being a personal recognizance. In explanation the commissioner said: "Pink Barnes was in jail on two separate charges, retail liquor dealer, without having paid the special tax, and breaking into a bonded United States warehouse. Assistant District Attorney Hawkins, on account of his bad health and on physician's certificate, directed me to release him on his personal recognizance, and I wrote two and he signed each." As the defendant was held on two different charges in two different cases, the proper practice seems to have been that followed by the commissioner. The amount claimed will therefore be allowed. 3. The Auditor made the following disallowance: "Charges for more than one recognizance where there are more than one defendant and the same sureties for each, disallowed, as one recognizance should include all defendants in such case." The commissioner, in explanation, says: "There is no such practice known in this jurisdiction as a joint recognizance to include several defendants, and it is submitted that such practice would be manifestly unjust and work many hardships. It would render it almost impossible to secure bail for a defendant against whom there was only a probability of guilt, but who was jointly committed with a desperate criminal. Again, if each defendant was bound over in the sum of $1,000, for what amount should the bond be? Our practice, as approved by our court, is to include only one defendant in each recognizance." Probably in most cases where two defendants are jointly indicted for the same offense, and particularly for a violation of the internal-revenue laws, which constitute the principal character of cases before commissioners, it would be perfectly practicable to recognize them together with the same sureties. The commissioner shows no reason why such practice could not have been adopted in this case. The action of the Auditor will be affirmed. R. B. BOWLER, IN RE APPEAL OF WILLIAM B. WIRT, UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS. A United States commissioner is not entitled to fees for filing warrants of arrest when such warrants are not executed, nor to fees for entering returns on such warrants. A United States commissioner is not entitled to fees for making a supplemental transcript of his proceedings in taking bail in a case already disposed of. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, August 5, 1895. Mr. Wirt, a commissioner for the northern district of Illinois, appeals from the settlement by the Auditor of his account for the quarter ended March 31, 1895. The Auditor disallowed all charges for filing warrants of arrest when such warrants were not executed, "as there is no legal filing in your office of any paper with which your connection has ceased, your office not being a court of record." Whatever may have been the practice originally, since the adoption of the provision in the sundry civil appropriation act of March 3, 1893 (27 Stat., 609) (modified somewhat in subse quent statutes), requiring a commissioner issuing a warrant to attach thereto a certified copy of the complaint and making such copy confer jurisdiction upon another officer before whom the marshal is required to bring the prisoner, it would seem that a warrant can not be said to be properly returnable when unexecuted before the commissioner who issued it, as it does not follow that if executed it would have been returned before him. No necessity for such practice seems to exist. The action of the Auditor in disallowing these items is affirmed. It appears that the Auditor allowed for entering returns on warrants unexecuted. As no such warrants are returnable before the commissioner who issued them, for the reasons just stated, this allowance was erroneous and will now be recharged. 2. The Auditor also disallowed for transcripts (supplemental) in cases where bail only was taken, as unnecessary, the original bonds being sent up to the court. The transcript of proceedings required to be sent up to the court is undoubtedly a transcript of the proceedings had upon a "hearing and deciding on criminal charges." As the taking of bail in a case already disposed of by the same or some other commissioner has been held not to be a "hearing and deciding on criminal charges" (decision of August 2, 1895, ante, p. 63), it follows that there can properly be no transcript of proceedings in such a case. Such a transcript answers no purpose, as all the information it contains is to be found in the bond which is required by law to be sent up to the court. The action of the Auditor upon this item is affirmed. R. B. BOWLER, REPAIR OF GOVERNMENT WHARF AT SITKA. The Government wharf at Sitka, Alaska, is not a public building and the expense of repairing it can not be paid from the appropriation for the repair and preservation of public buildings. The wharfage fees which by custom have been collected from merchant vessels using the Government wharf at Sitka, Alaska, must be covered into the Treasury under section 3617, Revised Statutes, and no part thereof is available for expenditure for any purpose. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, August 5, 1895. SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of May 6, 1895, in reference to repairs to the Government wharf at Sitka, Alaska. You ask whether the expense of such repairs would be a proper charge against the appropriation "Repairs and preservation of public buildings;" if not, whether it could be paid from the revenue derived from wharfage fees, or from the appropriation made for collecting the revenue from customs. In your letter of the 30th ultimo you state that the Government wharf being the only one at Sitka, the collector of customs on his own responsibility collects fees from merchant vessels and deposits them in the United States Treasury, there being no law or regulation governing wharfage charges for use of this wharf. In reply I have to advise you that neither the appropriation "Repairs and preservation of public buildings" nor the appropriation "Collecting the revenue from customs" is available for the payment of the expenses contemplated in the proposed repairs to said wharf, it not being a public building within the meaning of the first-named appropriation; nor would such expenses be in any sense "expenses of collecting the revenue from customs" provided for in the last-named appropriation. The revenue derived from wharfage fees is not available for this purpose as such fees are, by section 3617 of the Revised Statutes, required to be paid into the Treasury "without any abatement or deduction on account of salary, fees, costs, charges, expenses, or claim of any description whatever." There is, therefore, now no appropriation available for the payment of the expenses of repairing the Government wharf at Sitka. Respectfully, yours, R. B. BOWLER, The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. Comptroller. FORFEITURE FOR DELAY IN COMPLETING CONTRACT. Under a provision in a contract to complete the work within a certain number of "working days," with a forfeiture for "each and every day's delay," in computing the amount to be withheld for delay working days only should be counted, Sundays and holidays being excluded. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, August 5, 1895. SIR: I am in receipt, by your reference, of a letter of the 20th ultimo from the Superintendent of the Coast and Geodetic Survey, in which he asks what amount he is authorized to pay to the James Reilley Repair and Supply Company for repairs to the steamer Blake under contract dated April 28, 1895. Said contract provides that the contractors shall "Make all the repairs to the hull and to the machinery of the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey steamer G. S. Blake, as set forth in the specifications attached hereto, in eighteen (18) working days from the day the vessel is delivered to the party of the first part for repairs to the hull; and in eighteen (18) working days from the day the vessel is delivered to the party of the first part for repairs to the machinery." The next clause in the contract provides: "And the said party of the first part further agrees to forfeit the sum of ten dollars ($10.00) per day for each and every day's delay in completing the work, as set forth in this contract, after said time, and the amount thereof to be deducted from any sum which might be due the said party of the first part in the hands of the U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey." The vessel was placed in the hands of the contractors May 1, 1895; May 22 was the eighteenth working day, but the ves sel was not completed until July 13. The Superintendent asks whether in computing the amount to be deducted under the forfeit of $10 for "each and every day's delay" only working days should be counted and Sundays and holidays excluded. This is the construction placed upon the contract by Lieutenant Mentz, the commanding officer of the vessel, who entered into the contract on behalf of the United States, and under whose supervision the work was done. In my opinion that construction is the proper one. It is clear that in contracting for the work to be done within eighteen "working" days and providing for a forfeit of $10 for "each and every day's delay," the same character of days was intended. The Superintendent is therefore authorized to pay the amount of the repairs executed according to contract, after deducting $10 for each day after the eighteenth until the work was finished, excluding Sundays and legal holidays. Sections 3718 and 3719 of the Revised Statutes do not apply to contracts for the purchase of stationery for the Navy Department, and it is within the discretion of the Secretary of the Navy, in making such contracts, to waive the usual requirement that contractors shall furnish a bond for the faithful performance thereof. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, August 5, 1895. SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 30th ultimo, in which you state that you have advertised, as required by law, for proposals for stationery for the Department, and that in some cases the contracts have been awarded for single items and involve very small sums, one as small as $1.98. You ask whether in case of small contracts with responsible dealers you will be authorized in waiving the bond for faithful performance, usually required of all contractors. Sections 3718 and 3719 of the Revised Statutes, relating to the manner of entering into contracts for supplies for the Navy, do not, in my opinion, apply to purchases of stationery |