is only fair in the interest of the public that a rigorous adherence to
some rule of limitation should be maintained.

The provision of the bill which practically directs a new trial of the
claim for $25,000, decided adversely to the claimants more than twenty
years ago, is still more objectionable. These parties had their day in
court. They produced their witnesses and were heard both originally and
upon appeal, and upon the case they were then able to make the court
decided they had no claim against the Government. It is now suggested
that other witnesses have been discovered who can supply the lack of
proof which was produced on the former trial. Such a ground for a new
trial would never be considered in any court of law in the land in a
case between private parties where such a length of time had intervened
since the former trial. No explanation of a satisfactory nature is
furnished for the failure of the claimants to produce these witnesses
upon the original trial.

The bill further provides that upon a retrial of the original claim, or
upon the trial of the new claim, the claimants shall be at liberty to
offer in evidence the depositions of witnesses now on the files of any
of the committees of Congress in relation to the aforesaid matters,
which may be introduced as evidence in case of the death or disability
of the deponents.

This provision will enable the claimants to present _ex-parte_
affidavits, prepared by the claimants or their attorneys, without
opportunity being afforded to the Government to cross-examine, provided
the claimants can show that the deposing witnesses are either dead or
under disability, by which, no doubt, is intended any such disability by
reason of absence, illness, and the like, as may render them legally