied on their routes in delivering and collecting mail matter and in making their returns. "From 6 to 7 they were again absent and off duty. "From 7 to 8 they were again employed on the post-office work- of distributing general mail matter. "The above statement represents an ordinary or average day's employment. The time of going out and the time of being out on the routes in fact varied with the size of the mail, as did the time of their being relieved from duty at night. But their reporting for duty at 7 in the morning, at 2 in the afternoon, and at 7 in the evening was constant. "The above statement does not apply to Sundays. On Sundays the carriers made no deliveries. They were employed, however, in the office; but the time of employ- ment did not exceed eight hours. During the time covered by this claim there were 9 earners and 3 clerks employed in said post-office. "4. The carriers, by one of their number, remonstrated against the performance of work hot connected with their duties as carriers. The postmaster, however, held that "under the regulations the postmaster could use them in that service.' He therefore required them to perform it. "5. During the time embraced within the present claims the following regulations of the Post-Office Department were in force, all under the general title, ' Free-delivery service' (Postal Laws and Regulations, 1887, pp. 259, 261, 266, 268, 269): '"Sec. 628. Postmasters to supervise carrier service. — Postmasters will supervise then carrier service, and are epecially enjoined — "'1. To see that superintendents, carriers, and clerks connected with this service are fully informed as to their responsibilities and duties. . . . "'3. To frequently visit the stations and see that the regulations are there observed and proper order and discipline maintained. "'4. To issue all necessary orders and instructions necessary to carry out the regula- tions and promote the efficiency of the service. '"5. To reprimand the carriers for irregularities or report them for removal to the superintendent of free delivery, as the nature of the offence may require. (See section 642.) "'Sec. 642. Reprimand, suspension, and removal. — The due performance of their duty by earners, and the observance of law, regulations, and orders prescribed for their conduct, will be enforced by reprimand for slight offences; by suspension with loss of pay for more serious ones, not, however, to exceed thirty days; and by suspen- sion and recommendations for removals for grave offences, or persistent disregard of the rules herein prescribed, or of the orders of the postmaster not inconsistent here- with. In all other cases of recommendation for removal, carriers should not be sus- pended, but postmasters should await the action of the Department.' "All the following are under the subtitle, 'General duties of carriers.' "'Sec. 647. Duties generally. — Carriers shall be employed in the delivery and col- lection of mail matter, and during the intervals between their trips may be employed in the post-office in such manner as the postmaster may direct, but not as clerks. '"The delivery and collection by them must be frequently tested at irregular intervals to determine their efficiency. "'Sec 648. Delivery of matter. — The mails must be assorted and the carriers started on their first daily trip as early as practicable. They must proceed to their routes 788 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. with expedition and by the most direct way. A schedule of the order of delivery of each route should be made in a legible hand by names of streets and numbers of houses, and the mail delivered according to such schedule. Mail matter directed to box numbers must be delivered through the boxes. Mail matter addressed to street and number must be delivered by carriers unless otherwise directed. Mail matter addressed neither to a box holder nor to a street and number must be delivered by carrier if its address is known or can be ascertained from the city directory; other- wise, at the general delivery. "'Sec. 649. Care in delivery of mail. — Carriers will exercise great care in the deliv- ery of mail to the persons for whom it is intended, or to some one known to them to be authorized to receive it. They will, in case of doubt, make respectful inquiry with the view to ascertain the owner. Failing in this, they will return the mail to the office, to be disposed of as the postmaster may direct.' " ' Sec. 651. Directory to be used to ascertain addresses. — *- Where a directory is published it must be used when necessary to ascertain the address of persons to whom letters are directed, and it should also be used in the case of transient newspapers and other matter of the third and fourth classes, where the error in or omission of street address is evidently the result of ignorance or inadvertance ; but when circulars, printed postal cards, or other matter, except letters, shall arrive at any post-office in large quantities, apparently all sent by the same person or firm, and from which the street addresses havebeen purposely omitted, the directory need not be used to supply such omission, 'and all of such circulars, &c, which can not readily be delivered through boxes or by carriers, shall be sent to the general delivery to await call.' "6. In the case of Aaron S. Post, the claimant, between the 24th day of May, 1888, and the 31st day of December, 1889, was employed by order of the postmaster in excess of eight hours a day, as follows: "Before 7 a. m., the regular hour when the carriers reported for duty, he arrived at the office and opened the eastern mail, which came at about 5 in the morning, in order to prepare the same for the southern mail. This was done so that it would not have to lie over twenty-four hours. The time thus employed was two hundred and forty-six and one-half hours. "During intervals between 7 a. m., when carriers reported for duty, and 6 p. m., when their work as carriers ended, he was employed in the office in opening the mail, stamping it, and distributing the same, as hereinbefore stated, in excess of eight hours, nine hundred and eighty-six hours. "After his last trip and his returns as carrier were made — i. e., after 7 p. m. — he was employed on the post-office work of distributing general mail matter in the office four hundred and ninety-three hours." On such findings of fact the court found as a conclusion of law that Post was enti- tled to recover for 1,725J hours of extra work, amounting, at the rate of 29.1 cents per hour, to $502.12. The opinion of the court in the nine cases, including that of Post, is found in 27 Ct. Cls., 244. A judgment was entered in favor of Post, on March 10, 1892, for $502.12, from which judgment the United States appealed to thiscourt. The act of May 24, 1888, reads as follows: "That hereafter eight hours shall consti- tute a day's work for letter carriers in cities or postal districts connected therewith, for which they shall receive the same pay as is now paid for a day's work of a greater number of hours. If any letter carrier is employed a greater number of hours per day than eight he shall be paid extra for the same in proportion to the salary now fixed by law." The contention of the United States is that the statute has reference only to letter- carrier service, and that the claimant, to bring himself within its provisions, must show not only that he has performed more than eight hours of service in a day, but also that such eight hours of service related exclusively to the free distribution and collection of mail matter, and that the extra service for which he claims compensation was of the same character. In this connection reference is made to sections 1764 and 1765 of the Revised Statutes. Section 1764 provides as follows: "No allowance or compensation shall be made to any officer or clerk by reason of the discharge of duties which belong to any other officer or clerk in the same or any other Department, and no allowance or compensation shall _ be made for any extra services whatever which any officer or clerk may be required to perform, unless expressly authorized by law." Section 1765 provides as follows: "No officer in any branch of the public service, or any other person whose salary, pay, or emoluments are fixed by law or regulation, shall receive any additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation, in any form whatever, for the disbursement of public money, or for any other service or duty whatever, unless the same is authorized by law and the appropriation therefor explicitly states that it is for such additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation." ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 789 Referring to section 647 of the Postal Laws and Regulations of 1SS7, which were in force during the time embraced within the claim in question, under the head of "Free-delivery sendee" (and which §647 is set forth in finding 5 of the Court of Claims), under the subtitle "General duties of carriers," it providing as follows: "Carriers shall be employed in the delivery and collection of mail matter, and, dur- ing the intervals between their trips may be employed in the post-office in such manner as the postmaster may direct, but not as clerks," it is contended for the United States that the duties of letter earners are a necessary incident to the creation of the free-delivery service; that the statute necessarily defines their sen-ices to be a distribution and collection of mail, and such other duties as are necessarily incident thereto, such as receiving the mail allotted to them by clerks in the" post-office, arranging it for distribution, and making a proper disposition of it, when not delivered, upon their return to the post-office; and that any other service which a carrier may perform is not contemplated by the act of May 24, 1888, and is an extra service within the meaning of sections 1764 and 1765 of the Revised Statutes, payment for which is not authorized by law. For the claimant it is contended that under section 647 of the regulations of the Department, as set forth in finding 5 of the Court of Claims, the extra service for which the claim is made was an employment of the letter carrier, not only in the delivery and collection of mail matter, but also in the post-office, during the intervals between his trips, in such manner as the postmaster directed, but not as a clerk. It is not stated in the findings that the claimant was so employed as a clerk, nor does it appear what the duties of a clerk in the post-office in question were, but merely that during the time covered by the claim there were nine carriers and three clerks employed in that post-office. It is also found, by finding 4, that the earners remonstrated against the performance of work not connected with their duties as earners; but that the postmaster held that under the regulations he could use them in that service, and therefore required them to perform it. This, in view of the pro- vision of section 647 of the regulations, is substantially a finding that they were not employed as clerks. The whole contention on the part of the United States amounts to this, that the Court of Claims has substantially found that none of the extra work for which com- pensation is claimed was incident to the general duties of the claimant as a letter carrier, and that the statute in regard to extra service relates exclusively to that which is connected with the general duties of the claimant as a letter carrier, and not to compensation for extra service when he is not employed for eight hours a day in the performance of his general duties as a letter carrier. The statute of 1888 provides that eight hours shall constitute a day's work ' ' for letter carriers" in cities or postal districts connected therewith. It does not state what duties the letter carriers shall perform during such day's work, but merely that they shall receive for such day's work of eight hours the same pay that was then f>aid for a day's work of a greater number of hours. It further provides that if a etter carrier is employed a greater number of hours per day than eight, he shall be paid extra for such greater number of hours in proportion to the salary fixed by law for his compensation. This extra pay is given to him by the statute distinctly for his being employed a greater number of hours per day than eight. The statute does not say how he must be employed, or of what such employment is to consist. It is necessary only that he should be a letter carrier, and be lawfully employed in work that is not inconsistent with his general business under his employment as a letter carrier. The employment authorized by section 647 of the regulations is defined to be an employment in the post-office in such manner as the postmaster may direct, during the intervals between the carrier's trips in delivering and collecting mail matter, provided that he be not employed in the post-office as a clerk therein. The Court of Claims, in its opinion, arrived at the following conclusions: (1) That the letter carriers were entitled to recover, not only for all work done by them on the street in delivering and collecting mail matter, but also for all work done in the post- office in receiving and arranging the letters of their routes; (2) that as to the distribu- tion of mail matter for the boxes and general delivery, as found in finding 3, during the times intervening between one trip and another in the same day the regulations of the Department, set forth in finding 5, could properly be construed as permitting such services; and (3) that as to the services of the same character rendered after the termination of the last trip for the day of the carrier in delivering and collecting mail matter, they were services fairly within the power of the postmaster to prescribe. We are of opinion that, in respect of all such services, the letter carrier, if employed therein a greater number of hours than eight per day, was entitled to be paid extra. To hold otherwise would be to say that the canier was employed contrary to the regu- 790 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. lations of the Department, when it clearly appears that he was employed in accord- ance with such regulations. The statute was manifestly one for the benefit of the carriers, and it does not lie in the mouth of the Government to contend that the em- ployment in question was not extra service, and to be paid for as such, when it appears that the United States, in accordance with the regulations of the Post-Office Depart- ment, actually employed the letter carriers the extra number of hours per day, and it is not found that they were so employed as clerks. The postmaster was the agent of the United States to direct the employment, and if the letter carriers had not obeyed the orders of the postmaster they could have been dismissed. They did not lose their legal rights under the statute by obeying such orders. Judgment affirmed. Mr. Justice Jackson took no part in the decision of this case. [Supreme Court of the United States. No. 1060. — October Term, 1892. The United States, appellant, v. Frank Gates. Appeal from the Court of Claims.] [March 13th, 1893.] Mr. Justice Blatckford delivered the opinion of the court. In this case, Frank Gates filed a petition in the Court of Claims May 27, 1891, set- ting forth that from May 24, 1888, to July 31, 1888, he was a letter carrier in the post- office at the city of New York, of the class entitled to a salary of $1,000 a year; that during that period he was, from time to time, actually and necessarily employed in excess of eight hours a day, in the performance of the duties assigned to him as such carrier, aggregating a specified excess; that by the act of May 24, 1888 (set forth in case No. 1061, just decided), he became entitled to extra pay tor all the time during which he was so employed in excess of eight hours a day; that he had applied to the Post- Office Department for payment, and it had not been paid; and that he claimed judg- ment for a specified amount, besides costs. A traverse of the petition was filed July 14, 1891, and the case' was heard by the Court of Claims, which, on the evidence, found the facts to be as follow: "1. The claimant was, during the months of May, June, and July, 1888, a letter carrier of the first class, salary $1,000 a year, in the city of New York, in the State of New York. "2. From May 24, 1888, to July 31, 1888, he was actually and necessarily employed in the performance of his duties more than eight hours a day, .the excess over such eight hours being as follows : Hrs. Min- May, 1888 16 53 June, 1888 : 78 58 July, 1888 69 18 Total 165 9 "He has received no extra pay for the excess. "3. For the said period of time claimant performed only fifteen hours of service on the ten Sundays, and four hours and thirty minutes on Decoration Day, and the same time on the 4th day of July." On such findings of fact, the court found as a conclusion of law that Gates was entitled to recover for the 165 hours and 9 minutes of extra work performed by him, without being required to deduct therefrom the deficit of less than eight hours a day worked on Sundays and holidays, as shown by finding 3, amounting, at 34.2 cents per hour, to $56.48; and for that amount a judgment was entered for him, to review which the United States has appealed. In the opinion of the Court of Claims, reported in 27 Ct. CI., 244, 259, it is stated that No. 1061 (just decided) embraced, with a single exception, all the questions presented by the present case, No. 1060, besides many more questions; and that No. 1060 presented one question which was not presented in the other cases. That ques- ' tion is stated in the opinion as follows: "On week days the carriers were employed more than eight hours, but on Sundays less, and the deficit of the latter nearly equals the excess of the former. The Post-Office Department, by its circular Febru- ary 19, 1891, has directed postmasters 'To determine the time a letter carrier may have been required to work during any month in excess of eight hours per day,' as follows: "'Ascertain the aggregate hours worked during the month. Multiply the number of days worked during the month by eight, and subtract the product thus obtained ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 791 from the aggregate number of hours worked, and the remainder will be the extra time for which the carrier is entitled to pay at the following rates: Salary, i First quarter. Second quarter. Third and fourth quarters. Average quarter. $000 i 20| cents per hour 20f cents per hour 20f cents per hour ' 20| cents per hour. 800 , 27f cents per hour 27J cents per hour 27J cents per hour 27§ cents per hour. 850 29 J cents per hour 29i cents per hour 28J cents per hour 29/ T cents per horn 1,000 34f cents per hour 34f cents per hour 34 cents per hour 34f cents per hour. "The time necessarily consumed in the performance of the service between "Re port for duty * * and ' ' End of duty " is the ' ' actual time " to be allowed , and the interim between deliveries is the carrier's own time, and can not in any case be charged against the United States.' "The carrier's eight-hour law declares 'that hereafter eight hours shall constitute a day's work,' but it allows compensation to continue in the form of an annual sal- ary, and requires no deduction to be made if the duties of the day do not extend through the prescribed time. It also declares that ' if any letter carrier is employed a greater number of horns per day than eight he shall be paid extra for the same.' To sustain the interpretation given to the act by the Department it will be necessary to read in it by construction the words "on an average,' i. e., if any letter carrier is employed on an average a greater number of hours per day than eight he shall be paid extra for the same. This the court is not at liberty to do. The carrier is enti- tled to eight hours' work and to his pay if work is not furnished to him. For any excess on any day he is entitled to extra pay. The only set-off that can be main- tained is when he is absent from duty without leave. The Department is at liberty to keep a carrier employed eight hours every day, but not to give him a deficit of work one day and an excess another." In the brief of the Solicitor-General in the present case, it is stated that in his opin- ion the decision of the Court of Claims was correct; that he is prevented from dis- missing the appeal only by the fact that another Department of the Government has differed from that view, and declines to follow it until the question is decided authori- tatively by this court: and that justice to the letter carriers seems, therefore, to require that the case be submitted to this court for its determination, which he does without argument. The conclusions which we have reached in No. 1061, cover the same questions aris- ing in this case which are presented in that; and, as the appellant does not challenge the decision of the Court of Claims as to the question presented in this case which is not presented in Xo. 1061, it is sufficient to say that we concur with the views of that court, above stated, as to that question. Judgment affirmed. Mr. Justice Jacksox took no part in the decision of this case. [House Report No. 1182, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session.] The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 10315) to provide for the payment of overtime claims of letter carriers excluded from judgment as barred by limitation, respectfully report as follows: The claims referred to in this bill arise under the act of May 24, 1888, entitled "An act to limit the hours that letter carriers in cities shall be employed per day," which is as follows: "Be it enacted, etc.. That hereafter eight hours shall constitute a day's work for letter carriers in cities or postal districts connected therewith, for which they shall receive the same pay as is now paid as for a day's work of a greater number of hours. If any letter carrier is employed a greater number of hours per day than eight he shall be paid extra for the same, in proportion to the salarv now fixed by law." (1 Supp. Rev. Stat., 587.) It is stated bv the Postmaster-General in his annual report for the year 1895, page 118: "When the present administration assumed charge of the Post-Office Department it found in the files of the free-delivery division of this Bureau fully 4,000 overtime claims of letter carriers, aggregating over §15,000,000. and overtime accumulating at the rate of $250,000 per annum. Five years had passed since the enactment of the 792 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. eight-hour law, May 24, 1888, and the appropriations for the intervening years, notably that of the fiscal year 1888-89, had been especially increased to enable the Department to meet the requirements of the law, yet no appreciable decrease in the annual accu- mulation of overtime had been made." Two cases involving test questions under the act were brought before the Court of Claims and decided favorably to the carriers on the 7th of March, 1892, and will be found reported in the twenty-seventh volume of Court of Claims Reports, page 244. These cases were taken to* the Supreme Court on appeal, and the judgments affirmed March 13, 1893. The decisions of the Supreme Court will be found reported in 148 United States Reports, pages 124 to 137. The opinions of the Supreme Court in these two cases are annexed to this report as an appendix. At the session of Congresss following the date of these decisions the House of Rep resentatives adopted a resolution calling on the Postmaster-General to state in what manner these claims would be settled. The response of the Postmaster-General to this resolution is dated November 8, 1893, and constitutes House Ex. Doc. No. 8, Fifty-third Congress, second session. It is annexed to this report as an appendix. It will be seen from this report that the House was informed by the Postmaster- General that "the adjudication and settlement of these claims can be made by the free-delivery division of this Department direct, if afforded an adequate clerical force for their investigation and a sufficient appropriation for their payment." No such appropriation, however, was made, either for the purpose of providing clerical force for the investigation of the claims or for their payment. In consequence all the carriers in the country who had claims of this character — and they included practically all letter carriers who were in service from 1888 to 1893 — had ultimately to present their claims to the Court of Claims, The manner in which these claims were investigated is shown by the following statement from the report of the Postmaster-General for 1896, page 173: "To expedite a settlement in which the interests of the Department as well as those of the letter carriers might be fully protected, an arrangement was made with the Department of Justice, by which the assistant superintendent of the free-delivery system and another employee of this Department were commissioned by the Court of Claims special commissioners in the settlement of overtime claims by letter carriers." It is stated in the report of the Postmaster-General for 1897, page 95, that the total amount of these claims investigated and allowed by the commissioners, and in which judgments of the court have been entered and paid under the appropriations annually made in the deficiency appropriation act, have been over $3,000,000. Wherever, in investigating these claims, the commissioners ascertain that any por- tion of the claim was over six years' standing before the petition had been filed they nev- ertheless stated the amount that had been earned, and it was thereupon excluded or excepted from judgment by the court in entering judgment. It is these excluded or excepted amounts which the present bill proposes to pay. The Senate, on the 18th of December, 1899, adopted a resolution calling on the Attorney-General for a statement of the amounts so excluded or excepted from judgment for the sole reason that the same were barred by the statute of limitations . In response to that call the Attorney-General transmitted a list, which has been printed as Senate Document 216. Your committee, through the subcommittee to whom this bill has been referred, called upon the Postmaster-General and Attorney-General, respectively, for their views on the propriety of this legislation. Each of those officers responded, and the purport of their statements may be summarized as follows : First. The Attorney-General states that the investigation of these claims was of pre- cisely the same character as that of those upon which judgments have been entered and paid, and so far as the proof of the service is concerned they stand upon exactly the same footing. Second. The Postmaster-General reports that the claimants were invited by the Department itself to present their claims to the Post-Office Department, and that their failure to present their claims to the Court of Claims being thus due to the invitation of the Department itself, in the belief then entertained that Congress would appropriate for a sufficient clerical force to investigate the claims, it is only just to the claimants that relief should be afforded to them. The letters of the Postmaster-General and Attorney-General here referred to are annexed in full as appendixes to this report. In addition thereto there have been laid before your committee a large number of statements from claimants whose cases are embodied in the present bill explaining why they failed to present their claims until a portion thereof had been barred by limitation. Extracts from some of these letters are embodied in an additional appendix to this report. As in a general way their statements are corroborated by the statements made in the ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 793 letter of the Postmaster-General to your committee, it is believed by your committee that the statements of the writers are entitled to credence. Under all the circumstances, there would be no justice in the Government taking advantage of the statute of limitations (Rev. Stats. , sec. 1069). which the parties in these cases were induced to disregard by the action of the Department itself, however hon- estly the Department acted itself, and in the full belief that Congress would confer upon it authority to settle the claims without the necessity of a recourse to the Court of Claims on the part of the claimants. The amount of the claims, as officially footed up by the Attorney-General in this let- ter to your committee, is $220,674.24. Your committee therefore report back the bill (H. R. 10315) with an amendment inserting that amount in place of the amount $221,451.37, as contained in lines 9 and 10 of the bill, and as so amended recommend its [Extracts from letters received from claimants concerning reasons why their claims were not presented in time to escape the action of the statute of limitations. These are typical of a very large number.] Davenport, Iowa. — Jn regard to this claim I will say that I sent it to the First Assist- ant Postmaster-General, on a blank that was supplied by him for this purpose, in De- cember, 1893, I think. This blank had a part of the overtime which I had made on it and was signed by Post- master as being correct and just. This claim was returned to me by the First Assistant, for the reason that I had only the overtime made each day made out, instead of having all of the time consumed each day shown; with the same envelope he returned me new blanks with instructions to properly fill out and on receipt of the same he also said that the Department would take action; he also informed me that it would not be necessary to employ the services of an attorney. Acting under these instructions, I made out another blank and had it signed by Mr. Fred A. Lisher, who was then postmaster, and forwarded it to the Department in the month of March, 1894, and since that time I have heard nothing from them. In regard to the other claims that you have from this city, I will say that at the time the overtime was made it was impossible for any of the men to file any claims and hold their positions. Pittsburg, Pa. — In connection with the matter I will say — at the time a post- office inspector visited this city and told us he was representing the Post-Office Department in the matter of settling our claims for overtime, fie told us the Depart- ment would settle with and pay us and that was the surest, safest, and perhaps the only way by which a settlement could be reached, as it might be twenty years before our claims would be reached before the Court of Claims. As he was recognized by the local post-office officials as an officer of the Depart- ment, I believed he spoke with authority and truthfully and thought any other than the plan he suggested would be useless, as well as likely to be considered discour- teous, and when no relief came from the Department, and as the statute of limita- tions was working against my claim, I at last tried the Court of Claims. Peoria, III. — At the time the postmaster at Bloomington, where I was employed, Hon. John Eddy, took my papers, after I had made out my claim for overtime, and sent them to the Post-Office Department instead of sending them to the claim depart- ment. My claim was sent in there in plenty of time. The inclosed letter will explain itself and show what the condition of affairs was at Washington. If you do not need this, please return same to me. Post-Office Department, Office of the First Assistant Postmaster-General, Washington, D.. C, March 18, 1894. Sir: Yours of the 12th instant, in reference to your claim for overtime now on file in the Post-Office Department, has been received. In reply I have to state that it is impossible to give you any information concerning the probable date upon which the Department will take up these claims for settle- ment, as this is a matter depending entirely upon the action of Congress. Your claim will, however, have the same consideration shown others of like character. Very respectfully, First Assistant Postmaster-General. 794 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Newark, N. J. — Referring to the claims in question as presented by the carriers of this office, we wish to state that in 1894 the carriers concerned presented, at the suggestion of the then superintendent of free delivery, their claims to the Post-Office Department. We were assured at the time that the claims would receive proper consideration, and those authorities being our highest superiors, we felt assured that our claims would be properly filed and given the consideration merited under the law. It appears, however, that those claims were permitted to remain on file and were never properly presented to the disbursing officers of the United States, and when a second claim was filed we learned through you that the claims originating prior to a certain time were outlawed by limitation. You will observe that as far as we are concerned we filed our claims in ample time to prevent the raising of the question of limitation of time, and it does not seem that in justice to us we should be deprived of what is legally and equitably our due simply because our superior officers of that time neglected or overlooked the matter. Paducah, Ky. — I, with four other carriers, sent our claims to the Post-Office Depart- % ment at Washington. They were returned, saying that there would be a commissioner call on us to adjust the claim, so I did not think it necessary to take any further steps until he came. So when the commissioner did come my time was debarred. I have no letters of any description, they all being destroyed. Lexington, Ky. — My claim for overtime as letter carrier in this city was filed in the Post-Office Department at Washington, D. O, about April 24, 1894. The claim was Erepared and made out upon a blank furnished by the Postmaster-General, and by is instructions was filed and acknowledgment of same received about May 1, 1894. Thinking that I had done as I should do, I allowed the claim to remain on file until December 12, 1894. I called upon the Postmaster-General for status of the claim, and in reply received notice that the claim would have to be filed in the Court of Claims, which was done, not, however, before the statute of limitations had been running for several months. In April, 1895, I filed an application with the Post- master-General to assist me in getting the part of the claim which was barred covering the period from May 24, 1888, to January 1, 1889. I have had several communications from the Post.-Office Department since that time, which I will forward to you. Post-Office Department, Office of the First Assistant Postmaster-General, Washington, D. C, April 20, 189S. Sir: Yours of the 14th instant, asking for a blank on which to make out a claim for overtime, has been received. J_n reply you are informed that the Department is now having an overtime blank prepared, in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court, a supply of which will be furnished to postmasters at free-delivery offices as Boon as printed, when you can procure a copy from the postmaster at Lexington. Very respectfully, First Assistant Postmaster-General. Post-Office Department, Office of the First Assistant Postmaster-General, Washington, D. C, June 30, 1893. Sir: * * * In compliance with your request, we inclose you herewith a "claim 1 *' blank, as requested. Very respectfully, , Acting First Assistant Postmaster-General. Post-Office Department, Office of the First Assistant Postmaster-General, Washington, D. C, March 17, 1904. Dear Sir: Yours of the 8th, referring to claim for overtime, has been received.. In reply you are informed that the matter will be carefully attended to at the earliest opportunity, and you will be duly informed of the action of the Department. Very respectfully, First Assistant Postmaster-General. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 795 Post-Office Department, ^ Office of the First Assistant Postmaster-General, Washington, D. C, April 17, 1894. Dear Sir: Yours of the 24th, referring to claim for overtime, also statement of same, has been received. In reply you are informed that the matter will be care- fully attended to at the earliest opportunity, and you will be duly informed of the action of the Department. Veiy respectfully, First Assistant Postmaster-General . Scranton, Pa.— One reason why this claim was not prosecuted in time was because I, with others, was under the impression that it would be recognized and paid by the Government without presenting it through a regular legal process before the Court of Claims, and when I found out to the contrary this portion of my claim had been barred by the statute of limitations. We thought if our claims would be paid simply upon their presentation we could save the legal expenses. Altoona, Pa. — The reason why I did not file my claim for overtime before it was barred by the statute of limitations was that the then postmaster said that any car- rier who attempted or would file any claim for overtime during his term as post- master of this office he would report them to the Post-Office Department and recom- mend their dismissal from the service. This was the rod he held over us. And to fur- ther display his unkind and unjust disposition in the matter, after , our at- torney, who visited our office and took up the claims, he called me into his private office and took my name as one of the applicants, and stated to me that any carrier who had filed an overtime claim he would report him to the Department and use his efforts to have him dismissed from the service. It was his intimidating and un- kind disposition toward the carriers that kept them from filing their claims at an earlier date, because no earner cared to lose his place on that account. Paducah. Ky.— This claim, in connection with others, was entered in April, 1893. * * * They were sworn to before Postmaster Ed. Farley and made out upon sheets furnished by the Department and forwarded by Postmaster to Washington; I think to the First Assistant Postmaster-General. Little Rock, Ark. — Was given to understand by officials of the Department that it would not be necessary to put the claim in hand of a lawyer for collection nor in Court of Claims; that it would be paid without this. Indianapolis, Ind. — The general impression that these claims would be adjusted by the Department and a delicacy in bringing suit against a Department where you had worked for years and hoped to continue was the cause of delay in my case as in many others. Lynchburg, Va. — We, the undersigned carriers, beg leave to say that the nonpresen- tation of our claims for our overtime was due to the prevailing impression made upon us by the ex-postmaster of this city, Mr. , that we would jeopardize our posi- tions. Therefore we deemed it not necessary. Lynchburg, Va. — I had several conversations in regard to the matter with , who was then superintendent of carriers, and he informed me that the Government would not pay the claim. I was also advised by my friends not to press my claim, as it would likely have some effect upon my position. Wilkesbarre, Pa. — I handed my claim to our postmaster for approval, and he came to me about a month after and told me that he received a letter from the Post-Office Department at Washington stating that my claim had been received and would ceive prompt attention. Owensboro, Ky. — We were under the impression these claims would be paid with- out the sendees of an attorney. Portland, Me. — The postmaster gave my overtime to me on a paper signed by him; told me to mail the same to the First Assistant Postmaster-General. I did as requested by the postmaster. Nearly six years later I learned the Court of Claims was the place to obtain judgment on the same. I wrote the Post-Office Department for my papers. They were mailed to me. I mailed them to my attorney, - — — . I was in- formed by him some time later that my claim was barred by lapse of time. Pittsburg, Pa. — There was a Government inspector here who told us that he was here for the purpose of fixing our claims, and we need not do anything, as the Gov- ernment would pay us. So you can see why we did not get our claims in. Macon, Ga. — Some years ago the carriers interested appointed a com- mittee of one to wait upon our then postmaster and ask his advice as to what steps we should take in the matter, which was as follows: That he did not object to our getting the claim paid, but he was afraid we would lose our positions if we per- 796 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. sisted in pushing the claim. Being governed by this advice, we were afraid to act in the matter until visited our city and assured us that we would not jeopardize our positions in presenting these claims. New Britain, Conn. — My claim was presented in time and it was not, or any part of it, barred by limitation. If there was any delay it was no fault of mine, because my claim was sent in time, and if it was not filed in the Court of Claims it was because it must have been pigeonholed or neglected in some department of the Government. In the first place the Postmaster-General sent papers to the postmaster in New Britain asking or making inquiry if any of the employees or letter carriers had any claims against the Govermnent for overtime work. I filled out the papers and returned them to the Postmaster-General long before my claim was barred by limitation. After I had sent the papers to the Postmaster-General, and I assumed that was all that was necessary to be done, but it seems that instead of the Government representative pre- senting them to the Court of Claims that they were pigeonholed as above referred to. As nothing was being done I asked to have my papers returned , and I then forwarded them to the attorney who was acting for me and others at the time in Washington, and I was then told that part ofthe claim was barred by limitation. There has been no neglect upon my part, and it seems to me that the neglect was upon the part of some of the Government employees at Washington. Chattanooga, Term. — Five carriers write as follows: "In regard to the reason or question why we did not present our claims before we were barred by the statute of limitations, we beg leave to state that soon after the passage of the "eight-hour ' law our claims were presented, having just been made out by our superintendent at this post-office, or made by us and verified by him. The Government sent an inspector here to examine into the matter, and he decided unless we worked eight hours per day for seven days in each week, including Sunday, we could not recover pay for our time. This decision caused us to make no further effort for the time being then. Soon afterwards a declaration or statement was made by our Postmaster-General that these claims would be paid, and that it would not be necessary for carriers to employ counsel or attorneys, as the Government would pay the claims without this expense. So the claims did not become barred because we had not made the demand, but be- cause we had not demanded them through an attorney in a legal way. We claim the lapse of time was caused, first, by the decision against us by the inspector on account of his idea of fifty-six hours constituting a week's work; second, on account of state- ment of Postmaster-General that the claims would certainly be paid without it being necessary to put them in hands of an attorney." These claims were promptly filed on blanks furnished by the Post-Office Depart- ment for that purpose. Chief District, in Charge of Carriers. Warren, Ohio. — The advice I got from our postmaster at that time was not to send in any claim, for the Post-Office Department had out spies looking up carriers that made claims for overtime, so I did not make any claim, as I would have liked to. Philadelphia, Pa. — I was in the post-office at the time the claims were first made out. We had a committee of the carriers, and two of them went to Washington to represent us in the matter of overtime, and they told us they got it from good author- ity that we should file our claims for overtime in the Post-Office Department at Wash- ington, and we were not informed differently until almost half of our claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Bradford, Pa. — Will say I wrote direct to the Department and received answer that as soon as there was any appropriation made for payment of said claims I would be paid in full. They also entered my claim. Lexington, Ky. — Will inform you that I was told by a first assistant postmaster at Lexington that it was not necessary; that the Post-Office Department would have claim properly filed without it. Trinidad, Colo. — I was informed by the postmaster that if such application were made it would not be allowed and that it would jeopardize my position in the service. Danville, III. — I carried mail from July 4, 1889, till about the middle of January, 1892, remaining in the office till April 4, 1892, leaving on this date for Managua, Nica- ragua. Some time while I was in Nicaragua some of my friends notified me that I was entitled to overtime. I wrote to them and made all the inquiries possible, but as it took some four or five months to get an answer and sometimes not any at all, I could not do anything until I returned here in December, 1897. Beaver Falls, Pa.— The reason the claims of the carriers were not file before the limitation had cut out part of the time was because the postmaster, — , advised us not to file our claim for overtime, as we might lose our positions by so doing. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 797 Scranton, Pa. — My case, with several others, was presented at the Post-Office Department, office of First Assistant Postmaster-General, Superintendent Free-Deliv- ery System, Washington, D. C, October 3, 1890, and they were filed for considera- tion when reached in their order. Middletown, Ohio. — The Postal Department forwarded to me a blank form upon which to make out the claim. I called upon , then postmaster of Middletown, and showed him the form and requested permission to examine the time sheet in order to get the data. While I was at work upon that Mr. said to me "that I had better not file my claim, as it would not amount to anything, and might cause the Department to secure our dismissal from the service." As he was my superior officer at the time, and I presumed that he knew the postal laws, or had information which was reliable, I refrained from making out the claim for the reason that I could not afford to lose my position, particularly if the claim would not be allowed. This occurred on several occasions, and my sole reason for not presenting my claim at that time, or until the same was barred by the statute, was that through my postmaster's influence I was persuaded not do to so, and feared that if I did either that he or some other person in authority would cause my dismissal from the service. Philadelphia, Pa. — In August, 1890, I sent my claim to Postmaster-General, Wash- ington, D. C, with the understanding that he would see that I got my claim. On August 13, 1890, I received a letter from Acting Superintendent Free-Delivery System that my claim had been received, and that I would be paid in my turn. New Orleans, La. — I consulted superintendent carriers, New Orleans, La.; he told me I could do what I thought best, and gave me as his opinion that any overtime that was due me would be recognized by the Department when the commissioners- came down to examine the records, and then it would be time enough to file my claim. To my surprise you informed me about the limitation clause. Sheboygan, Wis.- — When the letter carriers throughout the country were notified to send in their claims, the carriers of this office also took action preparatory to sending in said claims. Mr. , who was then our postmaster, disapproved of our inten- tion in a very decided manner, even going so far as to send the false statement to the Department at Washington that the question of overtime had been settled by him in this office, and that we had agreed to drop all claims of overtime. His actions placed us in a dilemma, and for the time being we delayed ir> sending in our claims. With the advent of another postmaster we again took up the matter. He also expressed his disapproval of our intention, and so it was that much valuable time was lost before we finally decided to send in our claims. But for the opposition of our postmasters our claims would have been presented in time. Atlanta, Ga. — I was informed I was to put the claim in through the First Assistant Postmaster-General, which I did. I received his receipt for the same. I then went down in Crawford County, Ga., in the sawmill business (in the backwood) for seven years and did not hear any more from my claim until it was put in with others. 798 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. CLAIMS OF LETTER CARRIERS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, barred by the statute of limitations, called for in Senate resolution, December 18, 1899. .18414 20528 51027 18861 18369 18026 19538 BIRMINGHAM, ALA. James D. Bell MOBILE, ALA. Frank J. Leary Edward C. Cato Percy W. Beck Nathan Jessie Charles Lewis William H. Larkin Josh W. McCloud John T. Marshall Reuben R. Mims Charles H. Nichols Thomas W. Payton. . James T. Peterson Alfreds. Smith William H. Schneider. Thomas W. Tobin Charles H. Williams. . Nathaniel Wilson $129. 44 Total. MONTGOMERY, ALA. William E. Elmore. David B. Westcott. SELMA, ALA. Benjamin M. Russell. John A. Russell Charles S. Wise FORT SMITH, ARK. William L. Jackson William E. Joshenberger. William D. Lunsford HOT SPRINGS, ARK. Joseph Coffer William G. Hilliard. Louis L. Smith Total. LITTLE ROCK, ARK. James Belcher George M. Farr Justin Morgner, widow Daniel . Hoeltzel, deceased Total. PINE BLUFF, ARK. Edgar Fletcher Ottaway W. Gurley De Witt N.Hope Arthur B. Knight Taylor J. Patilo Madison F. Tread well. . . Horace A. Williams Total. 134- 65 2b. 87 10.81 ! 7.63 I 10.81 2.68 I 10.81 10.81 10.81 [ 10.81 ! 7.63 I 10.81 | 10.81 ( 10.81 ! 10.81 | 2. 68 I 10.81 301. 05 129. 68 93.46 223. 14 2.27 3L51 28.40 62.18 82.91 5.55 6.19 94.65 22.89 58.37 45.38 94-92 106. 73 136. 40 338. 05 17.74 84.05 17.74 5.15 5.15 15.26 25.15 170. 24 20300 210118 18425 19199 19424 17980 19111 Name. FRESNO, CAL. Charles L. Harrison. . . Henry Johansen $221. 28 8.66 Total 229.94 LOS ANGELES, CAL. Ha rr v Angell George N. Barnes. John Baugarter Thomas M. Barron Howard B. Beers Fred'kR. Brandt Charles C. Brower William R. Carter 63.88 158. 09 53.42 141.83 163. 30 132. 89 15. 06 82.66 82.66 68.84 Dora Edgar, widow of Charles E. Gale 7.63 Rolla O. Gill 154. 51 Charles Hawthorne Charles E. Hutchinson Peter Marion Delos Millsap James B . Riddick Charles A. Robb Orville L. Robertson Winf red J . Sanborn William A. Shields William H. St.nn.rt 153.48 6.81 75.20 53.42 149.00 75.68 175. 54 7.84 106. 66 121. 13 Ernest W. Stuart, deceased 74.53 154. 51 John W. Whitely, jr 106. 47 138. 33 Total 2, 523. 37 OAKLAND, CAL. 155. 39 John W. Hearst 241. 27 93.75 30.32 Eldon R. Parsons 247. 40 Frank H. Pollard 129. 65 3.51 76.53 54.04 Total 1,031.86 SACRAMENTO, CAL. Chester H. Agner 99.01 Michael Butler 99.01 Lee A. Devine 38. 36 George B. Eidred 99.01 Thomas Holden, administrator Henry B. Humphreys, de- 52.00 John W. Toomey 74.12 George G. Brentner 21.03 Charles B. Wilson 21.32 Total 503. 86 SAN DIEGO, CAL. David Carson, father of William Carson, deceased 148.91 Joseph E. Coulthurst 113. 65 John W. Foote 7.63 Total 270. 19 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 799 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc.— Continued. Amount. No. Name. SAN FRANCISCO, CAL. Charles H. Cushman Walter J. Harris Harry B. Bishop William Farrell Edward J. Jennings ' William Laird William A. O'Connor James E. Mulhare George M. Mathews Ibusina C. Auker Charles S. Baker William J . Barry James Bowe William S. Boushey Edward J. Colter Amy Ehinger, administratrix Edward A. Parker, deceased. . Edward D. Finley John Hession Otto H. Johnson Bridget Kinucan, administra- trix Michael A. Kinucan, de- ceased John J . Lynch, executor George F. Myles, deceased John F. McGeough, adminis- trator Thomas vv . McGeough, deceased George H. McNulty John J. Maher Elizabeth C. Roche, adminis- tratrix Walter E. Roche, de- ceased Sarah A. Scott, administratrix Richard H. O. Weber, de- ceased Total . SAN JOSE, CAL. 18335 j Charles H. Amidon. Fred D. Ashworth.. Total. STOCKTON, CAL. John S. Burres John G. Newman. . . George G. Poole William G. Whiting. Total. ASPEN, COLO. Harry J. Sears COLORADO SPRINGS, COLO. Augustus P. Everett. Shesh B. Gamble Robert H. Magee Total. DENVER, COLO. John L. Brassee Joseph E. Brassee Joseph S. Foulke John H. Rhinehart Joseph Chamberlain. . . Frank E. Houts Robert B. Forsythe... James D. Jordan Total. $130. 74 80.86 9.90 36.91 4.54 9.28 14.23 45.17 9.28 237. 24 141. 11 70.13 344. 3b 240. 55 53.90 141. 11 240. 55 182.53 412. 00 240. 79 106. 74 222. 67 79. 66 60.64 166. 73 339. 21 3, 620. 83 161. 23 24.75 66.62 40.42 66.62 198. 41 30.31 28. 93 53.37 112. 61 22.69 7.43 67.66 5.78 37.95 40.42 3.92 41.66 227. 51 157. 31 3.92 22.47 No. 16969 18062 21152 17957 18408 18666 18753 Name. Amount . LEADVILLE, COLO. William T. Allen $42. 57 42.57 Total 85.14 PUEBLO COLO. 61.05 4.13 58.42 Total 123. 60 TRINIDAD, COLO. 89.44 47.94 W. S. Phillips, next of kin Thomas G. Phillips, deceased. . E. Joy Rice 22.55 89.44 17.74 Total 267. 11 BRIDGEPORT, CONN. James Kelly, brother Timothy 87.91 26.60 Total 114.51 DERBY, CONN. 220. 46 HARTFORD, CONN. 378. 54 15.47 60.76 15.26 60. 76 60.76 20.21 Thomas F. Daly 60. 76 DeWitt C. Graves 60.76 60.76 60.76 60.76 60.76 60.76 20.21 John O'Farrell 60.76 20.21 60.76 60.76 60.76 82. 37 John F. Smith 60.76 82.37 Franklin Taylor 60.76 60.76 Total , 1, 667. 56 MERIDEN, CONN. Gottlieb A. Baver Albert L. Bartlett Patrick J. Fitzpatrick Patrick J. Ford 89.37 89.37 89.37 132. 02 89.37 Hugh Mallev 39.60 89.37 89.37 Total 707. 84 800 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued- 1 No. Name. Amount. No. 19803 18772 MIDDLETOWN, CONN. William H. Hahn John Slavin Michael S. Dunn James A . Denning Total NEW BRITAIN, CONN. George T. Meade Frank A. Anderson John P. Rehm $28. 87 79.11 79.11 79.11 266. 20 16965 18811 31. 84 22.47 48.49 32.51 31.84 James Whitele3 r Total 167. 15 NEW HAVEN, CONN. 17941 30.52 99.01 •63. 12 21.03 99.01 43.23 43.23 99.01 43.23 9.64 30.52 53.45 43.23 10.81 43.23 John H Cain Thomas F. Clark Wallace I. Foote Joseph J. Higby Samuel Pagter David L. Bretzfelder George A. Butler Henry M. Humming^: Thomas H. Gill Thomas P. Granfield William M. Hyde, jr Oscar L. Woodruff i Total 732. 27 NEW LONDON, CONN. Cornelius S. Holmes 18912 77.39 290. 57 77.39 Joseph F. Kennedy Henry C. Winthrop Total 445.35 NORWALK, CONN. John F. Healey 18884 4.94 NORWICH, CONN. James M. Kelly 18346 99.89 * 99. 89 a 74. 19 a 66. 30 Total 340.27 SOUTH NORWALK, CONN. 18874 16.91 60.80 37.43 William 0. Merritt a. Erfid Elynn Total 115. 14 WILMINGTON, DEL. Joseph Duffy, deceased 16949 42.94 67.47 64.85 109. 82 18462 19056 Frank P, Pha.la.n .... Total 285. 08 WASHINGTON, D. C. 17901 29.18 42.43 30.21 Andrew Barnes Name. Washington, d. c— continued. Harry S. Barrick A rthur J. Beall Charles D. Bond S. D. Boss Henry J. Bradley Charles S. Busby John D. Butler Albert Crew Charles A. Champ John F. Clark Howard Clements James W. Coles Harry E. Connor William S. Crawford John W. Curry Herman W. Davis John E. Dennison Henry D. Dickson Richard T. Donovan Charles S. Douglass Webster Downing M. P. Eppley French L. Floyd Arthur Fowler George T. Gallagher •_ John S. George Teresa A. Gozenbauch, widow Henry C. Gozenbauch, de- William ~F. Gross. . ............ John W. Gunning William H. Hazzard Henrv M. Hewlett John T. Hoge Alex M. Holmes Joseph B. Johnson John J. King Edward Kines William M. Larcomb Edgar G. Leapley Benjamin F. Martin James B. McFadden Luther H. Middlekauf Arthur A. Monroe William F. O'Beirne George S. Perrott Richard B. Peters Clayton C. Osborn Charles E. Rittenhouse Charles F. Rose Joseph Schultz Charles W. Sharwood George F. Smith John H. Smith Frank B. Swiggard , William D. Tabler , Henry A. Tolson Robert S. Trimble William E. Waggener Eugene L. Walter Charles Webel Jacob A. Weigle Emery A. Wilber JohnB. Woodfleld John W. K. Young H. O. St. C. Ambrose John S. Bain , George L. W. Bain ._. James A. Darnall , George E. Dorn Michael J. Hennessey John C. King William H. Marshall John B. Moses Daniel O'Neil Dorsey F. Seville Lemuel J. Shaw , John H. Tarney, deceased Joseph Van Fleet William H. Oliver Amount . oln addition to amount reported in S. Doc. No. 216, Fifty-sixth Congress, first session. ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. 801 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued . No. 17638 18847 17907 18813 18813 18927 19061 20749 17087 Name. Washington, d. c. — continued. Charles W. Swingle Joseph W. Blumer Philip H. Branson James W. Carroll William A. Clements Robert B. Hamilton John J. Hill Oscar M. Huguely Edward B. Maroney John T. Sanderson Henry G. Tegeler Charles L. Ulrich Adolph Van Reuth, jr William E. Vogelson James A. Wormley William H. Douglass James A. Gordon George H. Mai one J. William Murphy Frank A. Rebstoek Rufus B. Stokes William S. Van Fleet Frederick A. Wilker George E. Winkelman Amount. Total. JACKSONVILLE, FLA. George H. Mays. . . Aaron T. Hopkins. Total. PENSACOLA, FLA. George Jolly Charles Le Baron William Steele Robert C. White, father Beverly C. White, deceased Thomas G. W. Tuttle Total. ATLANTA, GA. Augustus M. Anderson. Yancey Bryant JohnH. Elder Artway J. Tabb George W. White J. T. Lynch Rufus Adair W. H. Simpson Thornton Greenwood. . . Thomas McDonald A. E. Bearden H. S. Stanley C. B. Ralls...-. W. S. Rea Robert M. Lockhart John T. King Herschel M. Upshaw. . . John W. Jackson Total. AUGUSTA, GA. Crawford E. Alexander. Mark J. Deween Total. BRUNSWICK, GA. 20908 j Thomas M. Sellers. 20897J] George Abbott Oliver M. Briggs .. . Henry Molding $25.41 1.44 76.22 14.76 14.49 37.76 55.62 70.39 39.32 58.71 17.51 .41 41.20 23.35 .82 37.45 38.11 14.03 .61 22.60 12.36 15.45 1.03 3.71 3, 281. 20 171. 45 17.74 189. 19 64.20 248. 38 62.10 44.76 50.60 476. 04 29.79 35.05 70.10 14.85 12.85 24.02 48.68 126. 47 70.39 64.26 64.26 64.26 64.26 80.80 164. 15 47.03 80.62 11.34 1, 073. 18 41.48 187.22 228. 70 12.79 207. 16 249. 79 207. 16 No. 17792 20568 17041 Name. BRUNSWICK, GA.— continued. Worth H. Myers . Arton F. Pyles.. Total. COLUMBUS, GA. Howard E. Hall Minnie Johnston, sister William H. Johnston, deceased Sandy A. Jones JohnH. Parks Elbert Wilson Robert Lee Reese Amount. $207. 16 193. 14 1, 077. 20 85.05 17.39 75.67 23.25 1.24 Total. 203.42 MACON, GA. John C. Allen Andrew J. Ryals William A. Dewberry. Charles H. Holley Joseph J. Higginson. . Lee J. Michael Edward Cassidy Newton S. Outler John W. Kimbrew 78.28 178. 17 170. 62 178. 17 220. 81 200.08 133. 99 70.12 18.36 Total ! 1,248.60 SAVANNAH, GA. Joseph D. Baughes Mac B. Branham John D. Campbell Shem B. Cooper Frank L. Curley Peter A. Denegal Charles C. Deveaux Thomas A. Houlihan. . John J. Howlett Henry S. Hymes Matthew J. Jones Albert La Fayette Joseph L. Mirault John O'Donovan Richard C. O'Driscoll. . George A. Lord Lewis M. Pleasant, jr.. Lachland M. Pollard . . George F. Tyson James P. Murphy Total. AURORA, ILL. JohnT. Colbert.. Edward O. Peterson.. 18664 : Joseph Wulf 19319 i John Dillenburg William Trigg Total. 19625 16987 BELLEVILLE, ILL. Martin J. Herzler John W. Mueller Samuel J. Swancutt Frederick Weber Total. BLOOMINGTON, ILL. John W. Terry Houston P. Fielder John N. Pitsch Total. 316. Og 245.33 316. 03 316.03 71.45 316. 03 316. 03 4.94 316. 03 186. 07 316. 03 316. 03 77.23 316. 03 287. 37 316. 03 17.74 71.45 314.74 277. 73 4, 714. 35 40.62 6.60 45.56 102. 51 124. 13 319.42 61.44 61.44 90.04 100.91 313.83 37.74 67.45 194.24 299. 43 S. Rep. 382, 60-1 51 802 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. CAIRO, ILL. Joseph L. Ataell James Barrow Andrew J. Kline, deceased. Frank W . Koehler Isaac Walder Albert V. Coleman Casper L. Sander Total. CHICAGO, ILL. John B . Cotter Thomas J. Garrity William G. Lozier Charles Stevens John Britz Fred Dippe Helen Renich, administratrix Emil Renich, deceased Helen Stolt, administratrix Jo- achim R. Stolt, deceased Charles J. Burnman John J. Casey John Dahl OlafM. Dahl { $ ^.°j? Bernard J. Ford Andrew J . Gowanlock Owen E. Murphy, deceased Josoph C. Patzke Nels P. Rasmussen Eugene W. Sullivan James Connell Edward H. Krapp Jacob M. Bonga William T. Clayton William A. Corning Richard Cullen John D . Gallivan William F. Gray Clifton W. Grifflng Wesley A. Hammond Robert A. Hart Will S.Hawkins Joseph L. Hazen John J. Healy (2) John J. Hopper Joseph R. Howe Joseph R. Lynn, jr William F. Mahon John J. Martin Thomas J. Maroney John A. Meeker James F. Metcalf Edward Mugvain Herman A. Naper Frederick Nelson Swain Nelson, deceased Henry E. Buckmaster Charles W. Burns Abram C. Christian Timothy E. Collins Michael Conlin Stephen Crosse John Cummins John W. Cunningham, jr Lawrence E . Donohue William Dunlop William A. Edwards William Fern Joseph Fischer George J. Foley Charles E. Cook, administrator Thomas J. Foley, deceased . .. William Gavin Edwin R. F. Hart George Herzberg Patrick J. Hunt Olaus Jentoft Gustave F. Joucke Amount. $101. 31 10.11 76.19 12.58 106. 57 96.62 98.26 501. 64 1.24 47.23 47.23 2.06 3.78 1.37 1.37 234 50 70.96 257. 70 40.42 150. 51 239. 99 156.80 1.85 45.38 26.78 2.49 2.48 49.78 2.06 73.17 10.11 14 43 14 08 6.39 10.52 49.09 2.76 40.21 3.43 1.24 36.69 14.08 8.25 413 3.04 179. 91 121. 54 .61 30.89 78.63 413 73.27 71.41 8.46 196. 43 53.56 6.19 50.53 39. 80 80.03 3.09 24 75 25.78 63.12 9.28 3.09 73.13 1.44 214 58 38.14 209. 72 134 59 6.19 No. \ 19533 18054 18508 18407 Name. Chicago, ill.— continued. John Weidmann, administra- tor Joseph Kaiser, deceased. . Albert C. Ormsby, deceased James Palmer Henry R. Ravenot, deceased . . William H. Sclundt James H. Shurtlefi Henry H. Smith Jasper T. Stafford, deceased Dennis T. Sullivan Jeremiah W . Tierney Winfield S. Williams Edward A . Wilson William Winter Timothy Falvey, administrator John J. Falvey, deceased . Edwin C. Hearn Michael J. Kennedy George V. Levander Charles Schoenthaler Robert E. Bock Charles Boland John Badershaw George R. Bent Joseph P. Buckley James J. Keegan John W. Kinsley Nicholas C. Knerr : Louis H. Knodell Robert C. Krelle Theodore E . Lange Henry M. Lauderdale Margaretta Leesburg, admin- tratrix August Leesburg, de- ceased Joseph F. Lotz Elizabeth Marty, administra- trix Emil J. Marty, deceased . . Charles E . Morrison Patrick O'Mahoney Robert W. Owen ; August Paaren Peter G. Pinter Andrew Quaid Thomas J. Ryan Albert Schreiber James F. Slattery James Speirs John L. Stacker Charles L. Tantow Nels Turrell WiUiam J. F. Utes Arie H. Vermeulen Charles G. Walgren Edward Ward Edward W. Warner Joseph B . Weil .. Charles F. Wright Peter O'Leary William Beekman Frank H. Beers William H. Marsh Michael Morarity George E. Rowe Edward J. Fits-gerald James H. Gage Timothy Culliname Mrs.F. C. Merritt, widow F. C. Merritt, deceased Michael J. Sarsfteld Will L. Clifford George H. McMunn William H. Rickert Adolph J. Wilkie Jacob P. Winner Peter Mc Aniff Christian Yeackley Thomas H. Lally John Burns Charles D . Burroughs Smith P. Colby Amount. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLATMS. 803 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. No. Name. Amount. Chicago, ill. — continued. Charles W. Cook Dillard W. Dernpsey S73. 13 170. 63 30.52 26.60 135. 09 42.07 88.48 238. 96 67.29 183.31 42.57 36.69 40.01 238. 29 36.69 Samuel Goldsmith Charles W. Griffith : R. P. Hogan Myron H. Norton, jr Samuel B. Shaw Owen Sheridan Total 10, 126. 79 DANVILLE, ILL. 18801 63.94 63.94 74.95 95.57 William S. Dillon Total 298.40 DECATUR, ILL. LeeS. Hall 17559 3.30 59.59 Total 62.89 EVANSTON, ILL. Annie Cunningham, widow Jame? Cunningham, deceased . 17489 205. 00 17.12 226.74 Total 449.86 FBEEPORT, ILL. John E . Hogan 18545 19. 18 19. 18 19.18 19.18 9.90 ! Henry J. Keller Louis Schilling 20045 Total 86.62 GALESBURG, ILL. 20359 661. 86 166. 19 111.78 80.33 94.92 57.08 j Chris. H. Geisler Daniel G. McCarthy O. L. Ridgely Total 1, 172. 16 JACKSONVILLE, ILL. 18833 117.20 William H. Milburn, jr 49.62 19604 Harry Piatt Total JOLIET, ILL. Joseph F. Benson 122.12 288.94 18538 140.60 28.33 19392 Charles C. Haberer Thomas J. Byron Michael F. McCarthy i Michael R . Smith ' Cha rles G. Garrett , William CushLng ' Elmer F. Edgerlv j Total 1 28.33 28.33 28.33 28.33 87.86 268.71 268.71 1 907.53 ] 20878 21013 18882 18218 19304 21017 18951 19552 18837 16991 Name. Amount. KANKAKEE, ILL. 8103. 58 Otto Birr 11.14 103.58 103.58 Ra.nfnrrl M Wright 103.58 Total 425.46 LASALLE, ILL. 18576 3.92 3.92 3.92 3.92 Total 15.68 MATTOON, ILL. 32.79 16.91 Total 49.70 MOLINE, ILL. 57.55 254.16 Robert M. BeneU 93.02 254.16 Total 658.89 MONMOUTH, ILL. 24.13 James Herdeman, father Ralph 9.90 16.29 16.29 Total 66.61 OAKPARK, ILL. 16.91 34. 52 34.52 34.52 Total 120. 47 OTTAWA, ILL. 240.10 PEKIN, ILL. Charles W. Edds 38.27 Charles F. Holland 90.72 33.60 Total 162. 59 PEORIA, ILL. 74.48 John W. Schmitt 74.48 71.86 74.48 William H. Zoller 74.48 84.17 Robert F. Davis 67.54 74.60 65.27 45.09 137. 59 28.04 Total 872.08 804 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. Name. • Amount. No. Name. QUINCY, ILL. Horace Farrar Patrick R. Ahern Total BOCKFORD, ILL. W. T. Ferrin ROCK ISLAND, ILL. Edward Burrill, jr Jay E. Elliott Total SPRINGFIELD, ILL. John W. Barrett Carrie De Frates, administra- trix of Edward De Frates Hugo Thomas, administrator of Albert Kuehn, deceased John F. Obrien Lawrence J. Seifert Gustavus Spies, jr John P. Stanley Archie Hensel Philip H. Hofferkamp Alfred Mottar Katharine White, administra- trix John E. White, deceased. John S. Schmitt Total STERLING, ILL. Henry W. Carter Robert T. Hill Total STREATOR, ILL. Charles Mackey John Riordan : George Clay James C. Hunter Patrick M. McCall William Price John F. Shoap Jeremiah G. Westwood Andrew Gilyun George Huber Total WAUKEGAN, ILL. Andrew H. Benedict Seber H. Burnett Fred A. Miltimore L. B. Miltimore Total ELKHART, IND. Louis T. Rutter Nelson Bressan William C. Livengood Total EVANSVILLE, IND. Louis W. Duesner Annie M. Balz, administratrix of George H. Balz, deceased. . Total Amount. $77. 41 C3.38 116. 24 116. 24 14.03 151. 66 18. .56 82.09 2.89 129. 10 73.43 129. 68 123. 26 189. 44 100. 86 290. 30 64.97 121. 15 192. 73 42.57 34.65 64.92 53.29 38.36 214. 26 142.15 969. 05 55.48 55.48 45.38 50.53 206. 87 17.75 42.15 41.12 31.14 42.20 140. 79 301. 13 153. 66 1,185.01 73.34 No. 18676 18949 17873 18621 16967 2072~6 16966 18921 18658 FORT WAYNE, IND. Thomas J. Shlevey George J. Alter PaulC. Richter William A> Zimmerly Total GOSHEN, IND. Charles W. James William E. Miller Total INDIANAPOLIS, IND. William A. Balk James E. Cantlon John T. Carroll Ellis W. Crane William Darby Edward D. Hume John W. McDonald Robert H. McGinnis James L. Moore George W. Reid Richard O. Shimer John J. Turner Charles E. Wagner Pat Ward John Wren Total KOKOMO, IND. David A. Megrady LAFAYETTE, IND. Anthony B. Schilling LA PORTE, IND. Adelbert D. Barnes James M. Morse John L. Swanson Hiram N. Harrison George Koenig Total LOGANSPORT, IND. George W. Boerger NEW ALBANY, IND. JohnE. Mitchell Elmer E. Miller Harry Shipman Montgomery W. Lewis Total SOUTH BEND, TNT). Mahala Amnions, administra trix of Albert Ammons, de ceased , Andrew Chilberg Gus A. Clarquist FrankT. Grey Hiram E. Jackson , Leonard Kalmajski FredT. Kemble , Charles V. Korpal Caspar G. Krauser Charles W. Krueger Thaddeus T. Matlock Joseph Mikolajewski John W. McGraw Hugh F. Farnsey , ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 805 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. No. Name. 18368 17261 19984 19130 20897 17261 20897 18692 19302 17081 19323 19128 17081 17954 19125 18686 19276 south bend, iND.— continued. William S. Weaver John A. Lamb Total TEKRE HAUTE, IND. George M. Dunn BURLINGTON, IOWA. A. P. Adolphson Ed. S. Campbell Joseph B . Davis Harry E . Drogemyer F. W.Haskell Arthur J . Holinquist C. F. Le Brock Frank E. Morgan Dennis J. Quinn A. H. Swindler P. F. Thienes. S. L. Tigg Isaac Ward Daniel C. Young , Total CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA. Martin P. Healey John W . Kouba Joseph Kouba William E. Bixby Judson A. Merrill John Montillon Total CLINTON, IOWA. William Devine Jerry A. Keefe Cornelius S. Peterson Total COUNCIL BLUFFS, IOWA. Fred Johnson William D. Nichols Charles N. W. Watts Benjamin J. Weber George Hamilton Anthony B. Klein Samuel Leonard Fred Myers Phillip Betz F.M. Mithen Total DAVENPORT, IOWA. Sue E. Gardner, administratrix of James N. Gardner, deceased Edward Griffith James H. Farrand Daniel E. Keeler Edward J. Lawton Frank B. Toher William O. Meisner , Spencer M. Howe William J. Orendorff Bert S. Tomson Total Amount. $90. 54 211. 75 2,111.42 234. 10 102. 95 29.92 37.02 125. 01 65.21 2.06 63.31 221. 40 135. 82 98.43 92.88 8.25 174. 66 301. 72 1, 458. 64 108. 94 2.04 124. 72 33.88 33.88 14.85 318. 31 94.48 94.48 94.48 283. 44 247. 69 153. 94 141. 95 125.42 96.94 68.07 120. 92 120. 92 420. 88 234. 29 1,731.02 29.28 219. 06 161. 23 39.60 73.67 167. 07 90.54 175. 25 175.25 18.15 1, 149. 10 No. 17942 17750 18825 19126 19303 18497 18566 19781 18900 19000 19305 20773 19305 19496 19135 Name. DES MOINES, IOWA. Henry J. Childress John Conoly Charles E. Lyon Edwin H. Baker Samuel L. Mash John H. Bachman Thomas J. Rogers William L. Settlemyer. Total. DUBUQUE, IOWA. Frank F. Spahn Herman Ternes Thomas Reilly Thomas Sweeney William H. Wilson.. James P. Carter Joseph W. Collinson. Joseph Margadant . . . John C. Murphy Total. IOWA CITY, IOWA. Daniel Barry Richard Hennessey . Charles A. Smith. . . Total. KEOKUK, IOWA. Hugo Anschutz . . . Charles J. Dickie. . James R. Green... William Long Frank J. Smith . . . James Ward James F. Brerton. George Sanderson. Total. MUSCATINE, IOWA. Joseph R. Anson. . . George W. Richie. . Will A. Appel William W. Ewing. John O'Brien Total. OSKALOOSA, IOWA. Talbert M.Wells... Edmund A. Barnes. Thomas Maloney . . . Total. OTTUMWA, IOWA. Charles E. Benson James H. Buncutter Edward Lowenberg John Sheehan John H. Stoessel J. F. Dings, administrator Geo. W. Dings, deceased Amount . Total . $170. 28 132. 51 189.85 10.11 63.59 98.07 58.01 2.89 725. 31 151. 59 12. 37 115. 95 98.72 125. 01 142. 99 47.44 64.15 64.97 823. 19 166. 48 188. 85 215. 14 570. 47 19.80 28.04 62.70 28.04 28.04 28.04 44.76 53. 83 293. 25 127. 93 10.11 32.37 161. 76 170. 34 502. 51 256.34 281. 17 112. 41 80.73 102. 81 44.76 207.09 32.42 155.22 623.03 806 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAI1T CLAIMS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, efc.— Continued • Name. SIOUX CITY, IOWA. Egbert R. Mousseau William H. Coburn William A. Lindsay Louis W. Palmer Francis L. Reddy Joseph. M. Tibbitts Total -. WATERLOO, IOWA. George P. Beck John P. Von Lackman Frank J. Landgrafl Charles W. Stillson Claude V. Bodell William E. Kuhn Total ABILENE, HANS. Alva V. Nutt Howard P. Seeds Total ARKANSAS CITY, KANS. John S. Daniels Joe T. White Total ATCHISON, KANS. Fred Duehren George W. Dunkin James Walsh Total EMPORIA, KANS. Charles K. Salsbury Walter Birdsell Phineas H. Cowan Charles J. Beckwith Total FORT SCOTT, KANS. Cyrus F. Chapin James C. Cuthbertson Catharine S. Firestone, admin- istratrix James R. Firestone, deceased Oscar M. Morse Eli Thomas Total....- HUTCHINSON, KANS. Grant W. Prather KANSAS CITY, KANS. Matthew J. Burke James DeGoler James M. Gray Robert T. Jackson Oscar B. Johnson Eugene P. Osborne Frank M. Sturgeon Charles C. Hull Total $140.78 45.86 11.14 26.60 82.86 62.39 62.39 20.62 11.34 22.68 262.28 25.36 107.54 132.90 3.92 27.94 31.86 42.41 21.32 96.57 77.75 238.05 83.91 112.88 114.05 114.05 106.75 531.64 No. 19621 19321 19335 17788 Name. LEAVENWORTH, KANS. W. B. Townsend Charles M. Fenning Charles Ferguson Louisa Helbing, administratrix of Frank Helbing, deceased. Palmer Hotchkiss Patrick H. Mullen Richard V. O'Connor George W. Ulrich Total NEWTON, KANS. John H. Fugate OTTAWA, KANS. William L. Beeler Samuel D. Brown Frank Van Schwiack Claude I. Holiday Josiah W. De Tar Total. TOPEKA, KANS. George A. Yount S. A. Cook, widow Virgil A. Cook..... Oscar R. Molz Total WELLINGTON, KANS. Alezius F. Eichelberger George M. Rarey Robert Hamilton Total WICHITA, KANS, William Bartrim William E. Barlow. Harry F. Dean Charles G. Lilly Ezekiel B. Smith Thomas J. Whitaker George T. Chouteau Carv D. Davis JohnT. McDonald Edwin B. Walden Total WINFIELD, KANS. WilliamS. Beck Thomas C. Cochran Daniel W. Salmans James H. Vance Total COVINGTON, KY. Frank Scheinhofl John L. Thobe , Total FRANKFORT, KY. Edwin L. Banta Owen M. Furr Henry Davis Harrod Benoni Jeffers ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 80 7 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. Name. frankfort, KY.— continued. George B. Thompson J. Pierce Williams J. W . Graham Total LEXINGTON, KY. Andrew J. Fain Robert L. Evans Thomas J. O'Day Total LOUISVILLE, KY. George W. Evans John F. Fossee Maggie Fowler (now Pauley), administratrix Robert Fow- ler, deceased M.J. McAuliffe James F. Sage Total •. OWENSBORO, KY. William H. Alexander Peter Hugger, jr Frederick G. Kollenberg Felix B. Routon Total PADUCAH, KY. Jonn W. Baynham Edward K. Bonds Peter Derrington Frank Dunn Charles A . Grimm Charles Holliday Lee A. Reynolds Joe M. Yarhoro Frank P. Earhart John W . Moore Total NEW ORLEANS, LA. Patrick J., father of Thomas M. Glynn, deceased David Glass Louise K., administratrix Her- mes A. Gerard, deceased Antoine Hammer Ambrose Kuhn, jr William Egan John Grivaud William II . Flaherty James H. Beggs Frederick T. Coburn John T. Conway George J. Cousin William F.J. Donnelly John L. Dubuc Edward H. Harder Emile E. Johnson Henry Sctonatmann Joseph B. Donlon JohnT. Hart Lawrence H. Johnson Amount. $128. 45 7.63 187. 34 714.22 78.87 52.80 169. 70 301. 37 22.66 2.68 26.09 12.69 62.67 126. 79 47.10 21.03 47.10 35.47 150. 70 341. 67 295. 52 313. 05 185. 56 214. 16 260. 68 185. 54 108. 84 228. 76 25.16 2,158.94 68.32 100. 00 17.42 41.04 29.49 2.68 52.96 10.31 10.31 61.88 22.28 61.88 10.31 9.28 31. 14 10.31 44.34 13.00 7.63 Total. No. 17679 18828 18449 18S23 18574 17714 17902 604. 78 Name. SHREVEPORT, LA. Beauregard E. Wagner. AUBURN, ME. Alfred F. Lamarche Charles E. Merrill Hammond B. Murdock. Erlon J. Mower Total. BANGOR, ME. James E. Dolan Charles H. Cullinane.. John F. Ford William F. Holden... Patrick McNamara . . . Michael Collins Total. BATH, ME. Edward H. Biggins . John W. Jordan Frank W. Ramsey. . Total . PORTLAND, ME. William A. Perry John T. Flaherty George O. D. Soule Harry B. Bachelder Joseph Winslow Jeremiah Callahan George R. Kane Michael T. Ragan Edwin H. Mariner Owen C. Murray George M, Fernald David A. Donovan Florence J. McCarthy Frank R. Jones Eben S. Burns Michael H. Cunningham. Frank J. Jordan William L. Bishop Amount. Total. $1.65 94.20 49.29 237.97 467.75 36.91 63.21 60.64 26.19 37.95 112. 86 337. 76 142.06 136.90 142.06 421.02 26.87 18.98 26.87 56.08 24.54 24.54 24.54 56.08 56.08 21.44 56.08 15.26 56.08 15.26 20.15 29.50 45.56 147.60 721. 51 BALTIMORE, MD. Alexander H. Allen 34. 17 Austin E. Arrington 46. 41 James E. Burke 22. 10 Frank J. Carpenter 25. 98 Lama C. Chason 27. 47 Charles J. Philbrin, administra- tor John S. Deegan 39.14 John P. Dignan 57. 68 Henry Doeller 57. 68 Thomas B . Eareckson 57. 68 Wilbur H. Gorsuch ; 57. 68 Joseph W. Haupt j'g jjj? 1 } 12. 99 Frank G. Kiel ';... 57. 68 John F. King 46. 41 Alva H. Limhicum ! 43.26 Rosetta Moran, widow William [ F. Moran, deceased 46.41 Henry J. Owens 27.47 John J. A. McManus 34.17 Julius Stengel 25. 98 William R. Timbs ; I 57.68 808 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued , Name. Baltimore, md. — continued. Thomas F. Ayler Alfreds. Bull Walter Dietz Conrad A. Faukhanel Thomas H. Glanding John Gorman Frank J. Gries Charles A. Isensee John H. Mohr Charles Nuttendorf, deceased. William M. Mueller, deceased. Herbert D. Murray Joseph E. Mulcahy William A. O'Neill John E. Ruark Charles A. Smith Henry W. Stange Louis J. Sudsburg Charles D . Warfield James E. Denny William J. Eckel Frederick Koehler Wilbur W. Jubb Horatio Beale Ambrose Furst William H. Wood ._ Total. Amount. CUMBERLAND, MD. Joseph M. Reichart FREDERICK. MD. James E. Duvall Edward M. Eader Edmund F. Moberly.. Charles H. Roberston. Total. HAGERSTOWN, MD. Martin H. Gruber AMESBURT, MASS. Everett Collins Woodbury F. Frisbee. Frank M. Swett James H. Morril Total. BEVERLY, MASS. William P. Hanners Josiah Woodbury Thomas H. O'Shea, administra- tor John J. Foley Total. BOSTON, MASS. William H. Allen Alfred C. Belcher Eugene F. Blossom Calvin S. Carter Charles E. Chapman... Edward F. Coolidge. . . Charles Gooding Emery C. Hathaway. . . John R. Haywood William H. Lamphrey. William H. Langdon... John McCarty William S. McGue 1.65 1.03 13.61 60.22 8.04 31.14 1.24 3.71 57.18 71.07 2.89 7.01 1.24 66. S2 1.24 2.68 2.06 37.22 3.71 80.60 4.94 47.64 8.87 .61 2.89 1,299.83 116. 68 10.78 10.41 10.41 7.86 39.46 5.78 11.39 11.39 10.37 11.39 44.54 5.15 5.15 14.76 24.72 24.72 31.59 31.59 31.59 30.55 24.72 14.76 38.11 41.54 38.11 38.11 No. Name. 18643 boston, mass.— continued. John A. McKie Fred J. Mezger Aus tin C. Sheerin William E . Sherman Alex. B. Wilson Phineas S. Wood Henry E. Brockbank William T. Kyte Dennis Meehan George F. Alley John J. Coughlin Ernest J. Cambridge Estate of Patrick J. Daily Eonah C. Harris William R. Jeffords Charles A. Plumrner Edward J. McHugh Arthur R. Torry, administra- tor John H. McLaughlin, de- ceased George W. Little George F. Clarke Frederick E. Horr Daniel H. Hall. . . , James P. Lawless Michael J . Gallagher Daniel W. F. Kerr John Gill, jr Andrew F. Lawler John F. Dee Daniel M. Kimball John J. Leahey Edward K. Baker W. J. Hennessey James R. Daly Dennis J. Dougherty Walter J. Bartlett Alva C. Jacobs James C. Spencer Daniel J. Hagarty Thomas J. Hurley Jeremiah J . Donoghue A. E. Butterfleld George H. Cutler ! George H. Davis James P. Duffy Albert H. Williams Michael J. Flaherty Horace E. Bridden Timothy F. Callahan, --{^f^ Micheal Dunlavey Parron C. Paine John H. Williams George M. Wolf John J. Dowd Mark T. Hatch Frank I. Fellows Charles F. Collins ~. John F. Dunton Patrick J. Sullivan Fred W. Blanchard Jeremiah T. O'Leary Timothy Quinn Horace E. Bridden Samuel Otis Bartlett Peter J. Brown John D. Carey Pierce F. Cass John Coleman v William J . Coveny George H. Crockett Peter A. Cunningham George H. Davis William J. Dee Theodore C. Dennis i Andrew J. Dooley Charles F. Duffy Michael Dunlavey Amount. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 809 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued . No. Name. boston, mass.— continued. Joseph F. Eichorn. Charles Everbeck. . James G. Farrell... George A. French. . George W. Goodell. Frank S. Goodwin. Timothy F. Haggerty ;| jr. Charles H. Haines ': .,',,. Joseph B. Hatch Thomas C. Henderson. .'. . P. William Hickey William R. Hogan John J. Loring , George F. Low George F. Marden j William T. May bury James J. McCarthy Andrew C. McDonald.. James L. Mitchell John J. Mulhern B en j amine F. Nourse Charles J. O'Brien William H. O'Brien. . . j. . John Owen Charles H. Packer Charles H. Paine ^. Alonzo A. Peasley John H. Petersen Timothy G. Pitman Ebenezcr K. Pratt Parron C. Paine JohnF. Riley John F. Roche, jr Andrew B. Shattuck Charles H. Shaw Oliver D. Sherwood John J. Sullivan Frank Thorp Charles C. Topham Ivon P. Horton. .' Edward J. Houghton Peter J. Hutchinson Moses W. S. Jackson Joseph W . Jenkins William T. Kendall James A. Littlefield Thomas L. Mitchell John H. Williams George M. Wolff Theodore P. B. Clarke George H. Cutler Thomas F. Dillon Herbert N. Hanson Frank E. Loomis Charles A. Plummer John E. Day.^ Michael Duffy Frank I. Fellows Michael J. Gallagher (2)... John J. King John Nolan, Nathan C. Paul Henry E. Burton Charles H. Cutler Florestan Fish William Gay John C. Home John F. Kilfoyle Otis K. Tribble Francis P. Trumbull Warren H. Tucker Walter F. Welch Walter Whelan Andrew B. Williams John J. Welch Isaac Brockbank Charles F. Collins James B. Daly John F. Dunton Charles H. Fox Amount. 39.48 27.56 39.48 39.48 39.48 39.48 39.48 39.48 39.48 26.48 39.14 39.48 39.48 39. 48 26.78 24.97 39.48 39.48 15.26 39.48 15.26 15.26 39.48 23.71 26.78 39. 48 7.63 39.48 39.48 39. 48 i 35.45 28.90 39.48 39.48 39.48 23.71 39.48 26.78 15.26 39.48 39.48 39.48 39.48 32.62 39.48 39.48 32.62 32.62 53. 50 53.56 15.06 78.63 53.56 53.56 46.35 39.80 46.19 38.98 78.63 64.89 64.89 71.42 71.42 105. (36 71.42 122. 23 45.79 39.48 15.26 39.48 39.48 39.48 39.48 39.48 78.63 64.89 53.56 21.86 37.35 No. Name. boston, mass.— continued. James H. Holland Ezra B. Kenah John C. Langdon George H. Marden Patrick J. Sullivan James E. Weeks Frank D .Woodbury George H. Apple ton Charles E . Bassett ':". . . John H. Chadboufne Charles S. Marsh. William F. Murphy. Aaron H. Ridley. Robert H. Skelly Timothy J. Sullivan Henry J. Templeton John Webber James W. O'Brien Theodore Prentice Everett S. Savory Robert J. Taylor, administra- tor of Charles J. Taylor Simeon E. Campbell A. Otis Chamberlain Walter Cutler Henry C. Hackett Edward D. Kirley Charles R. Mulhern John H. Peters Frank H. Silkes Asa M. Capen Daniel W. Coffill Arthur A. Dodge Charles E. Gerrold Lyman P. Harding John F. Hasson Patrick H. Lane John H. Norton Fred R. Sweeney J. Sturgis Wright Fred. W. Blanchard Jeremiah T. O'Leary j Timothy Quinn I Thomas Cleary John R. Dickson j John F. Tuckett I Joseph P. Conboy I William H. Cowdin I William H. Dillon Thomas N. Dunnican Francis X. Flusk John S. Lucas, jr John B. McGovern Mary J. Moore, administratrix of Lewis Moore, deceased Edward Morrissey Patrick J. Mulry Elmer E. Shepard Edwin R. Jenness William H. Lavey John H. McEleney Hugh McEwen jr George A. Pushee George M. Stiles Ambrose S. Fallon William George Edwin S. Barrett William A. Bowers William H. Burnett Joseph L. Oilman Frank N. Lewis S. Herbert Appleton S. Willard Babcock Horace M. Bartlett Michael F. Brennan Jonathan B. L. Bartlett Frank A. Duffy Lewis H. Richardson Arthur I. Tavener Alvin A. Bullin Amount. $30. 31 78.63 37.35 78.63 57.18 78.63 53.56 53.56 53.56 53.56 53.56 45.57 53.56 15.06 37.29 78.63 53.56 53.12 71.42 71.42 40.42 78.63 78.63 78.63 53. 56 15.26 47.22 40. 43 27.01 62.48 62.48 62.48 62. 48 62.48 22. 68 62.48 17. 74 62.48 62.48 66.26 53.56 53. 56 78.63 53.56 78.63 21.44 70. 04. 70.04 70. 04 70. 04 71.42 62. 93 62. 93 58.50 70.04 77. 84 53.56 53.56 37. 35 15.06 53.56 53.56 71.42 71.42 53. 53 37. 26 78.69 53.56 53.56 78.63 53.56 78. 63 53.02 66. 26 78.63 66. 2€ 66.26 71.42 810 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. Name. boston, mass.— continued. William A. Cleveland Charles F. Raymond Noah E. Rollins Thomas H. Leavey James W. Bartholomew George Butcher Charles G. Clark James A. Clasby Benjamine R. Cleary Michael Dolan, jr Frank J. Dunn George Goode Henry H. Hersey Dennis J. Fahey Richard Fitzgerald John R. Fleming William H. Gould Timothy Horgan Orlando H. Johnson William T. King Edmund B. Meehan Fred. S. McCarthy John W. McGaregill Alfred Lewis, administrator of Phineas Lewis James A. Crudden Isaac S. Fish George A. Gray Francis X. Hennessey James H. Kelley William H. McClare Joseph A. McVey John S. Norton Michael J. Peters Charles J. Rhoades Frank M. Richardson Alpheus A. Robinson Daniel J. Rull Joseph J. Smith David L. White William White Eugene Whittemore John Conboy Charles H. Webster Charles F. West William A. Carter Mathew B. Westgate John T. Bradlee John Curran John J. Condon Thomas M. Dundon James P. Mitchell Philip Marchington Frank W. Eldredge John E. Furfey Albert C. Parker James H. Peabody George M. Saunders Cornelius E. Mahoney Michael J. Douchue„ Henry F. Swett Orrin H. Gallagher Total BROCKTON, MASS. William S. Packard CLINTON, MASS. Fred W. Green .'.. David B. Whitcomb Total Amount. No. $71.42 17706 71.42 35.70 71.42 53.56 53.'56 19218 53.56 53.56 15.06 30.31 30.31 53.56 15.06 15.06 53.56 30.31 19382 53.56 32.17 53.56 53.56 53.56 63.26 53.56 115.01 32.17 53.56 53.56 32.17 19219 15.06 45.57 53.56 53.56 37.35 53.56 66.26 53.56 45.57 , 53.56 53.56 78.63 53.56 17692 1 32.17 19057 45.57 53.56 47.23 52.53 70.73 70.73 18684 30.31 70.73 34.02 70.73 94.42 50.81 53.56 78.63 15.06 51.84 15.26 53.56 75.59 18729 17977 13, 915. 40 189.85 215. 31 185.19 400.50 Name. FALL EIVEE, MASS. John F. Geagan Charles A. Fish Mary Mahar, administratrix Andrew J. Mahar, deceased.. . John J. Powers James A. Brown Patrick J. Luney John S. Rourke Isaac Taylor Pierre R. Picard Total. FITCHBURG, MASS. Frank W. Abbott.. Frank J. D wyer Eugene Forrest i Thomas F. McCann. Fred S. Moore Albert S. Pierce Patrick B. Purtill.. Ernest F. Schragle. . Total. GLOUCESTER, MASS. Charles E. Storey John J. McDonald Fritz E. Oakes William R. Caig Henry Wilson Hiram W. Buffington. Walter Adams James M. Allen Total. HAVERHILL, MASS. Charles H. Blunt. Warren B. Cluff.. Total HOLYOKE, MASS. Herman G. Burkhardt. William E. Webster Fred S. Whitney Eli W. Beach Clifford R. Thomas William A. Aiken Edward B. Thomas George W. Gibson Total HYDE PARK, MASS. John A. Jackson . Charles G. Sloan. Total . LAWRENCE, MASS. Charles F. Lang William A. Summers. Jeremiah J. Desmond. Total. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 811 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. No. 18163 20772 Name. LOWELL, MASS. William H. Wood John Watson John Slack Ida Baxter, administratrix of Charles Baxter, deceased Total. LYNN, MASS. William H. Annabel . . . Louis A. Cann Alvin C. Dale George T. Estes Chauncey M. Farwell . . Thomas B. Homan Hulbert I. Smith George F. Weaver Charles A. Whippen. . . Melville E. Hale Wilbur H. Coolidge Franklin A. Pierce David H. Bonner Cyrus A. Chadwell William B. Fuller Howard K. Sanderson. Edward H. Worthern. Herbert H. Newball. . . Total. MALDEN, MASS. Thomas J. Garrity. Cornelius D. Leary. Frederick G. Jones. Timothy E. Powell. Total. NEW BEDFORD, MASS. Arthur D. Swift. Frank E. Macey. Total. NEWTON, MASS. John T. Farwell... Fred C. Morgan... George B. Walker. Total NORTH ADAMS, MASS. 18474 , James F. Coughlin. Thomas F. Lloyd.. Total ) NORTHAMPTON, MASS. 18175 John W. Hartnett PITTSFIELD MASS. Maurice E. Callahan William J. Joyce Thomas F. Duffy Total. SALEM, MASS. 17777fi| George W. H. Brown. Samuel A. Ferguson.. ' Charles W. Gardner.. Amount. $46. 73 25.16 19.39 101.87 193. 15 12.79 56.96 56.96 56.96 56.96 56.96 56.96 19.39 56.96 40.21 40.21 118. 29 146. 62 153. 05 143. 70 68.27 143. 70 234. 55 1,519.50 43.88 39.60 38.98 53.55 176. 01 61.34 105. 61 166. 95 34.02 24. 75 34.02 92.79 36.26 42.65 26.60 95.51 77.40 23.30 196. 21 45.27 45.27 33.88 No. 18157 18937 19405 20751 18160 19263 19224 18901 17073 18039 Name. salem, mass.— continued. Charles W. Getchell.. Alfred P. Jaques Israel A. Lee , James W. Nichols, jr. Arthur I. Pepper Richard B. Reed John F. Whipple Total. SPRINGFIELD, MASS. Jeremiah G. O'Connor. John F. Anthony Chester W. Baker James K. Kneeland Cornelius J. Shine Total. WALTHAM, MASS. Patrick H. Coneannon. . William J. Sheridan Charles F. Law Patrick E. Noonan Edward M. Maguire William W. Darling Total. WESTFIELD, MASS. James M. Greene WINCHESTER, MASS. Elsworth S. Whitney WORCESTER, MASS. Moses Church James J. Gavin William J. Heffron. . Patrick J. McKeon . . Augustus Stone Jerome M. Stone Augustus F. White.. Eugene C. Holton. . . John W. Bacon BenH. Clough Thomas H. Doherty. John J. Dowd Lawrence Manning. . Henry F. Mclntyre. . Joseph S. O'Connor.. John P. O'Hara Sidney L. Reed Michael J. O'Malley.. Amount. $33.01 33.88 45.27 15.06 45.27 67.77 45.27 409.95 43.10 58.78 57.13 67.51 67.51 294.03 82.73 30.31 58.W 52. 8£ 73.70 71.11 368.90 37.74 13.40 33.30 94. 03 77.99 60.08 35.08 77.99 42.64 77.70 77. 99 77.99 70.99 70.86 77.99 77.99 10.93 37.33 77.99 44.14 Total 1,123.04 ADRIAN, MICH. Frank T. Gaffney.. Myron McRoberts . James H. Whipple. 25.77 53.00 123.00 Total BATTLE CREEK, MICH. John J. Reynolds . Lawrence Farley. Bernard Jedding. 201. 77 30.93 21.03 90.54 Total. 142.50 812 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. No. 18331 18777 18023 18432 Name. BAT CITY, MICH. James E. Stevens John Kavanagh William Marcoux John B. Castonguy, deceased. Total. 18338 DETROIT, MICH. Matthew F. G. Donahue James F. Rickards \ 49 44 Addie F. McPherson, heir of Augustine Bare deceased John J. Crowley, administrator of John O'Connor, deceased. . F. W. Tenwinkle, son of Henry Ten winkle, deceased Frank A. Bennette Oliver 0. Bloom Alexander Brede William Campbell James J. Carroll Frederick W. Clark Robert Cowen, jr George E. Goellner Joseph Greusel Charles A. Hall George Hathaway Charles S. Hughes Frank C. Jackson 1 Charles James, deceased Stanislaus Jozenak Stephen H. Kelly 1 Albert Klein T. L. O. Lambert William Henry Langston Frederick G. Ludlow William McKerrow Alvin D. McPherson George W. Martin Simon Myers Lawrence Nash Martin J. O'Donohue Peter Paya William F. Przybylowski Frederick C. Purler Eugene Reynolds Charles W. Rostowkowski Robert D. Shook William H. Sheridan Joseph A. Troy William H. Witherspoon Marshall E. Baldwin.... {^"yg Thomas D. McDonald William A. Barney John A. Blair Frank Emmons Alman J. Houston Albert N. Reynolds Thomas J. Barney Charles R. Hamilton Thomas O. Lumsden John W. McKunnie Frank D. Mack Total FLINT, MICH. Richard E. Coleric Charles S. Martin . . . .■ John Stafford, brother of N. C. Stafford Amount. No Total. $10. 22 42.06 5.15 126. 18 183. 61 49.44 154. 50 44.29 240. 26 107. 12 107. 81 65.57 ' 63. 12 107. 81 2.06 87.'81 27.84 28.86 96.82 51.36 118. 34 138. 70 105. 06 13S. 70 44.34 118. 34 82.49 138. 70 1 87. 81 225. 50 269. 99 63.12 138. 70 44.34 8.04 138. 70 4.12 44.34 68.12 138. 70 44.34 15. 06 9.61 138. 70 138. 70 64.20 18496 21251 17984 18624 18127 18734 20835 17334 18578 18711 20899 18578 20769 18499 1920S Name. 20336 GRAND RAPIDS, MICH. John W. Jones Herman Warrell Total IRON MOUNTAIN, MICH. Thomas S. Flaherty LANSING, MICH. Byron H. Willett MANISTEE, MICH. Joseph Jacobus James E. Moran Luman Murray Thomas P. Steadman Alonzo C. Waite F. W. Field Total MUSKEGON, MICH. Timothy J. Delanty Willis S. Webb...: , Total PONTIAC, MICH. William E. Sprague Samuel H. Giles Charles A. Weeks Total SAGINAW (EAST SIDE) , MICH. Elizabeth Boertman, adminis tratrix of Charles C. Boert man Robert J. McCormick Frank F Miller Edward W. Courtney William L. Little O. J. Sawyer Total SAGINAW (WEST SIDE), MICH. Irving E. Davis Harry W. Mosier Edward A. Le Febre Thomas J. Forestal ..-. Total DULUTH, MINN. Mike Hoppa JohnC. Frizell Alton B. Heimbach John Hennebery Murdo S. McKinzie Joseph Plutnizky Total MANKATO, MINN. Ernest W. Koetting Amount. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. ' 813 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc.— Continued. No. 18529 19445 19280 18952 18529 19280 17085 19273 18423 19273 Name. MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. J . L. Abrams Sidney D. Berry .Toseph G. Bertrand Herbert P. Bates E. E. Bickel Eugene M. Briggs Edward E. Brothers E. Butler... F. W.Campbell E. E. Cass Louis H. Clough E.L. Coffin Thbrna-s ConncJIy John T. Dahlstrom Frederick C. Emerson Abram G. Forland Oscar A. Gardner George F. Gordon John B. Gorman John A. Hailing L. S. Hamblin John G.Hill George B. Horton James R. Huckins Jonas Krafne Alfred G. McCord Joseph W. Mercer F.J.Miller William J. Newton James S. Noble Thomas O'Neill John Pederson Perry P. Pierce Philemon P. Reed Thomas O. Upton Joseph Warren William Watson Alexander I. Bissonette. . . Theophile L, Beaudette Elmer L. Buell John Collins Guy Hawkins David Knobel Archie F. Thompson Eugene M. Wood J.A.Wood E.L.Wright... Charles L. Abbott Albert Ashenden Winfleld O. Chase .. William D. McMillan John O. Williams Jasper E. Brown John Langan Total ST. PAUL, MINN. Alphonse J. Brennon John J. Dillery , ... George T. Drake Henry C. Garvey, deceased Nels Hayden John J. Luby Lawrence S. Moore Henry C. Nichol Edward A. Oschner Albert J. Rock Ernest Schroeer Arthur J. Taylor John W. Grant Henry R. E. Longfleld George L. Taft Jerry Webber Fred C. Kinney Nicholas Hendy Michael S. Lawless Total Amount. $4.12 4.12 2.48 4.12 3.32 4.12 3.32 4.12 4.12 2.48 4.12 4.12 4.12 4.12 3. 32 3.32 3.43 3.32 4.12 3.32 4.12 2.48 3.32 4.12 4,12 4.12 4.12 3.32 4.12 4.12 2.48 4.12 3.32 4.12 4.12 3.32 4.12 76.76 35.47 27.63 27.63 27.63 107. 81 84.12 4.12 4.12 4.12 73.51 26.40 106. 60 11.55 26.40 978. 82 88.11 202. 57 8.29 416.81 106. 05 49.71 2.89 4.94 141. 69 10.11 39.14 156.90 20.00 60.54 20.62 7.22 1.03 256.81 126. 02 1,719.45 No. 18632 18009 18534 18855 18569 19040 18018 18733 18071 18486 18071 20707 Name. STILLWATER, MINN. Matthew F. Butler Edward D. Elliott, jr William F. Walsh August Hoehne Total WINONA MINN. Rodney Redfleld John A. Zaborowski Joseph Will Total ...... MERIDIAN, MISS. William S. Harris, jr William B. Johnson Benjamin J. Nelson Thomas H. O'Neil Total JACKSON, MISS. William M. Garland Napoleon J. Smith William Culbertson Total VICKSBURG, MISS. Lee B. Rogers Edward F. McManus Total KANSAS CITY, MO. Barnabas Berry, administrator Alva S. Berry, deceased Frank Hughes Frederic C. Krass Monroe Larson : . . . Henry A. Waller Harry E. Dewey Sidney A. Jennings Campbell Chapman Hugh H.Cole William H. English William T. Fitton Charles T. Freeman Edward H. Luckey Sebastian A. Maggio Daniel M. Pierce Dell M.Ralls Henry W. Tracy Thomas Briody James Cannon James H. Crews Leonard Cree Jackson Morton A. Maynard Frank M. Meade, administra- tor of Richard E. Meade, de- ceased Andrew J. Nash Thomas F. Reilly Dell Smith Elmer R. Waters Eugene J. Wagner Burdsey W. Walley John P. Robinson Total NEVADA, MO. Levi Cook Andrew J. Crigler Jacob M. Schatt, deceased Total Amount. 8100. 50 25.59 93.80 32.37 252. 26 207. 16 199.98 273.09 0.23 186.29 156. 43 186.29 166. 13 695. 14 6.36 16.82 23.90 46.54 55.38 40.48 95.86 70.75 35.06 187.65 310.63 262. 78 70.13 56.65 89.96 61.88 4.94 7.63 60.84 7.84 37.53 8.25 133. 37 144.88 192. 87 192. 87 203.98 88.44 88.48 125.60 135.61 88.48 322.05 192. 87 137. 77 64.77 3,473.04 2.48 1.44 30.86 34.78 814 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued ST. JOSEPH, MO. Charles L. Baker Clinton S. Huffington William T. Brayles Joseph E. Grief Robert T. Raney Robert T. Raney Total ST. LOUIS, MO. John S. Andrew Fred W. Berg Gustav A. Betz Patrick O. Brown Michael Burke Thomas Byrnes, administrator Thomas J. Byrnes, deceased.. Thomas J. Curran Henry M. Day Cornelius J. Dennehy Catharine Grimm, administra- trix Gustave A. Grimm, de- ceased Edward Heyman Charles E. Huelsiek Samuel L. Hyatt George Hunt Charlotte Grimm, administra- trix Henry F. A. Grim, de- ceased Gustave R. Klier William C. Richardson, admin- istrator Charles W. Koestring, deceased Anthony Meagher. . . William H. Miller Louis Nortmann Leslie P. Norman Joseph O'Hearne Samuel C. Owens. . . John B> Stiften George W. Bishop John T. Boles Arthur E. Cooney John J. Curran Frank B. Eckert Henry F. Koehler George Marshall Joseph A. Mussman Edward C. Pfeifer George W. Swarting Charles J. Walsh Edward Weber Frederick H. Wiecher Edward J. Chartrand William C. Richardson, admin- istrator Francis V. Eynatten, deceased Louis Merz Michael E. Whaling EdwinF. White Louis Marcks Louisa M. Wolf, administratrix John C. Wolf, deceased John W. Pelgen Daniel B. Riordan James M. M. Stokes Henry B. Stottman Charles W. Trefrey John E. Umbricht Henry I. Woods Louis Newsham Albros Wallblock Thomas A. Marshall Leon S. Boucher George W. Davison Frederick A. Dunker Charles E. Gereke Mary Ikemeier, administratrix Stephen J. Ikemeier, deceased. $153. 93 139. 03 220. 81 171. 40 16.35 173. 81 875. 33 96.82 60.35 54.24 19.59 127.76 ,111.33 34.44 196. 43 20.00 138. 36 34.67 180. 73 25.06 188.77 203. 60 203. 60 63.32 106. 43 195; 02 75.88 183.00 188.77 127. 72 53.50 142.48 39.50 203. 26 203.26 142. 48 40.21 121.88 45.96 25.77 39.18 197. 04 49.44 121. 88 280. 10 101. 63. 266. 69 258. 76 95.04 187.09 93.39 86.52 52.76 138. 36 127. 72 203. 60 127. 72 180. 73 149. 97 65.92 307. 04 76.32 125. 14 75.88 125. 14 71.55 18784 20275 20750 18784 ST. louis, mo. — continued. William H. Kremming : Fred A. Janssen I Willliam A. Oberlohman Frederick J. Schleich i August H. Stuermann \ John C. Lyons Joseph C. Lindsay | Leon Walton I J. Karmany Smith , Joseph Teahan ! Henry Stege | j Joseph Woodruff i i Thomas L. Bray...*. i Amelia C. Stelzeleni, adminis- : tratrix William J. Stelzeleni, j deceased j Timothy J. Callanhan | John T. Kern | John C. Whitehead i Judson T. Clement i Herman Esehe I Maurice Keane i Fred Kuenstler ! Michael J. Nash j Patrick O'Keefe j G. S. E. Sagehorn \ F. W. Weisheyer ! Adelina Alis, administratrix of , Charles Alis, deceased. J Timothy F. Burke i Thomas Burke j \ John A. BurfEee j j Edward G. Buries j I August Boette I Michael L. Cahill i John P. Cummings I Ernest L. Gross i William J. Gallagher , Joseph Huppman .1 i James J. Holahan Frank N. Jordans j Herman Ludwig j William MeFadden William A. Norris | Christopher Roesch 1 George W. Reitz | William A. Ritchie j Charles Schackel r j Charles J. Souderman Charles Wiegand | Joseph L. Woodlock i Matthew Whitford I $91. 61 30.31 221. 11 178.91 221. 11 79.66 208. 75 205. 10 138. 36 189. 51 138. 02 239.27 181.96 140. 81 13.47 369. 39 180. 94 110.40 63.26 150. 81 15.26 60.30 234. 64 376. 12 26.60 148. 32 162. 05 162. 05 266. 77 85.84 138.02 31.76 53.83 138.07 123. 62 50.74 151. 60 57.73 120. 17 138.02 127.21 120. 17 162.05 137.67 120. 17 85.84 120. 17 63.32 162. 05 Total i 13, 960. 72 SEDALIA, MO. 17920 i John Lomasney. 1 Edwin C. Mason. Total 370. 07 182. 34 552. 41 SPRINGFIELD, MO. 17791 j Valerius W. Campbell , George Townes ; Darwin F. Johnston 126. 32 6.81 48.71 Total. 21186 BUTTE, MONT. Phillip P. Carr James A. Coll Owen Roberts Edward L. Waldrip... Royal W. Yoeman Frank T. Newberry. . . Leyman W. Royce 88.43 232. 38 1.35 33.20 27.63 185.94 14.03 Total. 582. 96 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 815 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. Name. HELENA, MONT. H. Frank Adkins James Blythe , James A. Eslick Rudolph J. Johannes Anastasia S. O'Connor, widow John O'Connor, deceased Henry M. Phillips Maupin Duff Total. BEATBICE, NEBE. Richard B. Applegat. Jacob S. Rutherford. Total FREMONT, NEBR. James F. Green GRAND ISLAND, NEBR. Benjamin F. Gardner. Levi H. Matchett William Ivers Total. HASTINGS, NEBR. James D. Campbell. Isaac A. Hall Total. KEARNEY, NEBR. William Crawford . Amos L. Graham. Total LINCOLN, NEBR. Carleton C. Marlay. George O. Hearn. . . Arthur D. Craig Henry Vollstedt. . . Total. NEBRASKA CITY, NEBR. Wesley H. Doughty James E. Mcllreevy Ebbie Northcutt John L. Patterson Total. OMAHA, NEBR. Emar Castberg James Clark Samuel E . Collins Patrick Cocoran Charles H. Creighton.. Lewis J. Edwards Edward Kelly Charles H. King George J. Kleffner Andrew Noonan Edward R. Overall Ralph U. Powers Calixt Remillard William H. Robertson. Ira W. Smith John M. Stafford Amount. $189. 44 105. 38 264. 01 168.95 225. 37 195. 97 7.30 1,156.42 86.39 91.65 178.04 5.85 10.52 69.15 85.52 51.70 51.70 103. 40 1.65 8.46 10.11 5.15 .82 104.27 50.84 161.08 34.23 30. 93 32.37 32.37 129.90 14.02 21.61 15.68 15.26 23.10 21.61 22.20 21.61 22.20 14.02 104.56 9.90 22.20 15.68 21.61 21.61 No. Name. Omaha, nebb. — continued. 19322 Osman N. Birkett Daniel C. Brown John H. Cunningham. I Robert C. Davis J Richard E. English... i Reuben W. Freeman.. Thomas Gurnett Peter F. Hanson Fred Jorgensen Harry L. Lingafelt... William Maher Thomas C. Parkins. . . Andrew Peterson James S. Stone Alexander Sweeney . . . JohnH. Tebbins...... John Woodruff 18798 James Fairfield 19601 William J. From 19961 19452 19373 18399 19139 18405 20218 18405 Total. SOUTH OMAHA, NEBR. Martin A. Martin. Charles W. Miller. Total. CONCORD, N. H. Fred J. Cole William C.White... Fred E. Wilkins Joseph A. Coty Jeremiah D. Foley . . James P. Harlow. . . Samuel H. Prescott. Henry Tucker ...:.. Willis K. Wingate.. Robert M. Clark Total. DOVER, N. H. Fred E. Roberts KEENE, N. H. Clinton A. Hyland . Frank W. Barker.. Frank G. Russell.. Total. MANCHESTER, N. H. John G. Brown William E. Dunbar. .. Peter A. Farrell James Arthur Morse. . James Murphy William H. Ansell Irving L. Campbell. . . Hubert M. Chandler. . Alba A. DoUoff Albin Gustof son Clarence D. Palmer . . . Charles H. Rowe William H. Sullivan.. Octavus V. Hill Wille B. Sanford William K. Stockdale. Jules Larivee John J. Driscoll Amount. Total 1, 527. 44 $189.27 189. 27 89.9a 189. 27 87.04 113. 15 19. 80' 59.81 220.58 179.82 59.81 189.27 189.27 150. 48 110.56 82.91 220.48 66.01 195. 44 2,989.04 15.06 15.06 30.12 13.61 40.42 11.75 93.18 103.68 122.96 103.68 118.00 93.18 88.75 789.25 85.32 86.85 65.59 109.63 262.07 14.60 41.66 40.02 78.17 40.02 50.52 43.10 77.76 62.49 67.24 3.09 69.51 62.91 12.58 40.02 311.67 353. 13 158. 95 816 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. No. Name. NASHUA, N. H. Charles E. Holson William D. Mongovan. Edwin S. Knight Andre E. Brault Alfred P. Hayden Frank A. McMaster. . . Total 50217 18409 19379 19330 ' ,F. 18600 18718 18902 18156 Amount. POETSMOUTH, N. H. William H. Phinney Warrington Moulton Ernest S. Johnson Amos R. Locke Charles E. Lowd Mark Noble William O. Sides Samuel A. Reed Taylor Waterhouse Total ASBUEY PARK, N. J. Isaac J. Brown Harvey R. Bergen Charles Imlay Charles S. Warren. Total ATLANTIC CITY, N. J. Michael J. Kelly William B. Treat William Culligan John Harrold, jr Nicholas H. Downs Total BEIDGETON, N. J. Henry W. Porch Frank E. Laning , Andrew Mahr Total CAMDEN, N. J. John C. Goldthrop Thomas J. Hambrose , John W. Sparks , Patrick Whalen Cladius E. Bradshaw J. Kelly Brown J. Howard Butcher George W. Campbell George Denny William H. Dorman Walter P. Ellis Benjamin S. Grum J. Newton Hillman William C. Johnson J. Howard McCormick Charles Parker William L. Parker Mary J. Rowson, administra- trix Moses Rowson, deceased. J. Howard Shinn F.Walter Toms Leonard Sturm Total , $12. 79 23.72 53.30 35.60 170. 83 5.15 301.39 71.34 71.34 71.34 178.48 156.47 3.09 176.62 177.66 183.57 1,089.91 51.36 127.19 93.58 5.78 277.91 22.06 69.59 57.81 57.81 16.33 223.60 38.27 25.66 51.02 114.95 302.59 115.71 205.33 113.07 207.67 12.14 11.34 5.15 29.90 29.90 41.25 94.99 9.90 6.39 25.56 4.54 11.55 43.93 9.49 48.13 27.43 1,355.96 No. 18155 18251 17488 17978 17810 Name. ELIZABETH CITY, N. J- Amount. Edward F. Burke... Michael J. Haggerty. James P. McElroy. John H. Total . HOBOKEN, N. J. Catharine Hopkins, administra- trix Frederick A. Hopkins, deceased JEESEY CITY, N. J. John J. Burns John S. Prawl Louis Reinhardt Thomas E. Wakefield. . . Daniel S.Coffey Gusta ve Kaiser Irving S. Taylor George A. Logan George V. Newkirk Max F. Fackert James B. Farrier James McGovern William H. Peet David Sheehan Total MOEEISTOWN, N. J. Robert J. Price William E. Beach David L. Fox Frank M. Headley Joseph Pierson Total. NEWARK, N. J. Samuel Allison Thomas J. Coffre Thomas F. Christie Henry Coleman James P. Donley. William F. Erb Thomas A. Fitch William J. Foley George J. Hahn Clement F. Hasel George E. Hayes J. Fred Hoagland Andrew J. Jubert Francis B. Kineke Joseph Koermaier John W. Lynes Owen P. Mahon John P. Manley George McGookin Thomas W. Nelan Phillip B. Nutzel Louis C. Ochler Fred P. Rommell Lawrence Ryan , Lewis A. Sears , Christian Stamm Frederick G. Stickel George Tresch Wenzel J. Weiner Edward J. White Charles J. Wirth, jr Frank H. Freeman Frederick Keim { S1 °i'o3 John T. McKenna Total 2,776.68 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 817 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. Name. NEW BRUNSWICK, N. J. Thomas F. Grady William H. Hinchman William O'Cormell Peter N. Wyckofl Total ORANGE, N. J. Stephen Bonnell Phillip Drenneman, jr Patrick Callahan James Conroy Phebe Jamison, administratrix Joseph A. Jamison, deceased . James E. Kelly Total PATERSON, N. J. John J. Kane PLAINFIELD, N. J. Peter Flynn, jr Edward E. Harm E. T. Van Winkle Total TRENTON, N. J. William Abbotts George U. Brammer John J. Campbell, deceased Fraley E. Cougle Walter L. Cox William P. Chatten Eugene Higgins Joseph Hill William Hollins Hiram Lennox, jr David Levins John N. McCann Daniel Meginn Michael Mulrey John Firth John R. Gould Sumner B. Scudder Enoch F. Van Camp William H. Atkinson James E. Clinton Mary Jetter, administratrix George Jetter, deceased George Burkett Total ALBANY, N. T. Daniel A. Cooney, administra- tor Peter J. Quinn Edward J. Murphy William P. Whine, jr. .%. William H. Bum John J. Brucker Total AMSTERDAM, N. Y. Anna B. Combs, widow Living- ston M. Combs Julian A. Godwin John Shelly George Engle, jr Total S. Rep. 382, 60-1 52 Amount. $158.99 150.43 158.99 37.50 505.91 104.44 104.44 104.44 104. 44 179. 47 38.77 636. 00 57.96 40.42 4.54 22.89 67.85 42.07 57.54 152. 76 38.36 53.62 52.59 13.40 228. 41 34.65 228. 41 45.58 53.62 46.19 238. 05 49.71 11.55 64.56 34.65 21.23 66.62 3.92 144. 25 1,681.74 49.17 86.87 142.34 36.91 105. 75 421. 04 18.98 164. 04 182. 99 111. 83 477. 84 No. 18413 19483 16945 19391 17674 Name. ATJBURN, N. Y. Theodore J. Kosters Edward N. Hopping Total BATAVIA, N. Y. Edwin J. Benton Margaret Buckley, mother James E. Buckley, deceased . . Lucius F. Rolfe William S. Wakeman Anthony Hirsch Total BtNGpAMTON, N. Y. George W. McElhone David L. Burts Jesse Irons John E. Morrall Charles E. Stebbins Edwin Scrafford Ludlow R. Hogg George W. Moore Albert H. Surdam JohnC. Volk.^ Total BROOKLYN, N. Y. John S. Allen, jr Edwin F. Barker. John F. Barr Thomas Barrett George A. Blackmer Jacob Brock Henry J. Brown Hannah M. Burtis, administra- trix Benjamin G. Burtis, de- ceased Margaret A. Butler, widow of Frank Butler, deceased Thomas B. Butler John L. Cain Charles Chapman William B. Davenport, admin- istrator Thomas Clark Peter J. Cleary Michael Collins Joseph F. CoDlin, jr James Cunningham Joseph I. Donohue Edward J. Donohue Joseph Dowd James J. Eggo Edward Farrel Karl R. Fosberg Edward J. Francis Henry J. Fritch Charles J. Graham Herman A. F. Henke Richard C. Hollahan John J. Hyland Warren H. Jacobs Albert E. James Thomas A. Kelly EdH. Kirby Frank F. Krey Andrew J. Liebenau Thomas P. Longking. James M. McArdle Edward McCormack Edward W. McFadden William F. Mclntyre Thomas C. McMahon William A. McKenzie Amount. $124. 60 5.78 130. 38 33.82 37.95 4.33 106. 48 56.66 239. 19 121. 53 202. 41 7.63 116. 47 51.64 59.69 20.21 25.36 13.20 13.20 631. 34 36.94 124. 63 359. 47 76.15 142.82 262. 30 15.26 142. 82 281. 20 142.82 142.82 9.28 150. 44 108. 92 54.58 4.54 139. 54 54.58 93.67 65.73 326. 56 103. 69 137. 40 18.88 5.15 54.58 4.13 24.75 9.28 227. 21 46.41 146.94 134.56 12.37 444. 27 142.82 164.92 125. 63 54.58 142.82 94.76 18.20 818 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. Name. Brooklyn, n. Y.— continued. Mary A. Madden, administra- trix Dermott M. Madden, de- ceased Clinton N. McGuire George L. Marsh William L. Menus Edward J. Milde Charles W. Morton George W. Naylor Patrick O'Gorman John O' Grady Florence Parrett, widow Frank Parrett, deceased Napoleon J. Plumb Edward B. Powell Joseph J. Price Ralph E. Price Daniel J. Reardon Joseph J. Rigney Rosa Rode, administratrix Joseph H. Rode, deceased Frank P. Roper Louis D. Ryno Francis E. Savage Frederick W. Scherrer, admin- istrator Frank J. Scherrer Julia Schrieber, administratrix Charles Schrieber, deceased. . . Samuel Shannon Nicholas J. Shields William E. Sloan George W. Smith Thomas E. Smith George C. Stadtler George Stoflel Harry Stout August T. Struller Wiley C. Thomas William E. Thomas John Tynan Rudolph Vanderwagg William H. Wall Walter J. Walsh William A. Walsh William F. Walsh William R. West Harry A. Wille Alex. Zundt James J. Breslin Hugo Guth Robert F. Houghton Robert S. Miller Thomas F. Keegan William D. Reiber Edward Thomas John S. Whistance Emily G. Dyas, widow of Sam- uel Dyas Francis A. Morris Amount. 8136. 25 6.19 112. 69 4 54 132. 96 90.30 54.58 37.95 103. 69 15.47 15.11 47.03 6.19 29.53 54.58 355.35 106. 58 9.28 142.82 121. 88. 145. 64 15.26 9.28 7.01 4.54 54.58 107. 12 100. 60 11.15 142.82 75.54 142.82 54.58 36.94 15.47 146. 94 142.82 15.47 121. 51 34.48 98.53 359. 47 23.10 21.65 23.10 6.19 15.47 84.12 159. 65 71.46 114. 33 314.24 Total t 8,647.67 BUFFALO, N. Y. -iugusta A.Strasser. administra- trix Henry H. Batz, deceased. Bridget T. Brandon, adminis- tratrix James T. Brandon, deceased John F. Collins John S. McShane Louis F. Balthasar Cyrennes M. Brown Henry Burber John F. Collins Owen McEneny Lewis J. O'Connor Hiram Voesseller Michael G. McLaughlin Timothy W. Mahoney Henry J. Shipman 50.83 63.17 46.69 16.09 81.03 53.90 2.68 84.12 64.25 55.91 2.89 25.41 131. 12 22.68 21173 19716 18412 16996 18314 19337 18398 20509 18756 18587 19343 18376 18411 18677 Name. buffalo, n. y. — continued. James W. Wharton George Clark Total CANANDAIGUA, N. Y. Frank H. Eighmy Charles J. Farnum Total COENING, N. Y. John J. Clancy, administrator of Thomas M. Clancy, de- ceased [CORTLAND, N. Y. Arthur C. Upson ELMIRA, N. Y. Frank C. Willison Louis D. Caldwell John McCarthy Total FLUSHING, N. Y. Prentiss B. Fowler William F. Stevenson Total GENEVA, N. Y. John Dennison Frank C. Fox, brother Harry E. Fox, deceased Herbert C. Meade Henry K. Winnie William D. Wertman Total GLENS FALLS, N. Y. Timothy D. Downey Napoleon L. Lee Dennis Lynch Edgar M. Monte Charles H. Clark .'... Frank C. Martin Total HORNELLSVILLE, N. Y. William A. Dugan JohnF. Fallon James Mahar . . 9 ITHACA, N. Y. Louis Coryell Willis Hausner Edwin T. Heustis John Johnson William R. Pearson William J. Pringle Owen Toner, administrator John Toner, deceased Henry B. Illston Total ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 819 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. Name. JAMESTOWN, N. Y. Walter B. Frink John R. Moyinhan Frederick A. Saxon, jr Total LITTLEFALLS, N. T. Silas N. Baker LOCKPORT, N. Y. Frank A. Fox De Witt C. Graham Total LONG ISLAND CITY, N. Y. Thomas McNamara Frank E. McBennett Charles E. Masterson George P. O'Hara Martin Judge, executor Julia A. Kelly, administratrix, de- ceased, David A. Kelly, de- ceased John Frend Arthur E. McDonald Total NEWBURGH, N. Y. Luke Lloyd Frederick Reek Henry Van Benschoten James A. Cantlin Thomas J. Hayes Chester F. Thayer Robert McNair Total ^ NEW YORK, N. Y. Patrick J. Carey William L. Golden George J. Woelpper George Bender j $ |jj- ^ John A. Burnett Edward A. Clark | $1 ^- ™ John Dalton John L. Dennis Hugh L. Donnelly Edwin L. Edgerly Edward V. Reedy, deceased John W. Suhre Michael T. Ward Harry P. Cummings Sidney Simmons, deceased James Dwyer Benjamin Eckstein James Hayes Henry J. Howe Max Levy John E. Maxwell Thomas F. Monahan John Neelsen, deceased William E . Peacock Frederick P. Price John Tobias, administrator Jacob Tobias, deceased Bernard Carlin Joseph F. Buchanan Aurelio B. Cavo James Donovan Elizabeth McCue, administra- trix John McCue, deceased Amount. $37. 74 6.39 50.33 94.46 67.76 40.31 31.55 161. 73 152. 92 47.78 16.09 150. 92 7.43 226. 15 763. 02 142.35 172. 27 261. 13 96.07 96.07 96.07 98.13 961. 99 56.65 17.94 21.86 63.74 45.58 172. 35 34.02 212. 52 6.18 34.02 4.42 6.18 62.15 5.57 8.04 93.87 37.12 75.91 69.31 7.01 56.65 20.00 14.44 20.15 28.15 21.00 100. 94 20.08 20.99 26.88 1.37 No. Name. new yoek, N. Y.— continued. Bartholomew J. Madden John W. Merkel William Noe Edward F. Scott Catharine Meighan, adminis- tratrix Peter H. Biecker, de- ceased William L. Hendy Charles W. Chandler George W. Waterman John H. Abbott John M. J. Addi Gus A. Wambach Robert B. Ward Philip M. Weiman Jacob C. Weingarth Albert A. Weitzel Stephen B. Wheeler William Wick Charles J. Wiley John C. Williams Cornelius Wood Henry A. Wood Francis J. Woods Joseph Wright Michael J. Curran '. i Patrick J. Gaynor { $ ^ g® John Heckmann John L. Roscoe William F. Phillips.. Charles A. Sickles I John Skerrett j Matthew Smyth George E. Stanton ! Albert Stark. j George W. Stevens , Alonzo Stivers George Stock Florence J. Sullivan Charles Sutten Charles C. Terhune Andrew J. F. Thiel Wallace F. Toole James W. Urell | 8 ^' || William A. Van Tassel Louis Wagner Clifford Waldo John W.Walsh Peter Walsh William J. Ahrens , John P. Allen John H. Apman William Arnold Dexter B. Bailey Benjamin Baer Harry A. Bartels Michael Bau James E . Bennett William J. Boettger William T. Brady Albert Brocker , William B. Beiling Henry Bundstein , George J. Burnhauser James Campora Bridget C. Carroll, com. of Thomas J. Conroy, insane John Casey, No. 1 John S. Catherwood James A. H. Cavanagh Michael F. Chrystal Charles E. Coffeyn Andrew F. Collins , Edward J. Collins , Julia T. McGrath, administra- trix of Patrick H. Collins Salvadore Colombo John Conlogue Nathan Cooper Amount. $26. 78 24.30 10.22 21.55 39.78 49.44 37.76 222. 82 28.15 12.37 106. 43 8.25 26.74 109. 76 15.47 14.44 19.23 8.25 4.13 22.32 120. 85 28.15 79. 49 53.90 67.63 18.56 120.85 86.18 16.91 28.15 27.01 70.91 131.84 120. 85 28.15 13.40 37.33 12.37 4.13 28.15 120.85 66.60 110. 21 28.15 5.15 39.82 5.15 28.15 86.87 41.04 28.15 126.36 106.33 16.91 23.80 27.43 31.95 33.65 18.56 12.37 101.63 12.37 15.00 243.53 30.90 12.37 22.32 16.91 20.62 120.85 20.62 154.84 120. 85 28.15 23.45 820 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. i No. i?039 Name. new yokk, n. Y.— continued. Charles I. Cornell Michael J. Cosgrove William J. Cowell John Cross Joseph Crozier Maggie Curran, administratrix James F. Curran Martin Clune John C. Damm Herman E. Davidson Willam Deckert Andrew J. Delaney John L. Dempsey Daniel J. Dewitt John J. Dobbins Arthur Donnelly Jeremiah J. Donovan, father Frank J. Donovan Francis X. Donovan James Donovan Laughlin H. Dooley Abraham S. Doremus William J. Douglass Peter J. Dowd Henry Faeth Spencer Field William V. Fruhan John J. Fitzgerald William J. Fogarty , No. 1 Edward J. Foley Terence M. Foley John W. Foster, deceased Augustus S. Gaylor Fred F. Gegenheimer J. Charles Glimm John F. Graham Charles H. Granel Charles F. Grange William H. Haigh David S. Hailer Frank E. Halleck Edward Hanlon Annie Hansen, widow Henry Hansen Daniel J. Harrington Michael E. Harris Michael F. Hart : John F. Hassaw William F. Hauley Edward Hayes Moses Hecht Charles A. Heywood Joseph Hirschf eld Fred A. Hoelzer Benjamin F. Holland James Hyland Martin M. Irwin Mark Isaacs George W. James : Charles T. Johnson Marie E. Johnston, widow John Johnston, deceased Daniel S. Kaskell George F. Keane Charles M. Keller Frank Kenney John J. Keifer Charles F. King Jacob Knoebel George Krahe, jr Thomas J. Kiernan Tobias Lake James W. Lally James H. Lent Hugh J. Leonard Richard Lloyd Adolph H. Langhans Robert A. MacDonald John K. Macomber John S. Mahon John F. Mahoney $6.19. 70.73 7.22 69.31 10.31 j 28.15 35.84 6.19 ! 120. 85 1.65 162.39 ! 99.87 10.73 i 28. 15 I 10.31 j 28.74 106.33 40.85 10.31 48.51 36.39 27.27 106.33 45. 66 3.30 47.72 33.75 2.06 28.15 64.89 28.15 120. 85 42.28 22.65 8.25 24.75 100. 94 18.56 120. 85 48. 06< 100. 84 41.25 16.91 20.62 10. 11 4.42 57.43 53. 00 15.47 9.49 15. 47 , 28. 15 ! 78.97 I 120.85 10.11 ! 28. 15 28.15 126.35 120.85.: 140.76 12.37 64.10 27.42 28. 15 10.31 | 100. 84 4.13 34.42 28.12 I 103.69 ; 115.02 !j 292.18 ' 181.97 20.35 212. 18 28. 15 16.91 I 19308 19038 new yoek, N. y.— continued, John J. Mahoney, No. 1 John J. Mahoney No. 2 William J. Malloy James Maloney Patrick T. Maloney JohnC. F. Maloy William Matthews William Mauck , Charles Maudelbaum Timothy McAuliff John McCarron, administrator Peter McCarron Charles F. McCarthy, No. 1 Michael H. McCarthy William McCarthy Joseph F. McCormack Elizabeth McCue, administra- trix John McCue James McKenzie James McVey , , Mary Monahan, administratrix John F. Monahan , Richard M. Mooney Charles H. Moser Thomas J. Murray Richard F. O'Brien John. C. O'Connor 3. F. O'Leary Patrick H. O'Neil Merwin J. Page John O. Palmquist George L. Pichard Thomas C. Place Joseph Piatt George Rehm Joseph M. Reid Henry G. Riehl William Roberts Thomas Roden M. L. Root, widow Charles F. Root Richard F. Rosamond Edmund Rothschild Joseph J. Rowe John Ryan, No. 1 Charles Ryan HughC. Ryder Charles Richter Isaac J. Rosenthal James M. Sarles Thomas F. Scanlon Thomas J. Cronin Henry M. Beck Joseph A. Langan Lawrence L. Davids, deceased. William J. Ahrens JohnH. Apman John J. Keifer Charles Frederick King . . .-. William Arnold John J. Babington Dexter B . Bailey Thomas J. Barragray Harry A. Bartels Michael Bau Adolph Bleibtree Hugh Cameron John Casey E. P.J.Clark :. Andrew F. Collins Salvadore Colombo Joseph F. Cone John Conlogue John A . Conner Charles W. Conway James Cosgrove Maggie Curran, administratrix of James F. Curran, deceased. John Dal ton J oseph F. Daubert Herman E. Davison ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 821 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. Name. Amount. new yoek, N. y.— continued. Michael J. Deininger $4. 46 John J. Dobbin 4.46 Henry Doherty 4. 46 Arthur Donelly 47. 11 William C. Donnelly 27.01 Francis X. Donovan 8. 93 Jeremiah Donovan, father of Frank J. Donovan, deceased. . 4. 46 Jacob Knoebel 2. 68 Thomas B. Lacey 6. 81 CM. Larkin 2.68 William McCarthy 4. 46 James McKenzie 20. 94 Andrew S. McNichol 4. 46 John J. Mahoney, No. 1 4. 46 George W. Moncrief I 4. 46 Richard M. Mooney . . •. : 4. 46 Charles H. Moser i 4. 46 William Nolan ! 4. 46 James T. O'Donnell j 4.46 Washington I. Ogden I 4. 46 George L. Pitchard j 4. 46 John Pope 4. 46 John Power I 4. 46 Thomas Reilly | 4.33 H. G. Riehl .' I 25.06 William Roberts 4. 46 Thomas Roden 4. 46 Mary L. Root, widow of Charles F. Root, deceased 4. 46 Richard F. Rosamond 4. 46 Mary A. Ryan, administratrix John Ryan, No. 1, deceased. . . 8. 93 Hugh C. Ryder 4. 46 Charles H. Skill 4. 46 John B.Smith 4.46 Thomas J. Smith \ 114. 57 Ed. F. Smith ] 1.10 William J. Douglas 4.46 Peter J. Dowd ] 4.46 William D. Dubois ! 203.60 Edward W. Ernst ■■ 4.46 Henry Faeth j 4. 46 Rudolph Fisher 6.52 Samuel N. Fitch ! 121.20 William J. Fogarty ■ 4. 46 Augustus S. Gaylor 4. 46 Fred F. Gegenheimer \ 4. 46 Dennis J. Glenny \ 4. 46 William V. Fruhan I 3. 59 Frank E. Guy j 15. 79 JohnE. Hall ' 83.14 Michael F. Hart i 3.59 Cornelius J. Healey 8. 93 William A. Henry 4. 46 John J. Holihan i 10.73 Francis Hashagan • 11. 06 Joseph E. F. Hughson i 92.91 John J. Hunter 16. 22 Martin M. Irwin 4. 46 William W. Janicke 4. 46 Charles T. Johnson 4.46 Marie E. Johnson, administra- ! trix John Johnson, deceased . . j 8. 93 Solomon Joseph ; 95. 45 Thomas Keating 7. 22 Patrick F. Kelly 1. 37 Thomas F. A. Smith 4.46 John J. Springott [ 25. 06 George W. Stevens | 4. 46 George Stock | 4. 46 Florence J. Sullivan 4. 46 Charles Sutten 3. 59 Andrew J. F. Thiel 4.46 James L. Turner J 4. 46 John Vornoff ! 4.46 Peter Walsh i 4. 46 Albert A. Wetzel 2. 68 Stephen B. Wheeler 4. 46 Richard C. White 20. 25 William Wick 4. 46 No. Name. 19151 19928 19281 19480 19186 18189 17799 18403 19287 18215 new yoek, N. y.— continued. Wilbert G. Wiedemann David W. Williams Francis J. Woods ^ Jacob Zann James A. Wood John M. Zunkley . Christian Schilling Abraham L. Cox James McGill Cornelius J. Mai one Emanuel C. Percia Adam Smyth Matthew J. Walsh Mary Hogan, widow of Corne- lius Hogan, deceased Jere F. Donovan John J. Collier Michael J. Cosgrove James A. McAree Total NORWICH, N. Y. Henry M. Brown, father of Mathew R Brown, deceased. Luzerne N. Green Francis W. Hynes Total OGDENSBURG, N. Y. George A. Amo George H. Dessert Total OLEAN, N. Y. William S. Norton John Collins John W. Houghton George Lampack John M. Larkin Total ONEIDA, N. Y. George Keenan ONEONTA, N. Y. George E. Bond Michael J. Hickey Charles W. Southworth John W. Telford Total OSWEGO, N. Y. Bartholomew Cheney George E. Ketchum. George W. Ketchum Edward J. Kiley Total POTJGHELEEPSIE, N. Y. Ulysses D. Caulkins William J. Wolff, jr Total ROCHESTER, N. Y. James A. Burns - Ellen B. Dodge, widow of Frank H Dodge, deceased. . . Amount. $4.46 4.46 446 8.93 1.24 .61 .69 2.75 12.17 101. 27 6.39 129.44 137. 67 103.09 23.33 47.28 71.42 34.94 13,700.83 26.60 5.15 16.71 48.36 87.57 73.26 160.83 13.40 56.39 46.19 41.66 27.84 185.48 30.31 5.15 165 2.68 1.65 11.13 202. 12 202. 12 50.53 192.12 646. 89 35.97 45.38 81.35 36.66 162.39 822 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. Name. Rochester, n. y. — continued. William J. Martin Marion A. Scranton, widow and administratrix of Frank E. Scranton, deceased Charles H. Baker Frank M. Copeland Michael J. Fitzgerald George W. Martin John A. Schwab William G. Oliver... H. Wright Brown Williams. Bradt John H. Coughlin Mary Matilda Evans, adminis- tratrix Thomas A. Evans, de- ceased Francis C. Hysner, administra- trix John H. . Hysner, de- ceased Michael J. Hyland |*^| ; ^ Edward Heller Matthew S. Hodgson William H. Jenkinson B. F. Kelly N. G. Lovelace George W. Matthews M. J. McLaughlin William O'Brien Joseph P. Shied Jacob C. Suter Samuel Whiting > . . Michael P. Brennan Emil Eaton William M. Geraghty Edward B. Grifon Frank D. Kehoe Frank E. McFarland De Witt C. Skinner , John J. Sutton Frank A. Van Vechten Joshua Sears Wooden Wallace P. Couch , Thomas S. Gosnell Oliver S. Johnson James A. Judson William J. Kammer Martin E'. Staub Total ROME, N. Y. Owen D. Hagerty SARATOGA SPRINGS. N. Y. Frank P. Kelly. Willard Shaul Albert W. Brown Martin T. Crooks William H. Daughtery John Furey Guy E. Pierson William Cox WaldronH. Eddy , W. H. Hodges William J. Green James McMahon , Total SCHENECTADY, N. Y. Michael Carroll , Frank Nehring Dennis Caine David R. Moore Total , Amount. $165. 34 81.72 1.10 98.08 143. 13 90.00 83.27 230.23 124.63 155.53 55.69 131.50 77.93 173.94 127.38 31.24 26.44 69.18 47.72 9.28 10.11 9.28 47.83 73.13 53.16 47.72 170.63 11.75 62.12 144.65 31.93 163.19 170.63 158.27 87.40 83.09 .41 37.38 40.85 50.12 121.92 3,697.95 121.21 490.99 30.73 409.22 260.25 363.64 379.70 379.70 40.42 430.53 25.16 101.06 75.89 2,987.29 86.54 51.15 86.54 271.89 496.12 No. 18759 17544 18451 18663 17883 18665 20393 18665 Name. SENECA FALLS, N. Y. PatrickJMcGraw Michael Ferguson William S. Van Houten Thomas Carr, jr Total SYRACUSE, N. Y. William E. Hurd, administra- tor Byron E. Hurd, deceased. Albert E. Lewis John Mo ran, administrator Jeremiah L. O'Brien, deceased Nettie E. Ross, administratrix Willis E. Ross, deceased Patrick J. Sullivan James A. Nally George Allenbrant George Bean Charles H. Burke Francis J. Bourke Hugh H. Connelly Oscar W. Culver John J. Dunn ; Thomas F. Fleming James A. Gallagher Walter W. Hamilton John Heinerwalden George Hopkins Valentine Kaiser Lewis Light Charles J. Naumann Charles L. Ogle Richard J. Parkinson Norville R. WiUiams Edward T. Yoe Charles A. Huntington Total ; ■'.. TROY, N. Y. Frank O. Benson Estate Abram B. Ksensky, de- ceased John P. Albertson et al., ad- ministrators Isaac Downing, deceased Frederick "G. Obermaier. •.. Richard J. Devine John B. Elgie Russell F. Benson Henry W. Connor Marvin A. Hayner Floyd F. Mower Edward L. Witbeck Charles E. .Alien : Le Grand Barringer William J. Fink , William Hutchinson Nathan Joel '. J. B. Albert Le May Thomas J. McCarthy Michael Mooney John R. Niles Frank P. Purcell William H. Quinn Total UTICA, N. Y. Elizabeth C. , executrix Thomas L. Jones John B. Frick James L. G. Reid Washington I. E verson John Philo Henry H. Quick Clarence A. Bates ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIrJ CLAIMS. 823 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of Hay 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 19286 1:943 18276 18819 18530 18930 16990 20444 17976 UTICA, N. y.— continued. Richard J. Lloyd i $129:65 John F. Ryan 102.51 John Steifrater I 34.02 Albert G. Spencer I 109.86 James A. Burke i 120.89 Charles E. Batchelor 185.47 Total J 1,365.87 WATERTOWN, N. T. B. Mason Ladd WEST TEPT, N. Y. Michael L. Walsh. James McQuade . . James Lyons Total CHARLOTTE, N. C. William M. Smith RALEIGH, N. C. John W. Parker... David T. Adams... JohnH. Bell Charles W. Bevers . Total WILMINGTON, N. C. G. T. Dixon FARGO, N. DAK. Theodore Franks. . Sidney W. Hooper. John M. Johnson. . Total. AKRON, OHIO. William A. Caldwell.. Henry C. Eichenlaub. Patrick Flanagan W.H. Kasch Arthur E. Limric FredH. O'Brien Henry A. Pardee C. C. Pomeroy John W. Sabin Charles D. Steese Total. CANTON, OHIO. David E. Johns Edward Govenet Henry J. Piero Ephraim G. Sheaffer. Henry L. Archinal... Monroe Appel Charles W. Reed John C. Vance Sylvester K. Nichols. 156. 39 23.71 27.63 37.61 88.95 43.71 49.36 49.36 60.17 49.36 208. 25 19.39 166. 26 45.38 172. 83 384. 47 20.21 63.28 68.84 52.67 68.84 20.21 54.33 10.11 54.33 92.29 505. 11 32.13 32.13 90.54 30.52 35.88 5.36 8.04 93.01 51.56 Total. 379. 17 17539 18313 18685 18490 18685 CINCINNATI, OHIO. Lewis A. Aull $86. 35 Charles R. Bach 75.30 Annie L. Burke, administratrix Richard C. Burke, deceased ... 70. 75 Will J. B. Campbell 55.89 Charles C. Couden 63. 51 Charles C. Davis 57.11 Frederick W. Dieckman 24. 38 Michael J. Fay 62. 29 Edward J. Franey 34.14 August Glunz 22.27 William A. High 117.76 Le Grande La Boiteaux 95. 47 Emer Lukey 86. 35 Eleanor McMillan, administra- trix Alexander McMillan, deceased 3. 09 Joseph Metzner 26. 19 Frank A. Murdock 80.86 Elbridge B. Pearce 117.76 William Richards 117. 76 Anthony Rieger 117. 76 John J. Robbins 4. 12 George J. Schawe 21.03 Oliver P. Sharpe 141.11 Cornelius J . Sheridan 94. 76 Samuel F. Stevens 20. 21 Robert L. Stokes, jr .61 Frederick W . Sudbrack 22. 47 Stanley W. Tobin 41.98 Annie Willenborg, administra- trix John Willenborg, de- ceased 94. 76 Albert K. Young 55. 89 Frank A. Zech 9.90 John Becker 278.87 Harry C. Cragg 78.22 Herschel P. Ferris 439.35 Frank M. Meyer 317. 17 John F. Meyer 169. 26 Andrew Spaeth 291.84 Henry K. Boswell 2.27 Thomas S. Coons 12.37 George J. Dovle 243. 95 John G. Rechtin 75. 27 George L. Talley 75. 28 Edward J. Weigold 72. 61 WilliamH. Wood 10.77 Wilberforce C. Dempster 117. 76 Ayres B. Adams 10.64 Joseph Luckman 14. 37 Thomas J. McCleary 11. 33 Hugh J. Savage 48. 33 JohnW.Wrenn 62.14 Herbert G ranviUe Holter 103. 34 Richard Roethig 24. 38 Joseph C. Thole 41. 98 George Thomas Tomkins 13. 40 James T. Gordon 32.96 Henry Abeling 19.18 Mattie Anderson, administra- trix of Oliver Anderson 65.57 Peter Bichard 87. 55 George Burrows 65. 57 Lawrence C. Carpenter 45. 83 Charles M. Clark 74. 51 Edmond T. Clayton 52.20 Thomas J. McCleary 105. 06 Theodore E. MacKnight 45.83 Michael J. Manley 1 19. 18 WilliamH. Maus 1 42.28 Michael Moesta 74, 51 WilliamH. Monroe 43.66 Martin E. Mooney 39.39 Michael Condon 19. 18 824 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. Name. CINCINNATI, OHIO— Cont'd. Charles W. Creager Cornelius Cronin TJlysse L. Febuary Joseph H. Fredelake... Charles H. Froehlich. . . George W. Fuller George W. Gateh Charles H. Gobrecht. . . Edward Giffin Charles A. Haley Vincent Harding Edward J. Hardt Charles D. Harris John Heatherton John M. Johnson Herman Joseph William M. Koehler Walter Lawson Harry L. Lewis William P. Lowry Justin Murphy William Noon John O'Leary Charles J. Riley Samuel Robinson Michael F. Ryan Edward J. Saffin Hugh J. Savage Clemens Scheve William J. Schmidt Charles S. Schubert William Schulmeyer . . . Anthony Schwenniger. William H. Shay Stephen G. Schnell Lewis W. K. Tracy Walter J. Trotter Alexander H. Wescott . Abram L. Willis August Witte William E. Widan W. E. Parks John W. Wrenn Edward Hoar George F. Wall William A. High Total. CLEVELAND, OHIO. Luther P. Bates John F. Cogan Leopold Dusheck Henry M. Eckerman. Joseph G. Faflik Joseph D. Hatch. . . Frank S. Isham John F. Lieblien J. R. McBride John M. Riedel David T. Sherwood.. Henry E. White Charles Zizka Asa Eldred Charles Zimmerman . William C. Bruggert. Louis B. Burlin Charles F. Cihak John P. Gill Otto F. Kadow Charles J. Keefe Joseph O'Connor Martin J. O'Donnell. Charles L. Shaw John W. Gumpert . . . Frank W. Gilbert.... Louis Hartmiller Henry J. Spittle John L. Bleasdale... Dennis J. Moran Amount. $39. 39 52.59 39.39 44.76 39.39 39.39 65.57 105. 06 25.36 39.39 87.53 65.57 52.76 39.39 65.57 65.57 74.51 74.51 52.20 19.18 65.57 87.55 65.57 52.20 19.18 19.18 49.96 19.18 65.04 87. 55 39.39 65.57 19.18 52.20 43.66 105. 06 74.51 74.51 65.57 39.39 65.57 63.78 77.25 460. 06 72.61 89.61 8, 325. 85 85.84 25,16 48.68 48.68 48.68 28.87 2.68 38.37 85.84 48.68 118. 11 68.67 118. 11 22.47 35.47 12.79 12.58 10.11 143. 85 10.31 275. 34 39.39 .61 22.89 32.99 54.93 72.10 27.01 74.31 4.13 No. 18461 18588 17529 18775 20882 Name. CLEVELAND, OHIO— Cont'd Edward F. Wilcox Edward N. Newton Miles A. Beebe Charles W. Blackmur John L. Bolden Lorenz C. Burgwald John R. McBride James F. McGrath Charles L. McMillan Christopher Mackin Stephen O . Caldwell Richard Clevering Charles L. Dermis Adam Eble Augustus H. Eggert Edwin H. Farr Thomas Gallagher George M. Geitz Charles M. Gesch John L. Greene William Gresmuck Sebastian J. Hug James F. Jelinek James A. Kaighin Charles A. Keller William J. Kirby Louis W. Kramer Thomas E. King Philip Kreckel William F. Laetsch Andrew L. Leland WiUiam Llewellyn Joseph C. Mangan David Mathews Fred W. Meyer Henry Newman William A. Niebes Charles M. O'Brien John J. Osborn John L. Polcar Henry Remmel . . . ; Daniel F. Riley James A. Roberts Silas Rossiter, jr : Fred L. Saxton John T, Schleinkofer Andrew Schuele Joseph Slaby Fayette S. Trafton James B. Vining FredC. Wilk Charles A. Wing Patrick Weir Total , COLUMBUS, OHIO. Lot O. Dresbach Thomas J. Fitzpatrick Edward G. Schott William R. Bevelheimer James P. Clipson George T. Vercoe William A. Will Total DELAWARE, OHIO. William Downheimer Burn H. McCown John Mahoney Frank C. Poppleton Total ELYEIA, OHIO. Fred W. Wagner ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 825 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. Name. FINDLAY, OHIO. Lauren A. Siddall. . Charles K. Beach.. Charles Karst Michael D. Crohen. Arthur D. Cheney. . Edward K. Taylor. Total. FREMONT, OHIO. George C. Lance Washington Deffehbaugh. Stanislaus A. S. Stuber... Total. LIMA, OHIO. John McKerren Charles F. Hoover. . Thomas J. Gorman. Charles H. Thoring. Fred C. Herrold Cantwell McGee. . : . Total. MANSFIELD, OHIO. John G. Cairns William Ackerman. Frank D. Gadsby. . John L. Burneson. . Albert B.Endley.. Ebenezer C. Ford. . Edward Lape Frank Milner George Pfeifer George T. Rhodes . . Total. MASSILLON, OHIO. Thomas Keenhan. Charles E. Young. Total. MIDDLETOWN, OHIO. James Coyle Harry D. Hyams. Total. Amount. $20. 62 20.62 20.62 20.21 30.52 51.15 163. 74 8.66 3.30 48.83 60.79 49.54 49.54 74.16 92.48 110.88 20.00 396. 60 65.43 38.36 51.73 104. 57 64.06 64.06 77.57 64.06 5& 74 95.76 684. 34 61.05 109.93 113. 67 113. 67 227. 34 NEWARK, OHIO. 51.15 Frank T. Thorp 73.43 Frank Frost 83.25 Holba G. Mitchell 99.08 Frank C. Cady 53.40 Daniel M. Guy 42.90 34.02 Frank White 34.02 Mary Stasel, administratrix of William Stasel, deceased 204.53 Total 675. 78 NORWALK, OHIO. John O'Brien 31.96 John Shibley 15.26 William O. Meyer 15. B8 Total 63.10 No. 17293 18805 17580 17939 18712 17072 Name. PORTSMOUTH, OHIO. Joseph W. Mitchell Charles E. Graham Frederick L. Kalb Total SALEM, OHIO. Percey E. Harris Will H. Read William T. Smith Total SANDUSKY, OHIO. Adam Rice Jacob L. Missig JohnH. Kelly Eugene W. Megginson Total STEUBENVILLE, OHIO. George M. Kerchner Thomas B. Lindsay Arthur A. Brannigan, brother James Brannigan, deceased. JohnH. Roth Alois Schwerber John M. Lloyd Total TIFFIN, OHIO. James Leonard John P. Martin Henry A. Lautermilch Leon B. Myers Charles C. Spiess Total TOLEDO, OHIO. Joseph F. Bihl Peter Boyle Ambrose Carl Andrew M. Clemens Orren E. Collins John T. Coombs George A. Dougherty August Fischer Jesse F. M. Fox John Gallagher Edward Halpin Timothy Kelly Edward B. Langel Valentine Lohner Charles MeBrien John J. McMahon William A. Mason Peter J. Mattimore Charles R. Mayne... Otto E. Meissner Austin M. Payne Harry C. Rake Louis Ruthenberg William H. Schoonmaker Spencer Stewart William R. Taft Cleveland B. Taylor JohnH. Tripp Michael Walsh William M. Wegnei Frank P. Weiss Charles I. Weinert Emery P. Willey Amount. $17. 53 186. 78 25.36 229. 67 5.78 77.86 77.86 161.50 74.48 34.02 126.43 98.27 333. 20 56.43 20.21 50.12 128. 86 120.93 127.98 504.53 77.81 47.85 29.70 29.70 77.81 2(32. 87 119.60 85.88 17.74 102.51 88.20 17.33 190. 44 55. 43 2.48 89.37 117. 21 85.88 85.88 140.55 88. 20 73.25 41.07 150.51 109. 28 105.73 36.09 82.00 3.30 88.20 88.20 80.97 84.35 88.20 27.84 62.70 140.55 22.68 88.20' 826 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act. of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. No. Name. Amount. No. Name. Amount. Toledo, ohio — continued. Join B. Willoh $85. 88 36.94 67. 40 29.70 29.28 32.17 19830 19931 17190 17509 19034 19123 18468 20510 20752 19964 19033 17200 19612 20803 18988 ALLENTOWN, PA. Harry C. Roth $34. 11 Charles S. Stettler 34.11 Franklin F. Wittenbecher 141. 66 12.79 Milton H. Walt 58.78 73.31 Total.... 146. 62 2,941.19 110. 11 URBANA, OHIO. 73 31 3.71 3.71 109.82 Total ■ 18774 794. 62 ALTO ON A, PA, Total 7.42 WARREN, OHIO. 99.89 18.69 37.74 37.74 308. 20 William A. Black 2.34 19052 85.58 85.58 85.58 Total 12.17 383. 68 61.43 "WOOSTER, OHIO. 85 58 38.51 246. 71 57.70 13.82 57.70 Total 536. 84 16946 BEAVER FALLS, PA. 46.38 76.92 Total 54.56 414. 44 76.92 YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO. 28.62 30.09 30.09 30.09 52.87 68.06 ' Total 309. 34 18746 BELLEFONTE, PA. BETHLEHEM, PA. 33.62 Total 239.82 21.23 Jacob T. Daily XENIA, OHIO. John L. Hook 15.26 37.92 67.85 10.11 Edwin U. Daily 22.22 Alfred S. Dech 38.90 18802 Total Total 107. 72 105.77 BRADFORD, PA. Thomas G. Wollf ZANESVILLE, OHIO. 89.88 40.01 16.09 33.62 11.96 10.11 61.68 141.95 164. 15 ■18126 195. 99 Smith T. Brown Robert M. Carlow 117. 70 Total 619. 97 BUTLER, PA. Hallet W. Kelly William B. Warstall Total 36.91 263. 35 36.91 Henry L. Richey PORTLAND, OREG. Newton L. Gilham 36.91 294.42 232. 21 26.87 36.91 Total 147. 64 16986 CARLISLE, PA. Ernest F. Patterson 18767 Total 20.21 553. 50 31.55 ALLEGHENY, PA. William T. Bickerstaff 23 71 1.85 3.09 2.49 141.30 Charles A. Pefler 80.86 18344 133. 46 George F. Moul George B. Totten 141.30 194.79 Total Total 7.43 767. 18 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. • 827 Statement of letter-earner overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. No. Name. Amount. : NO. Name. Amount. 18550 CHAMBERSBURG, PA. $28. 46 28.46 28.46 | 17069 17582 • 21135 21695 19106 19148 19054 19147 18599 20792 20770 17034 LANCASTER, PA. John C. Shroad $104. 78 LEBANON, PA. Julius P. Bowman Total 83.38 4.74 CHESTER, PA. William McFadden 6 60 34.81 55.69 Elmer D. Light 10.52 18.36 18928 Total Robert T. Mellon Total 40.22 90.50 LOCKHAVEN, PA. John R. Gast EASTON, PA. 0.61 6.81 12.17 75.17 13.62 18089 Robert Mills 13.14 Edwin W. Till 7.63 Mrs. Katherine Reed, widow of Thomas M. Reed, deceased ... Total Henry E. Ealer, deceased ... Total 53.05 94.76 87.44 ERIE, PA. MAHANOT CITY, PA. 18410 120. 04 149. 22 99.01 88.79 123. 97 68.07 185. 18 120. 34 120. 34 464. 77 Frank P. Reed Henry J. Fries 18430 Total 19150 Edward C. Slocum M'KEESPORT, PA. Total 1,074.96 88.95 MEADVILLE, PA. 18008 HARRISBURG, PA. 102. 26 61.46 60.64 145. 45 145.45 109. 82 212. 05 33.82 187. 37 330. 51 137. 85 Mary E. Breckenridge, execu- trix of John E. Breckenridge, 137. 85 Jacob Moritz 137.85 Total 413. 55 NEWCASTLE, PA. 125. 29 125. 29 John O'Brien 125. 29 125. 44 Total Total 1, 388. 83 501. 31 HAZLETON, PA. Leonard L. Babcock NORRISTOWN, PA. 19442 7.63 18.11 87.56 87.56 Nathaniel J. M. Heck 116. 02 Total Total 251. 41 200. 86 OIL CITY, PA. HUNTINGDON, PA. Frederick E. Mobus 313. 51 313. 51 16.50 Frank S. Kitchell 32.79 Harry L. Rogers Total 3.30 627. 02 Walter B. Fornoff 27.22 Total JOHNSTOWN, PA. Robert H. Bridges 94.94 94.94 94.94 40.42 91.74 94.94 196. 89 ' 94. 94 30.31 22.47 112. 60 PHILADELPHIA, PA. 18834 Herman Edelmann John H. Herzog 126. 70 Joseph S. Hipp 111. 24 Mary Mullin, widow of Bernard Charles H. Cunliffe 130. 81 121. 36 Thomas D. O'Neal 24.09 Patrick O'Toole 130. 47 Levi J. Ripple 135. 27 William H. Coleman 148. 32 Charles H. Temple 43.26 Total 93 65 856.53 121. 26 Michael J. Dooley . . rr^. 105. 26 828 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. Name. Philadelphia, pa. — continued. John F. McGinley Edward S. Master Thomas H. Peto Frank A. Strehle .v M. Dugan Joseph Hirshbule Joseph Lucke Hugh F. McFadden John Steitz John A. Winter John F. Wunder Patrick F. Martel Henry L. Widmeier Harry Anderson Lawrence Clark Walter F. Henry Patrick J. Muldoon Charles F . Sch wering Thomas Timlin William P. Walsh Thomas Whalen James E. Bigley Martin H. Bigley, deceased John J. Comev - - David F. Dick James H. Brown, deceased Edward W. Campion Michael J. Cassidy, deceased Richard Condon Paul V. Connor Niehola s Coogan John W. Curran Robert Cassidy Thomas P. Caiilfield William Dale James D. Dever Thomas F. Durning Thomas Doyle Robert J. Farrelly, deceased William E. Fetters, jr Philip C. Fisher Louis H. Gahagan William B. Goines Harry J. Hagan Erwin Fratz, deceased Margaret Fratz, widow of Wil- liam V. Fratz, deceased James Gaffney William E. Grady George F. Kelly Joseph H. Maurer Thomas O'Brien John O'Donnell James A. Rooney George R. Serrill Edward F. Stanton, No. 1 C. Wildermuth, jr Frank H. Barrett Nicholas B. Bent Thomas J. Blunden Bentley Boyle Francis P. Braceland Oscar M. Bradbury James H. Kelly John A. Kerns, deceased Patrick J. Kiley, deceased Albert Kleinfefder John A. Lalor Thomas McCormack John McDermott Patrick D. McPoyle George McVay, administrator of Franklin E. McVay, de- ceased Joseph M. Mahaney Lewis J. Martin Charles B. Moore Lewis J. Ochner Isaac W. Rehl , John Schweikert Amount. No. $18. 77 109. 18 15.47 89.68 5.15 28.46 28.46 25.56 28.46 13.61 111. 60 31. 55i 28.46 304. 88 34.02 120. 50 20.21 32.79 24.38 80.72 19.59 19.59 91.77 26.86 15.68 31.33 25.75 25.20 30.45 222. 51 37.76 37.76 37.76 24.33 37.76 18.98 15.68 18.98 17.74 37.76 1.03 44.47 28.66 2.06 17.53 43.60 13.61 33.54 17.12 15.88 85.76 28.46 22.27 17.12 24.13 28.46 28.12 39.80 1.85 5.98 29.53 37.76 54.49 26.10 7.22 54.07 11.55 7.63 43.10 29.08 181. 88 107. 96 37.76 55.31 195. 36 5.15 4.74 Name. Philadelphia, pa. — continued. William Slavin Frederick Taxis Joseph M. Watson George H. Wells Harrv F. Boss Frank E. Trout John Farrell John Hergesheimer Eva Donahue, administratrix James T. Donahue, deceased . . Samuel P. Hegener Harry B. Knight Theodore E . Thomas Joseph Ashdale James Branigan Charles A. Clausen Mary W. Colbert, administra- trix John F. Colbert, de- ceased Daniel J. Crossin Michael J. Delaney William Evans, jr William Garton Gustave Z. Guiras Harry C. Hickey JohnH. Holz Joseph Conway Francis P. J. Crilly Maggie Davis, administratrix George F. Davis, deceased Bernard J. Dever Thomas Flood James A. Haviland Patrick F. Heff ron A. F. Hudome William T. Logan i John McDonald Lawrence Phillips Elias A. Steele Charles M. Bellemere Samuel F. Cloak, deceased Harry A. Corcoran Edward J . Higgins Henry Kemble Jeremiah H. McCarthy John F. Hughes John Hulands Joseph C. Kelly Rosalie L.Lewis, administratrix Robert W. Lewis, deceased. .. Charles H. McCullough Eugene A. McNerney John F. O'Brien Harry Schuller Henry Stonemetz John Toner James J. Brown John McCour Louis Sickles Amelia Soeffmg, administra- trix Charles Soeffing, de- ceased Kate S. Volk, administratrix John C. Volk, deceased Randall W. Bayle Matthias J. Brady Edward McDonough Thomas A. McGarvey Leonard C. Martin Walter E. Mooney John P. Moore James Moran W infield Nutt William H. Stephens John J. P. Boyd William B. O'Hara, administra- tor Michael J. Butler.deceased Joseph Bryant Edwin M. Carr Daniel H. Cohill Amount. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 829 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. No. Name. Amount. 172721 18139/ 18139 PHILADELPHIA, PA. — Cont'd. Harry W. Fell Peter A. Fitzpatrick Loui A. Gury Penrose S. Hall Elam B . Harding Joseph B . Logan William L. Houghton Margaret C. Loughery, admin- istratrix Neil Loughery, jr., deceased JohnB. McCafferty Henry A. Macready Theodore F. Shonert Walter Sieber Albert J. Weyl Frank L . Woolly Joseph P. Loughery Albert L. Pleibet James J. Hagan Andrew A. Cain Edward J. Duffy James Meehan George A. Shane Susan M. Goodwin, administra- trix of James J. Goodwin, deceased Daniel H. Hearn James W. McSride I Isaac K. Mann : Charles Sautter I Richard Bennett ' Peter Kane John T. Kelly Owen Kelly Robert J. Lynch Thomas McClenahan Thomas F. McDonough Bernard McGinnis John McNulty John Malseed Bernard J. Martin William J. Neson Ignatius Reynolds Charles A. Ward Edward M. White Maurice Cor key Alfred L. Glackin John H. Kirk Thomas Labrum Walter P. Kirk Ernest Schiele George V . Thron Charles M. Bellemere , Charles J. Birchill Joseph Burrows William Carrigan Dennis J. Conlon Edward C. Dern Joseph C. Downing James A. Dytch James H. Giiinan Lewis E . Hale Jacob J. Lutz Charles McCloskey Joseph A. McDerhiott John E . Nolan Hugh F. Reilly Edward F. Rumig Thoma s H . Scanlan Michael J. Sammon Francis J. Connor J James J. Lang William D. Leidy Thomas J. Shea John F. McDevitt 30716 Frank B. Abbott Conrad Bettenhauser I William C. Carlin William P. Clement S16. 09 114. 44 69.30 109. 52 2.06 36.26 .41 12.98 8.56 50.47 24.03 33. b3 1.65 16.09 60.67 75.88 70.37 82.30 89.31 19.59 8.66 81.88 9.08 43.60 31.35 19.59 20.42 22.68 22.68 31.35 31.35 51.14 .28 22.68 4.33 12.58 27.84 105. 25 34.23 26.19 23.51 .61 24.54 7.63 20.83 23.51 85.18 15.68 19.89 37.76 25.75 22.68 73.43 43.60 26.19 7.84 9.28 26.19 23.51 26.19 23.51 27.43 23.51 27.43 34.02 9.28 141.15 42.21 .61 17.74 23.51 4.12 2.75 4.12 2.27 18139 PHILADELPHIA, PA.— Cont'd. Lewis T. Franke William T. Haig Alfred D . Hamilton H. Frank Lenning James V. Loughran.. Joseph F. McLaughlin Daniel E . McMonagle John P. Maguire James Mahoney Harry C. Newport Oscar L. Ott Benjamin T. Ramcey Elijahs. Reiff John H. Schiesser Michael H. Shaughnessy Samuel B. Trout William W. Weiss Jacob Atkinson Henrv C. Boyd George W. Bell Charles Jackel William Johnson. Abraham Josephs JohnF. Boyle John J. Borbidge Joseph Burrows William J. Barr Patrick J. Connor Franklin Dettinger Anthony De Silver Horace W. Dengler Herman Eggert William H. Fisher John W. Fair Thomas A. Fitzpatrick George H. Green , John P. Bradley , Charles C. Goodwin Arthur B . Davenport William L. Holmes Robert A. Nichols James P. Henry Ella O'Rourke, widow James O'Rourke, deceased James E . Hess John C. Truitt Henry P. M. Horn William J. Gleason Richard T. Huey David L. McBlain Thomas F. McDonough Hugh B . Moutrie Patrick Maher Mary A. Murray, administra- trix John F. Murray, deceased Thomas F. Mullahy Andrew Manning William McNiece, jr Francis A. Devlin Charlotte Nolan, administra- trix Michael J. Nolan, de- ceased AVilliam Norbeck Thomas E . Nugent . Edward M. Pereira Henry J. Bennett Robert Perry Hugh J. Muldoon James F. Rhodes John F. O'Brien, No. 2 Thomas F. Ross Edward F. Stanton. No. 2 Edward J . Whelan William H. Sipler Philip J. Taulane Eugene Weikel Amount. $2.68 .82 .61 20.94 20.94 23.75 20.94 2.27 71.50 1.44 1.03 8.25 3.30 4.13 3.09 37.76 3.09 96.17 148. 66 135.96 25.36 126. 21 109.52 99.66. 28.66 131.84 31.96 38.15 96.58 107. 59 32.99 16.50 22.68 137. 33 135. 27 81.68 68.84 138.06 318. 61 125. 32 106.43 30.31 71.16 107. 99 38.17 111.93 24.75 25.32 117. 94 17.53 37.76 89.31 25.36 73.22 90.67 3.92 84.00 19.18 10.52 7.22 7.63 30.11 125. 32 123. 87 141.45 43.38 109. 07 13. 20 35.36 137. 33 114. 75 86.42 Total ' 14,888.12 830 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. No. Name. Amount. PITTSBURG, PA. Egbert W. Connolly Alfred L.Dillon...' Max Killian James P. Layden Mary Mohen, administratrix William Mohen, deceased Thomas F. Murray J. F. Connor Martin B. Foley Sidney B . Foster Max Killian Joseph S. Larkin William W. McKee James H. Ward Andrew J. White William R. Niebaum Jacob R. Burkle Charles T. Hunter Henry C. Knauss C. D. McCoombs ; John F. Regan Andrew J. Verner [ $ ^| °J j Daniel D. Collins Ellen J. Daly, administratrix Thomas F. Daly Sarah Griffin, administratrix Martin J. Griffin William S. Hathaway J. Milton Hays I James E. Hershey i Daniel Linderman William S. Lowry ' Peter W. I. Gilfoyle John W. Anderson | John S. Boyle Gerhard A. Buchman j John D. Curley Charles A. Larkin William J. Larned Frank R. Osborn Frank J. Pender Carroll S. Duff Patrick H. Duffy I William J. Eberle John Gabb Henry A. Lang Rees Price John Powell JohnM. Rogers Martin Scott Cornelius Kevin No. $200. 64 5.15 153. 89 111.79 211.57 183. 90 292. 18 167. 82 15.06 58.36 202. 71 7.63 387. 41 57.10 126. 73 93.09 138. 02 132. 39 133. 90 138. 02 350. 54 84.81 63.32 63.32 105. 40 113. 86 105. 40 105. 40 26.81 110.55 113.44 38.15 113. 44 89.79 110.90 118. 58 111.58 111.58 41.25 111.58 38.15 102. 04 111.58 110.90 79.36 113.58 33.20 20800 17905 18422 Total I 5,550.19 PITTSTON, PA. James Bone, jr William J. Gillespie John F. Costello John E. Daley James C. Delaney, deceased. John E. Dempsey Henry H. Weiss Total POTTSTOWN, PA. Edward K.Miller George W. Rohn Roscoe C. Shinehouse.. . Total HEADING, PA. William H. Seiders. . . John Gnau D. Webster Clay Thomas G. Harper. . . 56. 72 56.72 120. 10 12.79 18.98 18.98 120. 10 404. 39 4.94 4.94 4.94 20.00 93.31 63.97 37.74 19361 19368 19114 17003 18713 18174 18371 Name. reading, pa.— continued. Robert Gerlach William H. Rogers. . Augustus Potteiger.. Franklin B. Thomas. David F. Knobb Peter S. Kefler Jerome Seider Thomas J. High Total. SCRANTON, PA. Edward D. Jones John Kelly Joshua R. Thomas Harry E. Whyte John R. Thomas William D . Morgan Michael O'Malley Alice J. Pickering, widow, Ed- ward R. Pickering, deceased. Joseph Schiel : Richard B. D. Wolf Eugene Evans William P. Kelly Morion G. Jackson Total. TITUSVILLE, PA. Albert KraSert Thomas J. Powers. Edwin L. Windsor. Total "WARREN, PA. Lewis P. Giegerich. John B. Russell Frank Witz Total. WASHINGTON, PA. Thomas N. Blair William A. McCausland. JohnD. McGlougbJin... Total. Amount. $98. 14 44.55 15.06 2.06 117. 61 122. 56 110. 12 115. 96 847. 08 53.28 45.31 5.57 55.90 76.32 81.88 64.55 60.23 131. 43 48.47 397. 29 24.54 77.99 1, 122. 76 18.26 18.26 18.26 54. 78 199.55 80.18 199.55 479. 28 69.85 107. 06 69.85 246. 76 WILKESBARRE, PA. Thomas McGuire. . John R. Griffith... John J. O'Donnell. Merrit L. Line Total. PROVIDENCE, R. I. George A. Abbott James A . Abbott | $ ^ f x Emma J. Burt, administratrix William A. Mallery, deceased. George M Hunter Total . WOONSOCKET, R I. Robert H. Harrington... 205. 92 334. 73 65.59- 113.91 720. 15 30.52 75.62 94.08 20.21 220. 43 14.11 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 831 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May ^4, 1SS8, etc. — Continued. No. Name. Amount. No. Name. Amount. 17945 CHARLESTON, S. C. John E. Craig $145.43 193. 07 162. 10 79. 71 142.56 170. 42 128. 7S 142.56 170.42 79.71 280. 41 174. 35 90.96 165.44 54.86 128. SO 182. 07 176.42 176.42 1SS07 18736 18613 1SS07 17983 16998 18723 19259 18129 19517 17001 17946 19063 18510 MEMPHIS, TENN. Edward Foley S614. 03 James Kinnane 14.03 William L. Downing William S. Elfe....". Patrick J. Hauler Thomas J. Kellv John L. Kiley. administrator JohnE. Kilev, deceased Nellie KjiaufT," administratrix Thomas J. Knauff, deceased . . Joseph J. Lessene William H. McCue 6.19 Bettie Moss, widow Thomas H. Moss, deceased .". 90.25 11.55 Moses H. Barker 35. 12 4a 23 John Caton Henry W. Eckels 21.61 15.26 21. 61 JohnT. Foley Alfred B. Gartner Jeremiah T. Holahan William G. McFarland 13.82 43.23 Benjamin L. Matthews John J. Moloney William J. Morrison Estate James P. Murray, de- cea sed Alexander R. O'Donnell Thomas J. Sheehan Benjamin F. Smalls S.87 25.12 43.23 Joseph B. Simkoke William E. Sulliyan David W. Washington .1 ames R . Wright A. M. Henderson 15.26 14.03 25.12 43.23 43.23 14.02 Total GREENVILLE, S. C. . Willie T. Biers.. 28.92 2,856.49 Total 5S0.96 49.29 2S.0S 2S.08 29.49 NASHVILLE, TENN. Benjamin F. Nichol AUSTIN, TEX. 17986 John H. Honour Thomas C. Long T. J. Thackston, father of Eze- kiel B. Thackston, deceased... Total HURON, S. DAK. SIOUX FALLS, S. DAK. Eli W. Dobson William M. Gordon Charles T. Hatch George L. Hoffman F. W. Sexton, brother and next of kin of Edward J. Sexton, Total CHATTANOOGA, TENN. Theodore T. Parker 11.97 134. 94 122. 96 Alonzo Gerard 9.82 66.82 John W. Madison 10.45 L. M. Mitchell 21.32 18498 Total • CORSICANA, TEX. 164.55 556.32 556.32 821. 36 11.34 926. 13 20445 19.18 John L. Miller, jr 12.58 63.32 Total 95.08 DALLAS, TEX. 2,871.47 51.56 108. 07 56.96 22. 06 73.02 55.43 3.30 16997 Jennie Overall, widow Willis P. 35.93 Hinton D. Alexander 62.04 John P. Fowler 70.50 Thomas J. Ivy 35.93 Total 18460 Theron Browne 207. 70 Total DENISON, TEX. Cvrus R. Scholl 367. 10 JACKSON, TENN. Dowan D . Ballard 9.49 3.51 20.83 9.69 50.49 EL PASO, TEX. Sheldon E. Bovee 21010 Harry M. Dawson Tobe S. Moss James H. Trimble 54.45 FORT WORTH, TEX. Total 43.52 KNOXVILLE, TENN. Sallie R., administratrix James L. D. McMillan, deceased Thomas M. McCannon, admin- istrator W. A. McCammon, deceased 35.88 23.78 22.55 2.27 Edward S. Hall 67.94 17874 Orlando F. Darby 38.77 Seth J. Howell ..'. 180.21 21.65 146. 36 96.38 20999 Monroe C. Monday 3.51 Total Total 82.21 557.09 832 ALLOWANCE OP CEBTAIN CLAIMS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. Name. GALVESTON, TEX. Charles L. Heine William T. Snipes . Total.-... HOUSTON, TEX. George Fromm Isaac A. Kier Thomas Moore Clarence O. Skipper Total SAN ANTONIO, TEX. William Holt, jr Martin Jiminez David Jones William H. Mitchell George H. Mudd Cecil A. Nesbitt Julius Possert VanTeel Leon T. Mareschal David Sanders Hinton Smith Total SHERMAN, TEX. Wallace W. Andrews Edward Staples Total WACO, TEX. Moses P. Clinton David Pogue Augustus B. Trippe George A. Waddell David Frazier Total SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Edgar Best Cassius C. Cummings Harry E. Dewey Charles E. Hay ward Orson A. Houghton FredL. Libby Brigham L. Morse William S. Naylbr Samuel F. Neslin John A. C. Neilson JohnK. O'Farrell Ezra F. Palmer Aaron S. Post Joseph E . Rigby RueH. Sholes Edgar D. Shurtlifl Samuel A. Skidmore Frank B. Snyder Linzey E . Sprague Walter Wiscomb William W. Wiscomb Total BURLINGTON, VT. George W. Austin Edgar Chiott Elmer E.Ooon Joseph DeVarem.es Amount. $25. 16 13.40 38.56 9.93 4.67 4.67 33.08 52.35 3.09 61.46 108.94 I 108.94 108. 94 108. 94 108. 94 108. 94 83.82 191. 90 220. 23 1, 164. 14 363. 37 292. 49 655. 86 27.84 10.11 2.48 40.42 16.91 97.76 236. 51 335. 62 169. 53 171.74 236. 51 57.13 375. 33 236. 51 44.27 7.63 144. 70 4.33 64.85 273. 18 375. 33 144. 70 375. 33 134. 19 236. 51 85.39 42.94 3,752.23 28.62 19.18 28.62 28.62 No. 18049 18675 18421 19911 18450 Name. burlington, VT.— continued. David E. Flynn Annie Powers, administratrix of James E . Powers Charles A. Middlebrook Harry R. Thomas Carl Barnes Total MONTPELIER, VT. Harvey W. Brown John Miller Total ST. ALBANS, VT. Fred P. Brunson Lucius S. White Total ST. JOHNSBURY, VT. Henry A". Holden John A. Paddock Total RUTLAND, VT. John T. Lyston CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA. Thomas K. Brumley Robert E. Lee William J. Mayo Joseph L. Smith. Total DANVILLE, VA. Charles L. Cheatham Lawrence C. Clarke Henry M. Watkins Pleasant H. Daswell Joshua P. Hunnicutt Cephos R. Jefferson Turner W. Patterson, jr Total LYNCHBURG, VA. William R. Falwell William R. Foulkes Charles P. Nowlin William J. Seaburv Thomas W. SpiUah Charles A. Taylor , Edward C. Bondurant Edward M. Bunch Clarence L. Craft Sidney J. Dickerson Beverly Dismond Thomas H. Jackson James A. Parsons Henry E . Stewart Samuel W. Patterson Total PETERSBURG, VA. Jaekson C. Bishop ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 833 Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. Name. PORTSMOUTH, VA. George H. Armstead Silas C. Draper William A. Guy : John T. Myers Michan Noel Jesse M. Veale Amos Williams Joseph J. Cooper Total STAUNTON, VA. Paul Crowe Thomas E. Fuller Nathaniel M. Varner W. Starke Miller Total SEATTLE, WASH. Everett A. Hartley Rufus W. Hartley Jesse A. James Charles J. Riordan Joseph A. Scott Royall Haskell Total SPOKANE, WASH. Albert S. Miles Thomas E. Webb Walter H. Oyerend Frank P. Marshall (6 f jj| Edwin Dow Total TACOMA, WASH. JohnB. Fyfe Thomas J. S weany Anton C. Arnston George Bothner L. T. M.Clark Frank Taylor Abraham L. DeHufE Peter N. Elmore Julius W. Parker Total WALLA WALLA, WASH. Robert L. Stewart Edward F. Buffman H. M. Van Horn, mother Eu- gene Van Horn, deceased Total CHARLESTON, TV. VA. Frank Guill William O. Jones William H. Thomas Total PARKERSBURG, W, VA. Josiah T. Horr S. Rep. 382, 60-1 53 $84. 10 146. 86 146. 86 151. 07 8.04 114. 79 13.82 49.29 92.53 138.99 93.99 133.10 458. 61 87.04 148.96 148.96 71.17 25.98 482. 11 326. 83 38.36 101.48 34.02 60.64 51.56 68.27 107.04 5.79 793.99 133.28 169. 14 171.77 160.96 501.87 714. 83 146.65 15.26 158. 56 113.44 193. 58 143. 49 770.98 35.26 82.25 15.77 78.17 No. 18072 18936 20711 19266 19267 19272 17294 19274 20780 18740 18938 20464 19270 Name. WHEELING, W. VA. Robert S. Agnew James Manton August H. Knoke. . . John H. Mason GrifPth B. Jones William Graham, jr. James M.-Noll Louis J. Knabe John J. Quigg Total. APPLETON, WIS John Brown Michael Hafner Henry F Losselyoug. . BELOIT, wis. John Donnelly Edward F. Hansen, administra- tor Charles Jv. Hansen de- ceased Charles G. Stocking Total. CHIPPEWA FALLS, AVIS. Michael Thornton. John Parent August I. Bruce... Henry Herbert Amount. Total. EAU CLAIRE, WIS. Phineas E. Bent Ole J. Moen James H. McGough. Edwin E. Sloggy Jere Murphy William E. Thomas. Total. JANESVILLE, AVIS. John F. O'Grady Edward V. Whiton. . . Claire D . Capelle John Gleason ... Marion McDonald Caleb J. Blakely Orlando V. Hanthorn. William J. Lennartz . . Total. LA CROSSE, WIS. Lewis L. Brown. . . Henry Lexins Edward F. Kevin.. Lorenz Bamberger. Albert E. Daniels.. Ambrose J. Hanus. Clarence Howard . . Iver Thorsen Total. $12. 58 10.11 12.58 15.26 13. 62 5.15 40.42 22.20 118.58 250. 50 191.29 108. 19 177.81 25.16 25.16 30.32 80.64 40.21 40.21 220.53 220. 53 521.48 105. 49 134.99 134.99 134.99 221.46 122.96 854. 88 73.54 73.54 73.54 16.71 197. 67 80.19 83.87 93.78 692.84 43.23 194.53 187.81 163. 86 219.06 49.91 74.88 163. 86 1,097.14 834 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Statement of letter-carrier overtime claims under the act of May 24, 1888, etc. — Continued. 19269 17979 Name. MADISON, VIS. Thomas P. Cullman. William A. Devine.. William G. Dunn Nicholas Reif Henry Schmedeman. George A. Steinle. . . Total. MILWAUKEE, VIS. Frank Blomkum Leonard Meister Louis F. Renter Arthur Roberts Albert C. Rodee Herman F. Stauss Norbert H. Verf urth John B. Hasley. jr Thomas J. Murray John R. Nuzum Henry F. Pesta Louis Kobler John G. Van Altena Peter J. Van Lare Anton Olsen Elizabeth Augustus, adminis- tratrix C. A. Augustus, de- ceased Amount. No. ! S73. 02 • 19259 248.27 73. 02 73.02 73.02 42.07 582. 42 102. 30 170.29 1.50.44 20479 170.29 170.29 ! 170.29 63.12 65.92 S4.05 60.23 124. 55 | 170.29 170.29 127.08 ! 21220 188.15 192.96 Total I 2, 180. 54 Name. oshkosh, wis. James F. Buchanan John Fife, jr Edward E. Finney August Giese Charles A. Hasbrook, deceased . . Robert Redford August F. Schloerb William H. Wall Total. SHEBOYGAN, WIS. George F. Dusold Frederick Horstbrink William Obigt Henry B. Stein John'C. Bertshy August C. Brand Total WAKESHA, WIS. Archibald D . Price Statement of claims by States and cities. $32.75 165.90 127.93 127.93 127.93 127.93 127.93 92.74 931.08 25.16 152.83 138.06 152.83 37.32 166.63 672.83 84.35 State and city. Amount. 1 ALABAMA. S129.44 301.05 223.14 62.18 Total.. 715.81 ARKANSAS. Fort Smith . 94.65 126.64 338.05 170.24 Pine Blufi Total . . 729.58 t> CALIFORNIA. 229.94 2,523.37 | 1,031.86 ; 503.86 i 270.19 ! 3,620.83 161.23 198.41 Total.. 8,539.69 ===== 22.47 112.61 227.51 85.14 123.60 267.11 COLORADO. Total.. 838.44 i State and city. ! Amount. CONNECTICUT. Bridgeport Derby Hartford Meriden Middletown... . New Britain New Haven New London . . . Norwalk Norwich South Norwalk. 114.51 220.46 1,667.56 707.84 266.20 167.15 732.27 445.35 4.94 340.27 115.14 Total j 4,781.69 * DELAWARE. Wilmington DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Washington FLORIDA. 285.08 Jacksonville. Pensacola . . . Total. 3,281.20 189.19 476.04 665.23 GEORGIA. Atlanta ! 1,073.18 Augusta 228. 70 Brunswick | 1, 077.20 Columbus ! 203. 42 Macon j 1,248.60 Savannah ! 4, 714.35 Total ! 8,545.45 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Statement of claims by States and cities — Continued. 835 State and city. Aurora Belleville Bloomington . Cairo Chicago Danville Decatur Evanston Freeport Galesburg Jacksonville.. Joliet Kankakee Lasalle Mattoon Moline Monmouth... Oak Park Ottawa Pekin Peoria Quincy Rockford Rock Island.. Springfield . . . Sterling Streator Waukegan . . . Elkhart Evansville... Fort Wayne . Goshen Indianapolis . Kokomo Lafayette . . . Laporte Logansrjort . . New Albany. South Bend. Terre Haute . Total. . Burlington Cedar Rapids. Clinton Council Bluffs. Davenport Des Moines Dubuque Iowa City Keokuk." Muscatine Oskaloosa Ottumwa Sioux City Waterloo Total. Abilene Arkansas City. Atchison Emporia Fort Scott Hutchinson . . . Kansas City . . . Leavenworth . . Newton Ottawa Topeka Wellington Wichita Winfield Total. $319.42 313.83 299.43 501.64 10,126.79 298.40 62.89 484.86 86.62 1,172.16 288.94 907.53 425.46 15.68 49.70 658.89 66.61 120.47 240.10 162.59 872.08 140.79 33.62 454.79 1,185.01 290.30 969.05 206.87 Total 20, 818. 32 101.02 73.34 103.86 46.81 1,538.28 18.36 7.01 212. 03 27.73 121. 97 2, 111. 42 234. 10 4, 895. 93 1, 458. 64 318. 31 283. 44 1, 731. 02 1,149.10 725. 31 825. 19 570. 47 293. 25 502. 51 649. 92 623. 03 362. 16 262. 28 9,752.63 132. 90 31.86 366. 66 238.05 531. 64 160. 22 482. 71 387.89 20.42 135. 43 282. 78 375. 43 ,278.67 348.05 4,772.71 State and city. KENTUCKY. Covington . . Frankfort.. Lexington.. Louisville.. Owensboro. Paducah . . . Total. LOUISIANA. New Orleans. Shreveport . . Total.. Auburn.. Bangor. . Bath Portland . Total. MARYLAND. Baltimore.. . Cumberland . Frederick Hagertsown . Total.. MASSACHUSETTS. Amesbury Beverly Boston Brockton , Clinton Fall River Fitchburg Gloucester Haverhill Holyoke Hyde Park Lawrence Lowell Lynn Maiden New Bedford . . Newton North Ada.ms . Northampton. Pittsfield Salem Springfield Waltham Westfleld Winchester Worcester Total. MICHIGAN. Adrian Battlecreek. Bay City Detroit Flint Grand Rapids Iron Mountain Lansing Manistee Muskegon Pontiac Saginaw, East Side . Saginaw, West Side. Total 7,384.40 Amount. $136. 98 714. 22 301. 37 126. 79 150. 70 2, 158. 94 3, 589. 00 604. 78 1.65 606. 43 467. 75 337. 76 421.02 721. 51 1, 948. 04 1,299.83 116.68 39.46 5.78 1, 461. 75 44.54 92.55 , 915. 40 189.85 400. 50 612. 50 792. 77 787.33 168. 53 267. 90 45.18 213. 33 193. 15 , 519. 50 179.01 166. 95 92.79 42.65 26.60 196. 21 409.95 294. 63 368. 90 37.74 13.40 , 123. 04 22, 195. 30 201.77 142.50 183. 61 4, 714. 97 702. 35 3.12 36.86 132. 31 416. 06 126. 27 118. 82 337. 73 267. 03 836 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Statement of claims by States and cities — Continued . State and city. MINNESOTA. Duluth Mankato Minneapolis . Saint Paul . . Stillwater... Winona Total. MISSISSIPPI. Meridian... Jackson Vicksburg. . Total. Kansas City. Nevada Saint Joseph . Saint Louis.. Sedalia Springfield . . . MONTANA. Butte.. Helena . Total. NEBRASKA. Beatrice Fremont Grand Island.. Hastings Kearney Lincoln Nebraska City. Omaha South Omaha., Total. NEW HAMPSHIRE. Concord Dover Keene Manchester . . Nashua Portsmouth. Total. NEW JERSEY. Asbury Park Atlantic City.... Bridgeton Camden , Elizabeth Hoboken Jersey City Morristown Newark New Brunswick. Orange Paterson Plainfleld Trenton 3, 473. 34. 875. 13, 960. 552. 181. Total 19,078.12 Total 9,702.53 178, 5. 85, 103, 10, 161. 129. 2,989. 30. 3,692.36 789.25 85.32 262.07 1,527.44 301.39 1,089.91 $805. 38 139. 17 978.82 179. 45 252. 26 680. 23 4, 575. 31 695. 14 46.45 95.86 837. 45 582. 96 1,156.42 1,739.38 4,055.38 277.91 223.60 114.95 355.96 304.13 22.68 452.76 124.40 776.68 505.91 636.00 57.96 67.85 681.74 State and city. Amount. NEW YORK. Albany Amsterdam Auburn Batavia Binghamton Brooklyn Buffalo Canandaigua Cortland Corning Elmira Flushing Geneva Glens Falls Hornellsville Ithaca Jamestown Little Falls Lockport Long Island City. Newburgh New York Norwich Ogdensburg Olean Oneida Oneonta Oswego Poughkeepsie Rochester Rome Saratoga Springs. Schenectady Seneca Falls Syracuse Troy Utica Watertown West Troy Total. NORTH CAROLINA. Charlotte Raleigh Wilmington. Total.. NORTH DAKOTA. Fargo . Akron Canton Cincinnati . . . Cleveland Columbus . . . Delaware Elyria Findlay Fremont Lima Mansfield Massillon Middletown . Newark Norwalk Portsmouth. Salem Sandusky. . . Steuben ville . Tiffin Toledo Urbana $421.04 477.84 130.38 239.19 631.34 8,647.67 729.12 124.45 118.58 92.56 84.30 158.05 194.18 331.84 97.92 1,109.99 94.46 67.76 71.86 763.02 961.99 13,700.83 48.36 160.83 185.48 30.31 11.13 646.89 81.35 3,697.95 121.21 2,987.29 496.12 67.23 1,696.80 2,200.81 1,365.87 156.39 88.95 43,291.34 43.15 208.27 19.39 271.35 384. 47 505.11 379.17 8,325.85 5,358.99 799.45 67.66 90.96 163.74 60.79 396.60 684.34 109.93 227.34 675.78 63.10 229.67 161.50 333.20 504.53 262.87 2,941.19 7.42 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. Statement of claims by States and cities — Continued. 837 State and city. ohio — continued. Warren Wooster Youngstown Xenia Zanesville Total. Portland. PENNSYLVANIA. Allegheny Allentown Altoona Beaver Falls . . . Belief onte Bethlehem Bradford BHtler Carlisle Chambersburg . Chester Easton Erie. Harrisburg Hazleton Huntingdon... Johnstown Lancaster Lebanon Lock Haven. .. McKeesport . . . Mahanoy City. Meadville Newcastle Norristown... Oil City Philadelphia . . . Pittsburg Pittston Pottstown.. . Reading.. . Scranton. . Titus-wile."". Warren Washington .' '. - Wilkesbarre... Total . RHODE ISLAND. Providence . . W r oonsocket . Total. SOUTH CAROLINA. •Charleston. Greenville. Total . SOUTH DAKOTA. Huron .Sioux Falls. Total. TENNESSEE. •Chattanooga . Jackson Amount. 8383.68 414.44 239.82 105.77 263.35 23,756.25 553.30 7.43 794.62 536.84 309.34 33.62 107.72 619.79 147.64 767.18 83.38 90.50 94.76 .074.96 ,388.83 200.86 626.02 856.53 104.78 40.22 87.44 88.95 161.61 413.55 501.31 251.41 112.60 888.12 550.19 404.39 14.82 847.08 122.76 54.78 479.28 246.76 720.15 35,831.22 220. 43 14.11 234. 54 2, 856. 49 134.94 2,991.43 66.82 2, 871. 47 2, 938. 29 367. 10 43.52 State and city. Tennessee— continued. Knioxvlle . Memphis . . Nashville . Total. Austin Corsicana. .. Dallas Denison El Paso Fort Worth. Galveston. .. Houston San Antonio . Sherman Waco Total: Salt Lake City. VERMONT. Burlington Montpelier. .». St. Albans . St. Johnsbury. Rutland Total. Charlottesville. Danville Lynchburg Petersburg Portsmouth... Staunton Total. WASHINGTON. Seattle Spokane TaLComa Walla Walla. Total. WEST VIRGINIA. Charleston . . . Parkersburg. Wheeling Total. WISCONSIN. Appleton Beloit Chippewa Falls. Eau Claire Janes ville La Crosse Madison Milwaukee Oshkosh Sheboygan Waukesha Total. Amount. $82. 21 580. 96 11.77 1,085/76 164. 55 95.08 207. 70 50. 59 54.45 557. 09 38.56 52.35 1, 164. 14 655. 86 97.76 3, 138. 03 3, 752. 23 436. 43 53.57 338. 79 116.48 96.57 1,041.84 80.84 728. 34 1,373.15 44.24 714 83 458. 61 3, 400. 01 . 770.98 482. 11 793. 99 133. 28 2,180.36 501. 87 78.17 250. 50 830. 54 477. 29 80.64 521. 48 854.88 692. 84 097. 14 582.42 180. 54 931. 08 672. 83 84.35 , 175. 49 838 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. RECAPITULATION. Alabama ' $715. 81 Arkansas 729. 58 California 8, 539: 69 Colorado : 838. 44 Connecticut : ■ 4, 781. 69 Delaware 285. 08 District of Columbia 3,281. 20 Florida . . . 665. 23 Georgia 8, 545. 45 Illinois ."..... 20,718.42 Indiana 4, 595. 93. Iowa 9, 752. 63 Kansas 4, 772. 71 Kentucky .- /. . . 3, 589. 00 Louisiana 606. 43 Maine 1, 948. 04 Maryland . 1, 461. 75 Massachusetts 22, 195. 30 Michigan 7, 384. 40 Minnesota 4, 575. 31 Mississippi 837. 45 Missouri 19, 078. 12 Montana 1, 739. 38 Nebraska 3, 692. 36 New Hampshire 4, 055. 38 New Jersey 9, 702. 53 New York 43, 291. 34 North Carolina 271. 35 North Dakota 384. 47 Ohio 23, 756. 25 Oregon 553. 50 Pennsylvania 35, 831. 22 Rhode Island 234. 54 South Carolina : 2, 991. 43 South Dakota 2, 938. 21 Tennessee : 1, 085. 76 Texas 3, 138. 03 Utah 3,752.23 Vermont 1, 041. 84 Virginia 3, 400. 01 Washington 2, 180. 36 West Virginia 830. 54 Wisconsin . , 8, 175. 49 Total. 282,943.88 CAMPANIA DE LOS FERROCARRILES DE PUERTO RICO. [Senate Report No. 3862, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] The Committee on Pacific Islands and Porto Rico, having had under consideration the following bill, report the same favorably without amendment, and recommend its passage: "A BILL For the relief of the Compafiia de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico. " Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That jurisdiction be, and is hereby, given to the Court of Claims (notwithstanding any statutory bar of limitations) over the claims of the Compafiia de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico, with power to find the facts and to enter judg- ment against the United States for the reasonable value of the services performed by said company in the island of Porto Rico for transporting the municipal police and guardia civille between the twelfth day of August, eighteen hundred and ninety- eight, and the thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred and two, and for the difference between the amount allowed for transporting the troops, munitions of war, supplies, and the like and the reasonable value of said services for the same period, together with the expense of repair and maintenance of telegraph lines of the Signal Corps, all of said services having been performed during the military occupation of said island." The Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives has had under con- sideration a measure identical in character, and has favorably reported the same. That report, which is hereby adopted as a part of this report, is as follows: [House Report No. 4088, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] The Committee on War Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 18304) for the relief of the Compafiia de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it pass. Prior to the military occupation of Porto Rico the Compafiia de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico had been operating its railroad for at least twelve years under a ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 839 Spanish grant, which provided that the company had to furnish transportation of troops and supplies at a rate of one-fourth of the general tariff, free transportation of mail, and some other privileges, in compensation of which the Spanish Government paid to the company a subsidy of 8 per cent of the capital invested. The company continued to operate its lines under said Spanish grant from the 26th day of July, 1898, the time of the occupation of said island by the military authori- ties of the United States, until the 28th day of October, 1901, when a new franchise was granted by the executive council of Porto Rico, during which period it trans- ported the United States mail and municipal police under direction and authority of the military officers of the United States, and conducted the repair and maintenance of the telegraph lines, in pursuance of orders issued by the military authorities, without compensation, and transported the troops, munitions of war, supplies, etc., at one-fourth of the general tariff in force, all of which was in accordance with the terms of its Spanish grant, which allowed to the company a subsidy of 8 per cent of the capital invested. During the period mentioned ftie Government did not pay said subsidy, and after long negotiations betsveen the company and the executive council of Porto Rico the Spanish grant was annulled and a new franchise granted to the company October 28, 1901, and approved by the President of the United States December 5, 1901, a copy of which appears in the appendix to this report. , This new franchise, while annulling the Spanish grant, and consequently with- drawing the guarantee of 8 per cent, nevertheless contains, in section 12 thereof, a recognition of the claim of the company against the United States for compensation for the transportation of mail, troops, military and police supplies, and for the repair and reconstruction of military telegraph lines from the day of the occupation of the island by the United States up to the time of the granting of the new franchise. At a meeting of the executive council of Porto Rico, held on the 12th day of July, 1902, a resolution, a copy of which also appears in the appendix, was adopted, recom- mending the proper consideration and adjustment of the claim of the company. This resolution was, on July 17, 1902, transmitted by Governor Hunt to the Post- master-General, the governor expressing the hope that the claim of the company against the United States for transporting the United States mail, troops, and military supplies in Porto Rico "may be taken up at an early date for adjustment." He con- cluded his communication by stating, "I believe the company has substantial equities, entitled to careful consideration." A copy of said communication also appears in the appendix to this report. It appears, from a communication from the Postmaster-General to Congress, under date of April 2, 1906, that judgment was secured in the Court of Claims by the com- pany against the United States for $11,509.54 of the mail claim, and was appropri- ated for in the urgent deficiency bill approved February 27, 1906; also that the Postmaster-General recommended that the balance of said claim, amounting to $2,184.91, which was barred by the statute of limitations, be paid, and that on — , 1906, Congress by special act provided for payment of said amount. It appears, furthermore, that the company has brought suit in the Court of Claims for the remainder of its claims, to wit: Transportation of municipal police under direction and authority of the military officers of the United States $18,080.40 Transportation of troops, munitions of war, supplies, etc.« 8, 900. 31 Expense of repairing and maintenance of telegraph lines, etc 2, 794. 00 Total 29, 774. 71 But it further appears that a part of these claims will be barred by the statute of limitations, and the object of the bill is simply to give jurisdiction to the court to award judgment on the claims above mentioned, notwithstanding any statutory bar. In view of the fact that the bill merely gives jurisdiction to the court to hear and determine said suits, notwithstanding any statutory bar of limitation, and in view of the recommendation both of the executive council and of the governor of Porto Rico that these claims be taken up at an early date for adjustment, your committee recom- mend that the bill do pass. a The amount paid the company for this service wa j one-fourth of the tariff. The above item represents the balance of three-quarters of said general tariff due the company for this service. On the other items no compensation has been received whatever. 840 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. An ordinance granting to the Compania de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico, and to its successors and assigns, the right to extend its railway lines to and between certain points in the island of Porto Rico. (Original has line numerals, omitted in this copy. ) Whereas certain differences of opinion relating to the rights, if any there are, of the Compania de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico, under and by virtue of a charter or franchise heretofore granted to it by royal order or orders of the Spanish Govern- ment have heretofore existed between the grantee and the ■government of Porto Rico; and the said grantee and the government of Porto Rico, desiring permanently to adjust the said differences, have reached an understanding by which the said com- pany has agreed to release all of its rights and claims of every nature whatsoever that may exist against the government of Porto Rico under and by virtue of the said charter or franchise, and to accept this ordinance as the full evidence of its legal status and rights in the island of Porto Rico and as the full definition and expression of its legal and equitable relations to and with the government thereof: Now, therefore, and in order to carry out the said agreement and understanding, the executive council of Porto Rico does hereby ordain and enact as follows: Section I. That the Compania de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico, a corporation •organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of Spain, may extend its rail- road lines, already built and now being operated by it in the island of Porto Rico as a railway for the conveyance of passengers and freight, to. and between the following points: First. From San Juan to Ponce via Arecibo, Camuy, Aguadilla, Mayaguez, and Yauco. Second. From Arecibo to Lares. Third. From Lares to Aguadilla. Fourth. From Lares to Anasco. Fifth. From Ponce to Guayama. Sixth. From San Juan to Rio Grande. Substantially along the routes shown on the maps heretofore tiled by the said grantee with the executive council and duly identified by the signature thereon of J. C. Charpentier, manager of the said grantee. The extensions of the lines of the grantee herein authorized, including the building of side tracks, spurs, and branch roads, are matters of public interest conducing to the general welfare; they are there- fore hereby declared to be of public utility for all purposes, so far as the law of forcible expropriation may be invoked by the grantee; and the lands necessary for any exten- sions herein authorized or for any part thereof or for the side tracks, station, spurs, and branch roads connected therewith may be acquired by the grantee by pur- chase or by process of condemnation. The grantee may also extend its railroad lines from Carolina to Caguasand Naguabo; provided and only in case the Port America Company, to which an amended fran- chise has been or is about to be granted by the executive council of Porto Rico to build a railroad between Naguabo, Caguas, and San Juan, shall not have completed the line between said points, according to the terms of its said franchise, within the time limited therein. Sec. II. The gauge of said extensions shall not be less than one metre in width. An accurate survey of the routes of said proposed extensions, duly verified under oath by the surveyor and identified by the signature thereon of the secretary, gen- eral manager, or other superior officer of said grantee, shall be submitted to the -commissioner of the interior for his approval thereon before the work of building such extensions, or any of them, shall proceed; and likewise all plans for bridges and embankments and general construction of said extensions, including plans for grade work, roadbed, and street or road crossings, and all plans for the erection of stations and other structures used in connection with the operation of said extensions or of the lines already built, shall be subject to the approval of the commissioner of the interior before the work of building the same shall proceed. With the consent and approval of the commissioner of the interior, side tracks may hereafter be built at any point on the right of way of the grantee except in ■cities, towns, and urban communities, in which cases the consent and approval of the executive council shall be required; nothing in this ordinance contained shall be held or construed to give to the grantee the right to appropriate or use either for its main tracks or any switch or side track, spur, or branch any portion of the public highway or other public property without the consent of the executive council first had and obtained; but no royalty or compensation shall be exacted from the grantee for such consent; and the consent of the executive council shall not be required in ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 841 order to permit the trains of the grantee to pass over that portion of the tracks of W. 8. H. Lothrop (grantee under a certain franchise heretofore granted to him hy the executive council for an electric street-car line in the city of' Ponce), which lie on the public highway between Ponce and Ponce Playa. The said grantee, with the consent of the commissioner of the interior and of the owners of the abutting prop- erty, may build branch roads not exceeding 1 mile in length to sugar centrals or warehouses on sugar plantations; but this right shall not be held to give to the grantee the right to build any such branch road connecting its main track with any city, town, or urban community without the special consent of the executive council. In all cases where the line of any extension, switch, or branch track herein con- templated, or which may hereafter be made, shall cross a public highway a plan and specifications for such crossing shall first be submitted to the commissioner of the interior for his approval; and thereafter during the entire period of this franchise the said grantee shall keep such crossings in a condition satisfactory to the commis- sioner of the interior, and make such changes, improvements, and alterations in such crossings as may from time to time be required by the commissioner of the interior; and upon the failure of the said grantee to keep such crossings or any of them in such repair, and upon its failure to make such changes and alterations therein as may be directed, the commissioner of the interior may make such repairs or such changes and alterations, and the expense thereof shall be charged as a first lien upon all of the property of the said grantee, to be enforced as other liens are enforced. Sec. III. The said extensions, as well as the lines already in operation, may be run by steam ' or electric power, but any plans for changing the operation of said extensions or the said present lines of said grantee, or any of them, from steam to electric power shall be submitted to the commissioner of the interior for his approval before the said change shall be made. Sec. IV. Upon the acceptance by the grantee of this franchise it shall be taken and deemed to be one franchise covering the lines already built and in operation by said grantee, as well as the extensions thereof herein contemplated and authorized; and with respect to the lines of railway already built and in operation, as well as with respect to the said extensions hereafter to be built under the terms hereof, the respective rights, duties, and obligations of the grantee and of the government of Porto Rico shall depend upon and rest solely in the terms and conditions hereof; and the duration of this franchise so taken and deemed to be one franchise covering the lines now built and hereafter to be built as herein authorized shall be one hun- dred and fifty years from the date hereof. Sec. V. The said grantee shall be exempt from all insular and municipal or local taxation of every name and nature for a period of twenty-five years from the date of the acceptance by it of this grant: Provided, howver, That said exemption shall not become effective or operative until the legislative assembly of Porto Rico shall by law duly authorize such exemption. Sec. VI. The charge for the transportation of passengers on the lines of the said grantee shall not exceed five (5) cents per mile, and all charges for the transporta- tion of freight and passengers shall be subject to such regulation, revision, amend- ment, change, or alteration as the executive council from time to time may require. The rules and regulations of said grantee for the operation of said railway lines shall also be subject to such revision, amendment, change, or alteration as may from time to time be required by law. Sec VII. The said grantee may erect and maintain a telegraph and telephone line upon and along its right of way to be used by it for the operation of its railway lines and for no other purpose; said telegraph and telephone lines shall not be open to use by the public either for profit or otherwise. Upon the consent, however, of the executive council, through the commissioner of the interior, the said telegraph line may be opened to public use for hire upon the condition that the governor, members of the executive council, and chief heads of departments shall have the right, free of cost, of sending messages and receiving replies relating to public busi- ness over said lines, and upon such other terms and*conditions as may be prescribed by the executive council. And likewise the said telephone line may be opened to the public for hire or otherwise upon the consent of the executive council, through the commissioner of the interior, upon such terms and conditions as the executive council may provide. The said company shall not have the power to permit the use of its said telegraph and telephone poles and wires, or to permit the use of its right of way for the erection of telegraph or telephone wires, by any person, firm, corporation, or other legal entity, natural or artificial, whatsoever, except upon such terms and conditions as 842 ALLOWANCE OP CEKTAIN CLAIMS. the executive council through the commissioner of the interior may require: Provided, That said guarantee may permit the use of its said telegraph or telephone lines to any person, firm, company, corporation, or legal entity having a franchise from the government of Porto Rico for doing a public telegraph or telephone business; but such use of said lines shall be subject to the royalty and other duties and obligations provided in any such franchise. At any time, however, the commissioner of the interior of Porto Rico, without compensation to the said grantee, may erect upon its right of way such poles and lines as may, in the judgment of the commissioner of the interior, be necessary or desirable for the operation of a telegraph service in connection with the insular telegraph lines; said telegraph lines so erected on said right of way to be the sole property of the insular government, which shall be entitled to receive all the profits arising from the use thereof. Said commissioner of the interior, through his employees, shall have access to said telegraph lines at all times for making repairs and for other purposes. And upon the erection of such telegraph lines by the commissioner of the interior on said right of way, the use of its own telegraph lines by the public for hire or otherwise shall at once be stopped by the grantee. Sec. VIII. The said grantee shall transport free of charge on all of its lines, to and from the courts and prisons of the island, prisoners awaiting trial or who have been convicted of offenses against the penal code or police regulations, or prisoners whom it is desired to transfer from one prison to another, together with such police or other guards as may be reasonably necessary to guard the prisoners on such journeys; provided that such prisoners and guards are furnished with a statement by a judge of a court certifying that the said prisoners are needed in court or that they have been convicted and are on their way to prison. Sec. IX. The executive council of Porto Rico, under and by virtue of the authority of an act of the legislative assembly of Porto Rico entitled "An act to empower the executive council in its discretion to enter into a lease with the Compani'ade los Fer- rocarriles de Puerto Rico," approved January 31, 1901, does hereby demise and lease unto the said Companfa de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico and its successors and assigns, for a term of fifty (50) years from the date hereof, and in consideration of an annual rent reserved, during the life of said term of.fifty years, of one dollar for the first ten years, commencing January 1st, 1902, and thereafter of seven hundred and fifty dollars ($750) yearly, payable to the treasurer of Porto Rico during the month of January of each and every year during the balance of said term, the parcels of real estate mentioned and particularly described in said act being situated within the city of San Juan, one parcel being known and designated as Manzana No. 14 upon the maps of the board of public works, said parcel being bounded by calle E on the north, calle D on the south, calle L on the east, and calle M on the west; and its dimensions being 67.5 meters, more or less, by 70 meters, more or less, and its area 4,725 square meters, more or less, the other parcel of land being described as follows: Beginning at a point formed by the intersection of the east side of calle C and the south side of calle D, said point' being approximately 21.01 meters from the southwest corner of part E of Manzana No. 13, and 24.33 meters from the southeast corner of lot A, now occupied by the factory of the American Tobacco Company; thence following the south side of calle D in an easterly direction for a distance of 161.07 meters to calle L; thence at right angles to the last line in a southerly direc- tion following the west side of calle L for a distance of 35 meters; thence at right angles to the last line in a westerly direction for a distance of 149.7 meters to the east side of calle C, and thence back to the point of beginning, a distance of 36.78 meters — the whole containing an area of 5,438.47 square meters, more or less, of which 420 square meters appertain to calle M, together with any building or build- ings situate thereon. Both of said parcels of land, before being taken possession of by the grantee, shall be surveyed and properly located by some surveyor designated by the commissioner of the interior, the cost thereof to be borne by the grantee. The area designated as calle M'on the maps on file in the office of the commissioner of the interior may be occupied by the grantee by buildings of a temporary nature, but the right to remove said buildings without cost to the government of Porto Rico, and at any time to open said street as a public highway, is reserved. Upon said two parcels of land the grantee may erect such warehouses, stations, and other terminal facilities as it may desire, first submitting the plans thereof to the commissioner of the interior for his approval, except that upon that portion of the parcel last described lying within 20 meters of the present water front no buildings shall be erected; it being expressly understood, however, that on the said portion so lying within 20 meters of the present water front, as well as on the strip of 7 meters in width extending from the water front to the said second parcel of land, the grantee may ei'ect a shed or other covering suitable for protecting ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 843 merchandise from the elements while being loaded or unloaded, until such time as the executive council, through the commissioner of the interior, shall deem its removal necessary. The income arising from the warehouses and other buildings erected by the grantee upon the said two parcels of land hereinbefore described shall accrue to the grantee. The wharfage and docking rates and fees to be fixed from time to time by the execu- tive council, which shall not exceed the sum of fifty (50) dollars for each day or for a fraction of a day for each vessel, and to be paid by the owner or agents of vessels for the privilege of loading and discharging cargoes in front of the property herein demised, shall be collected by the grantee and paid over to the treasurer of Porto Rico for the use and benefit of the government thereof in accordance with such rules and regulations and at such times as he may from time to time direct: Prodded, however, That while the control of the said water front hereby given to the grantee shall rest in the grantee; the grantee shall by suitable rules and regulations, approved by the executive council and subject to alteration or amendment by the executive council, permit the use of said water front to all vessels, it being expressly agreed and understood that no wharfage charges shall be required to be paid by any vessel for the discharge upon said water front of coal or other railroad supplies which shall be the property of the grantee. The grantee, upon plans approved by the commissioner of the interior, may lay railroad tracks over any part of the parcels of land above described, and over any part of the highway of seven meters in width reserved along the present water line as shown upon maps in the office of the commissioner of the interior; provided that the use of the said twenty meters of land lying between the water front and the building line hereinbefore established, including the said highway of seven meters in width, shall be subject to such rules and regulations as the commissioner of the interior may prescribe. At any time after the date hereof, and in order to facilitate the landing of vessels and the unloading of their cargoes, the grantee may build and erect along the said entire water frontage wooden dolphins or a wooden pier extending out into the waters of the harbor for a distance not exceeding twenty (20) feet from the present shore line; said pier to be erected in accordance with plans and specifications to be submitted to and approved by the commissioner of the interior before the work thereon shall proceed; and thereafter the said pier shall be maintained by the grantee in such state of repair as the commissioner of the interior may require. In case of the erection of such a pier the grantee, subject to all the terms hereof, may extend over it the shed or covering heretofore in section 9 referred to. Upon the termination of the lease of the two parcels of land hereinbefore described the government of Porto Rico shall pay to the grantee the reasonable value at that time of the materials composing said pier, apart from and excluding this franchise as an element in the value thereof, unless an extension of said lease is then agreed upon. But nothing herein in this franchise contained shall prevent the government of Porto Rico at any time and without compensation to the grantee from entering upon any improvement of its harbor or any part thereof and from resuming posses- sion of the water front for that purpose. Sec. X. The executive council agrees so soon as it may be convenient after the acceptance hereof by the grantee to enter upon an' examination of the title to such land in the city of San Juan as heretofore may have been designated by the Gov- ernment of Spain as a site for a station of the said grantee in said city; and if it shall appear upon such examination that any such land by right and in equity belongs to the grantee, the executive council will admit the title of the grantee thereto in fee simple, so far as such admission may be made without prejudice to the rights of third persons. Sec. XL The franchise herein granted shall be accepted by the grantee by writing riled with the executive council within sixty (60) days after the approval thereof by the governor of Porto Rico. The work of constructing such extensions shall begin within sixty (60) days after the date of such acceptance, and within one year there- after the grantee shall complete and have in operation, including its present main line, but excluding all side tracks, spurs, and switches attached thereto, not less than one hundred and forty (140) miles of railway, of which at least thirteen (13) miles shall be on the line of the new proposed extension from San Juan to Ponce Playa via Arecibo, Mayaguez, and Yauco; and within four years after the date of said accept- ance the grantee shall complete said extension from Mayaguez to Ponce, and shall also complete the said extension from Arecibo to Lares; the right to build said last two extensions to be forfeited upon the failure of the grantee to complete them within the time herein limited. This franchise and all the rights, benefits, and advantages thereunder, so far as it relates to the extensions herein contemplated and authorized, shall, upon the failure 844 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. of the grantee within eight (8) years after the date hereof to complete all such extensions, be forfeited ipso facto and without notice or resort to legal proceedings: Provided, however, That such forfeiture shall not extend to or affect such portions of the said extensions as shall have been fully completed between important towns in the line thereof, it being expressly understood and agreed that as to all the require- ments herein contained time is of the essence of this grant. Sec. XII. In consideration of the granting of this franchise the Companfa de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico does hereby release and forever discharge the United States and the people of Porto Rico and the government thereof from all claims and demands of whatsoever nature that heretofore or hereafter may accrue to it under and by virtue of the terms of any charter or royal franchise heretofore granted to it by the Spanish Government. And in further consideration thereof the grantee agrees that the said royal charter or franchise and all the terms and conditions thereof may be taken and deemed to be absolutely null and void and of no effect from the date hereof; and that this franchise -shall be taken and deemed to be the sole evidence of the property rights of the grantee in the island of Porto Rico and as the sole evidene of its contractual relations and obligations with the government thereof. It is expressly understood, however, that nothing herein contained shall be taken or deemed to be a waiver or release by the grantee of its claim against the Government of the United States for reasonable compensation for the transportation of mail, troops, and military and police supplies, and for the repairing and reconstruction of military telegraph lines from the date of the Occupation of the island by the United States to the present time. Sec. XIII. The term "grantee," as herein used, shall extend to and include the grantee, his successor, and assigns- and in case of the transfer of its property by the grantee, either by its own act or by act of law, the purchaser or assignee shall be bound by all the terms and conditions hereof of every name and nature. It is expressly understood and agreed that all the property interests and rights of the grantee, including this franchise and all the benefits and advantages accruing there- under, but excluding any charter or franchise granted by royal order or degree, as hereinbefore mentioned, may be assigned, sold, transferred, and set over unto the railroad company, association, or corporation the organization of which, under the laws of one of the States of the United States, is now contemplated for the express purpose of taking over this franchise and the property rights of the grantee. In case of any legislation modifying or altering the form of goverment for the island of Porto Rico all the rights, privileges, duties, and discretions herein reserved to the execu- tive council shall be performed, exercised, executed, and become the joint duty of the governor and the heads of the several departments of government; and in case of such modification or change by subsequent legislation, the rights, duties, discre- tions, and obligations reserved herein to the commissioner of the interior shall be performed by that officer of the insular government whose duties most nearly corre- spond to the duties of the commissioner of the interior. Sec. XIV. The franchise herein granted and all of the privileges and conces- sions herein contained shall be subject to amendment, alteration, or repeal. No stock or bonds shall be issued by said grantee except in exchange for actual cash or property at a fair valuation equal in amount to the par value of the stock or bonds issued. No stock or bond dividends shall be declared or paid. And the government of Porto Rico may purchase or take the property of the grantee at a fair and reasonable valuation. Sec. XV. This ordinance shall not be valid or become operative until approved by the President of the United States. Sec. XVI. The ordinance enacted by the executive council on the twelfth day of July, 1901, granting a substantially similar franchise to the grantee, is hereby repealed, this ordinance being enacted and intended as a substitute therefor. Done in open session of the executive council of Porto Rico this twenty-eighth dav of October, 1901. Approved this day of October, 1901. President of the Executive Council. Governor of Porto Rico. Office of the Secretary, Sun Juan, — , 19, — . I, , secretary of Porto Rico, do hereby certify that the foregoing- is a true copy of an ordinance entitled "An ordinance granting to the Compania de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico and to its successors and assigns the right to extend its railway lines to and between certain points in the island of Porto Rico," approved by the governor of Porto Rico on the 28th day of October, 1901, as the said grant ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 845 appears upon the record of the minutes of the proceedings of the executive council of Porto Rico at a meeting held on the said 28th day of October, A. D. 1901. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and the great seal of Porto Rico, at the capital, on this day of , in the year of our Lord 190-. Secretary of Porto Rico. Executive Mansion, San Juan, July 17, 1902. The Postmaster-General, Washington, D. C. Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith a resolution of the executive council of Porto Rico, expressing a hope that the claim of the Compania delos Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico against the Government of the United States for transporting United States mail, troops, and military supplies in Porto Rico may be taken up at an early date for adjustment. I believe that the company has substantial equities entitled to careful consideration. Very respectfully, Wm. H. Hunt, Governor. Whereas the executive council of Porto Rico is informed that considerable sums of money are due to the Compania de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico by the Gov- ernment of the United States for its services in transporting United States mail, troops, police, and military supplies from point to point in the island by the railroad during the period following the military occupation of said island by the United States up to the present time; and that other sums are due by the United States to said company for the repair and reconstruction, during the same period, of the mili- tary telegraph line on and adjacent to the right of way of said company : Therefore be it Resolved by the executive council of Porto Rico, That the attention of the Postmaster- General of the United States and of the Congress'of the United States be called by this government to the said claim, with an expression of the hope on the part of this government that the said claim will be taken up at an early date for adjustment. Be it further resolved, That in the opinion of the executive council it would tend to the general welfare of the island if a definite contract were entered into by the Post-Om ce Department of the United States with the said company for the carrying of the United States mail in the island of Porto Rico to and between the various cities and municipalities along the line of its railroad upon such terms as may seem reasonable, in view of the conditions now existing in this island. Resolved further, That this matter be referred, and a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the governor of Porto Rico, with the request .that he will, in such way as he may deem best, lay the matter before the Postmaster-General and such other Federal authorities as may be necessary, to the end that the claim of the company may have proper consideration and adjustment. Approved by the executive council July 12, 1902. • Chas. Hortzell, President Executive Council. Attest: Chas. H. Magee, Chief Clerk. [Senate Document No. 300, Fifty-ninth Congress, first session.] Post-Office Department, Office of the Postmaster-General, Washington, D. C, Aprils, 1906. Sir: It is noticed that on the 31st of March last the House of Representatives passed the bill (H. R. 11976) for the relief of the Compania de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico, appropriating $13,694.45 " for compensation for mail service performed in Porto Rico during the period of military occupation in the years 1898, 1899, 1900, 1901, and 1902, and prior to the regular authorization of railroad mail service upon its lines. " On December 7, 1903, the Secretary of the Treasury transmitted to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, for the consideration of Congress, a copy of the com- munication from the Postmaster-General, inclosing copies of papers and correspond- ence in the matter of this claim and submitting an estimate of appropriation in the sum above named as the equitable sum to which the company jwas entitled for the service in question. (H. Doc. No. 34, 58th Cong., 2d sess.) 846 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The bill above referred to was reported to the House in accordance therewith, but no further immediate action was taken. Thereafter, on June 20, 1905, the rail- road company filed a petition in the Court of Claims, cause No. 28081, making claim for the same amount which had been theretofore submitted to this Department, but which had been, upon careful consideration, reduced by the office of the Second Assistant Postmaster-General to the amount above named. When the cause came up for hearing it was noted that the statute of limitations had operated against part of the claim as theretofore admitted to be due, and consequently a new estimate of the amount to which the claimant was entitled to judgment was made, which amount was found to be $11,509.54. On January 29, 1906, the Court of Claims rendered judg- ment in favor of the claimant for said amount. I have theretofore to suggest that inasmuch as the company has a judgment for $11,509.54, the House bill should be amended by the Senate to carry only the differ- ence between such amount and the orginal sum to be found due, $13,694.45; that is, $2,184.91, provided the Senate deems it proper to make such appropriation. Very respectfully, Geo. B. Cortelyou, Postmaster- General. The President of the Senate, Washington, D. C. Private Act No. . AN ACT For relief of the Compania de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rieo. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay to the Compania de los Ferrocarriles de Puerto Rico, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of two thou- sand one hundred and eighty-four dollars and ninety-one cents, being for compensation for mail service performed in Porto' Rico during the period of military occupation in the years eighteen hundred and ninety-eiyht, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, nineteen hundred and one, and nineteen hundred and two, and prior to the regular authorization of railroad mail service upon its lines. Approved, April 24, 1906. The following is the report of the War Department in response to a request for its comment with respect to the proposed legislation: [First indorsement.] War Department, Office of the Quartermaster-General, Washington, April 19, 1906. Respectfully returned to the Secretary of War with the information that on June 27, 1903, these claims were submitted to the Secretary of War with recommendation that papers be referred to the Judge- Advocate-General of the Army for decision as to whether the additional compensation for transportation claimed by the carriers could legally be allowed, and were returned by the Secretary of War with press copy of his communication to Messrs. Hoadley, Lauterbach & Johnson, of New York City; also inclosed opinion of the Judge- Advocate-General, in wdiich he states that no addi- tional compensation on the island of Porto Rico for troops and military supplies carried by this line between July 26, 1898, and July 1, 1903, could be legally made, and that at no time had funds of the Quartermaster's Department been chargeable with the transportation of the police of the island of Porto Rico. All papers in the claim were on February 19, 1906, transmitted to the Department of Justice, through the Chief Signal Officer, U. S. Army, upon request of the Depart- ment of Justice of February 14, 1906. C. F. Humphrey, Quartermaster- General U. S. Army. [Second indorsement.] War Department, April 21, 1906. Respectfully returned to the chairman Committee on Pacific Islands and Porto Rico, United States Senate, inviting attention to the foregoing report of the Quarter- master-General of the Army. Robert Shaw Oliver, Assistant Secretary of War. ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 847 AMENDMENT TO GENERAL DEFICIENCY BILL. The Committee on Claims, to whom the foregoing amendment was referred, having amended the same, report favorably and recommend its passage without amendment. In support of the foregoing report the committee beg leave to refer to the report of the committee on this claim (Senate Report No. 490, Fifty-eighth Congress) and Senate document No. 93, Sixtieth Congress. [To accompany amendment for relief of owners of str. "Nicarauga."] MINNESOTA AND ONTARIO BRIDGE COMPANY. The Committee on Claims, to whom Senate bill 3778 was referred, having examined the same, report favorably thereon and recommend its passage without amendment. During the year 1901 the Minnesota and Ontario Bridge Company was engaged in building a bridge across Rainy River on the boundary line between Minnesota and Canada. The contract for building the bridge had been awarded to Messrs. Mackenzie, Mann & Co., a Canadian firm in no manner connected with the bridge company. The contract for getting out the piling was let by Mackenzie, Mann & Co. to Cameron Bros. & Finley, in no way connected with the firm of Mackenzie, Mann & Co. or the bridge company. It appears that Special Agent McEnery discovered that the timber delivered by Messrs. Cameron Bros. & Finley and used in the substructure to said bridge was cut from land embraced in the ceded Red Lake Indian Reservation; that he made hie examination in the summer of 1901 and found that 104,600 feet had been cut ; that 1,577 piles, amounting to 77,892 linear feet, had been used and left in the abutments and piers of said bridge; that this timber standing was worth 2\ cents per linear foot; at the place where used was worth 6 cents per linear foot, amounting to $6,276 at the latter price; that thereafter and in 1904 claim for the first time was made against the bridge company for this timber; that in the meantime Messrs. Cameron Bros. & Finley had disappeared, and no one seems to know where they are or whether they are responsible, except that they are reported by the Government agent as financially irresponsible. In view of these facts, the committee think that the bridge company ought to be relieved from paying the second time for this timber. SAMUEL LEE ET AL. Your Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 850) making appropriation to pay to the legal representatives of the estate of Samuel Lee, deceased, to wit, Samuel Lee, Anna Lee Andrews, Clarence Lee, Harry A. Lee, and Philip Lee, heirs at law, in full for any claim for pay and allowances made by reason of the election of said Lee to the Forty-seventh Congress and his services therein, having had the same under consideration report it back to the Senate with the recommendation that it do pass. The Committee on Claims of the House, reporting favorably this bill, made the fol- lowing statement in reference thereto : "It appears that in the election of a Representative to Congress from the First dis- trict of South Carolina in 1882 the face of the returns indicated the election of John S. Richardson, but a contest for the seat was entered by Samuel Lee. The contest was referred to the Committee on Elections in the Forty-seventh Congress, and sub- sequently, when the case was being considered by the House, the House voted, by a vote of 124 to 114, that Richardson was not elected and entitled to have or hold a seat as Representative from the said district, and that Lee was duly elected and entitled to have and hold said seat. "At this point dilatory tactics were employed by the minority, which were kept up until the expiration of said Congress, which prevented Lee from taking his seat. "The House having by a decisive affirmative vote declared Lee entitled to the seat in question, and he having been prevented purely by dilatory tactics of the minority from taking his seat, we are of the opinion that an injustice was done Lee, and con- sequently we believe the bill should pass. "The proceedings relative to this contest are to be found in volume 14, part 4, page 3752 et seq., of the Congressional Record, Forth-seventh Congress. 11 ' H. R. KING. The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred Senate bill 1702, having examined the same, report the same favorably and recommend its passage without amendment. 848 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. It appears that the claimant cut some timber upon certain Indian lands in the State of Minnesota; that he entered into a contract with a proper official, subject to the approval of the Indian Office; that before the cutting had been done the Indian Office formally disapproved the cutting. The claimant claims that the Indian agent informed him that the special agent in charge of the reservation understood that the contracts were to be approved, and relying on this hearsay information, he went on and cut the timber. He paid for the timber under the contract price, but the Depart- ment insisted on making a claim as for trespass in excess of the price agreed to be paid and which was paid. Under the circumstances it seems manifestly unjust to punish the claimant by enforcing the penalty. ESTATE OF AARON VAN CAMP AND VIRGINIA P. CHAPIN. Your committee has thoroughly examined and considered the facts connected with this claim. While it is true that the claim is an old one, yet it is not the fault of the claimants, as they have constantly for more than a half century pressed for payment both before the courts and Congress, as the facts hereinafter stated will show. Your committee has examined Senate Document No. 156, first session of the present Congress, and finds that it contains a correct and fair statement of the facts connected with the claim. We have therefore added it as an exhibit to our report, Exhibit A. In addition to said Senate Document No. 156. we have examined Senate report (Senate Report No. 4386) made by Mr. Warren, chairman of the Committee on Claims at the third session of the Fifty-eighth Congress, and find that it contains additional facts that ought to be placed before Congress. Therefore, we have adopted the same and also made it a part of this report, marked Exhibit B. This claim, covered by Senate bill No. 391, now pending before this committee, has been placed in H. R. 15372 as an amendment, which we now report "favorably and recommend that the same do pass. Exhibit A. Memorial to Congress of the Washington Loan and Trust Company, as the administrator of the estate of Aaron Van Camp, deceased. Your memorialist respectfully states that it was duly appointed by the supreme court of the District of Columbia, and is now acting as the administrator of said estate; that the claim of said estate, coupled with the claim of the representatives of the estate of Virginius P. Chapin, who was a partner of said Van Camp, was duly presented to the Court of Claims under an act of Congress approved February 3, 1903, and the facts found by said court on the 11th day of January, 1904, the case being numbered 23193. The court found, in substance, that by reason of the wrongful acts of the consular agent of the United States at the Navigator Islands, one Jonathan S. Jenkins, the parties herein named (Van Camp and Chapin) were despoiled of their property to the extent of $60,100. Of this amount, the estate represented by your memorialist would be duly entitled to $38,750. A bill has been introduced and is now pending in the Senate for the relief of these two estates, to wit, Senate bill 391. The object of your memorialist herein is to respectfully ask favorable action, and to that end submits the following statement: This claim originated at Apia, Navigator Islands, in the year 1856, by reason of the alleged wrongful and unlawful acts of Jonathan S. Jenkins, consular agent of the United States at that place. Said Jenkins wrongfully and unlawfully, in his official capacity, in the name of the United States and under printed forms of law, organized and established a so-called "consular court" at Apia. Said unlawful "consular court" was created and estab- lished with the foreknowledge, tacit consent, and sanction of the State Department (Secretary Marcy), under the act of Congress approved August 11, 1848, which gives extraterritorial jurisdiction to the United States consuls in China and the Ottoman Port, by means of which said Jenkins, as commercial agent of the United States and presiding judge of the' so-called "consular court," caused the loss and damage to claim- ants as shown by the eleventh and thirteenth findings of fact by the Court of Claims in this case. The claimants were both ex-officers of the United States, men of good character and worthy citizens, as appears from the findings of the Court of Claims and the official report on this subject made in the year 1856 by Commodore William Mervine, U. S. Navy, at the request of the proper Department. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 849 Owing to the location, surroundings, and situation of the parties, they were absolutely helpless as to means to protect themselves against the wrongful acts of said consular agent and his unlawful "court." The consular agent acted in the name of the United States. Neither thelocal authorities nor the representatives of foreign governments would interfere to protect a citizen of the United States under such circumstances, especially when they had the right to assume that the United States officer at Apia was acting within his legal authority. To reach the United States and seek protection therein in time to restrain and prevent the wrongful acts being done by Agent Jenkins was not possible. At that time (1856) no steam vessels ran to said islands, and sailing vessels would take six months time to reach San Francisco, the nearest port in the United States. Consequently the claimants and their property were absolutely at the mercy of the agent of the United States and his so-called "United States consular court. ' ' But this illegal tribunal was established with the knowledge and tacit consent of the State Department. Notice was given the Secretary of State that it was to be created . Jenkins was also advised by the United States district attorney for the district of California (Mr. Inge) that he was authorized to establish such a court. All this will appear in the eleventh finding of fact by said Court of Claims. As soon as possible after being thus despoiled of their property claimants returned to their country to seek redress. Soon after their return they applied to the State Depart- ment, that had sanctioned, by its silence, the exercise of the illegal authority exercised by the consular agent. They were advised that they must first exhaust their remedy in the courts before they applied to the Government to reimburse them for said losses. Upon this advice claimants instituted suit against said Jenkins in the proper court in the District of Columbia, and upon trial judgment was rendered , upon the verdict of a jury, against said Jenkins for the aggregate sum of $126,637. Execution was issued and returned "wholly unsatisfied." Thereupon claimants again applied to the State Department for relief, and were advised to apply to Congress. Again, acting upon the advice of the Department, they memorialized Congress for redress. Upon a full investigation by the Committee on Claims in the Thirty-fifth Congress (1859), while the facts were comparatively fresh, they reported favorably, recommending Congress to pay the amount as fixed by the circuit court in said District. No further action was taken by that Congress. In the Thirty-sixth Congress (1860) favorable reports were made by both Senate and House committees, but no further action was taken. Then came the civil war, and the claim remained dormant until 1866, with no definite action until 1886, when a committee of Congress sent the matter to the Court of Claims under the act of March 3, 1883. The further history of the claim is fully set forth in Senate Report No. 1307, made by Senator Warren, from the Committee on Claims, at the second session Fifty-fifth Con- gress. The following is an extract from said report: "Your committee have examined into the history of said claim since the acts com- plained of occurred and find that the claimants petitioned Congress for redress, and at the second session Thirty-fifth Congress the Hon. Miles Taylor, from the Com- mittee (H. R.) on Claims, made a favorable (No. 212) report, recommending that the Government of the United States pay the amount of said losses. No further action was taken during said Congress. "At the first session Thirty-sixth Congress Mr. Ely, from the Committee on Claims, on May 25, 1860, made House Report No. 569, recommending that the United States Government pay said losses, and on March 21, 1860, at the first session Thirty-sixth Congress Mr. Iverson made Senate Report No. 148, recommending that the United States pay said losses. "Your committee have not discovered any further action on the part of Congress until about June, 1886, when the Committee on Claims (H. R.) ordered the petition of said claimants to be transferred to the Court of Claims under the act of March 3, 1883; said petitioners claimed that they had suffered a loss of over $126,000 by reason of the acts of the officers of the United States. Upon a hearing before the Court of Claims the aggregated loss was fixed by said court at $60,100, but they did not pass upon the liability of the Government because of the want of jurisdiction." Upon hearing the case, the court certified its findings of fact to the House of Repre- sentatives on January 18, 1891 (see Misc. Doc. No. 81), but no action was taken by Congress. The claimants have been continuously before Congress since it was so certified until last year, when, by act of Congress approved February 6, 1903, Congress again sent it to the Court of Claims, giving it both law and equity jurisdiction. Under this act the court, on January 11, 1904 (Court Calendar No. 23193), decided the case by dismissing the petition. They again found the facts and fixed the losses sustained by claimants to be the same, to wit, $60,100, as found in their former decision, and now named in the bill under consideration. The court in deciding the case S. Rep. 382. 60-1 54 850 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. refused to exercise the "'equity" jurisdiction conferred upon them by said act. They gave as a reason for finding the less amount, to wit, $60,100, as the loss sustained, instead of the amount fixed in the District of Columbia, the following: "That much of the evidence relied upon by the claimants to prove the loss and value of the property consists of ex parte affidavits, letters, and documents which are not legally competent . ' ' It appears that some of the witnesses sworn in the circuit court of the said district of Columbia, which fixed the loss at $126,637, were dead, or could not be produced in the Court of Claims more than twenty years afterwards. Consequently claimant had to rely to an extent upon the "ex parte affidavits, letters, and documents" that had been taken and brought from the Navigator Islands, all of which the court ignored. Claim- ants acquiesced in the reduction because of the situation. This claim, in one sense, is one resting upon strong equities. The United States, by its silence and nonaction, not only allowed its own officer to do the wrongful acts, but by the acts of its said officers, so far as possible, confirmed and ratified said wrongdoing, and benefited thereby to the extent of allowing said Jenkins in his final settlement with the Government to charge himself with and retain $530.96-of the money wrongfully wrung from claimants. This will appear in the thirteenth finding of fact made by the court. The United States appointed an agent and placed him in the position, with knowledge of the intended exercise of authority not justified by law. While the act of Congress approved Febru- ary 6, 1903, gave the court both "law" and "equity" jurisdiction, it found that the legal rules governing it, both as to law and equity, forbade it from taking jurisdiction and rendering judgment upon its clear findings of facts. But at the same time the court indicates the moral obligations of the United States in the premises and refers the claimants, in the following words, to Congress for relief: "If by the provisions it is intended that the court shall pass upon the ethical question whether the United States should assume responsibility for the acts of one of their officers in a distant region of the earth of a most flagitious character whereby citizens of the United States suffered great wrongs and injury, it must be answered that courts are not established to determine ethical questions, and that such a question as this one presents is not one for judicial determination, but one for the exercise of legisla- tive discretion." Consequently, for the third time, claimants are referred to Congress. The claimants, nearly fifty years ago, sustained damage, as evidenced by the judg- ment of record in the court in the District of Columbia, of $126,637. Doctor Van Camp, all his life, was a resident of the District of Columbia. Mr. Chapin resided in Virginia — that part now known as West Virginia. Both are dead. They spent nearly half a century, and, it is claimed, about all of their yearly income in and about their efforts to collect this claim, and the heirs have taken up the burden and only ask the amount $60,000, twice found by the Court of Claims, as the sum to be paid by somebody, it being less than half of the judgment as above set forth, rendered soon after the injurious acts were committed. If this $60,000 had been invested at an interest of only 3 per cent, the interest alone (without compounding it) for fifty years would be $90,000. Two lives and two fortunes have been wasted — lost — by reason of the nonaction and silence of the United States Government. The Court of Claims declares: "The nonresponse (to Jenkins's letter) of the Secretary * * * shows a very lax administration on the part of the State Department, incompatible with good govern- ment and an honest administration in the consular office." Yet the court holds that although the Department "showed a very lax administra- tion incompatible with good government and an honest administration in the consular office " * * * it does ' ' not imply a sanction of the abuses which the consular officer perpetrated." Was not this "lax administration" and "incompatible with good gov- ernment and an honest administration of the consular office" responsible for all the wrongdoing of the consul in the premises: the loss and damage sustained by the claim- ants by reason of the said acts? It certainly would not have occurred if the State Department had discharged its duty. The consul was advised by Mr. Inge, the United States district attorney, and then wrote to the Secretary of State, and thus informed the Government of what he intended to do on his arrival at Apia and of what he had been advised by the district attorney. He was neither advised nor instructed by the Department, 'hence was warranted in concluding that he had the authority which he so ruthlessly exercised. Certainly if the spoliation complained of had been committed by the officers of a foreign power, our Government would have immediately demanded and secured full recompense to the injured parties. It would not have been allowed as any defense that the officer committing the wrongs under forms of law was acting outside of his legal authority. The United States would have said to England or Germany ' ' that is a matter for you to settle with your own official, but we must have full restitution to our injured citizen." Equally, if Jenkins had despoiled a German or British subject in a similar way, the ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 851 United States would have been called upon to make it right and would have speedily responded. Is our moral obligation to our own citizens less when they are wronged by our own agents? The impoverished claimants have now exhausted every means possible of recovery outside of Congress. The court has clearly stated their wrongs and ethical rights, and indicated where alone the remedy can be found. There has been nothing in the practice of the Government which is at all inconsist- ent with the views to which we have just given expression, while, on the other hand, there has been much in its previous action which seems to indicate a distinct recog- nition of their correctness. Without attempting to enumerate all the many acts in which Congress has paid for the damages sustained by our citizens and the citizens of foreign governments by reason of the negligence or wrongful acts of the officers of the United States, we will call attention to a few in which the action of Congress shows the obligation to grant relief. The act entitled "An act to provide for the settlement of the claim of Mary O'Sullivan (6 Stat. L., 679), approved .July 2, 1836," is a case in point. In that case the facts are briefly these: A person by the name of O'Sullivan pur- chased an American brig in one of the South American ports and took a bill of sale of her, and possession, in pursuance of it, was delivered to him; but as it appeared that the vessel had been registered at Baltimore as owned and commanded by one Fur- long, and had been long absent from the United States, O'Sullivan deposited the pur- chase money on board the U. S. S. Franklin, and by contract made the payment de- pend on a future approbation of a commercial house in New York with which O'Sul- livan was connected. Being, however, in possession of the vessel, O'Sullivan caused her to be repaired and refitted, and placing a new commander on board he directed her to Rio de Janeiro, and from thence to Buenos Ayres to take a cargo of hides to proceed to Cadiz. Pursuant to these directions, the brig sailed for and arrived at Buenos Ayres. On her arrival there she was seized by the commercial agent of the United States, and the master and supercargo were required to give bond that she should immediately and by the most direct route proceed to the United States. These officers resisted the demand of the agent as far as practicable, and endeavored to procure such a modification of the bond required as wotild enable her to proceed on the voyage to Cadiz. These attempts were unavailing. Mr. Forbes remained inflexible, and the vessel was ordered home by the most direct route, and the greater part of the cargo of hides which had been purchased were resold. The agent of the United States retained the register and forwarded it, together with his charges against the brig, to the Secretary of the Treasury by another vessel. No proceedings, however, were had upon them on the part of the Government, and the brig, after remaining for some time in the port of New York, was libeled for seamen's wages and on a contract of bottomry and sold. In the meantime O'Sullivan, the owner of the brig, had proceeded to Cadiz to await her arrival with cargo ordered to be shipped by him, and after having been detained there for some months in vain awaiting her arrival, he returned to the United States; and it was to make compensation for the losses incurred by him in consequence of the breaking up of the contemplated voyage of his brig through the action of the commercial agent that the act for the relief of Mary O'Sullivan, just mentioned, was passed. It is obvious from the circumstances of this case that it necessarily implies a com- plete recognition of the views before expressed by us as to the principal which should govern in deciding upon questions of this nature, and that if there be any difference between the two cases that difference is altogether in favor of the one before us, as the illegal acts complained of by the claimants were all perpetrated in a distant island, where the population were almost in a state of nature, whilst the others all transpired within the limits of a well-known government. The case of St. Louis and M. V. Transfer Co. v. United States, reported in 184'U. S., 247, involved both negligence and wrongful acts of the officers of the United States. In this case the court held that the United States was liable for the negligence and wrongful acts of its officers, and gave claimants judgment. In the opinion of the court (by Justice Shiras) we find the following: "It (the Court of Claims) in effect, and indeed in terms, found that the loss of the three barges occurred by collision with Government vessels, and was occasioned by negligence of the United States officers in command of the vessels. Judgment was rendered against the United States for the sum of $19,800.85, which amount the Fifty-seventh Congress appropriated, and the same was paid. By act approved June 7, 1902, Congress authorized the Court of Claims, if the facts justified it, to enter judgment against the United States and in favor of Thierman & Frost, of Concordia, Ky., if they found that the seizure and sale by the revenue officers of the United States of the distillery property of said parties was unlawful." 852 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. By act approved January 24, 1903, Congress appropriated $5,683 in full payment for the wrongful and unlawful acts of the United States officers in arresting and seiz- ing the property of Frank A. Darling at the city of New Orleans. By act approved January 31, 1903, Congress appropriated $40 to repay J. V. Worley, of Hardin County, Tenn., in full for money wrongfully collected by the United States marshal. By act approved February 28, 1903. Congress appropriated $5,000 to the executor of the estate of James P. Willett, deceased, who lost his life by reason of the wrongful act and negligence of the employees of the Post-Office Department in the District of Columbia. By act approved February 28, 1903, Congress appropriated $1,951 "to pay the damages inflicted upon George A. Rogers, a contractor with the United States Gov- ernment, while drilling in New York Harbor, said damages being caused by the unwarranted and illegal acts of the officers in charge of the United States torpedo boats." Christopher Schmidt, a German subject, was paid (30 Stat. L., 106) $3,000 for inju- ries received from a stray bullet fired by United States soldiers while at target prac- tice at Fort Snelling, Minn. As to the injury to both person and property we call attention to the following, viz: In the first session of the Fifty-fifth Congress, in compliance with a Senate resolu- tion. President McKinley in a message (Mis. Doc. No. 17) gives a long list of the instances in which Congress had paid both individuals and foreign governments for injury and damages to persons and property sustained by reason of the neglect and wrongful acts of officers and citizens of the United States. The findings of fact herein referred to are given consecutively: V. Pursuant to the foregoing orders and decrees all the property belonging to the said Aaron Van Camp individually was sold, and all of the property of V. P. Chapin & Co., at a great sacrifice. The value of this property is alleged by the claimant to have been as follows: AARON VAN CAMP. Two lots, with the buildings and other improvements thereon $16, 000 Furniture and library in residence and outhouses (as enumerated by L. D. Haskins and V. P. Chapin) _. 4, 000 Collection of shells and natural curiosities -. 10, 000 Lot of medicines, medical books, and surgical instruments 500 One milch cow 100 One consular gig, with masts, sails, and oars, complete 300 Total of Van Camp's property 30, 000 V. P. CHAPIN & CO. Property taken and sold from on board the schooner Eudorus $21, 942 Stocks of goods in their store 15, 000 Goods, wares, and other articles in the warehouses and on the premises of V. P. C. & Co., at Tutuila, Pennryhn Islands, and other places, including a sloop and other boats 29, 192 550 gallons sperm oil, from the cargo of the Rambler 1, 650 Account of charges for cooperage, lighterage, storage, etc., on oil from the Rambler 15, 000 Total of property of V. P. Chapin & Co 82, 784 (Pec, pp. 31, 67, 68, 72, 86, 92.) 56 casks of sperm and whale oil, 200 barrels of which was whale oil 40, 000 63,000 pounds of whalebone, at 50 cents ; 3, 150 43, 150 Less charges of V. P. Chapin & Co. for storage, cooperage, lighterage, etc 28, 150 VI. But the court finds that much of the evidence relied upon by the claimants to prove the loss and value of the property above described consists of ex parte affidavits, letters, and documents, which are not legally competent, and must be excluded from ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 853 the consideration of the court. After excluding such incompetent evidence the court finds the value of the property taken under the proceedings set forth in Finding IV, as follows: Individual property of Aaron Van Camp $17, 400 Property of V. P. Chapin & Co 38, 700 Lien of Chapin & Co. on property of the Rambler 4, 000 60, 000 XI. It appears from certain documents to be found in the record that as soon as the said Jenkins received his commission as consular agent, and before leaving San Francisco for the post of duty, he made known to the United States district attorney for the district of California and to the Secretary of State the fact that he considered himself clothed with extraordinary powers. In a letter to the district attorney, written at San Francisco, and dated 18th of February, 1856, he calls attention to the act of Con- gress of the 11th of August, 1848, for carrying into effect certain provisions in relation to the right of extraterritorial jurisdiction of United States consuls contained in the respective treaties between the United States and China, and the United States and the Ottoman Porte, and requests to be advised whether in his position as United States consul at Apia in the Navigators' Islands, he shall be justified in applying the provi- sions of the said act to the fullest extent to the territory within the limits of his consu- late. In a letter written at San Francisco, dated 20th of February, 1856, and addressed to Hon. William L. Marcy, Secretary of State, he says: "I beg to draw your attention to the inclosed copy of a communication addressed by me to the United States district attorney for the district of California, wherein I beg to be advised as to the bearing of the act of Congress of 11th of August, 1848, relat- ing to extraterritorial jurisdiction of United States consuls in China and Turkey, as regards the territories included in the limits of my consulate. Mr. Inge, during a personal interview, told me that there was no question but that the act alluded to in- cluded my position in its application, and that a written opinion from him on the matter would be supererogatory. Under these circumstances I shall have no hesitation in acting in accordance with Mr. Inge's opinion, so expressed, until I receive direct instruc- tions on the point from the Department of State." Neither the said district attorney (Mr. Inge) nor the Secretary of State responded to the said letters of February 18 and 20, 1856. XII. The report of the Treasury Department bearing date January 21, 1890, shows that in the settlement of his accounts as consul the said Jenkins charges himself on the 30th of September, 1856, with $530.96 cash received. from the clerk of the consular court, "being the balance of the estate of Aaron Van Camp." It also appears from said report that by the advice of the Department of State and by the action of the Treasury Department the sum of $621.23 was paid to Aaron Van Camp on the 17th of December, 1859, and on May 12, 1860, the further sum of $262.25 was paid to him. And, so far as disclosed, no other restitution has been made to said Van Camp or his estate, and none whatever has been made to said Chapin or his estate. XIII. From the facts as here found the court finds that, if the claimants are entitled to recover, there is due to the estate of Aaron Van Camp from the defendants the sum of thirty-eight thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars ($38,750) and similarly due the estate of Virginius P. Chapin the sum of twenty-one thousand three hundred and fifty dollars ($21,350). The memorial of Van Camp and Chapin, now on file in the Court of Claims, addressed to Congress in the year 1857, shows that Jenkins, the United States consul, claimed that he had paid out a large portion of the money he had received from the Van Camp and Chapin property for salaries of the judges and officers of his so-called consular court, and other expenses connected with his proceedings, and the only other statement we can find as to what he did with the money is contained in the twelfth finding of fact of the Court of Claims, and the report of Commodore William Mervine, U. S. Navy, to which report he made an affidavit, dated December 24, 1857, which is attached to and made a part of the memorial. In said affidavit appears the following : "I met Jenkins at Panama in the early part of this year (1857) while on his way to Washington from Apia, when he told me of his acts in regard to Mr. Van Camp's prop- 854 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. erty, and he then stated that he had $5,000 in his possession belonging to Mr. Van Camp which he, Van Camp, would never get." The twelfth finding of fact by the court shows that Jenkins was allowed by the De- partment, upon settling his accounts, to retain $530.96 which Jenkins said he charged to himself. Independent of the $530.96 he turned over to the State Department $883.48. Van Camp in his affidavit dated November 5, 1857, and printed in his memorial to Congress, and now on file in the Court of Claims, states among other things (p. 4) as follows: "Jonathan S. Jenkins, the late United States consul, who perpetrated these wrongs, as near as I can find out has squandered the proceeds and is a bankrupt; and his bonds were given to secure the Government and individuals. ' ' The Washington Loan and Trust Company, By Jno. Joy Edson, President, Administrator Estate Aaron Van Camp. Exhibit B. The Committee on Claims, which has had under consideration the bill (S. 3782) to carry into effect the findings of the Court of Claims in the case (Congressional, No. 23193) of the Washington Loan and Trust Company, legal representative of the estate of Aaron Van Camp, deceased, and Mary M. U. Chapin, and Rua P. Chapin, legal representatives of the estate of Virginius P. Chapin, deceased, now begs to report the same back to the Senate, recommending its passage with the following amendments: Amend the title to read: " A bill for the relief of the estates of Aaron van Camp and Virginius P. f.hapin," In line 6, page 1, strike out the word " Congressional." In lines 4 and 5, page 2, strike out the words "equitably found due claimants, respectively," and insert in lieu thereof the words "unlawfully taken from claimants, respectively, by the consular agent of the United States at Navigators Island, as found." The facts on which this claim is based are found in Senate Report No. 1307, Fifty- fifth Congress, second session, which report accompanied an amendment proposed by Mr. Hansbrough to a bill (S. 3546) for reference of certain claims against the Govern- ment of the United States to the Court of Claims. The said report is made a part of this report, marked "Appendix A." Since said last-mentioned report the matter has again been under consideration by the Court of Claims in pursuance of an act approved February 6, 1903. The court in the latter case makes complete findings of fact, but holds as a question of law that it does not have jurisdiction to enter a judgment. It appears from the history of the case that the matter once came before the supreme court of the District of Columbia on a suit brought by the claimants against said Jonathan S. Jenkins, and judgment was rendered against him for the destruction and spoliation of the claimants' property in the aggregate of $126,637. The court in the late case, referring to the findings and judgment of the District supreme court, made the following finding : "VI. But the court finds that much of the evidence relied upon by the claimants to J)rove the loss and value of the property above described consists of ex parte affidavits, etters, and documents, which are not legally competent, and must be excluded from the consideration of the court. After excluding such incompetent evidence the court finds the value of the property taken under the proceedings set forth in Finding IV, as follows : Individual property of Aaron Van Camp $17, 400 Property of V. P. Chapin & Co 38, 700 Lien of Chapin & Co. on property of the Rambler : 4, 000 60, 100 In the eighth finding of fact the court states that said judgment in the District court was in the following amounts : In behalf of Aaron Van Camp $63, 223 In behalf of Aaron Van Camp and Virginius P. Chapin 63, 408 ALLOWANCE OF CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 855 The court declares : " A writ of fieri facias was issued against the property of said Jenkins in each of the above cases, which, on the 18th of May, 1860, was returned wholly unsatisfied. It does not appear that the claimants ha^e ever received anything from either judgment. " The following findings of fact, made by the court in the last case, are also necessary to a clear understanding of the present status : "XI. It appears from certain documents to be found in the record that as soon as the said Jenkins received his commission as consular agent, and before leaving San Francisco for the post of duty, he made known to the United States district attorney for the district of California and to the Secretary of State the fact that he considered himself clothed with extraordinary powers. In a letter to the district attorney, written at San Francisco and dated 18th of February, 1856, he calls attention to the act of Congress of the 11th of August, 1848, for carrying into effect certain provisions in relation to the right of extraterritorial jurisdiction of United States consuls con- tained in the respective treaties between the United States and China and the United States and the Ottoman Porte, and requests to be advised whether in his position as United States consul at Apia, in the Navigators Islands, he shall be justified in applying the provisions of the said act to the fullest extent to the territory within the limits of his consulate. In a letter written at San Francisco, dated 20th of February, 1856, and addressed to Hon. William L. Marcy, Secretary of State, he says: "'I beg to draw your attention to the inclosed copy of a communication addressed by me to the United States district attorney for the district of California, wherein I beg to be advised as to the bearing of the act of Congress of 11th of August, 1848, relating to extraterritorial jurisdiction of United States consuls in China and Turkey, as regards the territories included in the limits of my consulate. Mr. Inge, during a personal interview, told me there was no question but that the act alluded to included my position in its application, and that a written opinion from him on the matter would be supererogatory. Under these circumstances I shall have no hesitation in acting in accordance with Mr. Inge's opinion, so expressed, until I receive direct instructions on the point from the Department of State. ' " Neither the said district attorney (Mr. Inge) nor the Secretary of State responded to the said letters of February 18 and 20, 1856. "XII. The report of the Treasury Department bearing date January 21, 1890, shows that in the settlement of his accounts as consul the said Jenkins charges himself on the 30th of September, 1856, with ' $530.96 cash received from the clerk of the consular court, being the balance of the estate of Aaron Van Camp.' It also appears from said report that by the advice of the Department of State, and by the action of the Treasury Department, the sum of $621.23 was paid to Aaron Van Camp on the 17th of December, 1859, and on May 12, 1860, the further sum of $262.25 was paid to him. And, so far as disclosed, no other restitution has been made to said Van Camp or his estate; and none whatever has been made to said Chapin or his estate. "XIII. From the facts, as here found, the court finds that, if the claimants are entitled to recover, there is due to the estate of Aaron Van Camp from the defendants the sum of thirty-eight thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars ($38,750), and simi- larly due the estate of Virginius P. Chapin the sum of twenty-one thousand three hundred and fifty dollars ($21,350)." As stated above, the court found that it did not have jurisdiction lo enter a judgment, although it recognized the moral obligation of the Government to protect its citizens against outrages committed by its officers in the name of the United States. The court designates this obligation as an ethical question, and alleges "that such a ques- tion as this case presents is not one for judicial determination, 'but for the exercise of legislative discretion." There are numerous cases in the statutes where Congress has granted relief in similar cases. These are too numerous and too well known to requ're citation. Many of them have been called to the attention of your committee by the claimants. The circumstances surrounding this claim make a peculiar obligation on the part of the Government. The two citizens, claimants, were doing business on an island in mid-ocean. The consular agent assumed to set up a so-called consular court on the advice of the United States district attorney and after he had brought the matter to the attention of the Secretary of State asking to be advised in the premises. No advice was ever given. Thus Secretary of State Marcy, United States District Attor- ney Inge, of San Francisco, Cal., and the United States consular agent, Jenkins, appear to be all directly or indirectly responsible for the losses sustained by the claimant; and the whole proceedings under which these losses accrued were in the name of the United States and under the forms of a court of law. Your committee can not make the case stronger than by referring to the facts set out in said Report No. 1307 and in the findings made by the Court of Claims in case No. 23193, decided January 11, 1904, and quoted in full herein, marked "Appendix B." 856 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Appendix A. [Senate Report No. 1307, Fifty-fifth Congress, second session.] The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the proposed amendment to bill (S. 3546) to send certain claims to the Court of Claims for adjudication, have consid- ered said proposed amendment, beg leave to submit the following report, and recom- mend that said amendment be amended by inserting after the word ; ' claim," at the end of line 1, on page 2, the following: "To hear and determine the question of the liability of the United States for the losses found by said court in its said sixth finding of facts. ' ' And that said bill so amended do pass. The Court of Claims having found the facts, with the exception of the liability of the United States for said losses, your committee have examined into the history of said claim since the acts complained of occurred, and find that the claimants peti- tioned Congress for redress, and at the second session Thirty-fifth Congress, the Hon. Miles Taylor, from the Committee (H. R.) on Claims, made a favorable report (No. 212), recommending that the Government of the United States pay the amount of said losses. No further action was taken during said Congress. At the first session Thirty-sixth Congress, Mr. Ely, from the Committee on Claims, on May 25, 1860, made House Report No. 569, recommending that the United States Government pay said losses, and on March 21, 1860, at the first session Thirty-sixth Congress, Mr. Iverson made Senate Report No. 148, recommending that the United States pay said losses. Your committee have not discovered any further action on the part of Congress until about June, 1886, when the Committee on Claims (H. R.) ordered the petition of said claimants to be transferred to the Court of Claims, under the act of March 3, 1883; said petitioners claimed that they had suffered a loss of over $126,000 by reason of the acts of the officers of the United States. Upon a hearing before the Court of Claims the aggregated loss was fixed by said court at 360.100, but they did not pass upon the liability of the Government because of the want of jurisdiction. The court certified the facts to the House of Representatives on January 18, 1891, but no action has been taken thereon by Congress. Your committee have examined Senate Report No. 148, made at first session Thirty- sixth Congress, and find that it gives a full and complete history of the acts of the United States officers in connection with said claim, and some of the authorities and precedents showing that the United States has assumed and paid damages done by similar acts of its officers; therefore we adopt said report as our own and make it a part of this report. [Senate Report No. 148, Thirty-sixth Congress, first session.] In the Senate of the United States. March 21, 1860. — Ordered to be printed. Mr. Iverson made the following report, to accompany bill S. 297. The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the memorial of Van Camp & Chapin, concurring in the report made by the Hon. Miles ^Taylor, of the Committee of Claims of the House of Representatives of the last Congress, hereby adopt the same as the report of this committee in the case aforesaid. The said report is as follows : [In the House of Representatives, March 3, 1859.] The Committee of Claims, to whom was referred the memorial of A. Van Camp and V. P. Chapin, asking compensation for property of which they allege they have been deprived at Apia, in the Navigators Islands, by the wrongful acts of the com- mercial agent of the United States, exercising authority there, have had the same under consideration and now respectfully report: The allegations contained in the memorial, and the facts stated in several deposi- tions accompanying it, were of such a nature that your committee deemed it proper to apply to the State Department for any information it might be in possession of con- nected with the various transactions which, in the opinion of the memorialists, gave rise to the claim preferred against the United States. In answer to the application made to it, that Department laid before the committee an immense mass of original papers, embracing everything in existence which was calculated to throw any light upon the subject before the committee, but intermingled with a vast deal of matter that could have no bearing upon it. These papers have all been examined with as much care as the time at their disposal would allow; and the committee will now give such a narration of the facts disclosed by those papers as seems necessary for the ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 857 proper decision of the question presented by the memorial, without entering into any very extended or particular detail of them. Mr. Chapin had been for some time commercial agent of the United States at Apia, in the Navigators Islands, when he was superseded by Mr. Van Camp, in 1854. Mr. Chapin was engaged in carrying on a commercial business whilst he acted as com- mercial agent, and Mr. Van Camp, when he arrived at his post, entered upon the same pursuit and provided himself , by the purchase, etc., with the land and build- ings necessary for the prosecution of his trade and for the accommodation of the mem- bers of his family, by whom he was accompanied. After the arrival of Mr. Van Camp it seems that he and Mr. Chapin carried on business each on his own account until some time in the spring of 1855, when they formed a commercial partnership under the name and style of V. P. Chapin & Co. The business carried on by the partnership appears to have been considerable and to have required for the prosecution a very considerable stock of merchandise and several establishments. Whilst Mr. Van Camp was thus engaged in carrying on a mercantile business he also gave his attention to the proper business of his office of commercial agent, and it is shown by the papers before the committee that his conduct in his official capac- ity, in various instances, gave rise to complaints against him on the part of those who were affected by it. Reports growing out of the complaints against him, and inju- rious to his character, were widely circulated in various ports on the Pacific, and it is altogether probable that some of them were communicated to the State Depart- ment, though there is no direct evidence to that effect before us. During this same period, also, difficulties grew up between Mr. Van Camp, in his capacity of com- mercial agent for the United States, and Mr. Pritchard, the British consul, which led to much angry discussion, and at last terminated in an appeal on the part of Mr. Pritchard to Captain Fremantle, of Her Britannic Majesty's navy, who was in those waters with his ship, the Juno. And, in addition to these difficulties with Mr. Pritchard, the British consul, Mr. Van Camp had another with divers residents of Apia in relation to a road, or street, or right of way, in which different holders of property near the bay were interested, in which Commander Bailey, of the United States Navy, intervened in some way. Mr. Van Camp left his post on the 12th of May, 1856, on board of the United States ship Independence, with his family, for Valparaiso. The cause of his departure for Valparaiso, he states, was the necessity of going there to look after the disposition of a large amount of property belonging to American citizens, which was there in his possession. This property consisted of the cargo of the American whale ship Rambler, which arrived at Apia in distress in December, 1855. That ship having been condemned as unseaworthy, the cargo had been placed in the warehouses of the memorialists by the master, and he, not being able to dispose of it after some three months' stay, had given it in charge to Mr. Van Camp, with authority to him to make the best disposition of it in his power for all concerned. Some time having elapsed without Mr. Van Camp having an opportunity to make any disposition of this property at anything approaching a fair price, he determined to ship it to Valparaiso, and for that purpose he chartered the schooner Eudorus, Captain Seaman, for $4,000, to pro- ceed to Valparaiso. The cargo of the Rambler, with some property of the memorialists to complete the lading, was shipped on the Eudorus before the departure of Mr. Van Camp; and when he left Apia, on the 12th of May, 1856, in the Independence, it was expected the Eudorus would have followed in a few days. This, however, was not to be. Many months before this Mr. Van Camp had been superseded in his office of com- mercial agent of the United States for the Navigators Islands by the appointment of one Jonathan S. Jenkins to the place. What was the cause of- the removal of Mr. Van Camp does not appear. It is more than likely that it was produced by the reports in circulation to his injury, though nothing of the sort appears from the papers, and there is nothing to show that any inquiry into their truth was ever instituted under the direction of the State Department. Upon whose recommendation or upon what information Jenkins was appointed is unknown to your committee. But a more unfit person to fill any place — and least of all a place of such responsibility beyond the confines of civilization — it is entirely apparent from his own correspondence with the State Department, and from other evidence, could not well have been selected. Mr. Jenkins left San Francisco, California, in the early part of March, 1856, in the schooner Jeannette, bound for the Navigators Islands, and was accompanied on his voyage by Thomas F. Martin and James M. Conway, two persons who claimed to have been injured by Mr. Van Camp in proceedings taken by him in his official capacity with respect to the American barks St. Mary and Elvira. It appears from the affidavit of Samuel J. Agnew that Jenkins, before leaving San Francisco, declared he was "going to the islands to arrest Van Camp and seize and sell his property to pay Martin and others who claimed to have been robbed by Van Camp," and on 858 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. the voyage frequently stated that "he had the power, if he caught Van Camp, to hang him, and that his power was equal to a king's." The same purposes and the same exaggerated notions as to his powers are also shown by the correspondence of Jenkins with the State Department. In his letter to the Secretary of State of August 11, 1856, he says, in the course of a narrative of his proceedings after his appoint- ment, that "California was rife with accounts of Mr. Van Camp's malversations, and it was reported that he had a gang of rascals at his back, ' ' and then remarks that he "felt anxious, but none the less resolute, determined to take life in the maintenance of the honor and dignity of his office." Information was given to Mr. Jenkins of his appointment by a letter from the State Department, dated on the 31st of December, 1855. His official bond was given at San Francisco on the 9th of February, 1856. On the 20th of February, 1856, he wrote to the State Department, as appears from one of his letters, mentioning his design of regarding the provisions of the act of Congress entitled "An act to carry into effect certain provisions in the treaties between the United States and China and the Otto- man Porte, giving certain judicial powers to ministers and consuls of the United States in those countries," approved August 11, 1848, as having so extended an appli- cation as to clothe him, in the Navigators Islands, with the same authority. And on or about the 6th of March, 1856, he sailed from San Francisco for his consulate, before it was possible for him to have any reply to that letter. While on his voyage thither, it seems, both from his letter to the Department, inclosing copies of what he terms his "decrees," and from the deposition of Samuel J. Agnew, before referred to, that Mr. Jenkins made every preparation necessary to give what would seem to be the forms of law, in the eyes of ignorant or interested men, to the extraordinary course of violence meditated by him. At the time he prepared and signed papers in which he assumed to create a consulate court of the same character and clothed with the same powers with those provided for in the act just referred to, approved on the 11th of August, 1848, and proceeded to appoint a clerk for the court to be organized and a marshal to execute its process. Robert S. Swanston and Samuel J. Agnew, who were passengers with Mr. Jenkins on the schooner Jeannette, were ap- pointed to the places thus created by him, and were sworn in to their respective offices before the schooner entered the harbor of Apia. It further appears from the letters of Mr. Jenkins to the Department of State, and from the papers accompanying these letters, which are now before the committee, that the schooner Jeannette, with Mr. Jenkins and his newly appointed officials on board, arrived off the harbor of Apia on the evening of the 16th of May, 1856, and that Mr. Jenkins having, upon inquiry, learned from the pilot. who came on board of the schooner that Mr. Van Camp had left Apia, but that a vessel which was to sail the next day for Valparaiso was then in the harbor laden with property of his, sent Martin and Conway ashore to request Mr. Pritchard, the British consul, to detain the vessel in question until his (Jenkins's) arrival in port. The British consul, in conformity with this request of Mr. Jenkins, detained the vessel. On the next day Mr. Jenkins entered the harbor of Apia, and his marshal, acting under the authority of an order signed by Jenkins on the 16th of May, 1856, and directing him to take possession and control of "all the property of or belonging to Aaron Van Camp, late United States commercial agent for Apia, wherever it may be found, and of whatever kind and description it may be," etc., proceeded to take possession of the property laden on board of the Eudorus, and to seize the private dwelling of Van Camp, together with the buildings, merchandise, etc., belonging to V. P. Chap in & Co., in which Van Camp had an interest. But this was not all. On the same clay Mr. Jenkins made another order, in the following words: United States Consular Court, Apia, in the Island of Upola, Navigators Islands. The President of the United States of America to the marshal of the United States for the consulate of Apia and his deputies, or any of them, greeting: Whereas an oath has been made to me charging that Aaron Van Camp did, on or about the 16th of May, 1855, unlawfully and piratically and feloniously seize and take possession of the American bark St. Mary, within the jurisdiction of the consular court of the consulate of Apia. Now, therefore, you are hereby commanded, in the name of the President of the United States, to apprehend the said Aaron Van Camp and keep him in safe custody until he be dealt with according to law. Jonathan S. Jenkins, United States Consul and Vice Commissioner for the Consulate of Apia, Navigators Islands. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 859 What scenes of violence and blood might have followed an attempt to execute such an order, out of the sphere of any civilized government, by misguided or design- ing men, no one can tell. Luckily for the reputation of the United States, the absence of Mr. Van Camp, on his voyage to Valparaiso, left Mr. Jenkins no opportunity "to take life," in vindicating "the honor and dignity of his office," through the exer- cise of his usurped powers, as he says in his letter of the 11th of August, 1856, he was prepared to do. The property of Mr. Van Camp, however, and that of other persons which had been confided to his care, was within Jenkins's reach, and he proceeded to work his will upon it through the agency of a series of proceedings which were not only carried on without any shadow of legal authority, but were in them- selves as iniquitous as they were illegal. Soon after landing in Apia, Jenkins appointed three associate judges to sit with him in the consular court, established by the decree passed by him before his arrival. These "associates" were Horace B. Dunn and Josiah B. Leeds, the super- cargo and captain of the Jeannette, in which he had come to the islands as a pas- senger, and Henry Seaman, the captain of the Eudorus, whose cargo had just been seized by Jenkins's order. When they were appointed does not appear; but their written acceptances of the "commissions" issued to them are among the papers, and bear date on the 22d and 23d of May, 1856; and two proceedings — one in the name of Thomas F. Martin, and the other in the name of J. M. Conway, and which were entitled cases "in admiralty" — were then instituted, before the court so organ- ized, against Mr. Van Camp, and were carried on with such speed that they were brought to a termination by final decrees bearing date on the 29th and 31st of May, 1856, upon which executions were immediately issued. All the property on board of the Eudorus, though a large portion of it belonged to third parties, together with the other property previously taken possession of under the orders issued by Jenkins on his arrival, was seized as the property of Van Camp under these executions, and sold at auction on the 2d day of June, 1856. the third day after the seizure. Your committee have not found among the papers any detailed report of this sale, showing what was sold, or what were the prices paid for the differ- ent species of property, or who were the purchasers; but there is a statement among the papers before them, dated June 16, 1856. and which was sent to the Department of State by Mr. Jenkins, with his letter of the 30th of September, 1856, from which it appears that the proceeds of the sale made by the marshal, on the 2d of June, 1856, amounted to $16,993.16; and that, after deducting from that amount the sum of $1,877.31 for the marshal's fees and other "cash expenses" of the proceedings had, the remainder, forming the sum of $15,115.85, was paid into the consular court. Ac- companying this statement is another showing how this sum was disposed of. From that statement it seems that the further sum of $431.25 was appropriated to pay the fees of the clerk and court; that $4,000, the full amount to be paid to Captain Seaman, master of the Eudorus, under his charter-party, for the freight from Apia to Valpa- raiso, of the property shipped on it by Mr. Van Camp have been paid to Captain Seaman, although his vessel had not left the harbor; that $9,606.60 had been paid to Martin in part satisfaction of his judgment; and that a balance of $1,077.90 still remained at that time in the consular court. What was the real value of the property thus sold and disposed of your commit- tee have no means of knowing; nor is it, perhaps, of any importance that it should be known, to enable the House to act in a proper manner on the question presented to it by the memorialists. There can be no doubt, however, when all the circum- stances are considered, that the property put up at sale, under the authority of Mr. Jenkins, was wantonly sacrificed, to the grievous injury of all those having an interest in it. And the question then arises, have the memorialists any claim, legal or equi- table, upon the United States in the case presented by them; and, if so, then what is the extent of that claim? Does it reach to the value of the whole property of which they were deprived by the action of Jenkins? Or is it to be diminished because a Eortion of it was really applied to the payment of a debt or debts legitimately due y them? Before entering on the question as to the existence of any liability at all to the memorialists on the part of the United States, your committee think it best to dispose of the question as to there being any indebtedness on the part of Van Camp, one of the memorialists, to either Conway or Martin, in whose names the pro- ceedings carried on by Jenkins were instituted. J. M. Conway preferred a claim against the effects of Aaron Van Camp for the sum of $6,585, for the value of the New Granadian bark Elvira, which had been some time before sold, as he alleged, by the authority of Mr. Van Camp, acting in his capacity of commercial agent. The facts in relation to the sale of the Elvira, as shown by the original papers before us, are briefly these: The bark Elvira, Captain E. Alley, master, arrived at Apia 860 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. from San Francisco, bound to Sydney, on the 26th April, 1855, and among the per- sons on board was one P. S. Colby, who claimed to be the owner of the bark, and was so admitted to be by the master. On the same day the master of the bark, E. Alley, and P. S. Colby went before Mr. Van Camp as the commercial agent of the United States at Apia, and made a protest in relation to this bark, styling it the "American bark Elvira, of San Francisco." In this protest, which was signed by them both, various charges of misconduct were made against Jesse L. Atwood, first officer of the bark, and prayed that he, Atwood, might be discharged from the vessel and dealt with according to law. The following day P. S. Colby, calling himself the owner of the American bark Elvira, went before Mr. Van Camp in his official capacity, and, together with J. M. Coe, Lewis Bartlett, then mate of the bark, and Robert Stanley, declared upon oath that the passengers and crew of the vessel were in a state of insub- ordination and mutiny, and in consequence of this fact, Mr. Colby, then, in the same written instrument, called on Mr. Van Camp, as the United States consul, "to take into his possession the said bark and cargo, and to make the best arrangement he could for the benefit of all parties concerned." On the next day (the 28th of April, 1855) the master of the bark. Captain Alley, stated under oath that he had had great difficulties with her passengers; that on his voyage from San Francisco they had used very abusive language toward him and threat- ened to take his vessel; and that since his arrival at Apia, "a mob of some twenty" of them had "come to the house on shore where he was sick, and said that he should go no farther on the voyage, and that in the evening of the same day they had re- paired on board the ship, drove the mate away, and taken possession of her." In this statement Captain Alley declared that he and Mr. Colby, the owner, who was a passenger with him, were American citizens, and calls on Mr. Van Camp, as the United States commercial agent, to take possession of his vessel, the bark Elvira. After this, thirty-one passengers on the bark addressed a letter, dated on the 30th of April, 1855, to Mr. Van Camp, as the United States commercial agent, and to G. Pritchard, as the British consul, jointly, in which they style the bark the New Gra- nadian bark Elvira, and make a statement of the grievances under which they say they had been and were still laboring. They represented that they had been detained in San Francisco "about a month while on board of the bark," owing to an insufficiency of funds on the part of the owner or owners; that they had sailed from San Francisco with rotten rigging and rotten sails ; that they were then without fresh provisions of any kind ; that there was neither captain, mate, steward, or sailors on board; and that they were left in the vessel, out in the harbor, without a supply of good fresh water, and without any means of communi- cating with the shore. They further asserted that it was admitted by Captain Alley himself that the bark could not proceed to sea without a cash advance of three or- four thousand dollars to procure the sails and rigging and provisions necessary for the voyage; and as they had no confidence in Captain Alley, who, they said, got frequently intoxi- cated, and was unfit to be intrusted with the command of the vessel, they therefore begged leave to place their interests under the joint protection of the two function- aries, inasmuch as their different nationalities authorized both of them to interpose in their behalf. This letter of the passengers was followed, on the 2d of May, 1855, by a statement addressed to the commercial agent and signed by Lewis Bartlett, the first officer, and five seamen belonging to the bark, in which they "complain that the said bark is not safe, or in a suitable condition to go to sea, because she is insuf- ficiently supplied with sails, rigging, and provisions." Acting 'on these various representations and statements Mr. Van Camp ordered a survey of the bark. The survey was made on the day after the representations and statements were presented, and the two "master mariners," Captain Richard M. Jackson and Captain Henry Seaman, who made it reported it as their opinion that the vessel had been well provided, but that at that time she stood in need of a num- ber of new sails, and that the running rigging, fore and aft, should be replaced; and they also found that the expense of supplying her with extra provisions for her voyage would amount to sixteen hundred dollars, or "thereabouts." After this survey was made no progress whatever was made in getting the vessel ready for sea; and on the 28th of June following, Captain Alley made a declaration in writing to the effect that he could "not raise money by bottomry or in any other way," and that as his crew had had a survey held on the vessel and she had been condemned, and he was not able to make the necessary repairs, etc., and his crew insisted on being paid off, and that therefore he "E. Alley, master of the said bark," consented that Aaron Van Camp should "sell the said bark at public auction for the purpose of paying the crew and other lawful claims against her. ' ' Acting under the authority of law, and of the formal request of the master of the vessel, Mr. Van Camp proceeded to sell the Elvira at auction, to the highest bidder, on the 2d of July, 1855, when P. S. Colby, her owner, being the highest bidder, she ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 861 was struck off to him for the sum of $1,200. This sale was ratified by Captain Alley, who executed a formal act of sale for her to Colby on the 3d of July, and on the 5th of the same month relinquished the command of her and turned her over into the possession of Colby as the purchaser. What became of the cargo of the Elvira does not appear from the papers, but it clearly appears that it was disposed of by the authority of Captain Alley, as there is an order from him to Van Camp, dated on the 17th of July, 1855, in which he directs him to deliver twenty boxes of tobacco, which he had left with him, to P. S. Colby, and "to settle with him for all of his claims and demands against the sixty thousand feet of lumber" which he had landed at his place from the bark Elvira. From this recital of the facts disclosed by the records of the State Department relating to this transaction it would seem that the bark Elvira was disposed of with the authority of law and of the master and of the reputed owner, and that no liability could attach to Mr. Van Camp for his acts, even though it were true that J. M. Conway was the real owner of the Elvira at the time of her departure on her voyage from San Francisco. But there is reason to believe, from what appears in the papers before us, that Conway had no real interest in the vessel. The only evidence of title presented before the court created by Jenkins, on the part of Conway, was a sale purporting to have been executed in San Francisco on the 19th of February, 1855, to James M. Con- way by one Jesse L. Atwood. No evidence of title in Atwood was offered or shown to exist. Now it appears from the papers in the State Department that there was a Jesse L. Atwood on board of the Elvira in the capacity of first officer or mate on her arrival at Apia, and that he was dismissed from the vessel there by the authority of the commercial agent for misconduct on charges preferred by Captain Alley and P. S. Colby, the reputed owner. In the absence of proof to the contrary, is it not fair to presume that the Jesse L. Atwood who was on the bark Elvira in the port of San Fran- cisco as mate at the time the pretended sale to Conway was made and who was dis- missed from the bark in Apia for misconduct was the same Jesse L. Atwood who made the sale set up by Conway, and one and the same person? If that were so it would be entirely in keeping with all the other features presented by this case. The suit of Conway against Van Camp in Jenkins's consular court, as appears from a copy of the record now before us from the State Department, was instituted on the 29th of May, 1856, and proceeded with such remarkable celerity and convenient expe- dition that it was brought to a conclusion by a final decree rendered on the 31st of the same month, the second day after it was begun. But this was not by any means the most extraordinary circumstance in the case. Among the evidence laid before the court, though it seems that much of the most important must have been purposely kept out of sight, there was enough to show the real nature of the transaction, so far as Mr. Van Camp was concerned, and in consequence the "associate judges" decided unanimously that if Conway was the true owner of the bark the case presented was one of barratry of the master, "and that no just cause of complaint" could lie "against the said Aaron Van Camp," &c. This decision, made on the 30th of May, 1855, was not in accordance with the views or wishes of Jenkins, and on the next day, in vio- lation even of the provisions of the very act under which he pretended to derive the extraordinary powers he had been exercising, he overruled that decision and pro- ceeded to make a decree condemning Van Camp to the payment of $6,589 as damages and the cost of the proceedings. We will now turn to the other claim — that of Thomas F. Martin. This claim against Mr. Van Camp, as made before the consular court of Jenkins, was for the sum of $20,001.42, for the value of the American bark St. Mary and her cargo, which he alleged Mr. Van Camp had unlawfully and feloniously converted to his own use, and for the loss of the profits which he might have realized by the use of the vessel from the day of seizure until the claim was preferred, and to compensate him "for the griefs, ill-usages, and hardships which the conduct of Van Camp had entailed on him." The sum total is made of various items set forth by Martin in detail, among which are the following: First cost of the St. Mary $3, 250. 00 Expenses in fitting her for sea 2, 322. 62 Profits that he could have realized by the use of his vessel from the day of her seizure until the making of the claim, at the rate of $500 a month 6, 000. 00 For the griefs, ill-usage, and hardships entailed on him, &c 4, 000. 00 The facts in the case of the St. Mary, as shown by the papers before us, are these: The bark St. Mary, Thomas F. Martin, master, from San Francisco, bound to Mel- bourne, arrived at Apia early in May, 1855, in distress. On the 6th of May, 1855, Captain Martin wrote to Mr. Van Camp, as commercial agent, charging Francis Stanley, his first mate, and William Thurgood, his second 862 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. mate, with gross disobedience of his lawful orders, both on the voyage from San Fran- cisco and since his arrival at Apia, and complaining of the conduct of his passengers, and formally protested "against the said officers and passengers continuing on the voy- age on the said ship with him. ' ' On the 7th of the same month (the day following), Captain Martin and his first mate, Stanley, made their protest before Mr. Van Camp, in his official capacity, in which they spoke of the severe weather which had put the bark in its distressed con- dition, and had led to the loss of a part of her cargo; and on the same day the second mate, with the carpenter of the barque and four of the seamen, made their written complaint to Van Camp, as commercial agent, in which they represented that the St. Mary was not in a suitable condition to go to sea; 1st. Because she was in a leaky condition: 2d. That she was insufficiently equipped with sails and running rigging; and, 3d. That her provisions were inadequate, both in quantity and quality, for the prosecution of her voyage. Upon these various representations, a survey of the St. Mary was ordered. This order was followed by a survey made on the 2d of June, 1855, by John McClem- ens and James Parker, shipmasters, duly appointed to make the same, who declared, upon oath, that, after a careful examination of the bark, they found "her hull very rotten and unfit for sea, unless she should have new topsides and deck." And they further stated that the cargo of flour and barley was "very much damaged." There is another instrument also among the papers, purporting to give the result of an inspection as to the condition of the "cargo " of the St. Mary, made on the same day, on the joint request of Captain Martin and Mr. Van Camp, by Joseph A. Wilson and Francis Stanley, Captain Martin's mate. The examination made by these persons did not extend to the condition of the vessel. It was limited to ascertaining the condition of her cargo alone, and beyond all doubt preceded the other. It was not, in any sense, an official act, as it was not verified by oath, but seems to have been a mere private paper, clothed with no official formality. Whatever may be the character of the paper, whether it be official or a mere private one, its contents fully sustain the pro- priety of the commercial agent's interference in the case, for it is distinctly stated in it that the vessel was found "in a neglected and dirty condition;" that "the pas- sengers were in a state of mutiny and confusion, and apparently in charge of the vessel;" that "the body of the cargo was badly damaged on the bottom, in the wings, and on top, apparently caused by leaky bottom, side, and deck;" and that, "for the purpose of preserving a portion of the cargo, it should be all removed from the vessel; " and it is further declared that "in the present condition of the vessel it would be very improper to reship it in her." It is proper to mention that another paper of the same description with the one just spoken of seems to have been executed by Henry Seaman and Joseph A. Wilson, bear- ing date on the 8th of May, 1 855, as is stated in the record of the proceedings in the con- sular court of Jenkins, at the instance of Martin; that such a paper was produced, though the original of it is not to be found among the papers before us. This paper, however, like that executed by Wilson and Stanley, corroborates the correctness of the decision of the shipmasters who held the survey ordered upon the bark, as the per- sons making it, after stating the result of their inspection of the vessel and cargo in detail, certify at the close of their report "that in her present state the vessel was," in their opinion, ' ' unsafe to go to sea. ' ' In consequence of these various proceedings and of the condemnation of the vessel as unseaworthy by the shipmasters, who held a legal survey upon her, Mr. Van Camp ordered the vessel and cargo to be sold for the benefit of those whom it might concern; and it seems clear from all the evidence that this order, so far as it related to the sale of the cargo, was made with the full concurrence of Captain Martin. Whether Captain Martin did or did not consent to the sale of the bark also is involved in more doubt. That sale was made on the 26th of June, 1855. Among the papers received in evi- dence by Mr. Jenkins's court in the case of Martin against Van Camp is one dated on the 25th of June, the day previous, in which he protests against the sale of the bark, and declares that although the vessel had been condemned he, as owner, still claimed the right of holding his own property and disposing of it at his own pleasure. There are other facts, however, shown by the papers which seem to be inconsistent with this position of Captain Martin. But it seems to your committee unnecessary to decide this question. Whether Captain Martin was or was not opposed to the sale of his vessel was immaterial. His ship had been condemned as unseaworthy. He was unable to repair and equip it in such a manner as to fit it for going to sea. The cause of the unseaworthiness of the ves- sel was the rottenness of the hull, a defect existing previous to the commencement of the voyage, so that his voyage was broken up in such a manner as to make the vessel liable for the wages of the crew, and there was, under all the circumstances of the case, legal authority in Mr. Van Camp, as commercial agent of the United States, under the allowance op certain claims. 863 act approved July 20, 1840 (5 Statutes at Large, 396"), to sell the vessel for the payment of the crew. But this is not all. There is the fullest evidence among the papers placed before your committee by the State Department to show that Captain Martin neither had, or could have had. any claim against Mr. Van Camp growing out of this transaction. This necessarily results from the facts, first, that Captain Martin made a sale of the bark St. Mary on the 2d of July, 1855, to Joseph A. 'Wilson, who had succeeded to the rights of the person bidding her in at auction, for the sum of sixteen hundred dollars, the amount of the bid made at the auction, and in the act of sail made by him acknowledged the receipt of the price; and, second, that he gave a power of attorney to the same Joseph A. Wilson on the day following, in which he empowered him to demand, sue for, and re< eive, all sums of money due him. &c, and to make a final settlement of all matters appertaining to the bark St. Mary whilst lying in the harbor of Apia, under which a final set* 1 ?ment was made by his attorney in fact with Van Camp, and a full acquittance granted to him on the 11th of October, 1855. It is, however, due to Mr. Van Camp to say that the papers before the committee show that the total of the sales made by him of the bark St. Mary and her cargo amounted to the sum of $9,081.85; and that it appears from the settlement made with Joseph A. Wilson, the attorney of Martin, on the 11th of .October, 1855, Martin himself had received the sum of $4,357.30 from Van Camp prior to the 12th of July, 1S55; that the sum of $2,000 only was paid over to the attorney in fact on the settle- ment, and that the remainder of the total amount of the sales of the bark and her cargo had been appropriated to the payment of the wages of the officers and crew and of the expenses incurred, and of certain notes given by Captain Martin to per- sons .on board for advances of money. In the absence of all explanation, it would excite surprise that any court, no mat- ter how illegally created or constituted, should be able to make »uch a decision as that given by the consular court of Jenkins with reference to a case like that of the St. Mary, when the facts involved in it were of such a character as to almost neces sarily have great publicity, and all of them had transpired in the very place where the court was holden. But in the present instance there is no room for surprise when all the circumstances connected with the transaction are considered. The pretended court was created for the express purpose of depriving Mr. Van Camp of his property. It sat beyond the limits of any well-ordered government, so that it was nearly certain that those who contributed to make it an agent for per- petrating a barefaced spoliation would go unpunished. One of the members of the court, Seaman, was so situated as to find it to his personal advantage to lend himself to the scheme of Jenkins, as its success enabled him to realize the four thousand dollars under his charter-party to Van Camp without leaving Apia. The two were so connected with Jenkins as to subject them in a great degree to his influence. And the task imposed on these instruments was rendered a comparatively easy one by keeping out of view the most material parts of the evidence in existence. But powerful as were these means at the disposal of Jenkins, it is probable that even they would not have been sufficient to give success to his designs, had it not been that there was a decided hostility to Mr. Van Camp on the part of Mr. Pritch- ard, the British consul, who had a controlling influence in the neighborhood, and that Mr. Van Camp seems to have been quite unpopular with most of the white per- sons residing at Apia. It is proper to observe here that, so far as your committee is able to judge of the cause of Mr. Van Camp's unpopularity with the white persons there, from the papers before them, it was not attributable to anything connected with his official conduct, but grew out of differences between him and some of his neigh- bors as to the lines of their respective properties and a right of way over land claimed by him. It is also proper to state, in justice to Mr. Van Camp, that the difficulties between him and Mr. Pritchard, the British consul, rose to such a height that Mr. Pritchard brought them, officially, to the notice of Captain Fremantle of Her Britannic Majesty's ship Juno, who was then cruising in those seas, and that Captain Fremantle, after taking the charges of Mr. Pritchard into consideration, decided that, with respect to the principal one, Mr. Van Camp was right, and that the others were of too frivo- lous a character to require a decision on them from him. In whatever light the proceedings of Jenkins may be viewed, they merit unmeas- ured reprobation. The claims which he attempted to enforce against the property of Mr. Van Camp had no foundation in law or equity. But if it had been otherwise his conduct with respect to the whole matter would have been iniquitous in the highest degree. There was no warrant of law for the establishment of a consular court at Apia. Nor is there even the shadow of an excuse for the pretense which he set up beforehand to palliate his meditated usurpation of power. The act approved August 11, 1848, to which he referred in the communication notifying the Secretary of State of his intention to create such a tribunal, left no room for such a construe- 864 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. tion as he there pretended to give to it. That act was entitled "An act to carry into effect certain provisions in the treaties between the United States and China and the Ottoman Porte, giving certain judicial powers to ministers and consuls of the United States in those countries," and there is not a provision in the act in relation to the exercise of the powers conferred which does not, in the most positive manner, negative the idea that any such power could be exercised elsewhere than in China or Turkey by the agents of the United States. By the law of nations the municipal laws and institutions of a State can operate beyond its territorial limits and within the territory of another State only by the authority of special compacts between the two States. It is from that source alone that consuls and other commercial agents derive the power to exercise over their own countrymen a jurisdiction in the territories where they reside. This jurisdiction, as it is exercised merely for the convenience of trade, is restricted among civilized nations within very narrow limits, and it is only with respect to China and Turkey that the United States have entered into any treaties providing for the creation of courts and the exercise of ordinary judicial powers by its own agents Avithin the ter- ritory of another State. In the absence of any treaty and of any legislation by Con- gress authorizing it, the creation of a court by any functionary of the Government would be a mere usurpation of power; all the decrees of any court so created would be absolute nullities, which would give rise to no rights; and if. through the exercise of any jurisdiction thus pretended to be conferred, any person should be deprived of his property or be aggrieved in his person, all those in any way concerned in the exercise of the usurped power would be personally responsible for the injuries result- ing from that usurpation. In the present instance Mr. Jenkins, the commercial agent, who assumed the right to create a court, the members of that court who acted under the commissions issued by him, and the ministerial officers who gave effect to the decrees of that court were all equally responsible in law to Mr. Van Camp, Mr. Chapin, and all other persons interested in it for the full value of the property wrongfully seized and disposed of under color of the proceedings already detailed. But while this is true as a legal prop- osition, it is also true that it is absolutely impossible for those who were thus illegally deprived of their property to obtain any redress for the injury they have sustained from the actual perpetrators of the wrong done them. These men are probably with- out the means of making compensation, and if they were not, as they are all now stationed among the islands of the Pacific Ocean, they are certainly beyond the reach of judicial pursuit in our courts. Jenkins, the principal actor in the commis- sion of the outrage perpetrated, returned to the United States and appeared in this city in the latter part of May, 1857. He, it is said, is notoriously without pecuniary means, and, in consequence of this, Mr. Van Camp, one of the memorialists who was then in the city, preferred a criminal charge against him before one of the magis- trates of the District for "feloniously and piratically robbing, stealing, taking, and carrying away the property of him, the said Van Camp, and others for whom he was agent, to the value of seventy thousand dollars," etc., at Apia, in the Navigators Islands. On this charge Jenkins was arrested and committed to prison to await a requisition for his removal to the city of New York, where Jenkins had landed on his return to the United States and where the offense charged upon him was cogni- zable. After his commitment to prison Jenkins applied to the criminal court of the United States for the District of Columbia for a writ of habeas corpus. This writ was granted; and on the examination of the case Jenkins was dismissed from cus- tody without giving time to Mr. Van Camp to procure the attendance of witnesses to substantiate the charge, chiefly, so far as your committee can gather from the papers before them, on the ground that Mr. Appleton, the Assistant Secretary of State, stated when called on that he knew nothing about the facts and that the district attorney of the United States, Mr. Key, informed the court, when applied to in relation to the matter, that "the Government declined to take any part in it and desired that he, Jenkins, should be discharged." From the situation of the various persons concerned in the perpetration of the wrong it seems certain that the memorialists are entirely without remedy, unless they can obtain indemnity from the United States for the losses they have sustained through illegal action of a Government agent; and the question then presents itself, Is the Government of the United States bound to indemnify them under the circum- stances of this case? ( The general rule unquestionably is that a nation is not responsible for the illegal acts of its agents. But to this, like all other rules, there may be exceptions. No matter how just or important any particular rule may be in itself, it can not properly be applied to cases not embraced within the reasons on which it is founded. The ALLOWANCE OP CEKTAIN CLAIMS. 865 reason of the general rule referred to is sufficiently obvious. In all well-ordered governments, where the laws are supreme and justice holds the scales and bears the sword, if any public functionary violates the law by usurping powers not conferred on him, or by the abuse of those with which he is actually intrusted, the courts are always open, and it is both the right and duty of every citizen who is aggrieved to call on them to interfere at once. If this duty is performed the illegal acts attempted to be done are prevented or restrained, or the damages caused by them may be repaired by enforcing the responsibility incurred by all those who were in any way connected with the transaction giving rise to them. But if, on the other hand, this duty is not performed; if, when one is within reach of courts competent to prevent or re- strain the exercise of usurped authority, he fails to invoke their aid if the means are at hand to enable them to compel the wrongdoers to make compensation for the injuries they have done or the damages they have occasioned, then there can be no legitimate claim on the Government, either in law or equity, on the part of the suf- ferer, because the injury done him may be fairly considered as the consequence of his own fault, or the failure to obtain redress from those directly bound to him may be properly imputable to his own negligence. But it must be otherwise, when the circumstances under which the wrongful acts are done are such that it is impossible to prevent the injury, or to obtain redress for it through the court. In such cases the reason of the rule ' ' that a nation is not responsible for the illegal acts of its agents" fails altogether, and the rule, in the opinion of your committee, can have no application. It is on that principle that compensation is made for property taken or destroyed in wars by our own forces, under certain circumstances; as, for instance, when the owner is compelled to yield the possession of it to overpower- ing, though illegal, force, and it was impossible for him to obtain redress for the wrong from the officer ordering, or those who committed it, because inter arma silent leges. There is also another class of cases in which governments are required, by every prin- ciple of justice, to make compensation to those who have suffered loss through the negligence or misconduct of its officers. We allude, of course, to those cases where individuals suffer injury because the ordinary duties of government have not been performed by those appointed to discharge them; as, for instance, when property is destroyed in time of peace by a mob composed of unknown persons, or when, through the failures to keep streets and thoroughfares in proper condition, unavoidable acci- dents occasioning injuries, either to persons or property, are met with. It is not neces- sary to cite adjudicated cases of the kinds referred to, where corporations of cities have been condemned to make compensation. All are familiar with their existence, and it can hardly be necessary to say that, so far as to the principle involved in such cases, it is as applicable to claims resulting from them against the governments of States as against those merely municipal in their character. The municipal governments of cities, like the governments of States, are established for the accomplishment of objects essential to the well-being of the people without their jurisdiction; and, as all the powers necessary for the attainment of the ends aimed at are vested in them, they are bound to give to their citizens the various benefits and advantages which they were created to secure. If those living under a municipal government so constituted are injured or sub- jected to losses because the government refuses to exercise the powers conferred on it, or because the agents employed under their authority to cany them into effect either neglect or violate their duty, the government is held to be responsible to those who are aggrieved, on the ground that there has been a breach of the obligation imposed on it in their favor by the mere fact of its creation for the benefit and advantage of all. And then we ask, Is not this equally true with respect to the governments of States? Is not the same obligation to secure their citizens against violence and wrong, and to extend to them the advantages proposed to be derived from their establishment, necessarily imposed on them also by the mere fact of their creation in the public interest ? And do not the same legal and equitable consequences follow from their failure to act at all in discharge of this obligation, or from the neglect or misconduct of the officers to whom they have intrusted the performance of the functions necessary to carry it out? For our own part, we are constrained to say that we can discover no real difference, upon principle, between claims made in cases of the nature referred to, no matter what may be the character of the government under which they arise, and that the only practical difference which exists between them grows out of the fact that the government of a State being sovereign-can not be sued, whilst that of a city is amenable to judicial pursuit. Although the determination of the question involved in the present inquiry does not in any way depend upon the rules of international law, yet it is tnle that cases frequently arise, in the intercourse of nations with each other, connected with the individual rights of their citizens, which are calculated to throw some light on the point under investigation. If a citizen of one country is injured or subjected to loss whilst in S. Rep. 382, 60-1 55 866 ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. another country by the unauthorized or illegal acts of its officials, it has always been held that the government of the country where the wrong was done is bound to make reparation for it, and that it is the duty of the country to which the person aggrieved belongs to demand it for him. This is the settled practice among civilized nations; and the history of our own negotiations with foreign powers presents various instances in which such claims have been allowed and paid to our own citizens by foreign gov- ernments, upon the interposition of our Government in their behalf. And why is this? Is it not upon the ground that a government is, in law or equity, bound to make repara- tion in such cases, and that the obligation is so complete and incontrovertible, upon the principles of the civil or municipal law, as contradistinguished from the law of nations, that it is not only the right of a nation to claim the fulfillment of the obligation in behalf of its citizens, but that it also has the right by the law of nations to enforce its fulfillment, in the event of a refusal, even by resort to war? If this is so ; if, by the laws of nations it is the duty of our Government to compel a foreign government to make reparation to our citizens for the injuries done them by the improper or illegal acts of its agents; on what ground, or with what show of justice, can it be pretended that our own Government is not bound to make the same reparation when similar injuries are suffered from the improper or illegal acts of our own agents? From all these various considerations, it seems clear to your committee that the transactions giving rise to the claim before us are in no way embraced in the reason of the general rule, that "nations are not.responsible for the illegal acts of their agents," and that they are, in truth, within the reason of those in which it has been uniformly held by our courts that an obligation to repair wrongs suffered or losses incurred by individuals is justly imposed on the public. Indeed, it is not easy to conceive of a case which is more entirely within the recognized principles of law. The transactions on which the claim is founded took place beyond the limits of any government com- petent to protect or vindicate the rights of individuals, and, it may be said, without the pale of civilized society. The only authority which could have been legitimately exercised there over Amer- ican citizens was vested in the very man who was engaged in the perpetration of the wrongs complained of, and that man's usurpation of power was sustained by an over- powering physical force, which his official position alone enabled him to command. There was no means within reach of the sufferers by which the usurpation of power which caused the injury done could have been prevented, or by which the responsibil- ity incurred by those concerned in depriving them of their property could have been enforced. But this is not all. Your committee are constrained to say, in addition to this, that the executive department of the Government seems to have failed altogether to make any efforts for the assistance or relief of our citizens who have been so grievously injured, after the facts in relation to the injury done them had been brought to its knowledge, and that there is good reason to believe that it was chiefly owing to its unwillingness to act that the principal wrongdoer, when there was an attempt made to bring him to justice, upon his venturing within the jurisdiction of our courts, was enabled to escape without a trial, or even a decent judicial investigation. So far as your committee are informed, there has been nothing in the practice of the Government which is at all inconsistent with the views to which we have just given expression, whilst, on the other hand, there has been much in its previous action which seems to indicate a distinct recognition of their correctness. Without attempting an enumeration of the instances of that character, it will be sufficient for our purpose to refer to a single instance in the action of Congress in which such a recognition is neces- sarily implied. This is furnished by theact (6 Stat, at Large, p. 679) entitled "An act to provide for the settlement of the claim of Mary O'Sullivan," approved July 2, 1836. In that case the facts were briefly these: A person by the name of O'Sullivan pur- chased an American brig in one of the South American ports, and took a bill of sale of her, and possession, in pursuance of it, was delivered to him; but as it appeared that the vessel had been registered at Baltimore as owned and commanded by one Furlong, and had been long absent from the United States, O'Sullivan deposited the purchase money on board the United States ship Franklin, and by contract made the payment depend on the future approbation of a commercial house in New York with which O'Sullivan was connected. Being, however, in possession of the vessel, O'Sullivan caused her to be repaired and refitted, and placing a new commander on board, he directed her to Bio de Janeiro, and from thence to Buenos Ayres, to take a cargo of hides to proceed to Cadiz. Pursuant to these directions, the brig sailed for and arrived at Buenos Ayres. On her arrival there she was seized by the commercial agent of the United States, and the master and supercargo were required to give bond that she should immediately, and by the most direct route, proceed to the United States. These officers resisted the demand of the agent as far as practicable, and endeavored to procure such a modifica- tion of the bond required as would enable her to proceed on the voyage to Cadiz. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 867 These attempts were unavailing. Mr. Forbes remained inflexible; and the vessel was ordered home by the most direct route, and the greater part of the cargo of hides, which had been purchased, was resold. The agent of the United States retained the register and forwarded it, together with his charges against the brig, to the Secretary of the Treasury by another vessel. No proceedings, however, were had upon them on the part of the Government, and the brig, after remaining for some time in the port of New York, was libelled for seamen's wages and on a contract of bottomry, and sold. In the meantime O' Sullivan, the owner of the brig, had proceeded to Cadiz to await her arrival with cargo ordered to be shipped by him, and after having been detained there for sonie months, in vain awaiting her arrival, he returned to the United States; and it was to make compensation for the losses incurred by him in consequence of the breaking up of the contemplated voyage of his brig, through the action of the commercial agent, that the act for the relief of Mary O' Sullivan, just mentioned, was passed. It is obvious from the circumstances of this case that it necessarily implies a com- plete recognition of the views before expressed by us as to the principle which should govern in deciding upon questions of this nature; and that if there be any difference between the two cases, that difference is altogether in favor of the one before us, as the illegal acts complained of by the memorialists were all perpetuated in a distant island where the population are" almost in a state of nature, whilst the others all trans- pired within the limits of a well-ordered government. In conclusion, then, your committee, in view of the facts now disclosed in this case, have no hesitation in saying that in their opinion the memorialists are entitled to compensation for the losses which they have actually sustained by the illegal acts of Jonathan S. Jenkins, commercial agent of the United States, under color of his office, and of those acting under his pretended authority; and we therefore present the accompanying bill and recommend its passage. Appendix B. [Court of Claims. No. 23193. (Decided January 11, 1904.) The Washington Loan and Trust Com- pany, legal representative of Aaron Van Camp, deceased, and Mary M. U. Chapin and Rua A. Chapin, legal representatives of Virginius P. Chapin, deceased, v. The United States.] This case having been heard by the Court of Claims, the court, upon the evidence, make the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. Aaron Van Camp and Virginius P. Chapin were citizens of the United States, residing at Washington, D. C, and Clarksburg, in the State of West Virginia, respec- tively. II. Virginius P. Chapin was appointed United States commercial agent for the Navigators Islands by President Fillmore and acted as such until he was superseded by Aaron Van Camp, in 1854, under an appointment by President Pierce. In May, 1855, they formed a copartnership, under the firm name and style of V. P. Chapin & Co.; built up a large mercantile establishment at Apia, Samoa, consisting of ware- houses and storehouses, a pearl-shelling depot on the Pennrhyn Islands, and an establishment at the island of Tutuila for purchasing cocoanut oil. Van Camp left Apia on the 12th of May, 1856, on the United States ship Inde- pendence for Valparaiso, having appointed Chapin to act as vice-consul during his absence. His departure for Valparaiso was caused by the necessity of his being at that place to look after the disposition of a large amount of property belonging to American citizens, consisting of the cargo of the American whale ship Rambler, which arrived at Apia in distress in December, 1855. Said ship having been con- demned as unseaworthy, her cargo was placed in the warehouses of V. P. Chapin & Co. by Elihu E. Winchell, her master, who, having been unable to dispose of it after a stay of three months at Apia, gave it in charge to Van Camp, with authority to him to make the best disposition of it he could for all concerned; and no opportunity having offered to dispose of the property at a fair price, and after consultation with Commodore Mervine, of the United States flagship Independence, it was decided to ship the cargo by the American schooner Eudorus, Henry Seaman, master, to Val- paraiso, the schooner having been chartered for that purpose at the sum of $4,000. III. After the departure of Van Camp, as aforesaid, but before the departure of the Eudorus, one Jonathan S. Jenkins arrived at Apia, having been appointed several months before to supersede Van Camp as commercial agent for the Navigators Islands, 868 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. accompanied by Thomas F. Martin and James M. Conway, who claimed to have been injured by Van Camp in certain proceedings taken by him, in his official capacity, with respect to the American barks St. Mary and Elvira, while on the voyage from San Francisco to the Navigators Islands. Jenkins prepared and signed papers, in which he assumed to create a consular court, and appointed Robert S. Swanston clerk and Samuel J. Agnew marshal. He arrived off the harbor of Apia on the 16th day of May, 1856, and having learned that Van Camp had left for Valparaiso, and that the Eudorus was in the harbor laden with property belonging to Van Camp and about to sail for Valparaiso, sent Martin and Conway on shore to see the British consul and request him to detain the Eudorus, informing him of the course he intended to pursue against the property of Van Camp. The next day Jenkins entered the harbor and his marshal, acting under the authority of an order signed by him, Jenkins, on the 16th of May, 1856, and directing him to take possession and control of "all the property of or belonging to Aaron Van Camp, late United States commercial agent for Apia, wherever it may be found, and of whatever kind or description it may be, and keep the same in safe custody, subject to the order of the court," proceeded to take possession of the property laden on board the Eudorus, and to seize the private dwelling of Van Camp, together with the buildings, merchandise, etc., belonging to V. P. Chapin & Co., in which Van Camp had an interest. IV. Soon after landing at Apia, Jenkins also appointed three so-called associate judges to sit with him in his consular court in two proceedings, styled "cases in admiralty," one in the name of Thomas F. Martin and the other in the name of J. M. Conway, against Van Camp, the proceedings of which court appear in the following so-called orders and decrees: [United States consular court for the consulate of Apia; in admiralty. T. F. Martin v. A. Van Camp, in rem. before Jonathan S. Jenkins, U. S. consul, presiding judge; Horace D. Dunn, Henry Seaman, Josiah B. Leeds, associate judges.] The court do find that the plaintiff, T. F. Martin, has fully proved the illegal seizure and sale of the bark St. Mary and property thereon, and the confiscation of the pro- ceeds by the above A. Van Camp, late United States commercial agent for Apia. The court do therefore award unto the said T. F. Martin the sum of eight thousand dollars in full of the value of the said vessel and property thereon belonging to the said T. F. Martin. And do further award the sum of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) as damages in consideration of the losses, detriment, and distresses directly entailed upon the said plaintiff, T. F. Martin, by the aforesaid illegal acts of the said A. Van Camp, late commercial agent for the United States for Apia. Given at the United States consular court of Apia, under the consular seal and the signatures of the aforesaid presiding and associate judges, the 28th day of May, 1856. [seal.] Jonathan H. Jenkins, JJ. S. Consul and Vice-Commissioner for the Consulate of Apia, Presiding Judge. Henry Seaman, , Josiah B. Leeds, Horace D. Dunn, Associate Judges. [Court of the United States consulate, Apia, Navigators Islands. Jonathan S. Jenkins, U. S. consul, presiding judge. In the cause in admiralty, J. M. Conway v. Aaron Van Camp, in rem.] The undersigned, associate judges of this court, after a patient hearing, and upon a careful examination of the testimony offered in the case of J. M. Conway v. Aaron Van Camp, relating to the alleged seizure and sale of the New Grenadian bark Elvira, which said alleged seizure and sale transpired within the jurisdiction of the consular court of this place, have come to and can give no other opinion or give other decision than the following: (1) It will be seen by reference to the testimony (all of which was offered on behalf and on the part of said plaintiff, and may, therefore, be supposed to be the most favorable to his, the said plaintiff's, interests) that the evidence of many of the wit- nesses conflict upon many essential points of time, of occurrence, and of mode of procedure and action of many of the parties interested, or said to have been interested, in the transaction' connected with the complaint. £< ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. 869 (2) That no testimony has established the fact that the captain of the said bark was forced to deliver up the possession of the said vessel or that he did so. (3) That according to the testimony of the mate, Mr. Attwood, and others, the cap- tain of said bark willfully neglected to take the necessary steps to insure the com- pletion of his voyage, all of which we believe to have been purposely and willfully neglected by him. (4) That the testimony shows that the said captain was acknowledged and obeyed by his crew of said Elvira for at least two (2) months after his arrival in this port, and that bills for supplies furnished to said vessel and for labor done on said vessel for some time after her arrival were refused payment by Aaron Van Camp unless they were properly certified to by Captain E. Alley, the master of the Elvira, upon whose endorsement they were paid by Aaron Van Camp. (5) That the vessel was under a foreign flag, and that therefore Aaron Van Camp, as U. S. commercial agent, had no control of the bark Elvira in his official capacity, and could not therefore compel her sale or give proper title. (6) That from the testimony the master of the Elvira appears to have willfully misrepresented that a Mr. Colby was her owner, and by his general conduct in the matter appears to have been the principal in the said alleged fraud. (7) That it appears from the testimony that Captain Alley had the papers of the Elvira in his possession for a considerable time after his arrival, amply sufficient to have refitted and sent her to sea while she was yet in his possession. (8) That the said Aaron Van Camp did pay bills for expenses on account of the bark Elvira, such as seamen's wages and other claims, and that the amount realized from the alleged sale was so small as to leave a fair inference that the amount alleged to have been paid by the purchaser was little, if any, more than said charges, no moneys, however, having been testified to as having been received at the sale. (9) That from the testimony taken as a whole the alleged fraud connected with said vessel in Apia appears to have been committed by and with the consent of Cap- tain Alley, who, as master of the Elvira, represented and acted as agent for her owners, and that by his act he has committed barratry, and is therefore personally answerable. (10) That the said bark Elvira is liable to seizure by her lawful owners wherever found, and such proceedings would be upheld in any civilized country; therefore, in accordance with the before-stated reasons, we, the undersigned associate judges of the United States consular court, can come to no, nor can form any, other decision than the following, viz: That the offense was barratry of master, and that no just cause of complaint can lay against the said Aaron Van Camp, and that therefore no damages can be given to J. M. Conway, plaintiff, to be paid from the property of the aforesaid Aaron Van Camp. In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands under the seal of the consulate of Apia, on this 31st day of May, 1856. Horace D. Dunn, Josiah B. Leeds, Henry Seaman, . Associate Judges of the U. S. Consular Court of Apia. [United States consular court, Apia, Navigators Islands. Jonathan S. Jenkins, United States consul, presiding judge. In the cause in admiralty, J. M. Conway v. Aaron Van Camp, in rem.] I, Jonathan S. Jenkins, United States consul for the consulate of Apia, believing the testimony in the above cause fully proves that Aaron Van Camp, knowingly and willfully, acting as the United States commercial agent for this port of Apia, did wrongfully, on or about the 2d day of July, 1855, sell and hold from the possession of said J. M. Conway the bark Elvira, I therefore grant the said J. M. Conway six thousand five hundred and eighty-five dollars ($6,585) damages and the costs in the case; but as the associate judges in this case have differed with me in opinion, I shall hold this judgment as subject to the confirmation of the United States Gov- ernment. The property of the said Aaron Van Camp shall be sold and the proceeds held in my hands awaiting the action of the Government of the United States in the matter. Given under my hand and the seal of my consulate this 31st day of May, 1856. [seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, TJ. S. Consul, Vice- Commissioner for the Consulate of Apia, Presiding Judge. 870 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. Court of the United States consulate, Apia, Navigators Islands, to Henry Seaman, master of brigantine Eudorus: By virtue of a judgment rendered in this court in favor of Francis Martin, against the property and effects of Aaron Van Camp, to the amount of ten thousand five hundred dollars and costs, and also of a judgment rendered by the presiding judge of the above court in favor of James M. Conway, for the sum of six thousand five hundred and eighty-five dollars and costs, against the property and effects of Aaron Van Camp, you are hereby commanded to deliver into the possession of the United States marshal for this consulate the cargo on board of the brigantine Eudorus, under your command, the said cargo being consigned to and the property of the aforesaid Aaron Van Camp. Given under my hand and seal of the consulate of Apia this 31st day of May, 1856. [seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, TJ. S. Consul and Presiding Judge of the Consular Court. [U. S. consular court, Apia, Samoa, 30th May, 1856. T. F. Martin v. A. Van Camp. Cause in admiralty.] To the marshal of the United States for the consulate of Apia, greeting: You are hereby ordered to advertise and sell the whole of the property of A. Van Camp, within this consulate, or such portion of it at public sale as shall be necessary to defray the judgment in the above cause in favor of complainant and the costs incurred in the said cause, and make due return to the court thereof. ' Given under my hand and seal this 30th day of May, 1856, in this port of Apia. [seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, U. S. Consul and Presiding Judge of the Consular Court. [U. S. consular court, Apia, Navigators Islands.] To the marshal of the United States for the consulate of Apia, greeting: You are hereby ordered to take into your possession all the books used by the firm of V. P. Chapin & Co., viz, books of entry of the different operations connected with the business, and hold them safely in your possession subject to the orders of this court. Given at Apia this 29th May, 1856. By order of the court. [seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, U. S. Consul and Presiding Judge. monition express and judgment. The undersigned, Jonathan S. Jenkins, after a careful examination of the evi- dence of V. P. Chapin, given in the case of T. F. Martin v. Aaron Van Camp, do adjudge that the said V. P. Chapin has no right, title, or interest in the cargo of the American schooner Eudorus, which cargo is now lying attached on board of said vessel in this port of Apia, and that the use of the name of V. P. Chapin & Co., as shipper of said cargo, does not, in the face of the evidence of the above-named V. P. Chapin, prove ownership therein to the said V. P. Chapin, but that, by the said evi- dence and the several shipping papers connected with the cargo, the property belonged solely and entirely to Aaron Van Camp. And now, in accordance with the above decision, I do hereby command the United States marshal for the consulate of Apia to consider the said cargo shipped by V. P. Chapin & Co., in accordance with this my decision, and to proceed against it as the property of the said Aaron Van Camp, under the order of sale issued to him against the said Aaron Van Camp's property from this court, and dated 30th May, 1856. Given under my hand and seal of office this 13th day of May, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-six. [seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, U. S. Consul and Vice- Commissioner for the Consulate of Apia. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 871 The undersigned, judge and associate judges of the consular court of Apia, Samoa, in the Navigators Islands, on examining the papers relative to the whale and sperm oil and whalebone now on board the brig Eudorus, can find no other conclusion than that it, the said oil and bone, is the property of Aaron Van Camp, the bills of lading being from V. P. Chapin to the said Aaron Van Camp, and the letters of instructions to the supercargo and captain of the said brig being of the same purport as. to consign- ments or ownership. Given under my hand and the consular seal this 20th day of May, 1856. [seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, U. S. Consul and Presiding Judge. Henry Seaman, Josiah B. Leeds, Horace D. Dunn, Associate Judges. [United States consulate, Apia, Upolu. Referee case in reference, Thos. F. Martin and J. M. Conway v. Aaron Van Camp. Cause in admiralty.] We, the undersigned, having been called upon by the United States consular court in full session to inquire into and decide upon the merits of a certain claim of Captain Henry Seaman, of the brigantine Eudorus, for the amount of charter money agreed to be paid to him by Aaron Van Camp upon his delivery in Valparaiso a cer- tain cargo shipped to the order of the said Aaron Van Camp, the said cargo having been seized under a judgment and monition issued out of the U. S. consular court for this consulate against the said Aaron Van Camp in favor of the parties aforesaid, and undelivered here in this port of Apia, do decide: (1) That Captain Seaman is entitled to his full charter money as though he had fulfilled his charter party, he having already broken ground, and the noncarriage of the said cargo in Valparaiso having been the result of the illegal and wrongful acts of the said Aaron Van Camp, and not of any insufficiency on the part of the Eudorus or her tackle, or of any unwillingness on the part of the said Henry Seaman to fulfill his contract, and that the said Seaman was forcibly, by orders of the said court, dis- possessed of the said cargo. Charter money, as per charter, $4,000. (2) That the 20 log days named in the charter party do commence from the day the vessel was detained, viz, 17th day of May, inclusive. (3) That the expense of discharging the cargo do fall upon the said cargo, Captain Seaman having refused to unliver the freight, and having ordered his crew to refrain from aiding in the same. Given under my hand and the seal of the consulate at Apia this 2d day of June, 1856. We acknowledge to have received our fee of $10, as allowed by law. [seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, TJ. S. Consul, Presiding Judge. Jeremiah Norton, Master of Louisiana. Josiah B. Leeds, Master of Jeanette. United States Consular Court, Apia, Navigators Islands. The President of the United States of America to the marshal of the United States for the consulate of Apia, his deputies, or any other, greeting: You are hereby commanded to take possession of, and under your control, the property of or belonging to A. Van Camp, late United States commercial agent for Apia, wherever it may be found, and of whatever kind or description it may be, and keep the same in safe custody, subject to the order of the court. Given under my hand and seal the 16th day of May, 1856. [seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, U. S. Consul and Vice- Commissioner for the Consulate of Apia. 872 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. United States Consular Court, Apia, Navigators Islands. The President of the United States of America to the marshal of the United States for the consulate of Apia, his deputies, or any other, greeting: You are hereby commanded to take possession of the cargo of the brigantine Eudorus, now lying in this harbor, and hold the same in safe custody, subject to the order of this court, and also to deter the said schooner from leaving port. Given under my hand and seal the 16th day of May, 1856, and the year of our Inde- lence the eightieth. [seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, U. S. Consul and Vice- Commissioner for the Consulate of Apia, Navigators Islands. Court of the United States Consulate, Apia, Navigators Islands. To the United States marshal of this consulate, greeting: You are ordered to proceed on board the schooner Eudorus, now lying detained in this port by virtue of an order from the United States consul here, and, taking such force as you may require, break open the hatches and sell and deliver the aforesaid cargo according to the judgment and monition to you issued from the United States consular court of the consulate, dated the 29th day of May, 1856. Given under my hand and the seal of the consulate this 2d day of June, 1856. [seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, U. S. Consul and Presiding Judge of the Consular Court. U. S. Consular Court, Apia, Navigators Islands. [J. M. Conway v. Aaron Van Camp. In admiralty.] To the marshal of the United States for the consulate of Apia, greeting: You are hereby ordered to advertise and sell the whole of the property of Aaron Van Camp, within this consulate, that is not now liable to judgment, or such portion thereof as shall be necessary to defray the judgment in the above cause and the costs of the case, and make due returns to this court thereof. Given under my hand and the seal of the consulate this 31st day of May, 1856. [seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, U. S. Consul and Presiding Judge of the Consular Court. I, Jonathan S. Jenkins, United States consul and vice-commissioner for Apia, Upolu, and the adjoining islands, certify that the foregoing attached documents are true and correct copies of the originals now on file in the office of the consulate of Apia. Given under my hand and seal of office this 18th day of June, 1856. [seal.] Jonathan S. Jenkins, U S. Consul, Apia. I certify that the foregoing are true and correct copies of the originals now on file in the office of the consulate of Apia. June 18, 1856. James Anderson, Clk. On Tuesday next, the 19th inst., will be sold, in pursuance of a judgment issued out of the U. S. consular court in favor of J. M. Conway, the remainder of the interest of A. Van Camp in the firm of V. P. Chapin & Co., consisting of sundry merchandise, of debts due the said firm, and of their investment at the Pennrhyn Islands, as will be more fully particularized at the time of sale. Jonathan S. Jenkins, U. S, Consul. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 873 Sale to commence at 10 o'clock a. m., at the store of S. Pritchard, esq., Metafell, 15th August, 1856. V. Pursuant to the foregoing orders and decrees, all the property belonging to the said Aaron Van Camp individually was sold, and all of the propertyof V. P. Chapin, & Co., at a great sacrifice. The value of this property is alleged by the claimant to have been as follows: Aaron Van Camp. Two lots, with the buildings and other improvements thereon $16, 000. 00 Furniture and librarv in residence and outhouses (as enumerated by L. D. Haskins and V. P. Chapin)..... 4,000.00 Collection of shells and natural curiosities 10, 000. 00 Lot of medicines, medical books, and surgical instruments 500. 00 1 milch cow 100.00 1 consular gig, with masts, sails, and oars, complete 300. 00 Total of Van Camp's property 30,900.00 V. P. Chapin & Co. Property taken and sold from on board schooner Eudorus $21, 942. 00 Stocks of goods in their store .• 15, 000. 00 Goods, wares, and other articles in the warehouses and on the premises of V. P. C. & Co. at Tutuila, Pennryhn Islands, and other places, in- cluding a sloop and other boats „ 29, 192. 00 550 gals, sperm oil, from the cargo of the Rambler r . . 1, 650. 00 Account of charges for cooperage, lighterage, storage, &c, on oil from the Rambler 15,000,00 Total of property of V. P. Chapin & Co 82, 784. 00 Property of Aaron Van Camp, agent for the owners and shippers of cargo on board the Rambler. 56 casks of sperm and whale oil, 200 bbls. of which was whale oil $40, 000. 00 63,000 lbs. of whalebone, at 50 cts 3,150.00 43, 150. 00 Less charges of V. P. Chapin & Co. for storage, cooperage, lighterage, &c. . 15, 000. 00 28, 150. 00 VI. But the court finds that much of the evidence relied upon by the claimants to prove the loss and value of the property above described consists of ex parte affida- vits, letters, and documents, which are not legally competent, and must be excluded from the consideration of the court. After excluding such incompetent evidence the court finds the value of the property taken under the proceedings set forth in Find- ing IV as follows: Individual property of Aaron Van Camp $17, 400. 00 Property of V. P. Chapin & Co 38,700.00 Lien of Chapin & Co. on property of the Rambler 4, 000. 00 * 60, 100. 00 VII. The property claimed by Van Camp as agent for the owners and shippers of the Rambler was of considerable value in excess of the lien of Chapin & Co. for light- erage, storage, cooperage, etc., which the court finds to have been $4,000, as set forth in Finding VI. But the said owners and shippers have not appeared as claimants or otherwise, nor does it appear that they ever made any demand on Van Camp for the property or sought to hold him liable therefor. VIII. In 1858 the claimants brought two suits in trespass de bonis asportatis against Jonathan S. Jenkins for the property before described, in the late circuit court of the District of Columbia. The defendant appeared in person and by counsel and defended. On the 27th of October, 1859, the cases came to trial, and a verdict was found for the plaintiff in each case, as follows: Aaron Van Camp v. Jonathan S. Jenkins $63, 223. 00 Aaron Van Camp and Virginius P. Chapin v. The same 63, 408. 00 874 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. A writ of fieri facias was issued against the property of Jenkins in each of the above cases, which on the 18th of May, 1860, was returned wholly unsatisfied. It does not appear that the claimants have ever received anything upon either judgment. Jen- kins, the defendant, is now deceased. IX. The court, adopting the foregoing as part of the findings herein, further finds that the case is now before it in pursuance of an act entitled ' ' An act for the relief of the heirs of Aaron Van Camp and Virginius P. Chapin,'' which was approved February 6, 1903, and is as follows: "That the claim of Aaron Van Camp and Virginius P. Chapin against the United States (Congressional case numbered one thousand and forty-nine), the findings of fact in which were transmitted to the House of Representatives by House Miscel- laneous Document Numbered Eighty-one, Fifty-first Congress, second session, is hereby referred to the Court of Claims, to hear and determine the question of the liability of the United States for the losses found by said court in its said sixth find- ing of fact, with jurisdiction to hear and determine the same upon the principles of law and equity and in compliance with the rules and regulations of said court. ' ' And in the event the said court shall be of the opinion that the United States are justly liable, under all the circumstances of the said case, for the losses and damages sustained by the said decedents by reason of the acts of their officers in the prem- ises, the said court shall render judgment in favor of the claimants for the amount found to be due by its sixth finding of fact in the said Congressional case numbered one thousand and forty-nine, as set forth in the report of the said court to the Speaker of the House of Representatives on January eighth, eighteen hundred and ninety-one: Provided, That no statute of limitations shall be pleaded in bar of the recovery of said claim: And provided further, That in determining the question of the liability of the United States the said court shall consider the' testimony submitted to it in the investigation of said Congressional case numbered one thousand and forty-nine, together with all affidavits and documents; also the reports of officers of the State and Treasury Departments of the United States in the settlements of accounts of the officers of the United States in connection with the said claim. "And furthermore, that if the judgment shall be rendered against the United States for the amount found and fixed by said court in said sixth finding of fact, to wit, the sum of sixty thousand one hundred dollars, the same shall be paid, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the legal represen- tatives of the said Aaron Van Camp, deceased, and the said Virginius P. Chapin, deceased, as their respective interests may appear, and the new action to be brought under the provisions of this act shall be in the name of said legal representatives." X. That the Washington Loan and Trust Company of the District of Columbia was duly appointed, on the 16th day of January, 1900, as the administrator of the estate of Aaron Van Camp, deceased, and that Mary M. U. Chap n and Rua P. Chapin were, on the 23d day of February, 1893, duly appointed administrators of the estate of Virginius P. Chapin, deceased. XI. It appears from certain documents to be found in the record that as soon as the said Jenkins received his commission as consular agent, and before leaving San Francisco for the post of duty, he made known to the United States district attorney for the district of California and to the Secretary of State the fact that he considered himself clothed with extraordinary power. In a letter to the district attorney, written at San Francisco, and dated 18th of February, 1856, he calls attention to the act of Congress of the 11th of August, 1848, for carrying into effect certain provisions in relation to the right of extra-territorial jurisdiction of United States consuls contained in the respective treaties between the United States and China, and the United States and the Ottoman Porte, and requests to be advised whether in his position as United States consul at Apia, in the Navi- gators Islands, he shall be justified in applying the provisions of the said act to the^ fullest extent to the territory within the limits of his consulate. In a letter written at San Francisco, dated 20th of February, 1856, and addressed to Hon. William L. Marcy, Secretary of State, he says: ' ' I beg to draw your attention to the inclosed copy of a communication addressed by me to the United States district attorney for the district of California, wherein I beg to be advised as to the bearing of the act of Congress of 11th of August, 1848, relating to extra-territorial jurisdiction of United States consuls in China and Turkey, as regards the territories included in the limits of my consulate. Mr. Inge, during a personal interview, told me that there was no question but that the act alluded to included my position in its application, and that a written opinion from him on the matter would be supererogatory. Under these circumstances I shall have no hesitation in acting in accordance with Mr. Inge's opinion so expressed until I receive direct instructions on the point from the Department of State." ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 875 Neither the said district attorney (Mr. Inge') nor the Secretary of State responded to the said letters of February 18 and 20, 1856. XII. The report of the Treasury Department bearing date January 21, 1890, shows that in the settlement of his accounts as consul, the said Jenkins charges himself on the 30th of September, 1856, with " $530.96 cash received from the clerk of the consular court, being the balance of the estate of Aaron Van Camp." It also appears from said report that by the advice of the Department of State, and by the action of the Treasury Department, the sum of $621.23 was paid to Aaron Van Camp on the 17th of December, 1859, and on May 12, 1860, the further sum of $262.25 was paid to him. And, so far as disclosed, no other restitution has been made to said Van Camp or his estate; and none whatever has been made to said Chapin or his estate. XIII. From the facts, as here found, the court finds that, if the claimants are entitled to recover, there is due to the estate of Aaron Van Camp from the defendants the sum of thirty-eight thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars ($38,750), and similarly due the estate of Virginius P. Chapin the sum of twenty-one thousand three hundred and fifty dollars ($21,350). CONCLUSION OP LAW. Upon the foregoing findings of fact, the court decide, as a conclusion of law; that the petition should be dismissed. Nott, Ch. J., delivered the opinion of the court: It must be conceded that the proceedings of the consular officer, as detailed in the findings in this case, were arbitrary and illegal. It must also be conceded that the claimants have exhausted their legal remedy against the wrongdoer and have recovered nothing for the wrongs and injuries that were done to them. On these facts the pri- mary question arises whether the Government — whether any government — can be held liable. The established principle is that a government is not responsible for the tortious acts of its officers generally; and it is manifest that in order to create any such liability there must have been either authorization or ratification. (Buron v. Denman, 2 Exch., R., 167.) In this case there was neither. Whether a Secretary of State can by his words or his silence so authorize the acts of a consular officer as to create a liability on the part of the Government is a question which the court need not consider. The letter writ- ten by the consular officer to the Secretary of State, set forth in the findings, and the nonresponse of the Secretary, while it may show very lax administration on the part of the State Department incompatible with good government and an honest admin- istration in the consular office, falls very far short of establishing an implied sanction for the wrongs and abuses which the consular officer subsequently perpetrated. As to ratification, the payment into the Treasury of a small portion of the money wrung from the deceased claimants by the consular officer on the final settlement of his accounts can not be regarded as a ratification by a responsible branch of the Gov- ernment. The utmost that could be claimed from it would be that the injured party was entitled to the money; and that right has been recognized by the payment of the money to the deceased claimants. The question then comes down to the special act conferring jurisdiction upon the court (act 6th February, 1903, 32 Stat. L., p. 1065). This statute refers the claim to the court and confers jurisdiction ' ' to hear and deter- mine the question of the liability of the United States." But the important and con- trolling clause is ' ; And in the event the said court shall be of the opinion that the United States are justly liable, under all the circumstances of the said case, for the losses and dam- ages sustained by the said decedents by reason of the act of their officers in the premises, the said court shall render judgment in favor of the claimants." If by this provision it is intended that the court shall judge the case according to the principles of law or equity which guide and govern courts, it must be held that the United States are not liable. They neither authorized the acts complained of, nor ratified them, nor adopted them, nor received a benefit from them. If by the provision it is intended that the court shall pass upon the ethical question whether the United States should assume responsibility for the acts of one of their officers in a distant region of the earth of a most flagitious character, whereby citizens of the United States suffered great wrongs and injuries, it must be answered that courts are not established to determine ethical questions, and that such a question as this case presents is not one for judicial determination, but for the exercise of legislative dis- cretion. 876 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. t There have been repeated cases in this court where special acts conferring jurisdic- tion have used the words "just and equitable," or some such equivalent — cases in which it has been contended that the court could go beyond the confines of the legal and the equitable and do what seemed to it just and right. Such contentions have never succeeded. In this case the language of the statute is broader than that of any other statute of like character; but where the intent of a statute is that a court shall render between litigants a final judicial judgment at law or decree in equity no breadth of language can enable a court to do so except by judicial methods and pursuant to established principles of law or equity. Be the language of a statute what it may, the plaintiff who can not recover according to law can not attain the final, unques- tionable legal right of a judicial judgment. The case of Cumming (22 C. Cls. R., 345; 130 U. S. R., 452) was adverted to on the argument; and it is true that there this court rendered judgment in favor of the claim- ant. But in that case the officers of the United States had not been guilty of a criminal or malicious intent, or even of a personally tortious act. The injury to the claimant has been caused by the superzealousness of internal-revenue officers exercised on behalf of the Government, and as they supposed, in furtherance of its interests. The Government reaped, or might have reaped, a benefit from their zeal. It was a case where the act of the servant was in the business of the master — a case where a master would have been liable for the act of the servant, provided always that the master was not the National Government. Congress have sometimes — as in cases of marine tort — waived the principle that the Government is not liable for the tort or negligence of its officers, and have retroactively placed upon the Government the same responsibility which rests upon every city and town and municipality and body corporate and ship- owner and individual in the country. But such statutes merely waive a special gov- ernmental defense; and merely enable the injured party to prosecute his case against the Government as he would prosecute it against any other defendant; and they still leave it incumbent upon him to proceed by legal methods and means, and incumbent upon the court to be guided and limited by established principles of law. The judgment of the court is that the petition be dismissed. TO PERMIT AN ACTION TO BE COMMENCED BY AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR VESSELS SEIZED IN BERING SEA. The Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom was referred Senate bill 390, report the same with sundry amendments and recommend its passage. The same measure was offered in the House of Representatives and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. That committee took the opinion of the Attorney-General as to the propriety of the proposed legislation, which being favorable to the bill, the committee reported it to the House of Representatives favorably with a written report as follows : "The purpose of the foregoing bill is to give to citizens of the United States the right to commence an action in the circuit court of the ninth judicial district to recover from the United States damages for the unlawful seizure, by officers of the United States, of vessels and cargoes belonging to said citizens, and confiscating and selling the same. The history and facts out of which the claims for damages arise are as follows: "The United States having claimed exclusive jurisdiction of that part of Bering Sea inclosed within the boundaries of Alaska, as ceded by Russia, and Russia having claimed dominion of the waters of that sea west of said boundary line, each nation treated Bering as a mare clausum. Acting upon this claim of exclusive jurisdiction, the United States, by official order of the Secretary of the Treasury, instructed the commanders of the armed ships of this Government to seize all vessels and arrest and deliver to the proper authorities any or all persons detected in the taking of seals in any part of said sea. In the execution of this order a large number of such vessels, the property of British subjects, and a large number, the property of citizens of the United States, were seized and otherwise interfered with, to the loss and damage of owners and other parties interested in their voyages. Russia, in like, manner, in the part of Bering Sea claimed to be under her dominion, made seizures of the same class and character of vesesls belonging to citizens of the United States and to the subjects of Great Britain. ' ' Thereupon Great Britain denied to the United States and Russia the exclusive jurisdiction to Bering Sea, by which these seizures were justified by them, and the issue of jurisdiction was finally arbitrated between the United States and Great Britain at Paris, under the treaty of February 29, 1892. Though the contention of the United States was ably sustained, the arbitral decision was that Bering is an open sea, and that municipal jurisdiction has no vigor upon its waters beyond the ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 877 3-mile limit. After this settlement of jurisdictional rights, as was agreed between the United States and Great Britain by the articles of February, 1896, a judicial co mm ission was constituted by the two Governments to examine the claims for indemnity made by the subjects of Great Britain for the seizure of their vessels and interference with their voyages in Bering Sea. The articles provided that this com- mission should meet at Victoria, in British Columbia, and proceed to the discharge of its duties. There were filed before and considered by the commission 23 claims, aggregating $1,289,008.77. ' ' Counsel for the United States were under the disadvantage of the session being held in Victoria, the outfitting port of the sealing fleet and of the British claimants, where the population was hostile to the case of the United States, by reason of per- sonal and commercial relations with the British sealers and their occupation. Requiring evidence on the question of value involved in the British claims, counsel for the United States depended on the American sealers, whose expert testimony, when requested, was given, though their own vessels had been seized and their property taken from them by the United States, in like manner as the British subjects. These American sealers organized themselves to find testimony for their Government in reducing the British claims to legitimate volume, and also to physically protect themselves and the witnesses among them from the personal violence which was often threatened and from the assaults that were made by the sympathizers with the British claimants. By the testimony of these Americans, counsel for the United States were able to reduce the British claims from $1,289,008.77 down to $463,454.27, principal and interest, thus saving to the United States $825,554.50. "The American sealers rendered this essential service to their Government under circumstances of difficulty and some danger to themselves, without exacting any promise of requital by consideration and payment of their own losses. But the counsel of the United States felt that their honorable and patriotic conduct deserved that their rights be determined, that their losses might be indemnified. Some of these American sealers had also been despoiled by Russia in her part of Bering Sea, and subsequently to the Victoria award the United States demanded that Russia indemnify them. This demand was arbitrated at The Hague by Doctor Asser, who decided for the Americans, and Russia promptly paid the award. Great Britain is now demanding indemnity for her subjects whose property was seized by Russia in the same manner, and the matter is under diplomatic arrangement for payment. "By the foregoing it will be seen that the United States has indemnified the sealers who were subjects of Breat Gritain; Russia has indemnified those who were citizens of the United States that were despoiled in her waters, and is about to indemnify in like manner and for like cause the subjects of Great Britain, and that the equities involved have been passed upon at Paris, Victoria, and The Hague. The only group left without indemnity, and suffering poverty from the loss of their property, is that from which came the witnesses whose testimony protected the Government at Vic- toria. Senate file 3410 is to give them their day in court that their rights may have judicial examination. The statements following, by counsel of the United States in the judicial arbitration at Victoria, extend the foregoing by facts and references." Memorandum by Don M. Dickinson, sometime senior counsel of the United States in their defense against the claims of Great Britain for seizures of sealing ships and other prop- erty in Bering Sea, besides other damages provided to be recovered in the cases scheduled in the convention between the two nations of February 8, 1896. "By the treaty of 1892 the United States and Great Britain agreed to submit the issue of the exclusive jurisdiction of Bering Sea to arbitration. By Article VIII of said treaty it was agreed that either nation might submit to the arbitrators any questions of fact involved in claims arising in the disputed jurisdiction, and ask for a finding thereon, the question of the amount of liability of either Government upon the facts found to be subject of further negotiation. Under that treaty the issue was arbitrated at Paris, and the issue of jurisdiction was decided adversely to the claim of the United States. In their finding of facts under Article VIII the arbitrators found that the several searches and seizures of ships and goods and the several arrests of crews and masters mentioned in the schedule to the British case were made by authority of the United States Government, and such seizures, arrests, fines, and imprisonments were for alleged breaches of the municipal law of the United States, committed beyond the 3-mile limit. " This made the United States liable for such seizures and other acts and left the amount of such liability and the evidence to determine it to further negotiation. This was had in the convention between the United States and Great Britain of February 8, 878 allowance of certain claims. 1896, by which it was stipulated "that all claims on account of injuries sustained by persons in whose behalf Great Britain is entitled to claim compensation from the United States, and arising by virtue of the treaty aforesaid (of 1892), the award and findings of the said tribunal of arbitration shall be referred to two commissioners, one of whom shall be appointed by the President of the United States and the other by Her Britannic Majesty, and each of whom shall be learned in the law." The claims described included all whatsoever arising in the treaty of 1892, and the award and findings thereunder. ' ' The convention of 1896 also stipulated that the Commission ' shall meet at Victoria, in British Columbia, and after taking an oath that they will fairly and impartially investigate such claims and render a just decision thereon they shall proceed jointly to the discharge of their duties.' " In my report to the honorable Secretary of State, January 8, 1898, I had the honor to say of Victoria as the place of hearing: " ' We were brought for the hearing to the principal seat of the pelagic sealing industry of Canada and Great Britain. At that port the complaining British ships were for the most part outfitted for Bering Sea. Among this population from which testimony was to be drawn there was naturally a hostile feeling toward the United States and toward any person among them having knowledge of the facts who showed any disposition to furnish information in chief on the stand for this Government, or to furnish informa- tion on which the statements of the witnesses for Great Britain might be tested on cross-examination.' "All questions having been settled except the amount of liability, the crux of the case of the United States was the finding of testimony to fix that at a just and proper sum in each case. The evidence to do this was presented by American sealers, and there was no other source from which to seek it. Without their testimony and the facts they could furnish for use in guiding the cross-examination of the British wit- nesses counsel for the United States could have been practically compelled to accept the amounts and proofs submitted in the British case. In this emergency counsel requested the American sealers to give their Government the benefit of their testi- mony and knowledge, though aware that it had also seized, destroyed, or alienated their ships and property and interfered with their voyages in Bering Sea. The Americans responded to the call of their country, and, led by Captains McLean, Minor, and Raynor, organized a force which industriously hunted up testimony for the American counsel, and, as stated in my report to the honorable Secretary of State of January 8, 1898, 'enabling them to sift and expose fictitious claims and to reduce unreasonable and exorbitant valuations to reasonable proportions, and by affording counsel who conducted examinations of witnesses some equipment in knowledge of facts and of the men.' " Conspicuous amongst the Americans was Capt. Alexander McLean. He owned a half interest in two ships seized by the United States for which Great Britain demanded indemnity. His coowner, a British subject, had sworn before the Paris tribunal that he was the sole owner. The registry of the ships did not disclose Captain McLean's interest. Under the stipulations nothing could be awarded to him, an American. But a full award to the two ships would have benefited him to the extent of his equities in them. Under the circumstances, this brave and honest man made oath before the Commission to his part ownership, when by silent assent to the perfidy of his partner he would have been benefited himself. Not only did Captain McLean lose by his truthfulness, but his activity in behalf of the United States subjected him to many unpleasant experiences and personal risk at the hands of the British claimants and their friends in Victoria. Surely such a man and his countrymen, the American sealers, who joined, defended, and sustained him, not only deserves the consideration of his Government, but has earned the praise of the Psalmist given to ' him who sweareth to his own hurt, and change th not.' " Counsel for the United States being driven, by construction of the terms of the convention, to a hearing of every case from beginning to end at Victoria, of neces- sity had to bring these American sealers as witnesses into that seat of inimical senti- ment and to subject such of them as were resident there to its rigors. But their unfailing loyalty and intimate knowledge of the value of vessels, outfits, and catch on hand when seized were so useful to the Government that by it counsel were enabled to scale the sum of the claims made from $1,289,008.87 down to $413,979.27, a reduction of nearly two-thirds. As the United States had realized from the sale of the libeled property the sum of $83,073.72, the award called for only $380,380.55 to be paid by this Government. "To state fully the result of the trial: The British claims, including costs and two ships which counsel succeeded in excluding from consideration, and personal claims, amounted, principal and interest, to $1,417,137.93, while the award was only 188.91 principal and $169,265.36 interest, a total of $463,454.27. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 879 "It is to be observed that by the Paris award, which was the law of the sea, the taking of seals by the nationals of every country was as lawful beyond the 3-mile limit as was the taking of fish on the high seas beyond that limit at the time of the seizures of the property of the British subjects tried out at Victoria. It was as unlawful for the armed vessels of the United States to take or destroy ships or their property beyond the 3-mile limit in Bering Sea as in any other part of the high seas. It is quite apparent that there was no law of the United States intended to discriminate against our own citizens. It was intended by all the seizures of American and other vessels in Bering Sea to test the authority of the United States over those waters as against other powers, and especially Great Britain. So that, as a matter of law, there was no municipal law punishing pelagic sealing as against our own citizens, or based on any other theory than that the United States had an exclusive jurisdiction of those waters, with the ultimate object, if it were found by arbitration between the nations that we had no exclusive jurisdiction, to arrive finally at an international agreement by which sealing would be regulated in those waters. " By there being no adverse internationl law by which Americans could be pun- ished for 'sealing in those waters and no municipal law for any other purpose than this, the Americans who suffered from seizure, interference, and destruction of their property in an occupation agreed by all not to have been in violation of any treaty are entitled to reclamation. Some of them, by freely exposing their nationality, lost their interest in British ships. By coming forward and supporting the position taken by their country in regard to the protection of seals, every man of them sacrificed himself by clearly praiseworthy and patriotic conduct. They aided their country at Victoria in exposing the frauds, and abating extravagant values in the British claims. Their service was invaluable. They had to conquer personal safety for the witnesses of the United States in Victoria by aggressive fighting for it on the streets. I, as of counsel, vouch for it that it was owing to them that many British claims were entirely thrown out, and the final award was about one-third of the aggregate amount claimed. " If any American presented a claim at Victoria under cover of the British flag, and there were such, he can take no benefit under this bill. But Americans who did not attempt such practices and who suffered loss should be given the same measure of relief as that accorded by the United States in the convention and awarded to British claimants at Victoria. "chronological. , "The claims of British citizens were heard by a commission appointed pursuant to the convention of February 8, 1896, between the United States and Gereat Britain. " The award of this commission was paid in pursuance of an act passed by the second session of the Fifty-fifth Congress and approved June 15, 1898, entitled 'An act making an appropriation to pay the Bering Sea awards.' " The claims of citizens of the United States have never been presented before any tribunal. "The vessels of the claimants and property of the claimants were seized for an alleged violation of sections 1956 and 1957 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. "The first order for seizure was issued by the Treasury Department under date April 21, 1886. Instructions were issued in 1887, under date of May 10 and May 28, by the Treasury Department that seizures should be made. "The second session of the Fiftieth Congress passed an act, approved March 2, 1889, entitled ' An act to provide for the protection of the salmon fisheries of Alaska. ' Section 3 of this act provided that it should be the duty of the President to issue a proclamation warning all persons against violation of the provisions of section 1956, which section was by this statute declared to include all the dominion of the United States in the waters of Bering Sea. "A proclamation was issued by the President of the United States (26 Stat. L. , 1543) warning all persons against entering the 'waters of Bering Sea within the dominion of the United States.' "The contention for damages was and is that if the' treaty of cession of Russia (con- cluded March 29, 1867) did not give the United States jurisdiction over any portion of Bering Sea outside of the ordinary 3-rnile limit from the shores of the mainland and islands, the United States had no exclusive jurisdiction over that portion of Bering Sea, and the seizures of vessels engaged in the lawful pursuit of hunting for seals when outside the 3-mile limit were illegal. 880 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. "Great Britain raised this question on behalf of its citizens and the treaty was con- cluded (27 Stat..L., 101), providing for a tribunal that should ascertain the extent of the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States in the waters of Bering Sea. ' ' The award of the tribunal of arbitrators constituted under this treaty (printed in Vol. 1, American Reprint Fur Seal Arbitration, etc., p. 77) determined 'that the United States has not any right of protection or property in the fur seals frequenting the islands of the United States in Bering Sea when such seals are found outside the ordinary 3-mile limit.' "The second session of the Fifty-third Congress enacted a law (28 Stat. L., 52) to give effect to the award of the tribunal of arbitration. "Congress, by the terms of this last-mentioned act, admitted that the language of sections 1956 and 1957 did not make illegal the taking of fur seals in the waters of Bering Sea outside the ordinary 3-mile limit, for this act provided that the two gov- ernments (Great Britain and the United States) should prevent their citizens from taking seals within a limited time on the high seas in the part of the Pacific Ocean inclusive of the Bering Sea, which is situated, etc. "February 8, 1896, a convention was concluded between the United States and Great Britain for the settlement of the claims presented by Great Britain against the United States. > " December 17, 1897, the commissioners agreed upon an award, but the claims of the American citizens, if any were presented, were excluded by the high commissioners. "The circuit court for one of the California districts should be given jurisdiction to hear the claims of the American citizens who suffered the same damages as British subjects, who have been paid by this Government. "The records and files of the Treasury and State Departments disclose the names of all sealing schooners seized or interfered with, including those from which seal skins or hunting equipment were taken, and including all schooners which were merely warned or driven out of Bering Sea during the sealing seasons. So that the number of claims under the proposed bill can be fixed and limited by those records. "The foregoing statement of the case is made by me in discharge of an obligation of honor incurred by their helpful and patriotic conduct in behalf of their Govern- ment during the trial of the British claims at Victoria. I have and can have no other interest in their case. Their Government owes them indemnity for their losses, and the procedure provided in the Senate bill amply protects its rights, while giving them the opportunity to have theirs ascertained. If I can serve them further, it will be my pleasure, with no other award than the satisfaction of requiting their unselfish patriotism at Victoria." The statement of Hon. Don M. Dickinson, incorporated in the foregoing report, pre- sents a case that appeals forcibly to the sense of justice and equity of the Government of the United States for the compensation of the losses and damages sustained by our citizens through the enforcement of laws that were in effect annulled by the subse- quent award of the Bering Sea Commission, that is referred to in this bill. The awards of compensation to British owners of sealing vessels for seizures by the United States under like conditions, that were made by the International Commission appointed under the convention between Great Britain and the United States of Feb- ruary 8, 1896 — of which Commission Mr. Dickinson was a member — while they could not make provision for our citizens, clearly show that they are entitled to like com- pensation for the seizure of their vessels. The object of the bill is to enable them to establish their claims in a judicial pro- ceeding before the circuit court of the United States for the ninth circuit, which is the nearest court of competent jurisdiction to the localities where the seizures were made, and is most accessible to the witnesses, who, for the most part, are seafaring men re- siding in that vicinity. The rulings of the Commission of 1896 that made the awards in favor of British sub- jects are worthy'of consideration by the circuit court as to the measure of damages and the proper scope of inquiry as to the right of compensation to be considered by the court, lest the committee doubt the propriety of adopting them by act of Congress, and recommend the amendment of the bill as to that and some other features that do not materially affect the equitable and just right of the claimants to the relief they seek. The question of the allowance of interest on the claims is left to the just discretion of the court as to each claim that is presented, according to its merits. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 881 GEORGE IVERS, ADMINISTRATOR. The Committee on War Claims, to whom was referred the above claim, have carefully examined the same and find the facts to be as follows, viz: This claim was referred to the Court of Claims to find the facts; the same was tried, with statement of the case and finding of facts as follows: (Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 2148. Henrietta Ivers, administratrix of William Ivers, deceased, v. the United States.] STATEMENT OF CASE. The claim in the above-entitled case, for the value of a certain building rented by the original claimant, William Ivers, to the military forces of the United States for then use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives on the 10th day of February, 1888. P. E. Dye, esq., appeared for claimant, and the Attorney-General, by Felix Bran- nigan, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and pro- tection of the interests of the United States. pThe case was brought to a hearing on its merits on the 17th day of October, 1892. The claimant in her petition makes the following allegations: That she has a claim against the United States for the value of a certain building rented by the decedent of Colonel Donaldson, chief commissary of the United States for the District of New Mexico, on or about January 1, 1862. That said building was rented for storage of commissary stores and supplies and other property belonging to the United States. , That while said building aforesaid was in the care, custody, and occupation of the military forces of the United States at that place, and filled with commissary stores and supplies, on or about the 4th day of March, 1862, it was burned or con- sumed by fire by order of the commanding officer of the United States in that district, to prevent the stores and supplies in said building from falling into the hands of the public enemy, and without fault of the decedent. That subsequently, upon the application of the decedent to the United States com- manding officer of said military district, on or about the 10th day of November, 1862, the commanding general issued Special Orders, No. 196, convening a board of officers to assess the damages sustained by the decedent on account of the destruction of his property. That pursuant to said orders the board convened, organized, and took testimony upon the subject, and, in summing up their labors, the board says: "In summing up the proceedings in the case of Mr. William Ivers, claimant for damages for the destruction of his house, consumed by fire by orders of the com- mander of the district of Santa Fe, in March, 1862, the board renders the following opinion: "The board is clearly of opinion from the evidence adduced that the building owned by William Ivers, and formerly used by the Government as a storehouse for commissary and quartermaster stores, in the city of Santa Fe, was burned by direc- tion of the district commander. "The board, upon a careful estimation of the damages sustained by Mr. William Ivers, unanimously concur in the belief * * *. "From the evidence of master builders and mechanics, wholly uninterested, and who were well acquainted with the property prior to its destruction, that fifteen hundred dollars seems a liberal allowance to be reimbursed to Mr. William Ivers for the destruction of his property. ' ■* * * * * * # "This sum to be considered as a full compensation to Mr. William Ivers for all damages sustained by him. "The board is further of the opinion that in issuing the order filed in these pro- ceedings the officer in command of the district had the best interests of the Govern- ment in view, not wishing the stores to fall into the hands of the enemy, who threatened the city at that time, and that no blame whatever should be attached to him." That said William Ivers, the decedent, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout that war, and never gave any aid or comfort to the rebellion. That during his lifetime the deceased presented said claim to the United States Treasury Department for payment, and that on or about March 11, 1868, the Third Auditor of the Treasury referred the same to the War Department for adjudication, and on or about December 11, 1869, the War Department returned the same to S. Rep. 382, 60-1 56 882 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. the Treasury Department, it not being a case for adjudication under the act of July 4, 1864. That no payment or compensation has ever been received from any source on account of said claim for the destruction of said property, but that the claim is still due and owing to the claimant from the United States after allowing all just credits and offsets. That no assignment or transfer has been made of the claim or any part thereof, and that the claimant knows the facts set forth in the foregoing petition, and believes the same to be true. The court, upon considering the foregoing petition and the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, orders that the petition and case be dismissed on the ground that the court is without jurisdiction by reason of the provisions of section 3 of the act of March 3, 1883, chapter 116 (1 Supp. to Rev. Stat., 2d ed., p. 403), the claim being one growing out of the destruction or damage to property by the Army during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. By the Court. Filed October 31, 1902. A true copy. Test this 30th day of November, 1894. [seal.] John Randolph, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims. It will be seen that the building in question was under rent by Colonel Donaldson, chief commissary of the United States for the district of New Mexico, from on or about January 1, 1862, having been rented from William Ivers for storage of commissary stores and supplies and other property belonging to the United States, and that it was in the care and custody and occupation of the United States authorities for that purpose and under the lease on the 4th of March, 1862, and filled with commissary stores and supplies belonging to the United States, when it was ordered to be burned, and was consumed by fire by order of the commanding officer of the United States at that place, to destroy the military stores to prevent them from falling into the hands of the public enemy. The exact terms of the lease have not been given, but we have a right to assume that the said lease set out in substance that the claimant leased the premises of the United States to be used as a place of storage of commissary supplies, etc., and that the com- missary agreed to take it for that purpose and to pay the claimant a rent of dollars per month for its use so long as the Department required its use, and finally to surrender up the premises to the owner in as good condition as when the Department went into possession, usual wear excepted, and we have a right to assume that Mr. William Ivers rented his property under (in substance) on such reasonable and usual conditions. While it was so occupied and in the possession of the commissary department of the United States it was ordered by the commanding officer to be burned to prevent the stores and supplies stored in the premises from falling into the hands of the public enemy, which seems to have at that time threatened the capture of the place. Thus the private property of claimant was taken for public use, for which he is entitled to just compensation. And the Supreme Court of the United States has settled beyond all doubt this principle of law and. justice in Mitchell v. Harmony (13 Howard, p. 115), and a large number of cases cited. Page 134, 13 Howard, part of the opinion of the court. "There are without doubt occasions in which private property may lawfully be taken possession of or destroyed to prevent it from falling into the hands of the public enemy; and also where a military officer, charged with particular duty, may impress private property into public service and take it for public use. "Unquestionably, in such cases, the Government is bound to make full compensa- tion to the owner." Subsequently, about November 10, 1862, claimant applied to the commanding officer of the military district for consideration in regard to his loss; and Special Orders, No. 196, convening a board of officers to assess the damages sustained by the now decedent on account of the destruction of his property. The board convened and organized, took testimony, and in summing up the pro- ceedings in the case of William Ivers, claimant for damages for the destruction of his house, consumed by fire by order of the commander of the district of Santa Fe, in March, 1862, the board renders the following opinion: "The board is clearly of the opinion, from the evidence adduced, that the building owned by William Ivers, and formerly used by the Government as a storehouse for commissary and quartermaster in the city of Santa Fe, was burned by order of the district commander. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 883 "The board, upon careful examination of the damages sustained by Mr. William Ivers, unanimously concur in the belief, from the evidence of master builders and mechanics wholly uninterested, and who were well acquainted with the property prior to its destruction, that §1,500 seems a liberal allowance to be reimbursed to William Ivers for the destruction of his property, this sum to be considered as a full compensation to Mr. William Ivers for all damages sustained by him. "The board is further of the opinion that in issuing the order filed in these pro- ceedings the officer in command of the district had the best interests of the Govern- ment in view, not wishing the stores to fall into the hands of the enemy, who threatened the city at that time, and that no blame should attach to him." The said William Ivers, the decedent, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the war. and never gave any aid or comfort to the rebellion. William Ivers, during his lifetime, presented his claim, on or about March, 1868, to the Treasury Department, where it was sent to the War Department, and finally returned to the Treasury Department, with the conclusion that it was not a case for adjudication under the act of July 4, 1864. Claimant came by petition to Congress when it was referred to the Court of Claims to find the facts, where testimony was taken and the case tried, etc.; but the case was dismissed for the reason that the court was without jurisdiction, owing to the 3d sec- tion of the act of March 3, 1883, commonly known as the "Bowman Act," the claim growing out of the destruction or damage to property by the Army during the war for the suppression of the rebellion. In view of the facts set out in this case and the law governing the same, your com- mittee are of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to receive compensation for the loss of his property and recommend the passage of the bill. JOHN H. HAMITER. The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 4024) for the relief of John H. Hamiter, having considered the same, recommend that the said bill be passed. The bill provides for the payment to John H. Hamiter the sum of 13,590.47, the proceeds of the sale of 53 bales of cotton sold in 1865, the net proceeds being placed in the Treasury of the United States. The chairman of the Committee on Claims referred this bill to the Secretary of the Treasury for a report, which report is as follows: Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, Washington, February 2, 1906. Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th ultimo, inclosing Senate bill 3283, "For the relief of John H. Hamiter." The bill proposes to appropriate §3,590.47, the proceeds of 53 bales of cotton sold by the Government in 1865, and placed in the Treasury of the United States. You request report on the bill. In reply, I have the honor to report that 53 bales of cotton were collected from John H. Hamiter, in Lafayette County, Ark., in October, 1865, shipped to New York, and sold. The net proceeds of the 53 bales were §3,590.47, which amount was placed in the Treasury. Respectfully, L. M. Shaw, Secretary. Hon. C. W. Fulton, Chairman Committee on Claims, United States Senate. The affidavit of Mr. Hamiter shows the circumstances of the taking of this cotton and also that under the President's amnesty proclamation of May 29, 1865, that Mr. Hamiter had taken the oath of allegiance to the Government of the United States prior to the seizure of the cotton in question. • This cotton was not "captured." The Supreme Court of the United States, in Ninth Wallace, page 540, in the case of the United States v. Padelford, clearly defined the meaning of the word "captured " as follows: "As early as the 3d of July, 1863, the Secretary of the Treasury, in a circular letter of instructions addressed to the supervising special agents of the Department, charged . with the duty of collecting abandoned and captured property under the act of March 12, 1863, defined captured property as property "which had been seized or taken from hostile possession by the military and naval forces of the United States." This definition must be taken as the interpretation practically given to the act by the Department of the Government charged with its execution; and we think it correct." This cotton was not taken from "hostile" possession, but, on the contrary, was taken from the possession of an^individual who had been pardoned by the President's 884 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. proclamation, and his taking the oath under it fully restored him to all his property rights. It was not "abandoned" at any time, but was in the personal possession of Hamiter and within the inclosure around his residence. At the time of the seizure Mr. Hamiter was temporarily absent on a visit to relatives in Louisiana, but his residence and property was under the personal charge of Isaac Shepherd, who forbade the taking of the cotton. It appears that Mr. Fuqua, the agent who seized the cotton, had been the personal guest of Mr. Hamiter for a night only a short time previous to the seizure. This cotton had been removed from Mr. Hamiter' s plantation to his residence; it had never been sold, and was never claimed by anybody up to the time of the seizure by Fuqua. There were about 180 bales of cotton taken, although the proceeds of the sale of only 53 bales, amounting to $3,590.47 net, seems to have found its way into the Treasury. In the case above referred to, of the United States v. Padelford, on page 542, Ninth Wallace, the property in question had been actually captured in time of war and in the midst of military operations, but after the claimant had under an amnesty procla- mation of the President taken the oath of allegiance, the court, in a unanimous opinion, used the following language: "In the case of Garland, this court held the effect of a pardon to be such 'that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense; ' and in the case of Armstrong's foundry, we held that the general pardon granted to him relieved him from a penalty which he had incurred to the United States. It follows that at the time of the seizure of the petitioner's property he was purged of whatever offense against the laws of the United States he had committed by the acts mentioned in the findings, and relieved from any penalty which he might have incurred. It follows, further, that if the property had been seized before the oath was taken, the faith of the Government was pledged to its restoration upon the taking of the oath in good faith. We can not doubt that the petitioner's right to the property in question, at the time of the seizure, was perfect, and that it remains perfect not- withstanding the seizure." In the same case, on page 543, the court further says: "Under the proclamation and the act, the Government is a trustee, holding the proceeds of the petitioner's property for his benefit, and having been fully reimbursed for all expenses incurred in that character, loses nothing by the judgment, which simply awards to the petitioner what is his own." The case in which the court in a unanimous opinion made these declarations was in all respects parallel to this case except that in the Padelford .case the property was actually captured in the city of Savannah by the Federal Army when the capture of that city was made on December 21, 1864, by the forces of the United States. In the case of Kline v. The United States (13th Wallace, page 137) the court held that, while all private property belonging to disloyal persons South was liable to confiscation, nevertheless — "No titles were divested in the insurgent States unless in pursuance of a judgment rendered after due legal proceedings. The Government recognized to the fullest extent the humane maxims of the modern law of nations, which exempt private property of noncombatant enemies from capture as booty of war. Even the law of confiscation was sparingly applied." And on page 142 in the same case — "We conclude, therefore, that the title to the proceeds of the property which came to the possession of the Government by capture or abandonment,, with the exceptions already noticed, was in no case divested out of the original owner. It was for the Government itself to determine whether these proceeds should be restored to the owner or not. The promise of the restoration of all rights of property decides that question affirmatively as to all persons who availed themselves of the proffered pardon. It was competent for the President to annex to his offer of pardon any conditions or qualifications he should see fit; but after those conditions and qualifications had been satisfied, the pardon and its connected promises took full effect. The restoration of the proceeds became the absolute right . of the persons pardoned on application within two years from the close of the war. It was, in fact, promised for an equivalent. 'Pardon and restoration of political rights" were ' in return 11 for the oath and its fulfillment. To refuse it would be a breach of faith not less 'cruel and astounding" than to abandon the freed people whom the Executive had promised to maintain in their freedom." Judge Miller, who will always be remembered as a great and able judge, dissented from this opinion of the court, and in his dissenting opinion, in which Mr. Justice Bradley, concurred, he said: " But I have not been able to bring my mind to concur in the proposition that under the act concerning captured and abandoned property, there remains in the former owner, who had given aid and comfort to the rebellion, any interest whatever ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 885 in the property or its proceeds when it had been sold and paid into the Treasury or had been converted to the use of the public under that act." Further on in the same dissenting opinion, Judge Miller, in commenting on the Padelford case, in which case he had concurred with all the judges, said: "In that case the opinion makes a labored and successful effort to show that Padel- ford, the owner of the property, had secured the benefit of the amnesty proclamation before the property was seized under the same statute we are now considering. And it bases the right of Padelford to recover its proceeds in the Treasury on the fact that before the capture his status as a loyal citizen had been restored, and with it all his rights of property, although he had previously given aid and comfort to the rebellion. In this view I concurred with all my brethren. And I hold now that as long as the possession or title of property remains in the party, the pardon or the amnesty remits all right in the Government to forfeit or confiscate it." (The italics are Justice Miller's.) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the court was in error in its conclusions in the Kline cases, and that Justice Miller was right, it will be seen that the present case comes strictly within the rule suggested by him. Thus we have the unanimous opinion of all the judges in both the Padelford case and the Kline case that, under circumstances such as exist in this case, "all right in the Government to forfeit or confiscate" the property had been remitted, and that under the proclamation of the President and the action of petitioner in taking and faithfully keeping his oath of allegiance, "the Government is a trustee holding the proceeds of petitioner's prop- erty for his benefit; and having been fully reimbursed for all expenses incurred in that character the Government loses nothing by the return of the money which ' sim- ply awards to the petitioner what is his own.' " Under the circumstances of this case and the law as distinctly laid down by the Supreme Court of the United States it seems clear to the committee that the net proceeds of this 53 bales of cotton should be restored to the owner of the cotton, and we therefore recommend that the bill dp pass. — ■— — : TO PAY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF WILLIAM CRAMP & SONS FOR BUILD- ING U. S. S. INDIANA. The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred Senate bill 3126, have had the same under consideration and beg leave to submit the following report: This a claim by the builders of the battle ship Indiana seeking reimbursement of the expenses they were put to, for the care, maintenance, preservation, insurance, and wharfage during a delay of two years after the expiration of the contract period, brought about by the failure of the United States to furnish them with the armor ' ' in the time and in the order necessary to carry on the work properly," as it had cove- nanted and agreed to do . The Court of Claims after a protracted trial found that the necessary and reasonable costs during this delay, which they found was solely and entirely due to the fault of the United States, amounted to 1177,823.55, but on account of a release given on May 10, 1894, at the time of an advance payment, by which the builders agreed to waive so much of the claim as accrued prior to that date, the court allowed only the expenses incurred after that date for a period of one year six months and nine days, and gave judgment for the sum of $135,560. (See findings of Court of Claims accompanying this report marked "Exhibit A.") The case was appealed to the Supreme Court and that court reversed the judgment upon the sole ground that a final receipt and release given May 19, 1896, upon the payment to the builders of the balance of the contract price, viz, $41,132.80, was intended by the parties to be a final settlement of the present claim, which the Court of Claims found amounted to $177,823.55 additional. The equities were not considered by that court, as fully appears in the correspondence between Mr. Justice Brewer, who delivered the opin- ion, and one of the counsel for the company, accompanying this report, marked "Exhibit B." The builders now ask that Congress, upon equitable grounds, shaH reimburse them for these-Bxpenses, and they file in support of their petition the affidavits of ex-Secre- tary of the Navy, General Tracy; his assistants, Admiral Hichborn, Chief of the Bureau of Construction, and ex-Naval Constructor Nixon, who designed the vessel, being all the Government officers that had any part in the preparation of the contract; of ex-Secretary Herbert, who took the receipt, and Mr. Charles H. Cramp, president of the company, who signed both contract and receipt, each and all unanimously declaring in specific terms that it was never the intent of either of the parties to the contract by the giving or accepting of the receipt to in any way waive, bar, or settle the claim now presented. (See Exhibits C, D, E, F, and G, herewith.) This evidence was not before the Supreme Court, and the facts now presented differ in this material respect from the case as presented to that court. The delays 886 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. in furnishing the armor were caused by the praiseworthy desire of Secretary Tracy to obtain for these new vessels of war the most invulnerable armor that it was possible to procure. At that time the subject of armor plate was in its infancy, and new proc- esses of its manufacture were being devised and presented to the Department for adoption. A series of exhaustive tests and experiments were made, which consumed most of the contract period, and it was not until February, 1893, that the Secretary finally adopted the nickel-steel harveyized armor, and that surpassed all armor in any of the navies of the world. These delays had a similar effect upon the builders of the Oregon, Maine, Terror, and Texas, and these were the only vessels that were delayed from this cause aside from the Indiana and Massachusetts, built by the Cramp Company. The Richmond Locomotive Works, builders of the machinery for the Texas, and N. F. Palmer & Co. (the Quintard Iron Works), builders of the machinery of the Maine, have both been reimbursed by special acts of Congress on the recommen- dation of Secretaries Herbert, Morton, and Moody — notwithstanding they signed precisely the same final receipts and releases. (See Richmond case, 30 Stat., 1431; Palmer case, 33 Stat., 1397.) The Pneumatic Gun Carriage Company, builders of the Terror, recovered judgment in the Court of Claims, notwithstanding they signed the identical form of final receipt and release, that court holding, as it did in the Indiana case, that it did not relate to this class of claims, and Attorney-General Griggs acquiesced in that decision and declined to appeal the case, and that company was paid. (36 C. C. Rep., p. 71.) The Union Iron Works, by a supplemental contract relieved the United States of its obligation to take the vessel without armor as Article III of the contract provided, and in lieu thereof accepted a contract with Secretary Tracy by which the United States was to pay these expenses monthly as the delays occurred, and that company was so paid. (See affidavit ex-Secretary Tracy, Exhibit C.) The Cramp Company relied upon the obligation of the United States to take the vessel without armor, under Article III, and the Secretary concurred in this view of the obligation of the United States, and went so far as to detail officers to supervise the erection of temporary facili- ties to take the vessel to sea and weight it down to its normal draft, which was done at an additional expense to the builders of $17,000 (see twelfth findings, Court of Claims, Exhibit A), but on May 1, 1894, he arbitrarily refused to permit a trial trip to be made because, in his judgment, the interests of the United States would be best subserved by delaying the trial trip until the vessel was fully completed with all the armor on. It is shown by the affidavits of Admiral Hichborn (Exhibit D) and Secretary Tracy (Exhibit C) that the United States had no navy-yard at which these vessels could be taken care of. It may be that the company had the right to cut the vessel loose and let her float down the Delaware River to its destruction, but the United States then owed the company upward of $500,000 for work already performed and unpaid for, and the United States had already paid $2 300,000 on account of its construction, and to save this amount of Government property from destruction the company yielded to the request of the Secretary and cared for, preserved, and maintained the vessel at their yard for an additional one year, six months, and nine days, at an expense of $135 560, as found by the Court of Claims. Your committee can not believe that the company should now be punished for the performance of this most praiseworthy and -patriotic action, nor should the technical receipt be held to prevail over the conspicuous equities of the case. It may be true that a contractor should be careful in the wording of papers that he signs but if through want of care or inad- vertence the receipt does not express the real intent of the parties to it, it would be extremely unfair, if not positively dishonest, for one of the parties to try to enforce it against the other contrary to the intent of both. Your committee therefore report back Senate bill 3126 favorably and recommend that it do pass. Exhibit A. FINDINGS OP FACT BY THE COURT OF CLAIMS. [Court of Claims. No. 20858. (Decided January 29, 1906.) The William Cramp and Sons Ship and Engine Building Company v. The United States.] This case having been heard by the Court of Claims, the court, upon the evidence, makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT. I. The claimant herein is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, and carries on the business of ship and engine building, with its yards and plant and works located in the city of Philadelphia, in said State. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 887 II. On November 19, 1890, the claimant entered into a contract with the United States, through their Secretary of the Navy, whereby, in consideration of the sum of $3,063,000, to be paid as provided in said contract, it agreed to construct and com- plete within three years from said date as in said contract provided, a seagoing, coast- line battle ship, designated as No. 1, and subsequently named the Indiana, all in accordance with the specifications attached to and made a part of said contract, which contract, marked "Exhibit W. C. & S. No. 1," is annexed to and made a part of the petition herein. III. Immediately after the making of said contract the claimant arranged and systematized a working programme for the construction of said vessel by organizing its working force so as to cooperate with each other in harmony on coordinate work, and to secure economy in the construction of the vessel within the contract time and to escape the penalties imposed thereby for delays. The claimant would have completed the vessel within the contract period if it had not been for the failure of the United States to furnish materials within the time and in the order to properly carry on the work, which by the terms of the contract they had agreed to furnish. By reason of the failure of the defendants to furnish the materials, which by the third clause of the contract they had agreed to furnish, within the time and in the order as aforesaid, the completion of the vessel was delayed for two years beyond the contract period. . , The armor to be furnished in accordance with said clause of the contract was obtained by the defendants from other contractors, who, without any fault on the part of the claimant, failed to complete the manufacture thereof in time for the defendants to deliver the same to the claimant as they had agreed to do. The various kinds of armor, including the necessary bolts, nuts, etc., were delivered as follows: Diagonal armor, beginning June 6, 1892, and ending July 3, 1892. Casemate armor, beginning March 16, 1893, and ending May 1, 1893. Conning tower tube, May 1, 1893. Barbette armor, beginning July 10, 1893, and ending September 23, 1893. Sponson armor, beginning December 2, 1893, and ending March 24, 1894. Ammunition tubes, beginning April 24, 1894. and ending May 22, 1894. Eight-inch turret, beginning September 22, 1894. and ending December 7, 1894. Conning tower shield and covers, complete October 5, 1894. Side armor, beginning August 13, 1894. and ending August 6, 1895. Thirteen-inch turrets, beginning May 16. 1895, and ending September 5. 1895. IV. On December 4, 1895, and after the completion and delivery of the vessel at the time hereinafter stated, the Secretary of the Navy decided that the cause of delay for the period of two years in the completion of the vessel was due to the failure of the United States to furnish the claimant the materials contracted to be furnished by them within the time and in the order to properly carry on the work; and for that reason the time within which to complete the vessel, and thereby release the claimant from the penalties provided for in the 19th paragraph of the contract, was on said date extended by the Secretary of the Navy a corresponding length of time, to wit, to November 19, 1895, on which latter date the vessel so contracted for was completed and delivered. V. On May 10, 1894, before the Secretary of the Navy had finally decided the cause of delay, as aforesaid, and before there had been a preliminary or conditional accept- ance of the vessel, owing to the failure of the defendants to furnish, in the order required, the material which they had agreed to furnish, the contract was modified, which modification is made a part of the petition herein and marked "Exhibit W. C. & S. No. 2," by the terms of which modification the defendants agreed to pay the claimant a portion of the reservations of installments, which under the original con- tract were not payable, as therein set forth, until after a preliminary or conditional acceptance of the vessel; and $234,830, being the amount of the reservations of the first 23 out of the 27 installments earned by the claimant, were paid on or about June 20, 1894. The claimant, as provided in the modification aforesaid, furnished security against any loss to the defendants on account of such payment, but no demand for any refund was ever made upon it. In consideration of the payment aforesaid, the claimant, as recited in said modification, released the defendants "from all and every claim for loss or damage hitherto sustained by reason of any failure on the part of the" defendants to comply with its contract, "or on account of any delay hitherto occasioned " by them. _ To the modification of the contract and the release as aforesaid the claimant at the time does not appear to have made objection or protest. VI. On May 18, 1896, after the completion and delivery of the vessel, in accordance with the sixth paragraph of the nineteenth clause of the contract, the balance of the money due thereunder, but withheld in accordance therewith until the final accept- ALLOWANCE OP CERTAIN CLAIMS. ance of the vessel, was paid to the claimant and the same was accepted and a release and receipt was executed therefor by it in the terms following: "Whereas by the eleventh clause of the contract dated November 19, 1890, by and between The William Cramp and Sons Ship and Engine Building Company, a cor- poration created under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania, and doing business at Philadelphia, in said State, represented by the President of said company, party of the first part, and the United States, represented by the Secretary of the Navy, party of the second part, for the construction of a seagoing coast-line battle ship of about ten thousand tons displacement, which, for the purpose of said contract, is designated and known as 'Coast-line battle ship No. 1,' it is agreed that a special reserve of sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) shall be held until the vessel shall have been finally tried; provided that such final trial shall take place within five months from and after the date of the preliminary or the conditional acceptance of the vessel ; and "Whereas by the sixth paragraph of the nineteenth clause of said contract it is further provided that when all the conditions, covenants, and provisions of said con- tract shall have been performed and fulfilled by and on the part of the party of the first part, said party of the first part shall be entitled, within ten days after the filing and acceptance of its claim, to receive the said special reserve or so much thereof as it may be entitled to on the execution of a final release to the United States in such form as shall be approved by the Secretary of the Navy of all claims of any kind or descrip- tion under or by virtue of said 'contract; and "Whereas the final trial of said vessel was completed on the eleventh day of April, 1896; and "Whereas all the conditions, covenants, and provisions of said contract have been performed and fulfilled by and on the part of the party of the first part : "Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises, the sum of forty-one thousand one hundred and thirty-two dollars and eighty-six cents ($41,132.86) the balance of the aforesaid special reserve ($60,000), to which the party of the first part is entitled, being to me in hand paid by the United States, represented by the Secrteary of the Navy, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, The William Cramp and Sons Ship and Engine Building Company, represented by me, Charles H. Cramp, presi- dent of said corporation, does hereby for itself and its successors and assigns, and its legal representatives, remise, release, and forever discharge the United States of and from all and all manner of debts, dues, sums and sums of money, accounts, reckonings, claims, and demands whatsoever, in law or in equity, for or by reason of, or on account of, the construction of said vessel under the contract aforesaid. "In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of The Wil- liam Cramp & Sons Ship and Engine Building Company this eighteenth day of May, A. D. 1896. "[seal.] "Chas. H. Cramp. President. "Attest: "John Dougherty, Secretary." to the giving of which release and receipt the claimant does not appear at the time to have objected or protested. VII. Before and during the period of delay, as aforesaid, the claimant's business was so large that in order to obtain more room for materials for the vessels under con- struction at the claimant's yard, of which the Indiana was one, it purchased additional ground at a cost of $121,756.03, and erected thereon temporary shops, in which to handle and rehandle material, at an additional cost of $3,000. It is not shown that the purchase of said real estate was necessary to the construction of the Indiana, or that any portion of the outlay therefor was attributable to the vessel during the period of delay. VIII. After the expiration of the contract period and during the two years that the vessel was delayed in completion, as hereinbefore found, the reasonable value for the use of the claimant's yard, machinery, and tools, and for superintendence in the con- struction of the vessel, including the general upkeep of the yard chargeable to the Indiana, was $3,000 per month, or $72,000 for the two years' delay. The proportion of said expenses chargeable to the Indiana from May 10, 1894, the date of the release set fort in Finding VI, being for one year six months and nine days, was $54,887.67. IX. For the proper care and protection of the vessel during the two years' delay, including expense of cleaning the bottom, furnishing material and painting, tem- porary awnings and tents over caps left for the introduction of turrets, additional scaling to remove rust before painting, electric lighting, keeping up steam to prevent freezing of valves, wetting down decks, going over machinery, and keeping vessel free from snow, dust, ice and debris, the reasonable cost was $48,000. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 889 The proportion of said expenses for the period from May 10, 1894, being for one year six months and nine days, was $36,591.78. X. The customary rate of wharfage of merchant vessels at the port of Philadelphia during the time the Indiana was being constructed was 1 cent per net registered ton, and upon that basis, if allowed, the wharfage on the Indiana, with a net tonnage which we find was 3,203.58, during said two years' delay was $32 a day, or $23,360. The proportion of expense during the period from May 10, 1894, being for one year six months and nine days, was $17,808, inclusive of the dredging of the basin or bed in which to accommodate the vessel. The claimant also incurred an expense of $5,783 for tug service in removal of the vessel from time to time. Such expense is not shown to have been necessary to the construction of the vessel during the period of delay. It appears to have been for the benefit and convenience of the claimant. XL During the two years' delay the claimant was required to and did keep the vessel insured for the benefit and protection of the United States, and the reasonable cost thereof aggregated during said period the sum of $34,463.55. • The proportionate expense for the period from May 10, 1894, being one year six months and nine days, was $26,272.55. XII. March 23, 1894, the claimant notified the Secretary of the Navy that the ves- sel, other than the fitting of the armor, had reached a stage of completion ready for an official trial and proposed to offer said vessel therefor between May 1 and 10 following. Seven other vessels built by the claimant for the United States had been permitted to go on trial trips before their completion. The Indiana was the first battle ship con- structed, and before the armor was completed thereon the claimant proposed an offi- cial trial. March 9, 1894, the Secretary of the Navy addressed to the claimant the following letter: Washington, March 9, 1894. Gentlemen: In view of the fact that the trial of the Indiana will take place at an early date, and as you are probably now making preparation therefor, your attention is invited to the tenth clause of the contract for the construction of that vessel, which provides that the expenses of a successful trial of the vessel shall be borne by the Government. With a view to an expeditious settlement of the bill for the trial expenses of the vessel after the trial shall have taken place, the Department has to-day directed Chief Engineer J. W. Thomson and Naval Constructor J. F. Hanscom, United States Navy, to inform themselves as to what expenses you incur in preparing the vessel for trial t on the trial, and in furnishing the supplies of all kinds to be used, in order that they may be able to report to the Department after such examination, if any, as they may be required to make of your bill as to whether the items included therein are prop- erly chargeable to the Government, and as to whether the prices charged therefor are proper and reasonable. The Department requests that you will confer with the above-named officers in regard to the expenses necessary to be incurred in the trial of the Indiana, and afford them such information as will enable them to fully comply with the Department's instructions as above stated. Very respectfully, H. A. Herbert, Secretary of the Navy. The William Cramp & Sons Ship and Engine Building Company, Philadelphia, Pa. The expense so incurred was verified by such officers and no objection was found to the amount thereof. But in the meantime the Secretary of the Navy was in doubt as to whether the vessel was ready for such official trial, and to ascertain that fact did, on April 12, 1894, appoint a board, consisting of three naval officers, to inquire into the matter. The board made such inquiry, and on April 18, 1894, reported to the Secretary that the hull of the vessel was about eighty-four one-hundredths completed, and that but one-half of the armor had been fitted in place. The board unanimously reported that the vessel was not then and would not be by May 1, 1894, ready for the official trial trip in accordance with the tenth article of the contract, and that such trial should not, in the interest of the Government, take place until the vessel was fully completed and ready for delivery. ' Upon that report the Secretary acted, refusing to give his approval to the proposed trial, and the same was not made. 890 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. If the claimant is entitled to recover the expense so incurred in the preparation for the preliminary trial of the vessel, the amount as verified by the officers of the Navy and which we find reasonable was $17,514.94. XIII. The items of cost and expense set forth in the several findings herein, both upon the basis of two years' delay and of one year six months and nine days' delay, are as follows: Find- ing. Item. Two years. One year, 6 months, and 9 days. VIII IX X XI Superintendence and upkeep of yard "Protection of vessel, cleaning, painting, etc Wharfage of vessel Insurance on vessel $72, 000. 00 48, 000. 00 23,360.00 34, 463. 55 177,823.55 5554,887.67 36, 591. 78 17, 808. 00 26,272.55 135, 560. 00 CONCLUSION OP LAW. Upon the foregoing findings of fact the court decides as a conclusion of law that the claimant is entitled to recover against the United States the loss and damage sustained by it during the delay of one year, six months, and nine days, as set forth in finding XIII, the sum of one hundred and thirty-five thousand five hundred and sixty dollars ($135,560). Exhibit B. letter of mr. justice brewer, supreme court. Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C, December 17, 1907. My Dear Mr. Fay: Do not think I have neglected the matter to which you called my attention a few nights since. I spoke first to some of the brethren individually and finally I brought the matter up before the court in conference. The brethren without dissent advised me not to write the letter you suggest. There is nothing in the opinion which ignores the equity upon which you rely and of course nothing- to intimate that Con- gress can not if it sees fit grant all the relief desired. The brethren thought it would be unwise to intimate that Congress might or ought to act in the matter, and prefer to leave it for the action of that body, based upon such showing of the facts as can be made. It is not to be supposed, of course, that Con- gress will not be willing to do what is right in the premises. I return herewith the enclosures in your letter, thinking that you may have use for them in your further efforts. Very truly, yours, David J. Brewer. Hon. John C. Fay, Glover Building, 1419 F Street. Exhibit C. affidavit of honorable benjamin f. tracy, ex-secretary of the navy. State of New York, . County of New York, Borough of Manhattan, ss: Benjamin F. Tracy, being duly sworn, says: That he was Secretary for the Department of the Navy of the United States during the Administration of the late President Harrison. That as such Secretary, under the provisions of the act of Congress approved June 30, 1890, for the building of battleships for the Navy, he, on or about the 19th day of November, 1890, entered into three contracts for the building of battleships designated as Nos. 1, 2, and 3; said battleships were to be built according to the same plans and specifications and were identical in all respects. Contracts for battleships Nos. 1 and 2, subsequently named the Indiana and the Massachusetts, were made with the William Cramp & Sons Ship and Engine Building Company, of Philadelphia, Pa. A contract ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 891 in identical form for battleship No. 3, afterwards named the Oregon, was made with the Union Iron Wades, of San Francisco, Cal. By provisions in these three contracts the United States was to furnish all the heavy armor and each vessel was to be com- pleted within three years from the date of contract, under onerous penalties against contractor for delay, the United States agreeing to furnish the armor arid their acces- sories within the "time and in order to carry on the work properly." Each contract provided for the accepting of the vessel by the United States without armor in case its building was delayed by the default of the United States in furnishing armor, and each contract provided in similar terms for a final receipt of all claims of auy kind or description under or by virtue of the contract. Before and at the time of making these contracts "all steel" armor had been the standard in the Navy, it being considered the best then known, but in 1S89 his atten- tion had been directed to nickel steel, and the so-called Harvey process, and early in 1890 he had begun an investigation as to their respective merits which had proceeded so far as to have resulted in a comparative test between the compound steel, the all steel, and the nickel steel at Annapolis, September 18-22, 1890, as set forth in his annual report of 1890, and in consequence Congress had appropriated $1 ,000,000 for the purchase of nickel metal; but deponent was unwilling to determine definitely upon the character of armor to be applied to the new battle ships, without further tests, experiments and investigation both as to nickel steel and the Harvey process, and to leave the Department free to continue these investigations when he came to make the contracts of November 19, 1890, for the Indiana, Massachusetts, and Oregon, the proviso of Article III, binding the Government to accept the vessels without armor, if the United States was unable to supply it in the time and in the order to carry on the work properly, was inserted so as not to impose upon the builders the necessary expense of the care of the vessels, during the time required for the Government experiments cal- culated to obtain the veiy best armor. After these contracts were let he proceeded with further tests of both nickel steel and Harveyized nickel steel and the various other kinds of armor, which continued up to July 30, 1892, as set forth in detail in his annual reports of 1890, 1891, and 1892, before he reached the conclusion to adopt the Harveyized nickel steel armor, and, accordingly, in February, 1893, made contracts for the production of this character of armor. During all this time the coordinate work on these vessels had been pro- gressing satisfactorily to the Department, and it became evident that this decision would result in a very considerable delay in their completion, and that the necessary cost of their care, maintenance, preservation, insurance, and extra dockage and wharfage during this period of delay would amount to a large sum, and the United States having no proper facilities at its navy-yard to take over these vessels in their unfinished condition and care for and complete them, all of which being brought to his attention by the builders of the Oregon, he entered into the supplemental contract attached hereto with that company, by which these several expenses were to be cur- rently ascertained and paid by the United States, and he is informed and believes they were so paid. That a similar supplementary contract would have been made by him with the Cramp Company for the Indiana and Massachusetts if it had been brought to his attention. That the sixth clause of Article NIX of the contract was an old form that had been in use in navy contracts for. many years, and, while it was very properly applicable when the builder furnished all the material and labor for the construction of a vessel, was not, standing alone, very appropriate for a contract where part of the material was to be fur- nished by the United States; but it was never intended by him to impose upon the builder the loss, expense, or damage that accrued to it by reason of the failure of the United States to perform its part of the contract; he can confidently state that at the time of making these contracts that, by providing for this final receipt and release, it was not the purpose, intent, or design of either party to the contract that it should extend to or cover damages which the contractor might sustain by reason of the fail- ure of the Government to perform the contract on its part, nor is he aware that the Department in any case has so construed a similar final release or receipt. Benjamin F. Tracy. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 31st day of October, A. D. 1907. [seal] Chas. A. Conlon, Notary Public, New York County, 892 ALLOWANCE OF CEETAIN CLAIMS. Exhibit D. affidavit of admiral philip highborn, u. s. navy, retired, late chief of the bureau of construction and repair. District of Columbia, ss: Philip Hichborn, of the city of Washington, being duly sworn, says: That he is on the retired list of the United States Navy, having been retired while chief constructor, after a service in its construction corps of more than thirty years. That he was intimately connected with the building of the so-called "New Navy" from its inception to the time of his retirement from active service, as member of the Naval Advisory Board, assistant to Chief, and afterwards Chief of the Bureau of Con- struction and Repair. That during the preparation of the contracts for the Indiana, Massachusetts, and Oregon, he was, either personally or through his assistants, in constant communication with the Secretary and the Judge-Advocate-General as to their terms, but more par- ticularly as to technical parts of it, although the whole contract was referred to him for examination and report and was carefully examined and considered before it was finally signed. That he distinctly recalls the fact that Article III, providing for a trial trip without armor, was fully discussed, and its purpose to avoid entailing the costs and expenses arising from delays in the delivery of armor, upon the contractors, was well understood by all parties connected with the contract and some additional language was inserted at Mr. Cramp's suggestion, to render the understanding clearer; The sixth clause of Article XIX was an old form in use for many years in the Navy Department, and at no time during the preparation of the contract did he ever hear any of the officers of the Department who had any hand in the preparation of the con- tract suggest that it might be so construed as to require release of any damages that might accrue to the contractors from any breach of the contract on the part of the United States as a condition to final payment; he certainly did not so understand it, nor does he believe that if such a construction of that clause had been avowed by the Department, it would have been able to have secured a contract from any responsible shipbuilding concern in the country. That after the armor had been so long delayed and the contract time had expired, and the time within which the armor could be secured was indefinite and uncertain, the company, under the special direction of officers of the Navy, charged with that duty by direction of the Secretary of the Navy, proceeded to install temporary work and weight down the Indiana for a trial trip without armor, under the provisions of the third article of the contract, and expended some $17,000 in such work, took her on a contractors' trial trip and tendered her for official trial. That .deponent thought that such a trial in her unfinished condition would be of great service in developing the vessel and exhibiting any weak places or errors in design, and was strongly in favor of submitting her to trial irrespective of the provi- sions in the contract so to do, but the United States was not then equipped to take charge of the vessel and care for her during the subsequent delay which it was then well known was certain to continue for a very considerable length of time, and the Secretary, for reasons satisfactory to himself, through other agencies than the Bureau of Construction and Repair, declined to permit her to make a trial trip until finally completed. t Deponent further says that after the completion and acceptance of the vessel he was called upon to make up the final account, and in so doing he made no allowances for damages for delay, nor was the matter at all considered or embraced in the final account, for the reason that it had long been held in the Department that the Department had no authority or jurisdiction to entertain, audit, or consider such claims, nor was any appropriation available for their payment. That all claims of such character that had been or afterwards were during his term of office considered or audited by the Depart- ment had been under special legislation giving the Department jurisdiction in certain specified cases. That he personally, by direction of the Secretary, examined the claim of the In- diana, and made a report to the Senate committee in the Fifty-fourth Congress, and from his examination he is able to say that the allowance by the Court of Claims is, in his judgment, fair and reasonable, and leaving out the item that he was unwilling to pass on for lack of evidence, and which was allowed by the court, an analysis of the award of the court shows it to be less than the report made by him as Chief of the Bureau of Construction and Repair. Philip Hichborn. Sworn and subscribed to before me this 5th day of November, A. D. 1907. [seal.] George J. Johnston, Notary Public, District of Columbia ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 893 Exhibit E. AFFIDAVIT OF EX-NAVAL CONSTRUCTOR LEWIS NIXON. State of New York, Borough of Manhattan: Lewis Nixon, of Tompkinsville, Staten Island, State of New York, being duly sworn, says that he is by occupation a shipbuilder; that he graduated at the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, and the Royal Academy at Greenwich, England, and served in the IT. S. Navy as an assistant naval constructor to about January 1, 1891; that in 1890 he was ordered to the Bureau of Construction and Repair in Wash- ington, and was assigned to the duty of designing and preparing the plans and speci- fications of the coast defense battle ships provided for under the act of June 30, 1890, which designs were adopted, and the Indiana, Massachusetts, and Oregon were built thereunder; that in the formulation of the contracts for these vessels he was in con- stant and almost daily consultation with both Secretary Tracy and Judge-Advocate- General Remy; that he was deeply interested in the successful building of these battle ships, both from a professional as well as a patriotic standpoint, and took great care and aimed to insert such stringent provisions as were calculated to stimulate the builders to great energy in speedily constructing the vessels, but not so harsh and unjust that might deter a shipbuilder from undertaking a contract, and with this end in view, at his suggestion, the obligation of the United States to furnish the armor at the time and in the order to carry on the work properly and the provision that, in default of so doing, the vessel was to be accepted without armor, were inserted, and to free this clause from any ambiguity the words "and to continue with reasonable diligence" were afterwards added in manuscript in the printed contract at the suggestion of Mr. C. H. Cramp before he signed the formal contract. If this provision of the contract had been lived up to by the United States, no part of the claim or damage sued for in the Court of Claims ever would or could have arisen in behalf of the Cramp Company for the expense of the care, preservation, and main- tenance of the vessels which did accrue by reason of the delay in furnishing the armor would have been borne by the United States, as the contract intended to provide that it should be; that from his personal connection with the preparation of the con- tract and his intercourse and consultation with the Secretary and the Judge-Advocate- General he can confidently state that it never was the intention of the United States, as represented by its officers, as parties to the contract, that the provision for a final release, embodying in it as a condition precedent to the payment of the balance of the contract price, to require the release of or cover any claim for damage arising out of the breach of contract by the United States or exempt the United States from the cost and expense of the care, preservation, and maintenance of either of these vessels during the period of enforced delay occasioned by the inability of the United States to fulfill its part of its contract. That shortly after the making of the contract, the Cramp Company tendered to him the position of superintendent of their yard to supervise the building of these vessels, and, in his anxiety to see his designs successfully carried out, he resigned from the Navy, accepted the offer and built two of these Vessels, the Indiana and Massachusetts. That when the delays began to accrue he pushed the coordinate work so that the vessels should have a preliminary trial trip, and with the sanction of the Secretary of the Navy and under the supervision of two naval officers specially directed by the Secretary to supervise the temporary work necessary to take the vessel to sea, per- formed all such necessary work on the Indiana and weighed her down to her normal draft, at an expense of $17,000, took her to sea on her contractors' trial trip and tendered for official trial, ready in all respects to make such trip without her armor; but the Secretary of the Navy declined to allow her to make a trial trip unless fully completed, utterly ignoring the provisions of Article III. That during all the time of the delays he had frequent consultations with the officers of the Construction Bureau and the Secretary, and while it was frankly conceded by all of them that very serious expenses were being necessarily incurred by reason thereof, it never was intimated that, by any construction of the contract, such expense was to be borne by or claim for them was to be waived by the contractor. Lewis Nixon. Sworn and subscribed before me this 30th day of October, A. D. 1907. [seal.] Laura E. Smith, Notary Public, Kings County. (Certificate filed in New York County.) 894 ALLOWANCE OF- CEETAIN CLAIMS. Exhibit F. STATEMENT OF HON. H. A. HERBERT, EX-SECRETARY OP THE NAVY. Washington, D. C, December 16, 1907. Dear Sir: At the request of Messrs. Hunton & Creecy I am condensing in a letter to you a statement made more at length in the correspondence between them and myself, which is to be filed with the committee. Under the contract for the construction of the Indiana and all other armored ships the Government was to furnish and deliver at times and places as needed all heavy armor. When I became Secretary of the Navy the Government was far behind with its deliveries of armor for the Indiana, partly by reason of delays on the part of the armor contractors and partly because of experiments with a new process of harvey- izing, which had been begun under Secretary Tracy and which were continued under me, thus causing further delay. The Cramp Company, builders of the Indiana, in August, 1893, earnestly protested against further delay, asked to be furnished with nickel steel armor, as previously decided upon. On August 25, 1893, I, as Secretary, replied: "The Department thinks it for the best interests of the service that this armor should be harveyized, even if it should occasion some delay in the completion of the vessel, as you state." I was deciding solely what was to the interests of the Government. The question of compensation to the contractors for losses that might result to them from enforced delays was not before me, nor had I as an executive officer any jurisdiction over that matter. But whenever I had occasion subsequently to consider this matter, my every act and deed showed that in my opinion the Government was responsible to the builders for all losses caused by its failure to comply with its contracts to deliver armor when required to do so under its contracts. When on May 10, 1894, I advanced to the Cramp Company a considerable sum of money already earned but not then payable, I exacted from the company a release of the United States ' ' from all and every claim for loss and damage hitherto sustained by reason of any failure" on their part, or "on account of any delay hitherto occa- sioned by" their action. The panic of 1893-94 was then on. The company was in urgent need of the money and I thought the release of their claim for damages on account of the Government's delay was a valuable consideration for the advance payment of this money. Again, on February 27, 1895, as Secretary, I stated in a letter to the Naval Com- mittee that I saw no objection to the passage of a bill, which had been referred to me, for the relief of the builders of the Texas, whose claim was exactly similar to that of the Cramp Company in the matter of the Indiana. Again, after this bill for the Texas was passed, Assistant Secretary McAdoo, Decem- ber 20, 1895, reported that, "in the opinion of the Department," the contractors were "justly and equitably entitled to $80,049.35." Again, December 8, 1896, responding to an inquiry from Congress as to whether the claims of the builders of the Indiana and other vessels for damages incurred by like cases should be decided by Congress of the Court of Claims, as Secretary, I stated that, "in my judgment, the interests of justice demand" that these cases should be referred to the Court of Claims, giving as my reason that the court could consider with more deliberation and care than the committees of Congress could. Again, Chief Constructor Hichborn, then under me, February 9, 1897, recom- mended the payment of items on account of the losses of the Indiana, of $97,214.85; and this without considering, as he said, another large amount which he thought the committee was more competent than he to investigate. Thus without a break every act of the Department touching this matter, when I presided over it, showed that in its opinion the builders had a just claim for the losses resulting to them from delays caused by the Government in furnishing armor according to its contracts. The Supreme Court, however, decided in the Indiana case that by the final release stipulated for in the building contract, and given when the last payments were made, all claims for damages by the builders were released, although the Court of Claims had held otherwise. That my view of this release was that taken by the Court of Claims and not that taken by the Supreme Court, is clear from the following consideration: In my letter transmitting the Cramp cases to Cpngress (see H. R. 816, 55th Congress, 2d session) I called special attention to the release of May 10, 1894, from all damages theretofore incurred in the case of the Indiana, and to a similar release in the case of the Massachusetts. This I did because I thought it my duty to see that Congress, ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 895 before taking any action, should have before it any written release that might have been given. Per contra. — On December 8, 1896, when I expressed the opinion that the "interests of justice demanded " that these Cramp cases and others should be sent to the Court of Claims, the final release which the Supreme Court afterwards construed in the case of the Indiana, had already been given, to wit, May 18, 1896. If, in my opinion at that time, the Cramp Company had released all claim for dam- ages in writing by its receipt for the final payment, it would have been clearly my duty to call the attention of Congress to that fact. But this was not done, for the reason that it was not my opinion that the company had by its receipt for the last regular payment released the Government from the claim for darhages which I was recom- mending should be sent to the Court of Claims. Very respectfully, H. A. Herbert. Hon. C. W. Fulton, Chairman Committee on Claims, United States Senate. Exhibit G. affidavit of mr. charles h. cramp, ex-president, the wm. cramp & sons ship and engine building company. State of Pennsylvania: Charles H. Cramp, being duly affirmed, says: That he was the president of the William Cramp and Sons Ship and Engine Building Company during the period that company was building the battle ships and cruisers for the new Navy of the United States, including the battle ships Indiana, Massachusetts, and Iowa, and the cruisers New York, Brooklyn, and Columbia, all of which vessels were seriously delayed during their construction by reason of the failure of the United States to fulfill the obligations on its part assumed under the terms of the contract. That at the time, in November, 1890, when the terms of the contract for the build- ing of battle ship No. 1, afterwards called the Indiana, were under consideration, he had frequent consultations with the chief constructor and his chief assistant, and Secretary Tracy, and while the company agreed to submit to penalties for delay caused by it in the construction of the vessel, the United States agreed to take the vessel off the hands of the contractor in an unfinished condition in case the delays were caused by the United States. If these latter terms had been carried out there would have been no cost to the company for the care and preservation, insurance, wharfage, and similar items during the enforced delay brought about by the delay in furnishing the armor on the part of the United States, and there was never any intimation on the part of any officer of the Government in all the negotiations, or during the contract period, that the contract price included, or was intended to include, the expense of the maintenance, care, preservation, or other expenses, made necessary by the delay after the contract term expired. The price fixed in the contract included nothing but the work provided for under the plans and specifications. There was never any under- standing, agreement, or pretense on the part of either party to the contract that the final receipt covered, or intended to cover, anything except the construction of the vessel under the contract, and it was given and accepted with the full knowledge and understanding both of the Secretary of the Navy and the company that it was not intended to be any bar to the recovery by the company of the expenses of care, wharf- age, insurance, etc., of the vessel during the time of the delay. At the moment, May, 1896, when the receipt was signed, there was pending in Congress a petition of the company for the passage of a law conferring on the Secre- tary of the Navy authority to audit and pay this identical claim. This was well known to _the Secretary, and he had before that time recommended similar legis- tion in a similar case. At the time of signing the receipt the Secretary conceded that the Government's delay had caused the company great loss, and that they had a valid claim for reim- bursement, but held that he was without jurisdiction to pass upon it and without funds to liquidate it. Enlightened by these surrounding facts and circumstances, it is not possible to con- strue the words of the receipt "for, or by reason of, or on account of the construction of the vessel under the contract" to embrace the claim for the care and preservation of the vessel, which was no part of the construction of the vessel, and which did not arise by virtue of any provision in the contract or specifications. Neither party intended that it should, and the contemporaneous acts of both parties emphasized it. 896 ALLOWANCE OF CEBTAIN CLAIMS. The Secretary of the Navy had treated a partial release of this claim as a valid and valuable consideration for the payment of what he claimed to be an advance of money not yet due under the contract, and the company had presented it and were pressing it before Congress with the knowledge and acquiescence of the Secretary. In May, 1894, the Secretary refused an official trial trip and declined to accept the vessel in an unfinished condition, and refused to make further payments till a trial trip was had. The company had, under the eye of specially detailed officers, ex- pended seventeen thousand dollars for temporary work so the vessel could be taken to sea, and had made a contractor's trial trip. The company was then in dire need of money. It was carrying more than a million and a quarter of dollars in loans at abnormal rates of interest, with a weekly pay roll of upwards of ten thousand dollars a day, and upwards of five thousand employees, which represented fully twenty thou- sand persons dependent upon the continuation of work in the company's yard. It was the time of financial panic and to have thrown these men out of employment would have been a calamity to the city and State. To avert so disastrous a calamity, against his earnest remonstrance, he was coerced into signing the special release of May 10, 1894, in order to receive, not an advance payment, for the money was then long overdue, but to save the company from threatened bankruptcy and the city and State from a disastrous calamity. Personal violence to him or imprisonment itself would not have been more potent in obtaining the release than were the circumstances that surrounded him at the time. Chas. H. Cramp. Affirmed and subscribed to before me at Devon, Penna., this 10th day of August, A. D. 1907. [seal.] Isaac Arrott, Notary Public. (My commission expires February 29, 1909.) JAMES H. DENNIS. The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred, the bill (S. 1456) to carry out the findings of the Court of Claims in the case of James H. Dennis, having carefully con- sidered the same, report the bill back to the Senate with the recommendation that the bill be amended by striking out the words "twenty-five thousand six hundred and thirty-eight dollars" and inserting in lieu thereof "twenty-six thousand five hundred and thirty-eight dollars," it being apparent that the amount stated in the bill is incorrect and arises from an error in addition. A bill to carry out the findings of the Court of Claims in this case has heretofore been reported with favorable recom- mendations as follows: Fifty-first Congress, first session, Report No. 830, made by Senator Allen; Fifty- second Congress, first session, Report No. 512, by Senator Allen; and to the House of Representatives as follows: Fifty-second Congress, first ression, Report No. 1601, by Mr. Cox, of Tennessee; Fifty-fourth Congress, first session, Report No. 639, by Mr. Cox, of Tennessee, and in the Fifty-fifth Congress, second session, Report No. 313, by Mr. Clardy. An item for the payment of the findings in the case of James H. Dennis was included in bill H. R. 13382, Fifty-sixth Congress, second session, and passed the Senate. In the Fifty-second Congress, first session, Senator Allen made a complete report upon the bill for the payment of James H. Dennis, and your committee insert his report herein and adopt it as fully setting forth the facts in the case, except as to the state- ments of the final amount due, which, as above set out, should be $26,538, instead of $25,638. The report of Senator Allen is as follows: "The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 597) to carry out the findings of the Court of Claims in the case of James H. Dennis, make the following report : "The bill calls for an appropriation of $29,638, being the sum found by the Court of Claims due the claimant on account of certain contracts for the improvement of the Tennessee River. "September 21, 1888, by resolution of the Senate, bill S. 3571, entitled 'A bill for the relief of James H. Dennis,' then pending in the Senate, was referred to the Court of Claims in pursuance of the provisions of 'An act to provide for the bringing of suits against the Government of the United States,' approved March 3, 1887, to find and report to the Senate the facts bearing upon the merits of the claim, including the loyalty of the claimant and all other facts contemplated by the provisions of said acts: "The bill thus submitted to the Court of Claims called for an appropriation for the payment of said Dennis in the sum of $259,700 on account of work done upon the ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 897 • Tennessee River, under contracts, written, oral, or implied, between the years 1868 and 1872, in addition to any sums or sum that may have been paid to him. "Pursuant to the resolution of the Senate, upon petition duly presented, evidence was taken and a finding of facts was made by the Court of Claims, a certified copy of which was filed with the President of the Senate March 3, 1890. "From the findings it is made clearly to appear that the claimant was a loyal citi- zen of the United States; that between the months of October, 1868, and October, in the year 1870, the claimant entered into certain contracts in writing with the United States for the improvement of different places on the Tennessee River; that the original contract was altered from time to time by oral agreements between the officer representing the United States and claimant; that the contracts originally let to other parties by the Government were by mutual consent assigned to claimant for the purpose of performance; and that subsequent to the original contract a second written contract was entered into between the Government and claimant respecting improvements upon the river. "Pursuant to these several contracts plaintiff, under the supervision of the proper engineering officer of the Government, performed work until April, 1872, when, fail- ing to give a bond exacted of him by the officer in charge, the claimant was notified that the several contracts entered into were canceled and he notified to discontinue work. On account of the various improvements made by the claimant there was allowed and paid to him $105,224.57 certain per cents of the amounts being withheld. This per centum, amounting to $19,229.79, was not paid to the claimant until Jan- uary, 1874, and in the collecting of the same he was compelled to pay as found by the court, $4,000 in counsel fees; that claimant at the time of entering into these sev- eral contracts with the Government was worth from $25,000 to $30,000; that upon discontinuance of the work he was left in a state of insolvency. In most of the items presented in his petition the court fails to find favorably to the claimant, solving obscure or doubtful proofs against him. c 'At what is termed Suck Bar the court finds the whole amount of rock removed to have been 29,369 cubic yards; that the estimates of payment for this work, made by the officer in charge, were as follows: 6, 100 cubic yards, at 75 cents $4, 575. 00 9, 532 cubic yards, at $1.15 10, 961. 80 9, 538. 85 cubic yards, at $3.75 35, 770. 68 25, 170. 85 51, 307. 48 "It finds the difference between the work done and that paid for 4,199 cubic yards, and that this additional work was of the same character and equally difficult and expensive as that for which the allowance of $3.75 per cubic yard was made, and therefore finds a reasonable value for the same $15,746. "The court also finds that on the work done at what is called Boiling Pot 13,500 cubic yards were removed, and pursuant to the contracts paid for at the rate of $1.50 per cubic yard, and that upon the order of the officer in charge claimant made a further excavation and removal of 2,100 cubic yards of the same character of work, and worth at the contract price $3,600, for which payment had not been made; that at what is known as Buck Island claimant constructed a riprap dam, which he alleged contained 2,666 cubic yards of rock, for which payment was to have been made at the rate of $2.25 per cubic yard. He was allowed, by reason of an erroneous meas- urement, for but 2,000 yards at this rate. The court finds that by a proper method of measurement the dam contained 2,400 cubic yards of rock, for which according to the contract, he should have received payment at the rate of $2.25 per cubic yard, and that there is still due him thereon $900. "It is also shown in the findings that on the 31st of October, 1868, the claimant made a contract with the Government to do certain work in the improvement of the Tennessee River at a point known as Seven-Mile Island and Buck Island, and that after making extensive preparations for carrying on the contract, he received notice from the engineer officer in charge that the work at this point was abandoned and that the work would be transferred to Colbert Shoals. " The amount of work done at Colbert Shoals was 3,362 cubic yards, at $2.25 per yard. The court finds the work at Colbert Shoals more difficult than that at Buck Island and Seven-Mile Island. The whole amount of work under the contract at Buck and Seven-Mile islands, including a wall, was 11,357 cubic yards. Amount done at Buck Island and Colbert Shoals, 5,762 cubic yards. "Estimating the cost of preparation made at Seven-Mile Island for the prosecution of the work which became a useless expenditure in consequence of the abandonment at that point and the difference in expense of the works done at the different points, the court renders a finding of $2,408 in favor of the claimant in excess of all payments made. S Rep. 382, 60-1 57 898 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. "It is alleged in addition by claimant that at Colbert Island be built two riprap dams containing 15,000 cubic yards, worth $4 per cubic yard, and did other work of a value of $175; that he biiilt still another dam containing 1,000 cubic yards of rip- rap and 2,300 of rubble dam, worth, respectively, $4 and $6 per cubic yard; that the claimant was at said place allowed in the aggregate 11,439 cubic yards of riprap, for which payment of $16,382.53. including the retained percentage before mentioned, was made him. Of this amount, 8,911.76 yards were paid for at the price of $1.20 per yard and the remainder at the price of $2.25 per yard. If the measurement had been made according to the rule of one and eighty-hundredths instead of one and fifty- hundredths for the difference between solid and loose stone, as the court finds should have been done, it would have made the yards at $1.20, 10,693 inst, .id of 8,911.76, and the yards at $2.25, 3,033 instead of 2,527.24, making a balance of 1,782 yards at $1.20 per yard and 505 yards at $2.25 per yard, amounting in the aggregate to an increase of $2,706, for which payment should be made the claimant. "At the point known as Bee Tree Shoals it is alleged the claimant built 3,744 yards of riprap, which was worth $5 per cubic yard, aggregating the sum of $18,720. "At this point, by the officer in charge, there was estimated and allowed 1,911 J yards of riprap, 400 yards at $1.20 per yard and 1,511$ yards at $2.25 per yard, aggregating $3,880.87. The court finds the same error occurred in estimating this work as the foregoing, and that estimating the work according to the standard of one hundred and eighty instead of one hundred and fifty the result is 480 yards at $1.20 per yard and 2,890 yards at $2.25 per yard. "The court finds that the claimant has paid the sum of $4,000 as expenses in attor- ney's fees in collecting from the Government the retained percentage amounting to $19,229.79, the amount admitted by the officer in charge of the work to have been found due him, which was not paid until January, 1874. "Your committee do not, however, feel warranted in recommending the repayment of such expenses and counsel fees. "Your committee therefore recommend that the bill be amended so as to allow the claimant the sum of $25,638." The claim made by Mr. Dennis before the Court of Claims involved sums to the amount of $259,700, and the court, while allowing only a small portion of the total sum claimed, felt that it was due Dr. Dennis that all the findings made by the court, as well those in favor of Dennis as those against him, should be embodied in, their report of findings and submitted to the Senate, and the result was an unusually voluminous report, which, in a measure, obscures the different items found in favor of Dennis. In order that the findings in favor of the claimant, Dennis, may be succinctly and clearly stated the letter of Mr. Chief Justice Nott, who was one of the justices sitting when the case was tried, addressed to James Lowndes, esq., one of the attorneys in the case, is inserted herein, and is as follows: "February 10, 1904. " Dear Sir: In reply to your inquiries relative to certain obscurities in the report of the Court of Claims in the case of James H. Dennis, filed March 3, 1890, I am con- strained to say that only two of the judges who were on the bench at the time the case was tried are now living, and that this communication must be considered as my indi- vidual act and not that of the court. ' 'As the court made an immense reduction in the claims brought before it in this suit, it was deemed more just to the claimant to set forth in the report to Congress both the amounts allowed and disallowed, so that if Congress saw fit they would have the facts before them which would enable them to make a larger allowance to the claimant than the court has done. Unfortunately, the course pursued made the findings almost hopelessly voluminous, and the details of what was claimed by the claimant and allowed by the court have caused the obscurities. "Without referring to the disallowed items, I will briefly summarize those which were allowed: "Finding II: Of work done at a point on the Tennessee River known as Suck Bar the . claimant was paid for 25,170.85 cubic yards of excavation, but was not paid for 4,199 cubic yards, which the court finds to be reasonably worth $3.75 per cubic yard, amounting to the sum of $15, 746 "Finding VIII: At a point on the Tennessee River known as Boiling Pot the claimant excavated 13,500 cubic yards of rock, for which he was paid. In the fall of 1871 he further excavated 2,400 cubic yards at said point, for which he was not paid, and which the court finds to be reasonably worth $1.50 per cubic yard, amounting to the sum of 3, 600 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 899 "Finding IX: At a point on the Tennessee River known as Buck Island the claimant was paid for 2,000 cubic yards of riprap, but was not paid for 400 cubic yards, which the court finds to be reasonably worth $2.25 per cubic yard, amounting to $900 "Finding IX: In consequence of an erroneous system of computation of the quantities and for work paid for at a point on the Tennessee River known as Colbert Shoals, but at $1.05 per cubic yard less than the contract price, the court finds the amount due to the claimant to be 2, 408 ' ' Finding X : For riprap masonry at a point on the Tennessee River known as Colbert Island for which the claimant was not paid in consequence of an erro- neous system of computation of the quantities and for work paid for at the same place, but at less than the contract price, the court finds due to the claimant the sum of 2, 706 "Finding XII: In consequence of an erroneous system of computation of the quantities, the court finds that there is due the claimant for riprap masonry done at a point on the Tennessee River known as Bee Tree Shoals the sum of . 1, 178 Total 26, 538 "Respectfully, "C. C. Nott. "James Lowndes, Esq., Washington, D. C." This letter sets forth the six different items allowed by the court in favor of Dennis, the claimant, and the total of these foot up $26,538. Your committee therefore recommend that the bill be amended so as to allow the claimant the sum of $26,538, and that as so amended the bill do pass. PROTESTANT ORPHAN ASYLUM AT NATCHEZ, MISS. The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 3342) for the relief of the Protestant Orphan Asylum at Natchez, in the State of Mississippi, respectfully report: The evidence shows that the Protestant Orphan Asylum at Natchez was established in 1816 by ladies residing in Natchez and by members of different Protestant churches for the purpose of giving a home to destitute orphan children. The asylum has been in continuous operation since 1816. The funds required for the erection of the neces- sary buildings and for the maintenance of the asylum and support of the orphans were obtained entirely from private sources, no contributions being made either by the city, county, or State. As donations increased the managers extended the charity to or- phans in every part of the State, and its benefits were open to all worthy orphans, irre- spective of religious faith or denomination. The board of managers was incorporated in 1824. At different times legacies were left to the asylum, which were used in the purchase of a large building as a home for the orphans, the annual cost of maintaining the asylum being $3,600. In March, 1864, after the occupation of Natchez by the United States troops, the line of fortifications, known as "Fort McPherson," inclosed the orphan asylum, containing at that time about forty children. The premises, by order of General Sherman, were taken possession of by the soldiers and the children crowded into a remote part of the building. The board of managers soon found that it was impossible to remain in the asylum building, and the children were removed to another building which was used as a hospital for refugees. During a stay of six weeks two of the orphans died from disease contracted in the building. The Army continued to occupy the building until the 5th day of June, 1865. Dur- ing said occupation of about fifteen months the Army destroyed a very large and fine stable and the gardener's house, the lowest estimate of value being $1,500, some of the witnesses testifying to a larger sum. It is also established by the evidence that the value of the furniture, bedding, and other movable property lost to the asylum by reason of its occupation by the Federal forces was from $1,500 to $2,000. When the board of lady managers came into posses- sion of the building after it was vacated by the military authorities they had to re- furnish everything and put in a great many glass that had been broken. A consider- able sum had to be expended before the building was habitable. 900 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. The builder who attended to all the repairs of the building and did all that was necessary for its reoccupancy was paid the sum of nearly $1,000, the asylum managers furnishing all the lumber required for the repairs. On March 5, 1864, the command- ing officer at Natchez ordered a board of survey to examine all houses within the line of intrenchments and to assess the value of each in gold coin. The board made a report March 31, 1864, and estimated the value of the orphan asylum buildings at $9,000 in gold coin. A copy of the report is on file. The live-oak timber was cut down and used, and the fences also used for military purposes. Your committee are of the opinion, from the evidence, that the rent of the asylum building for the period it was occupied by the Army and the losses sustained by said occupation amount to at least $5,375. The items are as follows: Rent of asylum buildings $1, 875 Value of buildings torn down, and the materials used for other purposes 1, 500 Value of furniture, bedding, and other movable property lost to the asylum by Army occupation 1, 500 The live oak timber cut down and used, and fences used by the Army 500 Total 5, 375 The ladies of Natchez, who established the asylum, and their successors, have thus kept alive for nearly a century this noblest of charities. They have rescued from pov- erty and want, from idleness and crime, hundreds of orphan children, and made them useful members of society. In peace and in war, in times of prosperity and adversity, this noble chairty has been sustained with religious zeal and with loving sympathy by the ladies who contributed their time and means to the support and education of or- phan children, who otherwise might have been left outcasts and wanderers upon the cold charity of the world. No claim of greater merit could appeal to Congress for relief. GEORGE W. YOUNG. The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 534) to reimburse George W. Young, postmaster at Wanship, Utah, for loss of postage stamps, having had the same under consideration, report it back to the Senate with the recommendation that it do pass without amendment. The facts of the case are set forth in the following affidavit and correspondence, which are adopted as part of this report: State of Utah, County of Summit, ss: I, Geo. W. Young, being first duly sworn, depose and say, that I am now a resi- dent of Coalville, Summit County, State of Utah, and in the year 1897, I held the position of postmaster in the town of Wanship, Summit County, Utah, and on the 18th day of May of said year the post-office was broken into and robbed of $163.87 in postage stamps by persons unknown to me, and under the ruling of the Postmaster- General I was compelled to make good the loss and have never been reimbursed for same; and deponent further says that the stamps were kept in as secure a place as I had, which was in a fireproof safe that was in my office in the back part of my store that I kept all my valuable papers in, and at the time of the robbery something got wrong with the dial on the safe so that it would not lock only on what is called the day lock, and it was in this condition at that time, and still I considered it safer than to have had the stamps locked in my desk, and if they had been they would have been taken just the same, as all the drawers was pried open by the thief at time; and I further say that the building was entered by boring holes through a 2-inch door in the basement and sliding a bar out of the bracket that held it in place on the inside of the building, and then came up the stairs and broke into the office where the stamps were kept. Witness my hand and seal this 12th day of December, A. D. 1906. Geo. W. Young. In presence of — C. R. Jones. State of Utah, County of Summit, ss: On this 12th day of December, A. D. 1906, personally appeared before me, Geo. W. Young, the signer of the above instrument, who duly acknowledged to me that he executed the same. [seal.] C. R. Jones, Notary Public. ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN" CLAIMS. 901 Post-Office Department, Office of the Postmaster-General, Washington, D. C, January 16, 1907. Sir: In reply to your communication of the 14th instant, requesting information concerning a loss of postage stamps sustained by George W. Young, postmaster at Wanship, Utah, I have the honor to inform you that Mr. Young filed in this Department a claim for a credit of $163.87 on account of postage stamps alleged to have been stolen from his office by burglars May 17, 1897, and that the claim was disallowed for the reason that, in contravention of section 441, Postal Laws and Regulations of 1893, the stamps had been left by the postmaster in a safe which had been previously blown open by burglars and not repaired, and which, therefore, afforded no protection whatever to its contents. Very respectfully, Geo. B. Cortelyou, Postmaster-General. Hon. Reed Smoot, United States Senate. Coalville, Utah, January 22, 1907. Dear Brother: In reply to yours of the 16th, will say that it is true that the safe door had been opened by burglars sometime before, but I had it repaired by Silver Brothers, Salt Lake City, and it was apparently as sound as it ever was, only, as I stated in my affidavit, that the lock would not work as smooth as it did before, and, as I said, it would only lock on the day lock, It would have made no difference if the stamps had been in desk drawers; they would have been stolen, as they had been all opened before they tackled the safe, but I still realize that if they had been locked in the desk drawer it would have complied with the postal laws and relieved me from being responsible; but I still claim the safe was the safest place I had to keep them in. Your brother, Geo. W. Young. Reed Smoot, United States Senate. A. A. NOON. The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 533) for the relief of A. A. Noon, hereby report the same back to the Senate and recommend that it do pass without amendment. The facts in the case are fully set forth in H. R. Report No. 6420, Fifty-ninth Con- gress, second session, as follows: In this case there had been duly located the Helen and other mining claims in the Castle Peak mining district, Utah. The locators thereof made location in good faith, upon the understanding that they were on the public domain of the United States and subject to entry. This understanding rested upon the fact that in 1884 and 1885 Messrs. Oakes and Bennett, under a contract with the General Land Office, made the original survey of the Uncompahgre Ute Reservation, the notes of which survey show the mining claims mentioned to be west of the west line and outside of the Uncompahgre Ute Reservation. In 1898 a dispute arose as to the boundary line of the said reservation, and on March 26, 1898, the Secretary of the Interior instructed the surveyor-general of Utah to " contract with a competent surveyor to reestablish the western boundary of the Uncompahgre Reservation, Utah, as defined by the approved survey of said boundary, made by Oakes and Bennett. Under this instruction a resurvey was made by W. B. Dougall. Oakes and Ben- nett had traced the south boundary line of the Uintah Indian Reservation to a point 48 chains west of the sixteenth milestone, counting from the initial corner established on the Green River; this point on the seventeenth mile was indicated as the west boundary of the Uncompahgre Ute Reservation, which was east of the ground in • dispute. On the resurvey Mr. Dougall, starting at the same initial corner on the Green River, makes report that he could find no corners defining the said west boundary as indi- cated in the notes of the original survey; thereupon he retraced the line and located its intersection with the south boundary line of the Uintah Indian Reservation at nearly 54 chains west of the seventeenth milestone. This located the west boundary of the Uncompahgre Ute Reservation as from a point on the eighteenth mile, instead of on the seventeenth, as established by the Oakes and Bennett survey. The resurvey of Mr. Dougall thus extended the west line of the Uncompahgre_Ute Reservation 902 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. about 86 chains, or more than a mile, west of the line indicated in the original survey by Oakes and Bennett. The extension by this resurvey embraced the mining loca- tions named, and thereby included them within the Uncompahgre Ute Reservation. Previous to this resurvey several mining claims had been located within this mile strip, and in 1899, without knowing of the extension of boundary under the resurvey, but with knowledge of mining claims having been located on the mile strip, location was made of the Helen mining claim. In 1890 E. W. Koeber, a United States deputy mineral surveyor, surveying for patent for some of the previously located mining claims, reported finding monuments on the old line of the Oakes and Bennett survey. Under these conditions it is evident that the location of the Helen, Paris, and Troy mining claims was made in good faith, in the full belief that the ground was off the reservation and open to location. Operating under a lease, A. A. Noon, for whose relief the bill provides, took from the Helen mining claim, at a point within the mile strip taken in by the Dougall resurvey, and off the reservation as indicated by the Oakes and Bennett survey, a quantity of gilsonite. At the time of taking the lease and extracting the gilsonite Mr. Noon fully believed the ground was open to occupancy under the mining laws of the United States, it being adjacent to patented mining claims which under the old survey were, as was the point whence the gilsonite was extracted, oustide of the Uncompahgre Ute Reservation. Suit was brought by the United States for the value of said gilsonite and costs, and a judgment was obtained for $1,407.55, which has been paid. In view of the facts in this case the committee are of opinion that justice to Mr. Noon requires that he be given the relief provided in the bill. The letter of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, the affidavit of the lessor to Mr. Noon, the mining location notices of the Helen, Paris, and Troy mining claims, with a map of the same, and a letter from Mr. Noon are appended hereto. Department of the Interior, General Land Office, Washington, D. C, March 7, 1906. Sir: In compliance with your verbal request for information relative to the loca- tion of certain gilsonite mining claims in the Castle Peak mining district, Utah, known as the Helen, Paris, and Troy mining claims, shown to have been located by Sidney Le Sieur, and recorded in the records of "Wasatch County, Utah, you are advised that the records of this office show that in 1898 the question came before this office as to the location of certain mining claims located by one Le Sieur, against whom an injunc- tion suit was pending for trespass upon what was alleged to be the Uncompahgre Ute Indian Reservation. In connection with this suit, it was deemed necessary by the United States district attorney for Utah to have an authoritative survey made of the west boundary of said reservation, and this was done under instructions from the Secretary of the Interior dated March 28, 1898, which instructions were as follows: "As this survey is required at the eraliest practicable moment, I have to request that the surveyor-general of Utah be instructed by telegraph to at once contract with a competent surveyor to reestablish the western boundary of the Uncompahgre Res- ervation, Utah, as defined by the approved survey of said boundary, made by Oakes and Bennett, and to reestablish the southern boundary line of the Uintah Reserva- tion, as defined by the approved survey of said boundary made by C. L. Du Bois, westward from Green River, as far as the seventeenth milepost, or to the point where the western boundary line of the Uncompahgre Reservation intersects the same." The survey was made by William B. Dougall, United States deputy surveyor, in April, 1898, and from such survey it appeared that the mining claims known as the Blackbird, Raven, Brunette, Helena, Salomon, Tillie, Dalton, and Alice were located upon the said Uncompahgre Ute Indian Reservation as shown upon the tracing attached to the letter from A. A. Noon, dated Provo City, Utah, March 2, 1906, ad- dressed to you, said tracing being that of a part of the plat of the survey executed by said Deputy Dougall. The original survey of the boundaries of the Uncompahgre Ute Reservation was alleged to have been made under contract with this Office by Oakes and Bennett in 1884 and 1885, and their notes show an intersection of the west boundary thereof with a south boundary of the Uintah Indian Reservation at a point 48 chains west of the sixteenth mile corner on the south boundary of said Uintah Reservation, count- ing from the initial corner established on the Green River. In his resurvey Deputy Dougall retraced the south boundary of the Uintah Reservation from said initial point on the Green River to a point as far west as the eighteenth mile corner and found the corners as reported in the original survey thereof, but in his attempt to ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 903 retrace the west boundary of the Uneompahgre Reservation by running south from the point on the seventeenth mile, where Oakes and Bennett alleged to have estab- lished the closing corner on the said west boundary, Deputy Dougall could find no corners defining the said west boundary, and upon locating the starting point upon which said west boundary was initiated he found the same about a mile west and a quarter of a mile north of the point arrived at by basing his search upon the alleged position of the said closing corner and running south therefrom. Deputy Dougall states, with reference to his search for said west boundary, as follows: "The notes of the original survey furnished by the surveyor-general failed abso- lutely to check at any point with the actual topography found in the field. This led me to believe that this part, at least, of the west boundary of the Uneompahgre Ute Indian Reservation had never been run." Starting from the same initial point as that alleged by Oakes and Bennett, Deputy Dougall resurveyed the west boundary of the said Uneompahgre Reservation, and on arriving at the intersection with the south boundary of the Uintah Reservation his line fell nearly 54 chains west of the seventeenth mile corner, instead of 32 chains east thereof, as reported by Oakes and Bennett. Thus, starting from the same point and running a distance of a little more than 15 miles, the two surveys were about 86 chains, or over a mile, apart. The survey by Dougall showed the mining claims to lie east of his line and there- fore within the Uneompahgre Reservation. The claims named as being the subject of your correspondent's letter, viz, Troy, Paris, and Helen, are shown to join the claims located by Dougall's survey, and they are therefore also within the limits of said reservation. This Office has no information of any other than the above referred to surveys loca- ting the west boundary of the Uneompahgre Indian Reservation. Your correspondent's letter is herewith returned. Very respectfully, W. A. Richards, Commissioner. Hon. Reed Smoot, United States Senate. Provo, Utah, March 29, 1906. Dear Sir: Answering your letter of the 16th instant, calling attention to relative positions of the present west boundary of the Uneompahgre Ute Indian Reservation, as surveyed by W. B. Dougall, to the Paris, Helen, and Troy mining claims, also to the location of said west boundary as surveyed by Oakes and Bennett, I herewith inclose an affidavit by Sidney Le Sieur to the position of the west line of the Uneom- pahgre Ute Indian Reservation as shown by the monuments on the ground at the time he made the locations, and a plat showing the relative positions of said line to the Helen and Remington mining claims. I also call your attention to the fact that in April, 1890, E. W. Koeber, a deputy mineral surveyor, under the direction of the surveyor-general for Utah, surveyed for patent the Salomon, Tillie, Dalton, Alice, and Remington claims, and in the return of such survey reports the position of the forty-third mile corner on the west boundary of the Uneompahgre Ute Indian Reser- vation in the same position as is claimed for it by the affidavit of Mr. Le Sieur. Mr. Koeber reports having retraced the west boundary of the reservation by run- ning south on a variation of 16° 20' from the forty- third milestone, and this line he reports as intersecting the southeast end line of the Remington claim at its center; but Mr. Koeber did not ascertain from the monuments on the ground the true posi- tion of the west boundary line of the Uncompahgre-Ute Indian Reservation, and it is evident he did not use a true north-south line in retracing said boundary. The agricultural surveys. and the retracing of the west boundary by Mr. Dougall both show the variation here to be 16° 40 / , from which it is evident that Mr. Koeber erred in running his line on a variation of 16° 20 / . I inclose a plat showing the mining claims of the Koeber survey, with the Helen, Paris, and Troy locations and their relations to the west boundary line of the reservation. Referring to the letter from the General Land Office to you, under date of the 7th instant, which you inclose to me and which reports the survey by W. B. Dougall, of the west line of the Uncompahgre-Ute Indian Reservation, I can not understand why Mr. Dougall was unable to find monuments on this line, as it is evident from the report of the United States Deputy Mineral Survey Koeber that there were monu- ments on the old line as established by Oakes and Bennett, and I contend that the monuments on the ground showed the west line of the reservation to be east of the Le Sieur location; that the location was made in good faith, in the full belief that the 904 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. ground was open to location and off the reservation, and that the location was valid at that time, and should have the same treatment at the hands of the Government as was given the other claims lying to the west of the old Oakes and Bennett line, as shown by the monuments, and to the east of the new line as established by Dougall. I can furnish affidavits of numerous persons as to the approximate position of mile- stone 43 in relation to these claims, and will do so if advisable, but I trust that the records of the surveyor-general's office in Salt Lake City, as herein referred to, will be sufficient. Yours, truly, A. A. Noon. Hon. Reed Smoot, United States Senate. United States of America, State of Utah, Utah County, ss: Sidney Le Sieur, being first duly sworn, says: 1. I was the original locator of the following gilsonite mining claims, to wit, the Paris, the Troy, and the Helen, located in Castle Peak mining district, Wasatch County, State of Utah. 2. I am personally well acquainted with the surface ground of each and all of said mining claims, and also with that of the Remington and other adjacent claims. 3. That he has a familiar personal knowledge of the west boundary line of the Uncompahgre-Ute Indian Reservation, as shown by the monuments upon the ground on the 31st day of December, A. D. 1899, when he located the mining claims above named, and the forty-third milestone was then in place; that while at that time the forty-second milestone was not in sight, he was so familiar with the ground as to be certain of the position in which it formerly stood, and that the position was after- wards verified by a survey made by Mr. H. A. Tiernan, a United States deputy min- eral surveyor. 4. That the location monument of the Helen gilsonite mining claim was located to the west of the west boundary line of the Uncompahgre-Ute Indian Reservation and off the said reservation, as shown by the monuments on the ground at the time, and also by the survey of the said H. A. Tiernan, and about 3 rods southeasterly from the southeast end line of the mining claim known as the "Remington." 5. That the Remington and Helen mining claims and the west boundary line of the Uncompahgre-Ute Indian Reservation, as they all existed on the 31st day of December, 1899, are correctly represented upon the map hereto attached, marked "Exhibit A" and made a part of this affidavit. 6. That the said locations of the Paris, the Troy, and the Helen gilsonite mining claims were made by me in good faith on the then unappropiated public lands of the United States and outside of the Uncompahgre-Ute Indian Reservation. 7. That to my personal knowledge all the gilsonite shipped by A. A. Noon, as lessee of said claims, was taken from the Helen mining claim, as shown, between the southeasterly end line of the Remington mining claim and the westerly boundary of Uncompahgre-Ute Indian Reservation. Further deponent saith not. Sidney Le Sieur. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 5th day of April, A. D. 1906. [seal.] Thomas John, Notary Public. My commission expires on the 20th day of November, 1909. Notice of location, [Quartz.] Notice is hereby given that the undersigned, having complied w th the require- ment of section 2324 of the Revised Statutes of the United States and the local laws, customs, and regulations of this district, has located 1,500 feet in length by 200 feet in width on this the Helen lode vein or depo it bearing gold, silver, gilsonite, and other precious metals, situated in Castle Peak mining district, Wasatch County, State of Utah, the location being described and marked on the ground as follows, to wit: Beginning at this discovery post, which is abou f 4,910 feet S. 38° E. from the United States minine monument No. 1; thence N. 38° W. 60 feet to monument No. 1: thence ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. 905 N. 52° E. 100 feet to monument No. 2; thence S. 38° E. 1,500 feet to monument No. 3; thence S. 52' W. 200 feet to monument No. 4; thence N. 38° W. 1,500 feet to monument No. 5; thence N. 52° E. 100 feet to monument No. 1. The mining claim above described shall be known as the "Helen." Located this 31st day of December, 1899. Names of locators: Sidney Le Sieur. Recorded January 29, 1900, at 9 a. m. John T. Giles, County Recorder. State of Utah, County of Wasatch, ss: I, James C. Jensen, recorder in and for Wasatch County, State of Utah, do hereby certify that the foregoing and annexed is a full, true, and correct copy of the Helen mining claim as the same appears of record on page 471 of Book T of the records of said Wasatch County. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this 26th day of February, A. D. 1906. [seal.] J. C. Jensen, County Recorder. Notice of location. [Quartz.] Notice is hereby given that the undersigned, having complied with the requirements of section 2324 of the Revised Statutes of the United States and the local laws, cus- toms, and regulations of this district, has located 1,500 feet in length by 200 feet in width on this the Paris lode vein or deposit, bearing gold, silver, gilsonite, and othei precious metals, situated in Castle Peak mining district, Wasatch County, State of Utah, the location being described and marked on the ground as follows, to wit: Beginning at the discovery which is about 150 feet N. 30° W. from post No. 2 of the patented claim "Dalton Lot No. 40;" thence N. 38° W. 150 to monument No. 1; thence N. 52° E. 100 feet to monument No. 2; thence S. 38° E. 1,500 feet to monu- ment No. 3; thence S. 52° W. 200 feet to monument No. 4; thence N. 38° W. 1,500 feet to monument No. 5; thence N. 52° E. 100 feet to monument No. 1. The north- west end lines of this claim coincides with the southeast end line of the Troy claim. The mining claim above described shall be known as the "Paris^" Located this 31st day of December, 1899. Name of locators: Sidney Le Sieur. Recorded January 29, 1900. . ohn T. Giles, County Recorder, State op Utah, County of Wasatch, ss: I, James C. Jensen, recorder in and for Wasatch County, State of Utah, do hereby certify that the foregoing and annexed is a full, true, and correct copy of the Paris mining claim, as the same appears of record on page 472 of Book T of the records of said Wasatch County. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal this 26th day of February, A. D. 1906. [seal.] J. C. Jensen, County Recorder. Notice of location. [Quartz.] Notice is hereby given that the undersigned, having complied with the require- ment of section 2324 of the Revised Statutes of the United States and the local laws, customs, and regulations of this district, has located 1,500 feet in length by 200 feet in width on this the Troy lode vein or deposit, bearing gold, silver, gilsonite, and other precious metals, situate in Castle Peak mining district, Wasatch County, State of Utah, the location being described and marked on the ground as follows, to wit: Beginning at the discovery, which is about 475 feet N. 35° W. from post No. 2 of the patented claim "Dalton lot No. 40;" thence S. 38° E. 175 feelrto monument No. 1; 906 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. thence S. 52° W. 100 feet to monument No. 2; thence W. 38° W. 1,500 feet to monu- ment No. 3; N. 52° E. 200 feet to monument No. 4; thence S. 83° E. 1,500 feet to monument No. 5; thence S. 52° W. 100 feet to monument No. 1. The southeast end line of this claim coincides with the northwest end line of the Paris claim. The mining claim above described shall be known as the "Troy." Located this 31st day of December, 1899. Name of locator: Sidney Le Sieur. Recorded January 29, 1900. John T. Giles, County Recorder. State op Utah, County of Wasatch, ss: . I, James C. Jensen, recorder in and for Wasatch County, State of Utah, do hereby certify that the foregoing and annexed is a full, true, and correct copy of the Troy mining claim as the same appears of record on pages 472-3 of Book T of the records of Wasatch County. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal thiB 26th day of February, A. D. 1906. [seal.] J. C. Jensen, County Recorder. SALVADOR COSTA. The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (S. 2731 ) for the relief of Salvador Costa, having had the same under consideration, beg leave to report as follows: A similar bill was favorably reported in the Senate and passed that body at the second session of the Fifty-fifth Congress. It is alleged that during the late war, in the years 1861 to 1864, Commander George N. Morris took possession of the sloop Mary Lawrence, belonging to the said Salvador Costa, and used it for Government purposes. Captain William Budd succeeded Commander George N. Morris at Pen- sacola and continued the use of the vessel, and it was finally destroyed, having never been restored to the owner. Mr. Costa claims that he was always loyal to the Gov- ernment and made repeated efforts to have his vessel restored to him, and after the war closed he endeavored to obtain compensation for his losses and finally presented his petition to Congress, but up to the present time has never secured relief. A report was made during the Forty-fourth Congress against his claim, but mainly upon the ground that proof was insufficient to justify any recovery. Subsequently other proof was filed by affidavit, but no evidence has ever been taken or submitted except in this form. The claimant seems to have made a prima facie case. The matter has long been delayed and some of the witnesses are dead, and it is only just to the claimant that the affidavits from such deceased witnesses should be considered by the court upon the trial of the cause. Your committee believe that Mr. Costa should have a right to have his case tried,, and recommend that jurisdiction be given to the Court of Claims to hear and determine the cause upon its merits and to find such judgment as is just and proper. MRS. JULIA L. HALL. The Committee on Claims, 1 to whom was referred the bill (S. 679) for the relief of Mrs. Julia L. Hall, having had the same under careful consideration, beg to report it back to the Senate and to recommend its passage without amendment. A similar bill was favorably reported by both Houses of Congress in the Fifty- seventh Congress, was passed by the Senate, and held an early place on the calendar of the House when the session closed. The number of the report was House Report No. 801. It contains the facts in the case so far as then known, and is adopted by your committee and made a part of their report, as follows: "The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1727) for the relief of Mrs. Julia L. Hall, beg leave to submit the following report and recommend that said bill do pass without amendment. " The claimant is the widow of the late Capt. Joseph T. H. Hall, who for many years was a resident of the city of Washington, D. C, and who died at Denver, Colo., on the 18th day of April, 1899, leaving no children surviving him, the widow being sole surviving heir. "The claimant and said Hall were married May 10, 1865, and lived together as husband and wife from that time until his death, most of the time in the city of Washington, D. C. allowance of cektain claims. 907 " Claimant was born and reared in said city, where her father, I. C. Lewis, was a prominent citizen of means, and did much to improve the city, and much of the money used by her husband in executing the work which is the basis of this claim was furnished by her, having been received in property from her father. "Captain Hall left little or no property or money, and none that is the source of any income or means of support to the claimant; he was a soldier in the war of the rebel- lion, serving throughout the war and having an honorable record, and claimant has been granted a pension at $8 per month under the act of June 27, 1890, as his dependent widow, and this pension is her dependence for future permanent support, as she is left without means of support other than this, and on account of advancing years and ill health it is impossible for her to do anything to contribute to her own support. "Her said husband left a few accounts and claims for work he had done. The principal one, and all she expects to realize anything from, is the claim for work done by him in the city of Washington, for the District of Columbia, which she now asks the Congress to pay in the present bill for her relief. " In his lifetime the late said Joseph T. H. Hall did work as a contractor for the District of Columbia, in the city of Washington; that he furnished, spread, and broke 'macadam,' according to the specifications of his contract, to the amount of 5,160.50 cubic yards, or 15,481.50 square yards; that what are known and designated as the 'board rates' for said work was $1.50 per square yard, and at these rates his work amounted to $23,222.25; that he was paid $12,461.06, leaving a balance of $10,761.19; but of this amount of cubic yards furnished by said Hall there were 940.40 cubic yards he did not furnish the stone for, and the District paid for same $2.23 per cubic yard, amounting to $2,097. This amount should be deducted from the total of the balance, leaving $8,664.19 due Mr. Hall. "Under the act of Congress of February 13, 1895, providing for the adjudication of claims against the District in the Court of Claims at the said ' board rates ' for the work done as aforesaid, Mr. Hall brought an action in the Court of Claims and secured a judgment for said balance of $8,664.19 June 22, 1896, and also for interest on same at 3.65 per cent from the time of the completion of the work under the contract, which was January 1, 1877. The opinion of the Court of Claims in rendering said judg- ment is reported in volume 31, Court of Claims Reports, at page 376. The District took exception to said judgment as to the allowance of interest and appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and by decision of February 15, 1897, the judg- ment of the Court of Claims was reversed, the court holding in favor of the conten- tion of the District, that interest should not have been allowed. "Before further proceedings could be had in the Court of Claims the act of Congress of February 13, 1895, above referred to, was repealed by the act of March 3, 1897, and the Court of Claims had no further jurisdiction to enter judgment for said sum of $8,664.19, being the principal sum for the work without interest. " That said Hall died without ever having received said sum of $8,664.19, or any part thereof. "That the sum of $23,222.25 was considered a fair and reasonable price for the work done by her late husband; that the balance of $8,664.19 was found due, and as she has no remedy to compel the payment of the same, she appeals to the Congress to pass an act to pay her the said amount. "This amount, $8,664.19, is the principal sum of the balance found due January 1, 1877, and the Court of Claims allowed interest on the same from said date. "Had it not been for the allowance of the interest this amount would have been paid by the District. "We recommend the passage of the bill and the payment of said principal sum found due, as the balance unpaid for the work done, without interest, according to the decision of the Supreme Court above referred to." Since the above report was made, the original contract between Mr. Hall and the District of Columbia, and other papers in the case which were for a time lost, have been restored to their proper place in the office of the clerk of the United States Court of Claims. It appears that Mr. Hall's contract was dated May 31, 1872, and called specifically for payment "in lawful money of the United States," and required him to pay his workmen "in cash current." In contracts made with other parties a little later it was expressly stipulated that payments be made in "bonds issued by the sinking fund Commissioners of the Dis- trict of Columbia, which bonds shall be received and accepted at their par value." With the exception of a small sum, Mr. Hall, in violation of the terms of his con- tract, was obliged to accept in payment certificates of indebtedness payable in these bonds instead of "lawful money of the United States." ^08 ALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN CLAIMS. On account of the uncertain legality of their issue, these bonds were worth at the time of delivery about 50 cents on the dollar, and it appears from sworn testimony that for $11,900 worth of these bonds, which Mr. Hall accepted under protest, he realized the sum of $5,950. However, the equity in this claim does not rest simply in the fact that Mr. Hall was obliged to accept bonds of uncertain value contrary to the terms of his contract, and that the unpaid balance at interest would amount to far more than the claim of his bill; it is also evident that Mr. Hall was obliged by his contract to pay his workmen "in cash current," and did so pay them, and in consequence he had to mortgage and ultimately lose one piece of property after another, including his home. o UfcAp'l