1. When a claim on the government, not capable of being
otherwise prosecuted, is referred by special act of Congress to the
Court of Claims, acting judicially in its determination, a right of
appeal to this Court, in the absence of provision to the contrary,
is given by the Act of June 25, 1868 (section 8707 Revised
Statutes). That act gives to the United States the right of appeal
from the adverse judgment of the said court in all cases where it
is required by any general or special law to take jurisdiction of a
claim made against the United States and act judicially in its
determination.
2. A right of appeal, though not given in terms in such special
act, may be inferred from its general character and its particular
indications.
3. Some of these pointed out in the present case.
On the 8th of June, 1872, Congress passed the following act:
"
An act referring the claim of the heirs and legal
representatives of Colonel Francis Vigo, deceased, to the Court of
Claims for adjustment."
"
Be it enacted &c., that the claim of the heirs and
legal representatives of Colonel Francis Vigo, deceased, late of
Terre Haute, Indiana, for money and supplies furnished the troops
under command of General George Rogers Clarke, in the year 1778,
during the Revolutionary war, be, and the same is hereby, referred,
along with all the papers and official documents belonging thereto,
to the Court of Claims, with full jurisdiction to adjust and settle
the same; and, in making such adjustment and settlement, the said
court shall be governed by the rules and regulations heretofore
adopted by the United States in the settlement of like cases,
giving consideration to official acts, if any have heretofore been
had in connection with this claim, and without regard to the
statutes of limitations."
On the 31st October, 1873, the heirs of Colonel Vigo filed in
the Court of Claims their petition against the United States, under
the authority of this act, and with their petition filed "the
papers and official documents belonging" to the claim. Judgment was
rendered in the action on the 18th
Page 88 U. S. 649
January, 1875, against the United States for $49,898. From this
judgment the United States asked the Court of Claims for the
allowance of an appeal to this Court, which was refused. The
present application was for a mandamus from this Court directing
the judges of that to allow the appeal.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Court of Claims, by the terms of the act under which it is
organized, has jurisdiction, among other things, to hear and
determine all claims which may be referred to it by either House of
Congress. [
Footnote 1] All
petitions and bills praying or providing for the satisfaction of
private claims founded upon any law of Congress, or upon any
contract, expressed or implied, with the government, are required
to be transmitted, with all the accompanying documents, to the
Court of Claims, by the Secretary of the Senate or the Clerk of the
House of Representatives, unless otherwise ordered by a resolution
of the House in which they are introduced. [
Footnote 2] In
Page 88 U. S. 650
all cases of final judgments by the Court of Claims, the sum due
thereby is to be paid out of any general appropriation made by law
for the payment and satisfaction of private claims, on presentation
to the Secretary of the Treasury of a copy of the judgment.
[
Footnote 3] By the Act of June
25, 1868, [
Footnote 4] in force
when the proceedings in the Court of Claims were commenced in this
case, it was provided that an appeal should be allowed on behalf of
the United States "from all final judgments of the said Court of
Claims adverse to the United States, whether the said judgment
shall have been rendered by virtue of the general or special power
or jurisdiction of said court." This act is substantially reenacted
in section seven hundred and seven of the Revised Statutes, and, as
we think, gives to the United States the right of appeal from the
adverse judgment of the Court of Claims in all cases where that
court is required by any general or special law to take
jurisdiction of a claim made against the United States and act
judicially in its determination.
Upon an examination of the Act of Congress under which the court
took jurisdiction in this case, we find that the claim, "along with
all the papers and official documents belonging thereto," was
referred to the court "with full jurisdiction to adjust and settle
the same." It is a fact of some significance that the word
"referred" is here employed, inasmuch as that is the word used in
the act defining the general jurisdiction of the court in respect
to claims transmitted by either House of Congress.
It also appears that the bar of the statute of limitations
applicable to that court is removed in this case and that in some
respects the rules of evidence are relaxed. All this would have
been unnecessary if the court was not to be governed by the general
laws regulating its practice and jurisdiction except so far as they
might be modified to meet the necessities of this special case. So
too, we find that no provision is made for the payment of any
judgment that
Page 88 U. S. 651
might be rendered or for any report from the court to Congress,
although it must have been expected that a judgment against the
United States was at least possible. Such an omission would hardly
have occurred if it had not been supposed that provision for
payment had already been made in the general law regulating the
payment of all judgments of that court.
From all this we think it manifest that Congress intended to
refer this claim to the court for judicial determination and to
confer special power and jurisdiction for that purpose. Such being
the case, the right of appeal necessarily follows.
Atocha's Case is materially different from this. In
that, the claim of
Atocha was against Mexico, and the
obligation of the United States for its payment grew out of the
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. By that treaty, the United States
exonerated Mexico from all demands of their citizens which had
previously arisen and had not been decided against that government,
and engaged to satisfy them to an amount not exceeding $3,250,000.
They also stipulated for the establishment of a board of
commissioners to ascertain the validity and amount of the claims,
and provided that its awards should be final. On the 14th of
February, 1865, Congress passed a special act for the relief of
Atocha, and in it directed the Court of Claims to examine into his
claim, and if found to be just and within the treaty, to fix and
determine its amount. The act also directed that the amount
adjudicated and determined
by that court should be paid
out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, but
the amount to be paid was in no event to exceed the balance of the
moneys provided in the treaty for the payment of such claims which
remained unapplied to that object. The Court of Claims was of the
opinion
"that it was the intention of Congress that the court should
proceed not as a court in trying an action against the United
States, but as a commission similar to that provided by the
treaty."
And this Court construed the act as referring the matter "to the
court to ascertain a particular fact to guide the government in the
execution of its treaty stipulations," and held that "as no
Page 88 U. S. 652
mode was provided for a review of its action, it must be taken
and regarded as final."
We think that the return of the judges of the Court of Claims to
the alternative writ in this case is not sufficient, and a
Peremptory mandamus is ordered.
[
Footnote 1]
10 Stat. at Large 612; Revised Statutes § 1059.
[
Footnote 2]
12 Stat. at Large 765; Revised Statutes § 1060.
[
Footnote 3]
12 Stat. at Large 766; Revised Statutes § 1089.
[
Footnote 4]
15 Stat. at Large 75.
