The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-03-02

n. and
snn s, discussion the whole subject The alleged
ns bee committed BY executive officers Of the govern
mrul Ia relation 10 fund Of which hai government was a
twas due To- lhe ohickassws that they
"aad be il, gated noi by The nieer who had
nmisd the errors eut w The judicial tribunals Of the
,1Ion Numerous nsa hcss could be cited whore these
nan.s had been v-ss~d with similar bosh
nv. nd ard money under treaty slpulslous. LylIi Gle
he sa.s u Florida. where millions ws,s Esid epoG lhy
ss.id single ,sohs sdse "a, Y" .hs ssG Dc, o. Feb
a. liz Hon.e authorizing suits 10 be broaghs against the
r.,rd states by the Chioks.aw as,oa annex copy OF
,a. e a,SrS from Inc United States BUT what was subiec,
eyeresi Judicial scrutiny and that so far from pro-
Jns for drawing any portion OF the sums adjudged DO
aH he Chickasaws the bill expressly they
hl he .bed and disposed OF ny Ihs United States, sub
-, ~ m. trusts spec lied in said treaties -
~. rours as the power OF the commissioners 10 make
@ with ana look 70 the nation ana It's author
ia gents carry II out #t1#
into this elaborate examination OF this
m reasons that be obgoas 70 every one was due
w nv,sl as we'll the people OF California, who have
.c,sd me 10 represent them in the Senate Of the United
states that any impa,eon upon my acts And character
n,li he az il now il, fully answered and hope may
DO permitted . - ''~' WILLIAM M GwIN
nv" House Of Representatives.
WASHINGTON Cry, August -, 1886,
s,, Az the agent OF The Chckssaw nation, addressed
n latter on the Aprt S46. setting forth aud prov
ny af<at and salpabr IN charging certain provis-
ions purchased Cincinnati IN the spring Of 1887 10 the
~ yonr letter orhe 10 Of April 1886. you referred my
COMMUNICATION The secretary Of War; stating your
ysys is follows it appea 10 me thar COM
n,ed ia the former aoo" Ut the accounting odices in
coansHon with the officer, OF ne war department. ba'
ar examination and suggestion bofore any action 10 II
,s The whole is, therefor submitted to you with re-
o.rst that YOU will do ihe honor to express views
Il i. manifest. then. thai fully salided aud so
Aasred hat conmirted In the former action OF
sccountihg officers in connexion with the officers OF the
War Department" -I .E gaifar ". rsas
DIV to your communication. gave his views as follows
Ethnk that this account so far as 1t has been acted
having this depursen' aud there being power
marc 10 do than The vouchers and accounts
an administrative exaGat.oa, not settlement, have
Official authority N Jug s Su, r. r. ne
ng officers Of the satisfied hat an error has
BEEN committed ought % be corrected unless there e
matter Whistler such. prohibition 10 imposed BY the
ih section Of the law ~aeh B ls5 is question which
. decide In lsxsrdlh. 4aes,foh Ills not my duty 10,
am prepared, 10 exp,ess n'opnion.' z 90 q,
II clear then, that hs Secretary Of ar entertans and
expressed the opniou Thar only the right but the
duty of osrrs this error, unless
ISIS" His language strong and emphatic with the
fully before him, that except Tor this 4th section, the
accounting officers tina, error been com
mtsd ought to be cor.c,ed He also states BY whom
his correction shoad be ,.ad-, namely not by himself
Su roe bs liza VIII ns ~
tho Second Comptroller, the Secretary OF the Treasn
~ to confer with him upon tho matter THE call ws'
made by you upon the s@crotary OF the Treasury, q
Standing at the head Of Your department, and consu
ts,ed by law the OF this very Chckaaw fund In
view the Secretary ct ,he Treasury nAked both OF you
whether the tAct-. stated my letter before referred
were Lsiozs ihe accounting oGers of the treasury wher
this error w.s codmited 10 which il was replied tina
commed; stating, further, that such facts had bsoI
before them At that lime, the account would not have been
The Sscrsay comforting and Insulting with boti
Of you for some tune, came TO the conclusion, In whoi
by him. shsr screv,ry OF the Treasury
Of the Cnckasaw fund.- bar by yourselves the prope
accounting officers Of the treasury aIs consulting the SEC
Treasury called your attention. however, TO the 4th sec
of the act OF the 81 March. 1885, and expressed m
opinion might perhaps be foand TO in,erpose bar
rier any inquiry inio me matter. You then consulted
the Secretary Of War. and obtsined his reply befors
stated Here ,hea, wrfe ms concurfing opinions Of The
Secfe AIRY tbs Treasury. OF the Secretary OF War, and
proper accounting officers Of the treasury that ih
les, .nrh correction was prohibited BY The 4h section Of hs
of the 81 of March, l51-hai section being the only
On the 2lH day Of April IslJ you addressed the Secre
ny Of the rseasary on TN. requesting h 70 obair
the opinion Of the Aons General on the single point
&h ssction Of the o. Tie I'd OF March, 1885, prohibited
the correction OF this To the inquiry Of the Secre
OF the Treasury to this question OF the Auof
ney General in letter addressed the Secretary, daed
April D. 1915 replied giving a. his opinion. " ost n,
9Th the the I'd March, 1873, Inhibited s
oil tins errorg' -ff.s r'fft ert Il 7sEl"
The opinion Attorney General against the openns
ibis loprt s.cuon; Tor he ,ays Ain the qne,os
submitted, therefore, am influenced by envy opnoE
OF belief thai there no such error As snxgesed but ar
confined the inquiry whstber the account oil the Chick
asaw fund Kept the treasury within the provisions o.
the section oil the under confederation IL clear then
that but tot this fourth section Attorney General per
celved obstacle to tho opening OF this account seem
to me also apparen, that the questos Was recog
missed AID perceived by the Attorney General for be USE
the Glowing emphatic language thar subject Wis ar
not Influenced by any opinion or belief that there Is no
sugg-sted IL Is manifest them that the Secfrtuf
Secretary AtiOfney
ers and the accounting officers OF the all
opinion, in April lst thar this ought corrected
and that then certainly would have been corrected but 10
is4e y '"' - y
My attention was called by you to the following psssag
IN the opinion OF the Supreme Court of the United Sta
conta med IN Is Peters, pages 400, 4l, as iolowsf
ne tbifd tnstrucuon asked the coutt TO sny, smon
oher thng ifthe credits given by Mr. Barry wefe tor ex
ira allowances which The sad Postmaster General no
legally authorized TO allow, then Il the du'y OF tbs
present Postmaster General dsaoY oil red,i
The successor OF Mr. Barry had the power, and M
more han his predecessor, and the power OF the iome
did not extend 10 the recall OF credits or allowances mad
ny Mr. Barry, II he acted within the scope Of official au
oiy siyeu by law to the head of department Thi
tsn ia an Incumbent Of reviewing predecessors deci-
on eisnds 10 mistakes in maucrs Of Fact aring from en-
os OF caeuson add 10 ofrclecied claims IN whie
Material testimony afterwards dir and produced
Sow this decision Is clearly In favor OF the feopentbg
nus account The Postmaster General who subscribed Mr.
barry had corrected allowed by Mo Barry, ans
be court ssyi 1.-THE OF Mr. Barry bad the M
poNt and 10 more Than his predcccssof and the power
e ofnet did not extend recall oil credits or allow
snces made by Mi Barry, " he acted within the scope
onch authority given b. law the nd of the depart
am,l uefe q enphaucaiy decided by the highes
ecl We errors made in by h. predecessor tb
sne power that possessed by the Postmaster Genera
Wo Committed the error and that Postmaster Genera
nush had he same power Postmaster General Bsr
~ nofiecl al made by the latter Tb. principle
efs settled that tho OF accounting Officers
soana o dePsnmeu, acting IN the cspsciy Of an nc
oihcsr has the sans power To correct The srfo'
preceding officers ~ that possessed by The oflic-f b.