court, in the case aforesaid, was paid to the United States,) until it be paid. Your petitioner further shows, that in December, 1854, he memorialized the honorable the House of Representatives, and prayed for such relief, in the before-mentioned case, as that honorable body should think his case required; and a bill was reported by the House, No. 770, at the second session of the 33d Congress, for his relief; and by a general resolution of the House of Representatives, your petitioner was referred to the honorable Court of Claims. All of which is respectfully submitted; and, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c. JOSEPH WHITE. R. E. STILWELL. Joseph White, being sworn, says he has read the foregoing, and the facts set forth in the petition are true, to the best of his knowledge and belief. JOSEPH WHITE. R. E. STILWELL, U. S. Commissioner. Sworn to before me, the 29th day of March, 1856. I, John W. Nelson, clerk of the circuit court of the United States of America for the southern district of New York, second circuit, do hereby certify, that I am well acquainted with the handwriting of R. E. Stilwell, whose name is subscribed to the annexed jurat, and that the signature to the same is in his proper handwriting; and I do further certify, that he was, at the time of signing the same, a United States commissioner, duly appointed by the circuit court of the United States of America for the southern district of New York, second circuit. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of the said circuit court, this twenty-ninth day [L. S.] of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-six, and of the independence of these United States the eightieth. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Second Comptroller's Office, February 15, 1855. SIR: I transmit herewith a letter from the Fourth Auditor, explaining the claim of Joseph White, late navy agent, to be reimbursed the sum of $561 10, omitted by him in his accounts. The statement of the Auditor is based on an examination of the official vouchers filed in his office, and accords entirely with my own recollection of the facts. When application was made, in November last, by the attorney of Mr. White, for payment of this omitted charge, I refused to entertain the question, upon the ground that no accounting officer has any right to correct an alleged error in the judgment of a court of the United States. A party injured by the judgment must seek redress from Congress. I am, very respectfully, yours, Hon. Wм. S. ASHE, J. M. BRODHEAD, Comptroller. House of Representatives, Washington. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, Fourth Auditor's Office, February 15, 1855. SIR: In answer to your inquiries respecting the sum of $561 10, which was claimed a few months since by Joseph White, esq., late navy agent, but not allowed, and for the allowance of which he has now applied to Congress, I have the honor to state, that in the year 1845, Mr. White, being both navy agent and acting purser for the Baltimore station, charged himself in the latter capacity with the sum in question as received from himself as navy agent, but did not give himself a corresponding credit in his account as agent. Upon the settlement, however, at this office, of his account as acting purser, the credit which he had omitted to claim was allowed him as navy agent, and was entered on the reconciling statement as one of the differences between his account as stated by himself, and the same account as stated at this office. This item having remained on the reconcilement for three years, without being claimed by White, was omitted on the last settlement of his account, which took place after he had ceased to be in office. A suit having been instituted against him for the balance which was found to be due from him, he still neglected to present a claim for this sum of $561 10, and judgment was given against him without any reference to it. In the month of November last the claim was made, for the first time, at this office, and Mr. White was informed that, as a suit had been instituted by the United States against him, in which all his accounts, both as navy agent and acting purser, had been judicially investigated and decided upon, it would not be proper, in the opinion of the accounting officers, to reopen those accounts for the purpose of admitting a claim which was alleged to have been inadvertently omitted to be presented before the court and jury on the trial. Your obedient servant, J. M. BRODHEAD, Esq., Second Comptroller of the Treasury. A. O. DAYTON. Extract from the duly certified opinion of Judge Taney, in the case of the United States vs. Joseph White et al., in the United States circuit court, at Baltimore, April term, 1851, as follows: "It is unnecessary to notice the remaining item of the defence, as it has been properly withdrawn by the defendant. And as the alleged error in omitting to credit himself in his navy agent's account with the sum of $561 10, which he transferred to his debit in his purser's account, does not appear on the face of the account, and as this credit was not presented and rejected, it is not open to investigation here. If the error exists, it may be discovered by an examination of the accounts at Washington, and without doubt would be readily corrected by the accounting officers." This is a case which, if it had occurred between man and man, would be considered one of the grossest fraud on the part of the defendant; and if the United States is to be holden amenable to those moral obligations which attach to natural persons, and which lie at the very foundation of all public and private justice, such undoubtedly is the true character of the case; and the government agents who have figured in it, deserve the reprobation both of this court and of the public. The case, as shown by the public records, is as follows, and is proved by the accompanying evidence. The claimant was a disbursing officer of the United States in the city of Baltimore, and in one of his quarterly accounts rendered to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury, as required by law, an error occurred against himself to the amount of $561 10. By the laws organizing the Treasury Department, every disbursing officer's accounts, when rendered as aforesaid, are subject to the revision and final settlement of the said accounting officers. The account of the claimant, in which the aforesaid error occurred, was so revised, and the said error well ascertained and noted on the reconciling statement at the time, and was kept so noted, as an amount for which the claimant was entitled to a credit, for some three years; but no notice of said error was given to the claimant; but, on the contrary, it was kept entirely concealed from him, though he was in continual correspondence with the officers of the Treasury Department during the whole of said period, and up to the time of his retirement from office. After the expiration of his term of office, the officers of the Treasury Department having refused him other credits to the extent of many thousands of dollars to which he was justly entitled, a suit was brought against him in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland. For the maintenance of said suit, on the part of the government against the claimant, the proper Auditor and Comptroller made out and certified according to law, and under the high official obligations resting upon them, a statement, verified by the seal of the Treasury Department, to which the law ascribes the dignity of absolute verity in suits by the government against citizens of the United States. Yet, with full evidence on its records of the existence and justice of said credit, it was entirely suppressed in said statement. The existence and suppression of this credit were accidentally discovered by one of claimant's counsel on the trial in the circuit court, but too late to be made available as a legal set-off in said case, for want of the action upon, and disallowance of the same, by the accounting officers, as required, for that purpose, by the 4th section of the act of March 3, 1797. 1 Stats. at Large, p. 515. This item of credit, therefore, was not, and could not legally be, involved in said suit, but was withdrawn from the jury and from the case by the direction of Mr. Chief Justice Taney, as appears from a duly certified copy of his charge on file in this case. After the termination of the said suit, and full satisfaction of the judgment rendered therein, the said item of credit still remaining due and unpaid to the claimant, he demanded the payment of the same at the Treasury, but it was refused upon the false and unjust pretext, that it was barred by the suit aforesaid, in which it was well known it had not been involved. The suppression of the credit in this case, resulting from the discovery by the accounting officers of an error in his accounts against himself, is, we are informed and believe, in accordance with the practice which prevails in all or nearly all the accounting offices of the government. All the accounts of disbursing and other officers, as well as of individuals with the government, are required, by law, to be reexamined and settled by the proper officers of the Treasury. When an officer or individual, in his accounts rendered to the government, makes a mistake in his own favor, he is promptly notified of the fact, and compelled to rectify it, under the penalty of a suit in the federal courts. When the error is against the officer or individual, no notice of such error is given, but he is left to find it out as he may, or to submit to the loss in ignorance of its existence, upon the poetical fiction, that Let him not know it, and he's not robbed at all." This is a practice, it is respectfully submitted, "more honored in the breach than in the observance." JOSEPH WHITE vs. THE UNITED STATES. Chief Justice Gilchrist delivered the opinion of the court. From April, 1845, to June, 1849, the claimant was navy agent for the port of Baltimore, and acting purser for the naval school at Annapolis, in both of which offices he received and disbursed the public money, which he received from the treasury as navy agent, and rendered separate accounts for the money received by him in each of the offices. He charged himself, as acting purser, with the sum of $561 10, as received from himself as navy agent, but did not give himself a corresponding credit in his account as navy agent. He had quarterly accounts with the departments from that time until June, 1849, but was not informed of, and was not aware of, the error. In his accounts up to June, 1849, certain sums having been disallowed him, the Treasury Department caused a suit to be instituted against him, and upon the trial more than $5,000, which had been disallowed, was allowed him under the instructions of the court. On the trial he was first made aware of the mistake in the sum of $561 10, which he was not allowed as a set-off, because he had omitted to claim it at the Treasury Department, and at the suggestion of the court he withdrew this item, and it was not passed upon as being involved in the case. Prior to the 22d of November, 1854, he applied to the Treasury Department for the payment of this sum, but was informed by the Fourth Auditor, Mr. Dayton, that the accounting officers were of opinion that, as a suit was brought against him in which all his accounts were judicially investigated, it would not be proper for them to reopen the accounts for the purpose of admitting a claim which was alleged to have been inadvertently omitted to be presented before the court and jury upon the trial. He asks payment of this sum, with interest thereon from the 9th of January, 1852. The case is submitted upon the evidence transmitted to us by the House of Representatives. In Mr. Dayton's letter of February 15, 1855, he states as follows: "Upon the settlement, however, at this office of his account as acting purser, the credit which he had omitted to claim was allowed. him as navy agent, and was entered on the reconciling statement as one of the differences between his account as stated by himself, and the same account as stated at this office. This item having remained on the reconcilement for three years, without being claimed by Mr. White, was omitted on the last settlement of his account, which took place after he had ceased to be in office. A suit having been instituted against him for the balance which was found to be due from him, he still neglected to present a claim to this sum of $561 10, and judgment was given against him without any reference to it. In the month of November last, the claim was made for the first time at this office, and Mr. White was informed that, as a suit had been instituted by the United States against him, in which all his accounts, both as navy agent and acting purser, had been judicially investigated and decided upon, it would not be proper, in the opinion of the accounting officers, to reopen those accounts for the purpose of admitting a claim which was alleged to have been inadvertently omitted to be presented before the court and jury upon the trial." The reason given by the letter for declining to allow this sum, appears to be that the account could not be reopened for the purpose of admitting a claim alleged to have been inadvertently omitted to be presented before the court 66 |