Claim of William P. Adair. SUITS AND PROSECUTIONS FOR FRAUDS. Section 3 of the act of March 2, 1863, chap. 67, to prevent and punish frauds upon the Government, contemplates two proceedings, one civil and the other criminal; of which the former is subject to the limitation prescribed by the 7th section of that act, and the latter to that prescribed by the 32d section of the act of April 30, 1790, chap. 9. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, June 7, 1872. SIR The object of your communication of the 22d of April last, touching the "Booker" case, as I understand it, is to obtain the expression of an opinion from this Department as to the law of limitation applicable to suits and prosecutions against persons not in the military or naval forces under the act of March 2, 1863, (12 Stat., 696.) The 3d section of that statute provided for a suit for for. feiture and damages against any such person who shall commit any of the acts prohibited, and declares that, in addition thereto, he shall, on conviction in any court of competent jurisdiction, be punished by fine or imprisonment. Here are two proceedings contemplated, the one civil and the other criminal. The former (the suit for the recovery of the forfeiture and damages) falls under the limitation prescribed by the 7th section of the same statute; but the latter (the prosecution for enforcing the punishment by fine or imprisonment) is, I think, governed by the limitation imposed by the 32d section of the act of April 30, 1790, (1 Stat., 119.) I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. Wм. W. BELKNAP, Secretary of War. CLAIM OF WILLIAM P. ADAIR. The Attorney-General is not authorized to give an official opinion upon a question involving the estimation of the weight and credibility of testimony offered in support of a claim; this being mere matter of fact, which appropriately belongs to the officers charged with the adjustment and settlement of the claim to determine. Claim of William P. Adair. A claim for money expended in defraying the expenses of a delegation of Cherokees visiting the Capital by authority of the Government, in the year 1870, may be allowed out of the appropriation made by the resolution of July 13, 1870, [No. 110.] DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, June 18, 1872. SIR: Your communication of the 7th instant, covering a copy of the report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and other papers, in relation to the claim of William P. Adair, for re-imbursement of $1,734.50, alleged to have been advanced by him to a delegation of North Carolina Cherokees during their visit in Washington. propounds the following questions: "First. Are the proofs contained in the papers sufficient to warrant the Department in an approval of the claim? "Second. If so, can the amount legally be paid out of the funds appropriated under joint resolution of Congress approved July 13, 1870, entitled 'A resolution to pay expenses of Indians visiting the city of Washington ?" The first of the foregoing questions seems to involve the consideration, not properly of any matter of law connected with the case referred to, on which alone would it be within my province to give advice, but rather of mere matter of fact, namely, the weight and credibility of the evidence offered in support of the claim, to estimate which it appropriately belongs to the officers charged with the adjustment and settlement of such claims. This being the character of the question, I do not feel authorized to give an official opinion thereon, and I express none. With regard to the other question, if the claim is for money expended in defraying the expenses of a delegation of Cherokees visiting Washington, in the year 1870, by authority of the United States, and is correct, (none of which facts do I undertake to determine,) it may, in my judgment, be paid out of the appropriation made by the resolution mentioned, (16 Stat., 387;) providing, of course, there are funds of that appropriation still available. In arriving at this conclusion I have not overlooked the provision of the act of March 3, 1871, authorizing the Secretary of the Interior "to defray the expenses of delegations of Indians visiting the city of Washington, &c., subsequent to the first day of January, Mail-Transportation. 1871, &c., out of the amount remaining unexpended on the 31st day of December, 1870," of the said appropriation. (See 16 Stat., 588.) The papers received with your communication are herewith returned. I have the honor to be, &c., B. H. BRISTOW, Solicitor-General and Acting Attorney-General. Hon. C. DELANO, Secretary of the Interior.) MAIL TRANSPORTATION. The 18th section of the act of March 3, 1845, chap. 43, makes it the duty of the Postmaster-General, in every case, to let contracts for mail-service to the lowest bidder offering a sufficient guarantee for the performance of the same. But the statute is to receive a reasonable construction; and inasmuch as payment of a less amount than one cent cannot, practically, be made by the Government, that constitutes the lowest amount at which a bid can be entertained by the Postmaster-General. Accordingly, as between two bidders for carrying the mail over a particlar route for a certain period, one of whom offered to perform the service for one-fourth of a cent and the other for one cent: Held that the latter is the only bid of the two which is entitled to acceptance. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, July 6, 1872. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of the 21st ultimo, from which it appears that among other bids, not necessary to notice, the following were made for mail-service from July 1, 1872, to July 1, 1876, on route 3005, from Uniontown to Washington, to wit: Brimmer, it seems, was the person to whom the contract for the preceding four years' service on this route was awarded; but Newton represents that he has carried the mail during that time over said route, under a purchase from Brimmer, and that he would sustain great loss now if the contract for the ensuing four years is denied to him. Mail-Transportation. You submit for my opinion as to whether or not the bid of one cent and each of those for a quarter of one cent can be treated as of the same value, and whether or not your Department is at liberty, if in its judgment advisable, to award the contract to the former contractor. Section 18 of the act of March 3, 1845, (5 Stat., 738,) makes it the duty of the Postmaster-General "in all lettings of contract for mail transportation to let the same in every case to the lowest bidder tendering sufficient guarantee for the faithful performance," &c. Literally, as between Newton and Brimmer, Brimmer is the lowest bidder, but the statute referred to must receive a reasonable and practical construction. When the circumstances are such that one-fourth of one cent can be multiplied in a computation for payment, the difference between the two bids would be of consequence; but Brimmer proposes to do a certain quantity of work for the specific amount of one-fourth of one cent, with a right, of course, to call for payment when the work is performed. There is no denomination of money with which such a payment can be made, and after a quarter's services, and the refusal or inability of the Government to pay for them on demand, Brimmer might, upon that ground, claim the right to abandon the contract. Necessarily, there must be a limitation upon the descending scale of bids, and if it be not one cent, the lowest and least valuable form of money in circulation, then it may be a mill or one-half of a mill, and so on ad infinitum. My opinion is that one cent is the lowest bid that can be recognized, and that the Government is not bound to enter into a contract which it cannot perform. Newton's bid, in my judgment, is the only valid bid of the three mentioned, and the contract ought to be awarded to him. De minimis non curat lex is a familiar maxim of law, applicable to the question in this case. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. JNO. A. J. CRESWELL, Postmaster-General. Printed Drawings of Patents. PRINTING DRAWINGS OF PATENTS. By act of March 3, 1871, chap. 113, an appropriation was made to meet (inter alia) the expense of publishing specifications and drawings required by the Patent-Office during the year ending June 30, 1872; the appropriation was to be disbursed by the Superintendent of Public Printing, under whose direction the execution of the work mentioned was then placed; but by the act of March 24, 1871, chap. 5, the Joint Committee of Congress on Printing was authorized to transfer the direction of the work to the Commissioner of Patents, should it be deemed expedient to do so, and on the 16th of June, 1872, such transfer was made: Held that, notwithstanding the transfer of the direction of the work, the appropriation was still applicable to the payment of expenses incurred in its prosecution, and might therefore be employed by the Superintendent of Public Printing in payment of work done under the direction of the Commissioner of Patents; yet held, also, that under section 5 of the act of July 12, 1870, chap. 251, the appropriation having been made specifically for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1872, was only applicable to expenses incurred during that year, or to the fulfillment of contracts made within the same period. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, July 13, 1872. Your letter of the 8th instant referred to me a communication addressed to you by the Acting Commissioner of Patents, Mr. Thacher, suggesting a question in regard to the printing of the specifications and drawings of patents. The case presented by the Acting Commissioner is substantially this: By the act of March 3, 1871, providing for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1872, the sum of $91,000 was appropriated for the "lithographing, engraving, mapping copies of maps, plans, and diagrams in fac simile on tracing-linen." (16 Stat., 478.) This appropriation was to be disbursed by the Superintendent of Public Printing, and was designed to meet expenses incurred for publishing specifications and drawings required by the Patent-Office under the provisions of the joint resolution of January 11, 1871, (16 Stat., 590,) as well as for lithographing, engraving, &c., required by other Departments of the public service. The execution of the work for the Patent Office, by the |