Alexandria advertiser and commercial intelligencer. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1800-1803, 1802-07-16

ton with individuals, ano lone m2ht DC
ofopinion, that the decifon Of the treatu-
.ry was right, and Others might believe it
TO be wrong, yet all parties would con-
cur in the opinion that the decifion was con.
clnfye, and the money paid in confequence
Of it, was paid under legal authority.
If however, we indulge ourfelves, IN
reyifng the treafury deciion, upon this
queition, am inclined to believe that we
ihaIl find it correct. The law Of 1890,
which fixes the permanent feat Of Govern
ment, provides that the offices attached
TO the feat of government, ihall be remov-
ed to the Difria of Columbia on the hrtt
day Of December 1900, BY their rslael7iVs
bsl9eYs, ard declared that the neceiary
expenle Of inch removal, fhould be defray-
ed out Of the duties on inpof and tonnage.
By this law, t5s bsldtrs q ths o&c<s, were
directed TO remove them, and the quei-
ton is how and to what extent, was the
removal TO bcniade? 1t will be admitted
q prelume that the Offices were TO &c re-
moved in an efficient manner, that is to
fay in fuch form, as to enable the execn-
tive departments to preform their duties
without delay at Warrington. The ohi-
GERS, in removing their Offices were certain
y obliged to remove, themtelyes, tor they
held their Offices in their own perions, and
the operation could not be performed
without their perfonal removals. Nor
could the Offices be removed in fucha torn
as to perform their duties at the feat OF
government without carrying along with
them, the clerks the clerks were attach
ed to the offices, and without them, the
Offices, could not be iaid to be efficiently
removed. 1t would then | think, reiult
from this, view of the fubjea, that the d.
rettion of the Qatute to- remove the offices,
necefarily gave an authority TO remove
every individual, connected with the OH
ces, and whole iervices were neceGary Tor
tranlaaing the public bahneis. And ifthe
individuals were to begremoved, lhould
prelume that no doubt could exit, but
that they mutt and ought to be removed
in iuch manner, as to render their iitua.
ton comfortable in this place mean,
with their families and furniture and
whether they transported trunk too
much or not, would be an enquiry too
contemplate to occupy the attention OF
the houie.
What induces me to think fill more ia
vorably of the decidons OF the treafury, is
the ftrong equity on which the decifon
refs. II is at this time well underfood,
and indeed fertled by the aa of the pre-,
fenr FELTON,, that the allowance 70 the exc
CURVE officers and clerks, was fixed upon
the principle Of their remaining permanent
ly at one place, & nothing has been, or now
is included in the regular compenfations of
thofe officers, tor the extra expence OF
travelling on public bu6nef, from one
place TO another fuch extra expence,
mutt in the nature Of things be compen-
fated by extra allowances and although
it is true, as the committee Gay, that the
officers and clerks, were at this time re-
ceiying their pay from the government,
yet they were only receiving the ulual
compensation, which was not higher than
the fame grades of officers receive at this
time. Can il then be doubted when the
government required .hofe officers TO incur
the extraordinary expenfe ofre,noving one
hundred and fifty miles with their fami-
lies, that the extra expence hould be diff
charged by government, Whether that
expence conifed of loaes, refulting from
the removal, or charges of travelling. -
Finding then the legal decilion and the
equity Of the cafe 10 frongly againa the
committee, ! think myfeif warranted in
laying that this part of the report is erro-
neous.
II is further TO be remarked, that the
committee have not explicitly dec!ar-
ed by whom theie payments were made,
but the report is 20 exprened as to leave