I 
 lilt'. 
 
 E359 
 
 .M3C5 
 
 ©i': 
 
 w 
 
 I: ' 
 

 .t ^.^ ^- 
 
 o " o 
 
 
 ^ „ ^ 
 ^•^^ 0°'"' 
 
 

 
 
 
 * 
 
 ^^^^ 
 
 
 ' T^* 
 
 
 ♦^ .t^^ 
 
 "^oV^ 
 
 .^' 
 
 
 
 ^■su^vj 
 
 •^^ 
 
 ,0' .•IV'. "^ v^\»*:^'* ex aOV.**«* V- v^ ••*• 
 
 'is A* »• 
 
 '= %..^ : 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^""^ 
 
 ^yih 
 
 ^o\ 
 
 . >^'^% ^^K*' ^^^^X ''-y^/ -^^""^^ 
 
 0^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^^ <=r ^i^WA^o •^ ♦^ *¥ 
 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 <0v 
 
^ 
 
 THE CLAIM FOR INTEREST 
 
 t ft 
 
 ON THE 
 
 Advances of Massachusells 
 
 IN THE WAR OF 1812-15. ^ 
 
 During the war of 18^2-15 with Great Britain, Massachu- 
 setts advanced lur tlie use o\' the United States $657,924.74, 
 as audited unci allowed at the War Department, and as paid 
 by appropriations made by Congress in 1830 and in 1859. 
 
 By the articles oPseparation between Massachusetts and 
 Maine, in 1820, the claim lor these advances was divided 
 between the two States, in the proportion oi' two-ihirds to 
 Massachusetts and one-third to Maine, and both States have 
 recently assigned their rights to interest upon these advances 
 to the European and North American Eailway Company, 
 which is constructing a road between Bangor, in Maine, and 
 St. John, in New Brunswick, and thereby extending the 
 whole railroad system of the United States to Halifax, Nova 
 Scotia, and shortening the ocean voyage between Europe 
 and America one-third. 
 
 It has been the uniform practice of the Government to 
 pay interest to the States upon their advances made for war 
 purposes. 
 
 This was done in respect to their advances for the Revo- 
 lutionary war, by the acts of Congress of August 5, 1790. 
 and of May 31, 1794. By these acts interest was alloAved to 
 the States, whether they had advanced money on hand in 
 their treasuries or obtained by loans. 
 
 In respect to the advances of States during the war ot 
 1812-15, a more restricted rule was adopted, viz : That 
 
f 
 
 161. 
 175. 
 192. 
 241. 
 
 499. 
 
 States should be allowed interest only so far as they had 
 
 ihemselves paid it, by borrowing, or h&d lost it, by raising 
 
 niiiney by the sale of interest-bearing funds. 
 
 Interest, according to this rule, has been paid to all the 
 
 >:tates, with the exception of Massachusetts, which made ad- 
 vances during the war of 1812-15. 
 
 Virginia, U. S Statutes at Large, vol. 4, page 132. 
 
 Maryland, "' 
 
 Delaware, " 
 
 New York, 
 
 Pennsylvania, " 
 
 South Carolina, " 
 
 In Indian and other wars the same rule has been observed, 
 
 us in the following cases : 
 
 Alabama, U. S. Statutes at Large, vol. 9, page 344. 
 
 Georgia, " " " 9, '' 626. 
 
 Washington Territory, '' " 11 " 429. 
 
 New Hampshire, " " 10 " 1. 
 
 During the Mexican war (see Statutes at Large, vol. 9, 
 
 page 236) a general provision was made in the following 
 language : 
 
 " That in expending moneys under this act and the reso- 
 "lution which it amends, it shall be lawful to pay interest, 
 "at the rate of six per centum per annum on all sums 
 " advanced by States, corporations or individuals in all cases 
 " where the State, corporation or individual paid or lost 
 " interest, or is liable to pay it." 
 
 What is now asked is, that Massachusetts and Maine should 
 be repaid the interest which they have themselves actually 
 paid, in consequence of .having made advances for the use 
 of the United States, and according to the precise rule and 
 measure which has been applied to all other States in the 
 same circumstances! 
 
 This claim for interest could not be made uutil the ac- 
 counts of Massachusetts for the principal of her advances 
 
were finally adjusted, and this. was not done until 1859. 
 The claim for interest was then immediately made, and has 
 continued to be made to the present time, although, of 
 course, it was not pressed during the late civil war. 
 
 This claim has received the sanction of a select committee 
 of the House, and of the committee of the House on Foreign 
 Affairs. See House Report No. 119, First Session, 38th 
 Congress, pages 18, 19, and 20, and appendix " E," pages 
 79 and 80. Also, House Report, No, 7, pages 18 and 19, 
 Second Session, 39th Congress. 
 
 The Senate Committee on Foreign relations have twice 
 reported bills for the payment of this claim. See Senate 
 bill No. 457, Second Session, 39th Congress, and Senate bill 
 No. 45, First Session, 40th Congress. 
 
I 
 

 
 -^^ 
 
 .>«b" 
 
 
 • • • . 
 
 .^-.* .0 •-^^'>^.^/^- 0,^;,^^^ 
 
 
 
 
 .0^ . 
 
 of 
 
 v^ . 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 ;^^^^^ Vo^' :»-. %v^^ :^^ %.o^' :^ 
 
 
 
 *,.,•' .^0'' '^^^ * 
 
 
 • .♦' 
 
 
 
 
 
 o p» 
 
 
 

 ^0 -n^^ , 
 
 
 
 
 «* a"^ ""b. '♦rr, •' .0* ^'xi. -«--"-o 
 
 
 
 < o 
 
 9 , 1 
 
 
 
 » 
 
 V 
 
 . ^.* >^ ^^^ \^^. ^ 
 
 » " 
 
 
 
 
 iTB'(X)ig5fe[NG' 
 
 i9^. 
 
 
 
 
 
 .'^ -^ o 
 
 * «> ^.