such failure to fulfill the contract as is contemplated in said general orders, but that, in letting future contracts on which this contractor might submit the lowest bid, it would be proper to consider the facts above stated in determining whether such bid should be considered the lowest and best bid.

(C. 29482, Mar. 4, 1912.)

CONTRACTS: Advertising; accepting next higher bid.

Where two bids were received by the Signal Corps for deep-sea cable, but the superiority of the cable offered at the higher bid more than compensated the difference in price, it was held that the higher bid might be accepted as being the lowest and best bid for the Government, having regard to the quality of the cable to be secured. (C. 29451, Feb. 17, 1912.)

CONTRACTS: Advertising; alteration of bids.

The day before bids for the manufacture of certain overcoats were to be opened, telegraphic request was sent to all who had presented bids to make other bids upon a coat with a material alteration from the kind required in the original advertisement. Held, that the law requiring all purchases of supplies, except in certain specified cases, to be made only after due advertisement, requires a notice that will reach the general public or that portion of it engaged in the manufacture or sale of the particular articles wanted, and for a sufficient. length of time to allow for the making of bids, and said law was not complied with under the conditions stated. It is recommended that all bids received in response to such telegraphic notice be rejected. (C. 29470, Feb. 28, 1912.)

CONTRACTS: Advertising; increasing quantities.

Where an advertisement was made for building material for 5 sets of field officers' quarters and 19 double sets of company officers' quarters, subject to an increase or decrease of 20 per cent, and after bids were received it was proposed to make contracts for material for 11 and 33 sets, respectively. Held, that such a contract would not be in accordance with the advertisement and would not be a compliance with the law requiring advertising for such supplies. Held, however, that if it be determined that there is such an exigency as will not permit of the delay incident to readvertising there would be no legal objection to the proposed contract.

(C. 29600, Apr. 11, 1912.)

CONTRACTS: Construction of; "corner pins" on cross arms of electriclighting system.

The contract for an electric-lighting system provided that the pins on the cross arms of the poles, "except corner pins, shall be of the best locust." On claim by the contractor for extra compensation for being required to furnish iron pins at the ends of the lines and also where angles occurred. Held, that the term "corner pins

erly construed by the supervising inspector as including a considerable

change in direction (see Christian v. Gernt (Tenn.), 64 S. W., 399, 401), but that the term would not include pins on the cross arms at the ends of the lines.

(C. 29482, Mar. 4, 1912.)

CONTRACTS: Delays in performance; adjustment of unliquidated damages.

A firm had a contract for the construction of the principal buildings at the Fort Sill, Okla., new artillery post, and others had contracts for doing various work in said buildings and about the post, dependent upon the construction or progress of construction of said buildings. The principal contractors delayed the execution of their work, thereby causing delay and loss to the other contractors. Held, that such losses, in so far as the United States might be answerable for them, were unliquidated damages for breach of contract which the executive officers have no jurisdiction to settle or allow (17 Comp. Dec., 810; Cramp & Sons v. U. S., 216 U. S., 494); but the probable amount of such losses for which the Government might be liable in an action on the contracts should be retained from the contract price in settling with the contractors whose delays occasioned the losses, as a protection to the United States.

(C. 27675, Mar. 7, 1912.)

CONTRACTS: Indemnity against infringement of patent.

Where the United States having a license to manufacture or have manufactured, for the use of the United States, Army field bake ovens covered by a particular patent, entered into a contract with a private firm, which made no claim to any rights in the premises, for the manufacture of the ovens according to the patent, and notice was served on the manufacturer that the oven covered by said contract was an infringement of another patent for an improved camp oven. Held, that in the light of these facts, although there was no express provision in the contract that the United States would indemnify the contractor against claims for infringement of other patents, there would be an implied obligation to do so, under the rule that where an act, not apparently illegal in itself, is done under the express directions of the other party to a contract, and occasions injury to the rights of third persons, the party doing the act is entitled to indemnity against the consequences of the act, provided it is done honestly and bona fide in compliance with directions. (22 Cyc., 95; King v. United States, 1 Ct. Cls., 38.) Held further, that there was clearly no obligation on the part of the contractors to proceed with the contract if by so doing they would render themselves liable for infringement, without provision for reimbursement by the United States, and that the urgent need of the Government for the ovens would make it to the interest of the United States to enter into a supplemental contract with them whereby the Government would expressly undertake to indemnify them against any claims for infringement of the patent rights of other patentees.

(C. 25188, Apr. 8, 1912.)

CONTRACTS: Sufficiency of notice to make delivery of articles purchased. A contract provided for the delivery of a certain amount of grain to the United States in quantities ordered by the depot quartermaster, that portion delivered prior to December 31 to be paid for at a certain rate, while the portion delivered afterwards was to be paid for at a higher rate. Notice was given in the latter part of December for delivery during that month of the entire balance of grain due under the contract. Delivery was not made until after December, and compensation was claimed at the higher rate upon the ground that there was not sufficient time after notice for making delivery in December, and that even if delivery had been tendered in that month the Government was not in position to receive it. Held, that it was the duty of the Government to have given notice for the delivery of the grain in sufficient time to have permitted its delivery within the month of December, and if it did not, and delivery was accepted, after that month, payment for the grain delivered should be made at the prices provided for in the contract for deliveries at the time when they were actually made: and further, that the Government should also have been in a position to have received the grain in December, if tendered, in order to have availed itself of the prices fixed for December deliveries.

(C. 29573, Apr. 3, 1912.)

COURTS-MARTIAL: Discipline; reviewing authority.

The action of a reviewing authority in approving a sentence of a general court-martial and simultaneously remitting a portion thereof is legally equivalent to approving only the sentence as reduced. (C. 23038, May 2, 1912.)

DESERTER: Reward for apprehension; additional expenses.

A sheriff of one of the Hawaiian Islands transported a deserter from the United States Army to Honolulu where he was delivered to the military authorities, and in so doing expended a sum very nearly equal to the $50 reward authorized for the apprehension and delivery of deserters. On submission of the question as to whether there were any means by which the expenses might be paid and the sheriff receive the full reward. Held, that the $50 reward authorized by Army Regulations, made in pursuance of law, for the return of deserters from the United States Army, must include all expenses of apprehending and bringing the deserter to the nearest military post or to a place agreed upon; but that there is no restriction placed upon the cost of the journey of an armed party sent to receive the person arrested and held as a deserter.

(C. 17327-B, Feb. 15, 1912.)

DESERTERS: Reward for apprehension; claim of policeman for arresting deserter after he had surrendered to military authority.

Where a deserter had surrendered to a recruiting sergeant, had been placed in arrest, paroled to a given date, and while at large under such parole was arrested as a deserter by a police officer who

claimed to believe that the deserter intended to escape. Held, that the police officer was not entitled to the reward for the apprehension and delivery of a deserter.

(C. 17327, May 29, 1912.)

DESERTERS: Reward for apprehension; confined in prison.

A bertillion clerk at a State penitentiary informed the military authorities that a prisoner at that institution was probably a deserter, which information led to his apprehension and arrest by said authorities immediately upon the termination of his term of imprisonment. The other penitentiary officers did nothing more than turn the prisoner over to the military authorities at the end of his term, and disclaimed any interest in the reward. Held, that the person furnishing the information was entitled to the entire reward offered for the return of the deserter and that it was not necessary that he should personally have made the arrest and delivery to the military authorities.

(C. 17327-B, Feb. 9, 1912.)

DESERTERS: Reward for apprehension; delivered as absent without leave, but tried for desertion.

Where a police officer delivered to the military authorities a soldier as having been absent without leave, but who was later deemed by those authorities to be a deserter and was tried as such. Held, that the police officer is entitled to a reward as having apprehended and delivered a deserter, and this though the soldier was acquitted of desertion and convicted of absence without leave only.

(C. 17327-B, Apr. 17, 1912.)

DISCIPLINE: Punishment in reducing from first-class private.

The maximum punishment order provided that for certain offenses first-class privates might be reduced to second-class privates. Pursuant to this order a first-class private of the Signal Corps was sentenced to "be reduced from firt-class private to second-class private." At the time the only privates in the Signal Corps were "first-class privates" and "privates." There were no "second-class privates. Held, that as the only grade below that of first-class private was private, the effect of the sentence was to reduce the soldier to the grade of private.

(C. 3694, May 20, 1912.)

EIGHT-HOUR LAW: Government employees; extraordinary emergency. Under the act of August 1, 1892 (27 Stat.. 340), it does not constitute a sufficient statement of an extraordinary emergency to report merely that a laborer or mechanic was employed overtime on account of working aloft as rigger." "extra attention required to floating plant," "repairing derrick," "repairing machinery of work

ing plant," or "making necessary repairs to machinery." An emergency is an event or occasional combination of circumstances which calls for immediate action or remedy, and the report of an extraor dinary emergency, required by paragraph 742, Army Regulations, 1910, should show that conditions demanded immediate action or remedy.

(C. 20169-C., Feb. 2, 1912.)

EMPLOYEES: Presents to official superiors.

Section 1784, Revised Statutes, provides that no officer, clerk, or employee in the Government service shall solicit contributions from officers, clerks, or employees in the same service for a gift or a present to any one in a superior official position, and prohibits any such official or clerical superior from accepting any such present. Held, that the forelady in the tent department of the Philadephia, Pa., depot of the Quartermaster's Department, who only has the duty of distributing work among employees and superintending its execution, is not an official or clerical superior nor a person occupying a superior official position within the meaning of said statute, and does not violate its provisions by accepting presents from employees under her direction which have been paid for with money raised by voluntary subscription among such employees, nor does the employee who solicits such subscription thereby violate said statute.

(C. 29736, May 29, 1912, p. 13.)

ENLISTED MEN: Engaging in commercial business; hiring out automobiles.

Complaint having been made that certain enlisted men owning automobiles at a post were letting them out for hire and were competing with a regular stage line between the post and a neighboring village. Held, that while enlisted men do not by enlistment lose their rights as citizens to engage in commercial business, and while there is no objection to their owning automobiles and allowing others to use them for hire, yet, for military reasons, they should not be permitted to maintain anything in the nature of a regular system of transportation for gain.

(C. 29467, Feb. 29, 1912.)

GRATUITY: Deceased officers and soldiers; carelessness or accident not misconduct.

In civil actions to recover damages from a defendant on account of injuries caused by the defendant's negligence, the rule is that if the plaintiff has failed to exercise that reasonable degree of care and diligence which a person of ordinary prudence and capacity might be expected to exercise under similar circumstances, he is himself guilty of contributory negligence and can not recover from the defendant. But in cases arising under the act of May 11, 1908 (35 Stat., 108), as amended by the act of March 3, 1903 (35 Stat., 735), which provides for the payment to certain beneficiaries of a gratuity