Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-03-19
CONGRESSMAN GRAINS CLAIM.
His Suit Against the United States
for His Salary.

ARGUMENTS IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS ropAY-
SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT PAY REPREsENTA-
T1vEs THE AMOUNTS THEY FAILED TO RECEIVE
IN ooNsEQuENCE OF sIIcoTT's DEFALCArIoS?. !.
The court Of claims this morning heard the
arguments in the claim of VIM. H. Grain against
the United States for salary due to him as Q
member of the House Of Representatives,
which be failed to receive through the defalca-
tion of the missing Mr.. Silcott, the
cashier of ex-Sergeant-at-Arms Leedom.
All the members Of the court were
on the bench, Chief Justice Richardson
and Judges Mott, Weldon. Davis and Schofield
The claimant in the case was represented by
Mr.. Phil Thompson, jr., who introduced Repre-
sentatives Catchings and Payson to the court
as being associated with him. Assistant At
torney General Cotton and Assistant Attorney
Brannigan appeared for the defendant the
ter, the latter having also claim on file, were
present and took a deep interest in the pro-
ceedihgs.
THE ORDER OF SPEAKING AGREED UPON.
There was no testimony taken. the counsel
having agreed upon statement of the facts
an the case, which simplified the proceedings
After little discussion as to the order Of
speaking it was decided to pursue the following
order in speaking: Mr.. Catchings to open for
the claimant, followed by Mr.. Brannigan for
the defendant, then Mr.. Payson. and Mr.. Cot
Ton closing for the government, with MIR.
thompson bringing up in the rear for the
cialm
Mr. CArCHINas BEGAN HIS ARGUMENT
few minutes after II o'clock and occupied
considerably over an hour. He traced the de-
velopment of the custom of paying members
by the sergeant-at-arms, who he urged. was .
dlsbursing officer by virtue of the successive
legislation of Congress giving him the duties of
paying the members, with full outfit of as
slstants and an equipped Office The sergeant
alarms was given the same duties the Sec
retary OF the Senate in the matter of dis
bursements, the latter being designated in
terms as dlsbursing officer.
THE CLAIMANTS PROPOSITIONS.
The claimant presented two alternative
propositions, upon either of which his case
rested, namely: Q) that the sergeant-at-arms
is the disbursing officer of the government for
the payment of the salaries and mileage of
members; (2) that if he is not a disbursing
officer for that purpose, and is to be regarded
as the private agent of the members for
the purpose Of receiving payment at the treas
ury of their salaries and mileage as payment
becomes due, then any payment to him as such
agent by the United States treasurer OF the
salary of member for any month is erroneous
and unauthorized if it be made prior TO the 4th
day OF the calendar month next thereafter.
AREPLY TO THE CLAIMANTS PROPOSITIONS.
Ma. Brannigan in his argument made the
following reply to these propositions:
l. The sergeant-at-arms OF the House OF
Representatives is not now, nor has he ever
been, in law or in fact, the disbursing agent of
the defendant for the payment of salaries or
mileage OF members and delegates In Congress,
or Tor the payment OF any money OF the United
States for any purpose whatsoever.
2. Whether the sergeant alarms was or was
not the agent of the claimant for the purpose
of receiving payment of his salary for the
month of November. 1883, the payment thereof
at the treasury in manner and form set forth
IN the record was good and valid payment to
the claimant, and the latter is estopped
from setting up any irregularity as to the time
or mode of such payment.
g. The payment of claimants compensation
for the month OF November. 1889, at the treas
ury Of the United States to the sergeant-at-arms
of the House of Representatives before the last
day of that month was fnil and valid pay
ment of the same to the claimant.
4. The principle of the defense is that the
defendant is not responsible for claimants mis-
takes as to matters of law. which every person
of discretion is bound and presumed to know,
for ignorantia eorum quae quis scre tenetur
non eNcusat ignorance of that which is known
does not eXcuse).
The court took a recess at $780, at the con-
cluslOn of Mr. Catchings' argument, and re-
convened at 80 o'clock.
Mr.. Brannigan then opened for the govern
ment. At the conclusion of his remarks the
court adjourned for today.
The case will be continued tomorrow, when
Messrs. Payson, Cotton and Thompson will de
liver their arguments. 1t is expected that the
case Will be concluded tomorrow.