ment; in this, there can be no doubt. The treaty can only be fulfilled by making it; and, in my judgment, no court has the power to interpose its order to prevent it. I am, sir, &c., &c., To the SECRETARY OF WAR. FELIX GRUNDY. EXTRA COMPENSATION OF MESSENGERS AND WATCHMEN. The chief messenger in the Treasury Department is not entitled to compensation over and above his salary for carrying the mails of the several offices occupying the southeast executive building, to and from the post office; but, if he be required to furnish a horse for that duty, a reasonable compensation for that should be allowed. Nor are watchmen entitled to extra compensation for labor performed in the offices during the day. All such claims for compensation come within the prohibitions of the 3d section of the act of Congress of the 3d March, 1839; and the views of the Attorney General were given upon the act in his opinion of 4th April last. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, September 9, 1839. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the following communication from you, dated the 28th ultimo: "I have the honor to request your opinion on the questions arising on the following cases: The chief messenger in my office, whose salary as such has from time to time been fixed by the general civil appropriation acts of Congress, has also performed the duty of carrying the mails to and from the post office, of the several offices occupying the southeast executive building, and for which services he received a compensation of $250 per annum. To perform this service, he was required to furnish a horse at his own expense. "This expense of $250 per annum has always been considered as one of the contingencies of the building, and has been paid out of the appropriation therefor. "As it is doubtful whether this latter duty could be performed by the messenger, and paid for out of the appropriation, in consequence of the restrictions in the 3d section of the act of the 3d of March last, your opinion is requested on the point. "Again: one of the watchmen, whose duty is to guard the building at night, and for whose compensation a special appropriation is annually made, is during the day employed in one of the offices of the department as a laborer, and is paid for his services as such, out of the contingent fund of that office. Is such employment and payment prohibited by the section of the act referred to? "In both of these cases, the items on which the amount of the several contingent appropriations was computed, embraced carrying the mail and labor, but neither of them is specifically named in the appropriation bill." The first case presented by this communication is an allowance of two hundred and fifty dollars to the chief messenger of your department for bringing and carrying letters and papers to and from the city post office. In the first place, I cannot perceive any reason why this service should not be considered as a portion of the services for which a salary is allowed by law to the chief messenger of your office. I further consider that this claim for compensation comes clearly within the prohibition contained in the 3d section of the act of Congress of March 3d last, making appropriations for the civil and diplomatic expenses of the government for the present year. As to the hire of a horse, if one be necessary for the purpose, a reasonable compensation should be made. As to the second case that of the watchman, who is also employed as a laborer in one of the offices during the day: I would remark, that, however proper it might be to except this and similiar cases from the operation of the law, still Congress must make the exception; for I do not consider myself at liberty, where Congress has used strong and comprehensive language, to except cases which might not have been considered proper exceptions by that body, had their opinion been taken distinctly upon them. In conclusion, I beg leave to refer you to the opinion of this office of the 4th April, 1839, as containing views relative to the construction of the 3d section of the act above referred to, from which I feel no disposition to depart. I am, sir, &c., &c., FELIX GRUNDY. To the SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. GUARANTIES FOR TRANSPORTING THE MAILS. Guaranties in the form prescribed by the department, but executed with the time prior to which the contract is to be executed left in blank, is not a legal compliance with the law requiring guaranties to be made. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the following communication of yesterday's date: "I am under the necessity of troubling you for an opinion upon the following point, viz: "The 27th section of the post office law of 1836 is as follows, viz: And be it further enacted, That every proposal for the transportation of the mail shall be accompanied by written guaranty, signed by one or more responsible persons, to the effect that he or they undertake that the bidder or bidders will, if his or their bid be accepted, enter into an obligation, in such time as may be prescribed by the Postmaster General, with good and sufficient sureties, to perform the service proposed. No proposal shall be considered, unless accompanied by such guaranty. If, after the acceptance of a proposal, and notification thereof to the bidder or bidders, he or they shall fail to enter into an obligation within the time prescribed by the Postmaster General, with good and sufficient sureties for the performance of the service, then the Postmaster General shall proceed to contract with some other person or persons for the performance of the said service; and shall forthwith cause the difference between the amount contained in the proposal so guarantied, and the amount for which he may have contracted for the performance of said service, for the whole period of the proposal, to be charged up against the said bidder or bidders, and his or their guarantor or guarantors; and the same may be immediately recovered by the United States for the use of the Post Office Department, in an action of debt against either or all of the said persons.' "In a recent advertisement for mail proposals, the department prescribed a form of the guaranty as follows, viz: "The undersigned ing the mail from to guaranty that ,if his bid for carry be accepted by the Postmaster Gen- eral, shall enter into an obligation prior to the 1839.' "Accompanying a regular proposal, a guaranty in the following form was received, viz: "The undersigned, John Gordon and Washington Rice, guaranty that Jesse Sharp and James Murdick, if their bid or bids for carrying the mail for any contract they may offer, should be accepted by the Postmaster General, shall enter into an obligation prior to with good and sufficient sureties to perform the service proposed. "WASHINGTON, August 20, 1839.' 'JOHN GORDON, 'WASHINGTON RICE. "You will perceive that the time prior to which the contract is to be executed is left blank in this guaranty. "Is this omission fatal to the guaranty? Or could an action be maintained against the guarantor, in case of the delinquency of the bidder, notwithstanding this omission?" My opinion is, that the guaranty in question is not a compliance with the law requiring a guaranty to be made; and, of course, the bid or proposal to which it was intended to apply should be disregarded, as though no guaranty had been offered. I am, sir, &c., &c., To the POSTMASTER GENERAL. FELIX GRUNDY. PENSIONS TO WIDOWS OF REVOLUTIONARY SOLDIERS. The act of March 3, 1837, and the joint resolution of July 7, 1838, have so far modified the act of 1836, that widows of revolutionary soldiers, who, having remarried, are again widows, irrespective of the date of the death of the second husband, or whether the second husband were a revolutionary soldier or not, are entitled to half-pay; provided said widows are otherwise entitled to the same. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, SIR: In answer to yours of the 26th ultimo, I will remark, that I have examined the different acts of Congress in relation to the pensions provided by law for the widows of the officers and soldiers of the Revolution; and the following construction of them seems to be most consonant with the principles of law, and the intention of Congress in passing them. The 3d section of the act of 1836 is as follows: "That any person who served in the war of the Revolution, in the manner specified in the act passed the 7th day of June, 1832, entitled 'An act supplementary to the act for the relief of certain surviving officers and soldiers of the Revolution,' have died, leaving a widow whose marriage took place before the expiration of the last period of his service, such widow shall be entitled to receive, during the time she may remain unmarried, the annuity or pension which might have been allowed to her husband, by virtue of the act aforesaid, if living at the time it was passed." This act gave the pension of the revolutionary officer or soldier to the widow; but her second marriage barred the claim, it being the intention of Congress only to provide for her while she remained the widow of the officer or soldier. On the 3d of March, 1837, Congress made the following provision: "That the benefits of the third section of the act entitled 'An act granting halfpay to widows and orphans where their husbands and fathers have died of wounds received in the military service of the United States, and for other purposes,' approved the 4th day of July, 1836, shall not be withheld from any widow, in consequence of her having married after the decease of the husband for whose services she may claim to be allowed a pension or annuity under said act: Provided, That she was a widow at the time it was passed." This annuls the disability to claim produced by the second marriage, which existed under the former law; still, to entitle the claimant to the benefit of its provision, she must have been a widow on the 4th of July, 1836. On the 7th July, 1838, the following joint resolution, which had passed both Houses of Congress, was approved by the President of the United States: "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, That the benefits of the third section of an act entitled 'An act granting half pay to widows or orphans, where their husbands and fathers have died of wounds received in the military service of the United States, in certain cases, and for other purposes,' ap. proved the 4th day of July, 1836, shall not be withheld from any widow whose husband has died since the passage of the said act, or who shall hereafter die, if said widow shall otherwise be entitled to the same." In placing a construction upon this resolution, and deciding upon the class of individuals to be embraced by it, reference should be had to the law as it stood when this resolution was adopted. The wife of the officer or soldier was provided for by the act of 1836, if he had died before the passage of the law, and she remained a widow at the passage of the act. Also, by the act of 1837, those widows were provided for who had married again, provided the second husband had died before the passage of the act. The resolution was then passed, which repeals or annuls all former restrictions as to the time of the death of the husband; and the only doubt which can be raised is, whether the death of the husband referred to in the resolution is to be confined to the revolutionary officer or soldier, or any other husband to whom the widow of the officer or soldier may have been married after the decease of the former husband, who was an officer or soldier of the Revolution? As the act of 1837 had removed the objection to the second marriage, and allowed the pension to the widow, although she had married again, provided she was a widow on the 4th of July, 1836; and as the resolution removes the impediments as to the time of the death of the husband-I think a just construction of the resolution, when taken in connexion with the former acts, will embrace the widows of revolutionary officers and soldiers who married the second time, whenever they shall again become widows. I am, sir, &c., &c., To the SECRetary of War. FELIX GRUNDY. EXPENSES OF REPAIRS AND SUPPLIES FOR COAST SURVEY. The costs of repairs and supplies furnished to certain vessels employed by the President in prosecuting the coast survey, must fall upon the appropriation made by Congress for the survey of the coast. Yet, if vessels are detailed from the navy or from the revenue service for temporary service in the coast survey, they may be repaired from funds provided by Congress for the branch of the public service to which such vessels properly belong. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication referring to this office, by direction of the President, the inquiry whether the cost of repairs and supplies furnished to certain vessels in the coast survey, and which have been purchased for that special purpose, is properly chargeable upon the naval appropriation, or upon the арpropriation for the coast survey? In answering this inquiry, I will remark, that as there is a navy of the United States in existence, consisting of a considerable number of vessels, for which repairs and supplies are from time to time required; and as there is an annual appropriation, founded upon estimates of the Navy Department, made by Congress, for the support and maintenance of the navy,—the fund thus appropriated for this particular object cannot be expended on other objects, or for other purposes, unless Congress shall have authorized it to be done. The vessels referred to form no part of the navy of the United States; they are not under the direction and control of the Secretary of the Navy, and, of course, their repairs and supplies were not included in his estimate laid before Congress, and are not, therefore, embraced in that appropriation. As to the vessels which belong to and form a part of the navy, and which may be employed in the coast survey,-these, constituting a part of the navy of the United States, are included in the estimate and appropriation, and their repairs and supplies are properly chargeable upon the navy fund. As to the vessels belonging to the revenue-cutter service, these are under the immediate direction and control of the Secretary of the Treas. ury; they are supported out of the accruing revenue; and when they, or any part of them, are engaged in the coast survey, their repairs and supplies are furnished in the same manner as though they were employed in the discharge of their ordinary duties. This is proper; because they are liable to be withdrawn from the coast survey whenever, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Treasury, the revenue service may require it. Still, it would not be proper to support the vessels which exclusively belong to |