War, be used for engineering and contingent expenses connected with the superintendence and inspection of the work of dredging carried on under the provisions of the joint resolution of Congress approved March sixteenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-six" and in the sundry civil act of June 11, 1896— "For improving harbor at Mobile, Alabama: To enable the National Dredging Company, the contractor under the continuing contract for the improvement of the harbor at Mobile, Alabama, to proceed with the work of dredging, under the direction of the Secretary of War, as authorized by the joint resolution of Congress passed the present session, one hundred and sixty thousand dollars; this sum to be in full of any authorization or appropriation under said joint resolution." The Acting Attorney-General, in an opinion addressed to the Secretary of War, November 4, 1895, has recited very fully the facts relating to the appropriations for this work and the contract of October 10, 1892, referred to in the Chief of Engineers' inquiry. In passing upon this matter the Acting Attorney-General said: "I am of opinion, on the whole case, as presented, that the contract of 10th of October, 1892, has been fully performed, and that you are without authority to continue the employment of these contractors on the work under that contract; that the work which they propose to do does not 'come within their contract.' "That you can not, through the engineer officers of the Army, continue any supervision of the work which the National Dredging Company may hereafter perform; or extend to that company any recognition, as a continuing contractor with the Government, without exposing the Government to the liability of an implied contract." After this decision the joint resolution of March 16, 1896, was passed, the intention being, apparently, to give the Secretary of War authority to continue the work of dredging in Mobile Harbor under this particular contract. It does not give him any authority to make a new contract or contracts. It is true that there is no express authority in the resolution for him to revive this contract with the National Dredging Company, but unless we are to infer this power it is impossible for him to proceed under the contract at all, and it therefore seems to me a reasonable inference from the resolution that it does authorize the Secretary to revive this contract. It is, of course, within the power of the contractor to assent to such revival, and if Congress has authorized the Secretary to revive this contract, as I hold, it is apparent that it will be binding upon both parties. It will, of course, be necessary that the sureties on the contractor's bond for the original contract consent to be bound by their bond for all work done in connection with the revived contract, the same as they would have been bound by the original bond. As to the form of this revival, a short memorandum indorsed on the original contract to that effect and executed by all the parties to the contract would be sufficient. The amount payable under this revived contract has been fixed by the sum provided in the recent appropriation in the sundry civil act of $160,000, by the concluding clause thereof. There can be no question that the appropriation in the river and harbor act of June 3, 1896, of $60,000 ($10,000 of which are available for the cost of superintendence and inspection), "for maintenance of the channel by dredging" in Mobile Harbor, Alabama, is available to meet expenses that may be incurred in connection with the revived contract of October 10, 1892, only to the extent of the $10,000 for superintendence and inspection, provided that the Secretary of War so determines to use it, the remaining $50,000 being appropriated for work in connection with the maintenance of the channel already dredged. Respectfully, yours, The SECRETARY OF WAR. EDW. A. BOWERS, LEAVES OF ABSENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. The clause in the sundry civil appropriation act of June 11, 1896, authorizing payment of accrued leave in the Government Printing Office to the legal representatives of former employees, authorizes payment of the claim of W. P. Chew, which was held (1 Comp. Dec., 354) not payable prior to the passage of said act. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, June 20, 1896. SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 19th instant, inclosing two vouchers for leave of absence accrued to W. P. Chew, deceased, amounting to $129.60, being the same vouchers referred to in my letter of April 6, 1895 (1 Comp. Dec.,354). 11268-VOL 240 You ask whether, in view of the clause in the sundry civil act relating to pay of leaves of absence to employees of the Government Printing Office, said vouchers may now be paid. That clause is as follows: "And the Public Printer is hereby authorized to pay to the legal representatives of any employees who have died during the fiscal years of eighteen hundred and ninety-four, eighteen hundred and ninety-five, eighteen hundred and ninety-six, or may hereafter die, who have or hereafter may have any accrued leave of absence due them as such employees, and said claims to be paid out of any unexpended balances of appropriations for the payment of leaves of absence to the employees of the Government Printing Office, for the fiscal years eighteen hundred and ninety-four, eighteen hundred and ninety-five, eighteen hundred and ninety-six, and out of any future appropriations for leaves of absence." It was evidently enacted for the purpose of covering such claims as Mr. Chew's, which I had felt myself compelled to decide could not be paid, for the reasons stated in my letter of April 6, 1895. As the case comes within the clause above quoted, payment of the vouchers may be made from the appropriations for the fiscal year 1894. Respectfully, yours, R. B. BOWLER, The PUBLIC PRINTER. ERECTION OF LIGHT-HOUSE AT NORTH MANITOU ISLAND. The act of April 13, 1896, authorizes the Light-House Board to erect the light-house and fog signal at North Manitou Island, notwithstanding title to the site has not yet been vested in the United States as required by section 355, Revised Statutes. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, June 20, 1896. SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 12th instant, stating that you are about to advertise for bids for the erection of a double keeper's dwelling and fog-signal house at North Manitou Island, Lake Michigan, Michigan, and to incur the necessary expenses connected therewith, under instructions of the Light-House Board; that the land upon which the struc tures are to go is not owned by the United States and can not now be leased, because the owner thereof died many years ago and no heirs have been found. You ask whether, under the circumstances, payments for the advertising and construction may be made. An act approved April 13, 1896, provides: "That the Light-House Board be authorized to proceed with the construction of the light-house and fog signal on North Manitou Island, Lake Michigan, heretofore appropriated for, and that the aforesaid Board be authorized to lease the land necessary for the site of said aid to navigation until a perfect title to said site can be secured by condemnation proceedings." It evidently was the intention of Congress in the passage of this act to authorize the erection of the light-house buildings on the land in question, notwithstanding that a perfect title thereto had not been secured, which, but for this act, could not have been done because of the prohibition contained' in section 355, Revised Statutes. Payment, therefore, for the advertising and construction of the buildings referred to may, under the circumstances, be made. Respectfully, yours, Maj. M. B. ADAMS, R. B. BOWLER, Comptroller. Light-House Engineer, Ninth District. IN RE APPEAL OF BARRY BALDWIN, UNITED STATES MARSHAL FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. When separate jury commissioners have been appointed by the circuit and district courts each is entitled to compensation for not exceeding three days in any term of the court for which he acts as commissioner, the appropriation not being limited to one commissioner for both courts. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, June 20, 1896. Mr. Barry Baldwin, United States marshal for the northern district of California, appeals from the settlement by the Auditor for the State and other Departments of his account under the appropriation "Pay of bailiffs, etc., United States courts," for the quarter ending December 31, 1895. Among the items disallowed were charges for the services of more than one jury commissioner in connection with the drawing of a jury for the November term of the United States courts, on the ground that the appropriation, which reads, "Compensation for jury commissioners, five dollars per day, not exceeding three days for any one term of court," prohibited the payment for more than three days' service in the aggregate of jury commissioners at any one term, and one of the jury commissioners had already served and been paid for three days for the November term. Mr. Baldwin explains that two different jury commissioners have been appointed-one by the judge of the circuit court for the circuit court, another by the district judge for the district court. Section 800 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by section 2 of the act of June 30, 1879 (21 Stat., 43), provides: "That all such jurors, grand and petit, including those summoned during the session of the court, shall be publicly drawn from a box containing at the time of each drawing the names of not less than three hundred persons possessing the qualifi cations prescribed in section eight hundred of the Revised Statutes, which names shall have been placed therein by the clerk of such court and a commissioner to be appointed by the judge thereof, which commissioner shall be a citizen of good standing, residing in the district in which such court is held, and a well-known member of the principal political party, in the district in which the court is held, opposing that to which the clerk may belong, the clerk and said commissioner each to place one name in said box alternately, without reference to party affiliations, until the whole number required shall be placed therein.” There is nothing in this statute which indicates that only one commissioner shall be appointed for each district to act for both the circuit and district courts. On the contrary, there is very much which indicates a contrary intention; for instance, the commissioner must be "a well-known member of the principal political party, in the district in which the court is held, opposing that to which the clerk may belong," and it may happen that the clerk of one of the courts may belong to one of the two principal political parties while the clerk of the other court may belong to the other, so that it would be impossible to find a jury commissioner "of the principal political party" opposed to that to which the clerks belong. Aside from this, however, as the circuit and district courts are distinct courts, and as such entitled to separate juries, it seems quite clear that separate commissioners are authorized by the act of June 30, |