[ Previous Page ] -- [ View PDF ] -- [ View in MS Word ] -- [ Next Page ]

5924
course I did not suggest any, but I voted for the bill which pro- 
vides for duties upon the articles which I have stated.
Mr. McRAE.   Mr. Speaker --
The SPEAKER.   The question is --
Mr. PAYNE.   Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arkansas de- 
sires to make a statement.
Mr. McRAE. I hope the gentleman will modify the bill and 
limit the number of officers to be employed. I do not think that 
he should give to an executive officer the right to appoint as many 
as he may deem necessary, without any maximum limitation.
Mr. PAYNE.   I think that is the provision of the general law.
Mr. McRAE.   I think not.
Mr. PAYNE. It is the same provision that was in the bill two 
years ago.
Mr. McRAE. Then the bill was wrong two years ago. There 
ought not to be any law allowing to an Executive Department the 
right to fix the number of officers without some limit. I do not 
know in this case how many they ought to have; but the Depart- 
ment ought to have some idea of the number of people that will 
be necessary to perform the work, and the committee should have 
obtained such information and made a limit.
Mr. HOPKINS. Does not the gentleman think his own state- 
ment refutes his position?
Mr. McRAE. It does; but if I had charge of the bill, I would 
know more about it than it appears is known by the gentleman in 
charge of it.
Mr. HOPKINS. You say you do not know the number re- 
quired. Now, do yon not believe that the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury is better capable of determining that than a member of the 
House?
Mr. McRAE. He ought to be able to tell the committee what 
the public service requires.
Mr. HOPKINS. It might require five men at one time and ten 
men at another. It all depends upon the amount of commerce. 
Mr. PAYNE. I want to say to the gentleman from Arkansas 
that it is within the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury 
as to how many officials he will appoint at nearly every subport 
in the United States - where there are subports of entry. I know 
it is so in my district, and under one Administration there were 
more officials than under another, without any change of law, 
and it was found to be lawful in each case. It depends entirely 
upon the Administration; and it is a matter that you can not fix 
a hard and fast rule about, especially in regard to this country, as 
we have to go there and try and find out what is necessary.
Mr. McRAE. Does the gentleman mean to tell me that at all 
the ports of the United States the Secretary of the Treasury has 
power to employ, without limit, such officials as he may see fit?
Mr. PAYNE.. Well, I did not say quite that much. A part of 
the ports of the United States he has the power to appoint depu- 
ties and inspectors, and without limit, so far as practical observa- 
tions have been concerned. In some ports in my own district, 
subports, one Secretary of the Treasury would sometimes allow 
more than another,
Mr. McRAE. I do not want any statute passed that has not 
the number fixed. Of course I am not familiar with the require- 
ments of this case, but I would not give this unlimited power to 
an executive officer in any permanent statute like this. We should 
not at this time, when Congress is just about to adjourn, a reso- 
lution having already been passed to adjourn, in a Presidential 
year, give an Executive Department the right to fix the number 
of officers. The temptation is too great. I think it is without 
precedent, so far as I know, and unless the gentleman will sug- 
gest some number, I will move to insert "not exceeding five in 
number."
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker. I will simply say this, before mov- 
ing the previous question on the amendment and the bill, that it 
is impossible to fix the number in a matter of this kind; otherwise 
I will have no objection. We do not know how many men are 
needed. This bill was carefully considered two years ago by the 
Committee on Ways and Means of the House and adopted. A 
similar provision was adopted in the Senate on the Porto Rican 
bill, if my recollection is right, when it came from the Senate. 
Therefore I move the previous question on the bill and amendment.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from Arkansas offers the 
amendment which the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Insert after the word "collectors," to line 6, the words "not exceeding 
five in number."
Mr. PAYNE.   The gentleman does not mean that.
Mr. McRAE. I have not a copy of the bill, and have not been 
able to get one, so as to see the proper place to insert the amend- 
ment. I want to limit the officers not named.
The Clerk read as follows:
So that it will read, "and such deputy collectors, not exceeding five in  
number."
The SPEAKER. Upon the bill and amendment the gentleman 
from New York asks the previous question,

Return to Top