National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1881-03-14
Attornevs in the Departments.

A question has been raised In a suit by
Gilmore & Co. against ex-Secretary ofthe
Interior Schurz which promises, if
brought to trial, to throw light upon a
question which has long needed exact
definition. 1t is as to the status of claim
agents or attorneys before the Depart
ments. As far as our information goes,
there is no decision on record going to
the merits of this case. But the practice
of attorneys or agents before the Depart
ments is already great matter, and is
increasing in extent daily. There is little
or no provision made by the rules OF the
Departments for such practice, but 1t has
passed along SO far as a matter of cour-
tesy, and of the rights of clients to be
heard. But the question now arises, how
far shall the Departments go in giving
their time to the agents, and what rules
may Secretary make as to debarring
an agent from practice? If it were
an exact case, the Department a
court, with the Secretary as judge,
he would undoubtedly have the right to
debar an attorney for cause but in this
and like instances, neither is the Secre-
tary clothed with the functions of a judge
nor the agent with those of an attorney.
They are judge and client by generally
accepted courtesy that is all. The Secre-
tary, however, being intrusted with the
care and responsibility of affairs in his
Department, has certainly the right,
without precise definition, to protect him
self and his Department from encroach-
ments or from sinister designs, or from
the use of bad men. But this is hard
matter to prove, and is subject to abuse
even by so high an officer of the Govern
ment as a Secretary. Ifthe matter is left
to his decision he may use his power au-
tocratically, and debar without sufficient
cause or without sufficient investigation.
He may in fact injure or ruin the reputa-
ton of an agent or attorney at
will, and do great injustice to
a claimant simply because of his
(the claimant's) connection with an
Objectionable attorney. But from the
Departments side of the question there
are further considerations. A large share
of the claims brought before them are for
reconsideration of cases passed upon. 1t
is presumed that they are settled, though
in many cases they are not. But an at
torney comes for reconsideration fire.
quently without further evidence, and
not only consumes time and study on the
part of officials, but consumes the time
and labor which is not contemplated in
the provision made for carrying on the
business of the Departments. Most De-
partments have too little skilled clerical
force, and what they have are given upon
the basis of doing current work, To de-
mand, therefore, that much of their time
should be yielded to back work is to ask
that the Secretary waive the interests
with which he is especially charged in
favor of those which Congress has not
provided for or has detailed no clerks to
do. Now, how far does the judgment
of the Secretary in such instances as
these find the support of law? The
fact is, the whole of this subject
needs and deserves the serious considera:
ton of Congress. It would be of un-
doubted advantage, for instance, if the
undecided work of each Department were
made special business, with an assign
ment of clerks for carrying it on. Time
and labor would be saved in this way
and much dissatisfaction be avoided.
But these thoughts are only partial in the
consideration of this subject. 1t is one
that must be brought to the attention
of Congress sooner or later, and have def
mite boundaries fixed as to the rights of
both parties in the issue. In the mean
time, it is matter of such interest to
attorneys that We open our columns to
its discussion, with view to getting
light. ..