Hegwer v. United States

30 Ct. Cl. 405, 1895 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 18, 1895 WL 694
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedNovember 18, 1895
DocketIndian Depredations, 122
StatusPublished

This text of 30 Ct. Cl. 405 (Hegwer v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hegwer v. United States, 30 Ct. Cl. 405, 1895 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 18, 1895 WL 694 (cc 1895).

Opinion

Peelle, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This action is prosecuted under the Indian Depredation Act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. L., 851).

The preliminary question now presented arises on the defendants’ motion to dismiss the claimant’s request for priority of consideration and judgment under the last paragraph of section 4 of the act, which reads:

“Provided, That all unpaid claims which have heretofore been examined, approved, and allowed by the Secretary of the Interior, or under his direction, in pursuance of the act of Congress making appropriations for the current and contingent expenses of the Indian Department, and .for fulfilling treaty stipulations with various Indian tribes, for tlie year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and eighty-six, and for other purposes, approved March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-five, and subsequent Indian appropriation acts, shall have priority of consideration by such court, and judgments for the amounts therein found due shall be rendered, unless either the claimant or the United States shall elect to reopen the case and try the same before the court, in which event the testimony in the case given by the witnesses and the documentary evidence, including reports of Department agents therein, may be read as depositions and proofs: Provided, That the party electing to reopen the case shall assume the burden of proof.”

The claimant’s request was filed October 7, 1891, in these words:

“Whereas a claim, No. 574, for payment for losses by Indian [408]*408depredations, amounting to $2,129.50, was heretofore filed in the Department of the Interior by—
‘‘And whereas said claim has heretofore been examined, approved, and allowed by the Secretary of the Interior, or under his direction, in the sum of $1,929.50 iu pursuance of the act of Congress making appropriations for the current and contingent expenses of the Indian Department and for fulfilling treaty'stipulations with various Indian tribes, for the 3rear' ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and eighty-six, and for other purposes, approved March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-five, and subsequent Indian appropriation acts, and reported to Congress by House of Representatives Executive Document No. 103, 50th Congress, 2d session;
“ And whereas it is provided by the act approved March third, eighteen hundred and ninety-one, entitled “An act to provide for the adjudication and payment of claims arising from Indian depredations,” that claims examined, approved, and allowed as aforesaid shall have priority of consideration, and judgments for the amounts therein found due shall be rendered unless either the claimant or the United States shall, elect to reopen the case and try the same before the court:
“Now, therefore, the above-named claimant having duly considered the foregoing premises does not elect to reopen the case and try the same before the court, but asks that judgment for the amount heretofore found due, to wit, $1,929.50, shall be rendered.
“ But, in case the United States shall elect to reopen the case, this claimant reserves the right to claim a larger sum than heretofore allowed.

The defendants’ motion was filed October 14,1895, in these words:

“Now comes the Assistant Attorney-G-eneral and moves to dismiss the claimant’s request for judgment in the amount allowed by the Secretary of the Interior, for the reason that no amount has ever been so allowed in this case by the Secretary of the Interior, or recommended by him for allowance.”

The issue thus presented necessitates an examination of the record, as the claimant’s request does not set forth correctly the action of the Secretary of the Interior in respect to the claim.

The claim was filed April 29, 1868, and the facts disclosed by the record and correctly set forth in the claimant’s brief are these:

The claim was investigated by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 'and on January 20,1872, allowed in the sum of $1,558, [409]*409which allowance was approved by the Secretary of the Interior on the 25th of January, 1872, and reported the same to Congress for payment, No. 574, House Ex. Doc. No. 125, first session Forty-first Congress, page 40.

The claim was returned to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs tor reexamination and report under the Act March 3, 1885 (23 Stat. L., 376).

Afterwards the claim was investigated by a special agent of the Indian Department who reported that the claimant was a citizen of the United States, that he had suffered the loss of his property by the Cheyenne Indians, and recommended that the claimant be allowed the sum of $1,353.50 as a fair valuation of the property so lost.

The Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in his report to the Secretary of the Interior, rejected the recommendation of the special agent as to the amount recommended, and on examination of the evidence in the case recommended to the Secretary that the sum of $1,929.50 be allowed. The Indians committing the depredation were in treaty relations with the United States by treaty dated February 18, 1861 (12 Stat. L., 1163), and the second article thereof was pointed out by the Commissioner as the one creating liability to pay for said depredation.

In response to the report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the Secretary of the Interior said:

“ Department op the Interior,
Washington, April 27,1888.
“The COMMISSIONER OP INDIAN APPAIRS.
“ SIR: Your report of the 27th instant, submitting the claim of Henry Hegwer, of Ellsworth Co., Kansas, amounting to $2,129.50, for compensation for depredations alleged to have been co'mmitted in 1867 by Cheyenne Indians, has been considered, and your finding that claimant lost property as alleged in quantity and character as stated, except that one bay horse charged at $200 was recovered, is concurred in.
“ The special agent who investigated the case recommends allowance of $1,351.50 as the fair value of the property lost, but you hold that the proof fairly sustains the prices charged by the claimant, and the account is therefore stated by you at $1,929.50.
“ In view of the conflicting character of the proof as to values, the question as to the amount of loss sustained is submitted for the determination of Congress.
[410]*410“The claim is hereby returned to be included by you in the list of depredations claims, to be submitted to Congress as required by law.
“ Very respectfully,
“ Wm. F. Vilas, Secretary.”

The only question presented, therefore, is as to whether the action of the Secretary of the Interior makes the claim an allowed one within the meaning of the Act of March 3, 1891, section 4, (supra).

It will be noted that the allowance of $1,558 by the Secretary of the Interior, on the 25th of January, 1872, was under and by virtue of the Act June 30, 1834, section 17 (4 Stat. L., 731), that being the only act then in force on the subject.

The act of 1872 (17 Stat.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 Ct. Cl. 405, 1895 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 18, 1895 WL 694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hegwer-v-united-states-cc-1895.