The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1846-05-30
sty, with reference to the organiraton and scien-
cy OF the army, Of its passage.

Mr. b. then directed his attention TO the amend
ment Of Mr.. A. Johnson, proposing TO strike out the
second section Of the BILL which repeats the act OF
1920, limiting the term of Office to -four years. Mr.. b.
vas opposed to it. He referred to the serious in
convenience which had been felt from the operation
OF the law. The paymaster was a military officer,
subject TO the rules and articles of war; and to trial
and punishment by court martial He was not a
civil officer when the army was in the heldj and
none Of the anaogies which found so much favor
with some of his MIR. B.'s) democratic friends APP
piled TO an officer Of this kind. IL was an anomaly
10 The military system that officer strictly militia
ry should 60 out Of Office at the end Of four years
and he took leave to say that he differed essentially
from some Of the sentiments and Arguments he had
heard here. He had supposed that public Offices
public trusts; created for the benefit Of the peo
pie, and that the mere understrappers and hangers
| on Of party were not to be provided for by their
creation. He maintained that they were created
for the efficiency and benefit Of the public service
and he knew no better qualification for public Off
Ger than capacity for his duty. He did not recog-
Mise the principle that public Offices were made for
party favorites or for men,
| The President had an unrestricted power Of remo-
val in the Of these officers. any Of them
incompetent, therefore, they might at any time be
dismissed. He trusted that tho clause, as 1t stood
in the bill, would he retained
| Mr.. ATKINSON was an ardent friend Oft Pres
dent Of the u s., and his administration, and was IN
favor OF giving them all the necessary means TO
carry on this war with yigori but he had yet TO
learn that il was desired by them that this bill should
pass without amendment. He would not say one
word against the appointment of additional pay
masters. He had most profound respect for the
opinion of the Committee on Military Affairs, and
the Secretary Of War This measure was recon-
mended by them. He should therefore vote to
authorize the appointment OF those additional pay
masters.
But he wholly protested against the section which
proposed to repeal much Of the act Of 1920, as
limits the appointment Of these officers to four
years. He went to hold all public officers to strict
accountability and responsibility, and this House
could not be too rigid In enforcing this stricness
upon those who have charge Of our monetary al
fairs When this section Of the act Of 1920, which
they now sought TO repeal, was passed, we were
but recently out OF a war. We had passed glori.
ously through the war Of 1872 and during this
time and down to 1920, these officers had not been
appointed and their bonds renewed every four years
That Congress-for good reasons undoubtedly
made this limitation. Since that time, this provl-
sion of law had worked well. No evils had result
ed from 1t; and the Paymaster general told them,
in his report which had been referred to- that there
were none Of these paymasters who wished reap
, pointment but had received it.
Mr. BURT (Mr. A. yieldng) stated that the act
Of 1920 passed after the close of the war, and
reduced the establishment OF the army. During
the war, and up to 1890, there was no limitation OF
the tenure ofthe Office, and there never had been
in time Of war.
Mr.. ATKINSON (conlinuing) assented to the
explanation of The gentleman. 20 years had
elapsed (he said) since the passage Of that law it
had worked well, and no evils had resulted from it.
Why then, were they now called upon in hot haste
to repeal III
But it important that the law should continue
as il was now. The plea for it's repeal was that
although under the bill, reported, these officers
were appointed for life they were nevertheless re-
, sponSbh TO the President, who was at liberty to
Mt he NJ al nd
was required TO do so once in four years, and who
could discharge them at pleasure. To this Mr.. A.
replied that the President Of the United States had
more officers now in Washington than he can watch
over; and fhis duties were thus to be increased in
relation TO these paymasters in Texas, Louisiana
and Oregon, neither Mr. Polk or any other man
could attend them. He referred to the practice
under similar law in his Stale and to the general
knowledge Of gentlemen for the fact that no public
officer is ever called upon TO renew his bonds,
except the matter is brought forward by some per-
son who shows they are insecure. The President
would presume that all fair until the contrary
was shown.
Mr. A. advanced other and additional arguments
in favor Of striking the second section OF the BILL
and of leaving this provision Of the law of 1890 to
stand at present, contendng that absolute
ly necessary-6rst, for the security Of the govern
men and next for the safety of the securities them
selves, that these disburing officers should execute
their bonds periodically.
E1e replica 10 tne argument OF the paymdster
general and Of gentlemen in this House. in favor of
the repeal Of the present limitation of the tenure Of
these Offices, founded the Inconvenience and det
rment 10 the that might arise from their being
obliged TO leave their distant posts while they re-
paired to Washington or elsewhere to renew their
bonds, stating that they might be renewed by COM
municating powers of attorney to individuals the
ground and thus this difficulty be obviated. He al
so urged the difficulty illustrated by past expert.
ence of the government of dscharging men from Of
n fee or abolishng their Office when the occupants
are appointed without limitation of term. Let the
patriots who were ready to their country in
these Offices know when they appointed that
it was only for the war, and let the existing mita-
ton Of law concerning those already in Office con-
, tinue
Mr.. McHENRY advocated the repeal of the law
OF 1920 relative to paymasers proposed by the ed
section of the bill y as tending to render the army
more efficient than it was under the present regula
ton. He adverted to the inconvenience and detri-
ment to the service occasoned by the expiration of
the term of office and the necessity for the officer to
abandon his duties to procure security and
urged the propricy Of this repeal not account Of
the benefit or convenience Of individuals, but of the
service, expressing willingness to adopt all necessa-
ry measures to its efficiency.
n Mr.. JEFFERSON DAVIS said there were two
positions trken in relation to the bill which he
thought incorrect: first that it became necessary
from the war existing with Mexico second, that it
was designed to relieve the paymasters from oppres
sve duty. By referring to the report of the pay
master general, which accompanied the Presidents
message at the commencement of this session of
Congress, it will be found that before this war
commenced, and in reference to the then condition Of
the army an increase of the paymasters was desired
and In the close of his report convincing statement
was made of the necessity of an assistant paymaster
general-not, az has been assumed, to reside here
but to superlntend payments in the military dis
trIct OF the southwest and this enforced by the
fact that he was then compelled to station senior
paymaster at headquarters Of the army in Texas to
discharge the duties Of assistant to the paymaster
general. Sir it is not to relieve the paymasters
from fatigue, but to insure prompt and regular pay
If the number of paymasters be half Of those requ-
red to make payments to the army at the regular
periods, which is every two months, it follows that
the payments will be delayed and occur every four
or every six months. The hardship would fall en-
p ofKcera ,rha thnru nd