Mr. TRUMBULL. hese are the words o it: Site. 14. Abife: That no money shall bepaid out of the Treasu for any claims passed upon by the Court of Claims t1i after an appropriation therefor shall be ehtiniated for by the SecyTreasury. Perhaps I had better explain in aword what the object the bill is. the 7th section of the hi 1, which passed in 1863 I think, provided for appeals to the SCOTUS from the Court of Claims. That section is in these words: SEC. 7. Abife: That in all cases of final judgincnts y said court, or, onup eal. by the said Supreme Court. wherethe sameshall c amrmed in favor of the claimant, the sum duo thereby shall be paid out of any general appropriation made by law for the paymentand satisfaction of privnto claims, on presentation to the SecyTreasury of a copy of the said Judgment. ccrtified by the clerk of said Court of Claims and signed by the chief justice, or, in hisubsenccb, y the presiding Judge of sai court and in caseswherethe judgment appealed from is in wfavorof said claimant, or tasame is aflirmedby the said Supreme Court, interest thereon, at the rate of 5% shall be allowed, 6:o. The 7th section of the act provided that the payments were to be made out of any General appropriation made by law for the payment and satisfaction of private claims. It has been the custom of the Treasury to make an estimate to ay the judgments of the Court of Claims each year, and out of that estimate the judgments are paid. The 14thsection declares that no money shall be paid out of the Treasury for any claims passed upon by the Court of Claims until after an appropriation therefor shall be estimated for by e SecyTreasury. I did not think when the 14th section was adopted that it altered the law as prescribed in e 7th section, but when a case went up to the SCOTUS they refused to entertain jurisdiction of the appeal on the ground that under this 14thsection there was a discretionary power in the head of the TreasuryDept to pay the judment or not. Their opinion is very short, igi I will read what they say upon that point: “We think that the authority given to the head of an Executive Dept, by necessaryimplication in the 14thsection of the amended Court of Claims act. to reviseall the OClBlO!o!f! this court proqniring the payment of money. denies to it thoiudicial power from the exerciseof which appealscan be taken to this court.”