In Aldridge vs. Williams, (3 How., 24,) Chief-Justice Taney, in speaking of an act of Congress, said: "In expounding this law, the judgment of the court cannot in any degree be in fluenced by the construction placed upon it by individual members of Congress in the debate which took place on its passage, nor by the motives or reasons assigned by them for supporting or opposing amendments that were offered. The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both Houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself, and we must gather their intention from the language then used, comparing it, where any ambiguity exists, with the law upon the same subject, and looking, if necessary, to the public history of the times in which it was passed." It will be observed that the learned Chief Justice was speaking of the opinions of individual members of Congress, and not of the committee having the matter in charge.

The Supreme Court, in the case of The United States vs. Lynde, (11 Wall., 632,) examined the report of the Committee on Private Land-Claims in the Senate upon the bill then under consideration, and were evidently influenced by it. Mr. Justice Bradley, in delivering the opinion of the court, said: "After the unsuccessful attempts made in the courts, as last referred to under the Missouri act of 1824, the subject was again brought to the attention of Congress in May, 1858. Mr. Benjamin, who had been counsel for the claimants in the last cases, made a report to the Senate, as chairman of the Com. mittee on Private Land-Claims, and submitted a bill for the relief of the claimants. This report contained a very full history of the treaties and litigation, giving a favorable view of the Spanish side of the question. Suffice it to say, in conse. quence of this report Congress passed the act of June 22, 1860."

There is no intimation in this opinion that there was any impropriety in looking into the report of the committee with a view of ascertaining the meaning of the law in question; but, on the contrary, there is an implied recognition of its propriety. And why not? It is well known that the important legislation of Congress is mainly decided upon in the committee-room, and the unanimous report of the proper committee

Rancho "Los Trigos."'

upon any measure is almost invariably a sure indication of its passage.

In the case now under consideration, I am of opinion that it is proper to look into the report of the committee accompanying the bill, for the purpose of aiding in giving construction to the somewhat ambiguous language used; and by so doing I find that the doubt is removed, and that it was intended to authorize the issuing of patents in all cases which had been confirmed by Congress and surveyed and plats filed in the office of the Commissioner of the General Land-Office, and for which no patents had issued before the passage of the act.

I think the same conclusion must be arrived at from the language of the act, viewed in the light of the then existing facts. The five private claims confirmed by the 1st section had not been surveyed or platted, and therefore the latter part of the 2d section, which speaks of claims "which have heretofore been confirmed by acts of Congress and surveyed, and plats of such survey filed in his office as aforesaid, but for which no patents have heretofore been issued," could not apply to them. There was no need of this clause if it was intended to issue patents for them only. Patents were provided by the first clause of the section, and it might have stopped at the words "he shall issue patents for said lands,” and patents for the five claims would have been clearly and explicitly authorized. But the section does not stop here. It contains in addition thereto the following words: "in said Territory which have heretofore been confirmed by acts of Congress and surveyed, and plats of such survey filed in his office as aforesaid, but for which no patents have heretofore been issued." These words mean something. They were not used without some purpose. They are found in the act, and cannot be overlooked or thrust aside as mere surplusage. must be given some intent. What shall it be? Manifestly, to my mind, that patents shall also issue for all other claims which had been theretofore confirmed by Congress and surveyed and platted, and for which patents had not issued.

They

This construction harmonizes with previous legislation on like subjects. (10 Stat., 599; 11 Stat., 374.) It gives force and effect to all the words used, and is in accordance with

Bids for Transporting the Mail.

the clearly-expressed understanding of the committee who reported the bill. I advise its adoption, and that a patent issue for the "Los Trigos" claim.

Very respectfully,

Hon. C. DELANO,

Secretary of the Interior.

W. H. SMITH, Assistant Attorney-General.

I approve of the construction given in the foregoing opiuion to the eighth article of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, (9 Stat., 929,) and also of the act of March 3, 1869, (15 Stat., 342.)

February 25, 1874.

GEO. H. WILLIAMS.

BIDS FOR TRANSPORTING THE MAIL.

A certified check drawn by a bidder, payable to the order of the person who at the time is Postmaster-General, but omitting any reference to his official position, does not meet the requirements of section 253 of the act of June 8, 1872, chap. 335; the official designation should accompany the name.

Where such check is drawn payable to the bidder or a third party, and by him indorsed payable to the order of the Postmaster-General, this is a sufficient compliance with said section.

A single check will not suffice for several persons bidding for distinct

routes.

The substitution of bank-notes or other currency for a certified check, to accompany the bid, is inadmissible.

Quære, where a single certified check, less in amount than is required by the statute, accompanies the bids of one person for two or more routes, whether it may authorize a contract for any one of such routes if it be sufficient in amount for the same taken singly. The Attorney-General inclines to the opinion (differing herein from the view of the SolicitorGeneral) that the Postmaster-General may accept the check and award a contract in such case.

A check in the following form: "Pay to John A. J. Creswell, PostmasterGeneral, or order, nine hundred dollars, provided the bid of A. B. is accepted on route No. -, and he fails to enter into contract for the same; and in case bid is not accepted nor contract is made, check to be returned to drawer:" Held inadmissible, the proviso thereto invalidating it.

Bids for Transporting the Mail.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

February 24, 1874.

SIR: The Attorney-General has referred to me your communication to him of the 17th instant, inclosing a note addressed to yourself by the Second Assistant Postmaster-General asking for an opinion upon certain questions of law therein contained.

I have considered the questions, and herewith submit a reply.

The case, in brief, is as follows: The Postal Code of June 8, 1872, section 253, provides "that hereafter all bidders upon every mail-route for the transportation of mails upon the same, when the annual compensation for the service on such route at the time exceeds the sum of five thousand dollars, shall accompany their bids with a certified check or draft, payable to the order of the Postmaster-General, upon some solvent national bank, which check or draft shall not be less than five per centum on the amount of the annual pay on said route at the time such bid is made, and in case of new service not less than five per centum of the amount of one year's pay proposed in such bid, if the bid exceed five thousand dollars per annum. In case any bidder, on being awarded any such contract, shall fail to execute the same with good and sufficient sureties, according to the terms on which such bid was made and accepted, and enter upon the performance of the service to the satisfaction of the Postmaster-General, such bidder shall forfeit the amount so deposited to the United States, and the same shall forthwith be paid into the Treasury for the use of the Post-Office Department; but if such contract shall be duly executed, and the service entered upon as aforesaid, such draft or check so deposited shall be returned to the bidder."

In the course of recent biddings for postal routes, the following variations from the letter of the above statute, as regards certified checks, have occurred, and have given rise to questions whether such variations are material :

1. The certified check is drawn payable to the order of John A. J. Creswell, omitting any reference to his official position.

Bids for Transporting the Mail.

2. Such check is drawn payable to the bidder or some third person, and by him is indorsed payable to the order of the Postmaster General.

3. A single one of such checks accompanies the bids of several persons bidding for distinct routes.

4. The bid is accompanied with Treasury notes or other currency instead of a check.

5. A single certified check, less in amount than is required by the statute, accompanies the bids of one person for two or more routes; and a question is made, whether, if such check be sufficient in amount for one or more of such routes taken singly, it may authorize a contract for any one of such routes, and, if so, for which.

6. Such check is in form: "Pay to John A. J. Creswell, Postmaster-General, or order, nine hundred (900) dollars, provided the bid of A. B. is accepted on route No.-, and he fails to enter into contract for the same; and in case bid is not accepted nor contract is made, check to be returned to drawer."

7. The check is without an internal-revenue stamp.

In requiring a certified check as above, Congress intended to secure to the United States some reparation for the injury done to the public by the failure specified in the above section.

The method by which it pursues this object is in accordance with the general principles by which accountability for public money is enforced against such officers as are required by their official duty to receive it. The transaction is to show upon its face that the fund is in the custody of, and in one event is to belong to, the United States; that it is the official, and not the private, property of the officer in whose personal keeping it may be found. This will give notice to any indorsee of the draft that it is a trust-fund, and it will require of him to see that it has been transferred to him in accordance with the official duties of the indorser, and so will require the bank upon which it is drawn to see that its proceeds go to the use of the United States.

These guarantees do not exist in the case of a draft made payable to an officer by his proper name alone without allusion to his official character. Such draft may be passed to a