How far it may comport with justice to make provision on different principles for the particular cases now under consideration is a question proper for the decision of Congress. The money has not yet been examined or counted." On page 179 of the same book is the schedule referred to in the foregoing extracts, which is as follows: 130 Mar. 30, 1794 Anna Gibson. Anna Gibson - Continental bills of $27, 235 old emission. This evidence, as already stated, is sufficient, in my opinion, to show that Mrs. Gibson was the holder of the bills, and what was their amount and description. It is true that the Auditor remarks in one place that the bills have not been examined or counted; but he intimates no doubt either as to their amount or genuineness as set forth in his schedule. He rejects them, not for any reason of that kind, but because no provision for their payment has been made by Congress. He must by some satisfactory process have made himself sufficiently acquainted with their contents to give a description of them in his report both as to general character and amount. The single statement that the bills have not been examined or counted cannot overrule the entire context of the report, nor deprive the petitioner of the benefit of the facts therein stated. Nor could a declaration of that kind, made by the officer in his report to Congress, qualify or impair a recorded description of the claim previously made when the then claimant was present. If any question was to be made as to the amount or quality of the bills presented, it should have been made at the time of presentation in the presence of the other party. I hold the fair construction of the Auditor's report, all parts of it being considered together, to be, that he had not critically examined the continental bills presented by Mrs. Gibson, so as to scrutinize them closely, but that prima facie they were in amount and character as specified in the report and schedule. Upon that construction the burden of proof is upon the United States to show some answer to this prima facie case, some defect in the genuineness or amount of the bills. No such proof is offered. In saying that the evidence above given is sufficient to establish certain facts, I mean also to say that it is legal evidence. Public documents are prima facie, if not conclusive evidence of the facts therein stated. (1st Greenleaf on Ev., p. 567, section 491.) Whatever the action of the political departments of the government, to which questions of state policy properly pertain, may have been, or may hereafter be, as to repudiating, ignoring, or redeeming continental money of the kind here in question, I am not prepared to declare judicially that it does not remain in law a valid and subsisting debt against the United States; and am therefore constrained to dissent from the judgment of the court herein. { 36TH CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. REP. C. C. 36TH CONGRESS, 2d Session. No. 262. RICHARD IRVIN, TRUSTEE OF THE PRESIDENT, DIRECTORS, AND COMPANY OF THE MECHANICS' BANK, NEW YORK. DECEMBER 18, 1860.-Reported from the Court of Claims, committed to a Committee of the Whole House, and ordered to be printed. The COURT of CLAIMS submitted the following REPORT. To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled: The Court of Claims respectfully presents the following documents as the report in the case of RICHARD IRVIN, TRUSTEE OF THE PRESIDENT, DIRECTORS, AND COMPANY OF THE MECHANICS' BANK, NEW YORK, vs. THE UNITED STATES. 1. The petition of the claimant and amendment. 2. Depositions filed by the claimant transmitted to the House of Representatives. 3. Other documentary evidence used in the case transmitted to the House of Representatives. 4. The claimant's briefs. 5. United States solicitor's briefs. 6. Opinion of Judge Scarburgh, adverse to the claim. 7. Opinion of Judge Loring, concurring in the result. By order of the Court of Claims. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the [L. S.] seal of said court, at Washington, this 17th day of December, A. D. 1860. SAM'L H. HUNTINGTON, IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS. RICHARD IRVIN, Trustee, vs. THE UNITED STATES. To the honorable Court of Claims: The petition of Richard Irvin, trustee of the president, directors, and company of the late Mechanics' Bank, of the city of New York, respectfully represents that the United States of America are justly indebted unto your petitioner for money had and received of the late Mechanics' Bank, in manner as follows: That by an act approved March 24, 1814, 3d Statutes at Large, 111, the President of the United States was authorized to borrow, for the use of the United States, $25,000,000; and by the same act the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to cause certificates of stock to be prepared, signed by the Register of the Treasury, and issued or sold for the $25,000,000, or any part thereof; and the said Secretary, acting under authority of the President of the United States, did, on the 4th day of April, 1814, give public notice that proposals would be received until the 2d day of May then next, from any person or persons, body or bodies corporate, for a loan to the United States, on account of the said loan of $25,000,000, of the sum of $10,000,000, or any part thereof, not less than $25,000, payable in instalments of onefourth part each on the 25th days of May, June, July, and August following. In the aforesaid notice of April 4 the Secretary promised that it proposals differing in terms from one another should be accepted, the option will be allowed to any person whose proposals may be accepted of taking the terms allowed to any other person whose proposals may be accepted." Your petitioner further shows that the Mechanics' Bank, through its then cashier, Whitehead Fish, esq., proposed to loan to the United States, for account of said bank and other persons, the sum of $250,000, as a part of the before-mentioned loan of $25,000,000; that is to say, the said bank proposed to loan, on its own account, the sum of $153,800, and its proposal was accepted on the 2d day of May, 1814; and the said bank did thereupon loan and pay over to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States, for the use of the United States, on the 26th day of May, 1814, $38,450, and on the 29th day of June $115,350; and the said several sums of money were paid in the lawful money of the United States, or in funds of equal value, on condition of receiving therefor, from the United States, public stock, authorized by the act of March 24, 1814, at the rate of $100 of such stock for every $88 of the money so loaned and paid to the Treasurer of the United States; and on the further condition, in the public notice of April 4, as construed in a letter of the Treasury Department, dated May 2, 1814, addressed to Jacob Barker, as follows: "And the United States engage, if any part of the sum of $25,000,000, authorized to be borrowed by the act of the 24th of March, 1814, is borrowed upon terms more favorable to the lenders, the benefit of the same term shall be extended to the persons who may then hold the stock, or any part of it, issued for the present loan of $10,000,000." And the United States issued public stocks to the said bank, for the aforesaid loan of $153,800, at the rate of $100 of stock for every $38 loaned by said bank. Your petitioner further shows that on the 25th day of July, 1814, the Secretary of the Treasury, by public notice, invited proposals for a loan of $6,000,000, part of the loan authorized by the act of March 24 aforesaid; and on the 31st day of August, 1814, proposals were accepted by the Secretary of the Treasury for a portion of the same loan at the rate of $100 of said public stock for every $80 of the money loaned, payments to be made, one-fourth part each, on the 10th days of September, October, November, and December, in the currency or bank notes of the banks of Baltimore and the District of Columbia at par; and it is believed that for every $80 of such currency the United States issued $100 of the public stock authorized by the aforesaid act of March 24, 1814. Your petitioner further shows that he is informed and believes that in September, October, November and December, when those payments were made, the banks of Baltimore and Washington were not redeeming their notes with specie, and the value of their notes was depreciated, so that $100 of such currency, on the 10th day of September, was worth but $90; on the 10th day of October but $88; on the 10th day of November but $80, and on the 10th day of December but $76, in the lawful money of the United States. And it was in reference to the con lition in the public notice of April 4, 1814, inviting proposals, that the loan of $153,800 was made by the Mechanics' Bank on the 2d of May, 1814; and the money was paid by that bank to the Treasurer of the United States in the lawful money of the United States, or its equivalent in value. And the United States having borrowed of other persons upon terms more favorable to the lenders, the Mechanics' Bank became entitled to have the benefit of the same terms extended to that bank, and to have its loan of $153,800 placed upon a par with the loan of August 31 aforesaid; and to receive supplemental stock to an amount equal to the difference in value between $88 in lawful money of the United States, loaned by said bank, and $80 in the bank notes of the banks of Baltimore and Washington. were * * Your petitioner further shows that on the 22d day of October, 1814, the Hon. Richard Rush, Attorney General, officially advised the Secretary of the Treasury "that the condition stated in the Secretary's letter [of April 4, 1814,] attached as soon as the second loan was made' and that the owners of the previous stock * * entitled to the additional stock for the difference between the price of the first and the second loans." On the 19th and 30th days of November, 1814, the Treasury Department directed that additional stock should be issued to the subscribers, or those claiming under them, to the loan of $10,000,000, of the 21 May, 1814,' "conformably to the opinion of the Attorney General and to the said notification.' The instructions of November 30 directed an issue of additional stock to the holders of the certificates of the loan of May 2 to the extent of ten per cent. on the amount of said loan; ten per cent. being supposed to be equal to the difference between $88 paid for $100 of said stock for the loan of May 2, and $80 paid for $100 of the same stock for the loan of August 31 * * When the instructions of the 30th November were given, it was uncertain at what price further loans might thereafter be loaned to the United States, and no allowance could then be made in reference to the price of future loans, and no allowance was made for the depreciated value of the currency in which the instalments of the loan of August 31 had been or were to be paid. On the 22d day of November, 1814, the Secretary of the Treasury, in instructions addressed to the Comptroller, said: "It is only necessary to add that all the subscribers to the ten million loan are placed on the same footing with respect to the instalments actually paid; that it is not deemed proper to insist upon a release before the supplemental stock is delivered. In this last respect the government will act upon its rights, without claiming any concession from the creditors which might hereafter be considered a sacrifice on their part." And again, as follows: "Pursuing the principle that the construction given to the contract by the Attorney General is to be carried into effect, without impairing the rights or embarrassing the remedies of the creditors, I mean that the supplemental stock shall issue in such form and manner as will, on the one hand, avoid any appearance of acknowledging at the treasury that the contracts remain open, and, on the other hand, leave the creditors every proper facility to establish hereafter the identity of the supplemental stock, and its connexion with the ten million loan." The Attorney General, in his opinion of October 22, 1814, advised that the condition in the public notice inviting proposals for subscriptions to the loan of $25,000,000 "attached as soon as the second loan was made; that, on the happening of that event, it no longer remained open and executory, subject to all possible variations in price which might mark subsequent loans until the whole $25,000,000 should be exhausted." The Treasury Department adopted such construction, and, to carry it into effect, ordered an immediate issue of supplemental stock to the holders of the certificates of the loan of May 2, equal to ten per cent., when, as yet, it could not be known what possible variations in price might mark subsequent loans, or the value of the currency in which subsequent loans should be made and accepted. The Comptroller of the Treasury communicated the decision of his department in reference to the condition of the loan, and the effect of the same upon the rights of holders of the public stocks, by letter, dated November 24, 1814, as follows: "That everything relating to that contract, so far as respected the stock in existence, was deemed at the treasury to be settled and closed. There is nothing in this that can have a tendency to impair the rights or embarrass the remedies of the public creditors under the $10,000,000 loan for further issues of supplemental stock. No exaction is made from them of any release whatever of their rights or claims in this respect. Their rights will remain with themselves, and their remedies with Congress.' Your petitioner further shows that the condition in the notice of April 4, aforesaid, attached as soon as the second loan was made, and |