You also request to be advised on two other questions presented by you, as follows: (1) Whether, since the appropriations indicated will be placed on the books of your department, the special disbursing agents above pointed out by you should be required to give new bonds in view of the fact that the present bonds of the governor of Alaska and the secretary of Hawaii, under appropriations for legislative expenses of those Territories, are approved by the Secretary of the Treasury and not by your department; and (2) How and by whom the administrative examination of accounts of United States marshals arising from disbursements for salaries of judges, marshals, etc., of said Territories shall be made in view of the acts of August 1, 1914, and March 4, 1915, hereinafter referred to and set out. Section 22 of the act of July 31, 1894 (28 Stat., 210), provides that it shall be the duty of the heads of the several executive departments to make appropriate rules and regulations to secure a proper administrative examination of all accounts sent to them, as required by section 12 of the same act, before their transmission to the proper auditors. Section 12 relates to the transmission of accounts by disbursing officers to the proper officer at Washington, and by the latter to the proper auditor for settlement. The legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation act of July 16, 1914 (38 Stat., 479), provides: "Hereafter the estimates for expenses of government in the Territories shall be submitted through and be subject to revision by the Department of the Interior." The sundry civil appropriation act of August 1, 1914 (38 Stat., 653), provides that from and after October 1, 1914– 66 * * * * it shall be the duty of the United States marshals to pay, under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, the salaries of all judges of the United States courts, United States district attorneys, their regular assistants, clerks, and messengers, and United States marshals and their deputies: * * The legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation act of March 4, 1915 (Public No. 290, 63d Congress, p. 28), fiscal year 1916, under the head "Government in the Territories" provides: "Hereafter the accounts and vouchers relating to the expenditure of the appropriations for government in the Territories shall be transmitted to the Secretary of the Interior for administrative examination and by him passed to the Auditor for the Interior Department for settlement." Said act of March 4, 1915, appropriates for "Government in the Territories" as follows: "Territory of Alaska: Governor, $7,000; four judges, at $7,500 each; four attorneys, at $5,000 each; four marshals, at $4,000 each; four clerks, at $3,500 each; in all, $87,000. "For incidental and contingent expenses, clerk hire, not to exceed $2,250; janitor service for the executive mansion and office building, not to exceed $1,200; traveling expenses of the governor while absent from Juneau on official business; repair and preservation of executive mansion; stationery, lights, water, and fuel; in all, to be expended under the direction of the governor, $7,500." "Territory of Hawaii: Governor, $7,000; secretary, $4,000; chief justice, $6,000; two associate justices, at $5,500 each; in all, $28,000. "For judges of circuit courts, at $4,000 each, so much as may be necessary, for the fiscal year nineteen hundred and sixteen. "For contingent expenses, to be expended by the governor for stationery, postage, and incidentals, $1,000, and for private secretary to the governor, $2,000; in all, $3,000." The sundry civil appropriation act of March 3, 1915 (Public, No. 263, Sixty-third Congress, p. 46), makes appropriations for the protection of game in Alaska and for the suppression of the liquor traffic among the natives of Alaska. The laws relating to administrative examination of accounts contemplate such examination in the several executive departments at the seat of government. The act of March 4, 1915, supra, specifically provides that the accounts and vouchers relating to the expenditure of the appropriations for government in the Territories shall be transmitted to the Secretary of the Interior for administrative examination, and by him passed to the Auditor for the Interior Department for settlement. This means that the administrative examination is to be made in the Interior Department at the seat of government. It would be proper for you to make any regulations which you think desirable for the examination of the accounts in or at your department, but I do not think it would be legal or proper for you to commit such examination to persons in or under your department away from the seat of government, as to do so would be to contravene what seems to me to be the clear purpose of the statute. I am therefore of the opinion that the plan of administrative examination suggested in your letter is not authorized. Your first question is answered accordingly. As respects the first of your other two questions, namely, whether a special disbursing agent appointed or designated to disburse funds appropriated for legislative expenses in the Territories of Alaska and Hawaii (see act of July 16, 1914, 38 Stat., 479, for appropriations for legislative expenses) in the current fiscal year, should be required to give new bonds approved by and running to your department, or whether the present bonds will be sufficient, I am of opinion that the present bonds of the governor of Alaska and the secretary of Hawaii, designated as special disbursing agents to disburse the funds appropriated for legislative expenses, may be continued in use in connection with their accounts under said appropriations. Both officers are bonded to the United States of America in the sum of $20,000 each, that of the governor of Alaska being approved March 5, 1915, and that of the secretary of Hawaii January 19, 1915, by the Secretary of the Treasury. Both bonds are conditioned in terms as follows: "The condition of the foregoing obligation is such, that whereas the Secretary of the Treasury has, pursuant to law, constituted and designated the said 'special disbursing agent for the Treasury Department' by letter dated for the disbursement of funds from the appropriation: Legislative expenses, Territory of 1915" " * * * * * * * * "Now therefore, if the said shall well and truly execute and discharge all the duties of said office of special disbursing agent according to the laws of the United States and the regulations of the Treasury Department made in conformity therewith, safely keeping and correctly paying out all sums of public money advanced to him or coming into his hands from time to time, without loaning, using, depositing in bank, or exchanging for other funds than as allowed by law, then this obligation to be void and of no effect; otherwise, to remain in full force and virtue.” The surety on the bond of the governor of Alaska is the United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, of Baltimore, Md., and on the bond of the Secretary of Hawaii, the Equitable Surety Company, of St. Louis, Mo. It is suggested that when it becomes necessary to give new bonds they be made upon designation and approval by your department, and that the bond of each disbursing agent be made to cover all appropriations and funds and property which may come into his hands by virtue of his office and which he will be called upon to handle or disburse. As respects your last question, namely, How and by whom the administrative examination of accounts of United States marshals arising from disbursements from salaries of judges, marshals, etc., in the said Territories is to be made, I have to inform you that in my opinion such examination should continue to be made as now; that is to say, by the Department of Justice. Section 13 of the act of July 31, 1894 (28 Stat., 209), provides that * * * * "Before transmission to the Department of the Treasury the acmarshals counts of shall be sent with their vouchers to the Attorney General and examined under his supervision." The act of August 1, 1914, supra, made it the duty of United States marshals from and after October 1, 1914, to pay the salaries of all judges of the United States courts, with certain exceptions, under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General. These salaries were previously paid through the disbursing officer of the Department of Justice. This legislation is special and particular, and under it the vouchers and accounts of the marshals relating to the salaries of the judges, marshals, etc., have taken the same course as their vouchers and accounts relating to their other expenditures. There is nothing in the act of March 4, 1915, supra, which in express terms looks to a separation of the accounts of the marshals; that is to say, a part going to one department and auditor for administrative examination and settlement and a part to another. It would undoubtedly result in much confusion if such were the case; besides, it would be an extraordinary procedure for payments to be made under regulations prescribed by one department and the administrative examination of the accounts involving such payments to be made by another department. While the legislation of March 4, 1915, supra, is seemingly comprehensive in scope and purpose in its relation to the expenditure of appropriations for government in the Territories, yet there is sufficient ground, I think, for holding that it was only intended to apply to expenditures other than those expressly directed to be made by marshals by the act of August 1, 1914, supra. It would appear, and it should be so held unless the language of the law demands a different holding, that it was the expenditures other than for salaries of judges, marshals, etc., pertaining to government in the Territories that Congress was legislating about in the act of March 4, 1915. I find nothing in the language of the law that demands a different holding. I do not think said act of March 4, 1915, operates to repeal the acts of July 31, 1894, and August 1, 1914, supra, relating to the accounts and disposition thereof of marshals. Under this view all of the accounts and vouchers of the marshals will go to one department and auditor, as now, and the remainder of the accounts and vouchers relating to the expenditure of the appropriations for government in the Territories will go to your department for administrative examination and to the Auditor for the Interior Department for settlement. The third and last question is answered accordingly. SHIPS' STORES PROFITS, NAVY. An accounting to the Auditor for the Navy Department of the proceeds from sales of ships' stores, provided by act of June 24, 1910 (36 Stat., 619), is necessary for the separation of the profits from the total sales; but expenditures from the said profits are within the discretion of the Secretary of the Navy and should be accounted for to the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts only. Comptroller Downey to the Secretary of the Navy, April 28, 1915: By your letter of the 20th instant you submit a question presented by the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts as to an expenditure from "Ships' stores profits" provided for by the act of June 24, 1910 (36 Stat., 619), which provision is as follows: "That hereafter a profit not to exceed 15 per cent may be charged on sales from ships' stores, such profit to be expended in the discretion of the Secretary of the Navy, under such regulations as he may prescribe, for the amusement, comfort, and contentment of the enlisted force and to be accounted for to the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts, Navy Department." 66 * * * The question of the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts is as towhether commanding officers may be authorized to direct and approve payment to enlisted men of the Navy of sums in addition to their regular pay for services in operating movingpicture machines when these machines are purchased and operated for the amusement, comfort, and contentment of the enlisted force' of the Navy." The doubt of the bureau arises from section 1765, Revised Statutes, which prohibits the payment of additional compensation to officers or persons in the public service whose pay is fixed by law or regulations. In referring the bureau's letter you request the decision of another question as follows: "2. In connection with the question presented it has been suggested that inasmuch as the law provides that profits from ships' stores in the Navy are 'to be accounted for to the Bureau of Supplies and Accounts, Navy Department,' your office is without jurisdiction over the disbursements from said fund. (See 16 Op. A. G., 492; 19 id., 387; 15 Comp. Dec., 557; 2 id., 24; id., 339; id., 267; 20 id., 49, 55.) "3. Without expressing an opinion upon this point the department submits the matter to you with request that you give consideration to the question of jurisdiction, and if you conclude that the matter is under the cognizance of your office that you render your decision upon the question proposed by the Paymaster General. "4. In this connection, in the event that you decide the matter is under your jurisdiction, attention is invited to the decision of the Court of Claims in the case of Hayden v. United States (38 Ct. Cls., 39), in which it was, in effect, held that section 1765, Revised Statutes, did not apply to certain disbursements which were to be made from a fund expressly subject to the discretion of the Secretary of the Navy acting for the President. "5. This department has not overlooked the fact that it has heretofore submitted to you certain questions pertaining to expenditures from the ships' stores profits without the question of jurisdiction being raised, and that you have rendered decisions in answer thereto. In your decision of August 11, 1914 (N. D. File 26254-1571:2), you held that the profits from sales are not public money' within the meaning of section 3648, Revised Statutes, and that if this question were doubtful, the authority given the Secretary of the Navy to expend the profits at his discretion would seem to take them out of the operation of that section." |