Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1885-11-21
I14BAMA CLAIMS COSTS.
.orTCTTOR WHARTON's DECIS-
ION MADE PUBLIC.

,,snts of the Learned Judges of
- Court shown to be Not Well
T,nnded-Ths Course Which Should
80 Reen Pursued to Secure Addi-
tioual Help.
w,sHrNGTON. Nov. 20.--Attorney Gen.
..al Garland, to whom Secretary Bay ard
'.roa weeks ago referred the question of
.se legality Of the expenses of the Court
commissioners of Alabama Claims,
Saving signified his concurrence in the
l,i,,ons Of the Solicitor of the state De-
,r,ment Francis Wharton, the publica-
..oros MIR, Wharton's opinion is author
i1sd bv the State Department. 1t is of
aonsiderable length and deals exhaus-
tiyelv with points raised in defense Of the
action of the court.
rNwARRANTED PAYMENTS.
In effect. 1t holds that the appointment
orvbat are known as additional counsel
oftbp United States, seventeen in num-
her. was illegal, and the expenditures on
tbeir account without warrant OF the law.
AZ 10 government experts ana extra
oisrEs MIR. Wharton says the argument
Drawn from the rules, eXpressio verius
ast evclusiO atterius, precludes also the
allowance of their salaries. The i'm
1ortsnce of the question, he saws, is
sfown by the fact that among the eX-
nenses ofthe commission are included the
esIsrv 0f an expert in insurance, 1000;
three assistant experts, one at $4,000 and
tEo9tS 500: one clerk to the insurance
cvuerts. ST 400; a deputy clerk of the
coIrt. S2 800: four assistants to the clerk
al rom ST, 900 to $1,000, together with the
,Judye's clerk and several clerks to the
counsel.
ALL MADE WITHOUT AUTHORITY.
For no one of these appointments is
there any authority of the law, and the
fact that Congress refused to give the
court power to appoint a single clerk in
the statute authorizing 1t, excludes the
possibility OF an intention to invest the
court with the appointment of series of
clerks.
Referring to the reason given by the
learned president of the court for the ex-
trsorijnary appointments and allowances
that such action was necessary for the
proper management of the business before
tbe court, the solicitor says the alleged in
adequacy of the machinery provided by
Congress was known to the court imme-
dlateiy after its appointment in 1874, and
that under the circumstances the proper
course was to apply to Congress for re-
hei
THE SUPREME COURT.
The Supreme Court of the United
States. Mr.. Wharton says. is at least as
crowded with important business as is
the Court Of Commissioners OF Alabama
Claims, and is content with an allow
/. ance for expenses far less than thatwhich
4 the Commissioners have claimed, but so
far from attempting to enlarge its statu-
4,avT Itft hvr 70 hnf
Il august tribunal has patiently waited from
year TO year for Congress to afford the re-
lief it asks. in considering the reply
8 that in the construction of the statute the
E practice Of departments entrusted with
8 its execution Is to be taken into consider
alton.
SIMILAR CASES IN THE PAST.
Mr.. Wharton says: "Our books
TEEN with cases in which public officers
& have been held responsible for having
iraGscended the limits imposed on them
by statute, but apprehend this is the
lfst case in which the Illegal action OF
sncnan officer has been claimed so ex-
pressed the limits of the statute be trans
gressed. nor can subsequent re-establish-
heat Of the court be any more regarded
as ratification by Congress Of prior ac-
Ton Of the court, than could the reelection
OIL Judge be regarded as ratlfying all his
. PRIOR erroneous decisions.
RES ADJUDICATA.
The remaining point taken up in the
Fl reply is that of res ddjudicGtd. 1t is
argued by the solution, however that
iTmal approval by the secretary of prior
Items Of an account no more bars discus
son Of subsequent items of the same class
oy his successors, than does sub silertio
approval by chancellor Of certain
cnafges in trustees account bar an in
Nesusation of subsequent charges of a
similar character when new account is
presented.