A LIST Of the Attorneys-General of the United States who were appointed and served within the period embraced by this Digest, viz, from the year 1789 to the year 1881, arranged in chronological order according to their terms of service respectively. 1789-1794, Hon. Edmund Randolph, of Virginia. 1833-1838, Hon. Benjamin F. Butler, of New York. 1840-1841, Hon. Henry D. Gilpin, of Pennsylvania. 1841, Hon. John J. Crittenden, of Kentucky (see seventh line below). 1841-1843, Hon. Hugh S. Legaré, of South Carolina. 1843-1845, Hon. John Nelson, of Maryland. 1845-1846, Hon. John Y. Mason, of Virginia. 1866-1868, Hon. Henry Stanbery, of Ohio. 1868, Hon. O. H. Browning, of Illinois (ad interim). 1868-1869, Hon. William M. Evarts, of New York. 1869-1870, Hon. Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar, of Massachusetts. 1870-1872, Hon. Amos T. Akerman, of Georgia. 1872-1875, Hon. George H. Williams, of Oregon. 1875-1876, Hon. Edwards Pierrepont, of New York. 1876-1877, Hon. Alphonso Taft, of Ohio. 1877-1881, Hon. Charles Devens, of Massachusetts. XIX DIGEST OF OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEYS-GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES. ACCOUNTS. See also ACCOUNTING OFFICERS; CLAIMS. I. Generally. II. Rendition. III. Adjustment. IV. Reopening. V. Property Accounts (Army). I. Generally. 4. The act of August 2, 1861, chap. 37, does not transfer the settlement of the accounts of district attorneys and marshals to the Attorney-General's Office. Opinion of Aug. 10, 1861, 10 Op. 95. 5. Duties of the accounting officers of the Treasury as to the auditing of the accounts of the State of Indiana, under the provisions of the act of March 29, 1867, chap. 14, to reimburse that State for moneys expended in enrolling and equipping troops to aid in suppressing the rebellion, defined. Opinion of Feb. 19, 1870, 13 Op. 218. II. Rendition. 1. The accounts of Army contractors should be settled by the accounting officers. If they have any doubts on questions of law, arising in the course of the settlement, they will state them to the head of the Department, who, if he please, may call for the opinion of the At-trict of Columbia, who is also clerk of the torney-General. Opinion of July 27, 1824, 1 criminal court of the District, is bound to ac Op. 678. 2. The interference of the President in any form with the settlement would be illegal. He has no official connection with the settlement of such accounts; and so far from being called upon to interpose any directions to the accounting officers, it would be an unauthorized assumption of authority for him to interfere at all. Ibid. 3. The late commissioners to hold treaties with the Chickasaw and Choctaw Indians are not bound to account to the Government for the depreciation of the money deposited by them in bank to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States. Opinion of June 8, 1830, 2 Op. 346. 6. The clerk of the circuit court of the Dis count to the Treasury for the fees which he receives in the latter capacity. Opinion of March 2, 1854, 6 Op. 388. 7. The clerks of the district courts of the United States in California are bound to render to the Treasury an emolument account equally with clerks of other districts. Opinion of May 1, 1854, 6 Op. 433. 8. The provision in section 3622, Rev. Stat., giving the Secretary of the Treasury power, when, in his opinion, the circumstances of the case justify and require it, to extend the time prescribed for the rendition of accounts, does not authorize him to institute a new system of rendering accounts-e. g., by permitting disbursing officers to render their accounts bi monthly, quarterly, or at longer intervals, instead of monthly, as now required. Opinion of Dec. 2, 1878, 16 Op. 222. 9. That provision is intended only to enable the Secretary of the Treasury to deal with particular cases wherein accidental circumstances make it proper to give more time for the rendition of the accounts, by way of exception to the general rule. Ibid. III. Adjustment. counting officers may continue the former accounts by charging to the debit of Carter all such sums as they may find to have been erroneously credited to him in either of the former accounts, and all items of this nature will pass to his debit in the general account between him and the Government. Opinion of May 3, 1834, 2 Op., 650. 15. The several sums which may be allowed under the act for his relief should be credited in the above-mentioned general account, and the balance, either for or against him, should be certified in the usual manner. Ibid. 16. The accounts of marshals, certified by the court, or one of the judges thereof, as provided in the fourth section of the act of May 8, 1792, chap. 36, are conclusive upon the ac 10. The first section of the act of March 2, 1833, chap. 123, for the relief of Colonel Carter, assumes that the item of $1,860 has been paid, and provides for the immediate payment of a gross sum in addition to the amount before received, without authorizing the account-counting officers of the Treasury, except in cases ing officers to open the former account or to readjust it. It is, therefore, a provision by itself, and should be so considered in reference to other matters provided for in said act. Opinion of April 23, 1834, 2 Op. 640. where charges shall be allowed by the court or judge for a service or purpose not mentioned in the acts of Congress, and where a greater sum shall be allowed than that fixed by law. Opinion of March 20, 1838, 3 Op. 316. 17. As to whether a charge of $2 for serving a writ of subpoena is proper, it is not per 11. The second section provides for the settlement of various other accounts-i. e., those accounts only which, on the 2d March, 1833,|ceived that there is any legal warrant for exwere unadjusted and unsettled between him and the Government. In settling these accounts the accounting officers may proceed and settle any one or more of the separate accounts referred to in the papers, for the claimant is entitled to such a settlement. Ibid. 12. How far it may be proper to make partial settlements of either of the separate accounts is a question of convenience and discretion; but it occurs to the Attorney-General that what may be required by justice and equity in respect to the accounts under each contract cannot very well be ascertained without a view of all the claims which it is intended to present under it. Ibid. cepting it from the enacting words of the statute giving that compensation for the service of any process, &c. Ibid. 18. The account of the marshal of the District of Columbia for extra allowances to Government witnesses on the trial for the burning of the Treasury buildings, made by the circuit court, and certified, cannot be legally paid, notwithstanding the certificate, for the reason that no act of Congress authorizes payment of charges for such a purpose. [The distinction between this and the preceding case is, that here the service is not, whilst there it was, authorized by law. The two opinions read together clearly define the views of the AttorneyGeneral upon the subject of the efficacy and the accounts of marshals.] Opinion of March 20, 1838, 3 Op. 318. 13. But in adjusting the unsettled claims and accounts presented under the act in ques-legal bearing of the certificate of the court upon tion, the accounting officers have no authority to reopen the former settlements, nor to require the production of evidence to establish their correctness, nor to set off errors prejudicial to the Government which may be detected therein against the allowances to which Colonel Carter may now show himself to be entitled in the unsettled accounts. Ibid. 14. On a reconsideration of the opinion given in Carter's case (2 Op. 640), held that the ac 19. The accounting officers may allow an account, if it be a just one, of C. J. I., district attorney of the eastern district of Pennsylvania, notwithstanding his having been sued by the United States for various bonds placed in his hands for collection, for moneys received thereon, and for other moneys (his account not having been set off in the suit), and a judg ment recovered by the United States against him for $3,975.78, the same as if it were presented prior to the institution of that suit, as the said account was a matter separate and distinct from the subject-matter of the suit, and a set-off not having been required to be made. Opinion of Aug. 6, 1838, 3 Op. 345. discharge of the first bond, and the deficit found charged to the account of said receiver and his sureties in the second bond. Opinion of July 2, 1851, 5 Op. 396. 25. A statute of private relief enacted that a certain account in the Post-Office Department, which had been rejected by the Sixth Auditor and on which appeal had been taken to the First Comptroller, should be finally adjusted by the Second Comptroller and the Commissioner of Customs, and, in case of their disa 20. Where the acceptance of a PostmasterGeneral had been given in payment of an account for work done, and the amount thereof had been recharged by a subsequent PostmasterGeneral, held that the amount of the accept-greement, by the Attorney-General. ance ought not to be deducted from an account current for other work. Opinion of March 2, 1841, 3 Op. 624. 21. The sixth section of the act of September 22, 1789, chap. 17, and also the third section of the act of January 22, 1818, chap. 5, provide that the compensation which shall be due to the members and officers of the Senate shall be certified by the President thereof, and the same shall be passed as public accounts and paid out of the Treasury; and the certificate of such President, which is the presumed act of the Senate pro hac vice, is conclusive upon the matter as between that body and the accounting officers. Opinion of Oct. 18, 1841, 3 Op. 662. 22. The certificate of the presiding officer of | the Senate is conclusive evidence in support of charges for certain payments of mileage made by the Secretary to Senators for attending a special session. Opinion of Nov. 27, 1849, 5 Op. 191. 23. Under the first section of the act of Jannary 22, 1818, chap. 5, the Secretary of the Senate is entitled to credit for such payments, whether the certificate of the presiding officer be conclusive or not. Ibid. Held that the effect of this provision is to substitute another person or persons, pro hac vice, to perform one of the statute duties of the First Comptroller. Opinion of June 25, 1856, 7 Op. 724. 26. This may be lawfully done, in so far as respects the Second Comptroller and the Commissioner of Customs, who will thus in effect control an auditing of the Sixth Auditor, and certify the same to the Postmaster-General. But the Attorney-General cannot lawfully be required to act as the substitute of the First Comptroller; and, so far as regards him, the only effect is to require him to advise the Second Comptroller and the Commissioner of Customs on matters of law arising in the case. Ibid. 27. All accounts of the post-offices, in common with other public accounts, are to be adjusted quarterly, with such vouchers as the Postmaster-General may prescribe. Opinion of Oct. 26, 1856, 8 Op. 125. 28. Under section 3 of the act of May 4, 1858, chap. 25, for the relief of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, that officer is entitled to credit only for those extra allowances that were both authorized by the House and re-approved by the Committee of Accounts. Opinion of June 21, 1858, 9 Op. 172. 24. Where a receiver of public moneys, ceived from sales of public lands, made default after November, 1841, and it was made to appear that a former commission to that office expired on the 13th September in that year, that the bond given for the performance of duties under the former commission was dated in March, and that given for performance of duties under the latter was dated in November, held that in stating the account an amount of the public moneys, certified to have been in his hands in November, 1841, sufficient to pay for all the lands sold up to the 13th of September, 1841, should be credited to him in the 29. Where the accounts of a mail contractor have been fully settled, and no attempt has been made to disturb them for many years, they are conclusive, and no charge can now be made against him which ought to have been settled then. Opinion of July 21, 1858, 9 Op. 198. 30. An act of Congress granting money to one mail contractor, or ordering the same amount to be charged upon the account of another, whose accounts have been long since settled, is void and of no effect as against the latter. Ibid. |