The Greenville times. [volume] (Greenville, Miss.) 1868-1917, 1890-11-29
TIE RIVER CONMISSlON-IfS JURIS-
BICTI0x BEFIxED.

BICTIOx BEFIxED.
II viii be remembered By The read
ers Of the TINES that the allotment
made by the River Commission was
disapprOved by the Secretary of War
for reasons of law-whieh were refer
red to the Judge Advocate General
for decision. The TINES is in receipt
Of a typewriter copy of the decision
which is deemed of sufficient import
anee tor publication and comment upon
certain ofiis features; which comment
appears elsewhere in this paper:
On the 4th of October, 1890 the
said Commission voted to make GER
tain sllotments Of the said sum appro-
priated, allOtting specific sums to GER
tain works named. The allotments
made absorbed the whole amount ap-
propristed but fail to provide for any
money to be expended at certain of
the places specified in the act as places
at which portion of the money ap-
propriated should be expended.
The matter has been referred to this
Office for my aviews as to the legality
Of the allotment as made.n
In the first place there Is nothing in
the act expressly authorizing the Com
mission to make any allotment at all.
The money is to be expended on the
works mentioned under the direction
Of the Secretary Of War, and 1t shall
be thus expended in accordance with
plans, specifications and Feoommenda-
tions Of the Commission. If even il
should be thought that the provision
that II should be expended In accord
snce with their plans, specifications
and recommendations gave the Com
mission authority to sllot the money
this allotment would yet have to be
made under the law and to the works,
and all the works, for which the ap-
preparation was expressly made. II
could not well be denied that the
Commission is bound by the law and
has no authority to act except as 1t
acts in pursuance thereof lfit could
leave out ono of the works expressly
mentioned IN the act 1t could leave out
more than one, and If it could leave
out more than one 1t could leave out
oil but Que. And If it could leave out
all but one could Il not leave out all of
them and vote to expend the money
on some other part Of the river than
that lying within their Jurisdiction
that part lying above the mouth of the
Ohio, for instance2 Could It be
clsimed that 1t has power to do this !
Certainly not; and yet this would
seem to be legitimate conclusion to
be reached from what IL has done.
But ss before stated l find no au-
thority In the statutes for the Missis-
sippi River Commission to make allot-
ments Of money appropriated. It was
created and given its powers and
duties BY the Act of June 23. 1879
Sections three and four Of that act
prescribe its powers and duties. They
are to make surveys, prepare plans
aud specifications and report them to
the Secretary of War TO be laid before
Congress for its Information IN making
the appropriations, etc. When these
appropriations have been made the
act making them has usually contained
q provision that the money shall be
expended by the Secretary of WaI
according to these plans, specifications
aud recommendations.
In an examination of all the statutes
from the organization of the Commis
, sion to the present time II is not found
that its powers have been increased
save that In two or three instances II
has been authorized to estimate the
amount of money to be expended by
the Secretary of War on q particular
work. have been Informed that Il
has been the practice for ten years fol
the Commission TO allot the appropri
! alton TO particular works after the!
have been made, but l find no law fol
> the practice. 1 am unable to find II
the law that they have anything to dc
with the money after 1t has been ap
propriated, or with its disbursement
} or the work for which 1t Is TO be dis
I bursed. Separate appropriations are
), made for the expenses Of the Commls
! sion and its work, to-wit: The max
! lug Of surveys maps, charts, plans, ETC.
Q aud the work the law conIemplates fol
9 them to do in regard to a particula
( Improvement is usually done and lait
I before Congress before the money ]
o appropriated for the improvement. |
s would seem from the reading of tb
r act creating the Commission that 1t
|. province is to indicate TO Cougres
0 what improvement was needed AM
Q how much should be appropriated fol
o IT. Uf course Congress did not pu
/ itself entirely under its direction an
g control. There is, for instance, N
q question about Its right to approprist
d money for works not recommends
o BY the Commission, aud 1t did that i
n this act with regard to two places
New Madrid aud Helena. And whe
# Congress exercises that right and OF
,s ders particular harbor to be in
4 proved which has not been recon-
q iuended by the Commission there
!. no shadow of authority for the Com
y mission to nullify that order.
a As before stated, understand tha
70 plans, specifications, etc, have not bee
,f made by the Commission for Ne'
q Madrid and Helena. Yet the Secrets
4 nv of War Is directed to expend none
il on these harbors In accordance wit
II plans etc, of the Commission. II
~ therefore, in my opinion, the duty {
r. The Commission TO forthwith max
q. and submit to the Secretary of Wa
IA plans. ETC., for these two places SO th'
Al ho may proceed to expend the none
III as the law directs.
,e The act also proviaes for porto
he of the $S,2OO,000 to be expended
,is aother localities in such proportio
in such manner aud to such exten
st etc, as in their opinion tbe opinion
u the Commission and the Secretary
ar WAR shall best promote the intercs
,,s of commerce aud navigation. PROP
an bly there are no other localities whe
there is a pressing need for work D
something may occur during the ye