Eligibility to Office. makes no provision for the payment by this Government of the sums awarded to the claimants by the board. It stipulates for the payment by the government of New Granada to the Government of the United States of the aggregate amount of the sums to be paid by virtue of the awards of the commissioners, (Article III.). Congress, however, by the act of 1861 to carry the treaty into effect, authorized payment to be made to claimants at the Treasury upon the certificates of the board of commissioners of whatsoever sums of money shall have been severally awarded them. It seems to me that under this enactment the claimant, before being entitled to receive payment at the Treasury of the United States of the amount awarded to him, must produce a certificate in his favor of the board of commissioners. The act has not authorized the payment of an award, except on the production of this document. This document, it appears, the claimant in this case never received from the board. A certificate in his favor was made out by the clerk, was signed by the commissioner on the part of the United States, but not by the commissioner on the part of New Granada. This is the defect in his case, as presented, which will prevent, I think, the payment of the award at the Treasury, under the existing legislation. Congress can, of course, by additional legislation, authorize, if it should deem proper to do so, the payment of the amount of the award at the Treasury, notwithstanding the want of a certificate of the board of commissioners. I have the honor to be, &c., Hon. HAMILTON FISH, Secretary of State. E. R. HOAR. ELIGIBILITY TO OFFICE. General E. S. Parker (an Indian) not considered disqualified from holding the office of chief of a Bureau, under the Constitution and laws of the United States. ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S OFFICE, April 12, 1869. SIR In reply to your letter of the 19th instant, touching Patent Extensions. the question of eligibility of General E. S. Parker to the office of chief of a Bureau of your Department, I have the honor to state that, on the facts presented, I do not perceive that he is disqualified from holding such office under the Constitution and laws of the United States. I am, sir, with great respect, &c., Hon. J. D. Cox, Secretary of the Interior. E. R. HOAR. PATENT EXTENSIONS. The 18th section of the act of July 4, 1836, as modified by the 1st section of the act of May 27, 1848, conferred a very large discretion upon the Commissioner of Patents in regard to patent extensions and subjects connected there with properly fall within the scope of his investigation upon applications for such extensions. The patent laws having made ample provision for revising the decisions of the Commissioner, in proper cases, by the judiciary, and the Executive having no appellate power over questions arising under them, parties should be left to pursue the mode of relief there provided. ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S OFFICE, April 16, 1869. SIR: I have considered the questions proposed by E. H. Smith, esq., whose communication of the 13th instant, with the accompanying papers, you were pleased to refer to me, relative to certain rules and directions promulgated by the Commissioner of Patents, concerning proceedings in his Bureau for the extension of patents. By the 18th section of the act of July 4, 1836, (5 Stat., 124,) as modified by the 1st section of the act of May 27, 1848, (9 Stat., 231,) a very large discretion is conferred upon the Commissioner in regard to patent extensions, and under these provisions the subjects adverted to in the questions submitted. might, with great propriety, be regarded as falling within the general scope of his investigation upon applications for such extensions. But without being understood as expressing any definite conclusions of my own on this point, I may be permitted to The Eight-hour Law. observe that the matter presented does not appear to be one with which the President should interfere. The patent laws having made ample provision for revising the decisions of the Commissioner, in proper cases, by the judiciary, and the Executive having no appellate power over questions arising thereunder, the party should be left to pursue the mode of relief there provided. The papers are returned herewith. I have the honor to be, &c., The PRESIDENT. E. R. HOAR. NOTE.-The acts of July 4, 1836, and May 27, 1848, cited above, are repealed by the act of July 8, 1870, chap. 230, in which is contained the existing law relating to patent extensions. THE EIGHT-HOUR LAW. The act of June 25, 1868, known as the eight-hour law, has nothing to do with the compensation to be paid to workmen in the navy-yards, that being still left to be determined under the provisions of the act of July 16, 1862, so as to conform, as nearly as is consistent with the public interest, with the rate of wages of private establishments in the immediate vicinity of the respective yards. There is nothing in the latter statute requiring workmen in the navyyards to be paid the same price for eight hours' labor which private establishments pay for ten or twelve, unless the amount of services rendered or the quality of the work make the fewer hours in the navyyards equivalent in value to the longer time hired in private establishments, or for some other reason make it consistent with the public interest. The conclusions of Attorney-General Evarts, in his opinion of November 25, 1868, (12 Opins., 520,) referred to and approved. ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S OFFICE, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of April 3, 1869, in which you ask my opinion upon the true meaning and effect of the act of Congress, approved June 25, 1868, (15 Stat., 77,) which fixes the number of hours constituting a day's work of laborers, workmen, and mechanics in the employment of the United States, taken in connection with the act of July 16, 1862, (12 Stat., 587,) which provided The Eight-hour Law. "that setion 8 of an act to further promote the efficiency of the Navy, approved December 21, 1861, be amended so as to read as follows: That the hours of labor and the rate of wages of the employés in the navy yards shall conform, as nearly as is consistent with the public interest, with those of private establishments in the immediate vicinity of the respective yards, to be determined by the commandants of the navy-yards, subject to the approval and revision of the Secretary of the Navy." In reply, I have the honor to say that the whole subject was fully considered in an opinion given by my predecessor in office, Mr. Evarts, to the President, on the 25th of November, 1868, to which I beg leave to refer you, and from the conclusions of which I see no reason to differ. In my opinion, the statute of June 25, 1868, has nothing to do with the compensation to be paid to workmen in the navy-yards, and leaves that to be determined under the provisions of the act of July 16, 1862. The provision that eight hours shall constitute a day's labor has no tendency whatever to show whether the day's labor thus established shall be paid at a lower or higher rate than the day of ten hours labor, or at the same rate. The rate of compensation is still left by law to be determined under the rule prescribed by the statute of July 16, 1862, so as to conform, as nearly as is consistent with the public interest, with the rate of wages of private establishments in the immediate vicinity of the respective navy-yards, "to be determined by the commandants of the navy-yards, subject to the approval and revision of the Secretary of the Navy." If the private establishments in the neighborhood employed their hands for five hours a day only, there would, obviously, be no justice in reducing the wages of those employed in the navyyards for eight hours to the amount paid by the day in private establishments, and the law intended no such result. On the other hand, I find nothing in the statute which requires you to pay the same price for eight hours' labor which private establishments pay for ten or twelve, unless the amount of service rendered or the quality of the work make the fewer hours in the navy-yards equivalent in value to the longer time hired in private establishments, or, for Brevet Commissions in the Army. some other reason, make it consistent with the public inter Where nominations of Army officers for promotion, by brevet, had been pending before the Senate prior to the date of the act of March 1 1869, chap. 52, but were not confirmed by that body until the 3d o March, 1869: Held that, under the operation of the 2d section of that act, if the officers were not nominated by reason of "distinguished conduct and public service in the presence of the enemy," they could not be commissioned. A nomination for brevet promotion, by reason of meritorious service in engagements with the Indians, is within the statute, and, consistently with its provisions, commissions might be issued to any of the officers referred to who may have been thus nominated. Such promotion, when made during the existence of Indian hostilities, is to be viewed as conferred "in time of war," within the meaning of the act mentioned. ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S OFFICE, April 24, 1869. SIR: The 2d section of the act of March 1, 1869, chap. 52, (15 Stat., 281,) entitled "An act to amend the act of April 10, 1806, for establishing rules and articles for the government of the armies of the United States," declares that thereafter "commissions by brevet shall only be conferred in time of war, and for distinguished conduct and public service in the presence of the enemy," and that "all brevet commissions shall bear date from the particular action or service for which the officer was breveted." Two days after this law took effect, viz., on the 3d of March, 1869, the Senate confirmed the nominations of a number of officers for promotion by brevet, which had been pending before that body prior to the date of the act. Among these were some that had been made on account of services rendered in recent engagements with the Indians, |