« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
ever in the precedent law is inconsistent with it.
"If two inconsistent acts be passed at different times, the last said the Master of the Rolls) is to be obeyed, and if obedience can not be observed without derogating from the first it is the first must give way. Every act of Parliament must be considered with reference to the state of law subsisting when it came into operation, and where it is to be applied; it can not otherwise be rationally construed. Every act is made either for the purpose of making a change in the law, or for the purpose of better declaring the law, and its operation is not to be impeded by the mere fact that it is inconsistent with some previous enactment. (Dwarris on Statutes, p. 155.)
“The authorities are numerous in support of the proposition advanced by these text writers.
"In Hukill v. United States (16 C. Cls. R., 563) the court recognizes this doctrine in very emphatic terms, and in my judgment fully supports the conclusion reached in this case. On page 565 it says:
"Every appropriation for the payment of a particular demand, or a class of demands, necessarily involves and includes the recognition by Congress of the legality and justice of each demand, and is equivalent to an express mandate to the Treasury officers to pay it. This recognition is not affected by any previous adverse action of Congress, for the last expression by that body supersedes all such previous action.'
“I have concluded that section 3480 has no application to the payment of the claims now presented, and hence have allowed the same.
“In accordance with the law in that behalf I hereby refer the same to you for your action. “I forward herewith the original papers.”
The construction placed by the Auditor for the Navy Department upon the appropriation contained in the act of March 2, 1895 (28 Stat., 842), that payment is authorized to be made notwithstanding the provisions of section 3480, Revised Statutes, or the decision of the Court of Claims in the case of The Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad Company v. United States (20 C. Cls. R., 49), is hereby approved for the reasons stated by him in the foregoing opinion.
R. B. BOWLER,
SALARIES OF ASSISTANT PROFESSORS AT THE
The disbursing officer is authorized to pay the assistant professors at the
Naval Academy only at the rates indicated by the annual salaries appropriated for their services, leaving the claims of such as have served tive years for the difference between their pay and that of a professor to be adjusted by the accounting officers and reported to Congress for appropriation.
August 24, 1895. SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 31st ultimo, in which you ask in what manner you can obtain necessary funds to pay the assistant professors at the Naval Academy who are entitled under the act of March 2, 1895, to the pay of professors.
In said act of March 2, 1895 (28 Stat., 837), is the following clause: “Any assistant professor at the Naval Academy who has served as such for five years shall have the title and pay of a professor.”
Under that provision all assistant professors who have served the required period are entitled to the extra pay. The appropriation contained in the same act is as follows:
“Two professors (assistants), pamely, one of French and Spanish and one of English studies, history, and law, at two thousand two hundred dollars each; five assistant professors, namely, one of English studies, history, and law, three of French, and one of drawing, at one thousand eight hundred dollars each."
You are, under this appropriation, authorized to pay only the amounts named to each professor, leaving the additional amount in each case to make the pay equal to that of a professur for settlement by the accounting officers until Congress shall have made the necessary appropriations. While the assistant professors have valid claims against the United States for the difference in pay, there is now no appropriation avail. able for their payment. Respectfully, yours,
R. B. BOWLER,
Comptroller. Pay Director THOMAS T. CASWELL, U. S. N.,
Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md.
PAYMENT FOR CLOTHING FURNISHED NAVY
PRISONER. When an enlisted man of the Navy is sentenced to forfeit while imprisoned
all pay excepting $3 per month, the expense of necessary clothing furnished to him while so confined is not to be charged to said allowance of $3 per month, but is payable from the appropriation for expenses of prisoners and prisons..
August 26, 1895. SIR: I am in receipt of yours of the 15th instant, stating that William J. Andrus, machinist, United States Navy, recently tried by a general court-martial for desertion, was sentenced to lose all pay that might become due him during confinement except $3 per month and $25 to be paid at discharge, and that it had been found necessary to supply Andrus with a quantity of clothing amounting to $16.33. You ask whether the value of said clothing is to be charged against the $3 per month allowed him for necessary prison expenses.
This question seems to have been practically determined by Mr. Gilkeson while Second Comptroller, on March 8, 1893, under United States Navy Regulations, article 1230, which provides:
"In the event of an enlisted man of the Navy being sentenced by court-martial to confinement with loss of pay, such sentence shall not deprive him of such articles of clothing and small stores as may be deemed necessary for his health and comfort by the commanding officer of the ship or barracks where he may be confined."
Secretary Tracy, on February 3, 1893, addressed a letter to the commandant of the navy-yard at Boston in regard to a seaman then in prison at that yard, in which he decided that,
“The hospital dues of a prisoner who is sentenced to forfeit all pay except a certain sum for necessary prison expenses are to be paid out of the sum forfeited, and not out of the amount allowed for necessary prison expenses; also that such articles of clothing as are deemed necessary for his health and comfort are to be furnished him upon requisition, and paid for from the appropriation “Pay, miscellaneous, expenses of prisoners and prisons?”— upon receipt of which the paymaster, MacMahon, asked the Comptroller for his decision upon the following question:
“Does the clause in the inclosed “who is sentenced to lose all pay' absolve those who were transferred here with a balance due them from paying for clothing which they may need ?"
Upon that letter Comptroller Gilkeson made the following indorsement:
"I am of opinion that where enlisted men of the Navy are serving out a sentence, and are transferred with a balance due and unpaid (unless the same shall have been forfeited by desertion, or by sentence of the court-martial), the expenses of clothing and small stores, issued to them for their health and comfort, should be charged against such balance. But where there is no balance standing to their credit, then the expenses for clothing and small stores can properly be charged to the appropriation Expenses of * * * prisoners and prisons, under head of appropriation ‘Pay, miscellaneous,' as indicated in the letter of the Secretary of the Navy.
"With a view to avoid any mistake in cbarging expenditures to Pay, miscellaneous,' the expenditures should be made out on a public voucher in the same manner as other expenditures which are payable from that appropriation."
In the opinion of Comptroller Gilkeson I concur; therefore the cost of the clothing, amounting to $16.33, supplied to Andrus is not to be charged against the $3 per month allowed him for necessary prison expenses, but is to be charged to the appropriation “Pay, miscellaneous,” under the item therein for “Expenses of * * * prisoners and prisons.” Respectfully, yours,
R. B. BOWLER,
Comptroller. HENRY C. MACHETTE, Paymaster, United States Navy,
U.S. R. S. Independence, Mare Island, Cal.
PRESENTATION OF DIPLOMAS BY BOARD OF LADY
Lady Managers of the World's Columbian Commission authority to present diplomas of honorable mention to designers, inventors, and expert artisans, requires that all expenses connected therewith, including the preparation and delivery of diplomas, shall be paid only from the appropriation therein provided.
August 27, 1895. SIR: I am in receipt of yours of August 26, calling my attention to the “Joint resolution conferring diplomas upon
designers, inventors, and expert artisans," approved December 15, 1893 (28 Stat., 575). That resolution provides:
“That a diploma of honorable mention may be conferred upon designers, inventors, and expert artisans who have assisted in the production and perfection of such exhibits as are awarded diplomas in the World's Columbian Exposition or are formally commended by the Director-General thereof; and authority is hereby given to the Board of Lady Managers of the World's Columbian Commission to present said diplomas of honorable mention to said designers, inventors, and expert artisans, * * * the aggregate expense thereof not to exceed five thousand dollars, to be paid from the sun of one hundred thousand dollars appropriated by an act approved March third, eighteen hundred and ninety-three, making appropriations for the sundry civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, and for other purposes.” *
You state that the Board of Lady Managers hold that the only expenditures necessarily chargeable under this joint resolution are those for designing, engraving, and printing the diplomas of honorable mention, and that all other expenses for wrappers, mailing tubes, etc., for use in forwarding the diplomas to the persons entitled thereto, and other incidental expenses connected therewith, should be paid from the general appropriation for the Board of Lady Managers, notwithstanding the $5,000 limitation contained in the joint resolution, and ask for my decision upon said question, as the amount expended by the Board of Lady Managers exceeds the total of $5,000.
The joint resolution above quoted provides that diplomas may be conferred,” and grants authority to the Board of Lady Managers of the World's Columbian Commission to “present” said diplomas, "the aggregate expense thereof not to exceed $5,000.” I am clearly of the opinion that it was the intention of Congress to require all the expenses necessary to "confer” and “present” these diplomas, which would include the expense of forwarding the diplomas to the persons entitled thereto, to be kept within the limit of $5,000, indicated in the joint resolution; therefore, that sum can not be exceeded for these purposes. Respectfully, yours,
R. B. BOWLER,
Comptroller. The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.