The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1811-08-06


concealment. or any improper design. Its
necessary effect was ON the contrary to
bring the subject ultimately before the pub
lie. and to submit its decision to Congress
whilst, it the proper fund had in the first iO-
stance bsen applied no further legislative
sanction would have been wanted. and the
transaction would probably never have been
agitated. ~
The transaction, if candidly reviewed,
can give rise only to two questions. Was
Mr.. Erving entitled to any additional allow
ancei If so. was tina, which was made TO
him. no more than reasonable +! Both these
points have already been decided in the af-
hrnative by the President and Congress
yet we will add some cursory observations
arising from the objections stated in MIR.
Smiths second address.
I, is true that AN officer created by law,
and with salary fixed by law, is not enti-
tied to receive any other compensation than
that salary for any services imposed on him
by law. But it has in many instances been
found convenient to appoint TO particular
gencies salary officers. and to, allow them a
distinct compensation for the services per.
formed under such agencies. Thus the com :
missioners of loans have uniformly been
made agents for the payment Of invalid and
navy pensions, and have received from the
by law, a commission of two and an half per
cent. on the amount.of pensions paid by them.
Nor do the agencies given to Mr. Err
wing, or the compensations allowed for his
services, appear to have been fixed by law.
The President could not, if that had been
the case. have had the power to blend. as
he did in 1901, three agencies into one, and
to reduce the salary from seven or eight to
two thousand dollars. The same discretion
ry authority under which he made that ar.
rangement enabled him to alter and increase
the compensation for those various services,
according to circumstances and to an extent
not exceeding the funds placed under his
control for those contingent objects.
Exclusively of other agencies, the duties
performed by MIR. Erving in relation to A.
merican claims embraced two distinct OBJ
jects; prize causes pending before the or
binary courts and the claims for indemni-
fication to be awarded by the board of COM
missIoners for captures made prior to the
British treaty. The Office and salary of a
gent for prize causes apply exclusively to
the first object, of which more conclusive
proof cannot be adduced than the con,inu-
aace of Doth the Office and the same salary
to this day, although the board has been dis
solved several years ago. The present a.
gent continues to receive the same salary
which Mr.. Erving did. although his attenti-
on Is confined to causes pending before the
courts. That it was from the first intended
to make an additional compensation to MIR.
Erving for his services in the prosecution
OF claims before the board of commissioners,
appears from his appointment to the profita-
Die ONCE OF assessor given avowedly for that
object, and which for reasons stated in his
letter he was obliged torelinouish.
1t it were even insisted that il was his
duty as agent and without any specific
compensation to attend to those claims. mo-
thing more could have been expected on his
part than to have taken general view of
the subject, and to have confined his obser-
vations to a few general principles applica-
bic to the several classes of claims. 1t was
the business of private agents appointed by
the claimants, and not of the public agent,
to discuss the questions of fact by which e.
very case was distinguished, to answer spe
cial objections. and particularly to receive
and to remit the amount awarded. But MIR
T.. performed all those duties and acted as
private agent for all those claimants who did
not appoint any. And his extra compen-
sation was in fact regulated by the amount
OF the awards which he received and re.
mitted.
These considerations render it evident
that he was entitled to an extra compensa-
ton, and that government was in some de.
gree pledged 10 pay it. What this should
have amounted to. it is more difficult from
the data before the public to investigate
with precision; and fair difference of o.
piDon might have existed on that subject.
The allowance was fixed in 1904, at time
when the services had just been performedyl
and by those who were best acquainted
with their nature and extent.s Itis under
stood that the commissions paid by clai- |
mants to their private agents for prosecu- |
ting their claims, and for receiving and re- |
hitting the amount, was two and half per |
cent; and this must, it is presumed, have |
been considered as proper rule whereby |
to INK the extra compensation allowed TO |
the public agent for the same extra servi- |
ces performed by him for claimants who
had no private agents. Not to have atten.
ded to the claims of such persons, on ac-
count OF their neglect or ignorance, would |
have been injurious and often unjust And |
when their business was done, neither 20 |
vernment nor their public agent had any |
absolute right to deduct the usual commits
sion from the amount of the awards. What
compensation may have been allowed by |
government to other agents abroad for SER |
wees OF similar nature, and whether
there has been any other similar case, we
cannot say. But it appears, by accounts
published during the last session Of Congress,
that Tor services rendered about the same
time Q802 to7) and at the same place.
the commission allowed 70 the navy agent
at London was at the rate OF two per cent.
The rcsDectable house .of Nick en,i- ,od