The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-06-18
ior p son.ds. u % .ay ss Iss.. .qal.abIs ma Asl il

ought 70 be allowed,
i "a. r. HETZEL.
i Captain and Assistant Quarlsrmaster."
i This IS memorandum which Capt Hetxel himself rem
ders to the Treasury Departments and OF that immense
amount Of money winch 'na, gentleman expended in the
cent has he failed to for but every dollar was
returned into the treasury And he did not even de-
mand payment for these extra services but merely made
memorandum, with view TO turnit to Congress to
be adjusted principles OF equity and justice and there
ever was case Of the kind entitled 70 indulgence this is
one; and especially when ecolleci that he has left
dependant widow with some two or three children, who
were entirely dependant for support upon hs services
which he rendered 10 his country. and in which be died
This, sir claim which is equitably due, and which
we are bound in justice 10 pay; II,
Mr.. HALE. ask the indulgence of the Senate while
read this law which alluded to little while ago.
SIC. g. And Be further swaeted, That officer In any
branch OF the public service o. any person whose salary
Or whose pay emounents Is OF are fixed BY law and
saon In any form whaleve for theidlsburement of the
public money or Tor the performances q any other service
authorized by law. fa Ea
| remember something about the abuses which this
law intended to remedy have already suggested
and besides that, remember that claim got up
about this tme when treasury notes issued, and
the Register and Treasurer had filed claims charging cent
by ess
whether it s in this act not) Congress inserted this
provision, intended to meet Of this sort cut off
act, and would apply to all that had taken place
before as well as after s passage because does not
alter the law but says they shall not receive such extra
compensation, unless is allowed by law. There is
petence that there any law allowing them, and this
act was intended expressly 10 cut off these aowan-
| ces. Aa
Mr.. DAVIS. Of Mississippi. The senator from New
Hampshire is partly correct, but he has fallen into
great error It is true that the provision Of the law
considered founded upon law, upon past customto
stop disbursng discussing officers IRON charging per-
cenage on disbursements practice WHICH had grown
Iinn aVil Ruf ha Maui
is not perfectly informed Of the facts Of the case In the
first place, no per centage 10 charged BY the widow Of
Captain Hetzel for the disbursements made BY him
quaItermaster twas for disbursements made when
moving Indians only that any per cenage was charged
II is therefore not case such as that contemplated by
disbursement OF property in his official capacity, but
upon disbursements which were extra Now, sir i is
in the remembrance OF every senator who hears that
athe close OF the Mexican We passed special act
which renewed this usage of per cenage to
paymasters who had been dsbursng accounts to volun
creating on account OF the hazard both before and after
the payment great confusion in the accounts and il was
extra official in the sense in which il was contemplated
when that provision of the law Of 1889 was passed
But again this officer, after the close Of this disburse
men under the custom of that day entitled to per
out his accounts and charged the per cenage. it would
have been paid over to him at Instead Of this he
nued to perform service in the proper line OF his duty,
accounts could be closed until he lost his life in that
vice. Them after the passage OF that law. bis widow Pc
toned Congress that they should give TO his bereayed
family the percentage charged in the account This dis
busement be 1t remembered, all occurred before the law
was passed which the senator from New Hampshire
quotes II is not, them properly within the restriction d
that law, except far as stopped the usage in regal
TO further payments; and now OF course when his widow
presents her account to the Treasury Department she
answered by the law which the senator from New Hamp
shire read II is for that very that she comes
Congress Ifiwas clear claim under the law why shoult
she be herei Widows and orphans Of officers who sacrfc
their lives in the service OF their country allowed
nothing and il is well known that the pay OF officer
in the army too small to enable them leave anything
They are not upon such footing as 70 pay during Their
service az to enable them TO provide for their millcs
after DEATH This consider is case in which equity.
and not law, should be considered II is to the Senate
she comes 70 ask equity and not the legitimate consider
i Mr.. SEWARD inquired what was the amount OF the
salary which the officer receiving at the timcl
Mr. DAVIS. He was receiving the pay OF quarternas-
Ter or captain, which was about 81 500. ~
Mr.. UNDERWOOD thought fwould be unjust to give
this law OF 1889 retrospective operation, because Il
would permit great many TO retain what they had
ceved, and cut of others who equally entitled He
did not think any distinctions ought TO be made
% who aid no ss
their per centage. doubt whether you can find three
cases. do not know OF one.
| Mr.. UNDERWOOD. That is precisely the thing was
Mr. Davis though, the senator said il would bring
a great many forward with claims
their per centage the time egsaied upon the sub
ject in 1889 We thought was abuse to be corrected;
but design nj the time 10 make the law operate
prospectvely and not retrospectvely; and my remark
was that If you give il retrospective operation in this
case, you viii be toerating and sanctoning what has
been done in the OF those who have received the
money and refusing il to others, and therefore will be
making distinction and in this particular you
would discriminate against the gentleman who from the
facts stated here himself in most humble point
OF viewa gentleman who has said, although the pfac
iice has been allow these per ceniages will not retain
what entitled 10, but make my memorandum oil what
consider myself entitled TO, and leave II TO Congress 10
allow il afterwards" Now, do not censure the execu
tive department in refusing this allowance under the law,
because the law does not discriminate between Proepec
tive and retrospective action II 10 general and declares
that IL shall not be paid They have taken the letter OF
properly under the law; but cannot refuse to make
his payment without, making the unjust discrimination
that have adverted TO- therefore disposed TO pay
the claim according the old practice and enforce this
law in other that may occur in future.
No amendment having been offered, the bill was then
reported TO the Senate and the question stated ordering
Mr. WALKER asked for the yeas and nays. which
/ Mr. BENTON had single word 10 say in relation to
this claim He knew the merits OF this oicer and That
they great He had discharged faithfully the services
which he called upon to render 70 hrs country, and
had died in that service, leaving small family greatly IN
want He would therefore most cordially vote Tor the
payment Of the claim.
Mr. SEWARD. II is perhaps proper that should say
that concured with the committee IN recommending
this BILL and did upon the ground taken by the honor
able senator from Kentucky [Mr UspERwooDl who has
addressed the Senate Ii ia merely placing this officer