EXECUTIVE MANSION, _January 17, 1889_.
_To The Senate_:
I return without approval Senate bill No. 3646, entitled "An act for the
relief of William R. Wheaton and Charles H. Chamberlain, of California."
These parties were, respectively, for a number of years prior to 1879,
the register and receiver of the land office at San Francisco, in the
State of California.
Prior to July, 1877, they had collected and retained, apparently without
question, certain fees allowed by law for reducing to writing the
testimony heard by them in establishing the rights of claimants to
public lands.
On the 9th day of July, 1877, these officials were notified by the
Acting Commissioner of the General Land Office that monthly thereafter,
and dating from July 1, 1877, such fees should be reported with other
fees to the General Land Office.
This notification furnished clear information that, whatever may have
been the justification for their retention of these fees in the past,
the parties notified must thereafter account to the Government for the
same.
On the 8th day of February, 1879, the beneficiaries were peremptorily
required by the Commissioner of the General Land Office to deposit in
the Treasury of the United States the sums which they had received for
the services mentioned since July 1, 1877, and which, though reported,
had not been paid over. Soon thereafter, and pursuant to this demand,
the sum of $5,330.76, being the aggregate of such fees for the nineteen
months between July 1, 1877, and February 1, 1879, was paid over to the
Government.
On the 19th day of February, 1879, these officers were authorized to
employ two clerks, each upon a salary of $100 per month.
The purpose of the bill now under consideration is to restore to the
beneficiaries from the money paid over to the Government, as above
stated, the sum of $3,800. This is proposed upon the theory that clerks
were employed by the register and receiver to do the work for which the
fees were received, and that these officials having paid them for their
services they should be reimbursed from the fund.
It will be observed that whatever services were performed by clerks in
the way of writing down testimony, and paid for by the beneficiaries,
were performed and paid for after July, 1877, and after they had in
effect received notice that such employment and payment would not be
approved by the Government.
Upon this statement the claim covered by the Dill can hardly be urged on
legal grounds, whatever the Government may have allowed prior to such
notice.
I am decidedly of the opinion that the relations, the duties, and the
obligations of subordinates in public employment should be clearly
defined and strictly limited. They should not be permitted to judge of
the propriety or necessity of incurring expenses on behalf of the
Government without authority, much less in disregard of orders. And yet
there are cases when in an emergency money is paid for the benefit of
the public service by an official which, though not strictly authorized,
ought in equity to be reimbursed.
If there is any equity existing in favor of the beneficiaries named in
the bill herewith returned, it is found in the fact that during the
nineteen months from the 1st day of July, 1877, to the 1st day of
February, 1879, they paid out certain moneys for which the Government,
in the receipt of the fees which they paid over, received the benefit.
Manifestly such equity in this case, if it can be claimed at all in view
of the facts recited, is measured by the sum actually paid by these
officials to the persons, if such there were, who did the work from
which the fees arose which were paid over to the Government.
In other words, if certain clerks were paid by the beneficiaries from
their private funds for doing this work, there should be a distinct
statement of the sum so paid, and their claim should rest upon indemnity
and reimbursement alone. But no such statement appears, so far as I can
see from an examination of papers presented to me by the Interior
Department and from the report of the Senate committee who reported this
bill, except as it may be gathered from the rather indirect allegations
contained in a paper prepared by counsel.
No vouchers have ever been received at the General Land Office for
money paid for clerical services rendered during the period for which
reimbursement is sought. The verified statement of the claimants annexed
to the committee's report contains only the allegation that they paid
for the necessary clerical services, and the affidavits of the clerks
themselves furnish no clew to the amount they received. Such an
omission, in my opinion, discredits the claim made, and the allowance of
the sum of $100 per month for two clerks during the period of nineteen
months covered by this claim, because that was the sum authorized to be
paid thereafter for clerks' services, is, it seems to me, adopting a
standard entirely inapplicable to the subject.
In any event these beneficiaries should be required to establish the sum
necessary for such indemnification, and the amount appropriated for
their relief should be limited to that sum.