Evening star., 1897-03-17
DRAWBACK CERTIFICATES
The Act of Congress Providing for Payment
of Claims Defective.
Controller Bowler's Decision as Com
munfcated in Letter to the
District commissioners.

Judge Bowler. controller of the treasury,
has made decision which may possibly
delay the execution of the act of the last
Congress providing for the payment Of
certain claims against the District Of Co
lumbia by drawback certificates. The story
is told in a letter he has written 10 the
District Commissioners, as follows:
/ am in receipt of your letter of the 13th
instant, inclosing letter from Mr.. James
G. Payne. auditor of the Supreme Court
of the District, referring to the Act to pro-
vide for the payment of certain claims
against the District of Columbia by draw
back certifo ates,'' approved January &c,
| 1897. Mr.. Payne refers to the following
clause in said act:
said auditor shall complete his work
under this act within two years from its
passage, and be paid the necessary costs,
expenses for clerical and other services,
stationery, books, advertising and other in
cldentalS under this act, Oh the order Of
the Commissioners of the District of Co
lumbia on the request, in writing, of the
said auditor, out. of the surplus revenues of
said District and asks how he shall be
compensated for the services rendered by
him.
1t appears that the auditor of the Su-
preme Court of the District receives no
salary, his compensat ton being derived from
fees charged in each case referred TO him
by the court and taxed as part of the tax
able costs in the case. the amount Of such
fees either being agreed upon by the
parties fixed by the court.
The only provisions of law of which I
am aware rciailng TO the auditor are found
In sections Sc and 81 of the complied stat
utes Of the District. taken from The Mary
land act of 1'SJ, chap.4r a.. Section SO
provides for the appointment of the au-
ditor. prescribes his duties and further
provides:
And the said auditor shall be allowed
oh i'm a trn ler -
for every day he shall reasonably he en-
ployed in stating, auditing and settling
any account. to he paid by the party de-
string such account 10 be stated. audited
aforesaid"
The duties prescribed relate strictly to
the stating and auditing of accounts, but
| am informed tina. The main duties of the
auditor arr those usually performed by
| masters III chancery, and that The per
diem fee of 81 shillnSs has not been con-
sidered applicabla TO such cases, and, IN
fact, that this portion Of the act has be-
come practically absole.e Even though
it were still treated in practise as the basi.
of the auditors compensation in ordinary
cases it is doubtful whether il would apply
to the duties required of him by the act
of January 26. 1897. The clause above
quoted from that act does not specifically
provide for compensation to the auditor
for the duties required OF him; although
if there were any fix II table of taxable
fees for his sarTices which could be made
applicable 10 the 'iutits required Of him
under said act the words necessary
costs would no doubt ne sufficiently broad
to authorize payment to MIN cf such fees.
l do not thrk, however. they are broad
enough to authorize the Conmis =ionrrs of
the District to arbitrarily fix MS ccmgen-
sation.
Further Difficulty.
There is, however. further difficulty in
regard to the payment not only of the audi
tors compensa ton but of any expenses
| incurred by him under the act. The clause
! above quoted does not contain the words
| usual 10 make an appropriation 1t does
provide, however, the method by which the
| auditor shall be paid his expenses. nancy,
"cn the order of the Commissioners of tie
| District of Columbia, on the request in
| writing Of the said auditor, out of the
| surplus revenues of said District AS the
revenues of the District are required by
law TO be deposited in the treasury
| collected they can only be drawn there
! from: by warrant of the Secretary of the
| Treasury, and therefore not within the
direct control of the Commissioners Of the
District. Clauses in appropriation acts dl-
recting payments to be made by officers
other than those having the custody CT the
| public funds have sometimes been treated
| by the Treasury Department as Implying
ali appropriation, from the fact that they
are found in acts appropriating money;
and even in other acts where The Secretary
| Of the Treasury or the treasurer OF the
United States has been directed to make
certain payments, and no words specifically
arpropTiating the necessary amounts have
been inserted, an appropriation has been
implied. because the Secretary of the Treas
Try is by law the officer charged with the
responsibility OF issuing warrants and the
| treasurer is the legal custodian Of the pub
| lie funds.
Except possibly in some very extraordi-
nary cases, l know of TO act other than
an appropriation act in which language
such as that above quoted has been treat
ed as making an appropriation. To do
SO would be contrary to established prac-
| tice. Even if the language could he treat
ed as making an appropriation payment is
only authorized out of the surplus reve-
nue. of (the) District" Whether or not any
surplus revenues exist can only he ascer-
tanned at the end of each fiscal year The
intention of CONFESS no doubt was that
these payments should be made wholly
from the revenues of the District and no
part thereof charged to the revenues of
the United States but the provision is
OILY for payment out OF the Surplus rev.
enueS."
The whole matter is involved in such
doubt. both as to the question of appro-
priation and as to the compensation of the
arditor. that ] have the honor to recon-
mend that the attention of Congress be
brought to the matter for such action
as it may deem proper.
AS the matter nov stands, 1t is clear
that no payment whatever can be made"
Ex-Secretary Tracy Here.