UNITED STATES V. WICKERSHAM. 509 �In U. s. V. Eckfopd, 6 Wall. 484, there was a suit in the court of claims for a balance alleged to be due a collecter who had been sued by the United States in a district court, and had pleaded, as the stat- ute allowed him, a set-off. The verdict was against the United States, and the jury certified that there was due him from the United States the amount sued for in the court of claims. It was held that neither in the original suit nor in the court of claims could there be a judg- ment against the United States for the balance. The court says : �" Where a party contracting with the United States is dissatisfled with the course pursued towards him by the offlcers of the government, charged with the fulfllment of the contract, his only remedy, except in the limited class of cases cognizable in the court of claims, is by petition to congress." �In Schaumhergy. U.S. 103 U. S. 667, it was held not to be error, where the statute allows set-off to be pleaded, to refuse to find or certify a balance due from the government, although under some cir- cumstances it may be proper to do so. It was said : �"Claims for a credit ean be used in suits against persons indebted to the United States to reduce or extinguish the debt, but not as a foundatiou of a judgment against the government." �In Hall V. U. S. 91 U. S. 559, it is said: �"Questions of the kind, where the United States is plaintifE, must be determined wholly by the acts of congress, as the local laws have no applica- tion in such cases." See, also, Watkins v. U. 8. 9 Wall. 759-765. �In the case of The Siren, 7 Wall, 152, it was said: �"The same exemption from judicial prooess extends to the property of the United States, and for the same reasons. As justly observed by the learned judge who tried the case, there is no distinction between suits against 'the government directly, and suits against its property." �And the court, proeeeding, uses this language : �" But, although direct suits caimot be maintained against the United States, or against their property, yet, when the United States institute a suit they waive their exemption so far as to allow a presentation by the defendants of set-ofEs, legal and equitable, to the extent of the demand made or property claimed, and when they proceed in rem they open to consideration all clahns and equities in regard to the property libelled. They then stand in such pro- ceedings, with reference to the rights of defendants or claimants, [irecisely as private suitors, except they are exempt from costs, and from affirmative relief against them, beyond the demand or property in controversy." �It was a case in which a prize vessel had damaged another by col- lision, the prize being in fault. When libelled at the suit of the United States in the prize court the owner of the damaged sloop ��� �
