The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-02-10
CITY OF WASHINGTON TUESDAY MORNING FEBRUARY TO- 1851

Supreme Court and that tribunal held the following IAN
guage-l read from Peters, p. %
presumed that every who has been engaged
In the public service has received the allowed
until the contrary shall be made appear The Of
copensnticn In the military service depend in
such regulations be uniform, and applicable all on
GERS under the same circumstances So far then,
line q bis duty Il woud seem no, 70 Be dsai for him to
show certain regulations OF the War Department or inrue
1ssp: Sss s sy Atsny q the ssf unss n
however, the disbursements made, for which compen
10 the duties q the Office held By the defendant the fact
should have been stated and aso that the service
ss s
assumed BY the defendant in performing should
me ohssr 2, ths
to his station, the claim having been rejected BY the
department should unquestionsb be allowed BY way Of set
And 1t is equally clear that equitable allowance should
o made in the | manner for s,. services :,
duty and which had been performed under the sanction Of
The q snssr zoe e
BY the amount paid for like service. .nder similar eifcum
stances"
Now sir from these citations ID is proved hat the prin
cpls which We called upon to settle is by no maus
one either in the executive branches OF the govern
ment or before Judicial tribunals In examining tne re-
ports Of the Supreme Court find numerous cstt str
kngiy analogous in principle 10 this one The case OF
Ripley jat cited is directly in point and the reasoning
OF The court in that complete TO the
soning of the gentleman from Virgins, Mr.. LETcHERJ
when be- few days since referred By way OF i,lustra
ton, to the fact that in tie military service officers
again and again called discharge functions not d
rectly in the line Of their iots
II that having submitted these propositions
without the skeleton oan ccd these
opinions of various Attorneys General and decisions Of The
Snpnme Court particularly the decision Of Chief Justice
fancy in The of White only FIVE years sincethat
the Is entirely closed and ne6d not weary the House
by longe- respasstng on its time What have said tas
been cbi y confiued the Of kshrry Dekbe, be-
hat VI iIen
first raised had examined the reports from the Court OF
Claims and the Committee of Claims and Was prepared to
argue that more ia e1teaso but iuasmucb
considering tie case of Michael Nourse thought proper
To express my views briefly in regard 10 the Dcki
because the principles which govern them Identical In
the of Nours he waE If the obcs of the Register
the Treasury chief clerk. While chief clsik be dis
charged the duties superior office under nppoin
authorized by law, for certs.n time Stated in his
memorial If one of these eaitats E entitled TO the COM
| penEation asked for, then the Other is.
la conclusion have this to say Michael Nourss Z an
entire stranger 10 aud the only possible interest can
have in The b the decision Of Court of Claims IN
this because look the support of that court by
Congress alessental TO its utility IT. aer the court
has been established pay so little respect TO Its solemn
reasoning but in accordance with the decisions made
rear after by the Supreme Court and the opinions OF
the law officers Of the government 1t TO that we
running the hazard of making this court mere farce
and rerirng the evils The Knowledge OF which induced
the last Congress 10 bring II into existence hope 10th
bills wi receive The sanction of this tious
I Mr.. LETG6ER Mr.; Chairman, tie printiple involved
in this is much the same the principle involted in
the of Asbury Dckns The parties, however held
Mr. Dcns he asks for this increased compensation, be
cause during portion OF the time be served chief
eek in the Treasury Department and discharged the du
lies OF Secretary of The Treasury for given number of
days and that while he served as chief clerk The State
Department. he, for iocon OF the time, performed the
duies of The Secretary of STATE under the authority OF
the President of the United States 10 I'LL temporary
caucies in these departments.
In the under consideration, Michael Norrse
was the chief clerk in The Office OF the Register of the
Treasury, and various occasions such clerk,
mencing the l6 h of February 1880 and rabng down
to the 9Th day OF May saT he alleges that he performed
he duties of Register and executed the papers
enable money to be drawn from the treasury and ie
therefore, entitled 10 the OF 81 2T 80 for his services
rendered between the periods have mentioned in other
words be demands compensation as chief clerk and then
compensation Register This is the general staemen, Of
4 the
1 Now word in reply to my friend from Aabama, Mr.
WALKER He tells you in the conclusion Of his argument
that his desire is uphold the Court Of Claims; that
is anxious TO give character and influence and that such
is his and object nahe remarks be has submitted
and Tie vote which he has indicated his design 10 give il
favor of this claim. Now, sir Dsst that in this case
Michael Nourse the court have violated express lrw
the land written in terms clear and distinct Language
make it, They have awarded him this allowance in
violation of the laws of 1899 and the of 1872 But
my friend has presented no commentary either The
| of 1883 or the act of ls42.
i Mr.. WALKER. In the discussion between the gentle
4 man from New York Mr. HAyEs ard the gentleman from
Vrgnis in reference the section of the of s42 reg
uaing the compensation understood il 10 be conceded
that the act of ls42 not to be regarded covering
this because il passed subsequently, 10 the ead
4 lion of the services in the of Mr.. Dickins.
Mr.. LETCHER But am talking about the csse now
before the committee My friend from Alabama hss laid
down the broad proposition that it is the duty this
House to confirm the decisions OF the Court OF Claims where
they have made decision in favor of claimant That
the doctrine am combating, and sha undertake 10
show that they have and papaby vo-
atedno only the spirit but the actual words the acts
of 1889 and ls42 in allowing this claim OF Mr. Nourse
As remarked before and desire to call the attention
of the committee TO these facts that they be impressed
their memory these services of Nourse commenced
February l5 1880 and down TO 18th May ls41 Ac-
cording the fled with the report hundred
passage Of the act Of 1892 hundred and Twenty-Five
days which the court have allowed him for, subse
quent to the OF that and sixty days cub
sequent TO the passage of the act of ls42.
i Now, sir what is the language of the act OF 1899?
shall read the whole section that every may
il for himself Tie third section OF act Of ls2a
approved March 3, 1889, is in these words;
{" And be further enacted That no officer in any branch
OF the public service any other person. whose salary
emoluments is fixed by law regulation
receive extrs allowance compensation in any form
Whatsoever for the disbursement of public money for the
owsnoe compensation be authorized by law Nor shall
executive officer other than the beads departments
ply than thirty dollars annually OF its contingent
fund under his control for for newspapers pamphlets
periodicals. other books necessary for the
/ bis Office"
This section applies only epery officer but in
order to make the language broad that could
misinterpretaon mistake ii the words an,
Other person whatsoever Now you will that in thin
statement of the services of this man. there charged
from the 7fh of August the 10th August 1885, nclu
sve four days Then there charge of thirty days il
/ AA efnhs Aore In L. xl-