Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

1253. Witness accepting bribe.-Whoever, being, or about to be, a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court or any officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, shall receive, or agree or offer to receive, a bribe, upon any agreement or understanding that his testimony shall be influenced thereby, or that he will absent himself from the trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or because of such testimony, or such absence, shall be fined not more than two thousand dollars, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. Sec. 134, id., 1113.

1254. Officer, etc., accepting bribe.-Whoever, being an officer of the United States, or a person acting for or on behalf of the United States, in any official capacity, under or by virtue of the authority of any department or office of the Government thereof; or whoever, being an officer or person acting for or on behalf of either House of Congress, or of any committee of either House, or of both Houses thereof, shall ask, accept, or receive any money, or any contract, promise, undertaking, obligation, gratuity, or security for the payment of money, or for the delivery or conveyance of anything of value, with intent to have his decision or action on any question, matter, cause, or proceeding which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before him in his official capacity, or in his place of trust or profit, influenced thereby, shall be fined not more than three times the amount of money or value of the thing so asked, accepted, or received, and imprisoned not more than three years; and shall, moreover, forfeit his office or place and thereafter be forever disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the Government of the United States. Sec. 117, id.,

1109.

'This section is taken from sections 5500, 5501, and 5502, Revised Statutes, which are repealed.

An agreement to use personal influence with a Government agent in order to procure a Government contract is void. So where plaintiff, being consul general of the Turkish Government, agreed with defendant to use his personal influence with a special agent of the Turkish Goverment to procure contracts between that Government and defendant, and did use such influence with success, it was held that plaintiff could maintain no action for his services in procuring such contracts. (Oscanyan v. Arms Company, 13 Otto, 261.)

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

ACQUISITION 1 AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

1255. Power to acquire and dispose of the property of the United States vested in Congress.-The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. Constitition, Art. IV, sec. 3.

2

'The acquisition of property on behalf of the United States, unless the same be authorized by law, is prohibited by sections 3732 and 3736 Revised Statutes. (See paragraphs 1190 and 1192, ante, under chapter entitled Contracts and purchases.)

* This fundamental rule of our public law is expressed by Attorney-General Hoar (13 Opins., 46) as follows: "I am clearly of opinion that the Secretary of War can not convey to any person any interest in land belonging to the United States, except in pursuance of an act of Cogress expressly or impliedly authorizing him to do so." (And see U. S. v. Nichols, 1 Paine, 646 (cited post); Seabury v. Field, McAllister, 1; U. S. v. Hare, 4 Sawyer, 653, 669.)

[ocr errors]

See Friedman v. Goodwin (1 McAllister, 148), where a lease made by the post commander at San Francisco, of a part of a government reserve," though approved by the military governor of the then Territory, and also by the Secretary of the Interior, was held void because not authorized by Congress. The court declares the "utter impotency of any attempt by an officer of the Government to alien any land, the property of the United States, without the authority of an act of Congress;" adding that "the President, with the heads of the Departments combined," could not effect such an object. (And see 4 Opins. Atty. Gen., 480; 9 id., 476; 13 id., 46; U. S. v. Hare, 4 Sawyer, 670-671.) In the last case the court say: The Secretary of the Treasury can not execute or approve of a lease of any property belonging to the United States without special authority of law."

66

The leading case on this point is United States v. Nichols (1 Paine, U. S. Circ. Ct. R., 646), in which it was held that a sale or loan, by the commandant of an arsenal, of a quantity of lead belonging to the United States, was illegal and invalid. The court say: "The Constitution declares that 'Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.' No public property can therefore be disposed of without the authority of law, either by an express act of Congress for that purpose, or by giving the authority to some Department or subordinate agent. No law has been shown authorizing the sale of this lead; nor is any such authority to be inferred from the general

PERSONAL PROPERTY.

1256. Charges for failure to account therefor to be certified to the accounting officers.-That instead of forwarding to the accounting officers of the Treasury Department returns of public property intrusted to the possession of officers or agents, the QuartermasterGeneral, the Commissary-General of Subsistence, the Surgeon-General, the Chief of Engineers, the Chief of Ordnance, the Chief Signal Officer, the Paymaster-General of the Navy, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, or other like chief officers in any Department, by, through, or under whom stores, supplies, and other public property are received for distribution, or whose duty it is to receive or examine returns of such property, shall certify to the proper accounting officer of the Treasury Department, for debiting on the proper account, any charge against any officer or agent intrusted with public property, arising from any loss, accruing by his fault, to the Government as to the property so intrusted to him.1 Sec. 1, Act of Mar. 29, 1894 (28 Stat. 47).

power vested in any of the Departments of the Government. The power, if lodged anywhere, would seem most appropriately to belong to the War Department. But there is no such express or implied power in that Department to sell the public property put under its management." And see the same principle recognized in an opinion of the Attorney-General (in 16 Opins., 477), in which it is held that the Secretary of War was not empowered to sell arms to a State in the absence of authority from Congress.

See Dig. Opin. J. A. G., pp. 901-906, edition 1912, for further and extended discussion of this subject.

The effect of the above statute was to divest the Auditor of the jurisdiction theretofore possessed by him over the property accounts and transactions of officers of the Navy (and War) Department, and to relieve him of all responsibility in relation to the disposition of property intrusted to said officers, except in cases where the officer "whose duty it is to receive or examine returns of such property shall certify to the proper accounting officer of the Treasury Department (the Auditor), for debiting on the proper account any charge against any officer or agent intrusted with public property, arising from any loss, accruing by his fault, to the Government as to the property so intrusted to him."

Under this act the duty and responsibility of determining questions relating to the correct disposition or loss of property in the Marine Corps have been transferred to and vested in the proper officer of the Navy Department, and it seems clear that the Auditor will have no authority over or in relation to the property mentioned in the cash voucher evidencing the purchase of forage under consideration until he has been furnished with a certificate required by section 1 of said act.

Jurisdiction over property accounts can not be given to the Auditor by injecting papers into cash accounts tending to show what disposition has been made of the property. Such evidence may well be excluded from the cash accounts, and the responsibility for determining questions relating to property accountability be left where it belongs, where the law has placed it. (2 Comp. Dec., 264, 267, 268; 4 id., 422.)

In the case of Isaac W. Patrick, Indian agent at the Great Nemaha Agency, upon a suit to recover on his bond for public property alleged to have been unaccounted for, such failure to account having been shown to be due to clerical errors, it was held by the circuit court of appeals for the Eighth circuit, in March, 1896, that "a Government agent is not to be held liable for property still in the possession of the agency and which has never been lost, merely because a careless clerk, appointed by the Government itself to keep the accounts of the agent, has omitted it from the return which he is required to make." (U. S. v. Patrick, 73 Fed. Rep., 800.)

The failure of an Indian agent, through clerical errors, to include in his accounts property which, in fact, remains at the agency, and which is not lost

« AnkstesnisTęsti »