Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 1.djvu/635

This page has been validated.

FOURTH CONGRESS.⁠Sess. II. Ch. 20.⁠1797.

A transcript of the books of the Treasury to be evidence.and the court trying the cause, shall be thereupon authorized to grant judgment, and award execution, accordingly. And all copies of bonds, contracts, or other papers relating to, or connected with the settlement of any account between the United States and an individual, when certified by the register to be true copies of the originals on file, and authenticated under the seal of the department, as aforesaid, may be annexed to such transcripts, and shall have equal validity, and be entitled to the same degree of credit, which would be due to the original papers, if produced and authenticated in court: Provided, That where suit is brought upon a bond, or other sealed instrument, and the defendant shall plead “non est factum,” or upon motion to the court, such plea or motion being verified by the oath or affirmation of the defendant,Original contract to be produced in certain cases. it shall be lawful for the court to take the same into consideration, and (if it shall appear to be necessary for the attainment of justice) to require the production of the original bond, contract or other paper specified in such affidavit.^[1]

↑ The decisions of the courts of the United States on Treasury statements, transcripts and documents, have been:
An account stated at the treasury department, which does not arise in the ordinary mode of doing business in that department, can derive no additional validity from being certified under the act of Congress. A treasury statement can only be regarded as establishing items for moneys disbursed through the ordinary channels of the department, where the transactions are shown by its books. In these cases the officers may well certify, for they must have official knowledge of the facts stated. United States v. Buford, 3 Peters, 29.
But when moneys come into the hands of an individual, not through the officers of the treasury, or in the regular course of official duty, the books of the treasury do not exhibit the facts, nor can they be officially known to the officers of the department. In such a case the claim of the United States for money thus in the hands of a third person must be established, not by a treasury statement, but by the evidence on which that statement was made. Ibid.
Action of debt on a bond executed by Alpha Kingsley, a paymaster in the army, and by John Smith, T. and another, as his sureties, to the United States. The condition of the obligation was, that Alpha Kingsley, “about to be appointed a district paymaster,” &c. “and who will, from time to time, be charged with funds to execute and perform the duties of that station, for which he will be held accountable,” &c. shall “well and truly execute the duties of district paymaster, and regularly account for all moneys placed in his hands to carry into effect the object of his appointment.” On the trial the plaintiff gave in evidence a duly certified copy of the bond, and a “transcript from the books and proceedings of the treasury department, of the account of Alpha Kingsley, late district paymaster, in account with the United States.” In this account A. K. was charged with moneys advanced to him for pay, subsistence, and forage, bounties and premiums, and contingent expenses of the army; and credited with disbursements of the same, for the purposes for which they were paid to him, and showing a large amount of items suspended and disallowed; making a balance due to the United States of forty-eight thousand four hundred and ninety-two dollars and fifty-three cents. The account was thus settled by the third auditor of the treasury, and was duly certified to the second comptroller of the treasury, and this balance was by him admitted and certified on the 23d of April, 1823. The account was further certified, “Treasury department, third auditor’s office, 1st of September, 1824: pursuant to an act to provide for the prompt settlement of public accounts, approved 3d of March, 1817, I, Peter Hagner, third auditor, &c. do hereby certify that the foregoing transcripts are true copies of the originals, on file in this office.” To this was annexed a certificate that Peter Hagner was the third auditor, &c. “In testimony whereof I, William H. Crawford, secretary of the treasury, have hereunto subscribed my name, and caused to be affixed the seal of this department, at the city of Washington, this 1st of September, 1824. (Signed) Edward Jones, chief clerk, for William H. Crawford, secretary of the treasury.” The seal of the treasury department was affixed to the certificate. On the trial, the district court of Missouri instructed the jury, that “as by the account it appears there are in it items of debit and credit to Kingsley, as district paymaster, it furnished evidence of his having acted as district paymaster, and of his appointment as such.” By the court—There are two kinds of transcript which the statute authorizes the proper officers to certify: first, a transcript from “the books and proceedings of the treasury,” and secondly, “copies of bonds, contracts, and other papers, &c., which remain on file, and relate to the settlement.” The certificate under the first head has been literally made in this case, and is a sufficient authentication of the transcript from “the books and proceedings of the treasury,” and is a substantial compliance with the requisitions of the statute. Smith v. The United States, 5 Peters, 292.
Nothing done at the treasury, which did not fall within the scope of the authority of the accounting officers, in settling accounts, can be received in evidence. In the case of the United States v. Buford, 3 Peters, 29, it was held by the supreme court, that an account stated at the treasury department, which does not arise in the ordinary mode of doing business in that department, can derive no additional validity from being certified under the act of Congress. Such statements at the treasury can only be regarded as establishing items for moneys disbursed through the ordinary channels of the department, when the transactions are shown by its books. Cox and Dick v. The United States, 6 Peters, 202.
A treasury transcript, produced in evidence by the United States, in an action on a bond for the performance of a contract for the supply of rations to the troops of the United States, contained items of charge which were not objected to by the defendant. The defendant objected to the following items, as not proved by the transcript: “February 19, 1818, for warrant 1680, favour of Richard Smith, dated December 27, 1817 and February 11, 1818, twenty thousand dollars.” And on the 11th of April, of the same year, another charge was made “for warrant No. 1904, for the payment of his two drafts, favour of

[p513-1] The decisions of the courts of the United States on Treasury statements, transcripts and documents, have been:
An account stated at the treasury department, which does not arise in the ordinary mode of doing business in that department, can derive no additional validity from being certified under the act of Congress. A treasury statement can only be regarded as establishing items for moneys disbursed through the ordinary channels of the department, where the transactions are shown by its books. In these cases the officers may well certify, for they must have official knowledge of the facts stated. United States v. Buford, 3 Peters, 29.
But when moneys come into the hands of an individual, not through the officers of the treasury, or in the regular course of official duty, the books of the treasury do not exhibit the facts, nor can they be officially known to the officers of the department. In such a case the claim of the United States for money thus in the hands of a third person must be established, not by a treasury statement, but by the evidence on which that statement was made. Ibid.
Action of debt on a bond executed by Alpha Kingsley, a paymaster in the army, and by John Smith, T. and another, as his sureties, to the United States. The condition of the obligation was, that Alpha Kingsley, “about to be appointed a district paymaster,” &c. “and who will, from time to time, be charged with funds to execute and perform the duties of that station, for which he will be held accountable,” &c. shall “well and truly execute the duties of district paymaster, and regularly account for all moneys placed in his hands to carry into effect the object of his appointment.” On the trial the plaintiff gave in evidence a duly certified copy of the bond, and a “transcript from the books and proceedings of the treasury department, of the account of Alpha Kingsley, late district paymaster, in account with the United States.” In this account A. K. was charged with moneys advanced to him for pay, subsistence, and forage, bounties and premiums, and contingent expenses of the army; and credited with disbursements of the same, for the purposes for which they were paid to him, and showing a large amount of items suspended and disallowed; making a balance due to the United States of forty-eight thousand four hundred and ninety-two dollars and fifty-three cents. The account was thus settled by the third auditor of the treasury, and was duly certified to the second comptroller of the treasury, and this balance was by him admitted and certified on the 23d of April, 1823. The account was further certified, “Treasury department, third auditor’s office, 1st of September, 1824: pursuant to an act to provide for the prompt settlement of public accounts, approved 3d of March, 1817, I, Peter Hagner, third auditor, &c. do hereby certify that the foregoing transcripts are true copies of the originals, on file in this office.” To this was annexed a certificate that Peter Hagner was the third auditor, &c. “In testimony whereof I, William H. Crawford, secretary of the treasury, have hereunto subscribed my name, and caused to be affixed the seal of this department, at the city of Washington, this 1st of September, 1824. (Signed) Edward Jones, chief clerk, for William H. Crawford, secretary of the treasury.” The seal of the treasury department was affixed to the certificate. On the trial, the district court of Missouri instructed the jury, that “as by the account it appears there are in it items of debit and credit to Kingsley, as district paymaster, it furnished evidence of his having acted as district paymaster, and of his appointment as such.” By the court—There are two kinds of transcript which the statute authorizes the proper officers to certify: first, a transcript from “the books and proceedings of the treasury,” and secondly, “copies of bonds, contracts, and other papers, &c., which remain on file, and relate to the settlement.” The certificate under the first head has been literally made in this case, and is a sufficient authentication of the transcript from “the books and proceedings of the treasury,” and is a substantial compliance with the requisitions of the statute. Smith v. The United States, 5 Peters, 292.
Nothing done at the treasury, which did not fall within the scope of the authority of the accounting officers, in settling accounts, can be received in evidence. In the case of the United States v. Buford, 3 Peters, 29, it was held by the supreme court, that an account stated at the treasury department, which does not arise in the ordinary mode of doing business in that department, can derive no additional validity from being certified under the act of Congress. Such statements at the treasury can only be regarded as establishing items for moneys disbursed through the ordinary channels of the department, when the transactions are shown by its books. Cox and Dick v. The United States, 6 Peters, 202.
A treasury transcript, produced in evidence by the United States, in an action on a bond for the performance of a contract for the supply of rations to the troops of the United States, contained items of charge which were not objected to by the defendant. The defendant objected to the following items, as not proved by the transcript: “February 19, 1818, for warrant 1680, favour of Richard Smith, dated December 27, 1817 and February 11, 1818, twenty thousand dollars.” And on the 11th of April, of the same year, another charge was made “for warrant No. 1904, for the payment of his two drafts, favour of

[1]