The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-09-10
MINORITY REPORT.

IMMUNITY REPORT.
There is, in the opinion of the undersigned, SC.
rious and important objection TO the resolutions
der which the committee organized, and ALEC,
and more especially, to all the proceedings of the
committee as well where they do, as where they
do not, conform To the resolutions namely a de
ect OF power on the part of the House to take jurs-
dlction OF the subjects referred to in the and
tor the purpose here attempted.
In order To present the point fairly and distinctly
To the House, IL is necessary to premise that the
several inquiries not referred to their appro-
pirate standing committees, who examine the car
rying out of the laws by the several officers execu
tive and Judicial, with view TO future legislation,
as was the in the investigation of the General
Post Office by the Committee ON the Post Office and
Poet Roads Of the Senate, which led to the reorgani-
zaton OF that department by the act of July 1886
Nor Is this case In which an officer is charged
with mgh crimes and Inisdemeanors, and com
mittee directed to investigate the charges with a
view TO impeachment. 1t does not come within
either OF these wel-known classes of cases. But
IN this select committee ia raised and by the first
three resolutions is directed to inquire and report
whether the Secretary OF the Interior rcopened and
allowed three several claims after they had been
adJudged by the proper accounting officers. The
committee hereupon go into an examination of
the several cases, and report their opinion Of the
law and TACT concerning them, and express a hope
that their report will reform the practice of the de-
partmcnt in future, but conclude by no resolution
recommending Legislative action upon any one of
the cases.
1t will, in the opinion of the Undersigned be APP
parent to every one, upon n bare statement of the
substance Of the resolutions and of the report, that
the whole proceeding is unauthorized, and clear
usurpation OF power not conferred by the Constitu-
ton 1t is case in which executive officer has,
III the discharge Of duties imposed upon him by
law, examined and decided upon certain claims;
and committee Of the House is appointed, who, by
something like appeal or certiorari, bring the
eral before II for its consideration, and
examine and reverse the decision of the execu-
tive officer.
Now, cannot admit that either House Of Con-
gress, a committee of either House. has any such
power. They have no right to examine into the
decision Of an executive judicial officer, to the
end merely of opposing their judgment his.
They have no right to direct his mode of proceed
ing, or the principles which his judgment shall
be governed-the law making power may do this
by law, but no branch OF that power is entitled,
without law, to dictate interfere with executive
or Judicial action. Such has been distinctly and
solely the action of the majority of the committee
an this case They propose no legislative action;
they charge no high crime or misdemeanor; they
simply oppose their opinion on matters of law "
that OF the Attorney General and of the Secretary
OF the Interior, and express hope that the rule of
action which they lay down for the government of
those high executive officers may be followed by
them in future.
We have said that the Constitution confers no
such power on the House of Representatives its
committee. The first section of the first article
provides that all Legislative powers herein granted
shall be vested In Congress of the United States.
by the second article, "the Executive power" is
vested in PRESIDENT" and, by the third article,
'the judicial power" Is ''yested in Supreme
Court &c. And in the case of Martin Us. Hun
ter's lessee, Wheaton, 304, the court says, 1.-The
object OF the Constitution was to establish three
great departments of Government-the legislative,
the executive, and the Judicial departments. The
first was to pass the laws, the second 10 APP
prove and execute them, the third to expound
and enforce them"
No one doubts the correctness of this exposition
OF this great conservative principle of our Consttu
tion-the absolute separation and independence
from each other OF its three great departments and
the necessity, if we would preserve that Constiu-
ton invioiate OF guarding with care against the
encroschment OF any one of these departments upon
the powers and duties of the others. And there is
no less violation of that instrument from legislative
than from executive usurpations The constitution
of England was lees destroyed, OF their government
less OF IA despotsm when the command of the army
was assumed by the Parliament, than when the
king, without the consent Of Parliament levied
taxes in the form ofship- money.
And in the opinion OF the undersigned, the az
sumption OF this supervisory power over the Execu-
tive Departments Is not only against the spirit OF
the Constitution, but, if sustained must tend to in
Jure and impair the harmony of our system, and
especially the proper administration of these de-
partmcnts. Members of the House Of Representa-
uyes are not always selected with a view TO their
administrative judicial talents; and the contests
which arc constantly going in the political arena
here, tend httle 10 prepare the minds Of men for
the calm consideration and appreciation Of test-
1nony, or OF legal principles, for the fair and i'm
or conduct OF political adversary is involved.
Indeed, cases might arise in which members, ac-
iuatcd by resentment, either personal political
would be forward IN presenting charges for the very
purpose Of being placed on the committee TO Judge
them. In our opinion, the character Of an execu.
tive and Judicial officer ought not TO be subjected
10 the judgment or censure Of such i'll constituted
and irregular tribunals nor ought the rights Of our
citizens TO be prciudged by their action.
Having presented this general view OF tho subject
the undersigned will now proceed in detail " the
consideration OF the various branches Of the in
qsiry.
THE BARRON CASE.
Before considering the legal questions involved
IN this branch OF the inquiry the undersigned deem
improper 10 express their dissent from a Concus
OF Tact proiesscd TO be derived by majority OF tho
committee from the evidence, viz That the com
putation Of interest upon interest, which occurred
IN the case Oi Commodore James Barron, and three
other cases, was "mode" which was aadopted bv
the Secretary OF the Interior" ''Thc undersigned
find nothing IN the to support tho assumption;
on the contrary, the contemporary evidence max.
ing the gesi0 distinctly and absolutely dsprove
IT. The mode Of calculation was an error Of the
accounting officer, in matter which, in the rcgu-
lar course OF business, not supervised by the
Secretary, and IL was corrected by him immediate
ly upon the error being discovered. On this point
INC undersigned respectfully request the attention
VI the House 10 the evidence.
The Of John NJ. Gait TO which the demo-
sttion OF Albion X. Paris refers was founded on
judgment rendered in Virginia. The case was re.
lcftti inc secretary 10 inc Attorney General.
on the question whether the claim came within
the third section Of the act OF July >, 1882. The
Attorney General gave IL ne his opinion that il did
come within that act, and the Secretary sent the
opinion To the Commissioner Of Pensions his |
rule Of action ia that and all similar cases. No
thing was said Of the mode of calculating interest
thus lar nor is there any TO suppose that it
was yet made question; the Oihcc itself |
sonably supposed to have its rules that sub
Jcct. The Commissioner OF Pensions thercupon |
made out his certificate, which, according 20 usage
was sent with the other papers from That office
70 the Secretary OF the Interior, aud signed by him
without examination. So he states in his letter 90 |
the committee, and such understand to be the |
pra'uce IN All The Department. where an ordinary
paper comes TO the Secretary with the signature Of
the head OF the appropriate bureau unless his at |
tcntton be specially called 10 H. Indeed this must
necessarily be the case Neither the Secretary of
the Treasury nor Of the Interior, could possiblv
read In the whole day all the papers which arc !
daily laid HE table for hs signature They SIGN
upon the faith OF the signature Of the proper ac |
counting or certifying oiicer; and there il no die
tnctiOn, either in thcoryor practice, between oertf
Gates founded decision Of the Attorney General
and those founded tho decision of the certify |
ing officer himself All alike laid on the table |
OF the Secretary for his signature, and there is no
conceivable reason why he should ever discrimi /
N lacf