3, 1875 (18 Stat., 395), requires such estimates to be made by the Supervising Architect of the Treasury. On the other hand, plans and estimates for light-houses and other buildings connected with the Light-House Establishment are required to be prepared by the engineer secretary of the Light-House Board, under section 4665, Revised Statutes, said engineer being detailed by the President for that purpose under section 4664. Under section 4660 the Light-House Board is authorized to purchase sites, whereas sites for public buildings are purchased by the Secretary of the Treasury. Section 3657 authorizes collectors of customs to be disbursing agents for certain named public buildings, while section 4672 (since repealed, 21 Stat., 262) authorized such collectors to be superintendents and disbursing agents for light-houses, beacons, light-ships, and buoys. Section 5 of the act of June 20, 1874 (18 Stat., 110), mentions "light-houses" and "public buildings," while a clause in the act of March 3, 1883 (22 Stat., 605), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to acquire by purchase or by condemnation lands for public buildings and light-houses. These two statutes clearly indicate that in the mind of Congress public buildings and light-houses were two and distinct things. It does not follow, however, that the words "public buildings under the control of the Treasury Department" would not have to be construed as including light-houses when used in some statutes if the manifest purpose of the statutes indicates light-houses as being within the intention of Congress in the use of those words. In the various clauses in the act of March 2, 1889, now under consideration, the words "public buildings," in the first clause, "including heating apparatus, elevators, and approaches thereto" would seem not to refer to light-houses, and in the last clause the words "public buildings other than for life-saving stations and pier-head lights" would seem to include lighthouses, because pier-head lights-structures under the control of the Light House Board-are specifically excepted. Whether the words "public buildings" in the second clause, (the particular clause now under consideration) would include light-houses may be doubted, although there seems to be no reason why Congress should have had a different intention in providing a method for the payment of sites of public buildings from that for the payment of sites for light-houses, and there fore, apparently, the policy of the act would include light-houses as within the words "public buildings," especially as the act of March 3, 1883, above cited, authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to procure, by private purchase or condemnation, the necessary lands for public buildings, included also light-houses. However this may be, it is manifest that if funds have been advanced to a disbursing officer on account of an appropriation which authorizes payment for a site for a light-house, and such disbursing agent has in fact paid out those moneys for the purposes for which they were appropriated, he must receive credit for such payment as a liquidation of a valid charge against the United States, notwithstanding the fact that another law required payment to be made in a manner other than that which has been followed, if in other respects the payment was correct. The action of the Auditor in disallowing the credit in Capt. Bergland's accounts for the reason stated by him must be overruled, providing the payment is in other respects correct, and the method of payment for sites for light-houses will be called to the attention of the Secretary of the Treasury for his executive action. R. B. BOWLER, CONTRACTS FOR THE ERECTION OF THE SMITH'S POINT LIGHT-HOUSE. Under the appropriation of $25,000 for the reestablishing of the lighthouse at Smith's Point, a contract, involving a liability not exceeding said sum, may be made for a portion of the work, provided the estimated cost of the complete structure under the plan adopted does not exceed the limit of $80,000 fixed in the act, the remainder of the work to be contracted for as appropriations are made by Congress. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, SIR: Since writing my letter of January 10 (ante, p. 338), in regard to the erection by contract of the Smith's Point lighthouse, I have had some conversation with the engineer secretary of the Light-House Board, which indicates that there has arisen some misapprehension in regard to the question which you asked, and my answer thereto. It now appears that the question which was sought to be determined by your communication of January 3 was whether the words in the appropriation, "under a contract which is hereby authorized therefor," required that the entire structure should be erected under one contract, or whether the structure might be erected in accordance with the usual practice of the Light-House Establishment, which is to divide the work required into two parts, the one for the purchase and delivery of the metal work and the other for the erection and completion of the structure; no contracts being made, however, incurring obligations greater than the amount actually appropriated. My answer was based upon the idea that the question asked was whether more than one contract might be entered into for the doing of the whole work at a cost exceeding the $25,000 actually appropriated, but within the sum of $80,000, the amount determined by Congress as the maximum cost of reestablishing said light-house. Congress, when authorizing the erection of a public building or other public improvement, frequently fixes a maximum sum as the cost of such improvement, and makes an appropriation for a portion only of such total cost. This is the usual practice in regard to large public buildings. The object clearly is to enable the plans for the improvement to be made in such manner that the cost of the work will not exceed the total sum authorized, leaving such portion of the work to be actually contracted for as will not exceed the sum appropriated; subsequent work to be contracted for after subsequent appropriations are made. That would have been the condition in which the authority for reestablishing the Smith's Point lighthouse would have been had the words "under a contract which is hereby authorized therefor" not been inserted in the clause providing for the reestablishing of the light-house and making an appropriation therefor. In my opinion, the words above quoted were not intended to compel the erection of the light-house under one contract, but were inserted in order that the Light House Board might incur obligations beyond the amount appropriated, which could not otherwise have been done because of the prohibitions contained in sections 3679 and 3733 of the Revised Statutes. The authority to incur obligations beyond the amount appropriated was limited, however, by the requirement that a contract should be made for the entire work which should not exceed the total sum of $80,000, authorized as the cost of reestablishing the light. My decision of January 10 was that, under the provisions authorizing the contract, two or more contracts might be made provided they were entered into simultaneously, and the aggregate obligations of the same did not exceed $80,000, the purposes intended to be accomplished by the authority to make one contract exceeding the sum actually appropriated being as well subserved by the making of more than one contract, provided all the contracts were entered into simultaneously. For the reasons above stated, a contract for the construction and delivery of the metal work for the Smith's Point light-house may be made, provided the estimated cost of the light-house under the plan adopted for its erection does not exceed $80,000, and provided the contract entered into does not exceed the $25,000 actually appropriated. It follows, however, that no other contracts can be made exceeding the appropriation of $25,000 until further appropriations are made, unless such additional contracts should provide for the completion of the light-house at a cost not exceeding in the aggregate $80,000. Respectfully, yours, The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. R. B. BOWLER, Comptroller. TELEPHONE FOR OFFICER'S RESIDENCE. If an appropriation is available for the rental of a telephone, the question whether it is a necessary convenience for the transaction of the public business is one for the decision of the officer under whose direction the appropriation is placed and not of the accounting officers. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, February 12, 1896. SIR: I am in receipt of your communication of the 7th instant, asking, at the request and on behalf of the Secretries of State, War, and Navy, who by the provisions of the act of March 3, 1883 (22 Stat., 553), constitute a Commission for the care and supervision of the State, War, and Navy Department building, whether the expense, which it is stated will not exceed $66 per annum, of making a private telephonic connection between your quarters and the State, War, and Navy Department building may be paid from the appropriation "Fuel, lights, etc., State, War, and Navy Department building." It is stated that, as there is no assistant superintendent of the building, it not infrequently happens that questions arise at night which require your personal consideration and at present require you to go to the building, which probably could be avoided if this private telephonic connection were made. As the Commission deem such connection a proper and necessary expense, and the appropriation is under their general control, payment of the expense is clearly authorized from said appropriation as one of the "miscellaneous items" therein referred to. Respectfully, yours, R. B. BOWLER, G. W. BAIRD, Chief Engineer, U. S. Navy, Superintendent State, War, and Nary Comptroller. Department Building. TRAVELING EXPENSES OF SECOND ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL. The Second Assistant Postmaster-General, when traveling by direction of the Postmaster-General on business connected with the Railway Mail Service, is entitled to reimbursement for his actual and necessary expenses from the appropriation "Inland transportation by railroad routes." TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, February 12, 1896. SIR: I am in receipt of your communication of the 10th instant, stating that it is your desire to send the Second Assistant Postmaster-General to different points in the United States in connection with the Railway Mail Service, which branch of the postal service is under the general direction of the Second Assistant Postmaster-General, and while engaged in the duties which require him to be away from the office in Washington to pay his actual and necessary traveling expenses from the appropriation "Inland transportation by railroad routes." You ask whether such payment is authorized. |