1188. Prizes for graduates from Army schools for bakers and cooks. For providing prizes to be established by the Secretary of War for enlisted men of the Army who graduate from the Army schools for bakers and cooks, the total amount of such prizes at the various schools not to exceed nine hundred dollars per annum, * dollars. Act of Mar. 2, 1907 (34 Stat. 1166).

'A similar provision has occurred in the several annual Army appropriation acts since this enactment.

1189. Contracts under direction of Secretary of War.'-All purchases and contracts for supplies or services for the military and naval service shall be made by or under the direction of the chief officers of the Departments of War and of the Navy, respectively.2

The United States in its political capacity may, within the sphere of the constitutional powers confided to it, and through the instrumentality of the departments to which those powers are intrusted, enter into contracts not prohibited by law and appropriate to the just exercise of these powers; no legislative authorization is required, such power being incident to the general right of sovereignty. (Dugan v. U. S., 3 Wheaton, 172; U. S. v. Tingey, 5 Peters, 114; U. S. v. Bradley, 10 id., 343; U. S. v. Linn, 15 id., 290; Cotton v. U. S., 11 Howard, 229; Fowler v. U, S., 3 Ct. Cls., 43; Allen v. U. S., id., 91.)

3

Under this statute the Secretary of War is the source of all authority to make contracts or purchases in all branches of the military establishment. "Whether he makes the contracts himself, or confers the authority upon others, it is his duty to see that they are properly and faithfully executed; and if he becomes satisfied that contracts which he has made himself are being fraudulently executed, or those made by others were made in disregard of the rights of the Government, or with the intent to defraud it, or are being unfaithfully executed, it is his duty to interpose, arrest the execution, and adopt effectual measures to protect the Government against the dishonesty of subordinates." (U. S. v. Adams, 7 Wall., 463, 477; Parish v. U. S., 8 Wall., 489.)

The head of an Executive Department may, when not prejudicial to the interests of the Government, or for its benefit, alter or modify the terms of a contract made under his direction, but his subordinates may not take such action without express authority from him. (2 Comp. Dec., 182.)

The laws governing the purchase of supplies for the Army are equally appllcable whether the purchases are made from funds received from the sale of stores or from the regular appropriations available therefor. (3 Dig. 2d Comp. Dec., 287.)

The Secretary of War has authority to extend the time for the execution of a contract made on behalf of his department when the interests of the Government are not thereby prejudiced, and particularly when its noncompletion within the time limited is not due to the negligence of the contractor. (2 Comp. Dec., 242; Solomon v. U. S., 19 Wall., 17; U. S. v. Corliss Steam Engine Co., 91 U. S.. 321; XVIII Opin. Att. Gen., 101; 2 Comp. Dec., 635.)

Approval of contract by superior authority.-Where a contract in terms “is subject to the approval of the Quartermaster General," approval is a condition precedent to the legal effect of the agreement. (Darragh v U. S., 33 Ct. Cls., 377; Monroe & Richardson v. U. S., 35 id., 199; Cathell v. U. S., 46 id., 368; Monroe v. U. S., 184 U. S., 524.) The refusal of the Qartermaster General to approve a contract after work has been begun by the contractor is not a rescission. The contractor who begins work before approval does so at his own risk; and if he is paid for the work done, he can not recover profits as if there had been a breach. (Id.) Such approval need not be in writing. (Speed's Case, 8 Wallace, 77.)

Government contracts, by whom made, binding force, etc.-Where a public agent acts in the line of his duty and by legal authority, his contracts made

And all agents or contractors for supplies or service as aforesaid shall render their accounts for settlement to the accountant of the proper department for which such supplies or services are required, subject, nevertheless, to the inspection and revision of the officers of the Treasury in the manner before prescribed. Sec. 3714, R. S.

1190. Unauthorized contracts prohibited.-No contract or purchase on behalf of the United States shall be made, unless the same is authorized by law or is under an appropriation adequate to its fulfillment, except in the War and Navy Departments, for clothing, subsistence, forage, fuel, quarters, transportation, or medical and hospital supplies, which, however, shall not exceed the necessities of the current year. Sec. 3732, R. S., as amended by Act of June 12, 1906 (34 Stat. 255).

on account of the Government are public and not personal. They inure to the benefit of and are obligatory on the Government, not the officer. (Hodgin v. Dexter, 1 Cranch, 345, 363; Parks v. Ross, 11 Howard, 362.) The Government is not bound by the act of its agent, unless it clearly appear that he acted within the scope of his authority, or was employed as a public agent to do, or was held out as having authority to do, such act. (Whiteside v. U. S., 93 U. S., 247; Lee v. Munroe, 7 Cranch, 366; Filer v. U. S., 9 Wall., 45.) Where service was performed under a general appropriation, the contractor is not bound to know the condition of the appropriation. (Myerle v. U. S., 33 Ct. Cls., 1.) See note to paragraph 1211, post.

The words "medical and hospital supplies" were added by act of June 12, 1906 (34 Stat. 255).

"The United States when it enters into a contract with an individual relinquishes its sovereign character quoad that transaction is subject to the rules of right and justice between man and man, and is controlled by the same laws that govern individuals with respect to such contract. (Clark v. U. S., 6 Wallace, 546; U. S. v. Smoot, 15 id., 47; Cooke v. U. S., 91 U. S., 398; U. S. v. Bostwick, 94 U. S., 592; Mann v. U. S., 3 Ct. Cls., 404; Chic. R. R. Co. v. U. S. 104, U. S., 680; U. S. v No. Am. Com. Co., 74 Fed. Rep., 145.) The United States is liable in damages for breach of contract to the same extent as an individual. (Chicago R. R. Co. v. U. S., 104 U. S., 680; Eastern R. R. Co. v. U. S., 129, U. S., 396.) Such right of action against the United States, however, is subject to the limitation that the Government can not be sued without its consent. (U. S. v. McLemore, 4 Howard, 286; U. S. v. Clarke, 8 Peters, 436, 444; DeGroot v. U. S., 5 Wallace, 419; U. S. v. Eckford, 6 id., 484; U. S. v. Lee, 106 U. S., 204; Nock v. U. S., 2 Ct. Cls., 451.) Such consent to be sued, in respect to certain causes of action, has been given by the establishment of the Court of Claims. (For the jurisdiction of this court, see Chapter VII, ante.) The restrictions of section 3732, Revised Statutes, are in the alternative, prohibiting a contract or purchase on the part of the United States unless "authorized by law" or unless such contract or purchase is made “under an appropriation adequate to its fulfillment." Contracts to be valid must be shown to come under one or the other of these provisions. (Shipman v. U. S., 155 U. S., 500.)

When the authority to enter into a contract for a particular work in behalf of the United States depends wholly upon an appropriation of money made for that purpose, no officer of the Government has power to create a liability therefor beyond the amount of the appropriation, and a contractor can not recover more than the money appropriated, whatever may be the extent of his work. When an alleged liability rests wholly upon the authority of an appropriation they must stand or fall together, so that when the latter is exhausted the former is at an end, to be revived, if at all, only by subsequent legislation by Congress. (Shipman v. U. S., 18 Ct. Cls., 138, 147; McCullom v. U. S., 17 id., 92, 103; Trenton Co. v. U. S., 12 id., 147, 157.) A contract in excess of the appropriation would not bind future appropriations even if con

92061-17-28