# Brief for the United States — United States v. Dickerson > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386401_0293%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Brief for the United States - **Published:** January 1, 1940 - **Citation:** 310 U.S. 554 ## Text sdb . be waren te Fe ed No. 700 —— de ' + Qnihe Supreme Gourt of the Winted States | OctToBE, x TERM, 1939 4 . hee : se eer : | THe UNrrep STATES, PETIFIONER a . EMMETT F. DICKERSON. \ QN WRIT OF CERTIORARI hoe WE COURT OF CLAIMS BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES io be INDEX ; Page’ Opinion below — ‘ Reta van Ghee ines 1 Jurisdiction. =_*- ; re eee tira oe inate arere 1 Question presented — ; - 1 Statutes involved — —- : 2 Statement __- 2 Specification of errors to be urged - 3 Summary of argument. 4 Argumeng : : 5 Conclusion _. eee? ia a * Lecce 90 Appendix. A — enn , ; 20 Appendix BL _ ao a ae Appendix C_- as aa ; 28 CITATIONS © Cases: : a Archbald v. United States, 218 Fed. 270..-....+-...----. 18 Belknap v. United States, 150 U.S. S88... _- _....- 6,7, 18 Bell v.. United States, 35: Fed. sso ae Sawees aie plaws 14 ‘(f/f $556-8557__.- , ‘ Tats pause 14 R565 S568... ; Fa ete ae EN 14 S56F—.. 2... . ek Yao ay air ee 12 Otay... . ° 3S 16 eee ee : ; ane soou See Sen ae ee SEL. ae er 15 9512... cage ane Fees cana eae sae 9667-9669. __ © © Oy Pen 15 9671.... iS een panben ss ate rath aces 17 9677 9679.) tos ES eT 9678-9679. ___ tees ME pie: sepa 13 S. Rept. 2161, 75th Cong., 3d Sess, a? ee , 16 H. R. 10851, 75th Cong., sd Sess. 7, 12, 13, 14, 15 H. J. Res. 679, 75th C ONK., 3d Sess. oe 12,15, 17 Senafe Rute XVI 2 oF = : 12 -House Rule XXI, See. 2. - ah oke ° SE RTIIC S? Ri ah sesh Bein ey ne One ee 3 1938-and 1939. Thus, Section 402 of Public Reso- lution No. 122, approved June 21, 1938, provided | in substance that no part of any appropriation con- tained in that or any other Act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1939, should be available for the payment of enlistment allowances for’ reenlist- ments, ne! withstanding the provisions of Sections y and 10 of the Act of June 10, 1922. Similar pro- visions had been made for the fiseal year 1938. - When respondent reenlisted.on July 22, 1938, he Was hot paid an enlistment allowance, although le had reenlisted within three months from the date’ upon which Hé'‘had been honorably discharged from his’ preceding term (R. 3). If respondent were entitled to an enlistment aliowance for his ‘reenlistment of July 22, 1938, there is due him the sum of $75.00 (R. 3). Respondent brought suit in the Court of Claims, to recover the sum of $75.00, alleged to be owing to him under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of. June 10, 1922. The United States opposed the claim on the ground that Section 402 of Pubhe Resolution No, 122 of Jame 21, 1938, suspended the allowance for reenlistment during the fiseal year ending June 30, 1939. The Court of Clainis en- ~ tered judgment for the respondent. SPECIFICATION OF ERKORS TO BE URGED The Court of ¢ hai erred: 1. In holding th: it an enlisted man ree sisting in the Army during the fiseal vear ending June. 30, hd ~-C P - . ‘ ° 7 . es ee | ine, ana complying with the terms’ of. Section 9 * thie Act of June, 10, 1922, is entitled to recover an n en iognent allowanve, : dk : In failing, to hold that Section 402 of Publie Re acieition No. 122 of June 21, 1938, suspends the ogpayment of any. enlistment allowance which. might he. otherwise pay dible under ‘Sections 5 and 10 of. * the Act of June 10, 1922, toa man reenlisting i mn) ‘the military or oter unifortned forces of the United "Sta ates during the fiscal year ¢ “ending June 30, 1939. . In holding that the purpese Lae effect of Sec- ten 402 of. Publie Redolution ¥ ». 122 oF June 21, 193s, and the Act of May 28. A fn differed fromthe a . hob pnean rate pUTpose andl effect of Section 18° of: the Act of™~ ; March 3,:1933, and-i*entiéal, provisions. in subse- quent.” Nets which Suspension: payment .of the -. enlistment allowance } provided in Sections 9 and 10 of the set of June 10, 1922. | 1. In holding that the only purpose and effwt of Section 402 of Public Resolution No. 122 was to prohibit the. payment of enlistment allowances’ from the funds appropriated for the fiscal year e nGng dune 30, 1 939. . . In entering judgment for the respondent. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The queStion whethera restriction gn the expend- itive wf appropriated funds suspends an allowance ’ authorized by prior legislation depends solely’ on- thé mtention of Congress, The proviso-of Section We of Pub. Res. No. 122 was intended to suspend | Ma ah, Sa tae 5 > the right to an enlistment allowance for the fiscal yer 1939 and not merely to prohibit the use of ap; _ propriated funds for such purpose. , That such Was the intention is clear from the face of the statute and the Aegislative histor y. The difference be- tween the form of language employed i in the fiseal years 1938 and 1939 and that used in the appropria- tion Acts in the four preceding years was due ‘not to a difference in Congressional intention but was probably attributable to ‘considerations of parlia- mentary tacties and st rategy.’’ an | a ' ARGUMENT I nt roductory. —Seetion 402 of Public. Resolistion No, 122, infra, p. 2%, provided that “no part of any ‘appropriation contained in this or any other Act for the fiseal year ending June 30, 1939, shall be. available for the payment’ of any enlistment al- lowances for ** reenlistments made during the fisegl - vear ending. June 30, 1939, notwithstanding the ap- © plicable portions of sections 9 and 10°’ of the Act of June 10, 1922. The eourt below. held that the: limitation expressed in this proviso had for its sole purpose the placing of an inhibition upon the ae- counting officers of the Government against the | payment of such allowances, and that it left unim- paired the right of men reenlisting in the uni- formed services of the’United States to receive such enlistment allowances.” If ‘concluded that the obligation of the United States to pay. such allow- ances remained in full force and effect atid that the tye o - BD 6 United States was legally laple therefor, notwith- standing the prohibition of the statute against parRnent. , . a ; * Wa&submit that-the decision of the court” below Was incorrect. In cases of this character the law is well settled that the intent of Congress is control. ling. The language of the Act itself, its legislative history, the ordinary rules of statutory construc- tion, and the manner in which the Congress ¢om- monly employs provisos to. appropriation Acts to achieve similar results clearly disclose that Con- gress intended to suspend the payment te en-° listment allowances for the fiscal year 1939, The U nited States Distritt ‘Court for the ete Dis- trict of New York so held in Brooks v. United States (decided Nov ember : 2, 13 9, not vet officially ee T his © ourt bas consistently held that the eis “et on prior degislation of a en the use of appropriated funds fer a pur thereto- fore authorized is to ‘be dete rmined by the intent of: Congress: it may SUSpe nd, supersede, or modity the prior authorizing legislation if Conguess sO TN tends, United States ve Mitchell, 109 UL S. 146, 150; Dunwoody v. United States, 3 U.S. 998; Balhuapyv. United States, V ih S.OSS8, 503: United States Vv. Vulte, 233 U.S. 509, 515; United States V. Perry, 50 Fed. 743, 748 (C. C. . Sth): cf. Wallace v. United States, 133 U.S. 180; 0 nited. States’ or rel. Gillett v. Dern, 74 F. (2d) 485 (App: D. C.). a sive oot nba ail As this Court. observed in United States v. Mitchell (i09 U. S. 146, at 150): **'The whole question de- pends on the intention of Congress as expressed in the statutes. * See Belknap v. United States, 150 U.S. 588, 595, . ; 9 A deliberate limitation in an appropriation Act on the use of appropriated funds evidences on its face an intention to modify or suspend pro tanto - a prior authorization. This Court has consistently so held whrever such ‘suspension or modification would serve a reasonable or rational-end.: United States v. Mitchell, 109 U.S. 146; Mathews Vv. United States, 123-U. S. 182: Belknap V: United States, 150 U.S. 588; U nited States v. Vulte, 233 U.S. 509; ef. United States V. ais ante 118 U.S. 389. ' The purpose of the restriction in question, quite obviously, was to reduee the ordinary expenditures of the Government during a period of eéonomie | crisis. A provision expressly suspending the en- listment ‘aliowance was first adopted in the 'Preas- ury-Post Office Appropriation Act. of 1934 (see. 18 of the Act of March. 3, 1933, 6, 212, 47 Stat. 1489, 1519). The suspension was contemporaneous with other economy measures reducing salaries and other ordinary expenditures of theeGovernment (see Act of June 30, 1932, Pt. 1], ¢. 314, 47 Stat. 399), was. but one of several economy provisions in the Treas: ury-Post Office Appropriation Jct of 1934 (see see- tions 2-18 of the Act of Marcel, 1933, 47 Stat. 1489, 221190,—40———2 , fa 8 »® 1513-1519), and was continued in effect for the fiscal year. 1935 as an amendment to the Economy ‘Act of March 20, 1933, e. 3, 48 Stat. 8 (see Act of March 28, 1934, Title LI, Econemy Provisions, 48 Stat. .509, 523). The restriction on the use of all appropriated funds in the statute here’ in question ~ merely continued the policy first established in 19333. : : ea. +, ‘The purpose of. Congress would obviously be defeated if Judgments for enlistment allowances’ could be obtained in the Court’of Claims to be paid from appropriations for the payment of such judg- ments. That Congress did not withhold payment: out of funds appropriated by this statute merely to permit payment out of another appropriation Act is evident Igy the express provision that the re- striction should extend to the use of funds appre- priated by ‘this.or any. other Act.” It may be true that a judgment in the Court of Claims for enlistment allowancegmight net be presented for payment until a subsequeht year, but the purpose of Céngress in forbidding the payment of enlist- nent allowances was to eliminate certain expendi- tures, not merely to postpone them. Any con- tention that Congress intended only to «postpone payment for the period required to obtain a judg-_ ment in the Court ef Claims is sufficiently answered ¢ by the fact that the prohibition has been continued n the appropri: ition Acts for six consecutive years. 4 “nitedsStates Vv. Mitchell, 09 UL S.. 146, 149. Moreover, since the purpose of Congress was ad- 8 A . ~ a ~ ah it at siteiiaoamataal eee A pete Nee TS 9 mittedly to achieve some economy, it eculd uot have -“been the intention to remit claimants of enlistment allowances to a suit in the Court of Claims and thus _ not only to put the claimaut to an unreasonable eX- pense but. to incur for the Government certain unavoidable costs of litigation.’ ‘ ‘The éourt below, it should be observed, did not shold that the right to .an enlistment allowance could not be. suspended by a provision in an appro- priation Aet. The court acknowledged that the. ex- press ‘“‘suspension’’ of the right in Section 18 of ‘the: Treasury-Post Office Appropriation Act of 1934, continued: in identical language in various appropriation Acts through the fiscal year 1987, extinguished the right to an allowance for those yearsyand that recovery for that period could not be obtained in the Court of Claims. The court , took the: view, however, that the change in_ the language in the appropriation Acts for the fiscal ‘ais 1938 and 1939 and the omission in these stat- utes of language expressly. ‘suspending”’ the al- lowance evidenced a Congressional’ intention 'We are advised by the Comptroller General that there ‘are approximately «100.000 scheduled claims for estimated nlowances for. the fiscal vears of 1938 alt 1939, each: of which could be made the subject matter of an independent suit. Even though the legal question involved were decided adversely to the Government in. this proceeding, it- would . be necessary to reduce each claim to judgment in the Court of Claims.since.the allowance could not be paid save out of an appropriation to pay’ judgnients against the United States. a er % 10 % merely tw restrict the use of the 2 ppropriated funds’ Without ‘suspending’ the right and that suit to recovery the allowanee could therefore be. maintained inthe Court ef Clainas. es The court below, we suggest. failed te oive offeet te the tanguage of the appropriation Sets for the. fiscal vears 1938 and l989¢providing that enbist- nient allowances should not be-paid *notwithstand- hig the applicable provisions of sections 9 and 1" of the Act of June 10, 1922, authorizing the pay- nent oof enlistment allowances. The: conclusive answer, however, as the legislative listoery demon: strates, is that the change fa the formeof langnage did not reflect a change of inteition but at most a change of parliamentary prowdure, 3..The provisions With respeet to the vear 1938 originated as an amendment, introduced by Sena- tor Byrnes, to the second deticieney appropriation Act for the fiscal vear 1937. The amendment, in language identical, with the statutary Provisions applicable heres prohibited the use of appropriated funds for the payment of enlistment allowanees © for the vear L938. Senator Byrnes stated (ST Cong, Ree. 4426): * * — * the language of the amendment has . heen carried ordinarily in the Treasury and Post Office appropriation bill, but was not Learried in that appropriation bill this vear, and is therefore proposed to be ieluded in the bill now before us, * e * * - * TOT ARIES 2 age ENE ateics : . a ae a | & 11 ” “The effect of it is simply to carry the same limitation that has been carried on for years in the appropriation’ bills. eee . * * * A Its purpose is to continue the appropria- tion situation that has existed for vears, so g, that no bounty shall be paid. for reenlistment in the military and other uniformed services. “This amendmert was adopted by the Senate 'with- “out recorded opposition: (81 Cone: Ree. 4426). It Was sent to conference, and in reporting the amend: ment to the. House, the House managers described the amendment as ‘cont wing during the re “al: year 1938 the suspension of the reenlistmept gratu- ‘ity forentisted personnel of the Army, Navy, Ma- rine Qorps, and Coast Guard.”” SL Cong. Ree. SUS4. The House agreed to the amendment ane the debate thereon demonstrates that all concerned, inchiding the opponents of. the measure, ‘viewed the proposal as differing: in no way from the provi- sions in prior bills which suspended the payment of the enlistment allowance. ST, Cone. Ree. FORB—5ORF, SORK-5OOT. The conelusion is Inescapr able that Congress” believed that in enacting this amendment for the fiseal year LO38 ith: id effee- tively: suspended the provisions of the Act relating to enlistment allowances, as it had done in prior ears, t ; The legislative history also discloses that Con cress, in adopting the ide ntic: al provisions, for the fiseal year 1939, likewise did not intend to. change f : 6 v «& 12 \ the nature of its prohibition of enlistment allow- iwes, 83 Cong. Ree. 9512, 9677-9679. The provision Was first-introdaced as an aniend- ment to the second deficiency appropriation bill for the fiseal vear 93s Cy em 1O8oT, Joth Cone. 3d sd 3 ’ bd : e . . Sess.), then pending before the House. A point of . order was made against. the amendment on thie “round that it was legislation in an appropriation bill, Representative Woodrum of Virginia, whe had charge, of the amendment, admitted that the point of order was good, and the Chair sustained it (83 Cong. Ree. 8567). The same amendment was then offered in the Senate, and the Presiding Of- ficer also ruled that it would change existing: law, and must be stricken (83 Cong. Ree. 9ES9). Tt would seem clear that were the amendment merely a limitation upon the power of accounting officers: as the court below held. and not legislation sts- pending prior legislation, a point oT arder against its nelusion in an appropriation bill could net have been sustained. “See House Rule XNI, see. 2; Sengite Rule NVI. The provision was thereafter included by the conference committee as a proviso to Seetion 402 of Hi. J. Res. 679 (whieh later be- came_Pub, Res. No. 122). appropriating funds for > = . . a . the Rural Electrification Administration, on which a point of order was not, permitted by the rules, No objection was made in the Senate (83> Cone. Row, 9642): in the House complaint was voiced that iu poitit of order could not then be made (S83 Cong. Ree, 9678-9679). * ve, : * P iliac ae 13 The 1939 proviso was regarded as having the same purpose and effect as the provisions carried in various appropriations for the five preceding years, Representative W oodrum, chairman of the subcommittee in charge of the measure, said in presenting the amendment to the House (p. 9677) : No reenlistment allowances have been paid for the past 5 fiscal years in any of the serv- ices, and in the absence qf permanent law stopping it, the inhibition WAs been shuttled about in économy bills and appropriation hills at one time or another. + We have not paid them for 5 years, and the latter part of this amendment now before the House is a Senate amendinent which discontinues for another ¥ear the payment of the reenlist- ce so ment allowances. ¢ og The statements of the two chief opponents of fur- ther suspension of the allowance (Representatives. Seott and Izac) indicate their understanding that. the act cove ring the fiscal vear 1939, like the acts of previous years, prevented a reenlisting man _from receiving the bounty (pp. 9678-9679). It is clear that Congress deemed the payment of en-— listment allowance as fuliy suspended for the fiscal years 1938 and 1939 as if "the 1922. Act had been tempo rarily repealed”, * For cone chisive corroboration of this view, see the discus- sion on the varjeus amendments offered to another tll (H.R. 1OSD1, soth Cong., 3d Sess.) seeking to appropriate sums for the Fig 08 of the allowances, Ph. om 16 and especially note 4, afre, - 14 4. The legislative history relied on by respond-. ent in support.of his position does not relate to the “prohibition embodied in, section 402 but to an‘en- tirely different measure, the secénd deficiency appropriation bill for 1938) CHL. R. 10851, 75th Cong. 3d Seéss.). And the statements quoted (Bi in Opp. 4)-are wholly consistent with the Govern- ments view. ji H.R. 10851, as it came to the floor, contained the usual appropriation for support of the various servic® corps, but did net melde any specific ap- propriation for the payment of enlistment allow- anees ; wer did it inelude any prohibition upon their payment. Several attempts were mide. on the Hoor of the douse of Representatives, to amend the ‘bill so as to make express provision for the - pavment of the bountyeto the various services (83 — ong. Ree, S553-8)54: S550-S357, SHH5-8DO8), one of which wes successful, and the others net. Dur- ing the discussion on these amendments, Repre- sentatives Bacon and) Wadsworth = stafed that specitic provision, while glesirable, was really une. heeessary since the general hump sum appropria- tion to the Army. Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard covered the allowaneés, and if payment was hot made, the ree wilisted may could sue im the Court of Claims, (See By. if Opp. 4). These state- For vears after the AYA of June 10, 1922, ‘appropriation Acts listed no designated swim for payment of the entist- ment allowance, but the luinp stun appropriation for pay in “the ordinary appropriation Acts was held to be availab le. See the opinion of the Court of Clatmes CR. i), 15 ments were made in connection with a bill which «contained no prohibition of payment analogous to section 402,4 and which left the. 1922 Act in full “Immediately after his amendment to include the pro- hibition in H.R. 10851 was stricken on point of order in the - Senate, Senator Byrnes also suggested, on the same theory as the two Representatives (and not, as respondent asserts | (Br. in Opp. 4).‘in opposition to them) that reentisted men. denied this allowance might sue in the Court of Claims, ‘It was his view that the prohibition might be necessary even ‘if no specific prevision was made for paynent of the allowances. ° ’ The. following colloquy then occurred, clearly revealing the purpose of the restrictive amendment (identical with | _ section 402) (83 Cong. Ree. 9190): “Mr. Warsi. What the Senator sought todo was to have . Congréss declare as its policy that it did not intend in the future to pay such feenlistinent bounties, so as to prevent possible claims: is not that true “Mr. Byrnes. Mr. President. the sole position of the com- mittee is that no funds being provided, we should not leave open the opportunity for numbers of persons to file claims in the Court of Claims in behalf of men who reenlist, with the result that a year:fromi, now, or 2 years from now, some — men would receive the reenlistment bounty or some part of it. after the attorneys réceive their fees. *Mro Wasi. T think T understand.” CTL Re lasok. the Second Deficiency Appropriation Bill, and HL. J. Res. 679 Cater becoming Pub. Res. No. A122), which embodied Section 402). were being considered by the Congress contemporaneousiy at the end of a session. After-the point of order to fhe proposed amendment to H. R. 10841 had been sustained, Senator Byrnes itlso said - (83 Cong. Rec. 9189-9190) : “T will say to the Senator from Massachusetts, in the’ light of the ruling of the Chair, that before the Congress adjourns [ shall certainly make au effort to do something to bring ‘about a change, so that there will not be dissatis- a aie effect The specific enlistment allowance appro- priation adopted hy he House did not survive the passage of the Act (83 Cong. Ree. 9187, 9667-9669, GO7TL ef. Sen. Rep. 161, Tth Cong., 3d Sess.), and the suspension provision found place in another act.” “er faction, among the various services. If the bounties were all restored, millions of dollars would-be involved.” ‘Accepted levishitive practice reinforces the conclusion that) Congress sought to suspend the operation of the — Act as to reentistients during the fiscal year ending 1 in 19535 Congress) has frequently utilized language subst: ca similar to that here employed in various appropriation acts for the pPirrpose of awe ‘hieving objectives whic h might ordi- narily be classified as strictly legishiti > in character, in- ututory rights and privilegés. AX number “ recent statfites are set forth in Appendix By dafra, pp. 23-27, and the Tanguage of certain: cluding the suspension of preexisting - of sticly statutes is set forth in Appendix ‘Cy jnfra, pp. 28-30. 5 Reasons of strategy, time, and legislative convenience often. impel the adoption of this method, even though it may con- travene the strteter niceties of parliamentary procedure. Cf. Lac e, Legislative Problems (1935), pp. 421 ef xeq., 482. In view of this common practive anel of the decisions of this Court. it obviously cannot) be successfully urged, .as_ re- spoudent seeks to do (Br. in Opp. 5-6), that -cetion 402 clearly and unambiguously on its face “imposes a limitation ipon the use of Appropriations and nothing more. As Circuit udge Sanborn, in [S892, said of an identical “appro- priation™ formula, in Cviited States vo Perry, 50 Fed. 745, mis (CLC. AL Sth): °- “For many years it thas been a common practice of. the _ congress to-enact general previsions of daw in the acts mak- ing Appropriations, until there is now little, if any, presump- tion that such provisions are not ittended to be permanent and general.” ‘ inp ae ae } Splenic. 0s nid MARCA Ci Ae He aD RE at . OVROM A: 6 WAN BR ct Pi \ 17 5. In'view of the unequivocal character of the ( mere intention to continue the prohibition on the payment. of) enlistment allowances un- changed for the fiscal years 1938 and 1939, the ex- ‘planation, if any, for the difference between the __ formof language employed for those years and that used in the appropriation Acts*for the previous | four wears is immaterial. Tt is probable, however, that the change was due to ‘‘considerations of par- liamentary tactics and strategy * .* "2? Cf. Helvcring V. Hallock, No, 110, this Ter m, decided January 29, 1940. It is pertinent to observe that the prohibition onthe payment of enlistment allow- ancesSfirst appeared in Title IL of the Treasury- Post Office Appropriation Act of 1934, along with numerous other economy provisions; was included the next vear in Title 11, Economy Provisions of the Independent Office Appropriation Act for the fiscal _Vear 1935 as part of an amendment:to the Economy Act of March 20, 1933; was inserted the two vears following in the Treasury-Post Office Appropria- tion Acts for the fiscal years 1936 and 1937; was passed in its present fornvas an amendment to the Second Deficiency Appropriation Bill of 1937 and finally as a rider to Section 402 of H. J. Res, 679 (which became Pub, Res. ‘No. 122), appropriating funds for the Rural Eleetrification Administration for the fiseal vear 1939. ‘The particular statute in which the prohibition was included from year to year was obviously dic- tated by parliamentary exigencies and not by. con: 18° 2 ‘siderations of form or logic, ~ A like explanation probably accounts for the change in the form of\ words employed. for the fiscal years 1938 and 1939. As set forth above, the ‘opponents of the prohibi- tion for the fiseal year 1939 objected to the provision as first introduced on the ground that “it constituted legislation, the objection being sus-. tained in both Houses of Congress. Ft-is reaSon- — able toe assuuie that the Sponsors of the prohibition, anticipating i like objection to the amendment for the fiscal ye ay 1938, atte mpted to draft the prohi- bition in the language of an appropriation measure, But whatever the tac tical purpose.of the change in form, it is clear, beyond doubt that no change in purpose or effect was intended.” «RespCalent’s aiken (Br. in Opp. 7-5) are pot even * : matte iy pers to meet certain prescribed standards ). Act of July 15, 1939, ©, 281, Public No. 176, 76th Cong., Ist Sess. p. 6 (limiting legal advertisements of the District of Columbia “notwithstanding the requirement , that such advertising provided by existing law’’). , Revised Statutes, section 5266 (U.S. C., Title 47, see. 3) (no payments to any telegraph company neglecting or refusing. to’ accord | protersnee 4 to Government telegrams). Act of February 24, 1899, _ 187, 30 Stat: 846, 864, see US. C., Title.5, see. oa ; (forbidding use of recording clocks for recording time of Gov ernment employees). APPENDIX © Certain of the statutes listed in Appendix B provide as follows : . Act of October 22, 1913, ¢. 82; 38 Stat.208, 212. (U.S. €., Title 5, see. 54): ny ‘No money appropriated by this or any other Act shall be used for the compensation of any publicity expert unless specifically ° . appropriated for that purpose. Act of April 6, 1914, 6. 52, 38 Stat. 312, 335 (U.S. C.. Title 5, see. 55): : Sec. 5. That no part of any money ap- propriated: in this or any other Act shall be used for compensation or payment of ‘ex-. penses of accountants or other experts in in- augurating new or changing old methods of transacting the business of the United States or the District of Columbia unless authority for employment of such services or payment of, such expenses ix stated in specific terms in the Act making provision therefor and the vate of compensation for such services ar espenses Is specifically fixed - therein, ar be used for compensation. of ar... -expenses’ for persons, aiding or assisting such acesuntants or other experts, unless the yr rate of gompensation ‘of or expenses for | such assistants Is fixed by officers or em- | ployees of the United States or Distriet of | Columbia having authority to do’ so, and such rates of vonypetisation or expenses so tixed shall be paid only to the person so. employed. oe : 7 _ (28) ae - TaN Re tle RENT PL Oe TT TN PT Pee maint anaeee eer wee tree . 29 » Act of June 29, 1937, ¢. 403, 50 Stat. 359, 363: “For general advertising, authorized and required by law, and for tax and school notices and notices of changes in .regula- tions, $7,000:. Provided, That this appropri- ation shall not be available for'the payment of advertising in newspapers published out- side’ of the District. of Columbia, notwith- standing the requirement for such advertis- ing provided by existing law. | _ For advertising notice of taxes in arrears July 1.1937, as required to be given by the: Act of February 28, 1898, as amended, to be reimbursed by a charge of 50 cents for each lot or piece of property advertised, $5,500 Provided, That this appropriation shall not be available for the payment of advertising the delinquent tax list for more than once a week for two weeks in the regular issue of one morning or one evening newspaper pub- lished in the District of Columbia, notwith- standing the provisions of existing law. Actof June 14, 1935, ¢. 241, 49 Stat. 341, 36 : * * * Provided, That hereafter no part of any appropriation for the public. schools shail be available for the payment of the salary of any person teaching or advocating Communism. — ' Act of June 16,1938, ¢. 464, 52 Stat. 710, 7H: iy ies ‘Provided farther, That no part of the funds appropriated by this Act shal! be -used for the payment of anv officer or em- ployee of the, Department of? Agriculture who, as such officer or, ¢mplovee, or on be- half of the Department or any division, com- ‘mission, or bureau thereof, issues, or causes: to be issued, any prediction, oral or written, er forecast with respect to future prices of cotton or the trend of samer * * * 30 - a 7 Act of July 1, 1937, ¢. 423, 50 Stat. 442, 46: No payment shall be made from money yas appropriated in this Act tg any officer on the retired list-of the Army who, ‘for himself or ‘for others, is‘engaged in the selling of, con- + tracting for the sale of,*or negotiating for _the sale of, to the Army or the War Depart- “ment, any war ‘materials or supplies. _Act of April 27, 1937, ¢. 140, 50 Stat. 96, 107: ~ *.* Provided further, Thatno part of — fnis appropriation shall be available for the pay of -any midshipmen whose admission subsequent to January 30, 1937, would result in‘exceeding at any time an allowance. of four midshipmen for éach Senator,’ Repre- »' sentative, and Delegat®in Congress; of one — midshipman for Puerto Rico, a native of the _ ,island, appointed on nomination of the Gov- ° krnor, and of four midshipmen from Puerto Rico, appointed on nomination of the. Resi- «dent Commissioner ; and of four midshipmen from the District of Columbia; * * * Act of May’23, 1938, ¢. 259, 52 Stat. 410, 427: * * * Provided Aitics That no part of this appropriation shall be used to pay the salary of any member of the Tariff, Commis- sion who, shall, hereafter participate in any proceedings tinder sections 336, 337, and 338 . of the Tariff Act of 1930, - wherein he or any member of his family has any special, , dikect, and pecuniary interest, or in which he has acted as attorney or special i aaa o 3 0.9. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1940 | vr \ ® Ls . a v bd . . ‘ e é ‘ | * > es R ze ° e 4 e . ve , Se ° *%, . . e id ’ +. 2” - ‘ 4 . ° e@ . . e . ‘ ° . , . 7 °* --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386401_0293%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.