Mr. JOHNSON. I know nothing of the facts of this claim but assuming the facts to be as stated by the honorable member from Nevada, with due respect to my friendfrom Massachusetts, it appears to me to be a clear case as against the Government. These odicers are but the agents of the U.S.; the have in their hands the money of the U.S.; and their whole obligation is to take all reason able or all possible care of the money. There can be nothing clearer than that, as I think; and if we become satisfied in any individual case that all care has been taken, then it seems to me to follow, 11 on the principle of justice recognized everyw ere, that the otheer should be indemnified. There is no distinction between the agent of an individual principal and an agent of the Government as the principal. In each case the agent is not to suffer from condueting properly and honestly and with sufficient care the business of his principal. The doctrine laid down by the honorable member from Massachusetts, if pushed to its extent, would be pregnantwith very great mischief. The SecyTreasury has the custody of the money of the Government. The Treasurer of the U.S. has it, perhaps, more imme diately in his own hand. “lie 2 together have the custody of the whole treasure of the Government. Suppose a man breaks into the Treasury Dept and robs the Treasury of bonds or of money. Will the honorable member say that the SecyTreasury or the Trees urer is to bear the loss? I should think not. Why not? Only because in a case of that description it would be admitted that both these otheers had acted fairly, with proper diligence, with proper care; and if it would be right, if such a case should occur, as to them, that they should be indemnified, why is it not right in relation to a paymaster? It seems to me, so far from this principle being pregnant with mischief in the end, that the inexorable rules which the honorable member proposes should be adopted would be followed by mischievous consequences. You will not be able to get an honest man, perhaps, to take this office if, after using all possible dilience and he is robbed, he is to be ruined absolutely. Some knave will be anxious to get it, who does not care whether he is ruined or not, who may pocket the money, and who may attempt to satisfy the congress of the U.S. that he has been robbed, when, in point of fact, he has not. But in the case of anhon est paymaster and thisman is supposedto be honestnobody can infer that when he states that he has been robbed he has not been robbed, but still has the money. Iunderstand the committee say ever possible diligence was taken that could be ta en. I submit it is a clear obligation on the part of the U.S. to indemnify the officer.