fiscal-year limitation was the occasion for the enactments cited in subparagraph (a) (2) above.

"(e) The procedure authorized by the laws cited in subparagraph (a) (1) apply to all departments of the Government, and it is believed are generally resorted to wherever work can be done more advantageously than otherwise by one agency for another. The procedure referred to in subparagraph (a) (2), however, was primarily authorized for manufacturing activities of the Army and so far as known is utilized mainly, if not entirely, by the Army and Navy in their manufacturing activities. Governmental policies appear to favor the manufacture of war material at Government-owned rather than commercial plants.

"The following two examples are believed to illustrate the present situation: "A. On November 4, 1935, the Bureau of Ordnance, Navy, issue requisition no. 148, covering 3-inch antiaircraft guns and mounts, to be manufactured by the Army. Upon receipt of this order by the Ordnance Office, War Department, request was issued on November 22, 1935, for an advance of $155,400 to the working fund. This money was made available on December 2, 1935, and on December 5, 1935, orders for its manufacture were placed with various ordnance establishments best equipped to manufacture the particular items covered by the requisition. In accordance with answer made to question (b) in 26 Comptrollers Decision 1023, this order is considered an approved project. This order was financed by the Navy Department with funds from the appropriation 'Ordnance and Ordnance Stores, Bureau of Ordnance, Navy, 1936.'

"B. After the passage of the First Deficiency Act of 1936, approved June 22, 1936, steps were taken to obligate immediately all funds received from other executive departments which were made available from a 1936 appropriation. All funds now being credited to the working fund carry the fiscal year designation of the appropriation from which received. On September 25, 1936, the Office of the Chief of Ordnance received Bureau of Ordnance, Navy, requisition no. 132, covering the manufacture of 5-inch/38 antiaircraft common projectiles. Request for advance payment was made on October 2, 1936, and the funds made available to the Ordnance Department November 12, 1936. Order was then placed with Frankford Arsenal on November 13, 1936. This order was labeled 'Approved project' under the terms of the act of June 5, 1920, and was financed by the Navy Department with funds from the appropriation 'Ordnance and ordnance stores, Bureau of Ordnance, Navy, 1937', and were credited to 'Working fund, War Department (Navy ordnance) 1937.'

"With reference to these examples, the following questions are propounded: "Under Example A, can the funds advanced to the War Department by the Navy Department be used for the payment of materials procured or personnel employed by an arsenal during the fiscal years 1937 and 1938 insofar as necessary to complete the orders issued by the Chief of Ordnance, Army, under the act of June 5, 1920?

"Under Example B, can funds on this order be utilized for payments for materials procured or personnel employed by the Frankford Arsenal during the fiscal years 1938 and 1939 in order to complete the work covered by the order placed on November 13, 1936?

"In view of the importance to the War Department of the questions presented herein, a decision thereon at as early a date as may be practicable will be appreciated."

A similar question recently was presented by the Secretary of the Navy and by decision of December 11, 1936, A-80526, it was held in substance that the issuing of project orders by the Navy Department under the provisions of the Army Appropriation Act of June 5, 1920 (41 Stat. 975), and the provisions in the Naval Appropriation Act of July 1, 1922 (42 Stat. 812), to navy yards or other Government agencies under the Navy Department could not be considered as constituting an obligation of the funds involved to the extent that a subsequent expenditure of such funds would not be regarded as an "obligation" within the meaning of that term as used in section 8 of the act of June 22, 1936 (49 Stat. 1648). The act of June 5, 1920, provides:

"That all orders or contracts for the manufacture of material pertaining to approved projects heretofore or hereafter placed with Government-owned establishments shall be considered as obligations in the same manner as provided for similar orders placed with commercial manufacturers, and the appropriations shall remain available for the payment of the obligations so created as in the case of contracts or orders with commercial manufacturers."

Said section 8 of the act of June 22, 1936, provides that advance payments under the provisions of title VI, part II, of the Legislative Appropriation Act for the fiscal year 1933, "shall have no longer period of availability for obligation

than the appropriation from which such advance payments are made." Under the provisions of this section, affecting all advances made under the cited law, if the appropriation from which the advance is made is not available for obligation either by its terms or under other general or special statute beyond the end of a certain fiscal year, the funds so advanced are not available beyond such date. This, of course, operated as a repeal of section 601 (c) of the act of June 30, 1932 (47 Stat. 418), which reads: "Orders placed as provided in subsection (a) shall be considered as obligations upon appropriations in the same manner as orders or contracts placed with private contractors. Advance payments credited to a special working fund shall remain available until expended" and did not operate to restore the provision in the act of July 1, 1922 (42 Stat. 812) (quoted in the decision of Dec. 11, 1936), which was superseded by said section 601 (c).

The statements in your letter now stress the view that manufacturing establishments of the Government such as arsenals, navy yards, etc., appear to have been considered by legislation enacted prior to the act of June 30, 1932, on the same basis as commercial manufacturing establishments and that orders placed with such manufacturing activities of the Government should be treated on the same basis, insofar as obligation of the funds is concerned, as contracts placed with commercial establishments. And it is urged that the provisions of section 8 of the act of June 22, 1936, should not be construed as modifying the provisions of the act of 1920 in that respect. There appears to be nothing in the terms of section 8 of the act of June 22, or in its legislative history, to indicate an intent to restore or preserve the procedure originally authorized under the act of June 5, 1920. However, having regard to previous legislation with respect to the use of appropriations in connection with the manufacture of material in Government-owned manufacturing establishments, and in view of the explanations and representations made in your letter, supra, there would appear to be sufficient justification for holding that, in the case of advances made to the War Department or the Navy Department for the procurement of material to be manufactured, the placing of orders for approved projects with Government-owned manufacturing establishments such as arsenals, navy yards, etc., pursuant to the provisions of the act of June 5, 1920, may be considered obligations for payment of which the advanced funds may be used in accordance with the provisions of the said act of June 5, 1920, notwithstanding the provisions of section 8 of the act of June 22, 1936, supra. Therefore, the two questions submitted in your letter are answered in the affirmative. The decision of December 11, 1936, A-80526, is modified accordingly. Respectfully,

R. N. ELLIOTT,

Acting Comptroller General of the United States.

The Bureaus of the Navy Department, pursuant to the authority of the act approved July 11, 1922 have, for more than 15 years, carried on a regular and orderly procedure for obligating and administering appropriated funds for the accomplishment of work projects assigned to navy yards and Government-owned establishments. When these work orders were placed with these Government-owned establishments, pursuant to the law enacted in 1922, they were, by virtue of the law, definite appropriation obligations in precisely the same manner as though the orders were placed with private contractors. The appropriation obligation having been lawfully established through the placing of the work or project order, payment for the work could be subsequently made at any time within the next 2 years which is exactly the same period of time allowed for payments to a private contractor. In other words, the procedure outlined has the effect of placing all obligations duly made on the same footing, regardless of whether the obligation resulted from a contract with a private party or an order placed with & navy yard or other Government-owned establishment. In any event, the order, whether with a private contractor or a Government establishment would have to be placed before the end of the fiscal year for which the appropriation concerned was made, and any part of the appropriations not obligated on June 30 of any year would, in accordance with either law, be carried to the surplus fund in the Treasury.

The Navy Department believes the rulings of the Comptroller General seriously jeopardize that Department's right to consider orders placed with Government plants as valid obligations against the appropriations current at the time such orders are issued. The object of this bill is to obviate the possibility of any subsequent questioning of the legality of orders placed with navy yards and other Government-owned establishments.

From testimony given before the committee it was developed that when Congress appropriates funds for the Navy for a certain fiscal year it is believed the funds provided for expenditures at Governmentowned navy yards must now be spent during the fiscal year for which provided. Thus, if the Navy requests and obtains an appropriation for the repair of one of its vessels, but the circumstances are such that the vessel cannot be spared from the fleet or the work load at the navy yard would not permit the beginning of the overhaul in time to be completed during the fiscal year, then the Navy cannot expend the funds provided for that project for any work done after June 30 on that particular vessel necessary to complete the overhaul. The same general condition would exist in connection with any other type of work in Government yards that it might be able to start but not to complete during a fiscal year.

The Navy is now authorized by law to place orders with private industry for work to be completed after the close of a fiscal year and the provisions of this bill merely extend the same authority for work to be done by its own establishments.

The proposed legislation, H. R. 6866, was referred to the Acting Comptroller General of the United States by the Bureau of the Budge, and the Acting Comptroller General, in a letter to the Acting Director of the Budget, stated that the legislation of 1922 "was not objectionable from an accounting or appropriation control standpoint", and further that his "office has no objection to the proposed legislation."

The proposed legislation has the approval of the Acting Director of the Bureau of the Budget and is in accord with the program of the President.

The enactment of this proposed legislation will permit the Navy to continue to carry on its work at the Government navy yards in an efficient, economical, and orderly manner.

In view of the necessity for removing any doubt as to the authority for the continuance of a procedure legally authorized and satisfactorily employed for the past 15 years and to which there is apparently no accounting, no appropriation, and no administrative objection, the committee recommends the passage of H. R. 6866.

о

OSAGE TRIBE OF INDIANS

May 17, 1937.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. ROGERS of Oklahoma, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 670j

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 670) authorizing an appropriation for payment to the Osage Tribe of Indians on account of their lands sold by the United States, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it do pass with the following amendment:

Strike out the words "the claim" on page 2, line 11, and insert the words "all claims".

This legislation has been before the Congress at previous sessions and has been favorably reported by the Committee on Indian Affairs. All the facts involved have been reported to the Congress as far back as the Seventy-second Congress and the facts and the law are fully set forth in the Senate report on S. 670, being Senate Report No. 74, Seventy-fifth Congress, first session, wherein will be found a complete itemized statement showing the expenditures of moneys received for the sale of Osage Indian lands for the benefit of other Indians in the United States, in the total sum named in the bill of $776,493.25. The balance authorized by this bill, amounting to $248.78, was deposited to the credit of the United States.

Your committee reports its conclusions that the Osage Indians were unjustly treated and did not receive the money to which they were entitled under the treaty of September 29, 1865 (14 Stat. 687), and that the bill now reported favorably, as amended, simply authorizes the payment of moneys which the said Indians were entitled to receive about 1873. It is the judgment of your committee that these Indians, in waiving any claim for interest over a long period of years amounting to considerably more than the principal sum, and by agreeing to accept the net amount realized by the United States from the sales of their lands under the treaty of 1865, are dealing fairly and generously with the United States and that the payment of the sum stated in the bill should be authorized without delay.

The report of your committee is in harmony with the report of the Secretary of the Interior, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, and is founded on the specific findings of fact of the Court of Claims, in its opinion reported in 66 Court of Claims reports, page €4, under proceedings instituted by virtue of a jurisdictional bill of February 6, 1921.

The Court of Claims, among other things, specifically found (a) the chiefs signing the said treaty of 1865 were full-blood blanket Indians, none of whom could speak English and all of whom signe the treaty by mark; (b) the said treaty was negotiated and sign ed in 3 hours' time; (c) the Osages had no word in their language the equivalent of the word "civilization"; (d) the Osages interpreted the words "Indian Tribes" in article I, of the said treaty, to mean the Great and Little Osage Indians to the exclusion of all other Indian tribes and that they used these words with that exclusive meaning; and (e) there. is no other instance in which the United States applied the proceeds of sale of lands of one tribe for the benefit of another.

The said treaty of September 29, 1865, was negotiated for the purpose of improving the condition of the said Osage Indians, who were at the time in urgent need of funds. The treaty granted authority for the United States to sell certain Osage lands, reimburse the United States for moneys to be advanced, and all expenses incurred, and provided that the remaining proceeds be placed in the Treasury of the United States, to be used "under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, for the education and civilization of India tribes residing within the United States." This latter clause, the Court of Claims found, was construed by the said Indians to mean the Great and Little Osage Indians to the exclusion of all other Indian tribes.

The Court of Claims found what would have been, except for the said clause as to the civilization fund, a judgment for the Osage, but on account of the said clause judgment could not be entered. The court's language is as follows:

But the language of the treaty is unambiguous. Its meaning is clear without the aid of extraneous facts. The fund here was to be devoted "to the education and civilization of Indian tribes residing within the limits of the United States." In order to make this language apply exclusively to the Osage Indians, the whole meaning of it would have to be changed by the inclusion of additional words. It is not the province of this court to reform treaties or to make new treaties for the parties. That is the function and province of the political department of the Government.

The Court of Claims found that the only amount of the civilization fund expended for the benefit of the Osage Indians was the sum of $189.55, and that the major portion, $776,493.25, was used for the benefit of other Indians scattered throughout the United States. On April 11, 1911, the balance of the said fund, $248.78, was covered into the surplus funds of the Treasury. The Osage Indians, therefore, were never paid $776,742.03, the net balance received by the United States from the sales of their lands.

The specific findings of the Court of Claims in this matter are as follows:

III

The chiefs signing the treaty were all full-blood blanket Indians, none of them understood or could read, write, or speak the English language, and all affixed their signatures by mark. The same is true of all the other Indians who affixed their signatures after those of the chiefs, and who were of lesser rank, with the exception of one brave at Fort Smith who understood and could speak English.