« AnteriorContinuar »
examination. For this purpose the applicant is directed to appear before a Board of Examining Surgeons which sits in his neighborhood. At Washington there is a Medical Division, which has power over all medical questions in review. The approval of this Medical Division must be had before the application is in shape for adjudication.
Meanwhile from the Adjudicating Division the claim has been forwarded to the Board of Review. This board is composed of reviewers and re-reviewers.
There are thus two successive adjudications upon the whole proof subunitted for each application. The sole function of these reviews is to treat the question judicially upon the law and the fact. It is therefore almost impossible that any point would be left unnoticed which is not covered by sufficient evidence.
The matter is now ready for the formal action of the Commissioner of Pensions. Not infrequently it is in this office that the application is rejected. The Commissioner, as has been repeatedly pointed out, has full power in the matter. The only act in the office which is of legal validity is this last act of his. If the application is rejected an appeal is allowed from the Commissioner to the Secretary of Interior. The business is done in that office by a Board of Pension Appeals,-a useful body of lawyers who have had a salutary influence upon pension adjudication. The regulations governing the procedure in claims for pensions are put in Appendix A for further consultation.94
94 CLAIM.-Preston, 1 Pen. Dec. 41; Riordan, 1 Pen. Dec. 45; Ennis, 1 Pen. Dec. 127; Smith, 1 Pen. Dec. 201; Romine, 1 Pen. Dec. 299; Lauback, 1 Pen. Dec. 318; Morris, 2 Pen. Dec. 73; Mueller, 2 Pen. Dec. 192; Hamilton, 2 Pen. Dec. 217; Gaskell, 3 Pen. Dec. 87; Tuttle, 3 Pen. Dec. 52; Sherer, 4 Pen. Dec. 5; Johnson, 4 Pen. Dec. 167; Cady, 5 Pen. Dec. 84; McElfatrick, 5 Pen. Dec. 278; Bennett, 7 Pen. Dec. 1; Ratliff, 7 Pen. Dec. 6; Cramer, 7 Pen. Dec. 459; Allen, 7 Pen. Dec. 568; Predmore, 8 Pen. Dec. 165; Green, 8 Pen. Dec. 444; Hook, 8 Pen. Dec. 367; Luther, 9 Pen. Dec. 72.
$ 123. Allowance.
The second illustration proposed was the process by which a claim against the government is allowed by the Treasury Department. As before, the claim must be made according to the regular form demanded by the department. Moreover it must be a liquidated claim. Each office of the government has a disbursing officer. The application in the first instance should be to that officer. The next step that must be taken is administration revision, --some approval of the disburse. ment by the officer who had charge of the administration. This is a preliminary stage simply.
The claim then goes to the office of the proper Auditor for allowance. If there has been administrative revision, the claim is examined there by one clerk and approved by the chief of division; if there has been no administrative revision, the claim is examined by two clerks before approval by the chief of division. Thus it will be seen that in the office of the Auditor there is a careful adjudication, so that the claim is only approved upon sufficient evidence.
An account is either settled as rendered or is disallowed in whole or in part. The party aggrieved has an appeal from the Auditor to the Comptroller. Moreover the Comptroller upon his own motion may take up any account. In either case the whole account is before the Comptroller and he may take any action thereupon which
seems to him fit. The form of the appeal sets forth the reason of it; but there is no obligation that the decision of the Comptroller shall be responsive to the pleadings. It is well settled that the action of the Comptroller is final upon all the executive departments upon any matters of allowance which is within his jurisdiction. Certain provisions governing the allowance of claims are put in Appendix B for further illustration.95
$ 124. Collection.
The third illustration proposed is that of the process by which customs duties are collected. The general rule is that goods imported must be declared, the assessment be made, and the.duty be paid at the port of entry. Of course each and every article imported cannot be examined by the Appraiser. The method is by the examination of a certain proportion of each entry. As customs acts lay duties according to two systems, specific and ad valorem, it follows that the appraiser must have in mind the classification of goods and the valuation of goods. When the appraisal has been made, if all is found in accordance with the entry which has been made by the importer, the matter is passed for liquidation by the importer of the duties imposed.
95 ALLOWANCE.-Exporters' Case, 5 Laurence, 13; Gilbert, Bowler, 213; Exposition Case, 1 Compt. Dec. 13; Clerk of Court, 1 Compt. Dec. 31; Requisitions, 1 Compt. Dec. 409; Advance Decisions, 1 Compt. Dec. 431; In re Sugar Bounty, 2 Compt. Dec. 98; Claim of Scala, 3 Compt. Dec. 657; Heads of Departments, 4 Compt. Dec. 1; Interstate Commission, 4 Compt. Dec. 341; Maine Losses, 4 Compt. Dec. 622; Revision of Accounts, 4 Compt. Dec. 723; Revision of an Arcount, 5 Compt. Dec. 333; Unliquidated Damages, 5 Compt. Der. 770; Professor's Claim, 5 Compt. Dec. 520; Advance Appeal, 6 Compt. Dec. 50; Liquidated Claims, 7 Compt. Dec. 517; Pending Suits, 8 Compt. Dec. 841.
If the importer feels aggrieved an appeal is provided for from the appraiser to the Board of General Appraisers. Moreover, if the collector feels aggrieved, he may institute an appeal before the Board of General Appraisers. The decision of this Board of General Appraisers may again be upon the whole matter of value without regard to the valuation which has been fixed upon the goods. The decision of the Board of General Appraisers upon dutiable value is final and conclusive. But upon questions of classification either the importer or the collector may have an appeal to the Judicial Courts. The administrative statute covering this is put in Appendix ( for further use.96
$ 125. Inter partes proceedings.
Inter partes proceedings are abnormal in administration, while ex parte proceedings are normal in administration. The true function of the administration is only to determine upon matters between the government and citizens; to determine upon matters between citizens is the true function of the judiciary. Therefore it cannot be in the last analysis that in inter partes proceedings the administration is doing anything but administration. The truth of the matter seems to be that what seems inter partes proceedings is in reality two ex parte proceedings consolidated into one process for the purpose of administration. At all events that is the hypothesis defended in this section.
96 COLLECTION.—Liquidation, Treas. Dec. No. 7,047; Examination, Treas. Dec. No. 9.849; Protest, Treas. Dec. No. 10,400; Proceedings in rem, etc., Treas. Dec. No. 11,942; Reappraisements, Treas. Dec. No. 12,483; Free Entry, Treas. Dec. No. 13,677; Decisions, Treas. Dec. No. 16,908; Classification, Treas. Dec. No. 18,211; Rules for Transaction of Business, Treas. Dec. No. 18,488; Appeal, Treas. Dec. No. 18,595; Appraisement, Treas. Dec. No. 21,332,
That is seen in Fowler v. Dodge, 1898 Pat. Dec. 257 (1898). In this case there had been an issue in the Patent Office upon the question of priority between two applicants. Then it appeared that upon one of the applications there was a question of operativeness.
Fowler thus had an interest in having the application of Dodge withheld; but the question had now become whether the Patent Office should allow the contest to proceed. The case, indeed, raised the very issue of the nature of these interference proceedings in the Patent Office.
GREELY, the Assistant Commissioner, said: Contests as to whether a patent shall issue to a particular applicant are permitted in this office, not because of the interest of the contestant, but because the circumstances are such that there is doubt as to whether the applicant is entitled to a patent; and this question cannot properly be decided without some further investigation. After the office become satisfied on this question it would not be justified in allowing the contest to continue.
Another important ruling along this same line is Saunders v. Baldwin, 9 Land Dec. 391 (1889). In this case a contest was instituted for the same land. By error in practice the contestant did not bring forward his evi(lence at the proper time set in the regulation. At a later time the contestant brought forward evidence which was in truth conclusive in favor of his contention. The occupant claimed, however, that the contestant could have no right to have the entry cancelled in these proceedings because he had not come forward within the requisite time demanded by the practice of the office.