Claims of Colored Soldiers and Sailors, Secretary as trustee under section 2035 of the Revised Statutes. That fund stands upon a different footing. 3. I answer the third question by saying that, as the act closes the bureau, all special machinery in the way of agents or other officers, or of operations peculiar to that institution, ceases to exist. But any peculiar protection afforded to colored soldiers and their representatives, against false personation and other frauds, will continue so far as ordinary administrative machinery can enforce it. 4. If any substantial reason shall occur for resettling cases, as mentioned in the fourth question, I see nothing to prevent it, and, upon the other hand, no reason for such resettling seems to arise merely out of the act first above quoted. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. GEORGE W. MCCRARY, S. F. PHILLIPS, Acting Attorney-General. Secretary of War. CLAIMS OF COLORED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS. The provision in the act of December 15, 1877, chap. 3-viz, that "said bureau shall be closed"—is to be understood as allowing a reasonable time therefor after January 1, 1879. The expenses incident to such work may be defrayed from the appropriation in the act of June 20, 1878, chap. 359. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: In reply to yours of this day, referring to the act of December 15, 1877, which has formed the subject of a communication just addressed by me to you, I submit that in directing the bureau to be closed Congress is to be understood as intending to allow a reasonable period for effecting such operation, provided that what shall be done after the first of January next is confined bona fide to closing up the bureau, of which you will judge. I am of opinion that the statute admits of it. An instantaneous compliance with such com mands is rarely meant when not expressed. As for the expenses incident to such work, it seems that the appropriation made by the act above referred to is not Union Pacific Railroad Company-Net Earnings. available, as that was limited to the year ending June 30, 1878. I see no reason why the corresponding appropriation of the act of June 20, 1878 (20 Stat., 222), may not be so applied. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. GEORGE W. MCCRARY, S. F. PHILLIPS, Acting Attorney-General. Secretary of War. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY-NET EARNINGS. Interest on the bonds issued by the Union Pacific Railroad Company under the act of February 24, 1871, chap. 67, commonly known as the "Omaha bridge bonds," is not to be deducted from the gross earnings of that company in ascertaining its net earnings. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, January 7, 1879. SIR: Your letter of the 27th ultimo inquires whether the interest on the bonds issued by the Union Pacific Railroad Company under the act of February 24, 1871 (which are commonly known as the "Omaha bridge bonds"), is to be deducted from the gross earnings of the company in ascertaining its net earnings. It has always been held by the Attorney-General's Office that the net earnings mentioned in the Union Pacific Railroad act of 1862 were to be ascertained by deducting from the gross amount of the earnings of the railroad companies respectively contemplated by that act the necessary expenses paid within the year in operating the road, and those for keeping the same in a state of repair; that, therefore, no sums which were paid by the railroads in discharge either of their debts or of interest upon their debts, of any character, were properly to be deducted from the gross earnings in ascertaining the net earnings, 5 per cent. of which were to be paid to the United States. The act of May, 1878, prescribes a rule for the railroads more favorable than this, and necessarily takes effect in all computations of such earnings subsequent to the 30th of June, Union Pacific Railroad Company-Net Earnings. 1878, when it was to go into operation. This definition of net earnings allows the sums paid in discharge of interest by these railroads upon their first-mortgage bonds to be deducted from the gross earnings previous to ascertaining the net earnings, and this apparently upon the ground that the lien for the payment of these bonds had priority over the lien of the United States. The same act, however, directs that all sums owing or paid by said company respectively as interest upon any other portion of their idebtedness shall be excluded from consideration in ascertaining the net earnings. This leaves the only question to be decided, whether or not the Omaha bridge bonds are first-mortgage bonds within the meaning of the statute. They cannot properly be so considered. They were issued for a particular and important purpose-the construction of a bridge across the Missouri River at Omaha, Nebr., and Council Bluffs, Iowa-under the statute of February 24, 1871, passed long subsequently to the act allowing the issuance of the first-mortgage bonds, the lien of which was to have a priority over that of the United States. While the Omaha bridge is undoubtedly a part of the Union Pacific Railroad (Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Hall, 91 U. S., 343), yet the bonds are of a class readily distinguishable from the first-mortgage bonds, and come properly within the words of the statute which refer to the other indebtedness of the railroad. The exact position of these bonds, and whether they have or not a lien superior to that of the United States upon a specific portion of the road, it is not necessary now to discuss. It is sufficient to hold (as it must, I think, be held) that they are not the first-mortgage bonds described in the statute of 1878. The preamble to the statute recites: "Whereas said corporation has issued and disposed of an amount of its own bonds equal to the amounts so issued to it by the United States as aforesaid, and secured the same by mortgage, and which are, if lawfully issued and disposed of, a prior and paramount lien, in the respect mentioned in said acts, to that of the United States," &c. And the first section refers to the first mortgage bonds thus described. To this class the Omaha bridge bonds cannot be considered as belonging, and therefore the interest on these Property Lost in the Military Service. bonds should not be deducted from the gross earnings of the Union Pacific Railroad Company in ascertaining its net earnings. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, Hon. CARL SCHURZ, Secretary of the Interior. CHAS. DEVENS. NOTE.-See, in connection with the foregoing opinion, the case of Union Pacific Railroad Company v. United States, 99 U. S. Rep., 402. PROPERTY LOST IN THE MILITARY SERVICE. A vessel was chartered by the Quartermaster's Department at New York October 17, 1861, for a voyage of fifteen days, at a certain sum for the voyage, and a certain per diem for detention of the vessel beyond that period. The owner covenanted to keep the vessel seaworthy, and to victual, man, coal, and furnish her for the voyage; but the charter was silent with respect to the risks of the voyage. The vessel was to be laden with such cargo as might be desired by the Government officer, and as soon as her cargo was on board she was to proceed direct to Old Point Comfort, and be placed under the orders of the quartermaster there as to her future destination, and on arrival at her final destination she was to deliver her cargo and then return to New York. The vessel having arrived with a cargo at O d Point Comfort, and reported to the quartermaster at that port, by orders from the Quartermaster's Department joined the transport division of the military and naval expedition there organizing against Port Royal, S. C. The expedition put to sea October 29, 1861, and on November 3, 1861, the vessel was lost in a storm without fault or negligence on the part of her owner. The vessel was, while with the expedition, under the absolute control of the officers of the expedition as respects her course and rate of speed. Held (1) that the vessel was, by her charter, in the military service of the United States within the meaning of section 3483 Rev. Stat.; (2) that the owner not having expressly agreed to incur the risks of the voyage, the case does not fall within the exception contained in that section. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: It is stated in your letter of the 30th of November last (the receipt of which, with the accompanying papers, I have the honor to acknowledge) that the steamship Peerless was lost at sea in the autumn of 1861. Previously to her loss she had sailed from New York laden with a cargo belonging Property Lost in the Military Service. to the United States, under a charter party executed by agents respectively of the United States and her owner, and at the time of her loss she was sailing under orders of United States officers. The questions to which you desire me to address myself are these: First. Was the Peerless by the charter party put into the military service of the United States within the meaning of section 3483 Revised Statutes? and, if so, Second. Did the owner of the vessel assume the risk to which she would be exposed so as to bring him within the excepting clause of the statute? Third. If the boat was not in the military service by virtue of the contract, was she so by impressment? I quote so much of the section referred to as is applicable to the case: "Every person whose steamboat or other vessel is lost by unavoidable accident while such property is in the military service, either by impressment or contract, shall be allowed and paid the value thereof at the time such property was taken into the service, except in cases where the risk to which the property would be exposed was agreed to be incurred by the owner." It may be well to state the facts somewhat more in detail. By charter party dated the 17th of October, 1861, the Peerless, with all her rigging, apparel, furniture, and the means of navigating her, was let to the United States for a period of fifteen days from the date of the contract. The owner covenanted to keep the vessel seaworthy and her machinery in perfect working order during the above period. He agreed further to victual, man, coal, and furnish her for a sea voyage. The boat was to be laden with such live stock and other cargo as might be desired by the Government officer. As soon as her cargo was on board she was to proceed direct to Old Point Comfort, and there report to the Assistant Quartermaster-General of the United States Army and be placed under his orders as to her future destination. On her arrival at her final destination she was to deliver her cargo and then return immediately to New York, her port of departure. For the voyage of fifteen days the United States agreed to |