binding for the War Department under the Public Printer, in view of the various provisions of the printing act of January 12, 1895, and also whether more than 1,000 copies of said manual may be printed. Section 89 of the act of January 12, 1895 (28 Stat., 601), provides: "No printing shall be done for the Executive Departments in any fiscal year in excess of the amount of the appropriation. No report, publication, or document shall be printed in excess of the number of one thousand of each in any one fiscal year without authorization therefor by Congress, except" [certain special publications therein specifically mentioned]. A clause in the sundry civil appropriation act of March 2, 1895 (28 Stat., 961), reads as follows: "That all appropriations made and to be made for the fiscal years eighteen hundred and ninety-five and eighteen hundred and ninety-six, in so far as the same are affected by the provisions of the act providing for the public printing and binding and the distribution of public documents, approved January twelfth, eighteen hundred and ninety-five, and which are not expressly appropriated under the Government Printing Office, except for the two Houses of Congress, their committees and officers, shall be considered as so appropriated and available thereunder, to the extent that the same may be required or contemplated by the said act." This clause seems to have been inserted to overcome a part of the very difficulty suggested by the Commissary-General of Subsistence. In view of its provisions I am clearly of the opinion that the cost of printing the new manual is to be defrayed from the appropriation found in the Army act for said purpose, and not from the original appropriation for the printing of the War Department, and that said work should be done at the Government Printing Office, as required by section 87 of the act of January 12, 1895. I am also clearly of the opinion that the provisions of section 89 of the printing act, in regard to the number of copies, applies to the present case, and, therefore, that not more than 1,000 copies of the manual can be furnished without further legislation by Congress. This opinion agrees with that of the Judge-Advocate-General as indorsed on the letter of the Commissary-General of Subsistence. Respectfully, yours, The SECRETARY OF WAR. R. B. BOWLER, CONTRACT EXECUTED BY AN ATTORNEY FOR A CORPORATION. Payments may be made to a corporation under a contract entered into by an attorney duly authorized to act for the corporation in the making of such contract. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, July 20, 1895. SIR: I am in receipt, by your reference, of a letter of the 11th instant from Maj. C. R. Barnett, the depot quartermaster, in which he incloses a contract entered into with the Standard Oil Company, by R. C. Baughman, its attorney, for supplying mineral oil for the Quartermaster's Department. You ask whether payments may be made under that contract in view of the fact that it is executed on behalf of the company by its attorney. It being necessary for the corporation to enter into contracts through its officers and agents, and Mr. Baughman having been duly authorized in the premises, as appears from the papers transmitted with the contract, I have the honor to advise you that payments to the Standard Oil Company under said contract will be credited in the settlement of the accounts of the disbursing officers who make them. Respectfully, yours, The SECRETARY OF WAR. R. B. BOWLER, CLAIM OF NAVAL OFFICER FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY LOST IN THE SERVICE. Under the act of March 2, 1895, for the reimbursement of officers and seamen of the Navy for property lost in the naval service, a claimant must show that the loss occurred without fault or negligence on his part, unless the property was shipped on au unseaworthy vessel by order of an officer authorized to give such order, in which case such proof is not required. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, July 20, 1895. SIR: I am in receipt of your communication of July 8, 1895, in which you report for my approval, disapproval, or modifica tion your construction of the act of March 2, 1895 (28 Stat., 962) entitled "An act to provide for the reimbursement of officers and seamen for property lost or destroyed in the naval service of the United States," as provided by section 8 of the act approved July 31, 1894 (28 Stat., 208). You hold that Naval Cadet W. G. Miller, U. S. N., is not entitled to reimbursement for losses incurred by him in the wreck of the La Champagne, his claim amounting to $810.75, and base your disallowance upon the ground "that the loss was not occasioned by the property being shipped on board an unseaworthy vessel by order of an officer authorized to give such an order or direct such shipment." You state that "it appears from the papers in the case that on April 28, 1887, Cadet Miller was detached from the U. S. S. Quinnebaug and ordered to proceed to the United States. The order authorized the pay inspector of the European station on which he was serving to furnish him with transportation to New York, which he did via Havre, France." You further state that "there is nothing in the order to show that the claimant was directed to ship his personal property in any particular vessel, or that the La Champagne was an unseaworthy vessel at the time he took passage. It is true he was directed to return from Leghorn, Italy, to the United States, and was furnished with transportation to New York via Havre, France, that being the shortest usually traveled route." The act of March 2, 1895, providing for the reimbursement of officers and seamen for property lost or destroyed in the naval service of the United States, provides: "That the proper accounting officers of the Treasury be, and they are hereby, authorized and directed to examine into, ascertain, and determine the value of the private property belonging to officers, petty officers, seamen, and others in the naval service of the United States which has been or may hereafter be lost and destroyed in the naval service by shipwreck or other marine disaster, under the following circum stances: "First. When such loss or destruction was without fault or negligence on the part of the claimant. "Second. Where the private property so lost or destroyed was shipped on board an unseaworthy vessel by order of any officer authorized to give such order or direct such shipment." The act, after directing payment of such losses when determined by the accounting officers of the Treasury, and setting forth certain provisos, provides further: "That the amounts which have been paid to persons in the naval service under sections two hundred and eighty-eight, two hundred and eighty-nine, and two hundred and ninety of the Revised Statutes shall be deducted in the settlement of all claims under this act." It thus appears that these sections of the Revised Statutes were directly under the consideration of Congress in connection with this act. Those sections provided for certain limited payments to officers and men only when they are "on board a vessel in the employ of the United States." It will thus be seen that the act of March 2, 1895, was intended to be and is an enlargement of the previous laws relating to this subject, and should be construed liberally in that light. Under the first of the two conditions named in the act under consideration, payment is authorized in any case where the property was lost in the naval service by shipwreck or marine disaster, without regard to the character of the vessel the goods were on at the time of the loss, provided that such loss was without fault or negligence on the part of the claimant. The second condition relates solely to shipments upon an unseaworthy vessel when the shipment was directed by order of an officer authorized to make such direction, and in this case the claimant need not affirmatively show that the loss occurred without his fault or negligence, as is provided in the first condition. To elucidate this interpretation more fully by illustration let us take three cases: First. If property was shipped on a seaworthy vessel, whether by or without the order of an officer authorized to give such order, and such property was lost in the naval service, the claimant must show that the loss was without fault or negli gence on his part to entitle him to recover under this act; Second. If the property was shipped on board an unseaworthy vessel, but without the order of an officer authorized to direct such shipment, the claimant is still under the necessity of showing that the loss under these circumstances was without fault or negligence on his part before he can recover; and, Third. If the property was shipped on board an unseaworthy vessel by order of an officer authorized to give such order or direct such shipment, the claimant must be reimbursed without being required to affirmatively show that he was not guilty of fault or negligence. From the above construction of this act it will be seen that the interpretation that the Auditor for the Navy Department placed upon said act is not correct, and that the claimant, Cadet Miller, upon proving his loss of private property by reason of the shipwreck or marine disaster of the La Champagne, will be entitled to be reimbursed for the value of such private property, provided that he shows that the loss occurred without fault or negligence on his part. Respectfully, yours, EDW. A. BOWERS, The AUDITOR FOR THE NAVY DEPARTMENT. IN RE ACCOUNTS OF WALTER S. HARSHA FOR SERVICES AS CLERK OF THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN. Section 2 of the act of July 31, 1894, providing that "No person who holds an office the salary or annual compensation attached to which amounts to the sum of $2,500 shall be appointed to or hold any other office to which compensation is attached," operated immediately on the passage of the act upon persons in office affected by its provisions. A person who continued, after the passage of the act of July 31, 1894, to hold an office the annual compensation of which amounted to $2,500, thereby vacated any other office to which compensation is attached and which he had theretofore held. A person who held the offices of clerk of the circuit court of appeals, the annual salary of which exceeds $2,500, and clerk of the circuit court, to which compensation is attached, and who continued, after July 31, 1894, to perform the duties and receive the compensation attached to the former, thereby vacated the latter office which he was prohibited from holding by section 2 of the act of July 31, 1894. In continuing to perform the duties of clerk of the circuit court he was at most a de facto officer, and as such is not entitled to claim compensation. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, July 20, 1895. The Auditor for the State and other Departments, having rendered a decision making an original construction of a statute, submits the same for approval, disapproval, or modification by the Comptroller. His decision is as follows: "I have before me for settlement two accounts of Walter S. Harsha for services as clerk, United States circuit court, eastern district of Michigan; one for the quarter ending September 30, 1894, and the other for the quarter ending December 31, 1894. During the time covered by the accounts until October 11268-VOL 2—3 |
