Postmaster at New Orleans. For all I can see, this last is the extent to which you can make this exception applicable. In the same act of June the 22d, 1854, it is provided that where any distributing postmaster shall fail to receive enough to defray the necessary expenses of his office and afford the compensation to which he is entitled from commissions, it may be made up by a quarterly allowance out of the postages. provision is wholly independent of the other. In allowing the postmaster at New Orleans to receive the full amount of his regular commissions such as he would be entitled to, if no extra allowance had ever been made, you are not increasing nor diminishing the special allowance given to him by the act of 1825. The general rule of interpretation is that exceptions and provisos must be confined to the purpose of qualifying and explaining those parts of the law with which they stand connected, and are not to be regarded as affecting other general provisions of the same law with which they do not come in juxtaposition. I am of opinion, therefore, that the postmaster at New Orleans has a fair right to demand an allowance out of the postages of his office sufficient to make up his compensation and expenses, and that you should literally obey that other part of the law which forbids you to increase or diminish his special allowance. I am, very respectfully, &c., J. S. BLACK, C Hon. A. V. BROWN, Postmaster General. Extra Compensation. EXTRA COMPENSATION. A Commodore's Secretary cannot lawfully receive any extra allowance or compensation, in any form whatever, for any service which it is possible for him to render either within the line of his duty, or outside of it. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, November 10, 1858. SIR: It appears from your letter of the 5th instant, and the papers by which it is accompanied, that Mr. Henry La Reintrie in the year 1848 was on board the Independence, the flag ship of the Pacific squadron. He was rated on the books of the vessel as Commodore's Secretary, and for the services he performed in that capacity, he was entitled to receive, and did receive, the pay fixed by law and the regulations. He could not, therefore, receive any extra allowance or compensation in any form whatever for any service which it was possible for him to render, either within the line of his duty or outside of it, without a plain violation of the act of 1842. On this subject my advice was asked by, and given to, the Secretary of the Interior on the 17th of October, 1857, and I adhere to the construction of the statute which I then, after careful consideration, thought the true one. During the time Mr. La Reintrie was acting as Commodore's Secretary he was employed as interpreter of Spanish and French, for which service outside of his duty as secretary, the commodore considered him entitled to the sum of $1,550, and approved of his account against the Government for that amount. The purser of the vessel paid it upon being ordered a second time by the commodore to do so, but he failed to get it allowed by the Fourth Auditor when he came to settle his accounts. It stands now disallowed on the books of the Treasury Department, and charged, it would seem, to Commodore Shubrick. It is impossible for me to give you any advice under which you can lawfully relieve the commodore from the obligation of refunding it. Of course his order upon the purser to Jackson's Case. pay it was made in perfect good faith, and under the conviction that it was legal as well as just. I take the statements contained in his letter to the Fourth Auditor, every word of them, for absolute verity, and I have permitted all the considerations he mentions there to have their due weight. Commodore Shubrick did collect a large amount of money upon the Pacific coast; Mr. La Reintrie's services as interpreter were necessary to him; the commodore might have evaded the law which prohibits this payment, if he had thought proper to do so; and the Govern+ ment probably has gained largely by the whole transaction. These are reasons which would appeal powerfully to Congress, who can make and unmake the law at its pleasure. But the natural and abstract justice of a claim is not a reason why the executive should pay it in defiance of law which forbids it. After giving this very decided opinion against the legal right of the Navy Department and the accounting officers to make the allowance, I cannot close without expressing the hope that relief will be afforded to Commodore Shubrick in some other form. I am, very respectfully, &c., Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY, Secretary of the Navy. J. S. BLACK. JACKSON'S CASE. A public minister, who was at home at the time of his recall, and who was paid his salary down to the date of his recall, is not entitled, in addition, to compensation for such further time as would be necessarily spent in coming home from the seat of his mission. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, SIR: Mr. Jackson, our late minister to Austria, returned home on leave of absence, and was in this country several months before his recall took effect. He was paid his salary down to the date of his recall, and the question you Jackson's Case. propound to me, is whether he is entitled also to compensation for such further time as would be necessarily spent in coming home from Vienna. The law authorizes the continuance of his salary during the time actually and necessarily employed in the transit from the post of his duty to his residence in the United States. Mr. Jackson, according to your statement, received his salary during the time he was actually occupied in coming home, and for some time after he arrived at home. If he were now paid for thirty days more, it must be not for time actually, but constructively spent in traveling. I find it impossible to see the correctness of any construction which will authorize such a payment. If he had been recalled before his return, his salary would have stopped at the instant of his arrival. The effect of the leave of absence was to give him a larger compensation than he would otherwise have received. There may be some hardship in recalling a minister who is at home on leave, and who has left the post of his duty expecting to return to it, because it may involve the necessity of submitting to a sacrifice, or else of going back at his own expense to settle his affairs; and in this aspect of the case, Mr. Jackson's claim has much equity to commend it. But hard cases make bad precedents. The other case presented by you in the same letter is that of a minister who was at his post when he received his recall, but who has not yet returned to the United States. You ask if the journey home must be actually made in order to entitle him to an allowance? The law says that he is to be paid for the time actually as well as necessarily occupied in making the transit home. There is no such thing under this law as payment for constructive traveling. Very respectfully, yours, &c., Hon. LEWIS CASS. Secretary of State. J. S. BLACK. Cession of Jurisdiction by States. OFFICIAL BONDS. When the legal effect of an official bond is questionable, it should be rejected. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, December 7, 1858. SIR: I have received yours of the 2d, enclosing the official bond of Paymaster Robert H. Chilton, and requesting my opinion whether it is sufficient. The names of the sureties are not inserted in the body of the writing, and it is without date. While it is possible that these omissions may not invalidate the instrument, I will suggest that the officer should be required to file one less exceptionable in form. The defective preparation or execution of such securities tends to produce delay and useless litigation in asserting the just claims of the Government. When the legal effect of an official bond is questionable, that circumstance alone is sufficient reason for its rejection. Yours, very respectfully, J. S. BLACK. Hon. JOHN B. FLOYD, Secretary of War. CESSION OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION BY STATES. An act of the legislature of a State which gives a complete and unequivocal consent to the purchase of land therein by the United States for the erection of needful public buildings, is such a cession of jurisdiction as is contemplated by the joint resolution of September 11, 1841. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, SIR: The Legislature of South Carolina, on the 21st day of December, 1857, passed an act entitled "An act to authorize the United States to purchase a sufficient quantity of land in the city of Columbia for the erection of a post office and a court-house." It provides "that the United States, or such person or persons as may be by them |