Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1935-03-04
M'CARL WARNS
SWANSON ON PAY
Tells Him He Must Assume
Responsibility in Ruling of
Attorney General.
(Continued From First Page.)

O0uAVdb4C Ava 0AA R6yAASAAe AAAe~S ss>~~s
for which credit may not be allowed
in their accounts rendered to this
ofice-where under the law all such
accounts are finally settled and
adjusted.
Responsibility on Navy.
apparently you intend hereafter
to be the Judge in questions as to the
applicability of court decisions. to the
facts in particular cases as they arise
in the Navy, distinguish between con-
fiicting decisions, determine whether
existing appropriations are legally
available to settle and adjust such
cases, and to require payments from
appropriated moneys accordingly: but
the matter of such determination Is
not made wholly clear by your letter
and 1t seems possible from statements
appearing therein that you may in
tend empowering the Attorney General
to determine such matters for you.
Whatever your procedure may be. the
payments as made will still be, Of
course, matters OF Navy response
bility"
Taking up the Attorney Generals
rights to determine such a qlastion,
McCarl emphasizes that that official
can give only opinions and that these
have no determinative effect and pro-
vide no protection for public officials
who adopt them.
They are merely advisory and
necessarily so, else an Attorney Cen
eral could become effectively dominant
in the affairs of all departments"
McCarl said 1.-THE danger seems to
be understood because the tendency
in the departments is to adopt and
utilize only such opinions at least in
connection with matters before this
Office for decision, as they believe will
argue to their advantage in their
effort to secure a liberal interpreta-
ton of the law with respect to uses
Of a particular appropriation"
Court Reversed McCarl.
As for the Court of Claims decision,
which was a reversal of McCarl's
stand, he said that his Office was not
able to agree with it because 1t ap-
parently overlooked an opinion by the
Supreme Court. The rulings Of all
SOQl l14C S3CWS VA t4AS <1tGO2A4Cy S]S4-
eral and the views and arguments OF
any interested department, McCarl
continues, are always considered by
his Office when question is at issue
involving legal availability Of an ap-
preparation, "but it is to be remem-
bered that the responsibility of this
Office in such matters involves an
actual use of an existing appropria-
ton, not a matter for reporting for
the further consideration of the Con-
gress, or for disposition by opinion
with no actual responsibility at
tached."
Continuing. McCarl said that II
these questions Of expenditures were
left for decision by each particular
spending agency there would be ever
present the element of self interest
and the ambition always in evidence
to 20 beyond or otherwise circumvent
or overcome the limits considered
proper and fixed accordingly by Con-
gress in the law. And If the Congress
had no other assurance than would
be afforded by such procedure, that
its laws with respect to the uses Of
ldIlOIlS WOu3O VIC &o40&4A a4Ay
abided, could safely employ no such
convenient system Of making public
moneys available for uses as now
exists. 1t would be necessary for it to
find some other effective means OF
exacting law observance by public
officers in their uses of appropriations
possibly to sharply curtail appro-
nriations and the period of their avail
ability for use.
Return to Evils Seen.
"For If such questions were left
for determination by any agency in
the executive branch-the spending
branch-the difficulty would be at best
but one degree removed from such
self-determination and there would be
return to the evils sought to be cured
by the establishment of the General
Accounting Office. an agency indie
pendent of the executive branch, and
thus freed from the influence OF its
partisan political problems, the con-
troversies and combinations frequently
found therein, and the ambitions that
sometimes beset its high officials with
authority and responsibility to decide
such questions with finality."
McCarl said that while the law does
not permit Of any such Sinking Of
duty by the head of this Office as you
appear to suggest-and as seems sug-
gested also by the Attorney Generals
letter to you-even if the law were
otherwise, these would seem matters
worthy of most serious consideration
before turning control Of the account
ing system over to the Attorney Gen.
eral. His department during recent
years has become one Of the largest
spending agencies in the executive
branch and in this regard appears to
be growing by leaps and bounds.
Security Loss Feared.
IF he were in addition to being the
Governments chief advocate before
the courts and the Presidents legal
adviser in administrative matters also
In control of the accounting system
there would be no independent audit
of the uses Of the large appropria-
lions over which he is permitted ad-
ministrative control. It would not
only throw the accounting system
back into the turmoil of the executive
branch and subject to its influence
and domination. but would by reason
of such added authority with respect
to the uses Of appropriations operate
to elevate subordinate cabinet officer
to a place Of high command in the
executive family: 1t would take from
the Congress the security it has felt
in making appropriations conven-
iently available for q lawful use on
the theory an independent auditing
system could and would exact law OBJ
servance in the uses thereof; and 1t
would head the system by q political
official with office Of uncertain tenure,
whereas q very definite purpose COT
the law setting up the General Ac-
counting Ofice) was to remove the
accounting system from partisan po-
litical consideration and influences"
McCarl emphasized further that toe
liberal an Interpretation Of the appro'