Mr. HENDRICKS. I will explain to the Senfrom Oregon the case which was considered by the SCOTUS i. was not in relation to the compensation of registers and receivers for any expense of clerk hire or W. office expenses whatever. I was Commissioner the office held that the registers and receivers were limited in their compensation to $3,000, but they claimed that they were entitled to all the fees for.; land warrants, and that they were not require to account to the Government at all for those fees. I am free to say it was a very doubtful question, in my judgment; the laws were very conflicting and confused upon the question. The district court of the U.S. for Iowa, upon a suit brought to recover those fees for locating land warrants, held that the registers and receivers were not bound to account for them, but that they were their individual fees and did not go into the maximum of $3,000. The SCOTUS reversed that decision. It had nothing whatever to do with the compensation for clerk hire; and if the Commissioner of the Land Office has recently informed the committee that there was no occasion to employ clerks at the Lecompton land office, at the time Colonel Moore was there, I think he has given that information without sufficient information on his own part. Kansas was then being filled up very rapidly, and mainly by precmption settlers. Each case had to undergo an adjudication, and there were very many litigated cases in Kansas, and the litigated cases required nearly all the time of the register and receiver in their examination. Many of those cases occupied a week of careful investigation, these men holding a court. Much of their time was thus occupied; and the clerks were necessary to carry on the ordinary business of the office for the convenience of the settlers. There is no question about it that they were compelled, if the business of the Government was to be carried on at all, to employ clerks. I did not, when I was in the Land Office, think that they were sufficiently compensated, nor do I yet. I do not think this extends to all the land officers in the U.S. holding offices at that time. It would apply to some portions of Iowa, to some portions of Kansas, and some portions of Minnesota, where the settlements were being made very rapidly under the precmption laws. Where they have paid out much of the money that they received for their own compensation for clerk hire, it seems to me some compensation ought to be given, and therefore I i. support the proposition to recommit this case.