Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-03-31
THEY WILL GET THEIR PAY.
Good News for Congressman Who Suf.
fered by Silcott's Defalcation.

THEY WILL GET THEIR PAY.
Good News for Congressman Who suf-
fered by Silcott's Defalcation
THE COURT OF CLAIMS DRcIpRs TIE TEST CASE
OF REPRESENTATIVES, GRAIN IN HIS FAVOR
THE sERoEANT-AT-ARMs DIsBURsINa OFFICER
BIZ CUSTOM IF NOT BY LAW.
A decision was announced by the Court OF
Claims this morning in the claim Of Represent
ative Grain against the United States for salary
as member of Congress for the month of No
vember, 1Ss9 which he failed to receive, owing
to the defalcation of Cashier Silcott last fall.
The court sustained the petition and awarded
Judgment in the sum OF 1896.
Acting on this decision the House Of Repre-
sentatives will probably make an appropriation
sufficient to cover the total amount of the de-
falcation-at least S70.O0O-in order to save
useless expense in the institution of other suits
for the same end. Judge Davis read the decis-
ion, which was a mastery review of the law
ana custom In the premises, occupying fnlly
three-quarters of an hour in delivery. The
seats IN the court room were all taken, Repre-
sentatives Paynter and Payson being present
to hear the Judgment.
THE DECISION.
the defalcation, the great interest taken in the
case by the country at large, the debates IN the
House of Representatives as to the RESPONSE.
blilty for the loss, and then entered into care
1ui review OF the usages and customs of the
House as to the payment of members sala-
RES. Following the custom that had
been in vogue for years the plaintiff had. at
the close of the session. signed nine blank re-
6eipts. each for months salary, and received
all but that for November as each came due.
On the 2oth Of November lone Silcott,'i the
cashier OF the sergeant-at-arms, went to the
Treasury with many salary receipts which he
cashed and large part of this money he ap-
propriated to his own use and left town, being
now fugitive from justice.
STATUS OF THE sERoEANr-Ar-ARMs
The question in the balance is whether or
not the sergeant-at-arms, to whom the cashier
was responsible, was the private agent Of the
members or the disbursing agent of the gov
ernment. There is no statute making this
officer a dlsbursing agent nor is one
necessary. The courts do not gen.
orally hoio that statutes absolutely
necessary where there are sanctioned usages
for long periods to indicate the course of es-
tablished custom. A rule of the House is in
existence calling upon the sergeant-at-arnls to
pay members their salaries and mileage,
with certain observances as 20 form; he gives
bond to the United States and no money comes
into his hands for disbursement but that of the
United States. He is by his bond pledged to
the government for the faithful performance Of
his duty, is given force OF assistants paid by
the government and his office is fitted with u
large safe and other appliances usually
provided for financial agents. The plaintiff
claims that the rules of the House are a suffi-
cient statutory authority of themselves. but
with this the court disagrees. There is
statute that provides that there shall be
sergeant-at-arms of the House, but it
does not stipuiate his duties.
DIsBURsINs OFFICER IN FACT.
The inference is that it is the spirit of the
statute that these duties are to be given to
him by the House, and shall be considered of
themselves as statutory if in conformity with
OF the cashier and other such assist
ants in the office of the
sergeant-at-arms would show that he must be
disbursng officer in fact. The secretary of the
Senate Is expressly constituted disbursing
officer, and in many instances is given
duties exactly similar and parallel to those
given to the sergeant-at-arms. Since 1880 the
latter pays the salaries of members under the
rules Of the House; before then he did SO only
at the request OF members. Here, then, was.
definite duty given him by the House. In 1882
bill was passed by the House making
the sergeant-at-arms disbursing officer
In terms. but it failed to reach the Senate from
the committee. This was probably owing to
the fact that six days after the passage by the
House of that bill the President signed an
other, which ordered the payment by the
Treasury of vouchers executed by officers spe-
clally designated with disbursements of public
money.
NO FURTHER LAW WAS NECESSARY.
This being intended to include the House
officers, there was no actual necessity to make the
sergeant-at-arm disbursng officer in specific
terms in another act. The courts endeavor to
uphold the statutes and to give them effect
The act of 1882, taken in conjunction with the
rule of 1880. would make the sergeant-at-arms
OF the House in law what he had long been in
fact-a disbursing officer of the government
We're he not. then the officers of the Treasury,
who paid his vouchers, were for many years
and In hundreds of cases violating the law reg
ulating the fiscal operations of the Govern
ment, and even in this view, their error which
would be strange one considering their long
experience and training, should not operate to
the loss OF an innocent person. No responsibility
falls on any third person, ignorant OF the tech
nicality of the law, or of the statutory author
ity of officers with whom they deal by reason
OF the continued custom Of those officers.
THE RULES OF THE HOUSE
did not make the sergeant-at-arms q personal
agent of the members, and any such personal
agency would arise from the transaction itself
rather than from the law and would consist
merely in the signing of a blank receipt.
The only view to take of the case
then, concluded Judge Davis. is that an ap-
peal can be had to usage to interpret
statutes, and IN view of all the customs of the
House for year past the only reasonable inter-
probation of the law is that the sergeant-at-
arms of the House is disbursing officer of the
government and the court therefore unani-
mously awarded judgment to the plaintiff.
WORK OF THE GRAND JURY.