Syllabus. allow the ingress or egress to and from the public office in said building of persons entitled to the same." This proceeding by the circuit judge purported to be based on the act of Congress, 31st May, 1870, entitled “ An act to enforce the rights of citizens of the United States to vote in the several States of this Union and for other purposes."* The 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, 6th, 19th, and 20th sections of the act are intended to preserve the right of the voter. Each relates to a specific wrong against him, and constitutes it a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment. The 23d section gives a remedy to one deprived of his election to any office. The remedy is to consist in "any appropriate suit or proceeding to recover possession of the office." Messrs. P. Phillips and E. N. Ogden, in behalf of the petitioner; Messrs. Caleb Cushing and M. H. Carpenter, contra. Mr. T. J. Durant, whom the court declined to hear, for the State of Louisiana. The CHIEF JUSTICE: We are all of opinion that when a final decree shall be rendered in the Circuit Court in this case, an appeal will lie to this court. We are also of opinion that this court has no jurisdiction in this case to issue a writ of prohibition until an appeal is taken. MASON V. UNITED STATES. The United States offered to A. an order for 50,000 muskets on certain terms specified, with an agreement that 100,000 would be received if delivered within a time named. A. accepted the offer, and laid out a large sum of money in getting his works in condition to execute the order, and thus and otherwise was able and ready to execute it. Subsequently to this the War Department appointed a commission to adjust all contracts, orders, and claims on the department in respect to arms, its de * 16 Statutes at Large, 140. Statement of the case. cision to be final and conclusive as respected the department, as to the validity, execution, and sums due or to become due upon such contracts; and invited all persons interested in such orders to appear before it and be heard respecting their claims. Whether A. came before it did not appear. The commission, however, did, without his consent and against his remonstrance, pass on his case, and reported that the order to him be confirmed to the extent of 30,000 muskets, upon condition that he should execute a bond with sureties for the performance of the contract as thus modified, and upon his failure to execute such bond that the original order should be held null. The bond being prepared and sent to him by the department he executed it. Held, that such execution was his voluntary act; and that the original contract for the 100,000 muskets was thus changed and modified. APPEAL from the Court of Claims; the case being thus: On the 7th January, 1862, the chief of ordnance, General Ripley, by direction of the Secretary of War, made in writing, on behalf of the government, this offer to one Mason, a manufacturer of arms at Taunton, Massachusetts: "I offer you an order for 50,000 muskets, with appendages, of the Springfield pattern, on the following terms and conditions, viz.:" [Here followed a variety of minute specifications as to the character of the muskets, and the time when they were to be delivered.] "It is further directed by the War Department that double the number of arms aud appendages, viz., 100,000, will be received, if manufactured at your establishment in Taunton, and delivered within the times before specified for the delivery of the 50,000 arms and appendages. All the other terms and conditions of this order remaining unchanged for the additional 50,000." On the 20th January, 1862, Mason, in writing, accepted the foregoing order, and his acceptance thereof was received by the chief of ordnance. Mason immediately proceeded to make changes of machinery in his machine works, and to do whatever was necessary to insure the full and complete performance of the agreement, and was able and willing to perform his agreement according to the terms of it. His expenditures for changing his machine works into an armory, as required Statement of the case. by the agreement, amounted to $75,000, and the profits which he would have made upon the muskets ordered, if he had been allowed to perform, would have amounted to $5.25 per musket. On the 13th March, 1862, the War Department ordered— "That Joseph Holt and Robert Dale Owen be a special commission to audit and adjust all contracts, orders, and claims on the War Department in respect to arms; their decision to be final and conclusive as respects the department on all questions touching the validity, execution, and sums due or to become due upon such contracts, and upon all other questions arising between contractors and the government upon such contracts. "That the commission should proceed forthwith to investigate all claims and contracts in respect to arms in the department, or pending settlement and final payment, and adjudicate the same." The order added: "All persons interested in such contracts may appear in person, but not by attorney, before said commissioners, and be heard respecting their claims, at such time and place as the commissioners shall appoint. All claims that they may award in favor of shall be promptly paid. No application will be entertained by the department respecting any claim or contract which they shall adjudge to be invalid." On the 15th of May, 1862, the commission, without the consent and against the remonstrances of the claimant, decided and reported to the chief of ordnance: "That the order to Mr. Mason be confirmed, subject to all its terms, to the extent of 30,000 muskets, upon condition that he shall, within fifteen days after notice of this decision, execute bond, with good and sufficient sureties, in the form and with the stipulations prescribed by law and the regulations, for the performance of the contract, as thus modified, resulting from said order and acceptance; and, upon his failure or refusal to execute such bond, then the said order shall be declared annulled and of no effect." On the 30th of May, 1862, the chief of ordnance trans Restatement of the case in the opinion. mitted a copy of this decision to Mason, and also the contract and bond contemplated by the commission in its decision, with the request that he would execute and file them within fifteen days after their receipt by him, if he should "accept the order as confirmed by the commission." Mason thereupon executed such written contract, on the 25th day of June, 1862, whereby he contracted and engaged to furnish to the defendants "30,000 muskets of the Springfield pattern." This contract was performed by both the parties, and no other muskets were ever furnished by Mason to the government. Upon these facts the Court of Claims, as a conclusion of law, decided: That the original contract between the parties for the purchase and sale of 100,000 Springfield muskets was changed and modified by the voluntary act of the parties in the written contract, 25th of June, 1862, and that the petition of the claimant should be dismissed. From that decree Mason took this appeal. Mr. Thomas Wilson, for the appellant; Mr. G. H. Williams, Attorney-General, and Mr. C. H. Hill, contra. Mr. Justice CLIFFORD delivered the opinion of the court. Parties having claims against the United States for labor or service, or for personal property or materials furnished, which are disputed by the officers authorized to adjust the accounts, may compromise the claim and may accept a smaller sum than the contract price; and where the claimant voluntarily enters into a compromise and accepts a smaller sum and executes a discharge in full for the whole claim, he cannot subsequently recover in the Court of Claims for any part of the claim voluntarily relinquished in the compromise. Mason contracted to manufacture and deliver 50,000 muskets with appendages, of the Springfield pattern. They were to be in all respects identical with the standard riflemusket made at the National armory, with the regular ap Restatement of the case in the opinion. pendages, and were to be so constructed as to interchange with that pattern and with each other in all their parts, and they were to be subject to inspection in the same mauner as the arms are which are manufactured at the National armory; and the stipulation was that none should be received except such as passed inspection and were approved by the regular inspectors. Deliveries were to be made at the times and in the quantities therein specified, and payments were to be made, in such funds as the Treasury Department should provide, on certificates of inspection and receipt by the inspectors, at the rate of $20 for each arm including appendages. Information was also communicated to the contractor by the War Department that double the number specified in the contract would be received, if manufactured at the contractor's establishment and delivered at the times specified for the delivery of the first 50,000 arms, upon the same terms and conditions as those specified in that contract. On the 20th of January, 1862, the claimant accepted the offer to manufacture and deliver the second 50,000 muskets and appendages, as proposed in that offer, and duly notified the chief of ordnance of his acceptance of the same in writing. Pursuant to that arrangement the claimant proceeded to make changes in his machine works, and to do whatever was necessary to enable him to perform his agreement, and the Court of Claims finds that he was able and willing to perform the same, and that he expended $75,000 in changing his machine works into an armory for that purpose, and that if he had been allowed to fulfil the agreement his profits would have amounted to $5.25 per musket. Complaint is made that the officers of the United States prevented the claimant from performing his contract, and it appears that the Secretary of War, on the 13th of March, 1862, by an order of that date, appointed a special commission, consisting of two members, to audit and adjust all orders and claims on the War Department in respect to ordnance arms and ammunition, providing in the same order that their decisions should be final and conclusive upon the department on all questions touching the validity |