Opinion of the Court. property thus habitually used, and collected by distraint upon any portion that might at any time be found. Of course, the lawfulness of a tax upon vehicles of transportation used by common carriers might have to be considered in particular instances with reference to its operation as a regulation of commerce among the States, but the mere fact that they were employed as vehicles of transportation in the interchange of interstate commerce would not render their taxation invalid. No question on that account arises in this case. But looking at the statute under which the proceeding in question has been taken for the taxation of this property, we think it quite clear that it has no application to the rolling stock owned by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company employed by it in the manner described in the operation of other railroads in Virginia. The terms of the act, indeed, include “every railroad and canal company not exempted from taxation by virtue of its charter," but that language, according to a general rule of interpretation, must be confined to corporations deriving their authority from the laws of Virginia. It is apparent, also, from the other expressions contained in the law, as well as its whole purview, that it was intended to apply only to such domestic corporations, as in the case of railroad companies, were the owners of railroads and the property usually appurtenant thereto, lying and being within the State. According to the description of the act, the railroad company is supposed to own a roadway and track, and depots, depot grounds, station buildings and fixtures, and machine shops, together with real estate, rolling stock, and telegraph lines. Every such company is required to report its gross and net receipts, and a specific provision is made that if its road is only in part within the Commonwealth the report shall show what part is so, and what proportion the same bears to its entire length, apportioning the receipts accordingly. In case of a failure of the company to make such a report, or to pay the tax assessed upon its property, it is provided that it shall be immediately assessed under the direction of the auditor of public accounts by some person appointed by him for that purpose, rating its real estate and rolling stock at $20,000 per Syllabus. mile, on which a tax shall be levied at the annual rate levied upon the value of other property for the year. None of these provisions are applicable to the case of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company in respect to its ownership of the rolling stock in question. It follows from this that it was not liable for the payment of the taxes, the collection of which was enjoined by the decree of the Circuit Court. That decree is accordingly Affirmed. UNITED STATES v. IRWIN. UNITED STATES v. PERRY. APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. Nos. 1384, 1385. Submitted April 2, 1888. - Decided April 23, 1888 A statute entitled "An act referring to the Court or Claims," etc., " for examination and report," and enacting that "the claims "be, and the same are hereby, referred to the Court of Claims for adjudication according to law, on the proofs heretofore presented, and such other proofs as may be adduced, and report the same to Congress" confers upon that court full jurisdiction to proceed to final judgment, as in the exercise of its ordinary jurisdiction. A statute conferring upon the Court of Claims power to consider and render judgment for claims "for property claimed to have been taken and impressed into the service of the United States in the year 1857 by orders of Colonel Albert Sidney Johnston in command of the Utah expedition, as well as for property alleged to have been sold to the government" does not authorize that court to consider and give judgment for losses consequent upon the refusal of Colonel Johnston to permit the trains of the claimant to proceed upon their journey, arising from the mere detention and delay occasioned thereby. It appearing from the findings of the court below that "plaintiff's animals were often used to aid in hauling government trains; and thus did extra work on insufficient food;" and this being a possible ground for recovery to some extent for property taken and impressed into the service of the United States; and it not appearing in the findings what amount is properly allowable therefor, the case is remanded for further proofs and findings in that respect. Opinion of the Court. THESE were appeals from judgments rendered against the United States in the Court of Claims. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Attorney General, and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Howard for appellant in both cases. Mr. William E. Earle and Mr. James L. Pugh, Jr., for appellees in both cases. MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS delivered the opinion of the court. Congress passed an act, approved July 8, 1886, entitled "An act referring to the Court of Claims the claims for property seized by General Johnston on the Utah expedition for exami- . nation and report," which enacts "that the claims of Joseph C. Irwin and Company, and C. A. Perry and Company, freighters, for property claimed to have been taken and impressed into the service of the United States in the year 1857, by orders of Colonel Albert Sidney Johnston, in command of the Utah expedition, as well as for property alleged to have been sold to the government, be, and the same are hereby, referred, with all the papers relating thereto, to the Court of Claims for adjudication, according to law, on the proofs heretofore presented, and such other proofs as may be adduced, and report to the same to Congress." In pursuance of this act the parties named therein filed their respective petitions in the Court of Claims, stating the grounds and particulars of their demands for judgment. Judgments were rendered therein in the ordinary form in the case of J. C. Irwin and Company for the recovery of the sum of $21,600, and in the case of Charles A. Perry and Company for the sum of $44,025. From these judgments the United States prosecutes the present appeals. The facts in the two cases as found by the Court of Claims are substantially the same. The firm of J. C. Irwin and Company, at the time of the occurrences hereinafter set forth, were engaged in freighting across the plains by means of wagon trains, and in June, 1857, were under contract to Opinion of the Court. transport from Atchison, Kansas, to Salt Lake City 75 wagon loads of merchandise, and late in the summer of that year started their trains on that journey. Charles A. Perry and Company, in August, 1857, were doing a general merchandise business at Salt Lake City, and in that month started three ox trains, two of 20 wagons each, and one of 18 wagons, with five wagons drawn by mules, from Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, to Salt Lake City. All the trains of both parties reached Rocky Ridge early in October, 1857, and were progressing successfully on their journey. The animals were in good condition, and making from 18 to 20 miles per day. At this point they were met by United States troops, under command of Lieutenant-Colonel Smith, who ordered the trains to proceed no further without his permission. Lieutenant-Colonel Smith was under command of Colonel Albert Sidney Johnston. The latter on joining the command issued an order addressed to the parties in interest, as follows: "South Pass, October 19, 1857. "SIR: The colonel commanding directs me to inform you, in reply to your letter of to-day, that no goods or supplies of any kind will be permitted to pass this army for Salt Lake City, or other points occupied by the Mormons, so long as they maintain a hostile attitude to the government of the United States." On the 24th of October an order was issued prescribing the order of the march, and designating the position to be maintained on the march and in the camp by the plaintiffs' trains. Plaintiffs did not seek or desire military protection, and requested Colonel Johnston to be allowed to proceed on their journey, as they were not, in their opinion, in danger from the Mormons. This request was denied. Plaintiffs were required to have their teams yoked and ready by ten in the morning, and they often had to stand for two hours in consequence of delay in the general movement. The teams always got into camp late, and consequently were grazed at great disadvantage. They were also limited to a defined and Opinion of the Court. restricted space assigned them, and were not permitted by the military authorities to go beyond this space. The animals belonging to the army arrived first at camp, and were posted on the best grass. As a necessary result freighters' teams were insufficiently fed. Plaintiffs' animals were often used to aid in hauling the government trains, and thus did extra work on insufficient food. The orders requiring plaintiffs' trains to move with the army column necessarily impeded their progress, and held them back until the bad weather set in. For these reasons the plaintiffs' stock became greatly reduced in flesh, and many died from overwork and starvation. Plaintiffs' trains were loaded with goods and merchandise, notoriously intended for trade with the Mormon inhabitants of the Territory of Utah, who were then in avowed rebellion, and threatened war with the government of the United States, but plaintiffs were ignorant of this state of affairs upon starting, and until arrival at Rocky Ridge. It is also found by the Court of Claims that R. H. and James Porter were also freighters like the plaintiffs, and were detained at the same time under substantially the same circumstances as those already set forth. An act for their relief, passed February 18, 1887, 24 Stat. 900, appropriated the sum of $10,000, less the sum of $750 theretofore paid them "in full for all claims for damages or compensation for property impressed by order of Colonel Johnston, in command of the United States troops en route for Utah in 1857.” Two questions were presented on the part of the United States on the trial of the cases in the Court of Claims, and are renewed in argument here. They are, 1st, that the act of Congress of July 8, 1886, referring these claims to the Court of Claims, does not authorize a final judgment against the United States, but only such findings as, being reported to Congress, shall serve as the basis in its discretion for future legislative action; and, 2d, that, supposing the judgments of the Court of Claims under the act to be final, they are erroneous, because founded on allowances for consequential dam ages to the property of the plaintiffs, by reason of detention and delay, not within the limitation prescribed by the act of |