The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1847-07-20
eed the amount of the ap.

proposed by the paentees exceed the amount of the ap
preparation in each case.
men OF facts 49, Whether the Secretary of the Navy
authorized 10 contract for the works at price exceeding
the appropriations made by Congress-
III the appropriations adequate to the completion
OF the work at either place doubt could be entertain
ed OF the authority Of the department contract for its
construction; Coninng my opinion, however, to the
clear that such authority exists The case as stated
IN your letter, is brought directly within the prohibition
Of the sixth section OF the act OF Congress of the LIST May
1920 which provides that no contract shall hereafter be
made by the Secretary of State of the Treasury or
the Departments of War of the Navy, except I'M
aei Jaw autnorzing the same, or under an appoprla
tion adequate TO its fulfment."
II is not pretended that the act making the appropra-
uohs contains any words authorizing contract for the
construction OF the works; and the amount appropra
tea Is conlessedly inadequate to the ufment of the
tracts any should be made, II is manifest that the
thonty does not exist. The prohibition is too explicit
anu comprehensive to be overcome by any rule Of
Whenever Congress has intended departure from the
sautary rule contained in the act of 1920, the authority
press words Several might be referred to- in con-
rmation OF this remark Take, for example, the act of
the 18th April 1922 % Statutes at Large, l72 In that
INTO contract with Robert L. Stevens for the construction
OF war steamer" though the appropriation made at the
time was clearly insufficient to complete the work The
Oh IS2o could not apply 80, again. in the naval appro-
aon act OF 10th August 1876 "The President is al-
horzed TO construct by contract any vessel or steamer
for the public service when, in his opinion the same can
be done with equal efficiency, and terms more econom-
zeal than IN the present navy yards" The providing
Tor the building and equipment of four naval steamers
approved 3D. March, 1s47 affords the most ample proof
hat the last Congress concurred this view of the sub
Jec The second section of that act makes it the duty OF
the Secretary OF the Navy to accept the proposals OF E.
H. Collins and to contract with him and his associates
Tor the faithful fument of the spuatons therein con-
tanned Other examples might be cited to illustrate the
points but 1t is deemed unnecessary sas those already
given, when taken in conneXion with the express Ian
guage OF the act OF 1920, appear to be conclusive
Doubtless 1t is very desirable that the works should
progress immediately if it be practicable without VIC.
aton OF law The intention of Congress in this respect
IS very clearly indicated in the act making the appropra
tons AS one mode of avoiding the present ebarrass-
ment allow me to suggest that the amount appropriated
may be expended, if necessary for that purpose in pre-
parng the Sites or in purchasing and collecting the ma
tenas, with view to the completion of the works under
the future direction of Congress The object of the law
OF 1920 was to prohibit the executive departments
from involving the government in contracts for the
payment OF money beyond the amount appropriated
by the law making power No doubt the all-
honty OF the department to expend the amount set apart
by Congress for the purpose specified in the appropra
ton act 1t must, however, be expended in pursuance
Of the directions OF law and without committing the pub
lie faith beyond the amount already sanctioned by Con-
gress
have the honor to be, respectfully sir your obedicn
servant, NATHAN CLIFFORD
Hon. JOHN Y, Mason,
Secretary of the Navy