FOSTER T. HEYSER ET AL.

LETTER FROM THE ASSISTANT CLERK OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS TRANSMITTING A COPY OF THE FINDINGS FILED BY THE COURT IN THE CASE OF FOSTER T. HEYSER, CHARLES F. HEYSER, AND GEORGE HEYSER, EXECUTORS OF THOMAS HEYSER, DECEASED, AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

MAY 13, 1910.-Referred to the Committee on War Claims and ordered to be printed.

COURT OF CLAIMS, CLERK'S OFFICE,

Washington, May 13, 1910.

SIR: Pursuant to the order of the court I transmit herewith a certified copy of the findings of fact filed by the court in the aforesaid cause, which case was referred to this court by resolution of the House of Representatives under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the "Tucker Act."

I am, very respectfully, yours,

Hon. JOSEPH G. CANNON,

JOHN RANDOLPH, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 12202. Foster T. Heyser, Charles F. Heyser, and George Heyser executors of the estate of Thomas Heyser, deceased, v. The United States.]

STATEMENT.

On March 31, 1906, House bill 6765, Fifty-ninth Congress, was referred to this court by resolution of the House of Representatives for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887. Said bill reads as follows:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay the executors of Thomas Heyser, deceased, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of two thousand five hundred and fifty dollars for stores and supplies furnished to the military forces of the United States by said Heyser for their use during the war of the rebellion."

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations:

1. That he is a resident of Cloverport, Breckinridge County, Ky., and files this claim as an heir at law and executor of the estate of Thomas Heyser, deceased.

2. That throughout the war for the suppression of the rebellion said Thomas Heyser, now deceased, was a resident of Hart County, Ky., and remained loyal to the Government of the United States, giving no voluntary aid or comfort to the rebellion. 3. That during said war, in the year 1863 or 1864, forces of the United States Army then in the vicinity of Millerstown, Ky., took from said Thomas Heyser, deceased,

for the use of the said army, for military purposes, the following stores and supplies, for which no vouchers or receipts were given and no payment has been made:

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on February 10, 1910. C. C. Calhoun, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. H. Lamar, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States.

The court, upon the evidence adduced and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following

FINDINGS OF FACT.

I. Claimant's decedent, Thomas Heyser, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war.

II. During said war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, for the use of the army, took from claimant's decedent in Hart County, State of Kentucky, property of the kind and character described in the petition, which, at the time and place of taking, was reasonably worth the sum of one thousand and fifteen dollars ($1,015), no part of which appears to have been paid.

III. The claim herein was never presented to any officer or department of the Government prior to its presentation to the Fifty-ninth Congress and reference to this court by resolution of the House of Representatives as herein before set forth in the statement of the case, and no reason is adduced showing why the same was not earlier presented.

BY THE COURT.

61ST CONGRESS, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. ( DOCUMENT 2d Session. No. 908.

D. N. KELLEY, ADMINISTRATOR.

LETTER FROM THE ASSISTANT CLERK OF THE COURT OF CLAIMS TRANSMITTING A COPY OF THE FINDINGS FILED BY THE COURT IN THE CASE OF D. N. KELLEY, ADMINISTRATOR OF DANIEL B. HAROLD, DECEASED, AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

MAY 13, 1910.-Referred to the Committee on War Claims and ordered to be printed.

COURT OF CLAIMS, CLERK'S OFFICE,

Washington, May 13, 1910.

SIR: Pursuant to the order of the court, I transmit herewith a certified copy of the findings filed by the court in the aforesaid cause, which case was referred to this court by resolution of the House of Representatives, under the act of March 3, 1887, known as the "Tucker Act."

I am, very respectfully, yours,

Hon. JOSEPH G. CANNON,

JOHN RANDOLPH,

Assistant Clerk Court of Claims.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

[Court of Claims. Congressional, No. 14455. D. N. Kelley, administrator of the estate of Daniel B. Harold, deceased, v. The United States.]

STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

On February 18, 1910, House bill 9729, Sixty-first Congress, was referred to this court by resolution of the House of Representatives for findings of fact under the terms of the act approved March 3, 1887. Said bill reads as follows:

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, to the estate of Daniel B. Harold, deceased, late of Bradley County, Tennessee, the sum of two thousand seven hundred dollars, in full compensation for stores, supplies, and property taken for the use of and used by the federal forces during the late civil war.”

The claimant in his petition makes the following allegations:

1. That he is a citizen of the United States, residing in the county of Bradley, State of Tennessee; that he is the duly appointed, qualitied, and acting administrator of the estate of Daniel B. Harold, deceased, late a citizen of the United States and a resident of said county and State.

2. That during the late civil war said decedent was the owner of a tract of land situated about 1 mile northeast of McDonald Station, in said county and State, containing 160 acres, of which about 100 acres was heavily timbered; that between January 1, 1864, and August 1, 1865, the United States military forces, under Gens. George H. Thomas, William T. Sherman, and James B. Steadman, took from said

land all the timber that could be utilized for building purposes, consisting of 2,700 large trees, and used the same in constructing bridges for the army; that the reasonable value of the timber so taken was the sum of $2,700, for which no payment has been made.

The case was brought to a hearing on loyalty and merits on April 14, 1910.

Francis L. Neubeck, esq., appeared for the claimant, and the Attorney-General, by W. F. Norris, esq., his assistant and under his direction, appeared for the defense and protection of the interests of the United States.

The court upon the evidence adduced, and after considering the briefs and arguments of counsel on both sides, makes the following

FINDINGS OF FACT.

I. Claimant's decedent, Daniel B. Harold, was loyal to the Government of the United States throughout the late civil war.

II. During said war the military forces of the United States, by proper authority, took from claimant's decedent in Bradley County, Tenn., for the use of the army in the construction and repair of bridges and for other military purposes, certain standing timber from a tract of wooded land, as described in the petition, which timber was then and there reasonably worth the sum of one thousand two hundred and sixty-five dollars ($1,265), no part of which appears to have been paid.

III. The claim herein was first presented to the Southern Claims Commission by Elwood D. and Francis M. Harold, as assignees of the decedent herein, and the same was rejected because of the invalidity of said assignment. Thereafter the claim was referred to this court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Representatives under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1883, known as the "Bowman Act," and numbered 12128, congressional. On February 21, 1910, the case was again referred to the court by resolution of the House of Representatives under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887, known as the "Tucker Act," and numbered 14455, congressional. On April 30, 1910, on the claimant's motion therefor, the two cases were consolidated.

Filed May 2, 1910.

A true copy.

Test this 13th day of May, 1910. [SEAL.]

BY THE COURT.

JOHN RANDOLPH, Assistant Clerk Court of Claims.

о

2d Session. No. 910.

INFORMATION RELATIVE TO COMBINATIONS, ETC., TO ADVANCE PRICE OF WHEAT IN MAY AND JULY, 1909.

LETTER

FROM

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL,

IN RESPONSE TO A

RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE HOUSE ON MAY 12, 1910, REQUESTING INFORMATION RELATIVE TO COMBINATIONS OF PERSONS COMBINING TO ADVANCE THE PRICE OF WHEAT IN MAY AND JULY, 1909.

MAY 14, 1910.-Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary and ordered to be printed.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Washington, D. C., May 13, 1910. SIR: I am in receipt of the resolution adopted by the House on May 12, a copy of which is as follows:

Resolved, That the Attorney-General of the United States be, and he is hereby, requested to transmit to the House of Representatives, if not incompatible with the public interest, all facts in the possession of his department upon which the investigation concerning an alleged violation of the act of July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, entitled "An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies" by any person or combinations of persons in forming an alleged illegal combination for the purpose of advancing the price of cotton, which investigation is now being conducted under the direction of the Attorney-General of the United States in the cities of New York and New Orleans, is based; whether any investigation is now in progress by the Department of Justice with reference to the violation of said act by any persons or combinations of persons having for their purpose the reduction of the price of cotton; and whether any such investigation or prosecution by the United States was ever begun against any persons or combinations of persons charging them with a violation of said act in illegally combining or conspiring to advance the price of wheat in May and July of the year nineteen hundred and nine or in obtaining a monopoly of the supply of wheat in the United States during the said two months.

I beg to say that it is, in my opinion, not compatible with the public interests to transmit to the House of Representatives the facts in the possession of this department upon which an investigation concern

H D-61-2-Vol 133-64