The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-01-22

pcaton of money the payment of double salaries TO in
divduas who had held Office under those administrations
You will recollect sir that In the session Of 842
mtiee etrenchment formed in this House the
head of which, il mistake not distinguished gem
tleman from my State, Mr. Summers j and that du-
ring the discussions that subject these and other things
in reference to the application and disbursement Of the
contingent fund became subjects of controversy and de-
bate and impressed the Congress of the United
States that time with the improperly Of this coarse OF
conduct that il passed another law which approved
August 23, lsi2 and from which viii read the second
section.
"Tbat officer in any branch Of the public service
fixed 6 or regaIation shall receive any additional
pry, extra atoeaace conensaiios "a any form hao-
Or day %aaass s as .iaa6s asissss
ty ta aad Ae opP,op,ai'o" therefor srpey ss forth mas
Mr.. HAVEN, (interrupting) The gentleman will be
kind enoughf there be any body In the House who does
not understand it, state that SO far as this claim is
concerned this statute passed years after all OF these
services rendered.
Mr.. LETCIIER. will 10 that presently. have
not forgotten that point expected i 70 te raised on me
This ew approved 23d August, lsi2 IL is ON page
$40, volume 8, OF the Statutes at Large. TO MEMsEM
That law is in force To another MEMBEH The
Secretary the Treasury had nothing to do with any pro-
vision this law for did not meet the Case which be
debating with the Committee OF Ways and Means.
Bur Congress possed another act a. the same session. IN
stl more espici. possible, the twelfth section oil
which Is as follows
susaon shall be made any clerk, other Office by rea
of the ciseharge of duties which belong to any other
e compensation shall be made fo, any serUices
which shs cs,k other ocer may be required TO
periorm."- (Statutes ss Large, VOL s, P. 525)
II "a pain therefore that Congress nendsd to cut this
abuse no by the roots But my friend New York r
sves VS. "Your law will not do These services were
rendered prior 10 1872 Well let me see II The law passed
2oh April 1916 win d. The ninth section OF hat act is
in these words;
Thot fts al
I'd y this act crk shall from snd sitter the sist
day OF March last, and shall be the duty Of the Secre
Sr e. IN hs q s Navy and ie
General report Congress at the beginning o. each year
in the preceding year, together with the time each clerk
was actually employed during the year and she sgms ps,a
osh M az said departments and Offices than those a'hsr1ea
BY this aes. =
No other pay than as s,ek That is the construction
The whole spirit of the awfhs terms OF the lawtnas
$40 h1ber or other allowance shall te made to ony clerk
seams To me TO be clearly conclusive that III 1918 Congress
ntehdtd to off this double compensation or TINS extra
compensatory ~ every shape and form IN Wnicn couAo
Wen, from 1918 down 10 isss We hear nothing more
about until the acts Of 1912 ate PASSED under me CIT
to which have before referfse ana qnotsa
But again sir These services for wbcG This pay 10
claimed commenced the 25th of April, 1879 UnIing
that year there hiry-two days OF TINS temporary
service During the year 1889 there were none l ~ Ie1
hry-sx days service In 1888 there were only SIX days
servicemaking hundred aad thirty days from 1879
10 1859, inclusive. g.a
That was "a the Department of the Treasury. Then tho
goes on in the way with References to his SER
in The State Department. the claim for these services
beginning ia 1929 and ending in 1890 Now 4 these SER
vices were lerei understanding at the time ex
pressed mped that there was TO be compensation msde
for them hen ask Why was not that compeusauosnr ae
andei the Treasury Dspaffmen or at the door o. Con
gr ss before interval OF nineteen years had elapsed
it evident that when the services were repaired ana
performed both parties were aware OF me existencc =.
~ nI hiatt ioinna
such payment for extra Increased service Hence luis
rcmarkable delay in making the demand.
The frat application was made TO the treasury
my friends will correct mel in the year l848apPcaton
compensation for services rendered in 1929 Thae was
application to Congress at that time At the rst ses
sion Of the Thirythird Congress hear Of this sppca
ton for the first time If payment for these services was
understood to be due from the employer TO the employee
interval of ears should like 10 hear some explanation
of this from my friend from New York Why this delay
He seems think it is clear illegal claim founded on
particular section of the law If why has its payment
never been demanded until the year l848
Mr.. HAVEN. My friend will pardon me in suggestion
There in his inqnirng Of me the details N ths
case. No earth has spoken to me OF 1T; ana
know nothing of II except what have seen in the papers
with the report My remarks were made simply because
want TO sustain the Court Of Caim for the reason that
think their decision is based on legal grounds we passed
bill this morning for the relief OF the heirs OF MAJOR Gen
era Arthur 81 Clair, paying them debt which bas Deen
running or fifty years indeed some oaa cas hre Iaiu
Mr.. LETCHER But the claim of the heirs OF General
ST. Clair founded priten tdu, which the par
ties knew to be in existence. Now If this claim is wen
founded il is based law that has been in existence
and the stautebook accessible to this petitioner Tor
many long years. yet during all that time with the ser
vices rendered and the law before him, which my friend
says gives him legal right to the pay there IS no app
cation for compensation to Congress- or even to any ocer
of the Treasury until l848 And not only So
but he has been in Office since in the other end OF the
Capitol and has quietly slept over his rights No demand
has been made until s4s at the treasury ask some gem
teman to explain how this is, and why 1t is
1t me- then sir, when you come to look At this
claim that far from being clear legal demand as insist
ed upon by my friend from New York it's TO say the very
least exceedingly doubtful claim and SO far as we can
Judge of It's legality of its proprety the action OF the
party to me to be conclusive circumstance 70 pe
of 1892 prohibiting double compnsations to him or any
other cetk.
Bat let us see how this doctrine Of my friend from New
York going operate have heard II said repeatedly
doubt OF the fact that in the departments OF
this 200 clerks discharging the du
ton to allowed in this case it not right then, that
provision should be made in such these too
Then again. there hardly day there is not some one or
The clerks in OF the departments or this
government absent account of sickness or some other
cause the abors OF his their desks kept up by
their colleagues and friends Why then there no pro-
vision for paying for this double labor also
Ny friend says by way Of sustaining his position that
in preceding administration while the Secretary OF state
absent Mr. Crittenden discharged his duties and wnie
doing prepared of the abes papers In connexon
with foreig affairs of the country Did Mr. Crenoen
pay for these services Yet Is he not as much
emitted to It. ii the genteman's argument be true as Mr.
Dckns or ny other chief clerk For the laws OF l842
cut of Nc Crtenden from increased pay the law Oh 1918
cut of Mr. Dckns from increased pay also