The statement made in the Filor case (9 Wall., 48), that "no lease of premises for the use of the Quartermaster's Department, or any branch of it, could be binding upon the Government until approved by the Quartermaster-General," must be taken with certain qualifications and modifications. That case has been distinguished in the later case of United States v. Russell (13 Wall., 623, 631), where the court points out that this statement was "made with respect to a claim where a military order was issued for the seizure of certain real estate for the purpose of compelling a lease of the premises, and the findings of the court show that the agreement for the lease was concluded under the pressure of that order. Apart from that it also appeared that the premises belonged to an insurgent in the rebel army, and the Court of Claims also found that the contract was void on that account." In the case of Green v. United States (18 C. Cls. R., 94, 109) the Filor case was again distinguished. In the syllabus of this case also it was held: "Where a lease is made by a subordinate officer, upon the previous express directions of his superior, who has authority to direct it and to whom the fact is reported, no subsequent approval is necessary if it be shown that the premises have been occupied in accordance with the terms of the lease, with the knowledge of such superior officer and without objection from him." On page 109 of this case it is stated: "But it is objected that the lease was not expressly affirmed by the Quartermaster-General. Did its validity depend upon such express affirmation? Is not a contract made through a subordinate officer, by an express written order of the Quartermaster-General, a contract made by himself? We think it should be so regarded, unless, after officially learning how his order had been executed, he disapproved it. In such a case non-action should be held as affirmance." See United States v. Speed (8 Wall., 77, pp. 83, 84). The Quartermaster-General did not base his disapproval of the payment in 1866 either upon the want of loyalty of the claimant, which is certified to by the Treasury agent's letter of June 2, 1871, or upon the quartermaster having exceeded his authority in making the contract, his action having been incidental to and usual with his office, but solely upon the ground that the property leased was in an insurrectionary district, and therefore was appropriated for use by the United States as a military necessity, and as such could not be paid for. There is no suggestion of a disapproval of this contract by the Quartermaster-General. On the contrary, the reason given, and his subsequent action, would imply an approval of the contract; for it appears from the papers in the case that the renting of this real estate was duly reported to his office, and while there is no record of a formal approval, there is no evidence of a disapproval, on his part, of the contract. The confused and unsatisfactory condition of this record, as shown by the incompatible statements of April 20 and June 17, 1872, strongly inclines me to the belief that there was, in fact, a proper approval at the time by the QuartermasterGeneral, which has been lost in the course of years. However that may be, the facts in this case are sufficient to show a contract with the implied approval of the Quartermaster-General. It is true that in cases arising in insurrectionary districts there must be something more than mere use and occupation of property to constitute a binding contract. In such a case evidence of contract must be found in the further acts of the parties. The acts of the parties in this case show the intention to make, and that they did make, a contract. The officer making it had authority to initiate such a contract and report the same to the Quartermaster-General. The Quartermaster-General's duty was to approve it, if he found the contract free from objections. While we find no formal approval among the papers, yet his action was such as to lead to the conclusion that there must have been an implied approval, if not one in form. Regular vouchers were issued for an executed transaction, and such vouchers have always been considered as evidence of a preexisting contract and payment made upon the same. Claims of this character, evidenced as this is, have been uniformly held by the Second Comptroller to be founded upon contracts, and therefore within the jurisdiction of the accounting officers. The Supreme Court, the Court of Claims, and the Attorneys-General have sustained this view. I accordingly hold that the vouchers issued in this case by responsible officers of the Quartermaster's Department furnish satisfactory evidence of the rental of the four buildings at Newbern, N. C., for the time and at the rate indicated therein, and the claim is therefore allowed in the sum of $405, the amount claimed. EDW. A. Bowers, FIRE ALARM APPARATUS FOR THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT. The appropriation in the act of March 3, 1891, to place electrical fire-alarm apparatus in the Interior Department is available only for the installation of the system, and can not be used to pay the annual rental of the instruments. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 8th instant requesting my decision upon a question involved in the use of the following appropriation made by the joint resolution of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat., 1117): "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That to enable the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to place electrical fire alarm apparatus in the especially exposed file and storerooms of the various buildings occupied by their respective Departments, the sum of fifteen thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated." You state that on July 21, 1894, your Department entered into a contract with the Instantaneous Fire Alarm Company for the leasing of 28 auxiliary fire-alarm boxes and the sale outright of two street fire-alarm boxes, the same to be placed in the Interior and Pension office buildings; that the Department agreed to pay the lessor the sum of $1,010, to include the full cost of installation and maintenance for the period of one year from date of acceptance, and thereafter, from year to year, renewable at its pleasure indefinitely, to pay the lessor a sum not to exceed $200 per annum for the thorough and efficient renewal, repair, and maintenance of the system as installed. The sum mentioned in the contract has been paid, and the period of one year from acceptance of the system will expire November 16, 1895, after which it will be necessary to pay the rental of $200 per annum. You state that it has also been found necessary to place such boxes in the buildings occupied by the Geological Survey, Civil Service Commission, and the Education, Census, and Indian Offices, ten in all, at an aggregate cost of about $100 per annum, payable from the contingent fund of the Department. In view of the fact that FIRE-ALARM APPARATUS IN INTERIOR DEPARTMENT. 197 there is a balance to the credit of the Interior Department of about $5,790 of the appropriation made in the act of March 3, 1891, you ask whether the rental of the 28 boxes under the contract above mentioned, as well as the rental of the 10 boxes in the other buildings, and not rented under the contract, may be defrayed from the balance of the said appropriation until it is exhausted, and thus relieve the contingent fund of the Department from any charge on account of such rental. In reply I have the honor to advise you that the appropriation above quoted is, in my opinion, available only for the expenses incurred in placing the electrical fire-alarm apparatus. in such of the files and storerooms occupied by your Department as are, in your opinion, especially exposed and require such protection. When the apparatus has been so installed in all the buildings where you deem it necessary, whether by purchase of the instruments outright or by contract for an annual rental, the purpose for which the appropriation was made is accomplished, and it is no longer available for any expenditure. From the language of the act making the appropriation, and considering the amount provided for the purpose, it may be presumed that Congress intended to provide for the installation of a system to be owned by the Government, leaving no further expense to be incurred, excepting the small amount necessary for repairs from time to time. But whether this was the intention or not, the object of the appropriation is accomplished when the system has been placed in position, and it is not thereafter available either for rent or repairs. The appropriation found in the act of March 2, 1895 (28) Stat., 799), for the contingent expenses of the office of the Secretary of the Interior, and the bureaus, offices, and buildings of the Interior Department, including the Civil Service Commission, providing as it does for "other absolutely necessary expenses," in addition to the objects specifically named therein, is, in my opinion, available for the payment of the rental of these fire alarm boxes. It may also be used to pay the expenses incurred in their repair and maintenance. Respectfully, yours, EDW. A. BOWERS, The SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. TRAVELING EXPENSES, COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY. The expenses of an assistant of the Coast and Geodetic Survey while traveling on duty in connection with the field work are properly payable from the appropriation therefor, although he may, as an incident to the trip, perform work for the office. The question whether sleeping-car accommodations for a short trip are necessary is one for the decision of the officer having control of the appropriation, and is not within the jurisdiction of the accounting officers. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, October 11, 1895. SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 3d instant, inclosing a voucher in favor of Assistant J. F. Pratt for expenses incurred by him in executing the order of the Superintendent of the Survey, which directed him to proceed to Reedy Island, Delaware, for the purpose of examining the structure erected by the Treasury Department, with a view to placing a tide indicator on it. He was also directed, in passing through Philadelphia, to stop over and examine the material in the suboffice of the Survey and report on the condition and number of articles, including furniture. You ask from what appropriation his expenses upon this trip from Washington to Reedy Island and return, including a stop at Philadelphia, should be paid. In the sundry civil appropriation act of March 2, 1895 (28 Stat., 921), there is, as an item of the field expenses of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, the following provision: "For establishment of a self-registering tide gange at Reedy Island on the Delaware River, seven hundred dollars." In the same act, under the head of office expenses, there is also the following appropriation: "For miscellaneous expenses, contingencies of all kinds, office furniture, repairs, and extra labor, and for traveling expenses of assistants and others employed in the office sent on special duty in the service of the office, four thousand five hundred dollars." While the expenses incurred by Mr. Pratt, who is an assistant in the Survey, employed in the office, would be properly payable from the last-named appropriation when he is sent "on special duty in the service of the office," it appears that in the |