Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

entered into in accordance with the provisions of section 3709 is so large a percentage of the entire amount, and as such extra work has not been certified to as having been required to be performed under an emergency, as provided by section 3709, you ask whether you are authorized to make payment of the voucher in full.

From the papers transmitted it appears that these extra items of work were ordered because found necessary after the original contract had been entered into between the United States and Woodall & Co. for the repairs of the vessel. It would seem, therefore, that the work was of such a character that it must necessarily have been performed by the same parties who were engaged upon the other repairs to the vessel, and therefore the provisions of section 3709 would not apply, because that section only contemplates contracts where competition is possible. (17 Opin. A. G., 84.) Furthermore, it would seem from the circumstances that an emergency for the immediate execution of the work existed, for it would hardly have been possible to have delayed the work under the original contract until proposals had been accepted in pursuance of previous advertisements. Under the circumstances it would seem that the officer in charge of the work would have been justified in giving the emergency certificate required by section 3709, Revised Statutes. Why he did not do so does not appear.

If the work was of such a character that proposals could have been required by previous advertisement, or if in fact an emergency did not exist for the immediate performance of the work, it is established that where in good faith work has been done under an informal contract and accepted by the Government compensation therefor upon the basis of a quantum meruit may be recovered from the United States. Clark v. United States, 95 U. S., 539; and it was therein held that in the absence of other evidence the contract price might be considered sufficient evidence of the value of the services rendered, and substantially to the same effect is Salomon v. United States (19 Wall., 17). It has furthermore been held that where recovery may be had upon quantum meruit for work and labor done under an implied or informal contract the accounting officers of the Treasury have jurisdiction to settle the claim (Dennis v. United States, 20 C. Cls. R., 119).

As the value of the services has been certified to by Lieutenant-Commander Moser, the hydrographic inspector of the

Survey, under whose superintendence the work was performed, as just and reasonable, and as the price was fixed by agreement before the work was done, I am clearly of the opinion that the voucher in favor of Woodall & Co. is a proper charge against the United States, and therefore that its payment is authorized by you.

[blocks in formation]

The United States are not liable for an assessment levied by local State authorities, even though the improvement may be a direct benefit to the property.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY,

January 30, 1896.

SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of December 28, 1895, inclosing a bill against the United States by the village of Conneaut, Ohio, for the sum of $44, being the amount assessed against the premises owned and occupied by the United States for light house purposes as their proportional part of the cost of a sewer constructed in the public highway on which said premises are situated. You ask whether you are authorized to pay said bill.

It is well-established law that the property of the United States, or any of the instrumentalities employed by them in the performance of their proper functions, is not the subject of taxation by the States or any subdivisions thereof. (McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat., 316; Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat., 738; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet., 449; Dobbins v. Commissioners, 16 Pet., 435; Bank of Commerce v. New York City, 2 Black, 620; Bank Tax Case, 2 Wall., 200.) Most of these cases related to the taxation of instrumentalities adopted by the United States for the proper execution of the powers vested in the Federal Government. The principle has been specifically applied to the taxation of the property of the United States (9 Opin. A. G., 291), has been acquiesced in by the courts of all the States in which the question has arisen

(Andrews v. Auditor, 28 Grattan, 115; Chicago, etc., Railway Company v. City of Davenport, 51 Iowa, 451), and has also been specifically applied to assessments for public works from which specific benefits would be derived (Fagan v. Chicago, 84 Ill., 227).

Both on reason and authority the property of the United States Government is not taxable by the States for general purposes or for local improvements from which the property sought to be taxed would be benefited. You are not therefore authorized to pay the bill, as the same is not a proper charge against the United States.

[blocks in formation]

The appropriation of $570,880 made in the act of March 3, 1893, for the expenses of the committee on awards of the World's Columbian Commission is available for all expenses attending the awarding and distribution of medals and diplomas granted in pursuance of section 6 of the act of Apri! 25, 1890.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY,

January 31, 1896.

SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 28th instant, inclosing a letter from the Honorable Thomas W. Palmer, president of the World's Columbian Commission, asking whether in addition to the expenses of a meeting of the Board of Reference and Control of the World's Columbian Commission, called for the sole purpose of receiving and distributing the medals and diplomas of the World's Columbian Exposition, to be charged to the appropriation of $570,880, made in the sundry civil appropriation act of March 3, 1893 (27 Stat., 586), known as "Expenses, Committee on Awards, World's Columbian Commission, reimbursable," the necessary expenses incident to the distribution of the said medals and diplomas may be paid from said appropriation.

The appropriation above referred to reads:

"To enable said Commission and the Board of Lady Managers to give effect to and execute the provisions of section 6 of the act of Congress approved April twenty-fifth, eighteen hundred and ninety, authorizing the World's Columbian Exposition, and appropriating money therefor, relating to committees, judges, and examiners for the Exposition, and the granting of awards, five hundred and seventy thousand eight hundred and eighty dollars,

#”

of which sum $100,000 was for the Board of Lady Managers. Section 6 of the act of April 25, 1890, referred to, provided that the Commission should—

"appoint all judges and examiners for the Exposition, award all premiums, if any, and generally have charge of all intercourse with the exhibitors and the representatives of foreigu nations."

and that the Board of Lady Managers should practically per form the same functions in regard to the exhibits produced by female labor.

From a reading of the provisions of said section 6 it seems entirely clear that the appropriation was made for the purpose of paying all the expenses of granting awards, whether by medals or diplomas. The expense of distributing the medals and diplomas given in pursuance of an award is clearly therefore chargeable to the said appropriation.

Respectfully, yours,

The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

R. B. BOWLER,

Comptroller.

CONDEMNATION OF LAND IN FEDERAL COURTS. Under the act of August 1, 1888, providing for condemnation proceedings in the Federal courts, agreeably to the procedure in the State court, the jurors and witnesses may be paid the usual fees from the appropriations for expenses of United States courts, unless by the practice in the State court special compensation is payable for the services of the jury or witnesses, in which case such compensation would be payable from the appropriation for miscellaneous expenses of United States courts.

TREASURY DEPARTMENT,

OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY,

February 3, 1896.

SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 25th ultimo asking whether the regular fees provided for jurors and witnesses

should be paid to jurors and witnesses in cases instituted under the act of August 1, 1888 (25 Stat., 357), authorizing condemnation proceedings in the Federal courts; and whether the fees paid to such jurors and witnesses should be paid from the appropriations "Fees of jurors, United States courts," and "Fees of witnesses, United States courts."

Section 2 of said act is as follows:

"The practice, pleadings, forms and modes of proceeding in causes arising under the provisions of this act shall conform, as near as may be, to the practice, pleadings, forms and proceedings existing at the time in like causes in the courts of record of the State within which such circuit or district courts are held, any rule of the court to the contrary not withstanding." From this section it is clear that all of the proceedings in such cases shall conform to proceedings in like cases in the courts of the various States. These proceedings differ greatly; in some States condemnation proceedings conform to the prac tice in ordinary cases before common-law juries summoned in the usual way, while in other States commissions of inquiry or juries of inquiry, of varying numbers, are appointed, and the proceedings are very different from ordinary suits. No definite answer can, therefore, be given to your questions so as to cover all cases.

If the proceedings are had before a common-law jury and the fees allowable to such jury are the regular fees, and the witnesses are treated upon the same basis as witnesses in other suits, it would seem clear that the appropriations for fees of witnesses and fees of jurors would be available for the payment of these witnesses and jurors respectively.

If, however, commissions of inquiry or juries of inquiry are appointed and are by the practice of the various States allowed special fees or compensation, and if the witnesses are allowed other compensation than the usual witness fees, the fees of both the commissions or juries and witnesses should be paid from the appropriation "Miscellaneous expenses, United States courts."

Respectfully, yours,

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

R. B. BOWLER,
Comptroller.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »