means for war and oppression, I beg leave to say, that it was justly held in Rome that a State was contained in two words, præmium and poena, and that this principle has come to be a part of our own religion by our acceptance of the precept which teaches that gov ernors are sent by the Supreme Ruler for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well.

"Mr. President, we have framed statues of brass and iron which present Washington to the beholder as a general, as a statesman, as a magistrate, and as a citizen. We have pierced the skies with monuments of marble and of granite in honor of his name. We have imposed it upon villages, towns, cities, a State, and a capital that is becoming the glory of the world; but, if I do not altogether mistake his genius, the fulfilment of his predictions and promises,made when he was taking leave of the companions of his labors and sufferings, that this country would be just, and would ultimately redeem the pledges it had given them,-will be more acceptable to his serene and awful shade than all the tributes which have been paid, and all that are yet to be paid, by a redeemed nation and a grateful world."

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS.

HALF-PAY claims, under the various resolutions of the Continental Congress have been, and now are being prosecuted in the United States Court of Claims, sitting at Washington, ever since its establishment by Congress, and interest is charged by the claimants per act June 3, 1784, on each annual payment of the half-pay for life, as it fell due during the life of the officer, and on the whole thus due at the time of his death up to the present time, or until payment is made by the government.

The first case tried in this court on this principle, was that of the heirs of Surgeon Absalom Baird, of Pennsylvania, who was a surgeon in Colonel Jeduthan Baldwin's Corps of Artificers, and furnishes the most interesting and important information to the heirs

of all the officers of the medical department and the different corps of artificers of the Revolutionary army, and establishes an important precedent relating to the great question of Revolutionary halfpay, which is at this time engaging the attention of the whole country.

The facts in the case, found among the papers filed in the court, are as follows:

That Absalom Baird was a commissioned surgeon in the army of the Revolution, and by acts of Congress, particularly that of January 17, 1781, became entitled to half-pay for life and other emoluments.

That his regiment was dissolved, and he was discharged from service on the 29th of March, 1781; and his stipulated annuity commenced running on that day.

That, as amounts became due, he made immediate and frequent applications to the proper officers for payment, and was denied.

That, by the laws and regulations of the old Congress, interest was allowed on all claims and to all creditors of the United States, from the time that sums became due.

That Dr. Baird, therefore, ought of right to have received his accruing half-pay, and interest upon any amounts refused or withheld.

That, by the commutation act, passed March 22, 1783, it was provided that the officers shall have, at the end of the war, five years' full pay, in lieu of half-pay for life, in money or securities.

That, by this new contract Dr. Baird became entitled, not only to the arrears of half-pay then due him, but also to five years' full pay, being the granted commutation of his half-pay for life.

That he was denied the benefit of this substitution. Payment was refused, and after repeated demands, and continued efforts with the accounting officers, he at length, on the 28th of January, 1794, presented his petition to Congress for relief. The case was continued without action by the House until December 21, 1796, when it was ordered that Dr. Baird have leave to withdraw his petition. That the claim was never abandoned, nor was there any laches or unreasonable delay in the prosecution of it.

That Dr. Baird removed to Western Pennsylvania, and there died, in October, 1805.

That the claim was continued to be prosecuted by his children, but no action could be had until June 23, 1836, when an act was passed granting five years' full pay as commutation, but without in

terest.

That under this law $2400 were paid, but the petitioners believing that a large sum was still due, on the 12th of December, 1837, presented themselves again to Congress, praying further and full relief.

That on the 9th of February, 1855, a bill granting the heirs of Dr. Baird the sum of $16,230, in full of arrears of pay due to them for the services of their said ancestor, was reported in their favor.

That the said bill did not pass into a law, and has been referred by a resolution of Congress to this honorable court, for the purpose of an examination into the merits and legal validity of the claim.

That the half-pay of Dr. Baird was the sum of $240 per annum, receivable at the end of every year. If not discharged upon demand, at the time when payable, interest upon the amount due was the legal compensation to the creditor. Not only universal custom, but positive law, in all commercial countries, has established this principle.

That the proper distinction between grasping usury and fixed interest is well settled and understood.

That the first act of Parliament limiting the rate per cent. in England, was passed in 1546, near the close of the reign of Henry VIII. Since that time, with a short interval, in which superstition revived, the whole matter has been subject to statutory regulations. In fact, it may be considered doubtful, whether always, at common law, compensation for the "detainer" of money was not allowed as damages. One authority (2d Blackstone's Reports, page 761) may be referred to as most brief in its terms: "Interest is due upon all liquidated sums from the time the principal becomes due and payable."

That the revolutionary government has always acted upon this just basis; and the United States since, in the case of the Virginia

officers, gave a pertinent example, in the act of July 5, 1832, by directing "to be paid to those officers, or their representatives, interest upon each year's half-pay, from the time the same became due."

That, assuming this rule of justice and upright policy to be clearly established, the following exhibit is made: From March 29, 1781, to October 20, 1805, the day of Dr. Baird's death, the total of his half-pay then due would amount to more than $5280, and the interest accrued on the yearly deferred payments would be $4150; making an aggregate of debt, at that time, of $10,030, by the terms of the government contract, expressed in the resolutions, and according to the settled rules of computation.

That death closed this annuity on the 20th October, 1805; and at the date of that event, the representatives of Dr. Baird had an immediate right to this sum, by the laws of the land. With merely simple interest current, up to June 23, 1836, it would amount to $28,485; and deducting $2400, allowed by the act of that date, would still leave $26,085 then fairly due.

That in Thorndike vs. United States, Justice Story observes: "If the present were a contract between private citizens, there can be no doubt that the court would be bound to give interest upon the contract up to the time of payment; and if by law the amount due on the contract could be pleaded as a tender or a set-off to a private debt, it would be a good bar in the full extent of the principal and interest due at the time of such tender or set-off. Nay, more; if the note or promise were made by a citizen to the government, the latter might enforce its claim to the like extent. Can it make any difference, in the construction of the contract, that the government is the debtor instead of the creditor? In reason and equity it ought to make none, and there is not a scintilla of law to justify any. If a suit could be maintained against the government, I do not perceive why it would not be as much the duty of the court to render judgment in such suit, for the principal and the interest, in the same manner and to the same extent as it would in the case of a private citizen. The United States have no prerogative to claim one law upon their own contracts as creditors and another as debtors.

If, as creditors, they are entitled to interest, as debtors they are bound also to pay it."

That Attorney-general Wirt "Interest is in the nature of says: damages for withholding money which the party ought to pay, and would not or could not ;" and in this brief sentence is contained the main point of the case now presented to this honorable court.

That it is claimed, that from and after March 29, 1781, the day on which he was reduced, Dr. Baird was entitled by governmental contract to half-pay during his life, payable at the end of every year; and according to the rule directed by the act of July 5, 1832, in the case of the Virginia officers or their representatives, with interest on each year's half-pay from the time the same became due.

In the above light the case came up before the court for a trial, the Solicitor of the court, on the part of the United States, at the same time filing his opposing brief, and after the arguments on both sides, the case was submitted, and Chief-justice Gilchrist delivered the following opinion of the court:

The petitioner alleges that his father, Dr. Absalom Baird, was a commissioned surgeon in the army of the Revolution, and in that capacity was entitled by law to half-pay for life, and other emolu

ments.

Whether this allegation be true, is the first inquiry in the case. It is not denied that he was a surgeon of a regiment of artificers, and was discharged from the service, upon the reduction of his regiment, on the 29th of March, 1781.

Whether this corps constituted a part of the army, so as to entitle the surgeon, upon its reduction, to half-pay for life, is a point to be determined by an examination into the manner in which it was considered by the legislative authority at the time, and into the language of the resolution upon the subject.

The resolution of September 30, 1780, provides for "the pay and establishment of the officers of the Hospital Department and Medical Staff," and specifies the pay of the director, chief physicians, and surgeons of the army and hospitals, purveyor and apothecary, physicians and surgeons of the hospitals, assistant purveyors and apothecaries, regimental surgeons, surgeons' mates in the hos