Clothing for Invalid Soldiers. statute, and I discover no grounds upon which to question its correctness. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. GEO. M. ROBESON, Secretary of the Navy. GEO. H. WILLIAMS. CLOTHING FOR INVALID SOLDIERS. The act of March 22, 1867, chap. 4, authorizing the Secretary of War to furnish each invalid soldier who is an inmate of any regularly-constituted soldiers' home with one complete suit of clothing, does not extend to those invalid soldiers who are inmates of the National Asylum for Disabled Volunteers or its branches. The clothing thus authorized to be distributed is required, by the terms of the act, to be taken from the "stock on hand" at the time of its passage, and the managers of any such soldiers' home may make requisitions therefor as long as that particular stock lasts, but no longer. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, March 14, 1872. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 20th ultimo, in which you request my interpretation of the following act of Congress: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, authorized and required to furnish one complete suit of clothing to each invalid soldier who is an inmate of any regularly-constituted 'soldiers home' in the United States, out of the stock on hand in the Quartermaster's Department. "SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That such clothing shall be delivered to the managers of such institutions upon their requisition therefor, accompanied with such certificates as to numbers and condition as the Secretary of War may prescribe." Approved March 22, 1867, (15 Stat., 1.) On the 20th of last January, the president of the National Asylum for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers made a requisition upon the Secretary of War for an assortment of complete Clothing for Invalid Soldiers. suits of clothing, to be furnished by the Quartermaster-General to the inmates of the various branches of said asylum, in which requisition it is stated that the asylum had already received from the War Department five hundred suits of such clothing; and the question submitted, as I understand it, is whether or not the War Department is bound by said act to comply with said requisition. I am met at the threshold of the inquiry by the suggestion that the National Asylum for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers is not one of the institutions described in said act as a regularlyconstituted "soldiers' home." Referring to the act of March 10, 1866, (14 Stat., 10,) by which said asylum was created, and to the subsequent amendments of that act, I do not find that said asylum and its branches are anywhere described or referred to as "soldiers' homes;" but in a joint resolution approved June 8, 1868, (15 Stat., 253,) "to supply books and public documents to the National Asylum," provision is made for a "soldiers' home," as though it was not a part of the National Asylum. When the act under consideration was before Congress, it was stated and understood that it was to provide for cases where there are "asylums established by States and by the local communities." (Congressional Globe, 1st session 40th Congress, vol. 77, pp. 199, 200.) Section 2 of another act of March 22, 1867, (15 Stat., 21,) authorizes the Secretary of War to sell to the National Asylum "such surplus clothing, quartermaster's and medical stores as he may deem expedient, at first prices," and funds are provided with which to make such purchases. On the same day, therefore, provision was made by Congress, but in different acts, for the National Asylum for Disabled Volunteers, and for "soldiers' homes." To the former, clothing and stores, as aforesaid, were to be sold by the War Department at first prices; and to the inmates of the latter, one complete suit of clothing was to be given, out of the stock on hand in the Quartermaster's Department. Accompanying your letter is the opinion of the Judge-Advocate-General, in which he holds that the act above quoted applies exclusively to those who were inmates of "soldiers' homes" at the time the act was passed, and to the stock of Clothing for Invalid Soldiers. clothing then on hand in the Quartermaster's Department. This view of the subject is controverted upon the ground that the words "is an inmate," in the statute, upon which stress is put by the Judge-Advocate-General, mean an inmate at any time when requisition is made, and not an inmate only at the date of the act. When this act passed the House it required the Secretary of War to furnish, "annually," one complete suit of clothing to each inmate, but the word "annually" was stricken out in the Senate. Evidently, therefore, the words "is an inmate" were inserted in the bill with reference to future as well as present time, and the only effect of striking out the word "annually" was to provide that each inmate should not have a new suit every year. I do not find the limitation in this statute so much in its expression as to time, as in the description of the property from which the gratuities are to be made. When the war closed, the War Department, as it is understood, had a large quantity of surplus clothing on hand, and the object of this act, as it seems to me, was to give to each inmate of a "soldiers' home" one suit out of that particular stock. Donations were to be made from that specific clothing. Like an act providing for payments to individuals out of a certain appropriation of money, as long as the appropriation lasts the payments can be made. When that is exhausted they must cease. My opinion is that, under the act in question, each invalid soldier who is an inmate of a regularly-constituted "soldiers' home" is entitled to one complete suit of clothing out of the "stock on hand" at the time said act was passed, and that the managers of such an institution have the right to make requisition accordingly, as long as the said "stock on hand" lasts, and no longer. But I hold that the National Asylum and its branches are not entitled to the benefits of said act. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. WM. W. BELKNAP, Secretary of War. GEO. H. WILLIAMS. Attorney-General and Congressional Committees. ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES. A committee of the House of Representatives having referred the papers in certain claims to the Attorney-General, with a request for an official opinion thereon, the papers were returned unaccompanied by an opinion, the Attorney-General holding (in accordance with the views of several of his predecessors on the same point) that it is not within his province to advise committees of Congress upon questions of law occurring in matters before them. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th instant, in which you say you have been instructed by the Committee on Foreign Affairs to refer the papers touching the claims of several insurance companies, growing out of the loss of the bark Caldera and cargo in Chinese waters, to me for an official opinion, if consistent with my official duties. I herewith respectfully return the papers, and have to say that several of my predecessors, including AttorneysGeneral Wirt, Taney, Crittenden, Bates, and Evarts, have decided that it is not only not the duty of the AttorneyGeneral, but that he has no right to give his official opinion upon similar applications. (1 Opin., 335; 2 Opin., 499; 5 Opin., 561; 10 Opin., 164; 12 Opin., 544.) Reference is also made to the act of June 22, 1870, entitled "An act to establish the Department of Justice," as defining the duties of the Attorney-General as head of that Depart ment. It is, perhaps, unnecessary to say that this Department is now charged by law with all the labor that it can by the use of diligence perform, and to add to this the preparation of opinions upon calls by the several committees of Congress upon the questions of law which may arise in their deliberations, would be to overwhelm the departmental business. I beg your honorable committee to understand that I am disposed to treat their wishes with the utmost respect, but Liability of Mail-Contractors. from a sense of official obligation I do not feel at liberty to comply with their request as contained in your letter. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. N. P. BANKS, GEO. H. WILLIAMS. Chairman of Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives. LIABILITY OF MAIL-CONTRACTORS. A mail-contractor, after executing separate contracts in due form to convey the mails on four different routes, entered upon and continued the performance of service on two of them, but on the other two he failed to do any service, and the Post-Office Department was compelled to employ other parties to carry the mails on the last-mentioned routes at an increased rate of compensation, the difference being charged as usual to the first contractor. For administrative purposes merely, and not with any intention to release the first contractor from liability, an order was made to annul the two contracts which he had failed to perform: Held that, under the circumstances stated, such contractor was not thereby discharged from any claim growing out of those contracts which the United States would otherwise have against him. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 5th instant, in which you ask my opinion upon the following: "On the 20th of April, 1870, Henry C. Foster, of Frederickton, Missouri, was accepted as contractor for conveying the mails on four routes in that State, from July 1, 1870, to June 30, 1874, (under advertisement dated October 30, 1869,) at an aggregate compensation of $2,355 per annum. He executed contracts in due form for all the routes, and on two of them he began the service and continued in its performance. On the other two routes he has failed to do any service, and the Department was compelled to engage other parties, at an increased rate of pay, charging the difference, as is usual in such cases, to the failing contractor. "As the contracts with Foster had been officially reported |