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 sho