the office, but furnish parties interested or their counsel all convenient opportunities, in the office and in presence of either of the secretaries, of examining and making extracts from the same. On the 29th of December, 1869, the commission adopted the following ORDER. That the secretaries keep a book, to be called the "notice docket.” (a.) A claim is prepared in chief whenever a memorial, with the proofs and argument relied on in support thereof, shall be filed. Such claim shall be entered, by direction of the agent representing it, on the notice docket, the secretaries noting the date of the entry on the docket. (b.) Such entry shall be notice, under the rules, to the government against whom such claim is preferred, that the claimant is ready; thereupon proofs and arguments in answer thereto (if any are insisted on) must be filed in four months from the date of such entry, unless, for cause shown, further time is allowed. (c.) Rebutting proofs and argument in support of the claim may be afterwards filed or waived, and in either case the claim shall be entered "heard" by the commissioners. On the 21st of January, 1870, the commission adopted the following ORDER. Every claimant purporting to be a citizen of either country, party to this convention, shall disclose the facts upon which he bases his citizenship, either in his memorial or by affidavit. If a native, he shall, so far as in his power, disclose the time and place of his birth; if naturalized, he shall file a copy of his naturalization papers, in all cases where it is in his power, and if not in his power to do so, he shall show why: Provided, The affidavit above required may be put in at any time before a hearing, on such terms as may be deemed proper. On the 20th of June, 1870, the commission adopted the following ORDERS. 1. That all claims presented to the commission since the adjournment179 be received and entered upon the dockets for preparation, investigation, and decision, as in other cases. 2. That the time for filing claims before this commission be extended from the 31st day of March last to the 30th of June, instant, and including the latter day, after which time no further claims will be received. 3. That further time be granted to all claimants whose cases are or may hereafter be entered on the dockets of this commission, to file memorials of the same until the 1st day of January, 1871. On the 13th of July, 1870, the commission adopted the following ORDER. All claimants who have heretofore filed memorials, as required by the rules, and have not prepared their claims for hearing, must make preparation on or before the 1st of November next, at which date the secre 179 The adjournment referred to was from January 31, 1870, to June 1, 1870. taries of this Commission are directed to enter such claims upon the notice-docket; and all other claims not now ready must be prepared by claimants on or before the 1st of January next, at which period the secretaries are directed to place them, also, upon the said docket; and claims thus placed will be disposed of under the rules applicable to other cases on that docket. The foregoing orders are truly copied from the originals of record. Secretaries. IN THE JOINT COMMISSION OF THE UNITED STATES AND MEXICO, UNDER THE CONVENTION OF JULY 4, 1868. SATURDAY, January 20, 1872. The Commissioners now give notice that all claims by the United States vs. Mexico, and all claims by the latter government vs. the former, not disposed of before that date, will, on the first day of April next, be entered "heard ;" whereupon the Commission will proceed immediately to dispose of them, in obedience to the requirements of the convention. True copy from the record, RANDOLPH COYLE, Secretaries. H. Rep. 134-24 ADDENDA. The following is inserted because the books are referred to in the matter furnished by foreign governments: LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, Washington, February 23, 1875. In behalf of the Joint Committee of both Houses of Congress on the Library, the undersigned has the honor to acknowledge the reception of Oesterreich Gesetze, 4 vols., 12mo; Turkey, Législation ottomane, 2 vols.; Italy, Codice civile, 2 vols.; Italy, Legge per l'unificazioni del Regno, 1 vol.; Danemark, Constitution du Royaume, 1 vol.; France, Bulletin des Lois, and Journal officiel, 3 pamphlets, presented by yourself to the Library of Congress. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, To Hon. WM. LAWRENCE, Chairman Committee on War Claims. A. R. SPOFFORD, P. S.-The above works are placed in the law department of the Library, in the chapter of national codes and statute law. THE ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS AGAINST THE UNITED STATES. The act of Congress of February 26, 1853, (10 Statutes, 170,) which seems to be an enlargement of the act of July 29, 1846, (9 Statutes, 41,) prohibits the assignment of claims against the United States. See Revised Statutes, § 3477. On this subject see Painter vs. Drum, 40 Penn. R., 467; Child vs. Trist, 1 Washington Law Reporter, 1; Sines vs. The United States, 1 Nott & H., 12; Peirce vs. United States, 1 N. & H., 270. OF CONTRACTS TO PROCURE LEGISLATION FOR THE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS. This subject was discussed before the Supreme Court of the United States in February, 1875, in the case of Nicholas P. Trist vs. Linus M. Child. The report of that case will doubtless show much learning on the subject. Among the questions discussed were these: Is a contract to secure the passage of a bill through Congress to pay a claim void as against public policy? If not, can the claimant be enjoined from collecting the money from the Treasury appropriated by such act without paying for such services? Can a lien be created on the money so appropriated? If the lien can exist, is the holder of it entitled to interest on the amount? On these questions see As to public policy-Marshall vs. Baltimore R. R., 16 Howard, 314; Tool Company vs. Norris, 2 Wallace, 54; Harris vs. Roof, 10 Barbour, 489; Hunt vs. Test, 8 Alabama, 713; Paschal's Case, 10 Wallace, 483; Mills vs. Mills, 36 Barbour, 474. As to lien-Vice-Chancellor Malins, Bank of Hindustan, L. R., ch. 7, p. 126, note I; Mercer vs. Greaves, L. R., 7 Queen's B., 503; Brunsdon vs. Allard, 2 E. and E., 19 vol., 105 C. L. R; Jenkins vs. Hooker, 19 Barbour, 435. As to the practice in England-A statement of the English parliamentary practice will be found in Riddell's Railway Parliamentary Practice, London, 1846. See, also, Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 1859; List of Charges for Parliamentary Agents, Attorneys, Solicitors, and others, prepared by the Clerk of Parliament, 1867. For interesting statistics of private bills, see Parliamentary Acts and Papers, 1862, vol. 44: Returns relating to private bills. A large mass of valuable testimony concerning the method, cost, &c., of prosecuting private bills in Parliament will be found in the Parlia mentary Reports from Committees, vol. 14, 1857–8. In this last will be found the testimony of Mr. T. Coates, who is the parliamentary agent referred to in the brief. OTHER QUESTIONS. Various other questions as to claims will be found referred to in Brightley's Federal Digest, title "Public Accounts," 714, and in the supplement, p. 308. CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACT OF JULY 4, 1864, &c. The following opinion of the Attorney-General is given for informa tion: Hon. GEORGE S. BOUTWELL, Secretary of the Treasury: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, April 6, 1871. SIR: I have received your letter of the 21st ultimo, requesting my opinion upon certain questions arising under the act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the year ending June 30, 1872, and for other purposes, approved March 3, 1871. The second section of that act provides for the appointment of a board of commissioners, "whose duty it shall be to receive, examine, and consider the justice and validity of such claims as shall be brought before them of those citizens who remained loyal adherents to the cause and the Government of the United States during the war, for stores or supplies taken or furnished during the rebellion for the use of the Army of the United States in States proclaimed as in insurrection against the United States, including the use or loss of vessels or boats while employed in the military service of the United States. *. And upon satisfactory evidence of the justice and validity of any claim, the commissioners shall report their opinion, in writing, in each case, and shall certify the nature, amount, and value of the property taken, furnished, or used, as aforesaid." * * The fourth section is in these words: "That said commissioners shall make report of their proceedings, and of each claim considered by them, at the commencement of each session of Congress to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, who shall lay the same before Congress for consideration; and all claims within this act, and not presented to said board, shall be barred, and shall not be entertained by any Department of the Government, without further authority of Congress." On the 16th day of August, in the year 1861, President Lincoln issued a proclamation declaring the inhabitants of the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida, ("except the inhabitants of that part of the State of Virginia lying west of the Alleghany Mountains, and of such other parts of that State and the other States hereinbefore named, as may mainiain a loyal adhesion to the Union and the Constitution, or may be from time to time occupied and controlled by forces of the United States engaged in the dispersion of said insurgents,") to be in a state of insurrection against he United States. (12 U. S. Stats., p. 1262.) The act of June 7, 1862, section 2, directs, "That, on or before the 1st day of July next, the President, by his proclamation, shall declare in what States and parts of States said insurrection exists." In accordance with this act, President Lincoln, on the 1st day of July, 1862, issued his proclamation declaring that the States of South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, and the State of Virginia, except thirty-nine named counties, all in what was then the western part of that State, were in insurrection and rebellion. (12 U. S. Stats., p. 1266.) The counties of Berkeley and Jefferson are not among the counties named. The act of July 4, 1864, provided that all claims of loyal citizens in States not in rebellion, for quartermaster's stores and subsistence actually furnished to the Army of the United States, and receipted for by the proper officers receiving the same, or which might have been taken by such officers without giving such receipt, should be submitted to the Quartermaster-General of the United States, or the Commissary-General of Subsistence, (as the case may be,) accompanied with the proofs presented by the claimant; and these officers were required to cause each claim to be examined, and, if convinced that it was just, and of the loyalty of the claimant, and that the stores had been actually received or taken for the use of, and used by, the Army, then to report each case to the Third Auditor of the Treasury, with a recommendation for settlement. (13 U. S. Stats., pp. 381, 382.) The joint resolution of June 18, 1866, extends the provisions of this act to the counties of Berkeley and Jefferson, which had become part of the State of West Virginia. (14 U. S. Statutes, 360.) The joint resolution of July 28, 1866, extends the provisions of the same act to loyal citizens of the State of Tennessee. (14 U. S. Statutes, 370.) The act of February 21, 1867, declares that the act above cited, of July 4, 1864, "shall not be construed to authorize the settlement of any claim for supplies or stores taken or furnished for the use of, or used by, the armies of the United States, nor for the occupation of or injury to real estate, nor for the consumption, appropriation, or destruction of, or damage to, personal property by the military authorities or troops of the United States, where such claim originated during the war for the suppression of the southern rebellion, in a State, or part of a State, declared in insurrection by the proclamation of the President of the United States, dated July first, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, or in a State which by an ordinance of secession attempted to withdraw from the United States Government: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall repeal or modify the effect of any act or joint resolution extending the provisions of the said act of July fourth, eighteen hundred and sixty-four, to the loyal citizens of the State of Tennessee, or of the State of West Virginia, or to any county therein. (14 U. S. Stats., 397.) Your first question is this: Does the act of March 3, 1871, repeal, displace, or supersede, so far as the State of Tennessee, and the counties of Berkeley and Jefferson, in West Virginia, are concerned, the acts of July 4, 1864, and February 21, 1867, and the joint resolutions of June 18 and July 28, 1866? If there had been no previous legislation on the subject of claims arising in Tennessee, and the counties of Berkeley and Jefferson in West Virginia, the act of March 3, 1871, would undoubtedly have been construed to embrace such claims. It sends to the board such claims of the defined classes as originated in States (including, by fair construction, parts of States) proclaimed in insurrection. Tennessee and the part of Virginia then embracing said counties were so proclaimed. But the act contains no express words of repeal; and are its provisions so repugnant to the prior legislation in relation to that State and those counties, as to work a repeal by implication? Repeal by implication is not favored; and a later act does not repeal a prior act by implication unless there is a positive repugnance between the two.(Dwaris on Statutes, p. 533; Dr. Foster's Case, Rep., Pt. II, pp. 62-64; Wood vs. The United States, 16 Pet. Rep., p. 342; Bowen vs. Lease, 5 Hill's Rep., p. 221.) The act of July 4, 1864, as extended by the resolutions of June and July, 1866, provided for settling in the Departments claims of the defined classes arising in said State and counties. The act of March 3, 1871, provides that all claims considered by the board shall be reported to the Speaker of the House for submission to Congress, a provision which would be nugatory if the claims might meanwhile be settled elsewhere. It shuts out from any Department all claims within the act which but for this prohibition some Department would entertain. What claims can these be except claims from Tennessee and the said counties? Claims from the loyal States are not within the act. Claims of the classes in question from the disloyal States, except from Tennessee and said counties, are never entertained by any Department; hence these words of exclusion can have no operation except upon claims from said State and counties. Here, then, is found the repugnancy between the act of March 3, 1871, and the prior legislation in relation to Tennessee and said counties, which the rule requires in order to work a repeal by implication. An additional argument in support of the same construction is derivable from the act |