Compromise of Internal-Revenue Cases. fourth collection district of Texas, stands indicted for having entered into a corrupt arrangement with certain distillers within his district to defraud the United States. The indictment charges the offense to have been committed while he was in the office of assessor, and is founded upon the provis ions of section 30 of the act of March 2, 1867, (14 Stat., 484,) and sections 97 and 98 of the act of July 20, 1868, (15 Stat., 164, 165.) No trial has been had upon this indictment, but Mr. Boughton has proposed terms of compromise to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, under section 102 of said act of 1868, and the Attorney-General is asked whether or not, in his opinion, the power to compromise given by that section includes this case. On the 7th of February last the Attorney-General, in answer to a communication from you, expressed the opinion (see ante p. 8) that the case of an internal-revenue officer indicted for embezzlement under the 16th section of the act of August 6, 1846, (9 Stat., 63,) and the 61st section of the act of June 30, 1864, (13 Stat., 241,) was not within the class of cases which might be compromised under the 102d section of the act of 1868 aforesaid, and in that opinion he said, among other things, "This clearly implies a compromise with the tax-payer, and not with the collector of taxes." I see no substantial difference between that case and the one now under consideration, and, following the opinion of the Attorney-General heretofore expressed, I have the honor now to reply to you that, in my opinion, the case of Mr. Boughton is not within the purview of the 102d section of the act of July 20, 1868. I return herewith the original papers accompanying your communication. Very respectfully, &c., B. H. BRISTOW, Solicitor-General and Acting Attorney-General. Hon. GEO. S. BOUTWELL, Secretary of the Treasury. Eight-Hour Law. EIGHT-HOUR LAW. The interpretation of the act of June 25, 1868, chap. 72, commonly called the eight-hour law, given in a former opinion, (see ante p. 37,) re-affirmed. Where different statements of facts appear in any case that has been submitted by the head of a Department to the Attorney-General, the latter will not undertake to reconcile the differences between them, but in giving an opinion upon the questions presented will consider only such facts as are set forth or admitted by the head of the Department. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, May 18, 1872. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 16th instant, inclosing a copy of one of the 10th from the Hon. N. P. Banks, and asking whether in my opinion the statement of facts made by General Banks changes the legal aspect of the case of the laborers employed at or near Richmond, Virginia, in getting out stone for the building for the use of the State Department, now in process of erection. In my letter of the 2d instant, (ante, p. 37,) replying to the question presented in yours of the 25th ultimo, I expressed the opinion that the men in question were the employés of Mr. Ordway; that they were not employed by or on behalf of the Government of the United States, and therefore were not entitled to the benefit of the act of Congress, approved June 25, 1868, known as the eight-hour law. When that opinion was requested, the only facts furnished me were contained in the original and supplemental contract, in writing, between the United States and Mr. Ordway, and the bond, with surety, attached thereto. From these papers it appears that on the 16th day of November, 1871, a contract was entered into between Mr. Alfred B. Mullett, supervising architect of the new State Department building in course of erection in Washington, for and in behalf of the United States of America, of the first part, and Albert Ordway, of the city of Richmond and State of Virginia, of the second part, in pursuance of a bid made by the latter on the 19th day of June, 1871, and accepted by the United States, whereby Mr. Ordway undertook Eight-Hour Law. and agreed to furnish from certain quarries in Virginia, and to deliver on the site of the said building in Washington, granite of a certain description and quality, to be used in the construction of the building, for which Mr. Mullett, as the representative of the United States, undertook that Mr. Ordway should be paid at a certain rate per cubic foot; ninety per cent. of the contract-price to be paid on the delivery of the stone at the site of the building, and ten per cent. to be retained until the completion of the entire contract to the approval and acceptance of the party of the first part, with the further stipulation that the last-named amount should be forfeited by the party of the second part in the event of the non-fulfillment of his contract to the entire satisfaction of the party of the first part. It was further stipulated that the United States would re-imburse Mr. Ordway for all payments made by him on account of labor, tools, materials, and also for insurance on the granite. For the purpose of securing the faithful and complete fulfillment of the undertaking of Mr. Ordway, the contract further contained a covenant of lease to the United States of the quarries in the State of Virginia, with all and singular the tools, buildings, wharves, and appurtenances thereunto belonging, with the full right, authority, and power to enter upon, occupy, and use the same, or procure therefrom any or all such stones as the said Ordway should fail or decliue to furnish under said contract. It was expressly provided that this lease was executed for the purpose of securing to the United States a sufficient and suitable supply of granite for said building from said quarries, and that the lease was not to take effect unless the party of the second part should be in default in the execution of his contract, and unless the United States should give to him eight days' notice, in writing, of intention to enter upon and occupy the said quarries for the purpose aforesaid. As additional security for the performance of said contract, Mr. Ordway also entered into a bond with the United States, in the penal sum of $50,000, with George W. Cook and Chauncey M. Lockwood as sureties, conditioned for the faithful performance of the contract hereinbefore recited. Upon these facts I entertained no doubt whatever that the Eight-Hour Law. men employed in getting out the granite were the employés of Mr. Ordway, and not employed by, or on behalf of, the Government of United States, and therefore not entitled to the benefit of the act of Congress aforesaid. The letter of General Banks, accompanying your last communication, contained a statement of facts wholly different from this. For instance, General Banks says, "a part of these men were employed by Colonel W. Randall, who was appointed by the United States Government as general superintendent of the work being done near Manchester, Virginia, for the new State Department. Other workmen were engaged by Messrs. William H. Johnson and R. H. Miller, both of whom derived their authority to employ laborers from the Government. He further says the pay-rolls for these men are made out by Colonel Randall, signed by the workmen, and sent by Colonel Randall to the State Department, where they are approved; and they are then returned to Mr. Ordway, who pays the laborers the amounts due them." While I do not question the correctness of the statements of General Banks, I have only to say that no such facts appear in the papers submitted to me with your communication of the 25th ultimo. In your letter of the 16th instant, referring to the letter of General Banks, you are pleased to say: "This Department has no knowledge of the fact stated by General Banks, that William H. Johnson and R. A. Miller employed under authority from the Government some of the men now engaged on the work in question. The names of Johnson and Miller appear on the pay-rolls of the work as foremen, but they stand, as far as the pay-rolls show, in the same relation to Mr. Ordway and the United States Government as do all the other workmen." If my opinion were now asked upon the statement of facts made by General Banks, it would probably be different from the opinion heretofore expressed to you, but, in view of the statement in your last communication, I do not feel at liberty to accept the statements of General Banks's letter as varying the facts set forth in the original and supplemental contract and the bond executed by Mr. Ordway to the United States. The facts of the case seem to be differently understood by General Banks and yourself. This difference I cannot under Commissioners of Centennial Exhibition. take to reconcile, but in giving an opinion for the use of your Department I must be confined to the facts communicated by you. It is not the province of this Department to settle disputed facts, and I cannot undertake to do so in this case. Upon the facts contained in your communications and the original and supplemental contracts and bond, I see no reason to change the opinion expressed to you in my letter of the 2d instant. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. HAMILTON FISH, Secretary of State. COMMISSIONERS OF CENTENNIAL EXHIBITION. The President has power to fill vacancies happening subsequent to March 3, 1872, in the centennial commission created by the act of March 3, 1871, chap. 105, on the nomination of the governors of the States and Territories respectively. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, May 22, 1872. SIR: Your letter of the 13th instant presents this question: Has the President power to fill vacancies, on the nomination of the governors of the States and Territories respectively, which may happen subsequent to the 3d of March, 1872, in the commission appointed in pursuance of the act of Congress providing for an international exhibition of arts, &c., in the city of Philadelphia, approved March 3, 1871 ? I am of opinion that this question must be answered in the affirmative. Although the act does not in terms authorize the President to fill vacancies, it nevertheless provides that the functions of the commission shall continue until the close of the exhibition, and requires that it shall be composed of one delegate from each State and from each Territory of the United States. The 3d section of act, which requires that the commission shall be appointed within one year from its passage, is not to be taken as a limitation upon the power of the Presi |