Sale of Military Reservations. instructions and offered at public sale on the 20th October, 1857. The commissioners in the report of their proceedings state, among other things, "that proclamation was made at . the opening of the sale that no claims, aside from those that had been previously entered, would be allowed, that all persons had full right to bid, that competition was invited by the Government for the lands offered, and that, upon the appearance of combination or of riotous disturbance on the part of the bidders, the lands would be withdrawn and the sale not be permitted to proceed. "That the sale proceeded quietly and without apparent combination until the whole lands so offered were disposed of, at prices varying from one to twenty cents per acre. "That certificates were issued to a portion of the purchasers only; the balance we concluded to withhold until we had made our report, and referred the matter to your consideration for confirmation or otherwise." This report being submitted to the Secretary of War for final action, he annulled and set aside the transaction in consequence of the inadequacy of the price offered for the land, making the following endorsement upon the report: "This sale is annulled and set aside." By the act of March 3, 1819, the Secretary of War was authorized, under the direction of the President, to cause to be sold such military sites as may have been found or become useless for military purposes. It was undoubtedly the contemplation of Congress that when a sale of the public property should be made, it would be for a reasonable and fair price, and not a sacrifice at a nominal sum. It would be the imperative duty of the Secretary to sanction only a fair sale, and a fair sale implies a fair price. A sale of the Fort Ripley reservation being deemed expedient, commissioners were appointed to carry it into effect. They were mere agents or instruments of the Department through whom the Secretary would cause a sale to be made. Their action and the whole proceedings were subject to the approval of the Secretary, and until they were sanctioned by him there was no sale. Upon Compensation of Counsel. report being made to him, it was within his discretion and power to annul and set aside the sale. Until final confirmation by the Secretary, he has a right to set aside the proceedings for any just cause, and no cause could be more just than the gross and manifest inadequacy of the price offered. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. JOHN B. FLOYD, Secretary of War. COMPENSATION OF COUNSEL EMPLOYED BY A DEPARTMENT. 1. The act of February 26, 1853, regulates the amount of compensation payable to counsel, employed by the head of a department, by the agreement between the department and the counsel. 2. In forming his judgment, the head of a department may submit the question to the President, and adopt his opinion as to the proper sum to be allowed. 3. When such a submission is made, and the head of the department offers to pay the sum fixed by the President and no more, he adopts, as his own judgment, the opinion of the President. 4. The matter cannot be reopened by a succeeding head of the department after it has been thus adjudicated by his predecessor. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, March 17, 1859. SIR: From your letter and the accompanying papers in relation to the case of John M. Gregory, it appears that a claim of five thousand dollars was presented by Mr. Gregory for legal service rendered the United States in defence of certain suits in the State courts of Virginia, at the request of the head of the department. This claim being submitted by the Secretary of War to President Pierce, he, on the 21st of January, 1857, returned the claim to the War Department endorsed with his opinion "that the claim was regarded as exorbitant, and that a careful 'examination of the whole case had led him to the conclusion that five hundred dollars would be ample compensation for the services rendered." Compensation of Counsel. On the 3d of February, 1857, the Secretary of War communicated to Mr. Gregory that his claim had been submitted to the President and returned to the Department, and that the allowance of five hundred dollars, authorized by the President, would be paid on presenting an account to the Department, should this settlement be satisfactory. The settlement not being satisfactory to Mr. Gregory, he afterwards presented the claim for five thousand dollars to the present Secretary of War, who has decided that "this case having been adjudicated by a preceding administration, I decline to reopen it." At the request of Mr. Gregory the case is submitted to me for my opinion on two questions: 1st. Who was the proper officer to fix the compensation? 2d. Whether his claim has been acted on and closed? It is properly remarked by Mr. Gregory that I have no power to pass on the question of fact, or to establish the quantum meruit of his services, and the reference is made only upon the points of law involved in the foregoing inquiries. 1st. The act of Congress of February 26, 1853, to regulate the fees and costs to be allowed clerks, marshals, and attorneys of the circuit and district courts of the United States, and for other purposes, (10 Stats. at Large, 162,) provides that there shall be allowed as compensation "for the services of counsel rendered at the request of the head of a department, such sum as may be stipulated or agreed on." The head of a department requesting the service, of course, is the proper person to stipulate or agree upon the sum to be paid. But in forming his judgment the head of a department may submit the question to the President and adopt his opinion as to the proper sum to be allowed. This submission was made in the present case, and that the President's opinion was adopted by the Secretary of War as his own judgment is manifest by the Secretary's letter offering to pay the sum fixed by the President, and no more. Whether Mr. Gregory was or was not allowed as much as he deserved for his services, I am of opinion Compensation of Marshals. that the sum was fixed in a proper manner and by the proper person. 2d. The communication of the Secretary of War of the 3d of February to Mr. Gregory was, in my judgment, an adjudication of the claim in conformity with the President's opinion, by the head of the department. The claim therefore has been acted on and closed. Very respectfully, yours, &c., Hon. JOHN B. FLOYD, Secretary of War. J. S. BLACK. COMPENSATION OF MARSHALS UNDER ACTS PROHIBITING THE SLAVE TRADE. 1. The President may make such regulations as he deems expedient for the keeping, support, and removal of negroes captured and delivered to a marshal of the United States, under the act of March 3, 1819, to prohibit the slave trade. 2. He may allow compensation to the marshal for the duties required him beyond his commissions for disbursements, and such compensation is payable out of any appropriations to carry the act into effect. 3. The marshal's accounts are not required to be certified by a judge under the act of August 16, 1856, nor to be taxed under the act of August 31, 1852, but should be certified and taxed in accordance with such regulations as the President may deem expedient for their authentication. 4. The compensation is to be made in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the President for the safe-keeping, support, and removal of the negroes, and not by analogy to any fees prescribed by the act of February 18, 1853. 5. The judiciary fund is not applicable to such charges, and they can only be paid out of a special appropriation by Congress for the purpose of carrying into effect the act to prohibit the slave trade. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, SIR: From your letter of the 25th February, 1859, and accompanying papers, it appears that under the provisions of the acts prohibiting the slave trade, three hundred and six Africans, cargo of the brig Echo, captured by the United States brig Dolphin, were delivered to the Compensation of Marshals. custody of the United States marshal for the district of South Carolina, that for the expenses incurred by the marshal on account of the Africans while in his custody, for their safe-keeping, support, removal from the State, there has been paid out of the judiciary fund under the provision of the eleventh section of the act of August 31, 1852, (10 Stats. at Large, 99,) the sum of $2,497.57. The marshal now presents a further claim for seven thousand six hundred and fifty dollars "for receiving, custody, and care of three hundred and six Africans, cargo of the brig Echo, captured by the United States brig Dolphin, Lieutenant J. N. Maffitt commanding, at the same rate allowed to the sheriffs of the State of South Carolina, for similar service, viz: twenty-five dollars for each negro received," and upon that claim the following questions are submitted by you for my opinion. 1. Does the law authorize compensation to be paid to a marshal for services rendered under the special acts of Congress for the suppression of the slave trade, beyond commissions to which he is entitled for disbursements? 2. If it does, must such accounts be certified by a judge under the first section of the act of August 16, 1856, as in other cases, or must they be specially taxed and approved by the President, under the eleventh section of the act of 31st August, 1852? (10 Stats. at Large, 99.) 3. At what rate is compensation to be made? Is it to be made by analogy to any fees prescribed by the act of February 26, 1853; and if to any, which? or those allowed to sheriffs for similar services by the law of the State in which the same is rendered? 4. Can such charges, in any event, be paid out of the judiciary fund? Must they not be paid out of an appropriation specially made by Congress for that purpose? The negroes taken into the port of Charleston by the United States brig Dolphin, were captured under the first section of the act of March 3, 1819, to prohibit the slave trade, (3 Stats. at Large, 532, 533,) and that act required them, when taken into port, to be delivered to the marshal |