
    James J. Longwill v. The United States. James L. Johnson v. The Same.
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    
      An Indian agent purchases supplies for his agency in open marlcetat agreed prices, during cm exigency which ■ does not admit of pnirchase by advertisement. Some of the purchases are expressly authorized, others expressly ratified, by the Interior Department. Vouchers in the usual form are given, duly approved by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the Secretary of the Interior. The accounting officers reduce the prices to contract rates. The claimants accept the reduced amounts.
    
    I.The only practical effect of the decisions of the accounting' officers is' to authorize the issue of Treasury warrants when the decisions are in favor of the claimants, and to prevent the issue of warrants when the decisions are adverse to them.
    II.The Comptrollers of the Treasury (including the Sixth Auditor and Commissioner of Customs) alone of the accounting officers have authority to reject claims; and it is their duty to exercise this power ■ in cases which they believe to be tainted with fraud, or to which in their judgment a substantial defense at law may be set up.
    III.The rejection of a claim in whole or in part by the accounting officers leaves the party free to pursue his remedy at law, viz, an action in this court, although he may have accepted the portion allowed.
    IY. The Sixth Auditor of the Treasury and the Commissioner of Customs are comptrollers in fact though not in name.
    
      The Reporters statement of the ease:
    In the case of LongwiU the court found the following facts-:
    I. The act of Congress making appropriations for the Indian ‘ service for the fiscal year ending June 30,1879, having been approved May 27,1878, advertisements for proposals were thereupon duly made for furnishing supplies for the Indian agency hereinafter mentioned. Bids for said service were opened by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs on the 18th day of June, 1878, too late to admit of deliveries being made on the 1st oí' July, 1878, the beginning of the fiscal year.
    A contract for the supply of beef cattle at San Carlos Agency for the fiscal year ending June 30,1879, was made by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs on the 22d of Jane, 1878, but was not approved by the Secretary of the Interior until August 31, 1878.
    II. Under authority of the Interior Department previously given, the United States Indian agent at San Carlos Agency purchased in open market of the claimant, between the 9th day of August and the 6th day of September, inclusive, 1878, 307 head of beef cattle, weighing 249,900 pounds gross] at 4 cents per pound, amounting to $9,996.80. The purchases were necessary to feed the Indians at that agency until the contract for supplies for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1879, should be approved and deliveries made thereunder.
    III. The purchases were made at the lowest market prices at the agency at that time, and were reasonable and fair prices. The beef was delivered by the claimant to the Indian agent ■ was weighed at the time of delivery; was accepted by said agent, and issued to the Indians. The exigency would not admit of the delay incident to purchase by contract after advertisement.
    IY. The United States Indian agent, under instructions from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, issued certified vouchers to claimant for these purchases, and the same were allowed by the Indian Office, and approved by the Board of Indian Commissioners and the Secretary of the Interior, for the full amount. The accounting officers of the Treasury having allowed part of the claim, that part has been paid. They disallowed the sum of $837 on the voucher for the beef delivered August 16 and Í8, 1878, and the sum of $1,974.60 on the deliveries of August 24 and 30 and September 6, 1878 — in all, $2,811.60, which is still withheld from claimant.
    In the case of Johnson the court found the following facts:
    I. During the months of July, August, and September, 1878, the United States Indian agent for the Mescalero Agency, in New Mexico, purchased in open market of the claimant 141,067 pounds (gross) of beef, at the agreed price of 3J cents per pound. The exigencies of the service at that time would not admit of delay until advertisement could' be published, proposals received, and a written contract entered into. The price agreed upon was a fair and reasonable market price at that time and place.
    
      II. Tlie claimant delivered to said Indian agent the 141,037 pounds (gross) of beef, and the same was received and fed to the Indians located at Mescalero Agency, New Mexico.
    III. The action of the Indian agent in making the purchase in open market was approved by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and by the Secretary of the Interior, and they allowed the account of claimant, at the contract price, amounting to $4,584.69, and vouchers were given to him accordingly. The accounting officers of the Treasury allowed the account in the sum of $3,085.86, which has been paid to claimant. The balance, $1,498.83, is still withheld and remains unpaid.
    
      Messrs. Paine, Grafton & Ladd for the claimants.
    
      Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Simons for the defendants.
   Bichakdson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

• These two cases, submitted together, are substantially alike in all the material facts, except as to the amounts of money demanded.. In each an Indian agent purchased supplies for his agency in open market, at agreed prices, and they were delivered by the claimant and accepted by the agent. In each the exigency of the case did not admit of the delay incident to purchase after advertisement, proposals, and written contract. In the former, the purchases were made by express authority of ■the Interior Department previously obtained. In the latter the approval of the purchases was subsequently given by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the Secretary of the Interior. In each, vouchers for the quantity, price, and amount due were made out by the-Indian agent, certified by him, and approved and allowed by the Commissioner and the Secretary of the Interior. In each the accounting officers reduced the amount of the claim by a reduction in the price agreed upon.

The claimant Longwill has been paid $7,185.20 on his vouchers, amounting to $9,996.80, leaving a balance unpaid of $2,311.60.

The claimant Johnson has been paid $3,085.86 on his vouchers, amounting to $4,584.69, leaving a balance unpaid of $1,498.83.

No defense is set up. The Assistant Attorney-General, at the time of the submission of the cases, stated • that the ac- * counting officers of the Treasury reduced the amount of each claim because the prices were larger than those paid for like supplies purchased by contract with other parties, made after advertisements and proposals; and it was thought by them that there might be some fraud or wrong-doing involved in the matter. He further stated that the officers of the Attorney-General’s Office, with all the research they could make, had not been able to discover any fraud or wrong, or to find that the prices agreed upon by the agents, and approved by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the Secretary of the Interior, were not reasonable at the time and under the circumstances.

That the decisions of the accounting officers of the Treasury, as such, in the settlement of accounts for or against claims, have no effect upon the legal rights of the parties, except among the executive officers in the matter of accounting^ and that the only practical effect of such decisions is to authorize the issue of warrants upon which the claimants may obtain payment at the Treasury' when decisions are in their favor, and to prevent the issue of such warrants when decisions are against them, are no longer open questions, since the recent decisions of this court and. the Supreme Court, if, indeed, they ever were seriously in doubt. (McKnight et al. v. United States, 13 C. Cls. R., 292, affirmed on appeal, 98 U. S. R., 179; Real Estate Savings Bank, &c., v. United States, 16 C. Cls. R., 350, affirmed on appeal. Barnett et al. v. United States, 16 C. Cls. R., 521, affirmed on appeal; Rev. Stat., §§ 246, 247.)

The accounting officers of the Treasury are in duty bound to scrutinize claims and accounts with great care, as is their custom; and it is the undoubted right and duty of the Comptrollers (including the Sixth Auditor and the Commissioner of Customs, who are comptrollers in fact though not in name), who alone of the accounting officers have authority to decide thereon, to reject, in whole or in part, as their judgment dictates, all those claims which they have reasonable cause to suspect to be tainted with fraud, or to which they believe there may be substantial defenses in law, or as to the validity of which they are in doubt.

Upon such rejection by the Comptrollers, the claimants are left to their remedy by action at law against the United States in this court, if within its jurisdiction, where the government is defended by the Attorney-General and his able, painstaking, and industrious assistants, and whatever defenses can be found will not escape the vigilance of those officers. (Davis v. United States, 10 C. Cls. R., 285.) In other cases, not within the jurisdiction of this court, claimants’ only relief is to be sought by petition to Congress for redress of grievances, under the right to do so guaranteed by the Constitution.

In the present case the decision of the court is that the claimant Longwill recover the sum of $2,811.60, and that the claimant Johnson recover the sum of $1,498.83, and separate judgments will be entered in their favor accordingly.  