Charles Gratiot, Plaintiff In Error v. the United States

Decision Date01 January 1846
Citation4 How. 80,11 L.Ed. 884,45 U.S. 80
PartiesCHARLES GRATIOT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. THE UNITED STATES
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

2. For disbursing, from the 20th of May, 1822, to the 30th of September, 1829, both inclusive, $84,325.58, on account of the appropriations for fortifications, other than those on Forts Monroe and Calhoun, for which a separate and distinct accountability was imposed by law, and, according to the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, as also that of the Secretary of War of the 26th of May, 1831, in the case of Tuttle, constituted a separate agency. Vide opinion of the Supreme Court of 1841, on the subject, and accounts of Tuttle, on file in the Third Auditor's office, by which latter it is shown, that although he (Tuttle) received compensation for the construction or repairs of a fort, he was entitled to, and did receive, an additional compensation for disbursing, at the same time and place, the funds for other and distinct appropriations, and that he also received, at the same time, a like compensation for disbursing the funds of each separate appropriation for piers at New Castle and Marcus Hook.

Commission on $84,325.58, at 2 1/2 per cent., as allowed by general regulations of the army, $2,108.14

3. For disbursing $30,531.60, on account of the appropriation for the repairs and contingencies of fortifications, from the 1st of November, 1823, to the 30th of September, 1829, both days included, as shown by Treasury transcript referred to above, which disbursements were other than those on Forts Monroe and Calhoun, it having been the usage of the Department to make the like compensation for disbursements under the like circumstances.

Commissions on $30,531.60, at 2 1/2 per cent., being less than $2 per day, $763.29

4. For disbursing $591,039 00, on account of the appropriations for Fort Calhoun, from the 13th of November, 1821, to the 30th of September, 1829, both days included, 2,879 days, at $2 per day, being less than 2 1/2 per cent., as allowed by general regulations of the army.

Account before rendered, $5,758.00

5. For disbursing $819,677.64, on account of the appropriations for Fort Monroe, from the 13th of November, 1821, to the 30th of September, 1829, both days included, 2,879 days, at $2 per day, as allowed by general regulations of the army.

Account before rendered, $5,758.00- 6. For collections of money made for the United States from Jacob Lewis & Co., as per accompanying abstract, marked A, which service did not, under the regulations, enter into or form any part of the duties of a 'disbursing agent.'

Commissions on the sums collected, viz. $24,335.81, at 2 1/2 per cent., according to usage in similar cases, $608.39

7. For ditto, ditto, from Samuel Cooper, as per accompanying abstract, marked B.

Commissions on the same collected, viz. $3,233.62, at 2 1/2 per cent., $80.84

8. For ditto, ditto, for sales of public property, &c., as per accompanying abstract, marked C.

Commissions on sums collected, viz. $16,150.81, at 2 1/2 per cent., $403.77

9. For 480 barrels cement, account rendered and admitted to his credit in former settlement, $1,404.00

10. For quarters furnished Lieuts. Dutten and Mordecai, on account of Forts Monroe and Calhoun.

Accounts heretofore rendered, $40 00

11. For this amount paid to Robert Archer, for medical attendance on persons employed at Forts Monroe and Calhoun.

Accounts before rendered, $552.00

12. For this amount expended on account of repairs and contingencies of fortifications, $345.59. Account before rendered and passed to the credit of General Gratiot in former settlement.

13. For the following sums withhold by the Treasury officers, viz.:——

Pay and emoluments from the 1st of April, 1836, to the 6th of

December, 1838, both days included, $10,763 99

Allowance for fuel and quarters for same period, 905 80

Transportation of officers' baggage, 618 77

----------

$12,284 46

14. For certain extra official services, as more fully set forth in the accompanying account marked D, viz.:—for his extra official services in conducting the affairs connected with the civil works of internal improvement carried on by the United States; and in conducting also the affairs connected with the execution of the act of Congress of July 14, 1832, 'to provide for the taking of certain observations preparatary to the adjustment of the northern boundary-line of the State of Ohio,' referred to the Engineer bureau for execution by the executive of the United States, and other extra official services connected with the aforesaid items of charge, and which did not constitute any part of his duties as a military officer, but which properly appertained to the duties and functions of civil engineering, and were performed under an understood or implied contract with the War Department, under the sanction and authority of the President of the United States, to be compensated therefor, over an above my official pay and emoluments, at a reasonable rate of compensation, according to the established usage of the Department in analogous cases, from the 30th of July, 1828, to the 6th of December, 1838, both days included, 10 years and 130 days, at $3,600 per annum, that being the pay granted to John S. Sullivan, David Shriver, James Geddes, and Nathan S. Roberts, Esqrs., civil engineers employed under the act of the 30th of April, 1824, entitled an act to procure the necessary surveys, plans, and estimates upon the subject of roads and canals, and less than the extra pay of Captain Andrew Talcott, of the Corps of Engineers, while he was employed under the orders of the Engineer bureau, in executing the act of the 14th of July, 1832, above referred to $37,282.19

15. For certain extra official services, specified in the items of charge contained in accompanying account marked E, none of which services consituted any part or parcel of the duties or services appertaining to the office or functions of any engineer, civil or military, nor of the proper business of civil or military engineering, nor of any of the legal or prescribed duties or functions of my office of chief engineer, or colonel of engineers, nor in any manner included in my official compensation as chief engineer, colonel of engineers, or brigade-general by brevet in the army of the United States; but all of which services were extra official in relation to each and every of my said official capacities, and were performed under an understood or implied contract with the War Department, under the sanction and authority of the President of the United States, to be compensated therefor over the above my official pay and emoluments at a reasonable rate of compensation, according to the established usage of the Department in analogous cases. For the specification of all which services, I refer to the items in my said account E, all of which I am prepared to show, and prove, were in fact such extra official services, and entitled me, under such understood or implied contract, to such reasonable compensation over and above my official pay and emoluments as aforesaid, viz.:——

The United States to Charles Gratiot, Dr.

Items.

No. 1. For his extra official services at one of the desks or bureaux of the War Department, from the 30th of July, 1828, to the 6th of December, 1838, both days included, 10 years and 130 days, in receiving, acting on, and causing to be filed for safe keeping, in the archives of said desk or bureau, 23,408 letters and other papers (not accounts), 10 years and 130 days.

2. For his entire official services at one of the desks or bureaux of the War Department, from the 30th of July, 1828, to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • Southern Ry. Co v. Melton.&dagger
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • September 25, 1909
    ...regulations so made have been declared to have the force of law. United States v. Eliason, 16 Pet. 291, 10 L. Ed. 968; Gratiot v. United States, 4 How. 80, 11 L. Ed. 884; Smith v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167, 180, 181, 6 Sup. Ct. 570, 29 L. Ed. 601; United States v. Maurice, 2 Brock. 96, 105, Fe......
  • Southern Ry. Co. v. Melton
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Georgia
    • September 25, 1909
    ...regulations so made have been declared to have the force of law. United States v. Eliason, 16 Pet. 291, 10 L.Ed. 968; Gratiot v. United States, 4 How. 80, 11 L.Ed. 884; Smith v. Whitney, 116 U.S. 167, 180, 181, 6 570, 29 L.Ed. 601; United States v. Maurice, 2 Brock. 96, 105, Fed. Cas. No. 1......
  • United States v. Hamidullin
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • April 18, 2018
    ...L.Ed. 1611 (1942) ("[A]uthorized War Department regulations have the force of law."); Gratiot v. United States , 45 U.S. (4 How.) 80, 117, 11 L.Ed. 884 (1846) ("As to the army regulations, this court has too repeatedly said, that they have the force of law ...."); United States v. Eliason ,......
  • Durham Provision Co v. Daves
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • June 24, 1925
    ...v. Whitney, 116 U. S. 167, 6 S. Ct. 570, 29 L. Ed. 601; Ex parte Reed, 100 U. S. 22, 25 L. Ed. 538; Gratiot v. United States, 4 How. 81, 11 L. Ed. 884. The authority to make administrative rules is not a delegation of legislative power, nor are such rules raised from an administrative to a ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Killing Jim Crow and the Undead Nondelegation Doctrine With Privately Enforceable Federal Regulations
    • United States
    • Seattle University School of Law Seattle University Law Review No. 29-04, June 2006
    • Invalid date
    ...Cass R. Sunstein, Nondelegation Canons, 67 U. Chi. L. Rev. 315, 322 (2000) (citing 1. Stat. 95 (1789)). 271. Gratiot v. United States, 45 U.S. 80 (1846); United States v. Freeman, 44 U.S. 556, 567 (1845) (army regulations sanctioned by the executive have the force of law). See also United S......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT