About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

A79509 1 (1914-11-25)

handle is hein.gao/gaobadadw0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 836 DECISIONS OF THE COMPTROLLER. DECISIONS OF THE COMPTROLLER. 337 EMPLOYMENT OF ARCHITECTS siderations above mentioned and upon the facts presented it must The fee charged by a firm of architects employed by a postmaster to assist him be held that no appropriation tnder the control of the Office of the in preparing drawings and specifications for work involved in certain Supervising Architect may lawfully be charged with the expendi- changes to be made in the post office is not a proper charge against any ture in question. appropriation under the control of the Office of the Supervising Architect. Comptroller Downey to the Secretary of the Treasury, November 25, 1914: I have your letter of the 21st instant, in which you ask whether where is any appropriation under the control of the Office of the Supervising Architect from which may be paid a charge of $35 made by a fi-m of architects of Detroit, Mich., for assisting the postmaster at that city in the preparation of drawings and speci- fications for the work involved in certain minor changes authorized to be made in the Detroit post office. You do not so state, but it is presumed that the charge in question was incurred within the current fiscal year. The act of February 20, 1893 (27 Stat., 469), authorizing the Sec- retary of tht Treasury to obtain plans, drawings, etc., for the erec- tion of publie buildings by competition among architects, was ex- pressly repealed by the act of August 24, 1912. (37 Stat., 428.) So far as is known to this office there is now no law specifically author- izing the employment generally of private architects in the prepara- tion of plans, etc., relating to public buildings; and in a decision of this office of date October 4, 1913 (67 MS. Comp. Dec., 35), it was held that by reason of the repeal of the act of February 20, 1893. the Treasury Department was not authorized to enter into a contract with private architects for plans for decorative (mural) painting of a certain public building. Indeed, from the repeal of the above mentioned act it would appear that it is the present policy of the Government that all work relative to plans, specifications, etc., be done by or under the direction of the Office of the Supervising Architect, the establishment charged generally with such duty. Upon inquiry at the office above mentioned it has been ascertained that it is the practice in cases such as that under consideration for the custodian of the building to supply the necessary data relative to any contemplated change, repair, etc., and that from these data the plans and specifications necessary to the work involved are pre- pared by the Office of the Supervising Architect. In the present case it appears that the postmaster did not consult the custodian of the building relative to the drawings and specifica- tions in question, but that, doubtless through misapprehension as to his authority in such a case, he procured the services of the private architects in preparing the drawings, etc. While it appears that the postmaster acted in this matter from a sense of duty and in perfect good faith, yet in view of the con-

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most