Appeal from Decisions of the Accounting-Officers. provisions of the said act of July fourth, eighteen hundred and sixty-four, to the loyal citizens of the State of Tennessee or of the State of West Virginia or any county therein." Mr. Pillow's claim originated during the war for the suppression of the Southern rebellion "in a State which by an ordinance of secession attempted to withdraw from the United States Government," and it is for personal property appropriated by the military authorities of the United States; and therefore, whatever merits the claim may have, it is clear the War Department has no jurisdiction to settle it and direct its payment. That Congress has not determined to pay persons who were in the rebellion for property taken by the troops of the United States during the war, is evidenced by section 2 of the act of March 3, 1871, (16 Stat., 524,) providing for a "commission to settle the claims of loyal citizens," &c. Very respectfully, your obdient servant, Hon. WM. W. BELKNAP, Secretary of War. GEO. H. WILLIAMS. APPEAL FROM DECISIONS OF THE ACCOUNTING-OFFICERS. The provision of the 4th section of the act of August 16, 1856, chap. 124, declaring that, as to the accounts of marshals, district attorneys, &c., "an appeal shall lie from the decision of the accounting-officers to the Secretary of the Interior,” was impliedly repealed by the act of March 30, 1868, chap. 36. Prior to the act of 1856 there was no law authorizing an appeal in such cases to the Secretary of the Interior, and none was enacted subsequent to the act of 1868 down to the act of June 22, 1870, chap. 150, by which only such powers as were then exercised by the Secretary of the Interior over the accounts aforesaid were thereafter to be exercised by the Attorney-General. No statute has been passed since the last-mentioned act, giving an appeal from the accounting-officers to the Attorney General in the cases referred to; and hence, under the existing law, such an appeal does not lie. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: William A. Merriwether has filed certain papers in this Department by way of appeal from the decision of the Appeal from Decisions of the Accounting - Officers. First Comptroller of the Treasury disallowing several items. in his account as marshal of the United States for the district of Kentucky, and certifying a balance due him of $1,918.96; and the question arises, in limine, as to his right to appeal in this case to the Attorney-General. Section 8 of the act of March 3, 1817, (3 Stat., 366,) provides, "That it shall be the duty of the First Comptroller to examine all accounts settled by the First and Fifth Auditors, and certify the balance arising thereon to the Register;" and the 4th section of the same act makes it the duty of the First Auditor "to certify the balance, and transmit the accounts with the vouchers and certificate to the First Comptroller for his decision thereon." Controversy arose as to the construction of these sections. On behalf of the heads of Departments it was claimed that they have power to revise the action of the accounting-officers of the Treasury, as to accounts arising in their respective Departments; and on the other hand it was claimed that such action was binding upon all the other executive officers of the Government. To put an end to this dispute, Congress on the 30th of March, 1868, (15 Stat., 54,) passed the following act: "Be it enacted, &c., That the act of March three, eighteen hundred and seventeen, entitled 'An act to provide for the prompt settlement of public accounts,' shall not be construed to authorize the heads of Departments to change or modify the balances that may be certified to them by the Commissioner of Customs or the Comptroller of the Treasury, but that such balances, when stated by the Auditor and properly certified by the Comptroller, as provided by that act, shall be taken and considered as final and conclusive upon the executive branch of the Government, and be subject to revision only by Congress or the proper courts: Provided, That the head of the proper Department, before siguing a warrant for any balance. certified to him by a Comptroller, may submit to such Comptroller any facts in his judgment affecting the correctness of such balance, but the decision of the Comptroller thereon shall be final and conclusive, as hereinbefore provided." Merriwether's account as marshal was stated by the Auditor, and properly certified by the First Comptroller, as pro Appeal from Decisions of the Accounting-Officers. vided by said act of 1817, and therefore must be taken and considered as final and conclusive upon the Attorney-General, as a part of the executive branch of the Government, unless he is made an exception by some act of Congress. Section 4 of the act of August 16, 1856, (11 Stat., 49,) provides that as to the accounts of marshals, district attorneys, and clerks," an appeal shall lie from the decision of the accounting officers to the Secretary of the Interior." Section 15 of the act of June 22, 1870, (16 Stat., 162,) creating the Department of Justice, is as follows: "That the supervisory pow. ers now exercised by the Secretary of the Interior over the accounts of the district attorneys, marshals, clerks, and other officers of the courts of the United States, shall be exercised by the Attorney-General, who shall sign all requisitions for the advance or payment of moneys out of the Treasury, on estimates or accounts, subject to the same control now exercised on like estimates or accounts by the First Auditor or First Comptroller of the Treasury." And it is claimed that, by virtue of these two provisions of law, jurisdiction is vested in the Attorney-General to hear the appeal in this case. Section 4 of the act of March 3, 1849, (9 Stat., 395,) creating a Home Department, provides: "That the supervisory power now exercised by the Secretary of the Treasury over the accounts of the marshals, clerks, and other officers of all the courts of the United States, shall be exercised by the Secretary of the Interior, who shall sign all requisitions for the advance or payment of money out of the Treasury, on estimates or accounts, subject to the same control now exercised on like estimates or accounts by the First Auditor and First Comptroller of the Treasury." So that it will be seen that, with the change of official des ignation, the section of the act of 1870, above cited, is a substantial copy of section 4 of the act of 1849. Congress, no doubt, intended to confer the same power in both cases, which was exactly the power possessed by the Secretary of the Treasury prior to the act of 1849. Confessedly there never was any right of appeal from the accounting-officers to the Secretary of the Treasury as to the accounts of marshals and other officers of the courts, and therefore no right of appeal was allowed to the Secretary of the Interior by the said 4th Postal Cards. section of the act of 1849, and of course none to the AttorneyGeneral by the said 15th section of the act of 1870. Congress must have understood that section 4 of the act of 1849, copied into the act of 1870, did not give the right of appeal; otherwise the 4th section of the act of 1856 would not have been passed. I think that the 4th section of the act of 1856, giving the right of appeal to the Secretary of the Interior, was repealed by the said act of 1868; because the balances of accounts, as stated by the Auditor and certified to by the Comptroller, cannot be binding and conclusive upon the executive branch of the Government, as provided in the act of 1868, if the Attorney-General, who is a part of such executive branch, has jurisdiction to review and re-adjust those balances on appeal. Supervisory powers over the accounts of officers of the courts may be exercised without the right of appeal. All the emolument-accounts of these officers and all their expenditures, not provided for by law, are to be first examined and approved by the Attorney-General before they go to the accounting-officers of the Treasury. My opinion is that the appeal does not lie in this case. Hon. WM. A. RICHARDSON, GEO. H. WILLIAMS. Acting Secretary of the Treasury. POSTAL CARDS. The 170th section of the act of June 8, 1872, chap. 335, authorizing the Postmaster-General to furnish and issue to the public postal cards, does not empower him to enter into any contract for the future payment of money to persons supplying them, in the absence of any appropriation by Congress which is applicable to the subject. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 21st instant, in which you submit for my official opinion the following questions: "1. Is the authorization and direction contained in the Postal Cards. 170th section of the 'Postal Code,' to furnish and issue 'postal cards to the public, with postage-stamps impressed thereon,' sufficient to warrant the Posmaster-General in making a contract for the same before a specific appropriation by Congress has been made, without violating the 7th section of the act of July 12, 1870? (See 16 Stat., 251.) "2. If the foregoing question is answered affirmatively, then can the postal cards be construed as coming within the provisions of the appropriations for adhesive stamps, stamped envelopes, and newspaper-wrappers, and be paid for out of those appropriations, or either of them, or out of any other existing appropriations." Said section 170 is as follows: "That, to facilitate lettercorrespondence and provide for the transmission of the mails, at a reduced rate of postage, of messages, orders, notices, and other short communications, either printed or written in pencil or ink, the Postmaster-General shall be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to furnish and issue to the public, with postage-stamps impressed upon them, 'postal cards,' manufactured of good stiff paper, of such quality, form, and size as he shall deem best adapted for general use; which cards shall be used as a means of postal intercourse, under rules and regulations to be prescribed by the Postmaster-General, and when so used shall be transmitted through the mails at a postage charge of one cent each, including the cost of their manufacture." And the following is a copy of section 7 of the act of July 12, 1870, referred to by you: "That it shall not be lawful for any Department of the Government to expend in any one fiscal year any sum in excess of appropriations made by Congress for that fiscal year, or to involve the Government in any contract for the future payment of money in excess of such appropriation." On the 1st of June, 1872, Congress passed an act "making appropriations for the service of the Post-Office Department for the year ending June 30, 1873, in which all the appropri ations are for specific purposes excepting one of $1,500 for miscellaneous items. Subsequently, and on June 8, an act was passed "to revise, consolidate, and amend the statutes relating to the Post-Office Department," which contains said |