The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-05-16
CITY OF WASHINGTON THURSDAY MORNING, MAY ls 1850.

! COngfeSs SuC1
error as this they had been put out OF their proper place
and thus claims of this natue oil twenty years standing
might be brought forward
Mr.. DAVIS Of Mississippi This question has been
brought before the commiee on Military Affairs at
former period II was considered at the last session. and
reported ayoraby upon and the committee this session
has reported this bill, and accompanied il with very
brief report stating that they consider the petitioner as
rghtfuy entitled to his pay Adutant General OF the
army. This snot isue, OF those complete cases in
which no argument can be offered II is nue stated
by the senator from Louisiana, Mr.. Dowssl that the
duties not performed BY this officer still, il is very
far short Of such case as he supposes The case was
this: Two Adjutant Generals acted during the du
ring the peace establishment the number reduced TO
one "A construction put upon the law OF reduction in
duced the President not 10 nominate either Of the two
who bad been IN office, but 70 appoint third person
The Senate consrung the law differently, and as author
zng the President TO discharge and retain one,
ected the nomination Of the third person and thus the
several years. during which time Adutant General Jones
fell back into the subordinate station OF captain OF the
4arnley, where he served about three years. when his
nomination for the higher Office made by the ncom
Ling President and confirmed by the Senate He claims
now that he Adjutant General throughout the whole
period during which he was denied the right OF perform
ing his duty and ordered to perform the subordinate
functions OF captain OF the artillery II he was general
throughout the whole periodand the fact that no one
equitable right pay The right Of compensation Of an
officer OF the army measured by the station man oCcu
pies, not by the duties he performs and in no case can
deprive officer Of the pay to which, by virtue OF his
Office he is entitled because he has not performed those
duties think, therefore, that this bill presents and
claims compensation for that which he is legally and
Tightully entitled TO- As stated before there OBJ
jcctons but the objection urged BY the senator from
louisiana that ought not to pay for services not
tually rendered, is not sufficient for the reason
that this officer was denied the right to perform those
duties.
Mr.. SEWARD inquired what became Of the other Ad-
jutant General'
| Mr.. SEWARD. So there was but one person claim
ing this office at the time
construction OF the Senate; but according to the Pres
dents constructions there was none who had right to
Mr.. SEWARD That is perfectly satisfactory to me.
and see no objection 10 the claim
Mr.. FOOTE i will not deiain the Senate, except
simply to state that have given some attention TO this
and thai have IN y power O say a
connexon with this matter There can be no sort OF
doubt. think Of the propriey of our sustaining this
claim II appears be fact sustained all sides that this
officer was ready if he had been allowed 10 exercise the
authority vested in him by law, and perform his duties,
but that the opportunity Of performing those duties was
not afforded to him.
Mr. DOWNS. II seems to me that there is one state
ment made by the chairman of the Committee Military
Affairs which makes The objection to this claim much
stronger than understood IT TO be at first had sup
posed that this officer resumed his Office after il had been
decided that he was entitled TO that office, without new
commission. But il seems now that he was nominated
and confirmed BY the Senate at the commencement OF
Mr. DAVIS. Of Mississippi With the consent Of my
friend from Louisiana, will state that point There
were two Adutant Generals during the war. The law
required that there should be but for the peace esab
shment Ii held by the Senate that the President
must nominate Aduant General for the army from the
that then The President held that be should
not be obliged 10 nominate of them. That was the
whole controversy between the Senate and the Execu-
Mr. DOWNS What mean is this: that during that
time there was Adutant General The Senate refused
to confirm the nominated BY the President, and the
consequence was, that there Adutan General at
all three
in, Adjutant General Jones nominated and confirmed
for the first time If that is the case il strange to
me that Aduian General Jones should claim pay for
Office he did not hold till he confirmed That makes
the much stronger. He comes in now, under new
title, holds his Office under commission, and then
claims compensation for three years before he
missoned. That certainly makes the much stronger
than at first supposed 1t was and cannot vote for H.
Mr.. DAVIS, OF Mississippi will only remark, in an
swer, that il hardly be called new commission,
when the nomination based upon the consideration
OF the Senate that the nomination must be from the two
Adjutan Generals that were IN the army II was nomi
nation in conformity with the act Tor the reduction OF the
army and must not be considefeda nomination or
new commission, but designation by the President
OF which Of these two-from which he must make the
selection-he would select The thing the in
all the departments OF the army, in the nomination OF
majors, captains &c, for the peace establishment Of
which some resign, some decline the new COMMISSION
Mr. HALE. shall vote for this bill, though do not
always vote for such claims this; but do II out OF the
great Difference entertain for my friend who reported il
upon my mind think that, by passing this bill, we
shall 90 great way in vindicating the action OF the
Senate in rejecting a nomination sent 10 the Senate by
the President in conravenon OF the expressed will OF
the Senate, what their right 10 regulate the non
nation is That, sir, think very important principle
think that the Senate, being part of the appointing
power should retain that power 10 their hands and IL
there should be any nomination pending before this body
when we 20 into executive session. do know that
there will bebut il there should be where
the Senate has expressed opinion, hope that the
Senate as one man-whatever Is their individual opn
onwil stand by and vindicate the right and power OF
the Senate this nominating power OF the President II
is upon that ground tha most heartily for this object
trust that in the commitice-I know that II will be
whenever case comes up analogous TO this, there
will be that feeling of regard for the Senate, and the
maintenance of the privileges OF the Senate and that
the Senate will adhere TO the principles adopted in this
bill, and up 10 carry II out in all cases
that may come before them This is another reason,
and must say a strong reason, why 60 for this bill
II is to vindicaie the right and power OF the Senate and
hope our friends will stand up in vindcaton oil this
principle.
Mr.. DAWSON. As member OF the committee, and
one who concurred in that report, beg to make one
statement In 1871 the army reduced, and, as the
chairman Of the Committee Military Affairs correctly
states, the question was, whether Adjuant General Bat
Ter or Adiutant General Jones should be appointed.
Adjutant General Butler had been provided for The
question, then, was, whether Colonel Gadsden, who had
been presented the Senate BY the President or Aduant
General Jones, should be the individual for the Office
During this suspension before the Senate OF the United
States leaving undecided who the proper Adutant
General, Adjuant General Jones ordered OF TO
mand an artillery company. AT a subsequent period
after two or three yearshe Senate confirmed the APP
pontment Of Aduian General JONES' and he restored
bork -hufd darl ho ~