« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
for Congress to name the principal classes of expenditure which they authorize, such as clerk hire, fuel, light, postage, telegrams, etc., and then to make a small appropriation for the minor and unimportant disbursements incidental to any great business, which can not well be foreseen and which it would be useless to specify more accurately. For such disbursements a round sum is appropriated under the head of contingent expenses,' or 'incidental expenses,' or ómiscellaneous expenses?” (p. 280).
I think that language is as appropriate in construing the words "contingent fund” found in section 3683 as construing the words used in section 3682. I am, therefore, of the opinion that section 3683 only applies to čases where an appropriation has been made in a lump sum for “contingent, incidental, or miscellaneous expenses,” or under words of like import, and where Congress have specifically designated appropriations for enumerated items, as for “contingent, incidental, or miscellaneous expenses." Applying this principle to the appropriations above quoted it follows that the only appropriation to which the provisions of section 3683 would apply is so much of the appropriation of $2,500 beginning with the words “for repairs to buildings,” etc., as may be expended for other purposes than those specifically thereunder enumerated under the words therein contained “all contingent expenses."
It is, of course, always within your power as head of the Department to impose any further restriction upon the use of these appropriations as you may see fit. Respectfully, yours,
R. B. BOWLER, The SECRETARY OF THE Nayy.
BONDS OF UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS IN
THE INDIAN TERRITORY. Section 5 of the act of March 1, 1895, providing that United States com.
missioners in the Indian Territory shall hold office under their existing appointments, will authorize the payment of their salaries notwithstanding they have not yet given new bonds in place of those given under section 39 of the act of May 2, 1890.
July 22, 1895. SIR: I am in receipt of yours of the 13th instant, in which you call my attention to the following clause in my letter of May 23, 1895 (1 Comp. Dec., 183):
"I am of the opinion that the old commissioners may be
paid their salaries from March 1, 1895, provided the commis. sioners gave such bonds when the judges of the respective dis. tricts were duly qualified and opened their courts, so as to be in a position to approve such bonds in accordance with the law."
You state that these old commissioners have not yet given new bonds, but will do so when Judge Springer again opens his court. They claim that they are entitled to present pay. ment notwithstanding their failure to give the bond required by the act of March 1, 1895 (28 Stat., 696), and you ask whether they may be so paid.
My attention has been called to section 39 of the act of May 2, 1890 (26 Stat., 98), which I had not seen when I wrote you on May 23, under which these commissioners were originally appointed, and which specifically provides that they shall give bond in the sum of $5,000, to be approved by the judge appointing them.
While I think that a new bond should be taken as a matter of additional precaution, as section 4 of the act of March 1, 1895, provides that “the present commissioners * * * shall hold office under their existing appointments,” I am clearly of the opinion that they may be paid their salaries from March 1, 1895, notwithstanding they have not given an additional bond. Respectfully, yours,
R. B. BOWLER, Mr. FRANK A. BRANAGAN,
Comptroller. Disbursing Clerk, Department of Justice.
DUPLICATE CERTIFICATES OF ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES BEFORE THE POLICE COURT, DIS. TRICT OF COLUMBIA.
The Commissioners of the District of Columbia are authorized to pay the
fees of witnesses summoned in the police court of the District upon the presentation of duplicate certificates of attendance when the originals have been lost or destroyed and a duplicate has been issued by the clerk of the court.
July 22, 1895. SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 15th instant, with reference to the payment of fees of witnesses for attendance in the police court when duplicate certificates of attendance only are presented by the persons claiming the fees. You ask to be advised whether credit will be allowed in the settlement of the accounts of the Board of Commissioners if payments are made upon such duplicate certificates.
In reply I have the honor to inform you that if you pay witnesses the fees due them, upon the presentation of duplicate certificates of attendance, such payments will be credited in the settlement of your accounts.
I appreciate fully the difficulties presented by the issue of such duplicates, but at the same time it can hardly be said that a witness who, through carelessness or unavoidable acci. dent, has lost or destroyed his certificate is therefore not enti. tled to payment of the amount due to him from the District. The certificates are in no sense negotiable paper, and in case an original was receipted by a witness and then lost and before its presentation a duplicate was issued and paid, the payment of the latter would be a complete answer to the claim on the former.
The responsibility for the issuing of duplicate certificates rests with the clerk of the court, and care should be exercised to prevent fraudulent claims for duplicate certificates, for the protection of the Government and the Board of Commissioners acting as disbursing officers. Respectfully, yours,
R. B. BOWLER,
Comptroller. Hon. John W. Ross, President Board of Commissioners,
District of Columbia.
DETAIL OF OFFICE FORCE OF COAST AND GEO
DETIC SURVEY FOR TEMPORARY DUTY IN THE
FIELD_PAYMENT OF EXPENSES. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized in his discretion to detail an
employee of the office force of the Coast and Geodetic Survey for duty
in connection with the field work of the Survey. An employee of the Coast and Geodetic Survey detailed for temporary
duty in the field is entitled to reimbursement for his actual expenses while on such duty, payable from the appropriation for the work upon which he is engaged, but not to an allowance as a commutation of such expenses.
July 22, 1895. SIR: I am in receipt, by your reference, of a letter from the Superintendent of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, stating
that Mr. J. B. Boutelle, who holds a position in the office of the Survey as a computer, has been recently ordered to the field to help observe in a triangulation party, there being no other man immediately available for that purpose. He asks whether Mr. Boutelle can be carried on the rolls of the office force, his salary to be paid out of the appropriation for that purpose while so engaged, and also what subsistence Mr. Boutelle is entitled to while in the field.
The question of detailing a person employed in the office force for duty in the field under the circumstances above stated is one lying within your discretion, under the provisions of section 161, Revised Statutes, which provide that “the head of each Department is authorized to prescribe regulations, not inconsistent with law, for the government of his Department, the conduct of its officers and clerks," * * * there being no law, of which I am aware, prohibiting such action on your part. It is respectfully suggested, however, that the power should be exercised only in cases of emergency. If, therefore, you approve of the detail of Mr. Boutelle he may continue to be paid the salary provided by law for his position from the regular appropriation for bó salaries," and his necessary and actual expenses wbile in the field, from the appropriation for "Party expenses." No allowance in commutation thereof can be made for the reasons stated in the case of Kieckhoefer (Bowler's First Comp. Dec., 104). Respectfully, yours,
R. B. BOWLER,
Comptroller. The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.
LIVERY OF HORSE, CORONER'S OFFICE, DISTRICT
The appropriation for "livery of horse or horse hire for the coroner's office,"
in the District of Columbia appropriation act, is available for the reimbursement of the coroner for actual expenses incurred by him for the livery of his horse while kept at his private stable, but the coroner can not be paid a fixed allowance as a commutation of such expenses.
July 22, 1895. SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 11th instant, in which you ask whether you are authorized to pay to the coroner of the District of Columbia a fixed allowance of $20 to $22.50 per month as commutation of the expenses for livery of his horse.
In the appropriation for contingent expenses of the District of Columbia for the current fiscal year there is an item of $1,000 for the coroner's office, among the expenses to be paid therefrom being “livery of horse or horse hire for coroner's office.” You state that the predecessor of the present coroner owned his own horse and kept him at livery, and the expense was paid from a similar appropriation. The present coroner also owns his own horse, but keeps him at his own private stable.
In the contingent appropriations for the District, the following clause has been inserted: “ Provided, That horses and vehicles appropriated for in this act shall be used only for official purposes."
That clause does not, in my opinion, prevent the use of the appropriation for livery of horse for the coroner's office, although the horse may not be the property of the District.
I have the honor to advise you, therefore, that the appropriation above quoted is available for the payment of the livery of the coroner's horse, but its use is limited to the actual cost of such livery whether the horse is kept in a public or private stable. Respectfully, yours, . R. B. BOWLER,
Comptroller. Hon. John W. Ross, President Board of Commissioners,
District of Columbia.
NEWSPAPERS FOR THE COAST AND GEODETIO
Newspapers for the Coast and Geodetic Survey may be paid for from the
appropriation for miscellaneous expenses of that Bureau when the order required by section 3683, Revised Statutes, has been given, provided that the limit found in section 192, Revised Statutes, of $100 per year for newspapers for the Treasury Department is not exceeded.
July 22, 1895. SIR: I am in receipt, by your reference, of a letter from the Superintendent of the Coast and Geodetic Survey of the 18th