Weekly Council Bluffs bugle. (Council Bluffs, Iowa) 1857-1860, 1860-02-15

& H4&4f&#EsEN&8
II wiah0as aay pxovisfen wameegw ssqnil
! ing sny excsss so be paid into he Tres,
) uFy, the same infsFenes In rslktian
. Che Intention OF Congress would nesea
!. sagily arise.
8 Bat ID il compskaat for sks Coars ;
exchange the waRd ssshirdp sFom aki
! position, and insery ths word sssseond
: Ii ita placer IL IL said THAI CdnEres
B committed mistake Of fact. Why n
{ that mistake never been sarEeessa 4
!, any subsequent act Of CoagFesss ID
diikeals 70 suppose that this srToEs !
such iE is, has nsyeF attracted The attGn
tion Of che Department Of the Inserio
sad Of Ceagrsss. TIE prsyise In qaes
] tien relates to matter which has be@l
in CONTROVERSY between the GoSssnmen
and land oERcers, for several years. i
sppears a. proviso 10 sha following
clause Of the appropriation Bill
ssFor salaries and Semmiaaions fei
Registers Of the land ofses and Rseeiv,
srs Of public monsys, one hundred aad
i forty one thousand seven hundred del.
lara, Provided, &esn
The sams provision appears In tha
i same words, axcspt as 10 the amount e
i the appFapgfaSi0a 1Aw .og Aaknss 10Th,
| 1856, after the 9th section uf The set ol
1885 was passed, without this pFosisc
OF any aliusion 10 she alleged "mis-
take.5 =. ..--.
| If, then, there was a mistake OF fact
| in the insertion Of she word sthird" In
stead Of sssaeond, ,n ia the act of 1858,
! "a IA NA4 saA as
1856? There have been Ave sessions Of
Congress since the mistake occurred
| Can Il be credited that sues mistake
would not have been corrected by Con-
gTess st some one Of its sessions, il in
| truth, it had erspt into tbs pgovislon Of
the act Of 165s9 Appropriation laws
are constantly passing under the review
Of Congress and the Department, and
therefore il ia aaxa to impogsibls 10 sup
pose that suob An error has escaped st-
tsntion at Eve different sessioRs.
The ground apon which, 1t is said By
counsel, that We must conclude that
shsre vas a EAiataks Of fact in the use
Of che word ssthird," instead Of 'asec-
ond," ia, that otherwise, the provision
in question is g nuliity. Il is urged By
counsel, that emo provision Ia made IN
the sthird' section by which ona siagls
dime could by any possi ibihty be rseeiv~
ed. II provides fer paying monsy out
of the Treasury, but not for receiving
money from any source whatever" Nov
the clause under consideration provides
in substance that whenever the land Of
scsrs should receive, under the Sd sec.
Of the act Of 1852, a greater amount
than they were entitled to receive under
that section, they should pay the ''sur-
plus" into ths Treasury. And the az
gument Of counsel assumes THAI it Was
not possible for the land officers 10 re-
eeive from the Treasury, under the Sd
section, . greater amount than they
were entitled to recsiye. IL it wss pos
sibls for these officers to receive more
money under that section than they wers
entitled to, then there is no absurdity in
the provision thas they should pay the
'Esurplus" received by them, under the
s'third section," into the Treasury, and
there is no necessity for resortipg TO the
extraordinary course Of striking out the
word "third" and substituting the word
"seeond." On the contrary, IL such
possibility existed, il was highly proper
30 pass the provision in question, "a 3
means Of guarding the public Treasury
from imposition.
II seems to be assumed that it was i'm
possible for these land officers 10 receive
under tho Sd sec. Of ihe act Of 1852,
greater amount than they were entitled
to, because the proviso to that section
limited the amount to which they we're
entitled, to the sum Of three thousand
dollars per annum and because the Of
icers Of the Treasury would never, in
any case, have paid them out OF the
Treasury q greater amount than the
maximum prescribe By the proyise.-
Hence, it is argued, it would have been
absurd for Congress TO provide that the
officers should pay over TO the Treasury
any "surplus" which should remain &f-
ter paying the amount due 10 themselves.
This argument proceeds upon misEak-
en- Hypothesis. Il assumes that under
the Sd see. Of the act Of 1852, The whole
amount Of the compensation up to the
maximum of three thousand dollars,
was to be paid out Of the Treasury. But
shs truth ia, that part OF this eOmpen-
sation had been received from the hold
ers Of warrants, under the act Of March
| 1Tth, ls4s. By the terms Of the third
section of the act of 1852, the officers
were 90 reeaiEe from the Treasury GER
| tain amount TO make up former deh-
sleneies, ssafter dedue.ing the amount
! already received under the act Of IS4S, !"
! the whole net to exceed three thousand
dollars per annum.
The amount, therefore, TO be paid
from the Treasury, was uncertain and
contingent. Il was dependent upon the
sIuount which had been received under
the aet Of Is4S. The land officers we're
| bound to account for the amount Of fess
| which they had received under the eel
I OF Is4s, and tho Treasury became liR-
| BILE, under the provisions OF che tatFc
section of the act Of ls52, for the bal
anes that might be due shsm. Suppose,
then, any Register or Receiver In any
settlement With tha Government, priol
to the act of March 5, 1883, had failed
20 account arnly, or al all, for the fset
he had Fee8ived from tha holders Of war
rants under the act OF 1s4S and sup.
I
paid over to him greater amount thar
be was entitled to, by the terms OF thI
third section, wAs il n0t proper for Con
gress TO provide that be should pay thi
asarplus1 into the treasury And thi
mere possibility that sach thing Nigh
oeeur in settlements made with the lan1
ofheers after the passage Of the act O
March Sd, 1853, was sufficient reasoi
for the provision contained in that 40
that khe Register and Receiver shoul'
pay into the Treasury any s'snrplas'
, they might receive under the Sthird sec
tion,s over and above what they yer
! entitled to receive. Ii this var, ik wa
clearly possible for the laad oheers .
!, tressiys, under che ID section Of the -
OF 1859, greater amount Of money frog
. Ghe Treasury than they wers eatislea
by she provisions OF that section. Thui
by way % illustration, il the Registe
! had received, under ths Ses u ls4a, fes
10 the AMOUNT Of 1000 dolIaSs per ~
mum, and accounted in any ssssleznez
: for only fifteen hundred dollars per az
nam, and II be had, IN Consequence, n
seivod from tAs TFsAsary aEtesn handrs
dolEAxs per annam, be would h@Es bea
: required hy the act Of 1853, so pay ini
! the Treasury Eve hundred aollazs p
annum as the surplus Raeaavs6 hy hit
under the prpvisieas ct zoe thiRdV sai
: : kinn ef the ack ok 1852.
) Again the arss proviso Of he Sd 80
/ of kha acs IL 1852, declares ssthak 30 Re-
" u .uAesez.ss aknF3 .xanaisvz sesszg sxsss