Claim of F. W. Anschultz. Respecting your fourth and last question, I know of no statute of the United States under which a party could be indicted upon the facts and circumstances therein stated; nor do I think that an indictment for obtaining goods under false pretenses could be sustained under any State law within my knowledge upon the same facts and circumstances. Very respectfully, Hon. Wм. W. BELKNAP, Secretary of War. GEO. H. WILLIAMS. CLAIM OF F. W. ANSCHUTZ. Mode of ascertaining damages to property under the act of July 20, 1868, chap. 184, which provides for the right of way over lands needed for the construction of the canal around the Des Moines Rapids of the Mississippi River, stated. Upon the assump on that the pipes through which claimant derived his supply of water were laid and in use on his land before the acquisition of the right of way over the same: Held that the direct and probable loss or injury which he would necessarily sustain by the construction of the canal, in being compelled to remove and relocate them, constituted a proper element of charge, along with the value of the land, in estimating the compensation for such right of way. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, April 7, 1873. SIR: I have examined the papers which accompanied your letter of the 10th ultimo, touching the claim of F. W. Anschutz, for alleged damages to the water-supply of his brewery, occasioned by the construction of the canal around the Des Moines Rapids of the Mississippi River. The act of July 20, 1868, (15 Stat., 124,) in providing for the right of way over any lands needed for that improvement, contemplates that the value thereof shall be ascertained in the mode provided by the laws of the State, with a proviso, however, that where the owner of the property fixes a price for the same which, in the opinion of the officer in charge of the improvement, is reasonable, the latter may take the same at such price. Assuming that the pipes through which the claimant's brewery was supplied with water were laid and in use pre Internal Revenue Collection-Districts. vious to the acquisition of the right of way over his land, I think the direct and probable loss or injury which he would necessarily sustain by the construction of the canal, in being compelled to remove and relocate them, would have constituted a proper element of charge, along with the value of the land, in estimating the compensation for such right of way. The papers do not disclose whether this compensation was ascertained in the mode provided by the State laws, or whether it was fixed by the owner. If by the former mode, it is to be presumed, in the absence of anything appearing in the proceedings to the contrary, that the loss or injury referred to was taken into account and included in the amount of compensation awarded. If by the latter mode, it must be within the knowledge of the officer in charge of the work at the time, whether the damages were estimated or not. Should it be found, after investigation and with a reasonable degree of certainty, that the claimant has not in fact been allowed for damage sustained under the circumstances hereinbefore stated, I perceive no objection to its payment at this time. The papers mentioned are here with returned. Hon. WM. W. BELKNAP, Secretary of War. GEO. H. WILLIAMS. INTERNAL-REVENUE COLLECTION-DISTRICTS. The provision in the 2d section of the act of July 1, 1862, chap. 119, readopted by the 7th section of the act of June 30, 1864, chap. 173, limiting the number of internal-revenue collection-districts in any State, is unrepealed by the provision in the act of July 12, 1870, chap. 251, authorizing the President, at his discretion, to "divide the States and Territories respectively into convenient collection-districts, or alter the same," &c. The restriction as to the number of such districts imposed by the former provision is still in force. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 28th ultimo, inclosing copy of a communication to you from the Commis Internal Revenue Collection-Districts. sioner of Internal Revenue, dated the 26th ultimo, and requesting, at his suggestion, my opinion upon the following question: "Is the restriction as to the number of collection-districts in any State, which was imposed by the 2d section of the act of July 1, 1862, (12 Stat., 432,) still in force?" The 2d section of the act of 1862, to which reference is made, provided, "That for the purpose of collecting, assessing, and levying the duties or taxes hereinafter prescribed by this act, the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized to divide, respectively, the States and Territories of the United States, and the District of Columbia, into convenient collection-districts, and to nominate and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint an assessor and collector for each such district, who shall be residents within the same: Provided, That any of said States and Territories, and the District of Columbia, may, if the President shall deem it proper, be erected into and included in one district, provided that the number of districts in any State shall not exceed the number of Representatives to which such State shall be entitled in the present Congress, except in such States as are entitled to an increased representation in the Thirty-eighth Congress, in which States the number of districts shall not exceed the number of Representatives to which any such State may be so entitled: And provided further, That in the State of California the President may establish a number of districts not exceeding the number of Senators and Representatives to which such State is entitled in the present Congress." This section was continued in force by the 7th section of the act of June 30, 1864, (13 Stat., 224,) which contains an additional provision authorizing the President "to alter the respective collection-districts provided for in said section, as the public interests may require.” By a proviso in the act of July 12, 1870, making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government, (16 Stat., 239,) it was enacted "that the President may, at his discretion, divide the States and Territories, respectively, into convenient collection-districts, or alter the same, or unite two or more districts, or two or more Internal Revenue Collection-Districts. States or Territories, into one district, and may exercise said power from time to time, as in his opinion the public interests may require." Subsequently, by the 43d section of the act of June 6, 1872, (17 Stat., 257,) the President was directed, prior to January 1, 1873, to "reduce the internal-revenue districts in the United States to not exceeding eighty in number,” and for that purpose he was authorized "to unite two or more districts, or States or Territories, into one district," &c. But, before any reduction in the number of districts was made under this section, it was expressly repealed by the 7th section of the act of December 21, 1872, "for the reduction of officers and expenses of the internal revenue." Section 43 of the act of 1872 did not in terms, nor as I conceive by necessary implication, repeal any of the provisions above mentioned which were previously in force. It devolved upon the President a particular duty, which he was required to discharge within a stated time; but it left those provisions in full and unrestricted operation during that time, or at least until the duty imposed thereby should be performed; and as the section itself was repealed before this took place, the provisions adverted to must be regarded as now hav ing precisely the same scope and effect which they had prior to the enactment of that section. The solution of the question under consideration, then, depends upon whether the following provision in the 2d section of the act of 1862, which was continued in force by the 7th section of the act of 1864, viz, "That the number of districts in any State shall not exceed the number of Representatives to which such State shall be entitled in the present Congress, except in such States as are entitled to an increased representation in the Thirty-eighth Congress, in which States the number of districts shall not exceed the number of Representatives to which any such State may be so entitled," is repealed by the provision in the act of 1870, hereinbefore mentioned. As the latter provision does not expressly repeal the former, the inquiry arises whether there is such an inconsistency or repugnancy between the two provisions as to amount to an implied repeal of the earlier enactment by the later one. Internal Revenue Collection-Districts. By reference to the 2d section of the act of 1862, and the 7th section of the act of 1864, it will be observed that prior to the act of 1870 the President had authority under those sections to divide the States and Territories into convenient collection-districts, or include any State or Territory in one district, or alter the respective collection-districts as the public interests might require; and the exercise of this authority was discretionary with him, subject to the limitation imposed as to the number of such districts authorized to be established in any State. The act of 1870 provides that the President shall have substantially the same authority, as to dividing the States and Territories into convenient collection-districts or altering the same, which he previously possessed, and in addition thereto it gives him power "to unite two or more districts or two or more States or Territories into one district." So far from the grant of the additional power being repugnant or inconsist ent with the limitation previously imposed, respecting the number of districts in any State, it obviously leads in the same direction as that limitation, and is entirely consonant therewith. And in regard to the other powers granted by the act of 1870, those powers, as already stated, existed before that act, coupled with the limitation referred to, with which they do not seem to be in any respect incompatible; and I think they should be regarded, in the absence of anything in that act clearly indicative of a contrary intention on the part of the legislature, as still subject to the same limitation. This view of the statute of 1870 is fortified by the idea which clearly pervades all the legislation upon the subject since 1862, to wit, that, as the taxes were being reduced by Congress, the reduction of the force for their collection became desirable; and there is no ground to suppose that Congress intended to provide for an increase of officers for that purpose, when the reasons were obvious and imperative for a contrary course. Having arrived at the conclusion that the provision in the 2d section of the act of 1862, re-adopted by the 7th section of the act of 1864, limiting the number of collection-districts in any State, is unrepealed by the provision in the act of 1870, above cited, I have to say, in answer to your question, |