comfort to the rebellion dies without pardon and before the General Amnesty Proclamation December 25, 1868, the proclamation does not obliterate the offense; and his administratrix cannot maintain an action for the proceeds of his captured property in the Treasury. Meldrim v. U. S. (1871) 7 Ct. Cl. 595.

Effect of pardon.-Where a person who has "promoted, encouraged, or sustained" the late so-called "Rebellion" has been granted full pardon and amnesty by the president, this does not entitle him to recover claims against the United States for supplies furnished prior to April 13, 1861, payment of such claims being prohibited by this section, and this, independent of the provision of that resolution that a pardon shall not authorize such payments. Hart v. U. S. (1886) 6 Sup. Ct. 961, 118 U. S. 62, 30 L. Ed. 96.

Where a pardon "is to begin and take effect" from the day on which a prescribed oath is taken by the party, it

§ 6387a. (Act July 6, 1914, c. 136.)

does not take effect until the oath be taken. The formal acceptance of the pardon does not supersede the necessity of taking the oath. Waring v. U. S. (1871) 7 Ct. Cl. 501.

A pardon restores to civil rights, to the enjoyment of property, the right to sue, etc., but does not confer the right to take money from the Treasury where Congress have enacted that it shall not be paid by executive officers to persons who "promoted, encouraged, or in any manner sustained the late rebellion." Hart's Adm'r v. U. S. (1879) 15 Ct. Cl. 414.

This section operated upon nothing conferred by the pardon of the executive, and does not conflict with the pardoning power of the President. Hart's Adm'r v. U. S. (1880) 16 Ct. Cl. 459.

Cited without definite application, Selma R. & D. R. Co. v. U. S. (1891) 11 Sup. Ct. 638, 639, 139 U. S. 560, 35 L. Ed. 266; (1875) 14 Op. Atty. Gen. 526; (1877) 15 Op. Atty. Gen. 652. See note under § 6396.

Claims of disloyalists; R. S. § 3480, repealed as to services in Army prior to April 13, 1861. That section thirty-four hundred and eighty of the Revised Statutes of the United States be, and the same is hereby, repealed so far as it affects payments for services in the Army of the United States prior to April thirteenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-one. (38 Stat. 454.)

This was an act entitled "An act to repeal section 3480 of the Revised Statutes of the United States," cited above.

R. S. § 3480, is set forth ante, § 6387.

§ 6388. (Act March 11, 1898, c. 57.) Proof of loyalty dispensed with as a prerequisite in application for bounty lands.

Section thirty-four hundred and eighty of the Revised Statutes of the United States be, and the same is hereby, so far, and no further, modified and repealed as to dispense with proof of loyalty during the late war of the rebellion as a prerequisite in any application for bounty land where the proof otherwise shows that the applicant is entitled thereto. (30 Stat. 274.)

This was an act to repeal in part and to limit R. S. § 3480.
Cited without definite application,
(1878) 15 Op. Atty. Gen. 451.
note under § 6387.

See

§ 6389. (R. S. § 3481.) Retention of money due States in default. Whenever any State is in default in the payment of interest or principal on investments in stocks or bonds issued or guaranteed by such State and held by the United States in trust, the Secretary of the Treasury shall retain the whole, or so much thereof as may be necessary, of any moneys due on any account from the United States to such State, and apply the same to the payment of such principal and interest, or either, or to the re-imbursement, with interest thereon, of moneys advanced by the United States on account of interest due on such stocks or bonds.

Act March 25, 1870, c. 30, 16 Stat. 77.

A requirement that on the settlement of claims of certain states any bonds or other evidences of debt of either of said States held by the United States on any account whatever shall be credited as offsets to the United States was made by Act May 27, 1902, c. 887, 32 Stat. 235.

Notes of

West Virginia's share of debt of Virginia to United States.-This section

Decisions

makes it the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to insist upon the right of

set-off against the demands of the state of West Virginia for refund of the direct tax to the extent of the equitable proportion of the debt of Virginia to the United States for which West Vir

ginia is liable. (1891) 20 Op. Atty. Gen. 240.

See, also (1887) 18 Op. Atty. Gen. 581.

§ 6390. (R. S. § 3482.) Payment to officers for horses lost in battle, etc.

Any field, or staff, or other officer, mounted militiaman, volunteer, ranger, or cavalryman, engaged in the military service of the United States, who sustains damage without any fault or negligence on his part, while in the service, by the loss of a horse in battle, or by the loss of a horse wounded in battle, which dies of the wound, or which, being so wounded, is abandoned by order of his officer and lost, or who sustains damage by the loss of any horse by death or abandonment because of the unavoidable dangers of the sea, when on board a United States transport vessel, or because the United States fails. to supply transportation for the horse, and the owner is compelled by the order of his commanding officer to embark and leave him, or in consequence of the United States failing to supply sufficient forage, or because the rider is dismounted and separated from his horse and ordered to do duty on foot at a station detached from his horse, or when the officer in the immediate command orders the horse turned out to graze in the woods, prairies, or commons, because the United States fails to supply sufficient forage, and the loss is consequent thereon, or for the loss of necessary equipage, in consequence of the loss of his horse, shall be allowed and paid the value thereof, not to exceed two hundred dollars. But any payment which is made to any one for the use and risk, or for forage, after the death, loss, or abandonment of his horse, shall be deducted from the value thereof, unless he satisfies the paymaster at the time he makes the payment, or thereafter shows, by proof, that he was remounted, in which case the deduction shall only extend to the time he was on foot. And any payment made to any person above mentioned, on account of clothing to which he is not entitled by law, shall be deducted from the value of his horse or accouterments.

Act March 3, 1849, c. 129, § 1, 9 Stat. 414.

Officers and enlisted men were entitled to payment under this section for horses which had been purchased by them in States in insurrection, and payment was not to be refused in any case where the loss resulted from any exigency or necessity of the military service unless it was caused by the fault or negligence of the officer or enlisted man, by Act June 22, 1874, c. 395, post, §§ 6391, 6392.

No claims for horses lost prior to January 1, 1872, were to be audited or paid unless presented before June 30, 1874, by R. S. § 3489, post, § 6402. And no claims under Act March 3, 1849, c. 129, § 1, which was incorporated into this section of the Revised Statutes, or under the amendment thereto by Act June 22, 1874, c. 395, § 1, post, § 6391, were to be considered unless presented prior to January 1, 1876, by section 2 of said amendatory act, post, § 6392. After the date limited, the time was extended to one year from the passage of the act by Act Jan. 9, 1883, c. 15, post, §§ 6393, 6394; and the limitation was suspended for a period of three years by Act Aug. 13, 1888, c. 868, § 2, post, § 6395.

A permanent appropriation to pay for horses and other property lost, etc., in the military service, under the provisions of this Title, was made by R. S. § 3689, post, § 6799.

Provisions for the settlement of claims of officers and men in the military service for the loss of personal effects were made by Act March 3, 1885, c. 335, post, § 6403, and Act March 4, 1915, c. 143, § 1, post, § 6403a.

Notes of See notes under §§ 6391, 6394, 6396, post.

Construction, operation, and effect in general. The statute regards the separation of a man from his horse by

Decisions

compelling him to do duty at another station as a proximate cause, and in such a case the court cannot go behind that cause to inquire whether the separation was brought about by the

V. U. S.

Valdez soldier's neglect. (1880) 16 Ct. Cl. 550. The statute casts all risks upon the government where "the rider was dismounted and separated from his horse, and ordered to do duty at a station detached from his horse." In contemplation of the statute, the soldier is entitled to retain the care and custody of his own horse so long as he is held responsible for its loss. Id.

The purpose of this act, so far as it relates to officers or soldiers furnishing their own horses, was twofold: To enable the government to hire horses at low rates; to apportion the risk between the owner and the employer. Id.

The obligations which the statutes cast upon the government and upon the officer or soldier furnishing his own horse stated. Id.

In time of war and in conflicts with Indians, horses, if killed, or captured without negligence or undue carelessness on the part of their owners, will be paid for by the government, under this section. Sibley v. U. S. (1914) 49 Ct. Cl. 242.

By the term "battle" the statute inIcludes all the encounters which may occur between the troops of contending armies. Powell v. U. S. (1865) 1 Ct. Cl. 400.

"Use" of a horse, in this act, does not mean the active employment of the animal in a military expedition. (1858) 9 Op. Atty. Gen. 151.

The word "mounted" does not necessarily imply that the soldier is either on his horse or with his horse. It indicates the general character of the corps or service. Id.

Under this act the fact of a payment having been made to a soldier as a mounted man after the loss of his horse is not conclusive evidence that he was remounted during the time for which he was paid. (1858) 9 Op. Atty. Gen. 185. This act is a remedial statute, and should accordingly be construed so as to advance the remedy. (1861) 10 Op. Atty. Gen. 21.

Claims of officers and soldiers for horses lost in the military service, where their horses were in service simply as a part of the equipment belonging to and furnished by them, are allowable only under the provisions of the first section. (1874) 14 Op. Atty. Gen. 360.

The first and second sections of this act provide respectively for a separate The two and distinct class of claims. classes distinguished from each other. Id.

Lieutenant Mansur went on an expedition up the Red River, leaving his horse and saddle behind with the regiment to which he belonged. During his absence the horse and saddle were, by order of the colonel of his regiment, taken and used in the military service without his knowledge and consent, and while so in such service were lost.

Claim being made by him for the value of the property under this act, held, that the case falls within the second section, and not the first section, of that act. (1874) 14 Op. Atty. Gen. 367.

Amendment by subsequent acts.Act June 22, 1874 (18 Stat. 193, c. 395), section 6391, post, in effect amends section 3482, ante, so as practically to do away with the specification therein contained of cases wherein compensation for the loss of horses in battle may be allowed, and in lieu thereof authorizes such allowance "where the loss resulted from any exigency or necessity of the military service." Thomas v. U. S. (1880) 16 Ct. CI, 522.

Persons who may receive relief.-An officer who is not required by the army regulations to be "mounted," but who is detailed on duty which, in the opinion of his commanding general, renders it "necessary and proper" for him to be mounted, may recover for horses lost in battle. (9 Stat. L. 414.) Powell v. U. S. (1865) 1 Ct. Cl. 400.

A deserter cannot recover for his horse, captured by the enemy, under Act March 3, 1849 (9 Stat. 414, c. 129), though his claim comes within the very letter of the statute. Tapia v. U. S. (1880) 16 Ct. Cl. 561.

The statutes in force which provide indemnity for officers' horses lost in certain circumstances apply to officers of the regular Army as well as to volunteers. (1857) 8 Op. Atty. Gen. 293.

Under this act mounted volunteers are entitled to compensation for horses lost or destroyed by unavoidable acciIdent while in the service of the United States. (1859) 9 Op. Atty. Gen. 334.

Equipment for which payment may be made. The relief given to an officer by the statute cannot he extended so as to include swords, pistols, or any other property than horses and horse equipage. Powell v. U. S. (1865) 1 Ct. Cl. 400.

The "equipage" referred to by the statute is horse equipage; and by the term "necessary equipage" is meant only the equipage prescribed by regulations. Id.

An officer may recover for more than one horse lost in the same battle; but the recovery is limited to the number which the army regulations require him to keep. Id.

The statute makes no distinction between a soldier's horse and horse equipments. Where the loss was due to the same cause, the liability follows the same rule. Valdez v. U. S. (1880) 16 Ct. Cl. 550.

Requisite facts to authorize recovery. -To authorize a judgment it is necessary to prove: (1) That the claimant owned a horse which he took into the military service; (2) that the horse was lost; (3) that the loss resulted from an exigency or necessity of the military service; and (4) that the loss

the property would be exposed was agreed to be incurred by the owner: Provided, It appears that such loss, capture, abandonment, destruction, or death was without any fault or negligence on the part of the owner of the property, and while the property was actually employed in the service of the United States.

Act March 3, 1849, c. 129, § 2, 9 Stat. 415. Act March 3, 1863, c. 78, § 5, 12 Stat. 743.

Notes of Decisions