The record-union., 1895-08-19
MINISTER TO MEXICO RANSOM.
WHY TIE SALARY OF THE DIP
LOMAr WAS PROTESTED.
He Was Appointed and Confirmed Be-
fore His Term of Office as Som
ator Had Expired.

| WASHINGTON. Aug. 18.-It was learned
tho Treasury, did not content himself
with merely raising the question as to
the right Of ex-senator Ransom to draw
the salary of Minister to Mexico, but on
the 18th of July last decided that he was
not entitled to the compensation he
claimed as such officer, the voucher by
Solicitor eneral Holmes Conrad, Actin e
Attorney General, having been reterred
to the Department of Justice for review.
Mr.. Holmes said: ''In determining
! Mr.. Ransom's right to the salary, ii ls
necessary to decide when an appointment
| Is com plete, and whether or not 1t was
complete during his term as Senator. He
was nominated by the President OF the
! Senate February 18th. ana the nOmina-
| ton was confirmed the same day. Ihe
| commission bears date of February 23d.
| take it that the legal presumption is
| that the signing and sealing was on the
| date OF the issuance OF the Commi isslOn,
| until rebutsal TO the contrary, and this /
/ have been unable to obtain, so that such
acts were petormed while Mr.. Ransom
was yet serving his term as Senator. But
| he did not take the oath OF Office until
| March 4th, and his commission was not
delivered to him until March 9Th. which
! days were after his Senatorial term had
| expired"
| In support of this position Auditor
! HOlcomb cited numerous decisions of the
| Federal and State courts, the language OF
| nmentators on the case who have con-
sidered the question. with Chief Justice
| MarsEalPS opinion in the celebrated case
of Marbury vs.. Madison, in which he de-
! cided the acts of "appointing to office and
commissioning the person appointed can
| scarcely be considered as one and the
same" In the opinion OF the court the
appointment was complete at the latest
! when the commission was signed and
sealed, and" said Mir. Holcomb. this,
| in the case of MIR. Ransom, took place be-
fore his term as Senator had eX Xpired.
| The decision In the case of Marbury VS..
| Madison has been followed aud affirmed
with remarkable unanimity, whenever
the question has been raised, notwith-
standing the severe adverse criticisms of
Thomas Jefferson OF the opposition, as
well as OF the Chief Justice who de-
| livered it."
Ia conclusion, Auditor HoIcomb said !:
''Thus it is seen that the testimony is
overwhelming. The Supreme Court in
two cases. the great Jurists who have
critically examined the Constitution, the
Attorney-Generals who have considered
the question and the courts of the States,
| al CONCUR III the y DiulOu tuab tUo dppOluA-
ment is complete al the latest when the
commission is signed and sealed. There
fore, as Mr.. Ranson's commission was
signed and sealed on February 23d, be-
fore his term as Senator had expired, L
cannot escape the conclusion that tho
constitutional prohibition contained IN
Section d, Article l prevailed to prevent
| his appointment as Envoy Extraordinary
and Minister Plsnipotentiary to Mexico,
and that therefore, he Is not entitled TO
salary as such. MIR. Ransom, however,
took the oath of office, the commission
was delivered TO him and he has been
performing the duties OF the Office with
the consent and approval OF the State De-
partment. He has also regularly drawn
for the salary OF the office and his drafts
have been passed upon requisition OF the
State Department. 1t would seem that
ne has occupied the position OF de tacto
| officer. The doctrine announced IN
Kent, that Salary and fees are incident
to the title,' has been almost universally
accepted to prohibit payment Of COM
pensation to de facto officers"