Year: 1876

1t is difficult TO discover either the JUS
tice Of necessity for or benefits to be de-
rived from the enactment into law of the
bill recently passed by the House to amend
section 100 of the Revised Statutes of the
United States and now pending in the Jul
dietary Committee of the Senate, forbid
ding any officer, clerk or employee holding
office after the passage of the act in any of
the Departments or bureaus OF the Govcrn-
ment TO aid, directly or indirectly, for two
years next after he shall have ceased 10 be
such officer, clerk or employee, in the
prosecution of any claim or patent then or
heretofore pending in such Department or
bureau.


The section which it is the purpose of
this bill to amend is open to serious objec-
lions, but is far less Objectionable than this
proposed legislation, notably in that while
section 100 applies only to employees ap-
pointed after it became a law, this bill af-
fects as well all employees in the Executive
Departments at the date Of its passage,
thus arbitrarily introducing au clement
into the existing contract between the
Government and its servant from which
there is no escape but Immediate resigna-
ton. This is a hardship which faithful
services do not merit. To those who &C
cept appointment after the passage of the
act the law will be a condition to which
they will subscribe or not as they shall de-
termine that the benefits to be derived do
or do not counterbalancc the abridgment
Of rights and other disadvantages conse-
quent upon acceptance, but to the official
already in the civil service immediate re-
signation before it can positively he known
that the bill will become law is the sole
remedy. To force employees to resign un-
der such circumstances is TO adopt by law
Il course universally condemned and sell
dom or never practiccd in any business
community. surely the Government can
afford to be as generous 10 its employees as
arc private persons, and at least 50 frame
lis laws of this character that the ordinary
notice be given which by custom, now
grown into law, is allowed by the heads of
Departments in cases of removal from
office without assignment of cause.


The purpose of this bill does not clearly
appear. If it be to compel employees to
remain in service. as stated in the House,
it is unworthy Of Congress, and would sub
ject to ridicule any less dignified body who
should seek by such means to retain the
services of its servants. That this is the
design of Congress can hardly be believed,
for the debates upon previous legislation
affecting salaries indicate that they fully
appreciate that the laborer is worthy of his
hire, and that the compensation of skill
and talent in any art science or industry
will regulate itself without the aid Of Con-
gressional enactment.


If, however, the purpose be to prevent
the use of dishonest means in the settle
ment of claims, then this bill not only sadly
needs amending, but it, and all legislation
OF its character, assumes a condition OF dis
honesty and mental darkness in the eXecu-
tive departments for which there is no sub
stantial basis. Certainly it will not be as
serted that an employee of the Interior
Department can by his service there be-
come familiar with the details of business
in the State Department, or of any depart
ment or bureau but that in which he is
employed; yet if this bill becomes law it
will be unlawful for an ex-employee of any
one of the executive departments to aid,
during two years next after removal or
resignation, in the prosecution of any claim
or patent in any other department, of the
secrets and mode of conducting business in
which he will probably know absolutely
nothing. No exception is made in case the
claim is his own, and hence under such a
law if will be unlawful for an ex-employee
of the State, Treasury, War or Navy De-
nartments to aid within the two years
specified in prosecuting his own claim for