The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-06-12

they had the legal authority make transfers they might
why have we not heard charges OF abuse Ike ths long
agol L
that these Transfers made under the act OF leo9s
! Mr.. PEARCE. Il appears SO from the papers,
/ Mr. HUNTER. ! made no question as to the power
OF transfer under that act know that the Secretaries
then had larger powers OF transfer than they have now
| Mr. PEARCE. This was done in 1888, after the ac,
of 1920 bad been passed
| Mr. HUNTER II that is the case admit that was
Mr.. PEARCE That is the senator's view OF the sub
jec will not undertake TO say that was an abuse
agree with the senator so far as that goes A legal
power may be rghlaly used, and yet it might be
wise 70 check and correct Il. or even to take Il away IN
fact do not know that shall refuse to unite with the
senator in controlling this powers for think il is one
liable to abuse if not abused. think, IN times past II
there not abundant evidences that It's exercise has ap
preached abuse, has, at all events, been very question:
able whether the diversion OF such appropriation
the of which have just spoken, 10 the amount Of
$4,000 TO the contingent expenses oi the southeast sx
eculy& building, was not wrong think II thing maj
ongh to be corrected though, il the legal power rxiat N
cannot be called abuse being exercise Of power
conferred Yet il is thing which may lead to evil and,
all events it is bad precedent the power to do which
might we'll be restrained or modified
But sir these transfers under the act OF 1912 are SUBJ
| ject to grave complaints by the gentleman. He COM
plains of the exercise of that power by this admnisra
ton He has cited special instance OF it. But this ad,
mnistralon is not responsible for the construction OF
that act That act, as think showed The Senate be
fore. in its terms permanent law OF the country
think showed that gave to all the heads oil the differ
ent departments OF the government the power Of transfer
ring from head oil appropriation within the limlis Of
their departments to another within the limits OF the
same department l stated that this construction had
been given 70 BY every n since ls passage
that in 154s Mr. Secretary Walker had so construed 1t
that this administration, in adopting that constructions
which seemed TO me reasonable aud proper one, had
done nothing for which they were justly liable
proach that proper sound, legal construction OF the
law contemplated such exercise OF power, and that
this power had been exercised by preceding admins
| trailons.
Now will refer the Senate the first example have
been able to find OF transfer under the act OF 1912 r
Wilkins, being then Secretary OF War, addressed tnis
letter to the Compiroer
No. 2os Transfer treasury appropriation warrant Janua
in b lin by the 2sd section Congress Of August
26 1872, authorized transfer of appropriation, You are
the books Of the treasury which relates The receipts aud
expenditures Of The United States, under the appropriation
Compensation the clerks and messengers in The office OF
The Commissioner Of Pensions onds. e. .do The item
For two messengers in said office, at 5000 each
| d.
To contingent expenses of the Pension Office under the
For extra clerk hire $1,000
Here is a direction 10 transfer from appropriations to
clerks and messengers the office OF the Commissioner
OF Pensions under the item Tor TWO messengers 10 SAID
Office $500 eacSl 900 10 the contingent expenses Of
The Pension Ofice THIS one of the most questionable
transfers know Of Ii was transfer 10 The eoatia-
gent expenses OF Office OF which Congress are always
Justly suspicious find that. on July 30 sl5, similar
order was passed is foadem verbs Then transfer was
made of appropriation from the pay OF clerks and mes
sengers in the office OF the Solicitor OF the Treasury to
the OF the contingent expenses of that oce Again,
4 find that the 25h Of September S47. the order being
preceded by precisely the words which have read,
OF the public lands and appropriated the contingent
penses of the Office OF the Commissioned OF the General
Land Office The same thing was repeated. IN the same
form exactly on February 10, S4s February 2s, lsis,
Mr. HUNTER | would ask the honorable senator
Il these all OF transfer 10 the barean.
which Mr., Attorney General Johnson said was perhaps
i Mr. PEARCE think not. Here is transfer OF an
appropriation for The survey OF public lands and the
objects TO which il was transferred follow
For delraying the expense preparing, printing &c,
aud issuing and stock per twentieth secaon
OF act 25th Jannafy. 1917 F"
That is not the same bureau, take it. Then there is
another transfer from The fund, "io contingent
pense, OF The southeast executive building"
Mr.. HUNTER. suspect that that is in the same bu-
i Mr. PEARCE. understand that the southeast exec
uve building is the one which the government rented
from Mr. Corcoran and il that is so. the General Land
Office is not there. dnd, again, that appropriation
for the salaries OF the clerks and messengers the office
OF the First Auditor OF the Treasury transferred 10
the contingent expenses OF The office OF The First Au
dtor
All these are constructions given TO the OF 1si9 by
the gentleman who preceded this administration. When
an act, about The terms OF which there cannot, think
be any - doubt-whaeyer doubt there may be 10
its proph has been passed. and has received without
question so far as know, uniform, practical con-
sirucon from the different heads OF departments oi
different administrations, is II the duty OF admnisra
ton coming into power after the lapse OF number o
years TO that construction do not speak OF
palpable usurpation. There be no doubt that any
administration would be bound to condemn that Nor dc
speak OF where the construction is extreme ly
doubtful that most men, majority of men
would say that was wrong one but say that when
has been passed in such terms the act of 1912
which have read to the Senate, and heretofore com.
mened on which is general in lis TERMS and which "a
not restricted by express language, or by any necessary
application 10 limited time-which seems to confer
without limit stint upon the heads OF departments
the power of transferring appropriation under
head TO another head and when that has been
practsed on by two different administrations and
eral different Secretaries, how could this adminsra
ton justify itself even for putting different construc
tion upon ii! Why, IL could not do so, unless II
meant TO charge all these officers who have pracised
under the construction which the senator from Virginia
Ii they believed that they intelligent men, that they
were of integrity they might very well rely the
usage which they bad established just and reasonable
without rendering themselves liable TO the charge oil
abuse which their predecessors bad escaped Aud they
could scarcely such construction and condemn
the practice under il without implying directly that those
who preceded them altogether incompetent TO un-
derstand the law, dishonest 10 its execution
Now, sir, l. for one, do not think that these gentlemen
were either Incompetent or dishonest. apprehend tha
they intended TO make fair and reasonable construction
of the act and 10 exercise only such powers under az
the law intended 10 confer upon them.
Ii gentlemen agree with in this how can any kind
OF reproach expressed Implied, be cast upon this adj
havi hnvp