Court Opinion

ID: 9610732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:46:25.861229+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:04.008972
License: Public Domain

WHITAKER, Judge
(dissenting).
I seriously doubt the right of the Bureau of Reclamation to so allocate the funds appropriated as to prefer one class of contracts over another.
The House managers reported to the House that “the conferees were agreed” that the funds appropriated should be spent first for the completion and installation of the generators. This was reported to the House of Representatives and it may be said that by the adoption of the Conference Report that House gave its assent to such an allocation; but the Senate is not shown to have given such assent. This body did not have before it this statement of the House managers. It had before it only the Conference Report, and this was silent on the basis for the allocation of the funds.
It, of course, takes the concurrence of the two Houses of Congress to pass a bill. They concurred only on the basis of the Conference Report, which, as stated, was silent on allocation.
It, therefore, comes down to this: There were outstanding $37,359,000 construction and supply contracts and limited force account demands. To carry them on, $17,500,000 was appropriated. This appropriation, plus the unexpended balance carried over from the previous fiscal year, amounted to $21,617,000.
It seems to me the several contractors had a right to expect that this amount should be prorated among their several *384contracts. Since this was not done, I think the defendant is legally liable for the consequent delay.
It would have been otherwise if Congress had directed allocation to the power contracts first, but this was not done.
I, therefore, cannot agree to the report of the majority.