260 DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS. 



REPEAL OP ACT PROHIBITING ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION. 



Tlie act approved March o, ISSo, relating to additional compensa- 

 tion to employees of the Department of Agriculture, has a very- 

 important bearing upon the work of the Department, and it is thought 

 proper to include in this report a letter from the Secretary of Agri- 

 culture on the subject, to the chairman of the Senate Committee on 

 Agriculture and Forestry, as this letter fully explains the situation as 

 affected by the act. The repeal of this section was approved by the 

 House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on Agri- 

 culture and Forestry at the last session of Congress. The repealing 

 clause, as recommended in the Secretary's letter to Senator Proctor, 

 had the expressed approval and supj)ort of both committees, and 

 appeared as an amendment to the Senate bill, l)ut for some reason the 

 amendment was stricken from the bill in the committee on confer- 

 ence. It is hoped that the objectionable section may be uncondition- 

 ally repealed at the next session of Congress. The letter is as follows : 



Department of Agriculture, 



Office of the Secretary, 

 Washington, D. C, January 17, IDOl. 

 Hon. Reofield Proctor, 



CUairman Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, United States Senate. 



Sir: In making the appropriation for this Department for the fiscal year 1886 

 (act approved March ;], iSSo, 2S Statutes at Large, 353-356), Congress saw proper 

 to enact a section worded as follows: 



"Sec. 2. That no part of the money herein or hereafter appropriated for the 

 Department of Agriculture shall be paid to any person, as additional salary or 

 compensation, receiving at the ^^ume time other compensation as an officer or 

 employee of the Government; and in addition to the proper vouchers and accounts 

 for the sums appropriated for the said Department, to be furnished to the account- 

 ing officers of the Treasury, the Commissioner of Agriculture shall at the com- 

 mencement of such regular session present to Congress a detailed statement of the 

 expenditure of all appropriations for said Department for the last preceding fiscal 

 year.' 



The effect of this enactment was to impose upon this Department restrictions 

 and duties from which other Departments have remained frt e. I am advised that 

 the foregoing restriction upon the use of the appropriations for this Department 

 was im])osed because a former official had somehow managed to receive compensa- 

 tion from the Government from three different sources. The restriction was not 

 then, and has not been since, imposed upon the other Executive Departments, pre- 

 sumably because Congress is not aware of any necessity for such legislation. 



The singling out of this one Department (which was at that time a much less 

 important establishment than it is at jn-esent) and the mainten ince of this dis- 

 tinction down to this time may .iustly be looked upon as a refiection upon the 

 official management of the business of the Department of Agriculture. The dis- 

 tinction should be obliterated, either by imposing it upon other Departments, or 

 by relieving this Department from the necessity of observing it. The jniblic 

 interests do not appear to refiuire it. Other Departments do not suffer rrom lack 

 of the protection it was supposed to afford. On the other hand, it doesmost seriously 

 militate against the interest sof this Dei)artment by prohibiting the employment 

 of technical experts who happen to be connected with other branches of the Gov- 

 ernment for special service in this Department. It renders it impossible for this 

 Department to utilize, even in the smallest way, the service of many of the ablest 

 specialists in the country. It inflicts a heavy burden upon the Disbursing Officer, 

 who is thus compelled tu maintain a constant watch over the entire public service; 

 and in spite of the utmost care, it is not al way.-? possible for him to avoid actual lo.sses. 

 Indeed, it would seem to imi)Ose upon him the necessity of being always provided 

 with filenames of all the employees of the Government, not only in Washington, 

 but elsewhere throughout the country, and his list would need to be, at all times, 

 kept corrected to date. This is manifestly an impossibility. 



I therefore recommend the immediate and unconditional repeal of the clause 

 imposing the restric tion herein referred to. 



With respect to the second clause of the section above quoted, I would respect- 



