DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D. C., December 13, 1894. SIR: Inclosed is a copy of a letter addressed to this Department on August 6, 1894, by R. B. Bowler, Comptroller of the Treasury, respecting a claim pending in the Treasury Department in favor of Winslow Warren, of Boston, Mass., amounting to $500, for services rendered by him under an order of court dated September 15, 1892, of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts; the copy of the Comptroller's letter gives a history of the case and his views respecting its disallowance. Inclosed is also a letter from Hon. William L. Putnam, of the United States courts for Massachusetts, dated November 22, 1894, who states that the service rendered by Mr. Warren was an examination of "public advantage far beyond anything the court anticipated, but if it had yielded no result, it would have been a gross disregard of an important duty not to have ordered it promptly at the time when it was ordered." The services performed by Mr. Warren were in examining the office of the clerk of the circuit court for Massachusetts at a time when the clerk was about to leave the office for service as clerk of the circuit court of appeals; the work consisting in reporting to the court the condition of the clerk's office, of which he had been an incumbent for many years. It is understood that this service was required by Judge Putnam in this case, under the practice of the courts of the State of Massachusetts, when a clerk is about to leave his office, so that a successor coming in office may know thoroughly his responsibilities and the condition in which the office is which he is to take upon himself. I would respectfully request you to transmit this matter to Congress for its consideration in the hope that compensation may be provided, as stated before, as, in my opinion, valuable services were faithfully rendered and ought to meet with the suitable compensation. The judge of the courts should know on such occasion whether the services were required. The opinion of Judge Putnam is strongly stated, and I rely upon that statement as the basis of the recommendation. Very respectfully, The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. RICHARD OLNEY, Attorney-General. TREASURY Department, OFFICE OF THE FIRST COMPTROLLER, SIR: There is now pending for settlement in my office a claim in favor of Winslow Warren of $500 for services rendered by him under an order dated September 15, 1892, of the circuit court of the United States for the district of Massachusetts, which is as follows: "Ordered: Winslow Warren, esq., a commissioner of this court, is hereby appointed a special examiner, and directed to examine the records, files, and registry funds of this court, and to report to the court on the completeness and correctness of the same." The amount was allowed by you, payable from the appropriation "Miscellaneous expenses, United States courts," 1893, $400; 1894, $100. That appropriation reads: "For payment of such miscellaneous expenses as may be authorized by the AttorneyGeneral, dollars." For each of the fiscal years 1892 and 1893 there was an appropriation for prosecution of crimes, which included the following: "For the investigation of official acts, records, and accounts of officers of the courts, including the investigation of the accounts of marshals, attorneys, clerks of the United States courts, and United States commissioners under the direction of the Attorney-General, and for this purpose all the records and dockets of these officers, without exception, shall be examined by his agents at any time, dollars." The general duty of supervising the accounts of officers of the United States courts is imposed upon the Attorney-General by section 368 of the Revised Statutes. This appropriation enables him not only to comply with that section, but confers upon him broader and more important powers. I know of no provision of law specifically directing or authorizing the judges of the court to order the same work done. Without deciding, therefore, that the claim of Mr. Warren can not be allowed, I have the honor to return the claim for your personal consideration, with the suggestion that, Congress having made so specific a provision for the examination of the offices of clerks of United States courts as is provided for in the appropriation for prosecution of crimes, it does not seem to have been within their contemplation that the appropriation for miscellaneous expenses of the courts should be charged with an expense such as that covered by the claim of Mr. Warren. I do not believe that Congress could have intended to authorize payment for examinations of the offices of clerks of the courts by the Attorney-General, and also to have authorized payment of the expenses of a similar investigation ordered by the court. If you agree with the views above expressed, I trust you will withdraw your approval of Mr. Warren's claim in order to remove all question as to the right of Mr. Warren to recover the same in view of the language of the appropriation for miscellaneous expenses of United States courts, which reads: "For the payment of such miscellaneous expenses as may be authorized by the Attorney-General." By this action you will also prevent the establishment of a new and dangerous precedent in the use of this appropriation. That all acts performed by persons at the request or under the order of the court do not constitute proper charges against the United States, see the recent action of the Senate in reference to appropriating for the payment of Mr. Winston's services, rendered by him at the request of the court in defending certain poor persons under section 4 of the act of July 20, 1892, 27 Stat. L., 252 (Congressional Record, August 4, 1894, p. 9629). As the order of court appointing Mr. Warren was not made at the request or with the approval of the Attorney-General, no equity arises to pay for those services out of an appropriation under the control of the Attorney-General. Respectfully, yours, R. B. BOWLER, Comptroller. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL. UNITED STATES COURTS, MY DEAR ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I thank you for yours of the 20th instant, touching the allowance of $500 justly due Winslow Warren, commissioner. I would not care to suggest to him to bring a suit, and for many reasons I am sure he would not wish to do it. He was entirely willing to do the work at my personal solicitation, and I am more interested on account of the court than on his account to secure payment. The result of the examination in this case was of public advantage far beyond anything the court anticipated; but if it had yielded no result it would have been a gross disregard of an important duty not to have ordered it promptly at the time when it was ordered. I think Congress ought to extend the departmental examinations to the records and files, with authority to the court to order special examinations in emergencies. Very truly, yours, Hon. RICHARD Olney. WILLIAM L. PUTNAM. 1st Session. 1 No. 722. INCREASING NUMBER OF OFFICERS IN SUBSISTENCE DEPARTMENT OF THE REGULAR ARMY. MARCH 26, 1900.-Ordered to be printed. Mr. HAWLEY, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany S. 3430.] The Committee on Military Affairs, having had under consideration Senate bill No. 3430, report the same to the Senate and recommend that it do pass. The United States has in the service now nearly 100,000 soldiers. The commissioned force of that department has, by legislation and otherwise, been so reduced that the regular establishment has practically eight officers less than it had when the reduction in the Army to 25,000 took place. The necessity of sending these officers from point to point to inspect supplies, and the work they have in supplying posts, results in heavy expenditures which would be avoided by the passage of this bill. The case is fully and forcibly stated by the correspondence herewith submitted, as follows: WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, February 28, 1900. SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith a bill to increase the number of officers in the Subsistence Department of the Regular Army. The number of officers in this department is not sufficient to meet the demands of the service and to insure the purchase and prompt supplying involved in subsisting the Army, as now employed. Favorable action is requested. Very respectfully, Hon. JOSEPH R. HAWLEY, Chairman Military Committee, United States Senate. ELIHU ROOT, Secretary of War. WAR DEPARTMENT, OFFICE COMMISSARY-GENERAL OF SUBSISTENCE, SIR: In 1895, during the administration of Mr. Lamont, 4 officers were taken away from the Subsistence Department; that is, the department was reduced from 26 to 22. Of these 22 officers there are now, 1 suspended; 1 a collector of customs 8. Rep. 455 at Havana; 1 a colonel of a regiment, and another who probably will not be available for duty for a long time, thus leaving the department practically with 8 officers less in the regular establishment than it had in 1895, when the reduction took place and the Army was but 25,000 men. The condition of the department to-day is that we have no chief commissary at Governors Island-a department that has 47 posts-nor have we an assistant to the purchasing officer in New York City, where the purchases are indeed exceptionally large; nor have we at Chicago a chief commissary for the Department of the Lakes, where there are 5 posts, and where the purchasing conditions are similar to those in New York City. We have no commissary whatever at the depot at New Orleans, none at St. Paul for the department and depot, none at Omaha, Denver, San Antonio, and 1 too few at the depot in San Francisco. Because of this state of affairs it is asked that the department be increased to the number it was before the reduction made by Secretary Lamont in 1895, and in view of the conditions herein before pointed out consideration be given to the necessity for additional numbers, and instead of giving us the 4 officers to put us back to where we were in 1895, that we get 8, to immediately meet the conditions pointed out above and remove the tension which now exists in the department. J. F. WESTON, Very respectfully, The SECRETARY OF WAR. Acting Commissary-General of Subsistence. MEMORANDUM FOR THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MILITARY COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE, IN CONNECTION WITH THE BILL FOR THE INCREASE OF THE SUBSISTENCE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR. The condition of affairs as pointed out in my letter to the Secretary is spoken of in the minimum. I hardly know how to meet the wants of the department with the tools with which I have to work. The total cost of the increase per annum would be about $18,000, and this would be repaid to the Government, I may say, five times over in freight alone, without referring to the quality of goods incident to hurried purchase. For instance, if I had an officer at Kansas City I could ship stores from there to many posts in Texas, Indian Territory, and Kansas, whereas I now have to ship them from elsewhere. Again, the bacon that I send out from Kansas City for San Francisco I have to send Major Alexander from Chicago to Kansas City, for the purpose of inspection, about twice a month. This is just a fair sample, and since there is not one thing in the whole of this that can accrue to my personal benefit, or to the benefit of anybody but the Government, I beg of you to take a special interest in it. The increase of colonel and lieutenant-colonel is necessary; it is due to the fact that an officer holding the position of chief commissary at New York or Chicago should have equal rank to men holding corresponding positions. Again, he needs the authority incident to rank; it is due to a proper incentive for promotion; it is also due to the opportunity it will give a few officers who served during the war, now well up on the list, to pass to a higher grade; it is due to homogeneous organization. J. F. WESTON, Acting Commissary-General of Subsistence. Very respectfully, One of the most important reasons for a sufficient number of commissary officers is the necessity and economy of being able to buy and inspect supplies at the most advantageous points. The number of officers in the Subsistence Department at present is so small that it is impossible to detail an officer for duty at Kansas City; consequently commissary supplies going to New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and far western points are purchased at Chicago and billed from there instead of Kansas City at a loss to the Government in the payment of freight, as shown in the following table of freight rates. The saving in freight rates by having a man stationed at Kansas City would, in a very short time, pay his salary several times over. Kansas |