The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1889-04-16
BADEAU'S SALARY.
The US. Supreme Court Settles 1t.
But Not In a Way Agreeable to the
Noted Plaintiff
He Wants Pay For Two While He
Does Duty In One Position.
He Thinks That He Should Have
His Army Salary,
As Well as That Of a Consul General
The Court Decides That He Can
not Have Remuneration For
But One Office at Time.

WASHINGTON, April l5,-An opinion was
rendered by the Supreme Court of the
United States today in the case OF Adam
Badcau VS.. the United States. This was a
suit brought by 8adcau in the Court of
Claims for pay rs a retired captain In the
army from April 2s 1870 TO September TO-
1881, during which time he was Consul
General to London, and from November
IS, 1882, up TO the date Of the filing of the
suit during which he was Consul-Gcncral
at Havana. The United States filed a coun-
ter claim, stating tina, Badeau was indebted
to the United States for money enormously
paid him as an army officer for portions OF
the period from December 81, 1863 TO Octo-
Der 81, 1882. The Court OF Claims, by a
divided court, dismissed both claims.
The Supreme Court holds that Gen.
Badeau, while drawing salary rs Consul
General, was expressly inhibited from
receiving additional compensation for dis
charging the duties Of any other officer. II
is true, the court says, that II has been
decided that person holding two offices or
employments under the government when
the services rendered or which might be re-
quircd Of them were not incompatible is not
precluded from receiving the salary or COM
pcnsation Of both, but the Treasury Depart
mcnt did not apparently regard this ease rs
falling within that exception and the court
agrees with that conclusion. II II held that
though under the act of 1873 certain army
officers may hold diplomatic or consular
appointments without being held To thereby
resign their places In the army. this does not
entitle them To pay rs army officers when
they are absent from their country In the
discharge Of official duties inconsistent with
subsection 20 military rules such officers.
though they may still be borne In the record
list cannot receive double compensation.
The court also refuses 10 disturb the judg
ment OF the Court Of Claims, adverse 10 the
counter-claim Of the United Statcs II he
was not an officer in law he was serving ~
such In fact and no reason is seen why he
should be required 30 return what was paid
him while lac was dischnndng his duty ~ an
army officer. Opinion by Justice Fuller.
IN the case Of William II. Robinson. Col
lcctor OF the port Of New York. plaintiff in
error, ". Louis A. Solomon and Charles
Solomon. the supreme Court today decided
that beans were dutiablc at 10 per cent. n
vegetables The Circuit Court for the South
crn District Of New York decided that the
beans should be- admitted free Of duty A.
seed not Otherwise provided for The Col
loctor at iint levied duty at ~ pee cent ON
the ground that they were gurlcn seed. The
court holds That although beans are often
planted as seeds, yet their principal use Il
~ an article OF food. and that they slould
therefore, be clnsscd vegetables. The read.
ing ~ the opinion in this case caused good
deal ~ laughter In the courtroom, and some
what disturbed the usual orderly dcCnrum
Of the proceedings Tho opinion was by
Justice Bradley.