United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/8th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 48

←

United States Statutes at Large, Volume 2
United States Congress

Public Acts of the Eighth Congress, 1st Session, XLVIII

→

2440916United States Statutes at Large, Volume 2 — Public Acts of the Eighth Congress, 1st Session, XLVIIIUnited States Congress

March 26, 1804.

Chap. XLVIII.—An Act in relation to the Navy Pension Fund.

Act of March 2, 1799, ch. 24, sec. 9, 10. Act of April 23, 1800, ch. 33, sec. 9, 10. Act of April 16, 1816, ch. 58. Act of March 3, 1817, ch. 60. Act of March 3, 1819, ch. 79.
Money arising from captures, not already paid over, to be paid to the treasurer.
How the money is to be disbursed by the treasurer.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all the money accruing or which has already accrued to the United States, from the capture of prizes authorized by law, and which has not already been paid to the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Secretary of War, as commissioners of the navy pension fund, shall be paid to the treasurer of the United States.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the treasurer of the United States, to receive all the money so accruing, and to disburse the same pursuant to warrants from the Secretary of the Navy, countersigned by the accountant of the navy; and a distinct quarterly account of the monies thus received and disbursed shall be rendered by the said treasurer to the accounting officers of the treasury, in the same manner as is provided for other public monies received by him.

A distinct quarterly account of it to be rendered.
Accountant to the navy to receive and settle all navy pension accounts, and report the same.
Comptroller authorized to institute suits for prize money.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the accountant of the navy to receive and settle all accounts whatever, in relation to the navy pension fund, and report from time to time, all such settlements, as shall have been made by him, for the inspection and revision of the accounting officers of the treasury, in the same manner as in other cases of public accounts.

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the comptroller of the treasury shall be fully authorized and empowered to direct suits for the recovery of any sums now due, or which may hereafter be due to the United States, for prizes as aforesaid, and to prosecute the same in the name of the United States, in the same manner as in other cases for the recovery of monies due to the United States.

Commissioners of the navy pension fund may appoint a secretary. His duties and emoluments.Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That the commissioners of the navy pension fund be, and they are hereby authorized to appoint a secretary, who shall perform all such duties in relation to the fund, as they shall require of him; and shall receive for his services, a salary not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars per annum, to be paid quarter yearly at the treasury of the United States, and charged to the same fund.^[1]

Commissioners to make rules and regulations for the admission of pensioners.Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That the commissioners of the navy pension fund be, and they are hereby authorized and directed to make such regulations, as may to them appear expedient, for the admission of persons on the roll of navy pensioners, and for the payment of the pensions.

Approved, March 26, 1804.

↑ See note to chapter 53, post, page 297, Navy Pension Fund. By an act passed 10th July, 1832, Congress authorized the appointment of a separate and permanent navy agent at Washington, and directed the performance of the duties, “not only for the navy yard in the City of Washington, but from the navy department, under the direction of the Secretary of the Navy, in the payment of such accounts and claims as the secretary may direct.” These duties would not have been so specially stated in this act, if they had been considered by Congress as coming within the ordinary duties of an agent of the navy yard at Washington, under the act of 1804. But independent of this consideration, it is enough to know, that the duties in question were discharged by the defendant, under the construction given to the law by the Secretary of the Navy. United States v. Macdaniel, 7 Peters, 1.
The United States instituted a suit to recover a balance charged on the books of the treasury department, against the defendant, who was a clerk in the navy department, upon a fixed annual salary, and acted as agent for the payment of moneys due to the navy pensioners, the privateer pensioners, and for navy disbursements, for the payment of which, funds were placed in his hands by government. He claimed these commissions at the treasury, and the claim had been there rejected by the accounting officers, and if they had allowed the same, he was not now indebted to the government. The United States, on the trial of the case in the circuit court, denied the right of the defendant to these commissions, as they had not been allowed to him by any department of the government, and asserted that the jury had not power to allow them on the trial. By the Court—The rejection of the claim to commissions by the treasury department, formed no objection to the admission of it as evidence of offset before the jury. Had the claim never been presented to the department, it could not have been admitted as evidence by the court. But, as it had been made out in form and presented to the proper accounting officers, and had been rejected, the circuit court did right in submitting it to the jury, if the claim was considered as equitable. Ibid.
It would be a novel principle to refuse payment to the subordinates of a department because their chief, under whose direction they had faithfully served the public, had given an erroneous construction to the law. Ibid.
The Secretary of the Navy, in authorizing the defendant to make disbursements on which the claim for compensation is founded, did not transcend those powers, which, under the circumstances of the case, he might well exercise. Ibid.

[p329-1] See note to chapter 53, post, page 297, Navy Pension Fund. By an act passed 10th July, 1832, Congress authorized the appointment of a separate and permanent navy agent at Washington, and directed the performance of the duties, “not only for the navy yard in the City of Washington, but from the navy department, under the direction of the Secretary of the Navy, in the payment of such accounts and claims as the secretary may direct.” These duties would not have been so specially stated in this act, if they had been considered by Congress as coming within the ordinary duties of an agent of the navy yard at Washington, under the act of 1804. But independent of this consideration, it is enough to know, that the duties in question were discharged by the defendant, under the construction given to the law by the Secretary of the Navy. United States v. Macdaniel, 7 Peters, 1.
The United States instituted a suit to recover a balance charged on the books of the treasury department, against the defendant, who was a clerk in the navy department, upon a fixed annual salary, and acted as agent for the payment of moneys due to the navy pensioners, the privateer pensioners, and for navy disbursements, for the payment of which, funds were placed in his hands by government. He claimed these commissions at the treasury, and the claim had been there rejected by the accounting officers, and if they had allowed the same, he was not now indebted to the government. The United States, on the trial of the case in the circuit court, denied the right of the defendant to these commissions, as they had not been allowed to him by any department of the government, and asserted that the jury had not power to allow them on the trial. By the Court—The rejection of the claim to commissions by the treasury department, formed no objection to the admission of it as evidence of offset before the jury. Had the claim never been presented to the department, it could not have been admitted as evidence by the court. But, as it had been made out in form and presented to the proper accounting officers, and had been rejected, the circuit court did right in submitting it to the jury, if the claim was considered as equitable. Ibid.
It would be a novel principle to refuse payment to the subordinates of a department because their chief, under whose direction they had faithfully served the public, had given an erroneous construction to the law. Ibid.
The Secretary of the Navy, in authorizing the defendant to make disbursements on which the claim for compensation is founded, did not transcend those powers, which, under the circumstances of the case, he might well exercise. Ibid.

[1]