The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1848-01-17

auire the whole time of the officers in the employment OF
the government; and he receives full compensation as
chief clerk do see why we should also pay him
Commissioners salary. | know there is one ilusrous
example 10 the contrary. refer TO the case OF Mr. But
Ter, who received compensation as head OF two depart
ments making his salary instead of five six thousand
amount TO ten or twelve thousand Congress PerceVhS
that this great abuse egisated on The subject ana
passed law, providing that thereafter THIS abuse OF ece
ing compensation for two Offices al the same time snail
not be practsed You have therefore, on the statute
legislative condemnation of the practice, which by his
bill, YOU attempting 10 introduce again III the law Is
wrong why repeal and go back to the Old pracice
of allowing double salaries, salaries Tor TWO onses
the same time hope the vote will not be h h as
asked for by Mr. BREEsE and 1t was read py INC oe'e
Mr. BREESE, The report goes fully into the merits of
this case sir 1t appears that Mr. Moore has been CHEF
clerk in the Land Oce for about andwenty years.
and that immense amount o. LABOR mas aeVoVed
upon him i'm consequence of his dschaSlhg the duties OF
Commissioner Ii is not proposed that he shall have the
salaries of the Offices given him, but that he shall
have the salary of Commissioner, deduchng that which
he would be entitled to receive chief clerk IL this
bill passes, he will not receive compensation tor the two
athough as he performed the duties of both Offices, he
should receive compensation for both) but as the
tnuous, but was performed at different times few days
at time, it is proposed to compute the amount OF service
rendered. and pay him accordingly AS chief clerk, Mr.
Moore has been for years exerng all his energies TO
protect the interests of the government, and has been
instrumental in one instance alone, without mentioning
other OF saving to the government several thousand
dollars. refer to the purchase OF parchment for the
use of the departments he has saved more to the gov
eminent in that one article than all the compensation
which he has received and all which is proposed to
give him. 1t seems but an act OF justice that he should
receive compensation Commissioner, and am sorry
to we ResTH Sess the :" the a o
ton point, of the honorable senator from Illinois
Nr. BREEsE The senator has referred to precedents
allowing the salaries of two different ofces to the same
person who had performed the daties of both; and if
heard correctly those presidents stated IN the re-
port of the committee have been able to make but
cursory peusal of the report OF the committee but am
under the impression that all the presidents there referred
to of allowances by the departments IN former years.
and not by Congress; There is wide difference |
would inquire if there is single instance IN which Con-
sress has sanctioned the allowance of double salaries!
have understood they have always refused it, and did
SO in President Monroes case If there is case Of such
allowance by Congress, hope it will be stated So far
from this being the have understood that the prac
tice of making such allowances were made mpro
pery to Mr. Butler and Others had become such an evil
II was about to harsher tem-such an lnquity.-
that in ls42 Congress passed an act positively forbid
ding such allowance. Congress doubtless acted the
principle that an officer owed all his time to the public IN
the office he regularly held according to the usages TO
the hours of service and that was incompatible for him
to hold permanently, and do the duties OF another and
ceve the salary of the highest Office that he did the duties
of but the law conempates that each office is to be fill
ed by different PERSONS and the respective duties done by
different persons 1t is violation of law for TO fill
both and do the duties OF both Officers are and are in
tended to be, checks on each other ! think TO make
the allowance in this case, would be to base upon
violation OF law and besides it would repudiae and dis
regard the principles of the act of 1872 which, think
Congress should rgidy adhere to. 1t was wise and
salutay law and its principles should not be dsregarded
MI BREESE The honorable senator is altogether
mistaken The act OF 1872 TO which he REFERS was only
meant prevent the treasury officers from making
pensaton for the duties OF two officers. 1t wasal very
right for Congress to forbid the officers of the treasury
from doing it, but here is that rests upon its own
merits, of individual who has spent the best energies
of his youth in the service of the government, and has
saved to the government thousands and thousands of dol
lars and who has performed the duties OF Commissioner
of the Land Office faithfully, and at the time the
duties of chief clerk, laborng necessarily and dragging
out miserable existence upon the mere pance OF chief
clerk of that office Sir it seems to me to be strong
case and one which appeals powerfully to our favorable
Mr.. BADGER feel bound to interrupt this discus
sion, ask the Senate to proceed with the special order
OF the day.
i Mr. BKEESE l hope the bill will be passed over in
formally, them so that may be taken up at an early
The bill was then passed over informally.
/ DoNIPHAN's EXPEDITION
Mr.. BRADBURY, from the Committee on Printing, to
whom had been referred the resolutions submitted on the
Sd instant by Mr. Benton for printing the tour memoir
of DR. Wslzenns reported that there be printed for the
ye ana oofs OF the me tour and that there
the same also two hundred for the use OF DIR. Wis
! lizenus
| The report was concurred in.
/ BARoUE CANTON
The VICE PRESIDENT signed the enrolled bill to
authorize the issuing OF register to the barque Canton
ADJOURNMENT
On notion was ordered that when the Senate adjourn
it be to Monday next
REGIMENT BILL.
\ The Senate resumed the consideration, its third
reading, of the bill to raise for limited time add
tiona military force.
| Mr.. PEARCE occupied the remainder of the day in
an elaborate argument against the bill and against many
of the positions taken by his colleague, [Mr r. JOHNSON
at the conclusion of which,
| Mr.. BADGER rose and signied his intention of ad-
dressing the Senate the bill under consideration.
| Mr.. JOHNSON of Maryland. ask the indulgence Of
the senator from North Carolina rise to put ques-
ton my friend and colleague to which hope he will
reply now, if he I'm; and if not, future time,
when he shall have reflected on the answer. If | am
right in my recollection, my friend was not here the
18th of May, 1885, when the law of that session passed
| Mr.. PEARCE assented.
Mr.. JOHNSON If am right, them as TO the opinions
of my colleague at that time if he had been here he
would not have voted for the law it passed If am
right to the which would have influenced him
in giving that vote it would have been because of the
preamble to that act The question wish to pro-
pound is-wheher he would have voted for that law
| without the preamble
Mr.. PEARCE. Yes: should have done so.
| Mr.. JOHNSON Just so.
! Mr.. PEARCE. But beg to say something farther.
1t was necessary that some military provision should be
made and the exigency seemed TO require very large
provision. Our army had been placed by the act of the
Executive, in position of great peril 1t was not for
10 say that that army should be sacrificed Not for a
hundred millions would have sacrificed one of its gal
liant officers, of its brave men, Perhaps | may
add that it is very likely that would have gone farther
then than now because had not then fully nvest-