Imágenes de páginas

course of administration the citizen must conform to them. This is the chief office, indeed, of the regulation to reduce administration to a regular system for the ordinary case that arises in administration.

$97. Written rules.

That is the general doctrine, then, that the regulations of the executive department under certain circumstances are enforced as law. The next point in the discussion must be the determination of these circumstances. The case of In re Smith, 23 ('t. of (l. 155 (1888), is encyclopaedic in its treatment of this question. The only formal issue in that case was whether the Secretary should order the stoppage of the pay of a paymaster for a payment made by him in good faith without other authority for his protection than the army regulation. This involved an inquiry into the position of such regula. tion before the law.

l'pon this point Mr. Justice Nort said : Congress has the power to make rules for the government of the military forces. Congress has, however, from an early day proceeded upon the theory that the power might be delegated to the President. It is well settled that with or without action of Congress regulations have the force of law when founded upon, first, the President's constitutional powers as Commander-in-Chief of the army, or second, the administration of statutes by the President which have been enacted by Congress in reference to the military forces. All of these regulations have the same validity.76

76 WRITTEN RU'LES.—United States v. Eliason, 16 Pet. 291; United States v. Symonds, 120 U. S. 46; Maddux v. United States, 20 ct, of Ci. 193; In re Smith,.23 Ct. of Cl. 455; United States v. Ormsbee, 74 Fed. 207; United States v. Goodsell, 84 Fed. 155; Orne v. Barstow, 175 Mass. 193; Matter of Spangler, 11 Mich. 298; onette v. Critt, 7 Minn. 247; State y. Davis, 69 N H. 350; Peters v. United States, 2 Okl. 123.

$ 98. Scope.

The extent of the scope of the regulation is seen in the case of Manning, 6 Lawrence, 13 (1885). July 21, 1884, Eliza Mauran, as administratrix de bonis non of Suchet Mauran, second, deceased, recovered judgment against the United States in the Courts of Commissioners of Alabama Claims for $91,500.96, on a petition filed in said court, January 4, 1883. Said judgment was rendered on a claim arising out of the capture of the ship “Marshall,” by the Confederate cruisers, “V. H. Ivy” and “Music.” The transcript of the judgments of said court certified by the clerk thereof to the Secretary of State, and transmitted by him to the Secretary of the Treasury, in pursuance of the act of June 3, 1884, shows that C. T. and T. H. Russell of Boston were the attorneys of record for the plaintiff in the above mentioned judg. ment. Said claim was adjusted by the Fifth Auditor, and was certified by the First Comptroller for payment to the judgment creditor, with direction that the draft issued in payment be delivered in care of the attorneys of record. J. F. Manning requested the First Comptroller to direct the draft issued in payment of said judgment to be delivered to him.

The decision by LAWRENCE, the Comptroller, is worth full quotation: The Secretary of the Treasury is author. ized by statute to prescribe regulations wut inconsistent with law, for the performance of the business of the Treasury Department. This statute is merely declara

tory, since, without it, the power to prescribe such regulations is an incident of the general duties of the Secretary. In statutes incidents are always supplied by intendments. The payment of claims against the United States is a part of the business of the Treasury Department, and is, therefore, a proper subject for regulations. The Secretary has, by a regulation—which has been quoted in the argument in this case, and has the force of law-provided that, in cases certified for payment to the Treasury Department by any commission created by Con. gress, the persons certified by said Court or Commission as the attorneys of record shall be regarded as such by this Department, and be entitled to receive the drafts in such cases.

A subsequent regulation declares that: The accounting of officers will decide what persons as attorneys or claimants are entitled to receive drafts under the rules of the Department. These regulations grow out of the mode of paying claims against the United States. The usage is, as to claims certified for payment by the First Comptroller, that he inserts in the Treasury warrant authorizing payment a direction to the Treasurer to deliver to the proper claimant, or his attorney specified, the Treasury draft issued to make payment. Thus, the question is now to be decided by the First Comptroller: to whom shall the Treasurer deliver the draft in this case? And it is clear that, if the general usage based on the regulations mentioned is to prevail, the draft must be delivered to the attorneys of recordC. T. and T. H. Russell.

This last case is no mere assertion by the Executive Department; the latest decision by the Judicial Department is to the same effect-Boske v. Comingore, 177 U.

Adm. Law_19.

S. 159 (1900). I collector of Internal Revenue was adjudged by a Court in Kentucky to be in contempt because he refused while giving his deposition in a suit pending in a state court, to file copies of certain reports made by distillers, which reports were in his custody as a subordinate officer in the Treasury Department. He based his refusal upon a regulation of that department which provided that no subordinate had any right to permit the use of papers in his custody for any purpose outside of the collection of revenue. The collector, imprisoned for this refusal, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus upon the ground that his detention was in viola. tion of the laws of the United States.

The federal court discharged the petitioner. Mr. Justice BIARLAN explained : ('ongress may use any means appearing to it most eligible and appropriate which are adapted to the end to be accomplished. Can it be said that to invest the Secretary of the Treasury with authori. ty to prescribe regulations not inconsistent with law for the conduct of the business of his Department was not a means appropriate and plainly adapted to the successful administration of the affairs of that Department? Manifestly not. This brings us to the question, whether it was inconsistent with law for the Secretary to adopt this regulation in this case. The Secretary deemed the regulation a wise and proper one, and we cannot perceive that his action went beyond his authority. In determining whether the regulations adopted by him are consistent with law, we must apply the rule of decision which controls when an act of Congress is assailed as (290)

not being within the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution; that is to say, a regulation should not be disregarded or annulled unless in the judgment of the court it is plainly and palpably inconsistent with law. Those who insist that such a regulation is invalid must make its invalidity so manifest that the court has no choice except to hold that the Secretary has exceeded his authority and employed means that are not at all appropriate to the end specified in the Act of Congress.

This regulation, it thus appears, is not legislation; it is administration. The authority for all regulation is to be found in the executive department itself. This is the part of the function of the administration to prescribe methods for the enforcement of the law. This is an inherent power, then, the employment of a method incidental to due administration. Statutes are by necessity couched in general terms, but these general terms carry with them by necessity all powers requisite to accomplish their object. This is so whether the law that goes before indicates that regulation is to follow after or whether the law is silent as to regulation. Often a body of regulations is framed by the head of an executive department upon no other basis than that the matter was given over to be administered under his direction. All of these regulations, if they are no more than administration, have the force of law.77

77 SCOPE.—United States v. Eliason, 16 Pet. 291; Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U. S. 503; Real Estate Sav. Bank v. United States, 16 Ct. of Cl. 336; In re Smith, 23 Ct. of Cl. 455; United States v. Badeau, 31 Fed. 697; United States v. Ormsbee, 74 Fed. 209; Wilkins v. United States, 96 Fed. 840; United States v. Dastervignes, 118 Fed. 199; Monette v. Cratt, 7 Minn, 247; Peters v. United States, 2 Okl. 123.

« AnteriorContinuar »