Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-07-22

day made his reply to the civil service
commissions request for revision of de-
cision as to the pay of deputy marshals.
The reply is to Secretary Gage, who was
asked to request the revision, and Is as
follows:
The Controllers Letter.
WASHINGTON, D. c., July %, 1899.
To the Honorable, the Secretary Of the
Treasury:
Sir: I am in receipt by your recent ref
erence of a communication bearing date of
June % last, addressed to you by John r.
Proctor, president of the civil service COM
mission, wherein he asks under authority
of the act of July 81, 1894 that you re-
quest me to review my findings in the ad-
vance decision rendered by me TO United
States Marshal J. P. Grady on April last.
Marshal Grady, as a disbursing officer,
under date of January %, 1899, sought an
advance decision of the controller as to
his authority to pay his chief office deputy,
Frank S. Genung, for services rendered as
such on January 10, $780, amounting to
1896 being the aggregate expenses of said
deputy in serving a warrant of arrest, stat
ing in his communication that said deputy
was appointed by him, such marshal on
May /, 1897 but that he did not select his
name from a list prepared by the civil
service commission.
On the LIST day of April last, in response
to such request of the marshal, l rendered
he was authorized to pay such account if
in all other respects correct, notwithstand-
ing the fact that this office deputy had not
been selected from a list prepared by the
civil service commission.
1t is this decision which the civil service
commission, through it's president, requests
that you ask me to review.
The act of July 81, 1894. referred to by the
commission for your authority to direct me
to re-examine this account is entirely map
plicable to the purposes sought by the com
mission, and gives you no authority to di
rect me to review or change my official de-
cfsion rendered. The decision was rem
dered under authority of the following Ian
guage contained in section of said act:
"Disbursing officers, the head of any
executive department, or other establish
ment not under any of the executive de-
partments. may apply for and the controller
of the treasury shall render his decision
upon any question involving a payment to
be made by them or under them, which de-
cision, when rendered, shall govern the au-
ditor and the controller of the treasury in
passing upon the account containing said
disbursement"
1t requires no argument to demonstrate
that ii is beyond the power of the control
Ter to change alter such decision. Eoth
the auditor and the controller must be gov
erned by the decision as rendered when
passing uDon the accounts of this marshal
containing the disbursement SO authorized
There is provision in the act of July a.
1891. contained in section therein, which
under certain other circumstances, but not
In advance decisions rendered to disourSing
officers authorizes you in your discretion
to suspend payment Of an account after its
allowance by an auditor or controller, and
direct the REORGANIZATION of the same, Eut
] presume ii will not be contended by PreSi-
cent Proctor, after mature reflection. that
such provision is applicable to the re-exam-
nation OF an advance decision by the con-
troiier. 1t would indeed be a most, vicious
law that would direct a dsbursing officer
to go to the controller of the treasury for
an advance decision to his authority
to make a payment under a given state of
facts, and when such decision was rendered
and acted upon by him, permit such officer
by a change of mind to make invalid what
he had directly authorized, to The loss and
detrment of such paying officer. This act
has never been SO construed. and I viii rot
this late date give 1t such ineduitable
construction, even at the risk OF further
displeasing the legal sensfbilities OF Mr.
Proctor.
In this connection, I deem it but just to
you to remark that you do not direct or
recommend in your Endorsement on his let
ter the REORGANIZATION or the review Of my
former action in the premises
1t would be entirely appropriate, in view
of the above facts, as I have no jursdic-
ton or authority to review my former adj
vance decision, to so state and treat the
whole matter as a closed incident.
The rule announced in that case, whether
right or wrong, is the law of 1t, which must
govern the accounting officers in passing
upon the accounts of this marshal con-
tanning such item of expenditure ANY adj
ditional discussion of the principles of law
announced in that decision in this connec-
ton will necessarily be more or less AGA
demic, not carrying with it the weight or
force of precedent which would attach were
the question for decision presented with
jurisdiction to determine the question
presented
In view however. of the Importance at
tached to that decision by Mr. Proctor in
his letter requesting it's review. and con-
sidering his action in giving out such let
ter to the public press. I will briefly advert
to some of the questions therein passed
upon and his criticisms thereof.
He says, relative to its Importance:
THE commission begs to briefly call your
attention to this decision not in its bearing
upon the status of the positions of deputy
marshals or of any particular position. but
in so far as it affects the entire classified
service
I'm view Of the Importance of the case,
the commission respectfully requests that
under authority of the act of July ~, 1924
commonly known as the 'Dockery act you
ask the controller to review his findings in
the matter"
Discussing n Dead Issue.
The Importance of the decision, as recog-
nized by Mr.. Proctor, is certainly not In
any statement contained therein relative to
the status of deputy marshas. Whatever
may have been their status relative to the
day of April last, when the decision sought
to be reviewed was rendered, that status
has been affirmatively settled by the recent
order of modification promulgated by the
President of the United States excepting
these positions therefrom. This order, ex-
cepting from the classified service the po-
sitfons of deputy marshals and others, was.
as shown by your recent letter to the sec
rotary of the Civil Service League of New
York, promulgated by the President at the
suggestion and on the advice of the civil
service commission. 1t would therefore be
discussing n dead issue. whose death is
directly attributable to the commission it
self, to further discuss the question to
whether deputy marshals were originally
legally placed in the classified service. Its
Importance cannot rest in the amount
which the marshal was authorized by this
decision to pay to his deputy. 1t must.
therefore. necessarily rest in the following
statements contained therein:
1.-The executive order placing officer depu-
ty marshals in the classified service list Is
not a statute nor has 1t the force of law
1t is regulation made under the law. and
a proper subject of enforcement by execu-
tive authority . .
1.-The unlawful appointment to place or
= ;,rr frovv tic