THE SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION BILL.
On motien by Mr. WOLCOTT, the Senate resolved itself into a Committee of the Whole, and resumed the consideration of the Specific Appropriation bill [H. R. 111] - Mr. Gifford in the chair.
The section recommended by the Finance Committee appropriating various sums of money to different persons for expenses incurred in defending suits instituted against them for arrests made by them, while acting under orders, being read -
Mr. HANNA moved to strike it from the bill for reasons which he gave.
Mr. FISHER said the section was not here by the action of the Committee - the Senate instructed them to report it.
Mr. HADLEY believed there were claims paramount to these which would exhaust the Treasury; and, therefore, favored the motion to strike out.
Mr. HAMILTON thought it but just to help these men out of the difficulty which overtook them in consequence of their obedience to their superior officers.
Mr. TURNER was satisfied there were thousands of similar claims outstanding, and if this precedent were adopted there is no telling where the end will be.
The motion to strike out was agreed to upon a division of the Senate.
Mr. WOLCOTT moved to increase the sum allowed in the committee's amendment for attorney fees in the case of the State of Indiana v. the Central Canal Company from $750 to $1,000.
Mr. ROBINSON of Madison moved as a substitute that a sum not exceeding $1,000 be allowed.
Mr. CARSON moved to add: or so much as shall be necessary in the opinion of the Governor, and declaring that $1,000 shall cover all the attorney's fees in this case.
The amendment was rejected.
The substitute was adopted.
The section, as amended, was adopted.
The section recommended by the committee, allowing J.A. Coburn $31,813 95 for settling claims of the State against the United States, being read -
Mr. CARSON opposed its adoption. Indiana is supporting a Governor, Adjutant General, and other State officers, to take care of her interests, and yet it seems that a clerk or agent has to be employed for two months to look after our interests, and to be paid for that service more than you pay your Governor, or Senators for six years' services in Congress. And what labor did this valuable clerk perform? Can any Senator show that he furnished brain, muscle, or labor, or incurred any risk or hazard iv this matter?
Mr. GREEN stated that two per cent, is the lowest that has been allowed by sister States for similar service.
Mr. TURNER regarded this as a claim arising under a duly authorized contract If there was any honorable means to get out of the payment of a portion of this sum he was willing to do so; but he was not willing to go back upon written contracts made by agents of the State.
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR read from the Governor's message these words to which he called the attention of the Senate:
"I thereupon consented that the Adjutant General might employ such an agent, at a compensation not exceeding two per cent, on the amount which should be allowed to and realized by the State through his efforts, but no part of this per centum should be paid until it should be acted upon and the arrangenent approved by the General Assembly."
Mr. HOOPER insisted that the responsibility of this matter rested with the General Assembly, as evidenced by the words of the Governor just read. The amount allowed bears no sort of comparison to the services performed; therefore., he moved to strike out $31,000, and insert in lieu $10,000.
Mr. KINLEY. The very language of the contract distinctly states that it is not to be binding until it receives the approval of the General Assembly. He should therefore vote for a reduction of the claim.
Mr. CHURCH was of the opinion that the Legislature should approve what has been done. The Adjutant General and the Governor having failed to get this claim through, and this agent succeeding in obtaining a settlement-which they could not, he certainly should be paid for the service.
Mr. BRADLEY regarded this compensation as reasonable, compared with what similar agents have been paid for similar services, and hence he had come; to the conclusion to favor the adoption of the section.
Mr. CARSON had heard no good reason offered for this enormous allowance made to this agent by this proposed section, and the country will fail to see any reason for." this-it is inexplicable. The Governor justly throws the responsibility upon the page: 206[View Page 206] Legislature to ratify this contract, and the Legislature cannot escape from it.
Mr. STEIN did not see anything novel or peculiar in this matter. This rate is as low as prevailed in Washington City for services of this character. We have been compelled to resort to an agent, and the Question is whether the compensation proposed is exhorbitant or not. In view of all the circumstances he should vote to ratify the contract.
Mr. WOOD insisted that the contract was entered into with the risk of its ratification by the Legislature. He understood there were about $3,000,000 of claims at the time this contract was made. Now only about half of the claims are adjusted, and those probably the easier elass. The eon-tract is not filled, and who knows if this allowance is made what we will have to pay for the settlement of the other half?
The LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR regarded it as very clear that there was no contract in the case. He was satisfied that this man had not performed any service that he was not already paid for by the $1,200 he has received. It is the duty of the Legislature to put their seal of condemnation on this way of taking money out of the public treasury.
Mr. CRAVENS regarded the contract as a clear, clean one made by authority of law. The amount of the compensation is the thing to be passed upon by the Legislature, and this two per cent, being the lowest amount paid for such services, would certainly have been the amount allowed by the Legislature if no rate were set forth, in the contract. He read the copy of a letter from Governor Morton, saying he would unite in a recommendation to the Legislature to pay this rate of two per cent., and insisted that the State should not act in bad faith in such matters.
Mr. RICE favored the full allowance, and regarded its rejection as a piece of bad faith on the part of the State.
Mr. LASELLE regarded this as a proposition to make a gift-simply a gift to this gentleman. The Governor denies that he made any contract, but throws its responsibility upon the Legislature. He claimed, so far as an equitable view of the case is concerned, that this man is not entitled to one cent more than he has received, but would be willing to vote him $500 under the peculiar circumstances ef the case.
Mr. HANNA cited the authority for making the appointment of the agent, and declared that the contract leaves it for the General Assembly to determine the amount of compensation to be allowed. The Governor, having the power to do so, did well in not making the compensation absolute in this contract.
Mr. LASELLE still insisted that th whole matter was open to the action of the General Assembly.
On motion of Mr. HOOPER the Committee rose, reported progress and leave to sit again.
The report was concurred in.
Then came the recess for dinner.
