The Washington union., 1857-09-26


Amiss and Caasas, Subjoined is the able opinion of
the Attorney General constituting the recent law reua
ting the compensation of foreign ministers and oonsuIs
ATTORNEY GKSxaALs osFlcx,
September 2l, 1857.
SIN: You have propounded to me certain questions
relative to the compensation of oonsuls to which
reply.
Previous to 1855 the services Of nearly all our consus
abroad paid by fees The act then proposed abol
shed the right of oonsus receive fees Tor at least to
keep them from and after the 30th of June of that year.
and provided that henceforwad they should receive
tain annual salaries.
The act of 1855 was sngulary obscure in its phrase
oogy 1t declared that from and after the 30th of June
the President may and with the advice and of
the Senate shall appoint diplomatic ministers to certain
countries, and consuls at certain places who shall
ceve annual compensation for their services not
ceedng the amount herein specified very strict and
liberal construction of this act would give the salaries
provided for it to nobody who not appointed from
and after the 3Oh of June, 1885, while at the time
it would have taken away from all the then ncumbents
the right to receive their fees or indeed hold their
offices But it could not be believed that Congress meant
to vacate all egatonsand all consuates day.
and keep them vacant until could besent
out to every part of the world The construction put
the law by the late President and Secretary of State
der the advice Of the Attorney General that minis
ter consul who in service the 30h of june and
who retained in Office, was to all the intents and
purposes of the act in the condition if he
had received his commission afterwards In other words
the law converted the ncumbents from full paid into sal
ared officers NtE
That the construction right had no doubt It is
in accordance with the grand purpose the act and any
other of it would have defeated the object and done
enormous injury to the public service
The contemporaneous construction of the Executive
high authority for it, and Congress added the weight of
its own by making appropriations to pay ministers who
not previously appointed and not recommssioned
as well as by ratifyng the treaties which they subse
quently negotiated.
This brings step towards conclusion 1t is
settled that consul retained in Office under the act of
1855 consul appointed under that act SO far as re-
CARDS compensation. That compensation salary
be counted from that Time when he received his post of
duty down to the time when he left it, To give him
expressly forbidden.
But in 1856 the system was again remodeled BY the
eighth section of the act then proposed consul to
receive salary not only for the time spent at the place of
his official duty but in addition to that for the time
cupied in waiting his instructions, in travelling to his
post Of duty and in returning home at the close of his
service
This aforementioned act like the ,one which preceded
it, did not in words apply to consuls ministers who
had been appointed before but inasmuch 1t not
contemplated to turn them out must have been
that they should remain in Office with the compensa
ton About this, however, there seems to have been
doubt which Congress proper to put at in
1857 bya proviso in the appropriation BILL declaring
that the act OF 1856 should apply to consus appointed
after the act of 1855. -
Thus the consus appointed in 1855 are put on level
with those appointed in 1856, and have seen that
consuls whose commissions dated previous 1855
have the compensation those who appointed
under that act Things that equal to the thing
are equal to each other Therefore there is no difference
between the three classes as regards the rule of
compensation for services performed at the time
The result of all this egsation-which certainly does
not seem at the first blush to be very plains that
consul who served only under the old law received
and nothing else If he retained after July, 1855,
he got salary for the time he remained at his post If
he held his office after the act of 1856 went into opera
ton he got paid in addition for the time spent in COM
ing home In short his compensation is to be regulated
by the law which in force when the services
rendered. not by that which prevailed at the date of his
commission. This rule is simple well just, and
though the various acts of Congress express it with
unnecessary crcumocution they still plain enough to
be understood by any who will take the trouble to
analyze and compare them
doubt has also arisen about the meaning of the last
clause Of the eighth section Of the act of Is56a consul
shall not be allowed compensation for the time occupied
in coming home m he shall have resigned have been
recalled therefrom for any maLeasance in his Office Do
the words italicized qualify the word resigned as well as
rocaled2 think they do very plainly. The grammati-
cal connexon OF the whole sentence such that you
not separate its parts without violence. consul
be relieved from the duties of his Office except by
resignation recall If they be terminated in either
of these ways but without any official guilt or delin
quency, he may get what the law says meritorious
officer shall namely, his full pay, to be counted
down to the time when he reaches his residence
But if he violates his obligations to the public in such
that the government that account is Obliged
to recall him, if he resigns merely to escape recall
which he is conscious of deserving, then he shall suffer
the penalty of coming home at his expense. do
not believe that Congress had the least intention
make the mere resignation of offices formal offence
The act of 1857 extends the provisions of 1856 to per-
appointed after the of 1856 but it does not give
them salaries according to the act of 1856 except for
the services rendered after it went into operation was
subject of dispute whether who served after 1856
could get the salary then given he had been appointed
before? Congress said that he could but they did
not say that he could be paid for previous services
at any higher rate, by any other rule, than that
which fixed by the law of the time when
they performed. There is no ground whatever
for the notion that consul claim n salary
for any portion of the time for which he author
lied to get fees and just little for the opinion that he
be paid under the law of 1856 for anything he did
under that of 1855. consul for instance who was a
pointed in March, 1856 and went Immediately to his
post duty received fees down July LIST of that year
and cannot receive anything else. If you give him
the salary created in 1855 for the time spent in making
his journey out you must give it to him on the same
principle for the whole time he was there, and let
him have fees and salary both. But such q claim
would be absurd that nobody makes it, 1t all comes
at last to what have already said is the true rule
namely that each person shall be paid for his services
agreeably to the law in force at the time when the
vices performed and there is nothing in the book
that make it either more or less
It may be well that should not close without apply
ing the rule to the particular which you have sent
TO me-
Mr. McCrea late consul at Paris claims for time spent
returning home He is entitled to it. because his return
long after the act of 1856 went into effect and his
resignation was not for malfeasance in Office