Detail of Clerks Officers of the Army. legally detailed to perform work in other divisions of the same Department, or for duty to the Civil Service Commission? 2. Can it be inferred that when an officer, or officers, of the Army are detailed for duty to the Weather Bureau of the Department of Agriculture, they are to be confined to expert and scientific work connected with the Weather Bureau; or has the Secretary of Agriculture the power to detail such officers to fill statutory offices, or to perform the administrative functions, such as are required of civilians, when appointed to statutory offices? By act of 5th of August, 1882, Supplement Revised Statutes, chapter 389, section 4, page 374, it is provided: "And no civil officer, clerk, shall hereafter be employed at the seat of Government in any Executive Department or subordinate bureau or office thereof, or be paid. from any appropriation made for contingent expenses, or for any specific or general purpose, unless such employment is authorized and payment therefor specifically provided in the law granting the appropriation, and then only for services actually rendered in connection with and for the purposes of the appropriation from which payment is made, and at the rate of compensation usual and proper for such services." In Nathan Plummer v. The United States (24 C. Cls., 517) the petitioner had been employed by the Attorney-General as an expert accountant, he being at the time a duly appointed clerk in the Department of Justice. His services as expert accountant were more valuable than his services as an ordinary clerk. The Court of Claims declined to allow the claim for compensation as expert accountant, and referring to the act of Congress above-cited, said: "The purpose of Congress in these provisions can not be mistaken. It is to deprive officers of the Government of all authority to employ in any of the Executive Departments at the seat of Government, or in the subordinate bureaus or offices thereof, civil officers, clerks, except such as may be specifically appropriated for by Congress. The second paragraph, as above quoted, makes the same prohibition against the employment of such persons at the seat of Government to be paid from appropriations for specific as well as general purposes." Detail of Clerks-Officers of the Army. The court holding that the Attorney-General had no authority to employ the clerk as an expert accountant, denies his claim for extra services. Section 166, Revised Statutes, provides that: "Each head of a Department may, from time to time, alter the distribution among the various bureaus and offices of his Department of the clerks allowed by law as he may find it necessary and proper to do." And this section is expressly excepted from repeal, or modification, by anything in the act of August 5, 1882, above referred to. In answer to your first question, then, I am of opinion that it is competent for you, as head of a Department, to "alter the disposition among the various bureaus and offices of" your "Department of the clerks allowed by law, as you may find it necessary and proper to do;" taking care, however, that in no case shall any such clerk be paid from any appropriation made for contingent expenses, or for any specific or general purpose, unless such payment is specifically provided for in the law granting the appropriation. By chapter 211 (27 Stat. L., 682) it is required that "the heads of the respective Executive Departments shall detail from time to time such officers and employés as may be required by said Commission (Civil Service) in their investigations." I am of opinion then that the "Secretary of Agriculture can legally detail" any such officers and employés from his Department as may be requested by the Civil Service Commission. In reply to your second question I beg to say that by chapter 1266 (26 Stat. L., 653) the Weather Bureau was attached to the Department of Agriculture and made to consist of "one Chief of Weather Bureau and such civilian employés as Congress may annually provide for: Provided, That the Chief Signal Officer of the Army may, in the discretion of the President, be detailed to take charge of said Bureau, and in like manner other officers of the Army, not exceeding four, expert in the duties of the weather service, may be assigned to duty with the Weather Bureau, and. while so serving shall receive the pay and allowances to which they are entitled by law." Limitation of Claims-International Copyright Law. I do not think that the Secretary of Agriculture can legally assign such Army officers, so detailed, to any other duties in his Department than those for which they are by law so authorized to be detailed in the Weather Bureau. Very respectfully, RICHARD OLNEY. The SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE. LIMITATION OF CLAIMS. The six years' limitation of time for presenting claims under the act of March 3, 1887, chapter 359, applies only to suits in the Court of Claims. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, March 23, 1894. SIR: Answering your inquiry of March 20 whether you are debarred by the Tucker Act of March 3, 1887, chapter 359, section 1, from allowing claims filed in your Department more than six years after the rights have accrued for which the claims are made, I have the honor to advise you that the limitation in said act is by its terms applicable only to suits in the Court of Claims, and does not restrict your jurisdiction in any way. Very respectfully, RICHARD OLNEY. The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT LAW. Uncopyrighted lithographs may be imported, although they may be copies of the copyrighted paintings. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, March 24, 1894. SIR: Answering your communication of March 19, I have the honor to advise you that, in my opinion, the international copyright act of March 3, 1891, chapter 565, does not prohibit the importation of uncopyrighted lithographs, although these lithographs may be copies of copyrighted paintings. Very respectfully, RICHARD OLNEY. The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 5687-VOL 20-48 Informers' Compensation - Officers. INFORMERS' COMPENSATION-OFFICERS. Informers who are appointed special inspectors without compensation except their interest as informers in the result of seizures are not officers of the United States within the anti-moiety act of June 22, 1874, chapter 391, section 4. Nor are persons on the pay roll as temporary laborers but at the time off duty—that is, receiving no pay. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: Your communication of March 23 incloses a letter from the collector of customs at San Francisco, asking whether certain persons described by him are officers of the United States within section 4 of the anti-moiety act of June 22, 1874, chapter 391. The persons described by him belong to the classes, first, informers, who, after conveying information of frauds on the customs to the collector, are appointed by him special inspectors for the purpose of making seizures, without further compensation than their interest in possible moieties arising therefrom; and, second, persons appearing on the weigher's pay roll as temporary laborers, but who, at the time of obtaining and giving the information, are off duty-that is, receiving no pay. It is my opinion that neither of these classes of persons are officers of the United States within the meaning of the statute referred to. Very respectfully, RICHARD OLNEY. The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. INDEX. ABSENCE FROM DUTY. 1. A clerk in a department absent from duty while at Omaha, Nebr., 2. Employés of the United States, who are members of the National ABSENCE ON PAY. 1. Section 4 of the act of March 3, 1883, chapter 128, inhibits heads 3. Section 5 of the appropriation act of March 3, 1893, chapter 211, ADDITIONAL DUTY. 1. The additional duty imposed by section 7 of the customs adminis- ADJOURNMENT OF CONGRESS. 3. When Congress adjourns, not sine die, for a longer period than ten |