decision of July 13, 1894, made by the First Comptroller, to the effect that such refundment can not be made. You ask, in view of the statements made by the auditor and the attorney, that said decision be reviewed, as there are many similar claims presented for refundment, which claims you ask authority to pay. On January 19, 1872, the legislative assembly of the District of Columbia passed an act (Chap. XXXI), sections 1 and 2 of which are as follows: "Be it enacted by the legislative assembly of the District of Columbia, That the governor is hereby authorized and instructed to cause all taxes erroneously paid in the District of Columbia to be refunded by the proper accounting and disbursing officers of said District, upon the certificate of the collector of such erroneous payment, which certificate shall state the nature of the error, the name of the person or persons by whom such excessive payment was made, and such other particulars as may be necessary to satisfy the accounting officers that such claim for reimbursement is just and equitable; and the said accounting and disbursing officers shall pay all moneys so refunded out of, and charge the same to, the fund which was credited with the erroneous payment. "SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever any person shall deposit money in the Treasury for the purpose of procuring a license, and said license shall have been subsequently refused by legal authority, it shall be the duty of the accounting and disbursing officers of the District to refund the money so deposited, deducting therefrom an amount justly proportioned to the time during which such license shall have been used by the applicant therefor, or his representatives, and charge the amount so refunded to the fund which was credited with the original deposit." (Chap. LXV, sections 60-61, Comp. Stat. D. C.) The form of government of the District created by the act of February 21, 1871 (16 Stat., 419), under which the act of the legislative assembly above quoted was passed, was completely changed by the act of June 20, 1874 (18 Stat., 116), which created a Board of Commissioners, said last-named act being again superseded by "An act providing a permanent form of government for the District of Columbia," of June 11, 1878 (20 Stat., 102). In this act it was specifically provided that— "All laws now [then] in force relating to the District of Columbia, not inconsistent with the provisions of this act, shall remain in full force and effect." This clause clearly adopted and continued as in full force and effect the sections of the act of the legislative assembly above quoted, to the same extent and with the same effect as if said sections had been literally enacted by Congress as sections of the statute of June 11, 1878, above cited, generally known as "The organic act." These sections of the act of the legislative assembly have always been treated as creating a permanent and indefinite appropriation of the amounts necessary to repay the taxes and licenses authorized by said sections to be refunded. If there were any doubt upon this question the practical construction for a long period of time should be allowed to deter mine it in favor of the practice. The doubt which the First Comptroller entertained as to the applicability of these sections to fees for permits under the act of April 23, 1892, arose from the provision therein which required one-half of said fees to be deposited in the Treasury to the credit of the United States, as it was not seen how an act of the legislative assembly of the District could create an appropriation of moneys once depos ited to the credit of the United States. As, however, the acts of the legislative assembly in force prior to the passage of the organic act were by the provisions of that act adopted and ratified by Congress as if made by Congress itself, they should be given the same force and effect as if they had in fact been passed by Congress, and therefore they constitute appropria tions for the repayment of taxes erroneously paid and of license fees when the licenses for which the fees are paid are subsequently refused by legal authority. This is substantially the claim made by the auditor and the attorney for the District, and upon careful reconsideration of the matter I am, for the reasons above given, of the opinion that their contention is correct. Therefore you are authorized to refund fees paid for permits under section 3 of the act of April 23, 1892, when said permits are refused, notwithstanding the amount of the fees paid therefor have been deposited into the Treasury of the United States in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of said act. Respectfully, yours, R. B. BOWLER, The COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. REWARD OF PERSON FURNISHING INFORMATION OF FRAUD UPON THE CUSTOMS REVENUE. Under section 4 of the act of June 22, 1874, the Secretary of the Treasury may pay not exceeding $5,000 to a person furnishing original information concerning a fraud upon the customs revenue, although the goods seized are released upon payment of a fine equal to and in lieu of the legal duties. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, April 14, 1896. SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 10th instant, in which you say: "The Department is in receipt of a claim of Mr. A. R. Lafrance for compensation under section 4 of the act of June 22, 1874, for information furnished the Government in the matter of the illegal introduction into the United States by one J. B. Lalliberte, of Quebec, Canada, of fur garments, etc. "It appears that some of the articles seized as the result of information obtained from Lafrance were released upon payment of a fine equal to and in lieu of legal duties, while others were forfeited." You ask whether you are authorized to compensate Mr. Lafrance for the information furnished by him under the cir cumstances above recited. Section 4 of the "antimoiety" act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 186), provides "That whenever any officer of the customs or other person shall detect and seize goods, wares, or merchandise, in the act of being smuggled, or which have been smuggled, he shall be entitled to such compensation therefor as the Secretary of the Treasury shall award, not exceeding in amount one half of the net proceeds, if any, resulting from such seizure, after deducting all duties, costs, and charges connected therewith. And whenever any person not an officer of the United States shall furnish to a district attorney, or to any chief officer of the customs, original information concerning any fraud upon the customs revenue, perpetrated or contemplated, which shall lead to the recovery of any duties withheld, or of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture incurred, whether by importers or their agents, or by any officer or person employed in the customs service, such compensation may, on such recovery, be paid to such person so furnishing information as shall be just and reasonable, not exceeding in any case the sum of five thousand dollars; which compensation shall be paid, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, out of any money appropriated for that purpose." This section provides for compensation to two different character of persons-first, seizors, who are limited to one-half of the net proceeds resulting from the seizure, and, second, informers, who are entitled to such compensation as the Secretary of the Treasury may allow, not exceeding in any case $5,000, provided that as a result of the information furnished, either a duty intended to be withheld or any fine, penalty, or forfeiture incurred is, in fact, recovered. (See 18 Opin. A. G., 69.) Mr. Lafrance was an informer and not a seizor, and as duties were recovered as a result of the information furnished by him, you are authorized to pay him such compensation, not exceeding $5,000, as you may deem proper. Respectfully, yours, The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. R. B. BOWLER, Comptroller. EXPENSES IN ERECTION OF MONUMENT TO MARK THE BIRTHPLACE OF WASHINGTON. The expense of placing an iron fence around the monument erected to mark the birthplace of George Washington is payable from the appropriation made for the monument, when approved by the Secretary of State, under whose direction the appropriation is placed. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, April 14, 1896. SIR: I have received your letter of the 11th instant, in which you state that the Secretary of State has authorized the construction of an iron fence around the monument to mark the birthplace of George Washington, at a cost not exceeding $700, to be paid from the appropriation made by the joint resolution of February 26, 1881 (21 Stat., 519), and you ask whether such an expense is a proper charge against the appropriation referred to, and whether, if paid by you, the vouchers therefor will be allowed in the settlement of your accounts. It is provided in the joint resolution of February 26, 1881"That the sum of thirty thousand dollars be, and is hereby, appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the purpose of erecting a monument at and to mark the birthplace of George Washington, which sum shall be expended under the direction of the Secretary of State, who shall have the management and control of the erection of said monument." The Secretary of State having decided that the fence is necessary for the protection of the monument, the expense of erecting it is, in my opinion, such a necessary incident to the erection of the monument itself as to bring it within the appropriation. Payments made by you from said appropriation in the erection of such a fence, under the direction of the Secretary of State, will therefore be credited in your accounts. Respectfully, yours, Col. JOHN M. WILSON, R. B. BOWLER, Corps of Engineers, United States Army. IRON GUARDS UPON WINDOWS OF OFFICE OF ASSISTANT TREASURER IN RENTED BUILDING AT CHICAGO. The expense of providing iron guards upon the windows of the office of the assistant treasurer in the temporary building rented by the Government at Chicago is properly payable from the appropriation "Contingent expenses, Independent Treasury," as a necessary expense in the safe-keeping of the public moneys within the meaning of section 3653, Revised Statutes. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, April 14, 1896. SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 11th instant in which you state that the assistant treasurer of the United States at Chicago deems it essential to the safe-keeping of the public moneys in his custody that the windows in the rented building where his office is temporarily located during the reconstruction of the Government building be provided with heavy iron guards. There being no provision in the lease of the rented premises requiring the leasor to furnish this additional security, you ask from what appropriation the expense may be paid. Guards of a similar character, when required in buildings owned by the Government, under the control of |