Mr. WILLIAMS. I will say, Mr. President, that the attention of the committee was called to that law, or to the supposed law, and the conclusion of the committee was that there has been no law authorizing registers and receivers to appoint clerks; and as the appointment of those clerks was made without any authority of law, of course it is discretionary with Congress whether extra compensation should or should not be allowed. The uniform ohas been in all other cases, with per aps one or 2 exceptions, to deny to registers 12 and receivers extra compensation for clerk hire, and there is no reason that I can see why this case should be excepted from the general rule that has been applied to all the other land offices in the country. Now, there is a grave question as to the merits of this application. I did not think it necessary to discuss that. But independent of the justice of this claim, it is the judgment of the committee that if an allowance be made to the petitioner in the case it will open the door to 100s, perhaps1,000s, of claims of a similar nature by all the land officers of the U.S., for they have all, as I understand or nearly all, employed clerks and incurred extra expense. opinion of the GLO has been that the law provided suf. ficient pay to them for their services; and in this particular case the evidence shows that this man for 4 years' service received over 18,000 dollars from the Treasury, and out of that he paid a portion for clerk hire and incidental expenses; and it is the opinion of the committee that he was very well compensated for his labor. There is an elab orate report from the Commissioner of the Land Office showing that he might have discharged this labor without the employment of extra force. If he saw proper, rather than perform the duties himself, to employ clerks to perform them, it was the opinion of the Dept that he ought to pay those clerks. He could not be idle and employ clerks to do the business, and then ask extra compensation for the payment of those clerks. These additional affidavits that have been filed were to the effect, that while he was register of the Land Office he was engaged for a portion of the time in adjudicating conflicting claims, and questions before the Land Office, as though that gave him a right to extra compensation. If he did that he only did what all registers and receivers have done and are constantly doing in the country, and there is no reason that I can see why this case should be made an exception to the general rule. If it is desired, however, I shall not in sist upon my objection to its recommitment; but it seems to me that if a case has been twice examined the parties concerned ought to be satisfied.