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

pated roeidsa That person whose compensation was
increased by the act approved April 22 1884, shall be bene
the usual extra compensation shall hereafter allowed
any person receiving the benefit Of this joint resolution
Mr. COBB, of Georgia What is the date of thata
Mr.. JONES' of Tennessee. Twentieth Of July, 1854
This resolution Is peculiarly worded"that the usual
extra compensation shall not hereafter be allowed TO any
person receiving the benefit Of this joint resolution
lary worded allow part OF those who had here
toore received this compensation TO in and re
fuse to avail themselves of its provisions When the in
given by this twenty per cent was more than or
equal to the amount usually received for extra compensa
tion they received the increase when would give less
than the compensation they declined to receive IT.
Thus the messengers got $780, and the pages got $500
compensation which than twenty per cent
their compensation and consequently they declined the
increase take the benefits of this law and atthe
session at which that passed exracompensa
ton resolution also passed to give the extra compen
saon those who would not receive the benefits OF that
Joint resolution This aforementioned resolution did not
give compensation to the clerk of the House II did
give to the assistants 1t did not give it to the o
who under the JOINT resolution had received perma-
| nent increase to their salaries.
Thus the thing stood in that the Thirythird Congress-
1t went on snear the close of the first session Of the
present Congress: and what do find then2 We then
find that this House. after having been here nearly nine
months saying nothing by its committees in any other
way the changing the compensation of its officers and
employees adopted the 18th of August but three days
before it was to adjourn, this resolution
Rsoped That the clerk is directed to pay out the
contingent fund of the House the usual extra compensation
to that class of employees who received the same at the last
Congress-"
That far does not conflict with this law of goth July,
1854 and the accounting officers of the treasury signed
requston for paying that amount of money under the
law But here the second branch which has given rise
to this bill: @
including those employed in the Office Of the Superintendent
Of Public Printing amount equal to twenty per cent on
the annual compensation Provided This resolution shall
not be construed to include the public printer"
This is the second branch member for which the
counting officer Of the treasury refused to sign requis
ton. Who did the House mean by the term "he other
employees Did they mean to give $720 to the clerk
whose annual compensation is So 6002 Did they in
tend give it to his two principal assistant clerks whose
compensation is by law $2 LOO EACH Did they intend to
give 1t to your postmaster, to your sergeantatarms to
your dooree per- the salary of each of whom is fixed
law So 1907 Did they intend to give it to the clerks
Of this House, whose annual compensation is ST. 8O02 II
they did, why did they not pass alaw and say so Then
there would have been dificulty there would have
been conflict between the House and any accounting
officer of this government .-.., #
But sir it is conceded, believe, even by those who
claim under that resolution that there had been sub
sequent acton Congress itself had not acted it, the
clerk of this House would not have been authorized
der that bare resolution of this House, to pay that extra
compensation because the law of 1854 provides that they
who have received the benefit of that joint resolution shall
not hereafter receive this extra compensation Then IL
they could not be paid in that how do they claim t
Was the clerk Of this House authorized under that bare
resolution and in the face of the joint resolution of goth
July, 1854 to take from the contingent fund $780, and put
in his pocket and to pay twenty per cent on the sala
res of all these other officers and employees who had
ceived the benefit Of this joint resolution Of 1854 There
was in the general appropriation BILL this provision
To enable the clerk of the House of Representatives
the additional to Its employees aud others
Of August lb lah6, sufficient for that purpose
wise appropriated and hereby added to the contingent
fund Of the House of Representatives"
Here, sir, is indefinite appropriation made for the
contingent expenses of this House TIC whom the money
to go To such persons the clerk of this House is
hyt nnfA that
extra compensation The Senate and the President of the
United States in their approval Of IT. did nothing more
conceive than to furnish the money to pay those
whom the clerk was authorized to pay under the resou
ton Of August l5 1885, and by doing that, hold that
they did not intend that should repeal into
fic with the act of 1854 How this provision enacted
into aw By another violation of the rules of this House
Did it 60 to the Committee of the Whole the state
of the Union? think not How did it get into this law
Why, sir, when committee of conference appointed
by the two houses the dsagreeng votes between them
the appropriation bill embracing this provision they
without having jurisdiction of the question: although it
not referred to he when it was not of the dis
agreeing votes between the two houses brought in here
and then without going to the Committee of the Whole
state of the Union where the rules require that
have gone 1t passed under the operation of the prev
questions and sir 1t is on this very question that this
case has arisen '|t
After the adoption of that resolution by the House and
the passage of this appropriation the clerk of this House
made requsition the treasury for money to pay
der this resolution The accounting officer of the treas
ury said that there two branches to the resolution
of which embraced thosehe ready to acknowledge
entitled to that extra compensation end be called
the clerk to know whom he intended to pay under the
other branch When he Informed that 1t to that
of officers and employees precuded by the law of 1854
he think he bound to do, long be regarded
his honesty his integrity and his OATH refused TO sign the
reqpisition Oan pass law here saying that the
counting officers Of the treasury shall sign requsons
pay money upon the requons of these any other
officers No. sir and il under the law of 1854 that
the Comptroller of the Treasury refused to sign that
QUESTION. as
! Now aware that there some very learned and
experienced lawyers who are gang to argue this question
upon the other side They refer to precedents and to
former practices but say to them that have regard
for precedens any further than am satisfied that the pre-
| cedent right at the time ii was adopted.
Now one ground upon which this bill may be attempted
to be supported is that the Secretary OF the Treasury
rested his approval of the decision of the Comptroller
upon the of July 49, l842 When he asked where
the act was il turned out in fact act of August 49,
l842 and at another tmein the course of his cores
pondence with the cemmitteehe referred to an act OF
1852 prohibiting extra compensation, but which, turned
sir the Comptroller of the Treasury rested his de-
cson either upon the act of l84 upon any supposed
of 1852 He rested his decision upon the act of 1854
fixing the compensation of the employees Of thsHouse and
| the other branch of Congress
Il Another point may be made "Well Mr.. Comptroller,
how is that you have paid extra compensation under
similar resolutions Of this House. when the act of 1912
old doctrine of precedent and practice. When he came
into Office and when the present head of the Treasury De-
partment into the Office which he occupies, it
was practice pay out of the treasury under such
olutons that of the House adopted August l5 1885, in
disregard Of the law Of lS42 They found that that law
had become obsolete by practice and therefore, lawyers
they all are and bound by precedents and practice they
tbar af tbotfo