being the offices included under the above words, "appointment herein provided for") there are but three repositories in which can be placed the power to bestow any office, to wit, the President (the Senate assenting), the courts of law, and the heads of Departments. There was in April, 1865, no law giving to any court or any head of any Department any power whatever to confer upon any person any office of general or special judge advocate as an officer of the Government. The sixth section of the act of July 17, 1862 (2 Brightly, 25), authorizing the President, with the assent of the Senate, to appoint a judgeadvocate with rank and pay of a major of cavalry for each army; and the sixth section of the act of June 20, 1864 (2 Brightly, 26), authorizing the President, with assent of Senate, to appoint a judge advocate general, with rank of brigadier-general, and an assistant, with rank of colonel of cavalry, are the only laws then in force, so far as the committee find, permitting the appointment of any judge-advocate as such. Counsel in their briefs have treated the forty-ninth section of the articles of war of April 10, 1806 (1 Brightly, 79), as being also in force, which the committee assume on their authority it was. This last permitted the judge-advocate or the general or officer commanding the army, detachment, or garrison to "depute some person to prosecute in the name of the United States" military offenses. If there are any other laws bearing upon these appointments they have escaped the attention of the committee. The same section last named provides that "the judge-advocate, or person officiating as such," shall take a certain oath to keep secret the doings of the court. (1 Brightly, 86.) The twenty-fifth section of the act of 3d March, 1863 (2 Brightly, 26), authorizes the judge-advocate to issue process for witnesses. This oath and these duties [the member] took and performed in the Haddock trial. He had no other appointment or commission than that shown by the letters of April 3 by Mr. Dana, set forth in the letter of General Fry to Mr. Blaine. He was not required to, nor did he take the usual oath of all officers of the United States, nor did he take the oath required by the act of July 2, 1862. (2 Brightly, 348.) Without taking that oath he could not enter upon or take compensation for the duties of any office whatever, except the office of President. There is no law anywhere authorizing Mr. Stanton to appoint any one to the office of judge-avocate. In the letter of Mr. Dana above quoted it was said that "the Judge-Advocate General will be instructed to issue to you an appointment as special judgeadvocate for the prosecution of any cases that may be brought to trial before a military tribunal." But even this was not done. Under this state of law and fact the committee do not think that * [the member] either did or could become an "officer" of the United States. Under these laws a judge advocate or a general or officer might under the Constitution "depute" * * [the member] as agent, but could not give him an office, because the Constitution does not permit these men to be authorized to appoint to office. "DUTIES OF ANY OTHER OFFICE." * The only remaining question is whether his being paid $3,000 for five months' service, from April 3, 1865, was such a compensation for "discharging the duties of any other office as to require [the member] in justice or legal propriety to either pay back what he has received for those services or else not to draw his salary as a member of Congress for that time. The committee submit to the House the following propositions as conclusions at which they have arrived as to this point: 1. When a member-elect of Congress has drawn the salary or pay for any other office, for any time after the 4th of March preceding his entering upon his duties as a member of Congress, he should not receive any compensation as a member of Congress for that same time. 2. The act of 31st August, 1852 (1 Brightly, 821), which is relied on as prohibiting [the member] from receiving the $3,000, does not apply to "duties" or services for which there was no officer provided by law whose duty it was to discharge them, and which duties were, in their nature and in law, such that "some other person" than an officer might legally discharge them. 3. The duties discharged by [the member] were duties for the doing of which the law had not provided nor paid any other officer, and charged such officer, as part of his official duty at that time and place, to enter upon and do. But, on the other hand, they are services which in their nature and under existing law (1 Brightly, 79 and 80) some other person than a judge-advocate could do. The law expressly permitted some person not a judge-advocate, and "detailed by him,” and "officiating as such," to discharge them. 4. The law, or military regulations in pursuance of law, may confer upon private individuals not officers powers similar to those usually exercised by officers, such as that of issuing subpoenas, swearing wit nesses, &c. Such is common in regulations touching elections, special commissions, the duties in some of the States of attorneys, of grand jurors, and the like. These conferments of such temporary or limited powers do not, in the sense of the Constitution and laws of the United States, necessarily constitute the recipient of them "officers" nor make their duties those of "any office." [The member's] services in the Haddock trial were not "the duties of any other office" within the meaning of the act of 1852, and he was entitled to compensation therefor the same as for any private service rendered by him in his profession. His having, therefore, received this money as the ordinary earnings of his profession, its receipt no more requires him to decline to draw his salary for that time than the collection of any of his other earnings during that time requires it In view of all the considerations thus presented it is clear that the claimant, Mr. Crowley, is entitled to payment. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, First Comptroller's Office, December 31, 1882. 1. Moneys recovered on information paid into Treasury without....... 212 1. Of drafts by officers or agents cannot bind Government.. Accord and Satisfaction—(See Balance; Payment; Salary; Set-off.) 1. Amounts awarded and certified to be paid on account of the illness and Page. Accounting Officer 1. As to power of, over settlement of contracts for carrying mails.... 2. As to refusal of, to exercise judgment on an account. XXXVI 3. Extent of jurisdiction of................... XVII 4. Must act on his own judgment XVI 5. Relation of, to judicial authority... 6. Right of any, to perform any official duty by deputy. Accounting Officers— 1. Action of, as to claims.... 2. Action of, as to refunding tax 3. Action of, in some cases conclusive on courts.... 4. Action of, limited as to remedies... 5. Action of, not concluded by certificate of judge. 6. Allowance of credit by, as to Government bonds 7. Appeal from decision of..... 8. As to accounts of consular officers... 9. As to claims pending for consideration of................... 10. As to conclusiveness of judgment in United States courts. 11. As to control of, by writ of injunction................... XXXV 129 XLII 200 155 2015 269 349 . XXXVII XXIX XXXVI 12. As to effect of judicial interference with action of, on claims.. 18. Cannot declare forfeitures of rights in which the Government has no interest .... 28. Judicial proceedings as to transfers or payments of bonds... 33. Of Treasury, judges of law and fact on claims and accounts 37. Settle principles of law which are recognized by courts.... XLII 38. Statement of, against depositary. 187 39. When required to accept as valid claims allowed by other officers...... Accounts (See List; Miscellaneous; Public)-Continued. 10. For diplomatic and consular service. 12. Of board of health.. 13. Of chief supervisors of elections. Page. XXXVIII XXXII 311 26 153 221 154, 155 243 154 349 XXVII 28. 56 26. Of Treasurer of the United States, stated by First Auditor... 200 3. Providing for publication of laws of the United States. V 4. Relating to courts and judicial officers in Utah Territory, when approved..... 9. September 24, 1789, civil jurisdiction of commissioners. 15. May 8, 1792, authorizing persons to perform duties of heads of Depart ments 69 |