Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 3.djvu/811



of the treasury, with public moneys, advanced prior to the first day of July, one thousand eight hundred and fifteen, the proper accounting officers be, and they are hereby, authorized to admit, to the credit of such persons, respectively, the amount of any expenditures made by them, which were, at the time, authorized by law, or regulations, notwithstanding regular vouchers for the same may not be produced, if the impracticability of producing such vouchers shall be proved to the satisfaction of the said accounting officers; and if the evidence exhibited, in lieu thereof, shall be the best nature of the several cases will admit of, and such as will be received in courts of justice: Provided, nevertheless, That the credits to be allowed shall, in no case, exceed, in amount, the sums with which such persons, respectively, shall be charged on the books of the said third auditor.

. And be it further enacted, That whenever, in the settlement of the accounts before mentioned, a difference of opinion shall arise between the accounting officers, as to the extent of the credits to be allowed, under, or by virtue of, this act, such case shall be referred to the Secretary of War, whose decision shall be conclusive. And it is hereby made the duty of the said secretary, to cause to be communicated to Congress, at the commencement of each session, a statement comprising the names of the persons whose accounts shall have been settled the preceding year, agreeably to the provisions of this act, together with the amount which shall have been passed to the credit of each, under the several heads of expenditure, and upon evidence other than such as had been prescribed by the laws and regulations existing before the passage of this act.

. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall swear or affirm falsely, touching the expenditure of public money, or in support of any claim against the United States, he or she shall, upon conviction thereof, suffer for wilful and corrupt perjury. Indictment for false swearing under the third section of the act of Congress of March 1, 1823, which declares, that “any person who shall swear or affirm falsely, touching the expenditure of public money, or in support of any claim against the United States, shall suffer as for wilful and corrupt perjury.” The indictment charged the false swearing to be an affidavit made before a justice of the peace of Kentucky in support of a claim against the United States, under the to provide for liquidating and paying certain claims of the state of Virginia. By the Supreme Court—There is no statute of the United States which expressly authorizes any justice of the peace of the state, or any officer of the national government to administer an oath in support of any claim against the United States under the act of 1823. The United States v. Bailey, 9 Peters, 238. The Secretary of the Treasury, in order to carry into effect the authority given to him, to liquidate and pay the claims referred to in the act of 1832, had established a regulation authorizing affidavits made before any justice of the peace of a state, to be received and considered in proof of claims under the act. By implication, he possessed the power to make such a regulation, and to allow such affidavits in proof of claims under the act of 1832. It was incidental to his duty and authority in settling claims under the act. When the oath is taken before a state or national magistrate, authorized to administer oaths in pursuance of any regulations prescribed by the Treasury Department, or in conformity with the practice of the Treasury Department, so that the affidavit would be admissible evidence at the Department in support of any claim against the United States, and the party swears falsely, the case is within the purview of the act of 1823. Ibid. If a state magistrate shall administer an oath, under an act of Congress expressly giving him the power to do so, it would be a lawful oath, before one having competent authority, and as much so as if he had been specially appointed a commissioner under a law of the United States for that purpose, and such an oath, administered under such circumstances, would be within the purview of the act of 1823. Ibid. The act of 1823 does not create or punish the crime of perjury, technically considered. But it creates a new and substantial offence of false swearing, and punishes it in the same manner as perjury. The oath, therefore, need not be administered in a judicial proceeding, or in a case which the state magistrate, under the state laws, had jurisdiction, so as to make the false swearing perjury. It would be sufficient, that it might be lawfully administered by the magistrate, and was not in violation of his official duty. Ibid.

, March 1, 1823.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, if any person or