Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

and expenses to be immediately available out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.

For the proportion to be paid by the United States of the joint expenses of such conference, the sum of seven thousand five hundred dollars. And the report of said commissioners shall be made to Congress for ratification or rejection.

The commissioners under this act were William M. Evarts Allen G. Thurman, and Timothy O. Howe. The act was regarded as providing a compensation to each commissioner in gross, and to the secretary to said commission in like manner, for their respective services, without reference to the duration thereof. Their accounts according to the usage in such cases were not settled by the Fifth Auditor and First Comptroller until after the termination of their services.

The act of August 7, 1882 (22 Stat., 302), appropriates:

"For commission to represent the United States at the reassembling of a conference to adopt a common ratio between gold and silver for the purpose of establishing internationally the use of bi-metallic money and securing fixity of relative value between those metals, and in negotiations with reference thereto, twenty-five thousand dollars, and their reasonable expenses, to be approved by the Secretary of State."

This was regarded as making a permanent specific appropriation, for a designated service, without regard to the time or duration of its performance, and as authorizing payment to be apportioned in the discretion of the Secretary of State. Only a small portion of this has been expended, the accounts for which were settled after the services were rendered.

The sundry civil act of August 7, 1882 (22 Stat., 339), appropriated "a sum not exceeding $20,000, to be expended under the direction of the President," "for the salaries and expenses of a commission to negotiate a commercial treaty with Mexico." Under this General Ulysses S. Grant and William H. Trescot, the commissioners who negotiated a treaty, were paid $7,000 each, for salary and expenses, approved by the Secretary of State, without regard to the time or duration of service. Their accounts were not settled until after the services were rendered. In view of these precedents the questions presented in this case may now be decided.

DECISION BY WILLIAM LAWRENCE, First Comptroller.

The Commissioners and Secretary to the Commission appointed by authority of the act of July 7, 1884, are by every approved definition officers of the United States (Story Const., 733, 790-799; United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall., 393; United States v. Germaine, 99 U. S. 508; Meigs's case, 4 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 607). It is evident, also, that said Commissioners are diplomatic officers. Bouvier in his dictionary defines such officers thus: "Public officers who have been commissioned according to law, to superintend and [or] transact the affairs of the government which has employed [appointed] them, in a foreign

country. Vattel lib. 4 c. 5" (1 Op. Att.-Gen., 41; 7 Op. Att.-Gen., 186; Id. 551; Id. 582; United States v. Benner, Baldwin, 234; 2 Story Const. 1524; Paschal, Annotated Const., 3d ed., notes 180, 181, 202). The Revised Statutes provides as follows:

SEC. 1674. The official designations employed throughout this Title shall be deemed to have the following meanings, respectively:

First. "Consul-general," "consul," and "commercial agent," shall be. deemed to denote full, principal, and permanent consular officers, as distinguished from subordinates and substitutes.

Second. "Deputy consul" and "consular agent" shall be deemed to denote consular officers subordinate to such principals, exercising the powers and performing the duties within the limits of their consulates or commercial agencies respectively, the former at the same ports or places, and the latter at ports or places different from those at which such principals are located respectively.

Third. "Vice-consuls" and "vice-commercial agents" shall be deemed to denote consular officers, who shall be substituted, temporarily, to fill the places of consuls-general, consuls, or commercial agents, when they shall be temporarily absent or relieved from duty.

Fourth. "Consular officer" shall be deemed to include consuls-general, consuls, commercial agents, deputy consuls, vice-consuls, vice-commercial agents, and consular agents, and none others.

Fifth. "Diplomatic officer" shall be deemed to include ambassadors, envoys extraordinary, ministers plenipotentiary, ministers resident, commissioners, chargés d'affaires, agents, and secretaries of legation, and none others.

The duties required of the Commissioners mentioned are in their na ture diplomatic-their services are diplomatic services. The appointment of the Commissioners is authorized by the "act making appropriations for the consular and diplomatic service of the Government,

and for other purposes." The title of the act has but little significance in construing it (7 Op. Att.-Gen., 303; Union Pacific R. R. case, 1 Ct. Cl., 2). It is apparent that the "other purposes" mentioned in the title of the act include the provision creating additional diplomatic officers, and prescribing their duties-that is, the Commissioners now in question and others specified in the act. The reasonable inference, from all the provisions of statutes and regulations relating to the subject, and by comparison with others quoted, and the usage thereunder, is, that the compensation of such Commissioners and secretary respectively consists of a gross sum for specific services, without reference to the time or duration thereof, and that it is apportionable in the discretion of the Secretary of State to be paid at such times as he may deem proper, but not in advance of the rendition of services.

It was at one time held under the act of January 31, 1823 (Rev. Stat., 3648), that the President "may in his discretion advance money to a minister going abroad over and above his outfit" (7 Op. Att.-Gen., 204— June 15, 1829). This was alleged on the grounds (1) that the law had provided no mode of making prompt payment of salaries due in distant countries, and (2) that the diplomatic relations of the United States

were by the Constitution withdrawn "from the genera! legislative action of the Government" and placed under control of the President and Senate (Id. 206).

But neither of these positions is tenable. The statute, in general terms admitting of no exception, prohibits advances of money beyond. "the value of the service rendered" (Rev. Stat., 3648).

The omission to make provision for prompt payment to Ministers. abroad can not change the effect of a statute prohibiting advances. But there is no such omission as to Ministers abroad.

The statute does affirmatively provide that "the President may also direct advances to persons in the military and naval service em

* *

ployed on distant stations."*

But this is not negative in terms; it is cumulative, and does not repeal any power, express or implied, given by other statutes to pay the liabili ties of the Government Senate-Disbursement case, 2 Lawrence, Compt.. (Dec., 2d ed., 404).

A provision of the act of August 4, 1854 (10 Stat., 573), passed after the

*The whole section is taken from the act of January 31, 1823 (3 Stat., 723), and now stands in the Revised Statutes as follows:

SEC. 3648. No advance of public money shall be made in any case whatever. And in all cases of contracts for the performance of any service, or the delivery of articles. of any description, for the use of the United States, payment shall not exceed the value of the service rendered, or of the articles delivered previously to such payment. It shall, however, be lawful, under the special direction of the President, to make such advances to the disbursing officers of the Government as may be necessary to the faithful and prompt discharge of their respective duties, and to the fulfillment of the public engagements. The President may may also direct such advances as he may deem necessary and proper, to persons in the military and naval service employed on distant stations, where the discharge of the pay and emoluments to which they may be entitled cannot be regularly effected. [See § 1563.] See also, Williams v. U. S., 1 How., 290; The Floyd Acceptances, 7 Wall, 666; U. S. r. Cutter, 2 Curt., 617; Gibbons v. United States, Dev., C. C., 141; 2 Op. Att.-Gen., 503; 3 Id., 52, 135; 4 Id., 70; 6 Op. Att.-Gen., 24. The superintendence of the extension of the Capitol having been transferred to the War Department, the First Comptroller wrote, April 15, 1853, to the President, asking a decision as to whether bonds should not be executed by the engineer officer superintending the extension, as a disbursing agent, and called attention to the provisions of the acts of May 15, 1820 (3 Stat., 582, chap. 102), and of January 31, 1823 (Id., 723, chap. 9-Sec. 3648, Rev. Stat.).

President Pierce replied by indorsement as follows:

"I have taken the opinion of the Att'y-Genl. upon the question involved in the enclosed letter. Capt. Meigs will proceed in disbursements without filing bonds" (6 Op. Att.-Gen., 24).

The Secretary of War, Jeff Davis, thereupon wrote to Captain Meigs as follows: "The President has ordered that bonds shall not be required of you for disbursements made in the discharge of the duty with which you are charged. "April 25, 1853.

"JEFF DAVIS,

"Sec'y of War."

This correspondence appears in First Comptroller's press copies of letters written.

in April, 1853.

opinion of the Attorney-General, to which reference is above made, is carried into the Revised Statutes, as follows:

SEC. 3614. Whenever it becomes necessary for the head of any Depart ment or office to employ special agents, other than officers of the Army or Navy, who may be charged with the disbursement of public moneys, such agents shall, before entering upon duty, give bond in such form and with such security as the head of the Department or office employ ing them may approve.

This recognizes, and so grants, an authority to appoint special disburs ing agents to meet all public liabilities not otherwise adequately provided for (Bliss's case, 4 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 38). But even with out this, there is an implied power to appoint necessary disbursing agents to pay all diplomatic officers abroad (1 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., App., Ch. XV, 608; 6 Op. Att.-Gen., 24).

There is then ample authority to pay promptly the salaries and contingent expenses of all diplomatic officers abroad, except those in remote regions, who may be appointed special bonded disbursing agents, to disburse money for the payment of all expenses and dues to themselves. The authority to appoint diplomatic officers may be exercised by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and without any statute to create such officers. But when no statute provides compensation none can be paid. The fixing of salaries is not withdrawn from the general legislative action of the Government. Hence, it is not lawful to pay money to a diplomatic officer as compensation for services not yet rendered.

The general rule is, that a gross sum to be paid for a completed specific service is not apportionable, and that it can only be paid after all the services are rendered. This is upon the maxim annua nec debitum judex non separat ipse (1 Story Eq., 480, 517; 1 Salk. 36, 65). This subject has been discussed in Meigs's Res Adjudicata Case, ante, 232.

But the above maxim applies in proper cases as judicial law for the Courts. It is sometimes adopted as National executive civil common law, and applied in executive administration. But it is not adapted to the compensation and services now in question. By usage, which becomes not only executive common law, but enters into the obligation of the Government, in cases of this character, compensation is apportioned so as to make periodic payments apportioned on a just basis.

Appropriation acts are qualified by, and carried into effect according to, the provisions of other general statutes and usages in relation thereto. An earlier general statute frequently qualifies and regulates a later one (Bishop Written Laws, 128; Ellis's case, 5 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 404). This is part of the doctrine that statutes in pari materia are to be construed together.

The question, whether the sum of $7,500 is to be paid as compensa tion to each duly qualified Commissioner, without regard to the length or period of service, is one not without some difficulty. The statute

does not create a permanent office of Commissioner. It provides for appointments which by force of the statute may endure until the entire service is rendered.

The authority of the President, with the consent of the Senate to appoint foreign Ministers without the aid of a statute, is not doubted (Paschal, Annotated Const., 3d Ed. note 184; 7 Op. Att.-Gen. 186; Id., 582). But an appropriation by Congress is requisite to authorize the payment of compensation. The Commissioners now in question are specially provided for by the act of July 7, 1884, and the right of each to compensation is to be determined under that and other laws which may affect it. The proper construction of these is, that each Commissioner is entitled to a gross sum for his entire completed service, which may be paid at the termination thereof, or which may in the discretion of the Secretary of State be apportioned and paid from time to time. during the period of service.

The appropriation for compensation of the Commissioners mentioned is for their services, and as neither one could lawfully render any service uutil he had taken the oath of office, his right to salary commences with the date of taking such oath (Burdette's case, 5 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 476; Dunn's case, 4 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 410).

January 7, 1885, the Fifth Auditor having made to the First Comptroller Reports numbered 104433, 104434, and 104439, of accounts of Solon O. Thatcher, George H. Sharpe and Thomas C. Reynolds, Commissioners to the Central American States, they will be returned, with the advice, that one report and settlement should be made for each Commissioner, after the completion of his service.

It seems to be, at least irregular, to settle an account crediting, as said reports do, each commissioner with one-fourth part of the whole compensation, to offset the first payment made to each by Requisition of the Secretary of State. The usual practice in cases of this kind has been, to settle one account for compensation at the expiration and completion of the service, allowing therein the whole compensation fixed by law.

Such was the practice in the settlement of the accounts of Messrs. Evarts, Thurman, and Howe, Commissioners on the part of the United States to the Monetary Conference at Paris, appointed under the provisions of the Sundry Civil Act of March 3, 1881. (21 Stat., 455). The compensation of each of these Commissioners was fixed at $5,000 for the entire service; and although partial payments on account of compensation were made to each of them from time to time by Requisitions of the Secretary of State on the Secretary of the Treasury, yet there was but one settlement of their respective compensation accounts, after the entire service had been performed. See Reports numbered 94,721, 95168, and 95,169-accounts of T. O. Howe, A. G. Thurman, and W. M. Evarts.

In the matter of the accounts for Expenses of the Commission which 6 LAWR-17

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »