Attorney-General's office into a sort of general appellate court, where dissatisfied claimants might seek relief from adverse decisions, and subordinate executive officers find a way of escape from official labor and responsibility.

And the Attorney-General, when asked for an opinion to aid an auditor, said:

[It] would be clearly wrong now to give an opinion in a case which not only is not before the Secretary of the Treasury, but which evidently cannot reach him. My opinion would simply be advice to the Auditor and not to the Secretary, and this I have no power by law to give. (11 Op. Att. Gen., 6.)

The accounting officers have, in many matters, a jurisdiction which they alone can exercise, and which no decision or opinion has ever claimed an authority to control. The jurisdiction of these officers extends to "all claims and demands whatever [1] by the United States or [2] against them [it]," the settlement of which is authorized by law. (Rev. Stat., 236.) As to each class such officers may (1) allow and certify as due, or (2) reject. As to claims against the United States certified for payment for the amount demanded by the claimants, which comprehend very nearly all on which payments from the Treasury are made, the decision of the proper Comptroller is not "subject to be changed or modified" by any executive or judicial authority, but gives a right to payment, if the proper appropriation exists, subject only to the control of Congress up to the time of payment. (Rev. Stat., 191.) It seems but reasonable and just, that, in the exercise of this wide jurisdiction, involving questions of practice and the decision of questions of law and fact, in which individual rights are determined, and general principles settled, affecting vast public and private interests to an extent not readily measured by comparison with the jurisdiction of courts in money values, reasons for the more general and important decisions of the character stated should be given in printed form. There must be some final and authoritative source for the decision of all questions; and it is not assuming too much to say, that a jurisdiction exercised by the Comptroller for nearly a century has met with general approval. To this result the valuable and learned labors of the Auditors have contributed the full measure of all that could have been expected or desired.

As to the duties and powers of Auditors, it is said by Richardson, Judge, in Ridgway's Case (18 Ct. Cls.), that

It is no part of the duty of Auditors (except the Sixth Auditor) to make decisions binding in any way upon anybody; and their opinions and decisions upon controverted questions, if they choose to give them, have no official determining force. They are only to examine accounts, certify balances, and transmit them to the proper Comptroller for his decision thereon. (Rev. Stat., secs. 276-300.)

The necessity for formal printed decisions by the First Comptroller will be manifest by reference to the subject-matters and extent of his jurisdiction. These have been referred to in the Introduction to the first. volume of the Decisions, and it is impracticable now to state fully what this jurisdiction is, its extent, and importance, and to enumerate even

H. Mis. 37-II

the classes of questions which arise, much less to go into detail; but among these questions may be included:

I.-Questions involving controverted titles to Government bonds, and others affecting the liability of the United States, arising, as such questions do, under the laws of Congress, of the several States and Territories, and of foreign nations. (Putnam's Case, 1 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 208; Sallu's Case, Id., 214; Klink's Case, Id., 242; TrusteeSurvivorship Case, 2 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 232; Bond-Assignment Case, Id., 248; Kansas Case, Id., 301; Moodie's Case, Id., 374; Lost-Greenback Case, 3 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 166; De Bildt's Case, Id., 170; Tayloe's Case, Id., 190; Barnett's Case, Id., 200; Gibson's Case, Id., 286.)

II.-Questions relating to the construction of acts prescribing salaries, fees, and compensations of officers, agents, and employés of the Government. (Herndon's Case, 1 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 45; Viser's Case, Id., 75; Hunter's Case, Id., 151; Ashton's Case, Id., 162; Wade's Case, Id., 302; Clerk's Case, Id., 305; Reporter's Case, Id., 307; Bender's Case, Id., 317; Richardson's Case, Id., 357; Evans's Case, 2 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 1; Randolph's Case, Id., 12; Langford's Case, Id., 271; Subpoena Case, Id., 286; Wallace's Case, Id., 376; Leake's Case, Id., 431; Printers' Case, Id., 504; Riley's Case, Id., 531; Chesney's Case, Id., 538; Brown's Case, Id., 540; Reward Case, Id., 545; Utah Case, Id., 559; Leave-of-Absence Case, Id., 566; Kilbourn's Case, Id., 573; Marshals' Mileage Case, 3 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 88; Evans's Case, Id., 111; Utah District-Attorney's Case, Id., 119; Election Supervisors' Case, Id., 153; Durkee's Case, Id., 163; Sanborn's Case, Id., 205; Appropriation-Extension Case, Id., 213; Commissioners' Per Diem Case, Id., 268; Garnet's Case, Id., 270; Colbath's Case, Id., 280; Shelley's Case, Id., 321; Contestant's Widow's Case, Id., 328; Crowley's Case, Id., 355; Smith's Case, 362.)

III.-Questions as to the authority of the President, heads of Departments, and others, in the execution of laws, to appoint agents. (Birch's Case, 1 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 154; Inspector's Case, Id., 201; Bender's Case, 1d., 317; Eveleth's Case, 2 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 20; Swamp-Land Case, Id., 136; Huidekoper's Case, Id., 354; Senate-Disbursement Case, Id., 404; Agency-Delegation Case, 3 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 60; Huidekoper's Case (second), Id., 155; Epidemic Disease Case, Id., 225; Clerk's Investigation Case, Id., 241; Comptroller's Case, Id., 283; Substitute Case, Id., 345.)

IV.-Questions as to what expenditures are authorized by the appropriation acts, under which the vast disbursements from the Treasury are made. (Wood's Case, 1 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 1; Tillamook Case, Id., 138; Arsenal Case, Id., 147; Lunch Case, 2 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 33; Decoration Case, Id., 69; Survey Case, Id., 234; Guiteau's Case, Id., 484; Exigency Case, 3 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 92; Seaman-Relief Case, Id., 138; Yorktown Centennial Case,

1

Id., 141; Territorial Court Case, Id., 148; Appropriation-Extension Case, Id., 213; Board of Health Case, Id., 221; Informer's Case, Id., 260; False-Description Case, Id., 265.)

V.-Questions as to whether acts make appropriations, or only give authority to officers in pursuance of appropriations elsewhere made. (Canal Case, 1 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 141; Bundy's Case, Id., 184; Bender's Case, Id., 352, note; Indian-Land Case, 2 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 369; District Land-Office Case, Id., 415; SchoolFund Case, Id., 581; Proceeds of Sales Case, 3 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 36; St. Elizabeth's Hospital Case, Id., 57; Direct-Tax Case, Id., 331; Osage-Land Case, Id., 365.)

VI.-Questions as to the various kinds of appropriations, whether annual, permanent annual or permanent specific, and as to each, whether limited or indefinite in amount; and others of a different character. (Ashton's Case, 1 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed, 162; Conger's Case, 2 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 35; Osage-Indian Case, Id., 245; Edmund's Case, Id., 528; Appropriation-Extension Case, 3 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 213; Otto's Case, Id., 296.)

VII.-Questions as to the ownership of drafts, the sufficiency of indorsements thereon, and the right of courts to appropriate them to creditors of their holders. (Draft Case, 1 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 11; Rhawn's Case, Id., 109; Moyer's Case, Id, 116; Infant's Case, 2 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 27; DiCesnola's Case, Id., 142; Clift's Case, Id., 187; Moodie's Case, Id., 374; Contract-Assignment Case, Id., 472; Kennard's Case, 3 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 185; Halstead's Case, Id., 231.)

VIII.-Questions as to the liability of the Government to refund taxes. (Flack's Case, 1 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 186; SavingsBank Case, Id., 194; Leggett's Case, 2 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 349; Worrall's Case, Id., 490; Malakof Bitters Case, 3 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 129; Jordan's Case, Id., 274; Atherton & Co.'s Case, Id., 315.)

IX. Questions as to the liability of the Government to refund moneys to purchasers of public lands erroneously sold. (Rev. Stat., 2362, 2363; act June 16, 1880, 21 Stat., 287; Allspach's Case, 2 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 260.)

X.-Questions as to the liability of officers to the Government, and the enforcement of prompt payment thereof. (Rev. Stat., 269.)

XI.-Questions arising on appeals from the Sixth Auditor. (Rev. Stat., 270, 277; Penn Yan Case, 2 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 40; Martin's Case, Id., 327; Star-Route Case, Id., 446; Dorsey's Appeal, 3 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 1; Walsh's Case, Id., 122; Lake's Case, Id., 309; Reeside's Appeal, 4 Lawrence, Compt. Dec.)

XII.-Questions as to the disbursement of moneys by the Commissioners of the District of Columbia under various laws. (Audit Case, 1 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 37; Police Case, Id., 57; Richey's Case, Id., 85; Drawback Case, Id., 158; Safford & Co.'s Case, Id., 262; Clerk's Case, Id., 305; Police-Station Case, 2 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 338; Fish's Case, Id., 536; District Contracts Case, 3 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 198; Informer's Case, Id., 260; Rheem's Case, Id., 305.)

XIII.-Questions as to the validity of Treasury warrants for the payment of money, and as to the authority of the First Comptroller in relation to countersigning them. (Rev. Stat., 269; Draft Case, 1 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 17; Bender's Case, Id., 333; Bender's Case (second), Id., 395; 1 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., App., Ch. XII, 549; Clift's Case, 2 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 1963; Artificial Limbs Case, Id., 382; Benton's Case, Id., 455; Contract-Assignment Case, Id., 482; Keyser's Case, 4 Lawrence, Compt. Dec.)

XIV. Questions as to assignments of salaries, compensations, and claims against the Government by officers, employés, and claimants thereof. (Dana's Case, 2 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 203; Benton's Case, Id., 455; Claims-Assignment, 3 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 13.)

XV.-Questions relating to Treasury Department practice, in the various forms in which they arise in relation to claims.

These are given only by way of example, and by no means as an enumeration in extenso. The detailed statements of the work performed in the several divisions of the First Comptroller's office, and in other Bureaux of the Treasury Department, found in the appendixes to the several volumes of the Decisions of the First Comptroller, present other subjects of jurisdiction.

In matters reported by the First and Fifth Auditors, and demands settled by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, the First Comp. troller may review the evidence, and increase, or reduce, or refuse to allow, amounts stated as due to claimants by those officers. (Rev. Stat., 269.) On appeals from the Sixth Auditor, he exercises a similar jurisdiction. (Rev. Stat., 270, 277.)

As the First Comptroller is required to countersign all warrants drawn by the Secretary of the Treasury, which shall be warranted by law, for the payment of money from the Treasury for every department and branch of the Government, he has, on questions of law apparent on the papers on which such warrants are issued, a supervisory jurisdiction reaching almost every question of law that can arise as to the validity of claims against the Government. (Bender's Case, 1 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 317; Id., 391.)

The construction of appropriation acts is one of the important parts of this jurisdiction. (Canal Case, 1 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 141; Arsenal Case, Id. 147; Bundy's Case, Id., 184; Conger's Case, 2 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 35.) And questions as to the authority for making advances of money to disbursing officers is almost of equal importance. (Birch's Case, 1 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 154; Bender's Case, Id., 352; note; Huidekoper's Case, 2 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 354.)

The wide jurisdiction exercised by the First Comptroller in countersigning warrants, involving the decision of many important and difficult questions of law (Rev. Stat., 269; 1 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., App., Ch. XII, 549; Id., Ch. I, 411, 431), is alluded to by Alexander Hamilton, who, in discussing the authority and responsibility of officers in issuing warrants, says:

As between the officers of the Treasury, I take the responsibility to stand thus: The Secretary and Comptroller, in granting warrants upon the Treasury, are both answerable for their legality. In this respect the Comptroller is a check upon the Secretary. With regard to the expediency of an advance, in my opinion, the right of judging is exclusively with the head of the Department. The Comptroller has no voice in this matter. So far, therefore, as concerns legality in the issues of money while I was in the Department, the Comptroller must answer with me; so far as a question of expediency or the due exercise of discretion may be involved, I am solely answerable; and uniformly was the matter understood between successive Comptrollers and myself. Also, it is essential to the due administration of the Department that it should be so understood. (Works of Hamilton, vol. vii, 548.)

And he refers to the "Comptroller whose office imports the second trust in the Department."

The First Comptroller is the only officer who countersigns warrants. (Rev. Stat., 269.) No money can be paid into, or out of, the Treasury without the authority of his countersignature. And there are various other questions over which accounting officers must exercise a jurisdiction. (Bender's Case, 1 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 2d ed., 352, note.)

The jurisdiction of the First Comptroller on appeals from settlements made by the Auditor of the Treasury for the Post Office Department (Sixth Auditor) may require decisions affecting the whole postal service and the compensations of postmasters, and contractors for carrying the mails. (Rev. Stat., 270, 277; Martin's Case, 2 Lawrence, Compt. Dec. 2d ed., 327; Star-Route Case, Id., 446; Dorsey's Appeal, 3 Lawrence, Compt. Dec., 1; Walsh's Case, Id., 122; Lake's Case, Id., 309; Andrew's Appeal, 4 Lawrence, Compt. Dec.; Reeside's Appeal, Id.; Railway Compensation Case, Id.)

In view of this right of appeal, a usage has properly grown up by which this Auditor frequently asks the opinion of the Comptroller in advance, when all parties in interest may be heard. Thus, under the Act of March 3, 1883 (22 Stat., 453), making appropriations for the postal service for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1884, and the act of same date (22 Stat., 602, sec. 2), "to adjust the salaries of postmasters," the Auditor asked the opinion of the First Comptroller as to when the provisions in section 2 of the latter act, as to "compensation of postmasters of the fourth class," took effect. It was held that they took effect at the date of the act; and thus a change was prospectively made for the compensation of about forty-five thousand postmasters.

As to a majority of the various questions entrusted to the judgment and determination of accounting officers, courts, as a general rule, can exercise no control. This subject will hereinafter be alluded to in considering "the relation of the accounting officer to judicial authority." Information in some permanent form on all these subjects is a public