
    Milton Stapp v. The United States.
    
      On tlie Proofs.
    
    
      Revenue stamps are deposited with the claimant, a collector of internal revenue. After July 1, 1867, stamps are stolen from his office while he is absent. He asks a decree directing that he be credited, to the amount of the stamps stolen, on the books of the Internal Revenue Department, under the Act May 9, 1866, (14 Stat L.} 44,) for the relief of disbursing officers.
    
    
      A collector of internal revenue is not a disbursing officer within the meaning of the Act May 9,1866, (]4 Stat. L., 44,) nor can he be made such by the Secretary of the Treasury after the 1st day of July, 1867, as the Secretary’s power to designate disbursing agents under the Act 3d March, 1865, (13 Stat., L. p. 483, sec. 4,) by that act is limited to the 1st day of July, 1866;
    
      Messrs. Crittenden & Mdivards for tbe claimant:
    Tbis action is brought to have a decree entered directing tbe Commissioner of Internal Bevenueto credit tbe claimant’s stamp account witb $2,614 02, being tbe amount of revenue stamps stolen from an iron box during tbe prevalence of tbe yellow fever at Galveston, Texas, while be was collector of internal revenue 1st district of Texas, without fault upon bis part, be having taken all tbe care of tbe stamps that it was possible for him to do under tbe surrounding circumstances.
    1st. Tbe epidemic of tbe yellow fever.
    2d. Tbe government not providing a better or safer way of keeping them.
    3d. His inability to purchase an iron burglarrproof safe, on account of bis indigent circumstances, and that be placed tbe government property witb bis own. By tbe Act May 9,1866, (14 Stat. L., 44,) disbursing officers are entitled to have credit for tbe amount lost as aforesaid, and by tbe act of Congress approved March 3, 1865, collectors were made disbursing officers. And tbe claimant now asks tbe proper decree or judgment.
    The Assistant Attorney General for tbe defendants:
    Tbe claimant, being collector of internal revenue at Galveston, Texas, left bis office on tbe 1st of July, 1867, and remained absent till October or November, 1867. During bis absence it is claimed that stamps to tbe value of $2,614 02 were lost, (stolen,) without bis fault. Tbis suit is brought under tbe Act of May 9, 1866, (14 StatL., 44,) and a decree is sought upon which tbe accounting officers of tbe treasury shall allow tbe claimant credit for said sum.
    I. Collectors of internal revenue do not come within tbe provision of tbe act of May 9, 1866.
    Tbe first section of tbis act provides that tbis court u shall have jurisdiction to bear and determine the claim of any paymaster, quartermaster, commissary of subsistence, or other disbursing officer of tbe United States, or of bis administrators or executors, for the relief from responsibility on account of losses by capture or otherwise, while in the line of his duty, of government funds, vouchers, records and papers in his charge, and for which such officer was and is held responsible.”
    The provision of law to which the claimant’s counsel allude as making collectors disbursing officers, is contained in section 4, Act of March 3, 1865, (13 Stat. L., 483.) This section makes an appropriation for the expenses incident to carrying into effect the internal revenue laws, and then provides that “ it shall be the duty of such of the collectors of internal revenue as the Secretary of the Treasury may direct to act as disbursing agents to pay the aforesaid expenses.”
    Under this provision, no collector is a disbursing agent, except such as are directed to be such by the Secretary of the Treasury; and when so directed, he is a disbursing agent only so far as relates to the payment of the expenses referred to in the act of appropriation.
    II. The loss of the stamps by claimant did not occur “ while in the line of his duty;” he left his office and his home without reason or cause, so far as appears in the record in this case.
    III. The act of May 9, 1866, is not prospective in its operation; it was intended to provide relief for “paymasters, quartermasters, commissaries of subsistence, and other disbursing officers of the United States” who, during the war, suffered “losses by capture or otherwise.”
   Peck, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Milton Stapp, of G-alveston, Texas, represents that from the 1st day of July, 1867, up to the time of the filing of his petition, he had been acting as collector of internal revenue for the first district in the State of Texas. As such collector he had in his office revenue stamps to the amount of $6,637 33, for which he was responsible and accountable to the United' States. That of the foregoing stamps $2,614 02 were stolen from him, without fault or neglect on his part; and he seeks a decree relieving him from responsibility to the Treasury Department for the revenue stamps so stolen,-by directing that he be credited therefor on the books of the internal revenue department, under the authority of the act entitled “An act to extend the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims,” approved May 9,1866, (14 Stat. L., 44.)

The words of the act which the petitioner invites the court to apply to Ms case are as follows: “The Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim of any paymaster, quartermaster, commissary of subsistence, or other disbursing officer of the United States, or of his administrators or executors, for relief from responsibility on account of losses by capture or otherwise, in the line of his duty, of governmentfunds, vouchers, records, and papers in his charge, and for which such officer was and is held responsible;” and whenever the court shall have ascertained the fact that such loss had been without the fault of the officer, then a decree should be made setting forth the amount of the loss, which would authorize the proper accounting officers in the settlement of his accounts to allow a credit therefor to the officer who was apparently in default.

This claimant does not show that he is a disbursing officer within the spirit and intent of the act he invoices us to consider. A collector of internal revenue has duties entirely different from those of a disbursing officer; he gathers for those who are after-wards called to distribute.

The brief filed by the solicitors for petitioner refers to the act approved March 3, 1865, without naming the section of the act which they say made the petitioner a disbursing agent. Upon referring to that act, (13 Stat.L., 483, §4,) we find it is made the duty of such of the collectors of internal revenue as the Secretary of the Treasury “ may direct” to act as disbursing agents, for the payment of the lawful expenses incident to carrying into effect the various acts relative to the assessment and collection of the internal revenues, after the 30th day of June, 1865, until the 1st day of July, 1866. But this section does not malee all collectors of internal revenue disbursing agents, but only such of them as the Secretary of the Treasury “may direct.” The time for which the Secretary of the Treasury might direct this service to be performed by collectors was limited to the 1st day of July, 1866, and the petition in this case avers that the loss complained of occurred in 1867, which was after the authority to make the petitioner a disbursing agent had expired. This is not the only obstacle to granting the decree asked. There is nothing to show that the petitioner had been made a disbursing agent by the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, if that power was deposited with him; without this, he was not a disbursing agent, even though the loss had occurred prior to the 1st day of July, 1866.

The petition is dismissed.  