Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1885-09-16

moval-A Reply from First Comptr olleu
Durham to the Attorneys-Deci>ion
| by Justice Harlan in the Court OF
Alabama Claims Case.
J WAsHrSeroN, Sept. Is
| Postmaster J. W. FlaQg of Ellsworth,
Mass, has been recommended for re-
movsl for mailing circulars at his Office that
| should have been mailed at Boston. Fourth
class postmssters are paid salaries. based up
on the number OF stamps cancelled at their
offices. Ii such postmssters can throu gh
friendship or corrupt means, induce business
men living in cities Of presidential grade to
mail large quantities of material at their of
fees. the effect is to increase the postmas-
er's salary. This practice is believed TO be
carried on to great extent in small tow n.
surrounding Boston, and TO smaller extent
around New York. The inspectors inves
LEGATIONS have revealed the fact that there are
persons in these cities who make q business
Of furnishing and addressing great qusnti-
ties of circulars for firms, free of cost on the
payment of one cent postage upon each cir
cular. They take these circulars to small
village postoffice and stipulate with the post
master for share in his commissions, and
this share, it seems, is large enough to make
the business lucrative. There 10 said to be
no statute under which such persons can be
punished and 1t is probable that the attention
OF Congress will be called to the need of leg
islation in this particular. But the regula-
tions of the pestotfice department authorizes
the postmaster general to recover from
postmaster any money paid to them in excess
of their lawful commission and under this
provision $1,000 has been recovered from
postmasters guilty of the above described
practice.
First Comptroller Durham has written a
letter to Messrs. Shellabarger & Wilson and
Frank w. Hackett, attorneys, explaining his
position in regard to the Court Of Alabama
Claims in reply to recent letter from them.
After giving the history of the organization
of the court he quotes from the act of Con-
press creating the tribunal to show that the
officers of the court were limited. He finds
on investigation that some % persons were
in the employ of the court, all seeming to re-
ceive stated salaries and for the employment
of whom no authorization was made or in
tended by Congress. He construes the term
''incidental expenses" in the act to mean re-
pairs. gas, towels, postage stamps, etc. and
ii cannot be justly construed, he says TO
mean the employment of a large and unnec-
essary clerical force. The comptroller con
ciudes as follows: much of your argumen mt
Is based upon the necessity of these officers
employed and not enumerated in the statues.
This plea cannot consider. Congress must
provide for the ne cessities. | must construe
the law as find it. therefore conclude
upon the face of the act creating said court.
and act re-establishing same, that the court
had no right or authority to appoint or en-
ploy assistant counsel, expert, assistant
clerks, messengers or any other officer or
employee outside of those enumerated in the
above acts. Constituting the law as | do |
am constrained to disalIow the pay claimed
by all persons heretofore employed by said
court, except those specially enumerated in
the acts above referred to-"
The official statement of the court of Ala
bama claims addressed to the secretary of
state with regard to the expenditure of the
court was, today referred TO the department
of Justice for report. The presentment is
signed hv Judge Harlan, the presiding jus-
tice. but is coDcurred in by his associates.
Judge Harlan expresses satisfaction that Sec
retary Bayard makes no criticism of the ex-
penditures OF the court as extravagant or un-
necessary, stating that they have been most
jealously watched and will bear the most
careful scrutiny. No person has been en-
ployed whose services were not indispensable,
and no dollar of the fund has been unneces-
ssrily expended. The court has been repeat
edy argued by claimants and their counsel
to increase the number of their assistants.
but they had refrained from doing so, desir-
ing to curtail expenses ard because of the
absolute impossihiity of trying more cases
in the time even if they could have been pre-
pared. He refers to the eminently able ser
vices of Cheswell. counsel for the United
States. before this as before former courts
and says that in the opinion Of the court he
bad more than earned the limit placed upon
his salary BY Congress. The court had not
felt it obligatory to apportion his compensa.
ton in each case inasmuch as the
result would have been identical. The
question raised as to the power of the
court to employ the necessary assistance, he
saws causes him no little surprise Early in
1874 this question arose, and the court unani-
mouslv concluded that the language of the
law giving them authority to incur "neces-
sary incidental expense" conferred ample
power to employ such assistance, and that
as the act under which the court was special
and temporal in it's terms. and highly rene
dial in its purpose, it was not subject to the
restriction to section s6S2 Revised Statutes,
prohibiting appropriations for incidental
expenses being used tor clerical salaries
1919 claims, representing the aggregate sum
of s42, ,000, 900, bad been filed for disposition
by the court at its law session Could
it be supposed that 4 Congress
intended that one clerk should do the work of
ten men or that one counsel, whose presence
was constantly required before the court,
should supervise simultaneous taking Of
testimony in almost every State and Terri
tory in the Union. in England, France.
Germany, Japan, China, India. Peru and
the Hawaiian Islands. and in nearly every
important seaport or inhsbitsble globe Con- |
gress could never have entertained any such |
purpose. 1t must have been intended when |
the direction was given, that the docket |
should be kept, and that the wagon loads of
accumulating papers should be arranged and |
preserved, and that the court should pass up- |
on the testimony in accordance with the |
principles of law; that the court should have |
power to assign the clerk with necessary aid |
that the counsel should have such assistance |
as wssreasonably required to protect the in
terests of the government and save the court
from the pitiful condition Of trying case. in-
yolvipg s42,000,000 on ex parte testimony
alone. The question of the power to employ
and paw assistant counsel under the act organ
izog the first court, was submitted to the
attorney general BY Secretary OF State Fish in
1874. Solicitor General VIM. Phillips, with