The original Senate provision was substantially the same as the final provision which eventually became law. This was opposed by the House, and a conference having resulted, the provision emerged so changed as to require only the approval of the Secretary of the Interior and the President. Senator Gore opposed this report in the Senate, and in speaking on the subject said: "My purpose was to prevent and forever forestall what are known as the McMurray contracts." (Ib. 8879.) Nevertheless, the Senate agreed to the report. Mr. Tawney, speaking in the House for the conference report, said that the reason for the change by the conferees and the objections to the original Senate proposal were as follows: * * * "The amendment that was inserted in the Senate was objected to by the House conferees * upon the ground that it would be absolutely impracticable in operation. In other words, if the Indians require legal services and can not obtain such services until a contract has been ratified by Congress, nine chances out of ten Congress would never ratify a contract under which an attorney would be willing to perform the service." (Ib. 8965.) Mr. Burke opposed the conference report, saying that until parties "have demonstrated that they have rendered some service or are entitled to compensation, or that there should be a contract," he hoped the matter would not be passed upon as proposed in the conference amendment (pp. 8966-8967). Mr. Tawney, speaking further in support of the conference report, said that the only question involved was the fact that some legal services are necessary, and that this had been recognized by Senator Gore's amendment or proviso. "That proviso," he said, "is that all contracts affecting the tribal money and property shall be null and void until the same are approved by Congress. That recognizes, I say, the necessity for legal services, which services are to be rendered under contract, which contracts under this provision are to be approved by Congress. That being so," continued Mr. Tawney, "and being most impracticable, the conferee's amendment was proposed as a substitute." (Ib. 8969.) The House thereupon rejected the report and a further conference was held from which the proviso emerged in its present form. (H. R. Rep. No. 1731, 61st Cong., 2d sess.) Before the passage of the proviso in this form, however, several Members of the House expressed their fear that some such situation might arise as now has arisen, and that the proviso made it very difficult for the tribes to employ counsel. Thus Mr. Tawney said: "It may do an injustice and an injury to the Indians, however, if there is any necessity of their employing counsel between now and the next session of Congress (p. 9090). * * * And Mr. Carter followed to the same effect, as follows: "That is the point about which I wish to speak briefly. There are legitimate contracts with the regular standing attorneys of the Five Civilized Tribes. I do not want to deprive the Indians at any time of having adequate representation, legal or otherwise; and I might not favor this amendment, Mr. Speaker, were it not for the extraordinary incidents that arose in the House and in another distinguished legislative body yesterday. * fear I had in mind was that some of those contracts which are reasonable and legitimate might expire before the convening of Congress and leave the Secretary without authority to employ adequate counsel for the Indians" (p. 9090). * * The Notwithstanding these doubts Congress passed the bill. In my opinion this congressional history puts it beyond question that employment of counsel to be paid out of the tribal funds was intended to be prohibited by Congress until it should have an opportunity to establish a final system satisfactory to it. The Attorney-General before leaving town went over this subject with me and authorized me to say that this is also his own conclusion. The third question which you present is as to the form of the proposed supplemental agreement in case execution of a further agreement is permissible. The conclusion here reached makes it unnecessary to discuss this point. Herewith, as requested, are returned the inclosures sent with your letter, as follows: Copy of contract employing the firm of McCurtain & Hill, dated August 31, 1907. Copy of bill No. 6 of November 30, 1908. Very respectfully, WINFRED T. DENISON, Acting Attorney-General. The SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. PURCHASE OF SUPPLIES FOR THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS. Section 4 of the act of June 17, 1910 (36 Stat. 531), does not make it mandatory upon the Secretary of the Treasury to purchase all supplies required by the several executive departments, of the character named in that act, regardless of whether, as prescribed by the first proviso thereof, such articles are “in common use by or suitable to the ordinary needs of two or more such departments or establishments." The power given the Secretary to add other articles to the common supply schedule is discretionary. If he does not choose to exercise the power and add to it after his attention is called to the matter, then the department or establishment concerned may purchase the article in the manner theretofore authorized by law; but if he does add it to the schedule, it must be purchased through the general supply committee. The repealing clause, section 5, of the act of June 17, 1910 (36 Stat. 531), amended and modified the act of April 28, 1904 (33 Stat. 440), which creates the office of purchasing agent in the Post Office Department, only in so far as the latter is inconsistent with the former. The Secretary of the Treasury has authority under section 4 of the act of 1910 to amend the annual common supply schedule by adding other articles of the character covered by the act at any time during the year that he may deem proper. Telephone, electric light, and power service purchased or contracted for from companies or individuals should be obtained through the general supply committee. The provision that "no department or establishment shall purchase or draw supplies from the common schedule through more than one office or bureau" does not limit the number of supply bureaus or offices in the several departments and establishments. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, January 23, 1911. SIR: I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 5th instant, requesting my opinion upon certain questions arising in connection with the preparation of the annual schedule of supplies provided for in section 4 of the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation act of June 17, 1910 (36 Stat. 468, 531). The statute in question provides "SEC. 4. That hereafter all supplies of fuel, ice, stationery, and other miscellaneous supplies for the executive departments and other government establishments in Washington, when the public exigencies do not require the immediate delivery of the article, shall be advertised and contracted for by the Secretary of the Treasury, instead of by the several departments and establishments, upon such days as he may designate. There shall be a general supply committee in lieu of the board provided for in section thirty-seven hundred and nine of the Revised Statutes as amended, composed of officers, one from each such department, designated by the head thereof, the duties of which committee shall be to make, under the direction of the said Secretary, an annual schedule of required miscellaneous supplies, to standardize such supplies, eliminating all unnecessary grades and varieties, and to aid said Secretary in soliciting bids based upon formulas and specifications drawn up by such experts in the service of the Government as the committee may see fit to call upon, who shall render whatever assistance they may require. The committee shall aid said Secretary in securing the proper fulfillment of the contracts for such supplies, for which purpose the said Secretary shall prescribe, and all departments, comply with, rules providing for such examination and tests of the articles received as may be necessary for such purpose; in making additions to the said schedule; in opening and considering the bids; and shall perform such other similar duties as he may assign to them: Provided, That the articles intended to be purchased in this manner are those in common use by or suitable to the ordinary needs of two or more such departments or establish ments; but the said Secretary shall have discretion to amend the annual common supply schedule from time to time as to any articles that, in his judgment, can as well be thus purchased. In all cases only one bond for the proper performance of each contract shall be required, notwithstanding that supplies for more than one department or government establishment are included in such contract. Every purchase or drawing of such supplies from the contractor shall be immediately reported to said committee. No disbursing officer shall be a member of such committee. No department or establishment shall purchase or draw supplies from the common schedule through more than one office or bureau, except in case of detached bureaus or offices having field or outlying service, which may purchase directly from the contractor with the permission of the head of their department: And provided further, That telephone service, electric light, and power service purchased or contracted for from companies or individuals shall be so obtained by him." It appears from your letter that you submitted to the Solicitor of the Treasury the question whether, under the provisions of this act, it is your duty to contract for all classes of supplies of the character mentioned in the act, regardless of whether the articles are in common use by two or more departments or establishments, and that in response he advised you as follows: "In my opinion this statute intends that all supplies required by the departments, whether in common use by two or more departments, or in use by one department only, are to be advertised and contracted for by the Secretary of the Treasury, except when a public exigency requires the immediate delivery of the article, in which case the article may be purchased, without advertisement, and by the department concerned. If an article is not in common use by two or more departments, and is in use by one department only, that article is not to be placed on the schedule of supplies by the general supply committee, but is still to be advertised and contracted for by the Secretary of the Treasury, because there is no provision in the statute which expressly or impliedly permits any |