New State, War, and Navy Department Building. resentative. Doubts may well be entertained as to whether said act of 1850 applies at all to a member of Congress, as his position is not generally embraced in the term "office" as used in the statutes of the United States regulating the administrative affairs of the Government; but I am clear that it does not apply to a Representative-elect before he takes the oath of office, and accordingly I am of the opinion that Mr. Hale, in addition to his pay as counsel or agent for the United States before said commission, is entitled to his salary as Representative in the Forty-third Congress. Very respectfully, Hon. B. H. BRISTOW, Secretary of the Treasury. GEO. H. WILLIAMS. NEW STATE, WAR, AND NAVY DEPARTMENT BUILDING. The direction of the entire work on the new State, War, and Navy De partment building, and the disbursement of the appropriations provided therefor, are by law devolved upon the Secretary of State. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, July 3, 1874. SIR: I have considered the question relating to the construction of the new State, War, and Navy Department building, which was submitted to me in your communication of the 27th ultimo, namely, "Whether or not the Secretary of State is charged by law with the direction of the whole of the building in question, or is such direction of the Secretary of State limited to that portion of the building designed for the use of the Department of State and designated as the south wing?" In connection with this subject you observe that the south wing of the building is rapidly approaching completion; that under the appropriation made by the recent act of June 23, 1874, the construction of the east and north wings of the building will be continued; and that it is important that the question of who is charged with the direction of such construction and the disbursement of the funds appropriated for that purpose should be definitely ascertained. New State, War, and Navy Department Building. It appears that the first provision for the erection of the building mentioned was made by the 2d section of the act of March 3, 1871, (16 Stat., 494.) By that section Congress appropriated five hundred thousand dollars "for the construction, under the direction of the Secretary of State, of a building which will form the south wing of a building that, when completed, will be similar in the ground-plan and dimension to the Treasury building," &c. This appropriation, as it seems, was restricted to the south wing; and the construction of that part of the building, including also the disbursement of the fund provided therefor, was clearly to be done under the direction of the Secretary of State. Next, an appropriation of two hundred thousand dollars was made by the act of May 18, 1872, (17 Stat., 126,) for continuing the same work "during the balance of the (then) present fiscal year;" and that was followed by an appropriation of eight hundred thousand dollars for the continuation of the same work, made by the act of June 10, 1872, (17 Stat., 352.) Previous to the date of the latter act no provision had been made for the erection of any other part of the building than the south wing. But by that act an appropriation of four hundred thousand dollars was made for the east wing; and this appropriation, and also the aforesaid appropriation of eight hundred thousand dollars, made by the same act, are each placed in the statute under the heading, "Public works under the Treasury Department." Then, by the act of March 3, 1873, (17 Stat., 528,) an appropriation of one million five hundred thousand dollars was made for "continuing the work on the new State, War, and Navy Department building." This last appropriation was applicable to both the south and the east wings of the building, and it is found in the statute under a heading which reads, "Under the Treasury Depart ment." The classification of the appropriations made for said building by the acts of 1872 and 1873, under the headings referred to, certainly affords some ground for the inference that the construction of the building, together with the disbursement of such appropriations, belonged by law to the Treasury Department. Yet that inference is met, and in my opinion entirely overcome, by other statutory provisions and circumstances, favoring a different view. It has already been shown New State, War, and Navy Department Building. that at the commencement of the building, which was begun by erecting the south wing, the work was placed by statute under the direction of the Secretary of State. No law has since expressly taken the work from under his direction, or expressly put it under the direction of any one else. On the contrary it has, up to the present time, actually remained under his direction, with the knowledge and apparent sanction and approval of Congress; since all appropriations therefor, subsequent to the first, have thus far been made by that body on estimates furnished by him. Furthermore, all of the appropriations therefor have, up to the present time, been disbursed by the State Department with the approbation of Congress, as is evident from the provision in the act of March 3, 1873, (17 Stat., 531,) making an appropriation "to pay the disbursing-clerk of the Department of State additional compensation for disbursing moneys appropriated for the building now being erected for the use of the War, State, and Navy Departments, from the commencement of such duties until the 30th of June, 1874." Besides, the act of March 3, 1873, first above mentioned, contains a provision which seems to imply that the construction of the building just described is not under the Treasury Department. Thus it provides (17 Stat., 524,) that the sums thereby "appropriated for the construction of public buildings, under the Treasury Department, including the building for the new State, War, and Navy Departments, shall be available immediately upon the approval of this act." If, at the time of this enactment, the building in question was already "under the Treasury Department," the insertion of a clause therein specially including it was unnecessary. The presence of such clause indicates that Congress did not regard that building as one whose construction was then under the Treasury Department. The conclusion I draw from the various statutory provisions above referred to, and the circumstances mentioned in connection therewith, is, that the Secretary of State has up to the present time been charged with the direction of the construction of the entire building for the State, War, and Navy Departments, and also the disbursement of the appropriations heretofore made therefor; and I am of opinion that the act of June 23, 1874, providing an appropriation for the continu Authority of Accounting-Officers. ance of the construction of the same building, makes no change either in regard to the direction of the work or the disbursement of the fund provided for the same. These remain, as heretofore, under the charge of the Secretary of State. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, Hon. HAMILTON FISH, Secretary of State. GEO. H. WILLIAMS. AUTHORITY OF ACCOUNTING-OFFICERS. A settlement was made by the accounting-officers of the Treasury with F., as assignee of certain parties, for the use and occupation of some buildings by the military authorities, whereupon he was paid the amount allowed. Subsequently another settlement was made with him, as assignee of certain other parties, for the use and occupation of other buildings by the same authorities, wherein, it having in the mean time been ascertained that the allowance on the first settlement was improper, and made in ignorance of a fact which, had the accounting-officers been cognizant thereof at the time, would have precluded such allowance, the amount paid as aforesaid was deducted, and only the balance remaining after the deduction allowed: Held that, notwithstanding the claims originally belonged to and were derived by assignment from different persons, it was competent to the accounting-officers, under the circumstances, to make a deduction in the last settlement of what had been improperly allowed and paid on the first. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, July 10, 1874. SIR: In a letter dated the 24th of April last, the Hon. F. A. Sawyer, then Acting Secretary of the Treasury, submitted for my opinion a question which has arisen in connection with the settlement of certain claims by the accounting-officers of the Treasury in favor of Hamilton G. Fant. The facts of the case appear to be, in substance, these: In August, 1870, a settlement was made with Mr. Fant, as assignee of certain parties, for the use and occupation by the military authorities of the United States, during the late war, of certain buildings at Point Lookout; Md., in which settlement he was allowed and paid the sum of $1,637.52. In October, 1871, another settlement was made with him, as Authority of Accounting-Officers. assignee of certain other parties, for the use and occupation by the same authorities, during the same period, of certain other buildings at the same place. But before the consumina. tion of this last settlement, and subsequent to the first settlement, it had come to the knowledge of the Second Comptroller of the Treasury that the assignors of the claims embraced in the first settlement resided in one of the insurrectionary States during the war; and that officer, in view of the fact just mentioned, deeming the allowance of such claims to have been improper, directed the amount paid to Mr. Fant on the first settlement to be deducted from the amount that might be found due him on the second settlement, which was ac. cordingly done. After making this deduction, a balance of $268.32 still remained in his favor on the latter settlement, and that balance has been paid. In this matter the Comptroller seems to have based his action on the consideration that the settlement of those claims which were originally owned by persons living in an insurrectionary State were unauthorized by law; that the assignee of such persons, in prosecuting such claims, stood in no better situation than their assignors would have stood had no assignment been made; and the deduction of the amount improperly allowed as aforesaid, so the Comptroller states, "was done in conformity with the rule in such cases." The question submitted is, whether or not, after the settlement with and payment to Mr. Fant, in 1870, as assignee of certain parties, it was competent to the accounting-officers to make a deduction in the subsequent settlement with him in 1871, as assignee of certain other parties, by reason of " any error in payment of the claims of the first assignors in 1870." It may fairly be inferred from the facts of the case as stated that the first settlement with Mr. Fant was made under a misapprehension, or rather in ignorance, of a fact which, had it been made known to the accounting-officers at the time, would have precluded any allowance in his favor on account of the claims covered by that settlement. Looking at the matter in this aspect, and also taking into view the circumstance that the allowance made in that settlement was erroneous by reason of the existence of the fact referred to, I am unable to perceive why those officers, on subsequently obtaining informa |