Republican vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1857, 1857-02-07


some good ones long delayed.
Mr.. LETCHIER. But the claim Of the
heirs of General St Clair was not founded
on u urittea lar, which the parties knew to
be in existence Now, i this claim is well
founded, it is based ON law that has been
in existence and OH the statute-book, Access
sible to this petitioner, for many long years;
yet, during all that time, with the services
rendeaed and the law before him, which
my friend says gives him a legal right to
the pay, there Is no application for compcn-
sation to Congress, or even to any officer of
the Treasury Department, until 1913. And
not only so, but he has been in Office ever
since IN the other end q tie Capitol, and
has quietly s,cpo over his rights No de-
nand has been made until 1873 at the
Treasury. ask some gentleman to ex-
plain how this is, and why it is
1t seems to me. then, sir, when you come
to look at this claim, that, 50 far from being
a clear legot demand, as insisted upon by
my friend from New York, it is, to say the
very least, an exceedingly doubtful claim /;
and, SO far as We can judge Of Its Legality,
or of its propriety, the action Of the party
seems to me to be conclusive circumstance
to be weighed in connection with the law Of
1918 and the laws of 1872, prohibiting dou-
bic compensations to him or any other clerk
But let Us see how this doctrine of my
friend from New York is going to operate
| have heard it said repeatedly, aud have no
doubt Of the fact, that in the Departments
of this Government 81 300 clerks are now
discharging the duties of s SEQ desks, and
cice gefSa. II double compensation is to be
allowed ii this ease, is it not right, then.
that some provision should be made in such
cases as these, too ? Then, again, there is
hardly day there is not some one or more
Of the clerks in some one Of the Departments
Of this Government absent on account of
sickness, or some other cause. and the lahors
Of his or their desks are kept up by their
colleagues and friends Why. then, is there
no provision fer paying for this .lopLic labor
also!
Ny friend says, By way Of sustaining hi.
position, that III a preceding administration,
while the Secretary of State was absent,
Mr. Crittenden discharged his duties. and
while 50 doing prepared some Of the a
biest papers IL connection with the foreign
affairs Of the country. Did Mr. Crittcndcn
ever ask for pay for the services? Yet is
he not IS mich entitled Il t, II the gentle
mans argument be true, as Mr. Dickens, or
any other chief clerk En- il the laws Of
1872 cut off Mr.. Crttendeu from increased
pay, tie law eG ISIS eat oil Mr.. Dickens
/ pay AIN
He performed the labor; and the goatle-
man says The lahorer is worthy Of his hire.
The laborcr has received his hire as provide
ed by law. If one officer is entitled to pay
beyond and in violation Of the law. why are
not all others Why make flesh Of one and
fish Of another? Why not establish some
general rule that will do equal and exact
justice to all--not only the higher but also
the lower GRADES Of officials?
The doctrine eontended for BY the gentle
man from New York may lead, to very great
abuses, ii it shall be adopted know, and
he knows, of men who have capacity, men
tai and physical, for labor which would en-
able them to discharge the duties of two or
three desks in the Departments, employed
as they are only from nine To three o'clock
daily. If they can and do perform tl!is labor
why is it they shall not come III under the
principles he lays down as sound principles,
for doadIe or even triple compensation for
double or triple service sthere any reason
which authorizes distinction to be made
against them, and in favor Of those who oc-
cupy higher positions under the Government?
1t seems to me not. Any reasoning which
will sustain the one will as clearly sustain
the other position.
It's not unreasonable to suppose that, in
the long period of Mr. Biekens's connection
with the State and Treasury Departments,
he was sometimes absent from sickness, or
other cause. IfSo, who performed the du-
ties Of chief clerk on all such occasions !?
Was any person paid for those seryices--and
if So whom, and what amount did he re-
cciye? Is not such substitute of Mr.. Dick
ems entitled to the pay for the services thus
rendered, upon every principle on which
the claim Of Mr.. Dickens rests And then,
besides, | would like TO know whether Mr..
Dickens has at any time made reduction
from his salary as chief clerk, when he was
absent from the duties If his desk, and when
those duties were performed BY another por-
son
But my friend SAYS I introduced bill for
the relief of William Carey Jones for ser
vices rendered in California. | did not IN
troduce the bill
Mr., HAVEN. The centleman will par
don me. simply stated that believed he
moved a reconsideration, IN order to bring
the bill back before the House.
Mr.. LErGHER. M, sir. The gentle
man from Alabama Mr.. Conn moved the
reconsideration but | voted for that bill.
and will do the same thing again ander like
circumstances. Let us sec what are the
facts in regard 10 that ease The heads of
Departments Of the Government. by the al
vice and concurrence Of the President ap-
prehend, ascertainine, when portion Of
Mexico became part OF this Government
that there was an impe51ct knowledge in
regard to the land titles, er a. to the man.
ncr IN which her grants If lauls hal been
previously nade, III the absenc, Of all know
ledge Of that country. then 4h4a 20 become
incorporated into the United States, and "a
necessity existing for private knowledge,
and Congress not being in session, app7int-
ed Mr.. William Carey Jones To - to Cali
fornia upon an assurance that he should re-
ccye fair compensation for collecting the
necessary information III regard to the grants
made by the several Governments which