Opinion of the Court. him with interest upon its judgment. But interest being a matter of purely statutory regulation, we are bound to give or withhold it as the statute directs. By the judgment of the District Court of South Carolina, Verdier became indebted to the government on January 25, 1871, in the sum of $1095.83, and as he did not pay the debt at the time, he was properly chargeable with interest. Rev. Stat. § 966. Upon the other hand, the government did not become a debtor to Verdier until his claim was liquidated, and by Rev. Stat. § 1091, no interest can be allowed upon any claim against the government up to the time of the rendition of judgment thereon by the Court of Claims, unless upon a contract expressly stipulating for the payment of interest. The theory upon which interest is claimed seems to be that the Postmaster General was in fault for not having readjusted Verdier's salary under the act of 1866, and that Verdier ought not to be prejudiced by such default. The whole difficulty in the case, however, arises from the fact that there were claims upon both sides. Did the case of the government stand alone, there could be no doubt whatever that Verdier's estate would be properly chargeable with interest. Upon the other hand, if his accounts had been settled and paid at the expiration of his term, and a claim were now made under the act of 1883, it would not be claimed that the government would be chargeable with interest. The equity of petitioner's claim, if there be any, arises from the fact that while interest was running against him on his judgment, the government was equitably his debtor. Were the case between private individuals perhaps interest would be chargeable to both parties; but we are unable to see how the fact that there were mutual claims can authorize us to disregard the plain letter of the statutes. There is really no greater hardship in denying the petitioner interest than there would have been if he had not been a judgment debtor of the government. An inherent vice of petitioner's argument is in the assumption that he and the government stand upon an equality with respect to interest. The truth is that in its dealings with individuals public policy demands that the government Opinion of the Court. It may sue, should occupy an apparently favored position. but, except by its own consent, cannot be sued. In the matter of costs it recovers but does not pay, and the liability of the individual would not be affected by the fact he had a judgment against the government which did not carry costs. So the statute of limitations may be pleaded by the government, but not against it; nor is it affected by the laches of its officers. United States v. Barker, 2 Wheat. 395; The Antelope, 12 Wheat. 546; United States v. McLemore, 4 How. 286; United States v. Boyd, 5 How. 29; United States v. Thompson, 98 U. S. 486; Simmons v. Ogle, 105 U. S. 271; United States v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat. 720; United States v. Nicholl, 12 Wheat. 505; Gaussen v. United States, 97 U. S. 584. Under the bankruptcy law, it was a preferred creditor, and its claims were paid even before the wages of operatives, clerks or house servants. Rev. Stat. § 5101. In short, the equities which arise as between individuals have but a limited application as between the government and a citizen. Nor is it strictly true to say that the government was indebted to Verdier at the date of its judgment against him. He had performed services for which an indebtedness was subsequently voluntarily created by the government; but until the readjustment was made the law imposed no obligation upon the government to pay him an increased salary. Verdier could not have availed himself of it as a set off or counter claim to his own debt to the government, and in fact it never became a debt until the claim was liquidated under the act of 1883. As was said by this court in United States v. McLean, 95 U. S. 750, 753: "The law imposes no obligation upon the government to pay an increased salary unless a readjustment has preceded it. And by the act of 1866 the Postmaster General is not to readjust an existing salary unless the quarterly returns made show cause for it. Now, if it be conceded that the quarterly returns made on the last day of each quarter, beginning with June 30, 1871, made it the duty of the Postmaster General to make a readjustment immediately on the receipt of the returns, still his readjust Opinion of the Court. ment was an executive act made necessary by the law in order to perfect any liability of the government. If the executive officer failed to do his duty, he might have been constrained by a mandamus. But the courts cannot perform executive duties or treat them as performed when they have been neglected. They cannot enforce rights which are dependent for their existence upon a prior performance by an executive officer of certain duties he has failed to perform. The right asserted by the claimant rests upon a condition unfulfilled." In that case, as stated by Mr. Justice Miller in McLean v. Vilas, 124 U. S. 86, 87, this court held that the Court of Claims could not "perform the duty of readjusting the salary under the acts which conferred that power on the Postmaster General, and that there was no legal liability against the United States for the amount claimed by him until that officer had readjusted the salary in accordance with those acts of Congress"; and in McLean v. Vilas it was held that the statute did not contemplate a readjustment oftener than once in two years as a legal duty or obligation on the part of the Postmaster General. Verdier's claim for interest in this case is based upon the assumption that the Postmaster General neglected his duty in failing to readjust his salary. We have shown that if he had performed his statutory duty his action would have been prospective only, and would have covered but comparatively a short period of Verdier's services; but however this may be, the government is not chargeable for his neglect in that particular. It results that the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the case remanded with direction to dismiss the petition. MR. JUSTICE GRAY did not hear the argument and took no part in the decision of this case. Opinion of the Court. BROWN v. UNITED STATES. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS. No. 381. Submitted October 23, 1896. - Decided November 16, 1896. Evidence of the reputation of a man for truth and veracity in the neighborhood of his home is equally competent to affect his credibility as a witness, whether it is founded upon dispassionate judgment, or upon warm admiration for constant truthfulness, or natural indignation at habitual falsehood; and whether his neighbors are virtuous or immoral in their own lives. Such considerations may affect the weight, but do not touch the competency, of the evidence offered to impeach or to support his testimony. THE case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Dickinson for defendants in error. No appearance for plaintiff in error. MR. JUSTICE GRAY delivered the opinion of the court. This was an indictment charging John Brown, in separate counts, with the murders by shooting of Thomas Whitehead and of Joseph Poorboy, on December 8, 1891, at the Cherokee Nation in the Indian Territory. Two successive convictions upon this indictment were set aside and new trials ordered, because of erroneous rulings and instructions of the court below, as stated in the opinions of this court, reported in 150 U. S. 93, and in 159 U. S. 100. At the third trial, the government introduced evidence tending to show that the defendant, being nineteen years of age, and one Hampton, being seventeen years old, participated in the killing of Whitehead and Poorboy in a shooting affray about nine or ten o'clock at night on December 8, 1891; that the defendant and Whitehead were white men, and Poorboy and Hampton were Cherokee Indians; and that Hampton had since been killed in resisting arrest. The defendant was ac Opinion of the Court. quitted by the jury of the murder of Poorboy; but was again convicted and sentenced upon the count for the killing of Whitehead, and sued out this writ of error. At this trial, Sam Manus, being called as a witness for the government, testified that on the night of the killing the defendant and Hampton came into his house, and said they had killed Whitehead and his comrade, and taken their firearms and three silver dollars, all they had, from Whitehead's pocket, and showed the witness the arms and money. Manus further testified that he had himself been convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for twelve months for resisting an officer. Witnesses called by the defendant testified that the reputation of Sam Manus for truth and veracity was bad among the people of the neighborhood where he lived. Other witnesses, called in rebuttal, testified that his reputation for truth and veracity was good. The court instructed the jury that if "the parties or either one of them was robbed of property or money after being killed, that becomes a potential fact in the case to show that there was a wilful purpose upon the part of those who may have done the killing"; and that "if these parties were killed for the purpose of robbery, the very fact of the robbery shows. a state of general malevolence, a general wickedness of purpose and a general design to do wrong, that is of a doubly criminal character in showing the existence of this element of the crime of murder." The defendant excepted to these instructions. The court further instructed the jury as follows: "One of the principal witnesses in this case is Mr. Sam Manus. He comes before you and swears to inculpatory statements made by the defendant as to the robbery. He swears to you as to the statement of the defendant that he got three dollars in silver. He swears to you in reference to a statement made by the defendant as to taking the fire-arms of these men who were killed. That shows a robbery, if true. Efforts have been made and brought to bear here to break down his evidence, to destroy his evidence before you, by impeaching his general character for truth. It is necessary in the interest of |