Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/102

 90 FEDRBAL BEPOBTEB. �are not payable from the permanent annual appropriation provided for in sec- tion 3689 of the Kevised Statutes: provided, that the claim linown as the 'charges and commissions cases' shall not be paid without further legisla- tion." �The permanent annual appropriation did not include "interest and costs in judgment cases." Hence, probably, thie necessity for the special appropriation. The question is, what do the words "interest and costs in judgment cases " mean ? Do they include interest after judgment either on the judgment or on the excess of duties ? In regard to judgments in "charges and commissions cases," only excess of duties and costs were provided for, nothing being said about in- terest. �In section 1 of the appropriation bill passed June 16, 1880, (21 St. at Large, 242,) is the following provision : �"For the repayment to importers the excess of deposits for unascertained duties, or duties or other moneys paid under protest, including interest and costs in judgment cases, $300,000; which sum is hereby made available for the payment of all claims to whioli the appropriation is applicable which are not payable from the permanent annual appropriation provided for in section 3689, Kevised Statutes: provided, that no portion of this appropriation shall be expended for the payment of claims known as • charges and commissions cases.' " �In the same section is the following : �"io enable the secretary of the treasury in his discretion to pay judgments in 'charges and commissions' cases, obtained since January, 1879, and which may be hereafter obtained, or to settle any of said cases, in his discretion, by compromise, $75,000, or so mueh thereof as may be necessary." �Here the provision is to pay judgments, but nothing is said about interest on judgments. In section 1 of the appropriation bill passed March 3, 1881, (Id. 418,) is a provision in the same words as the one first above cited from the act of June 16, 1880. �It may be admitted that such a suit as the present is a private suit until there is a certificate of probable cause. Then the United States cornes in and assumes by statute a certain liability. The question is as to what liability. The plaintifis contend that the United States assumes all the liability which would be that of the defendant if the United States assumed no liability. �The case of Erskine v. Van Arsdale, 15 Wall. 75, cited by the plaintiffs, was a suit to recover back an internai revenue tax illegally collected. The court had instructed the jury that they might, in their verdict, add interest to the tax paid. This was held by the supreme court to be correct. The only decision is that interest might be added ��� �