The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1849-02-09

what period Of time
Mr.. DOWNS. The time embraced in this act is some
ce,yed The faIl amount OF his salary.
MIR, HAMLiN. 1t requires about two thousand dol
lars then to supply the deficiency; and if that allowed
IT VIII bring his salary up to the maximum of IS 900
Mr. DOWNS; During that time he actually received
three thousand dollars and if the bill is passed he will
\ receive hve thousand dollars.
! Mr. TURNEY inquired OF the senator from Louisiana
whether or not the deh; in the postmascr's salary
owing to his increasing the salary Of his clerks during
/ Mr. DOWNS did not think it was The postmaster
mad probably increased the compensation but that would
not affect his own case. 1t was his own commission
ness IN the Office lie had not however, all the facts
the He had stated that his commissions instead of
amounting 10 two thousand dollars only six hun
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana stated that, il he was not
Mistaken there had been letter received from the Post
post office had been lessened This appeared well as
he could recolec from letter from the department He
remembered something to that effect Thus appeared
that so Tar from augmenng the expenses of the post Of
flee at New Orleans the postmaster had reduced them
| MIR. BRADBURY understood that the postmaster at
New Orleans, and also the postmaster in this city,
ceIved beyond the commissions the OF eight hundred
dollars; and that these were the only two exceptions in
The country There were reasons however, for these
exceptions i was stated the other day that the prece
dent. which the passage Of this bill would establish
would be very dangerous one in practice, there are
many postmasters whose compensation does not up
to The maximum allowed by law II has been said that
the postmaster at New Orleans expended large portion
OF his income in paying his clerks and that he there
fore entitled TO the relief proposed by the bill am utter
The duties performed by clerks beyond what is necessary
Whether this the in this instance do not
dertake to say The subject considered few days
ago, and disposed OF by decisive vote against the ball
hope that the vote will be taken upon it at once, in
order that may proceed TO the consideration OF the
bills upon the calendar. according the resolution
| Mr. TURNEY' inquired Of The chairman of the com
mee whether they had applied to the Post Office Depart
ment to ascertain what the facts in the case and
whether the postmaster at New Orleans had increased
the wages of his clerks not He would like 10 know
whether that was the case. He thought that was the
on pVas
to the proper department, which information would
bic them 70 decide in regard to the justice OF such claims
committees TO make this application. On reference
to the proper department. facts might be ascertained
which would throw new light upon the question, and
xether new case. When it was SO convenient to have
both sides heard it ought to be done, in order that they
might arrive at correct conclusion. He thought II
ought to be made the duty by The rules OF the body that
the committees should call upon the department obtain
all the information that could be obtained with reference
TO the justice of the application that is made He desired
to know if that application had been made the depart
ment; and if so, what information acquired.
Mr. NILES said that as all the facts were before the
committee there no necessity for any further nqui.
res II where there was controversy about
the facts The petitioner had asked to receive the maxi
mum allowed BY law for commissions. although he had
he had given for this that he had received but
small sum Of what he might have received if his COM
missions had been larger and his expenses less There
was nothing special in the case that should be made
exception to the general rule He believed it was found
ed upon what he considered wrong practice II had
amount to be retained He believed the facts were not So
but that the money had been kept back the postmaster
had refused T. portion Of a money due 70 the
one that ought TO be dscounenanced
Discussing agents Of the government could make claims
which the accounting officer could not allow, and then
keep back sum for the amount, and apply to Con
gress have the account settled and retain the money
their hands This man, he thought ought 70 have paid
Ssy yyoad . 1 Then him at to
claimed as his due. II perfectly simple case. Out
othe rents Of the boxes there was surplus shown; but
s ao
OF revenue were entirely independent and where tho
postmaster had received his maximum from one source
upon the box rents he did not that this strength
ened his claim at all TO make the maximum upon the
commissions On the contrary he should think that
the claim was rather weakened by this fact He had
small portion OF the amount allowed from the other II
he had not received his maximum upon TIE box rents he
should consider the case As much stronger l. the gov
but little receives from one Of the sources, toror,
they should make pp when little was received from
snes source ne was 10 ali
the full sum allowed by law for either commissions OF
box rents II the law was be set aside in this CASE they
might as well repeA IL ~ ONCE anu HdAo c PiCipio
general ,
Mr. RUSK remarked that he took view precisely the
reverse of that taken by the chairman of the Committee
on the POST Office and Post Roads The honorable chair
had taken the ground that the fact that
had retained the money was reason why the compen-
saton should not be allowed. On the contrary, he
should Judge that the fact that the postmaster was allow
ed TO retain the money proved concusvey that the Post
Office Department considered II valid clam. Inc
Postmaster had OF given bonds for the faithful
discharge of his dutes and the department could compel
him pay the amount and they were only eXcusaole
for doing upon the ground that they considered this
amount equitably dye by the government For some
to remain in the hands Of the postmaster, and this he
considered circumstance showing that they considered
him entitled it, He thought that they should look
over the tay legislation upon private CLAIMS the Senate
would not blame them for allowing him to retain the
money, rather than to pay over and then wait Tor the
action OF Congress.
Mr. DOWNS read extracts from the report made in the
House of Representatives, to prove that the chairman OF
the committee mistaken in his view Of the matter
Mr.. BERRlEN stated that the compensation IN this
case was regulated by law, and limited 10 $1,000 II
could not exceed that and to be derived from two
sources The government took TO limit the amount
of compensation, and then to stae the sources from
which il was to be derived The first source was the
commissions upon postage, and the second source was
the box rens which provided BY the posmaster'
themselves II the postmasiers had been allowed TO re-
ceve the full amount of the box rents, as had formerly
ground OF claim But, having required HIM to pay
over the excess above 5000 OF the rents received
from boxes provided in the post Offices, formerly the per
quises of the pOslmasters. seemed to him (r b. ha
il was PROFESSIONALLY just that the excess OF that sur
plus derived from the box rents should be allowed TO 81
he was entitled BY law. He understood from the repor
TINT tho OF the box would than max