The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-08-20
the CASE or MINT>TER RfNSOM.
Auditor Hoicomb'- Reasons for Regarding
the Appointment Unconstitutional

WASHINGTON. August BIT has been
learned that Thomas Holcomb, Auditor
OF the Treasury for the State and other
! departments. did not content himself win
merely raising the question as 10 the
right of ex-senator Ransom to draw the
salary Of Minister to Mexico but on
tho 18th of July last decided that he was
not entitled to the compensation which
he claimed as such officer. This opinion
was confirmed by that of solicitor-Gen-
eral Holmes Conrad, Acting Attorney
General. having been referred TO the
Department Of Justice for review.
In discussing the case, Mr.. Holcomb
said: In determining Mr. RarsOms
right to the salary. 1t is necessary 10 &C.
eide when an appointment is complete,
and whether or not 1t was complete dur
ing his term as senator. He was nolni-
mated by the President to the Senate Feb
ruary I'D. and the nomination was con-
lrmed the same day. The commission
bears date OF February 23d. ! take il
the legal presumption Is that the sign
Ing and sealing was on the date Of the
commission. unless rebutted by proof TO
the contrary. and this have been unable
TO obtain, and so these acts were per-
formed while Mr.. Ransom was yet serv-
ing his term as senator. But he did
18th. and his commission was not deliver
ed to him until March 9Th. which days
were after his senatorial term had ex-
pired."
In support OF his position, Auditor Hol-
comb cited numerous decisions OF the
Federal and State courts. the language
OF commentators on the Constitution. and
opinions OF Attorney Generals. who have
considered the question. beginning with
Chief-Justice Marshalrs opinion In the
celebrated case Of Marbury VS.. Madison.
in which he declared that the acts OF ZAP
pointing 10 Office and commissioning the
one appointed can scarcely he considered
as one and the same" In the opinion
of the court the appointment was conf
plete at the latest when the commission
was signed and sealed. and. said Mr..
Holcomb, this in the case Of Mr.. RAN
SON. took place before his term as sena-
tor had expired. The decision I'm the
case OF Marbury VS.. Madison has been
| followed and affirmed with remarkable
unanimity whenever the question has
/ been raised. Notwithstanding the severe
adverse criticisms OF Thomas jefferson Of
the opinion. as well as OF the Chief-Jus-
tice who delivered it,"
In concluding. Auditor H0lcOmb said.
| "Thus II is seen that the testimony is
. T.
two cases. the great jurists who have
critically examined the Constitution. those
! Acknowledgements who have considered
the question at all; the courts Of the
States, all concur IN the opinion that the
appointment is complete az the latest
when the commission is signed and sealed
/ Therefore, as Mr. Ransom's commission
was signed and scaled ON February 28d
/ before his term as senator had expired.
! cannot escape the conclusion that the
| constitutional prohibition contained in
Section 6. Article l.. prevailed 10 prevent
his appointment as Envoy Extraordinary
and Minister PlenipOtentiary to Mexico.
and that therefore. he Is not entitled 10
salary as such.
MIR. Ransom. however took the oath
OF office, the commission was delivered 30
him, and he has been performing the
duties Of the office, with the consent
and approval cf the State Department.
He has also rcgularly drawn for the
salary Of the Office. and his drafts have
been paid upon requisition OF the State
! Department. II would seem that he
has occupied the position Of de facto
officer. The doctrine announced iu Kent.
that salary and fees are incident TO the
tide, has been almost universally ac-
ceptcd 10 prohibit the payment OF COM
ponsation 10 de facto officers But where
the officer has been paid the compensa-
ton, 10 has been held that ii cannot be
recovered back. Upon the authority Of
Badeau versus the United States. Mr.
Ransom Will be allowed in settlement
whatever amount he has received toward
payment Of the salary. New York
| Times.