
    PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH AT MURFREESBORO v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [Congressional, 6575.
    Decided March 21, 1898.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    The claim is for material taken from a church and used in the construe- , tion" of a bakery.
    I.The rule in Congressional cases for war damages is that allowance will he made only for property taken to he used and at its value to the Government, not for property taken to he destroyed, or for damages which the owner suffered by reason of the taking.
    II.In cases of religious and charitable institutions, Congress have adopted a different rule as to the measure of damages, viz, to allow for the value of a building as a building; but whether owners are entitled to that or any relief lests entirely within the legislative discretion
    III. The proceeding under the Bowman Act is not to obtain a final judgment, but to give Congress authenticated information necessary for legislative action.
    IV. It is the duty of the court under the Bowman Act to certify to Congress such facts as may be useful in determining the question of legislative relief.
    
      The Reporters1 statement of the ease:
    The following are the facts of the case as found by tbe court:
    The claim in this case, for supplies or stores alleged to have been taken by or furnished to the military forces of the United States, for their use during the late war for the suppression of the rebellion, was transmitted to the court by the Committee on War Claims of the House of Eepresentatives on the 19th day of October, 1888.
    On a preliminary inquiry the court on the 26th day of February, 1894, found that the person alleged to have furnished the supplies or stores, or from whom they were alleged to have been taken, was loyal to the Oovernment of the United States throughout said war.
    The claimant in the petition makes the following allegations:
    “Your petitioners, the officers of the First Presbyterian Church of Murfreesboro, Tenn., respectfully represent that they are citizens of the United States, residing in Eutherford County, State of Tennessee;, that they are the officers of the said First Presbyterian Church; that in January and February, 1863, the United States forces, by proper authority, took from said church the material contained in their church building located at Murfreesboro, Tenn., consisting of lumber, brick, shingles, etc., and appropriated the same to the use of the Unitea States Army; that said building was in good repair, and the material so taken was of good quality, and that said building was valued at the time at $10,000.”
    The court found the following facts:
    I. During the late war for the suppression of the rebellion the military forces of the United States seized and took possession of the church building of the claimant at Murfreesboro, State of Tennessee, which at the time of said seizure was reasonably worth the sum of $6,500.
    II. Said building was subsequently torn down by the United States troops and its materials used by them for the Army in the construction of bake ovens and a bakery; but the evidence does not disclose the'value of the materials.
    
      Mr. Gilbert Moyers for the claimant.
    
      Mr. F. W. Collins (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Pradt) for the defendants.
   Nott, Ch. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The invariable rule which has governed the court in this class of cases, that is, of cases for war damages, is this:

The court allows only for property taken to be used, and only for the value to the Government of the thing taken. That is to say, the court has never allowed for property taken to be destroyed, or for the damages which the owner suffered by reason of the taking. Where houses were torn down and trees felled for military reasons, nothing has been allowed. Where fruit trees and shade trees and fences were taken for fuel, the owner has been allowed only for so much cordwood. Where a building was torn down and the material used, the allowance has been for so much old brick an d second-hand lumber. Where a blooded stallion was taken for army use, the allowance has been simply for a cavalry horse. Where an imported cow was killed and eaten by the troops, the allowance has been only for so much beef. Where the property taken was of a kind which could not properly be regarded as quartermaster or commissary stores, or as hospital supplies, or engineers’ material, the taking has been regarded as due to the depredations of individuals, and nothing has been allowed. In a word, the general principle which governs the court is that the amounts allowed are to be only to tbe extent of tbe benefit wbicb tbe Government received by tbe taking, not for tbe injury wbicb tbe owner suffered.

Tbe present case, in finding the value of tbe building, may seem' a departure from the rule wbicb has hitherto governed tbe court — tbe first and only exception out of tbe hundreds of cases of war claims wbicb have been tried and disposed of in tbe course of tbe last fifteen years. Tbe reason for this departure from a well-settled rule is this: Tbe proceeding in cases coming into this court under tbe Bowman Act is not to obtain a judgment fixing with finality tbe legal rights and liabilities of tbe parties, but simply a proceeding to procure for Congress authenticated information necessary for them to possess in matters coming before them for legislative action. It is consequently tbe duty of tbe court to ascertain and certify to Congress such facts as will be available and useful when tbe question of legislative relief shall come before tbe two Houses.

In cases of religious and charitable institutions and institutions of learning Congress have in repeated instances laid down a different rule than that hereinbefore adverted to as tbe rule of this court for what may be termed the measure of damages. In other words, whenever Congress have given relief for tbe destruction of such a building, tbe legislative rule in repeated instances has invariably been to allow for tbe value of tbe building as a building. Tbe case before us is a case of that description. Tbe court accordingly finds tbe value of the building as it stood when tbe military authorities took possession of it. Whether tbe owners are entitled or not entitled to that or to any relief is not a question before tbe court. It rests entirely within tbe legislative discretion.  