The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-02-14

| Q. K. on comparatively few of those
presented in the present session.
/ In this day and age all sorts of claims
creep into congress. Mr.. Miller, by vir-
| tue of his position. has to approve OF
| condemn these bills, and to stand fol
| them or oppose them when they reach
! the floor. This is where his power comes
| in. and his prominence as sort OF
| watchdog of the treasury.
1t is estimated that there are claim
| measures now before congress and be-
fore Mr.. Miller's committee which ag-
gregate from one to two million dollars
where assignments have been made &c
attorneys for the purpose of collection
Of the claims, amounting to $3.50. 900.
Mr.. Miller has SteadfaStly refused to
stand for these claims, on the theory
that if the claims are of value, then
curing from 80 to IS per cent of them
and if they are not of value then there
is no warrant for appropriation.
Mr.. Miller will not permit reports on
any bill or bills which he does not
personally examine most infinitely, and
he first satisfies himself that no at
torney is going to reap the fruits of
success, if the bill goes through
There was an effort made recently
before Mr.. Miller's committee to secure
waving of statute of limitation barrier
IN cases involving very large amounts
of money paid into the treasury under
that portion of the war revenue act of
1898 which had to do with inheritance
tax. Most of these amounts were paid
men. On February 20. 1905, in the
case of Vanderbilt VS.. Eidman, the
supreme court held that neither the
original war revenue act nor the amen
datory act of March 2, 1901, authorized
the imposition of taxes on legacies
which did not pass into possession prior
to July 1, 1902.
- Immediately there was wild scram-
BILE on the part of men affected by this,
who had willingly paid their tax, to
have the courts pass on their cases.
Then it was found the statute of linn
itations barred them. Hence they
sought to have congress waive the bar
so they could get into court The bill
went to Mr.. Miller's committee and he
turned down the proposition. In the
first place he was against waving sta
tute of limitations and letting claim
ants have fresh start. Then he claim
ed that the men being wealthy men.
there was no urgent necessity for a re-
fund to them. So he killed the PROPOSE
ton.
Then the matter was brought up in
another form. Representative Dalzell of
Pennsylvania introduced bill to re-
fund thse amounts. and had it referred
to the committee on ways and means
of which he is a member. The commit
tee favorably reported the bill, and Mr..
DalzeH had it passed one day in d
quiet moment in the house of represen-
tatives when Mr.. Miller wasn't lookinG.
But Mr.. Miller is now busily engaged
in trying to head off this bill in the
senate, and has interested Senator
Long in the matter.
So it will be seen that Mr.. Miller is
a sort of watchdog of the treasury.
and has positively saved hundreds of
thousands of dollars by refusing to per-
nit old claims to go through his COM
mittee, especially where they have for
the most part, been assigned to attor-
neys. and where the claimants would
receive little or no benefit even If the
bills should pass.