Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

sion, Congress only being competent to grant relief in such cases. Opinion of Feb. 11, 1845, 4 Op. 355.

30. The accounting officers of the Treasury

head of Department. Opinion of Jan. 6, 1857, 8 Op. 293.

38. When by special law, or in reference to any special matter, the authority of the ac

are not authorized to allow a claim for un-counting officers of the Treasury is extended liquidated damages alleged to have been sustained by a contractor for emigrating Indians in consequence of the interference of and performance by the officers of the Government of a part of the services. Opinion of Sept. 30, 1847, 4 Op. 627.

31. If the contractors in this case have any equitable claim upon the Government for damages, they can be awarded only pursuant to a future act of Congress. Ibid.

32. Where the Secretary of War has decided that certain officers have a command according to their brevet rank, it is the duty of the accounting officers of the Treasury to respect his decision. Opinion of June 26, 1851, 5 Op. 386. 33. The existence of a command according to brevet rank is to be presumed from the decision or order of the Secretary of War respecting them, and to be regarded by the Auditor and Comptroller as established by and according to his decision and orders. Ibid.

34. Acts done within the peculiar and legitimate sphere of the Secretary's official duty are to be taken and understood as rightly done, and to preclude all collateral inquiry by accounting officers. Ibid.

35. In case a contract for services be rescinded by the United States, without malfeasance of the other party, and after the services have been partly performed by him, if he claim unliquidated damages as for breach of contract the case is beyond the powers of the accounting officers of the Treasury; but if he waive all other claims and elect to take payment as for part performance in discharge of the contract, it is a mere question of account to be passed by the proper Auditor and Comptroller. Opinion of June 1, 1854, 6 Op. 496.

36. The Comptrollers and Auditors of the Treasury have no general authority to award damages as for tort, on contract broken; their jurisdiction is confined to matters of account arising ex contractu or by operation of law. Opinion of June 7, 1854, 6 Op. 516.

37. It is the general duty of the accounting officers of the Treasury, by standing laws, to deal with accounts only; in doing which they are subject to the supervision of some proper

beyond the question of accounts to one of unliquidated damages, such officers are not thereby converted into independent courts of law, but still remain executive or administrative officers of a Department. Ibid.

39. An accounting officer has undoubted power to disallow a fee charged by a person who is not an officer and who had no right to perform the services for which he seeks to be paid. Opinion of Feb. 11, 1859, 9 Op. 268. 40. A settlement was made by the accounting officers of the Treasury with F., as assignee of certain parties, for the use and occupation of some buildings by the military authorities, whereupon he was paid the amount allowed. Subsequently another settlement was made with him, as assignee of certain other parties, for the use and occupation of other buildings by the same authorities, wherein, it having in the mean time been ascertained that the allowance on the first settlement was improper, and made in ignorance of a fact which, had the accounting officers been cognizant thereof at the time, would have precluded such allowance, the amount paid as aforesaid was deducted, and only the balance remaining after the deduction allowed: Held that, notwithstanding the claims originally belonged to and were derived by assignment from different persons, it was competent to the accounting officers, under the circumstances, to make a deduction in the last settlement of what had been improperly allowed and paid on the first. Opinion of July 10, 1874, 14 Op. 412.

41. The authority of the Third Auditor and Second Comptroller to settle claims or accounts of any kind against the United States is derivable solely from legislative enactment. The statutory provisions conferring upon them authority in that regard reviewed; and held that the authority so conferred does not extend to the settlement of any claims or accounts for compensation for damages (whether the damages were sustained by the loss of property or otherwise) other than such as are of the classes specifically described in those provisions. Opinion of Sept. 9, 1875, 15 Op. 39.

42. It is not the duty of the accounting offi

cers of the Treasury to require of claimants under the act of March 3, 1849, chap. 129 (section 3483 Rev. Stat.), proof of loyalty. Opinion of Sept. 6, 1877, 15 Op. 652.

III. Effect of Settlement by.

49. Section 191 of the Revised Statutes is limited to cases where balances are found upon the settlement of accounts or claims, and certificates thereof are transmitted to the head of the proper Department for his warrant or requisition; it does not extend to any case where no balance is certified, or where the whole account or claim is disallowed. Opinion of Feb. 7, 1877, 15 Op. 192.

43. The settlement of an account by the proper accounting officers is final and conclusive, so far as concerns the executive depart- 50. The prohibition in that section against ment of the Government. If the individual | changing or modifying balances certified by the whose account has been settled conceives him- Commissioner of Customs and the Comptrollers self injured by such settlement, his recourse of the Treasury does not apply to these officers. must be to the judiciary or to Congress. Opin- | Ibid. ion of Oct. 20, 1823, 1 Op. 624.

44. Where the Third Auditor shall have examined and certified, and transmitted, with vouchers, an account to the Second Comptroller, and the latter officer shall have certified the amount due to the Secretary of War, the matter is final so far as the accounting officers of the Government are concerned, and can only be set aside by the Secretary, acting under the direction of the President. Opinion of Dec. 4, 1829, 2 Op. 303.

45. A decision by the Second Comptroller upon a claim properly before him cannot be questioned by any other of the accounting offi

cers.

A demand after passing him ceases to be a matter of account, and becomes a liquidated and adjusted demand. Ibid.

46. Where the account of General Taylor had been settled by the accounting officers and a balance found against him, for which a suit had been commenced, and a memorial was subsequently presented by him to the President, requesting the discontinuance of the suit on account of alleged errors in the settlement: Held that the decision of the Comptroller was conclusive upon the executive branch of the Government, and that the President does not possess the power to enter into the correctness of the account for the purpose of taking any measures to correct the errors which the accounting officers may have committed. ion of April 5, 1832, 2 Op. 508.

51. The provision making their findings "conclusive upon the executive branch of the Government" signifies only that such findings are not to be revisable by any other officer or officers of that branch of the Government. Ibid. 52. Whether the Comptrollers and Commissioner are authorized to reopen settlements made by themselves or their predecessors in office depends upon considerations founded on the law as it stands independently of the said section; its provisions have no bearing on this subject. Ibid.

IV. Appeal from.

53. The laws regulating the settlement of the public accounts, under which the Treasury Department is organized, require the Auditors to receive and examine accounts, and to certify them to the Comptrollers, who also examine and pass upon them and certify the balances thereon to the Register, and give no power of appeal to the President, except in particular instances, like that of the accounts of Daniel D. Tompkins, where the power of revision and final decision by the President was expressly conferred by the act. Opinion of Oct. 20, 1823, 1 Op. 624.

54. An appeal does not lie to the President from the determination of accounting officers Opin-acting in the sphere of their duties; nor can the President interfere with their decisions. Opin

47. Where the question is merely one of com-ion of Dec. 18, 1832, 2 Op. 544. putation or amount, the decision of the accounting officers is to be regarded as final. Opinion of March 25, 1869, 13 Op. 6.

48. Provisions of the acts of March 3, 1817, chap. 45, and March 30, 1868, chap. 36, relating to this subject considered. Ibid.

55. The provision of the fourth section of the act of August 16, 1856, chap. 124, declaring that, as to the accounts of marshals, district attorneys, &c., "an appeal shall lie from the decision of the accounting officers to the Secretary of the Interior," was impliedly repealed by the

act of March 30, 1868, chap. 36. Opinion of the arbitrary action of the executive branches Aug. 91, 1872, 14 Op. 104.

56. Prior to the act of 1856 there was no law authorizing an appeal in such cases to the Secretary of the Interior, and none was enacted subsequent to the act of 1868 down to the act of June 22, 1870, chap. 150, by which only such powers as were then exercised by the Secretary of the Interior over the accounts aforesaid were thereafter to be exercised by the AttorneyGeneral. Ibid.

57. No statute has been passed since the lastmentioned act giving an appeal from the accounting officers to the Attorney-General in the cases referred to; and hence, under the existing law, such an appeal does not lie.

Ibid.

of the Government, and produces certainty and equality, at least, in their administrations. Ibid.

5. Where application was made to the Secretary of the Interior for a review of the action of his predecessor in office and of the Executive in a case passed upon by them during the preceding administration, the application resting solely upon the ground of alleged error in the construction of a statute: Advised that the former action in the case cannot with propriety be reviewed. Opinion of March 20, 1877, 15 Op. 208.

6. It is a settled rule of administrative practice that the official acts of a previous administration are to be considered by its successor as final, so far as the Executive is concerned. Ibid.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

1. It is a rule which each administration has prescribed to itself to consider the acts of its predecessors conclusive, so far as the Executive is concerned. If a decision in a case, made eight years ago, under a former Executive, is open for review and revisal, the same principle will open decisions made during the Presidency of Washington, and keep the acts of the Executive perpetually unsettled and afloat. Opinion of Oct. 1, 1825, 2 Op. 8.

2. Where a question has been deliberately settled, and the practice of the Department, under the eye of the Government, during successive sessions of Congress, has conformed to the decision then made, it does not seem proper to disturb such a decision unless a very strong and pressing case should be made for consideration. Opinion of July 2, 1829, 2 Op. 220.

3. It having been the usage of the War Department to require of States which were entitled to reimbursements, such as are provided for in the act of 2d June, 1848, chap. 60, to furnish proof of actual expenditure of money, and of the purpose to which it was applied, it is to be presumed that Congress in that act expected such usage to be followed. Opinion of July 8, 1852, 5 Op. 563.

ADMINISTRATOR.

See EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS.

ADVERTISEMENT.

See also CONTRACT, III; PRINTING.

1. The twelfth section of the act of 3d March, 1845, chap. 77, concerning the advertising which the heads of Departments and Bureaus are required to do, does not entitle the National Era, weekly newspaper, to any part of the printing. Opinion of July 25, 1849, 5 Op. 145.

2. The clause permitting a third paper to be selected requires that the publications therein shall be made equal to the others as to frequency. Ibid.

3. Under section 12 of the act of March 3, 1845, chap. 77, the Postmaster-General is not authorized to order advertisements from his Department to be published in more than three newspapers in the city of Washington. Opinion of April 9, 1851, 5 Op. 315.

4. The opinion previously given upon the construction of the act of 3d March, 1845, chap. 77, relative to publications in newspapers by the Executive Departments, is con

4. Adherence to established rules prevents firmed. Opinion of July 13, 1852, 5 Op. 566.

5. Semble, if the provisions of law which require certain contracts to be advertised are disregarded, that the contracts, while they remain executory and without commencement of performance, are subject to be rescinded. ion of March 24, 1854, 6 Op. 406.

tion, without the previous order of the Postmaster-General, of those notices of mail-lettings which the law required him to publish in those papers; but they must show a previOpin-ous order for the publication of such notices as the Postmaster-General was only authorized to publish in those papers before they can claim payment therefor. Opinion of March 3, 1869, 12 Op. 559.

6. The provisions of the act of February 26, 1853, chap. 80, regulating the fees of clerks of the courts of the United States and other officers, which provides, among other things, a price for publishing any statute, notice, or order required by law, or by the lawful order of any court, Department, Bureau, or other person, in any newspaper, applies only to such a publication in the case of judicial proceedings, and not to the publication of laws and treaties by the Secretary of State. Opinion of June 3, 1854, 6 Op. 502.

7. The act of March 3, 1845, chap. 77, requires the advertising of the Executive Departments to be given to the two newspapers printed in the city of Washington which have the largest permanent subscription, and permits the President to select a third. Opinion of July 21, 1857, 9 Op. 54.

8. Where a daily, weekly, and tri-weekly newspaper are printed and published in the same office, by the same person, and under the same name, they are not different papers, but different editions of the same paper. Ibid.

9. The advertising should be given to those papers which have the largest permanent subscription to all their issues. Ibid.

10. The proprietor of the Constitution newspaper is not entitled to be paid for any executive advertisement printed in his paper after notice of the order of the Secretary of State of January 10, 1860. Opinion of Jan. 12, 1860, 9 Op. 2.

11. A resolution of the Senate requesting the Secretary of War to advertise certain hospital notices has not the force of law. But if the request is complied with by the Secretary, the advertisements should be published in accordance with the twelfth section of the act of March 3, 1815, chap. 77. Opinion of May 23, 1862, 10 Op. 263.

12. The proprietors of certain newspapers in the District of Columbia are entitled (under section 10 of the act of March 2, 1867, chap. 167, and sections 2 and 4 of the act of July 20, 1863, chap. 176) to payment for the publica

[ocr errors]

13. The proviso in the act of March 3, 1875, chap. 128, making appropriations for the service of the Post-Office Department, was intended to relieve the heads of all the Executive Departments from the requirements of section 3826 of the Revised Statues, respecting the publication of advertisements, notices, and proposals for Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia, as well as to provide specifically respecting the publication of mail-lettings by the Postmaster-General for the States and District above mentioned. Opinion of May 6, 1875, 14 Op. 577.

14. It is, accordingly, left discretionary with each head of Department whether he will make the publication referred to in that section in one or more papers of the District of Columbia. Ibid.

15. In October, 1875, the Postmaster-General requested the publisher of a newspaper in Alabama to insert therein an advertisement of proposals for carrying the mail in that State, provided he would do it for a sum not exceeding $688.12. The advertisement was duly inserted, and the publisher claims therefor $1,992, the latter amount being agreeably to the rate fixed by the Clerk of the House of Representatives under section 3823 Rev. Stat.: Held that section 3941 Rev. Stat., and not section 3823 Rev. Stat., furnishes the law applicable to this case; that under the former of these sections the Postmaster-General had power to select the medium of advertising the proposals and to limit by agreement the compensation therefor; and that the publisher is bound the same as he would be in an ordinary case of compliance with a request conditioned like the above. Opinion of Jan. 13, 1876, 15 Op. 527.

16. The joint effect of sections 853 and 3826 Rev. Stat., as regards Government advertisements in newspapers published in the District of Columbia, was to allow the compensation fixed by section 853, unless (under section 3826)

AGENT.

See also CLAIM AGENT; INDIAN AGENTS AND
AGENCIES; NAVY AGENT; PENSION AGEN-
CIES AND AGENTS; POWER OF ATTORNEY.

1. An ordinary letter from R. M. H. to J. H. E.. authorizing the latter to transact cer

that be more than is paid by private individuals for like services. But section 1 of the act of 1875, chap. 128, repeals section 3826 for every purpose connected with claims for such services. Opinion of Aug. 14, 1876, 15 Op. 594. . 17. Sections 853 and 854 Rev. Stat. (though modified by a proviso in the act of March 3, 1875, chap. 123, with respect to the advertise-tain business for the former, does not empower ment of certain mail-lettings) are still in force, without modification, with respect to advertising of the Treasury Department. Opinion of August 14, 1876 (15 Op. 594), reaffirmed. Opinion of May 21, 1877, 15 Op. 282.

him to execute, in the name of the former, a power of attorney, assignment, or other instrument under seal. Opinion of Aug. 11, 1853, 6 Op. 79.

2. The conclusions of law in a previous opinion in the case of the late Navy Agent E. O. Perrin (see opinion of Feb. 27, 1854, 6 Op. 314) reaffirmed. Opinion of May 22, 1854, 8 Op. 450.

3. When a commissioned officer or other

18. Section 5 of the act of July 12, 1876, chap. 180, providing for the publication of lists of property in arrears for taxes, does not authorize the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, in determining the "lowest bidder" for making such publication, to have re-agent of the United States makes a contract gard to the circulation of each newspaper bidding. It is sufficient if the paper is a bona fide newspaper, and there is nothing as to the amount of publicity which the notice may receive that will defeat the purpose of the legislature in requiring the advertisement. Opinion of June 27, 1877, 15 Op. 324.

19. The advertisement of the list of property in arrears for taxes, under section 5 of the act of July 12, 1876, chap. 180, would not be in conformity to the laws in force in the District of Columbia if made in a newspaper published on Sunday. The provisions of that act must be construed in connection with the other statute law of the District, and they are not to be taken to repeal any part of the latter unless where necessarily repugnant thereto. Opinion of June 30, 1877, 15 Op. 327.

20. Opinions of August 14, 1876, and May 21, 1877 (15 Op. 282, 594), upon the scope and effect of sections 853 and 854 Rev. Stat., in regard to departmental advertising, reconsidered and reaffirmed. Opinion of July 7, 1877, 15 Op. 633.

21. The provisions of section 3828 Rev. Stat., forbidding the publication of advertisements "for any Executive Department of the Government, or for any Bureau thereof, or for any office therewith connected," except "under written authority from the head of such Department," extend to offices connected as aforesaid, no matter where located. Opinion of Dec. 16, 1878, 16 Op. 616.

with any person for their use and benefit, and with due authority of law, such officer or other public agent is not responsible to the party, whose only remedy is against the Government. Opinion of April 10, 1855, 7 Op. 88.

4. But, in making contracts with any one claiming to act for the Government, it is the duty of the party contracting to inquire as to the authority of such agent or officer; without which it is doubtful whether the contract affects the Government. Ibid.

5. If a public officer, however, make a Government contract without authority, and which therefore does not bind the Government, such officer is himself personally responsible to the contracting parties. Ibid.

6. But a public officer or other agent, though contracting for the Government, may, if he see tit, make himself the responsible party, either exclusively or in addition to the Government. Ibid.

7. Heads of Departments or of Bureaus, and other certifying officers of the Government, cannot certify by delegation, unless when specially authorized so to do by act of Congress. Opinion of Nov. 9, 1855, 7 Op. 594.

8. A claimant of money payable from the Treasury has the right to choose his own agents and attorneys for collection, and to change them at pleasure. Opinion of Dec. 21, 1863, 11 Op. 7.

9. In the absence of special contract, fees or compensation payable by a claimant to his at

« AnteriorContinuar »