Investment of Wyandot and Delaware Funds. of money of which he was robbed, and the expenses of the widow and family in returning to their home in Michigan." Shall the whole sum of two thousand dollars be paid to the widow, or is it proper to deduct therefrom the amount coming to Mr. Gay as salary at the time of his death? Undoubtedly she is entitled to the whole of it; Congress has given her no less. The proposition that she ought to receive what Congress says she shall have is so plain that it is almost as difficult to argue for it as against it. But when the accounts come to be settled, if it turns out that he was a defaulter, his sureties will be bound for any balance due from him at the time of his death, and this balance will be diminished by the amount of his undrawn salary. In other words, the sureties will not be liable for more than what he owed after deducting his salary from the money in his hands. The right to this deduction is one which Congress could not take away; but Congress could allow it to be paid to the widow, and have done so. This may result in a loss to the United States of about $600; but Congress is responsible for it, not you. The executive must obey the legislative will without question. I am, with great respect, yours, &c., Hon. JACOB THOMPSON, Secretary of the Interior. J. S. BLACK. INVESTMENT OF WYANDOT AND DELAWARE FUNDS. 1. The treaty with the Wyandots requires that certain funds of that tribe shall be invested in United States stock, and the act of 1841 contains the same command. 2. The funds of the Wyandots can, therefore, not be invested otherwise than in stock of the United States, though the high price which that stock commands in the market may justify the Secretary of the Interior in not making any investment at all for the present. 3. The treaty with the Delawares requires the investment to be made "in safe and profitable stocks." Any stocks which come up to this description may be taken for them. Investment of Wyandot and Delaware Funds. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, June 10, 1857. SIR: The act of 1841 (5 Stat. at Large, 465) commanded that all funds held in trust by the United States should be invested in stocks of the United States, unless otherwise required by treaty. By the treaty of 1852 with the Wyandots, the United States agreed to invest $100,000 in United States stocks for the use of that tribe. This is a clear point; the treaty and the general act of Congress upon the subject both require that the investment shall be made in the same stocks. If the treaty had been silent, the law would have been sufficient of itself to make your duty plain. It seems that United States stocks command so high a premium in the market that an investment in them cannot profitably be made. Under these circumstances I do not think you are bound to do it. If a literal compliance with the treaty would result in a loss to the Indians, they cannot complain of its non-fulfilment. While, however, the high price of these stocks is a sufficient reason for making no investment at all, it would not excuse you for making a different investment, unauthorized by the treaty and impliedly forbidden by law. But the treaties more recently made (for instance, the last one with the Delawares) require the investment to be made "in safe and profitable stocks." Under such a provision you are not confined to stocks of the United States, which, though safe, are not profitable. You can make the investment in any stocks that come within the description of the treaty. I am, most respectfully, yours, &c., Hon. JACOB THOMPSON, J. S. BLACK. Secretary of the Interior. Smithsonian Institution. SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION. 1. The objects of natural history belonging to the Government are to be placed in the Smithsonian Institution. 2. Implied repeals are not to be favored. 3. An earlier law is never to be taken as repealed by a later without words to that effect, unless they be so inconsistent that both cannot stand together. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, June 10, 1857. SIR: The act of 26th August, 1842, (5 Stat. at Large, 534,) commands the objects of natural history belonging to the Government to be kept and arranged in the Patent Office "until other provision be made by law for their safekeeping and arrangement." Other provision was made by law on the 10th of August, 1846. By an act of Congress approved on that day (9 Stat. at Large, 105) it was directed that they should go to the building of the "Smithsonian Institution," as soon as suitable arrangements could be made to receive them. Next in chronological order we have the act of 4th August, 1854, (10 Stat. at Large, 572,) which puts the collections of the exploring expedition, at that time in the Patent Office, under the care and management of the Commissioner, and authorizes him to appoint a principal keeper of them, at an annual salary of nine hundred dollars. Lastly comes an appropriation on the 3d of March last, of fifteen thousand dollars, for suitable cases to receive these collections, and two thousand dollars for the transfer and permanent arrangement of them, without saying where the cases shall be put up, or in whose custody the collections shall remain. One thing is extremely clear. The appropriation is to be expended in erecting cases at the building of the Smithsonian Institution, if that be the place where the law requires the collections to be kept. There is no pretence for saying they are to be kept elsewhere, if the act of 1846 Smithsonian Institution. be still in force. That act is in force, unless it was repealed by the act of 1854. The latter act does not expressly repeal the former. Is it a constructive or implied repeal? In answering this question, it must be carefully recollected that implied repeals are never to be favored. It is so easy for the legislature, in making one law, to say that another law on the same subject is repealed, and when it is meant, it is so likely to be said, that we never presume it when it is not said, unless the two laws are in such palpable conflict that both cannot be executed. When different statutes give to different persons privileges or powers which cannot subsist together, the latter grant must of necessity be construed as a withdrawal of the earlier one. But in order to justify such a construction, it must appear to be a case of flat repugnancy or of irreconcilable inconsistency. For a further exposition of this rule and the authorities which support it, I refer you to the case of Brown v. the Commissioners of Philadelphia county, decided by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and reported in 9 Harris, 37. To me it seems easy enough to reconcile these two laws and make them stand together very well. The one was a permanent arrangement, which was not to take effect for some years; the other was a temporary disposal of the same subject in the meantime. Regarding them in this light, they can both be executed. I believe, therefore, that "all objects of art, and of foreign and curious research, and all objects of natural his tory, plants, and geological and, mineral specimens," which belong to the United States, and which are anywhere in the city of Washington, including those collected by the exploring expedition, should go to the building of the Smithsonian Institution "as soon as suitable arrangements can be made for their reception," and that the appropria tion for cases to receive them, as well as that for the transfer and permanent arrangement of them, should be expended in such manner as will best carry out the true Donation to Cherokee Indians. meaning and intent of Congress in passing the act of 1846. I am, very respectfully, yours, &c., Hon. JACOB THOMPSON, Secretary of the Interior. J. S. BLACK. DONATION TO CHEROKEE INDIANS. Where a certain class of Indians are entitled to a certain sum per head, but the appropriation is not large enough to pay all of them, it must be divided pro rata. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, June 10, 1857. SIR: A treaty with the Cherokees provided that certain money should be equally divided among all the people of that nation east of the Mississippi, according to a census. The division was made agreeably to the census, giving to each individual $92 82; but it afterwards appeared that some Cherokees had been omitted from the census roll, and had consequently received nothing. To remedy this error Congress ordered the department to ascertain the number of persons omitted, and pay each of them as much as had been received by one of those included in the previous division. Five thousand dollars were appropriated to make the payment. The number was ascertained to be eighty-eight. The result of all this has been to require a payment of $92 82 a head to eighty-eight persons, and to give you an appropriation of only $5,000 to make that payment with. It is manifest that under these circumstances you must do one of these things: (1,) divide the $5,000 equally among all the persons entitled, which will give each one a little less than $57; (2,) pay the full sum of $92 82 per head to as many of the eighty-eight Cherokees as you can with the fund, and leave the rest unpaid altogether; or, (3,) |