New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-04-18
Our kN.CODgressmnD.at.E Large a.
salary. 4 .rabber.

The following is from the Was!lingtol
Chronicle OF the fourteenth:
A Jews days since an article appeared il
the Chronicle showing correspondence lie
tween Secretary BIistow and George A
Sheridan, member OF Congress from Louisi
| ana, relative to the sum OF $l135 errcneOusl
| paid to the latter, and desiring him to coyel
| the amount into the Treasury. 1t will be re-
| memuered that Sheridan claimed the none
| as Justly due him and replied to the Secre
| tary's letter in a facetious manner The
following letter more fully explains the
matter. and will doubtless lead the funny
member to disg0rge:
| DEpA!.TsE.T 0p Jr.ricy ,
| Office of solicitor of the Treasury
| Washington. April 1875
J. f. Beck~ith. Esn., United States Attorney. New
Oreane, Louisiana;
| SIR-At the request of the Secretary of
once against George A. Sheridan of New
Orleans, late member OF Congress.
The cause OF action is this:
After the passage Of the act approx ed
March 3, 1875, making appropriations to
supply deficiencies, Mr.. Sheridan presented
TO the Treasury Department a paper.
signed by Sevellon A. Brown, chief clerk of
the State Department, purporting on its face
to be true extract from said act, in
A. Sheridan, contestant, expenses. case OF
Sheridan vs.. Pinchbaek, at large from
Louisiana. one thousand seven hundred and
thirty.five dollars"
On this paper, upon the personal apolica.
ton Of Mr.. Sheridan, he was paid this sum,
lie now appears that the paper thus pre-
sented was not true extract. but that the
act itself contained u proviso which had
been Omitted, in these words: .sProy ided
that N vi O ha1 loroo Etc l., !
BY the House shall have any benefit Of this
appropriation"
Upon the discovery that the payment of
this sum had been made under a mistake Of
tact, demand was made upon MIR. Sheri-
dan to pay back to the treasury of the
United , ates the money so paid to him
This he has refused to do, alleging that the
proviso does not apply to him for the reason
that he was seated before the deficiency
bill passed, and that he, in fact, voted for it,
Upon an examination of the Congressional
Record it appears that while the deficiency
appropriation bill was under consideration
by the House, in the early part of the dav
OF March 5, 1875, Mr. Todd offered an
amendment to it, which included, among
others OF similar import, clause to paw
Dir Sheridan the expenses of the case Of
Sheridan VS.. Pinch back, with tie proyiso
have referred to, which soon after was
passed by the House. u
The House having taken recess until
+. NJ. of March 3, it further appears from
tue Record that some time thereatter-pe--
haps an hour or sO-the Committee on |
Elections reported that Mr.. Sheridan was |
duly elected and entitled to his seat, which |
report was agreed to.
1t also appears that, on the Resembling |
Of the House at half-pasf nine o'clock % |
Wednesday, March 4, Mr. Parker submitted |
the report Of the committee of conference |
On the deficiency bill, which was agreed to. |
1t does not appear, whether in point of |
TACT, MIR. Sheridan voted for this bill as he
alleges, but as he was admitted by the |
House sometime after eight O'Clock the
hight before, it is possible that he did
The deficiency bill, as certified by the
of State, was signed by the Pres
dent. March ;, 1915.
On this state of facts. without intending
% limit you in any view which you may
AXE in the matter, desire to suggest two
grounds that may be advanced IN support
# the claim now made by the Treasury
Department upon Mr.. Sheridan.
The clause by which Mr.. Sheridan was
'aid the money IN question was not in the |
deficiency bill, as reported by the Committee
n Appropriations of the House. 1t was an
to the bill made while on it's
sssage through the House. A part of the
uenument was tDat the money should not |
70 paid to any person hereafter seated: that
), the word thereafter" was intended to
nd can relate only to the vote by the House
doping the amendment. If this is So
1r. Sheridan being seated after the vote or
he amendment, he was not under it en-
tiled to the money obtained by him.
Another and perhaps stronger ground IN
uppOrt of the claim of the United States is
his: The bill was signed by the President
larrh ., 1875. 1t matters not upon what |
articular hour of the day the bill was
igned. 1t took effect at the beginning of
he legislative day of March 3, 1875. In
~ Judgment the court will not permit it to |
9 inquired into at what hour Of March 3,
l ,oint of fact the President signed it.
If this is so, the act becoming law at
welve O'Clock noon of March >, 1875, and |
lr. Sheridan not having been seated by
ne House until after eight o'clock in the
yeniDg Of that day, he was thus seated
fter the passage of the act.
These are the views Of the matter which
entertain, and these views are in har.
lOny with the spirit of the act. desire.
lerefore, in accordance with the wish of
ne Secretary, that suit may be at once
rought against Mr.. Sheridan to recover
his sum Of $l735 enormously paid him,
nd pressed vigorously to Judgment.
Very respectfully.
RIJ-FORD WILSON