appropriated by Congress save those received from the sale of stock to the Government, whereas the Fleet Corporation had the benefit of money appropriated to the Shipping Board and by it turned over to the Corporation.10 The first statute making such an appropriation, however, provided in terms that the moneys were to be expended "as other moneys of said corporation are now expended." Act of June 15, 1917, c. 29, 40 Stat. 182, 183.

The transactions of the Fleet Corporation arose out of the exercise of powers conferred upon it in several different ways. It was urged in the argument that the question of the jurisdiction of the Comptroller General would depend upon the source of the power giving rise to the transactions under consideration, because of certain special statutory provisions as to compensation for claimants, now to be considered. Besides powers conferred by the general incorporation laws of the District of Columbia, the Fleet Corporation was vested, by delegation from the President," with the powers conferred upon him by Acts of June 15, 1917, c. 29, 40 Stat. 182; April 22, 1918, c. 62, 40 Stat. 535; and November 4, 1918, c.

10 See, in addition to the appropriation act referred to in the text, the Acts of October 6, 1917, c. 79, 40 Stat. 345; July 1, 1918, c. 113, 40 Stat. 634, 650; June 5, 1920, c. 235, 41 Stat. 874, 891; March 4, 1921, c. 161, 41 Stat. 1367, 1382; August 24, 1921, c. 89, 42 Stat. 192; June 12, 1922, c. 218, 42 Stat. 635, 647-648; February 13, 1923, c. 72, 42 Stat. 1227, 1241-1242; June 7, 1924, c. 292, 43 Stat. 521, 530-531; March 3, 1925, c. 468, 43 Stat: 1198, 1209-1210. The last four of the appropriation acts referred to provide that "No part of the sums appropriated shall be available for the payment of certified public accountants . and all auditing of every nature requiring the services of outside auditors shall be furnished through the Bureau of Efficiency: Provided, That nothing herein contained shall limit the... United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation from employing outside auditors to audit claims in litigation for or against the Corporation."

11 See Executive Orders, No. 2664, July 11, 1917; No. 2888, July 18, 1918; No. 3018, Dec. 3, 1918.

L

Opinion of the Court.

275 U.S.

201, 40 Stat. 1020, 1022. Among them were the power to construct vessels and the power to modify, suspend, cancel or requisition existing or future contracts for the construction of vessels. The Act of June 15, 1917 provided also that when the United States should cancel or requisition any contract, it should make just compensation to be determined by the President; and that, if the persons concerned were dissatisfied with that determination, 75 per cent. of the amount so determined was to be paid; and that suit for the additional amount claimed might be brought against the United States, in the manner provided in § 24 (20) and § 145 of the Judicial Code. The Merchant Marine Act 1920, June 5, 1920, c. 250, § 2, 41 Stat. 988, repealed the provisions of the Acts of 1917 and 1918 above referred to; but it preserved all rights and remedies accruing as a result of any action taken under the provisions repealed; provided by § 2 (b) for their enforcement as though the Act had not been passed, except that, as provided in § 2 (c), the Shipping Board should as soon as practicable "adjust, settle, and liquidate all matters arising out of or incident to the exercise by or through the President of any of the powers or duties conferred or imposed upon the President by any such Act or parts of Acts; and for this purpose the board, instead of the President, shall have and exercise any such powers and duties relating to the determination and payment of just compensation: Provided, That any person dissatisfied with any decision of the board shall have the same right to sue the United States as he would have had if the decision had been made by the President of the United States under the Acts hereby repealed."

The claims of Skinner & Eddy were mainly for the cancellation by the Fleet Corporation of contracts for the construction of vessels. The Government contends that the contract giving birth to the claims arose out of or was incident to the exercise by or through the President

of the powers conferred upon him by the statutes referred to in § 2 (c) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920, and, hence, that the Shipping Board, and not the Comptroller General, has the power and duty to settle and adjust them and thus to allow or disallow any claims by way of credits or set-offs arising out of the contracts. Skinner & Eddy urge that their contracts were made by virtue of the power conferred upon the Fleet Corporation by the Shipping Act of 1916; that a controversy arising out of such contracts is not within § 2 (c) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920; and that, hence, the Comptroller General had jurisdiction over its claims. We have no occasion to determine whether the contracts here in question were made under the original charter power of the Fleet Corporation or under the additional powers acquired by delegation from the President. Even if § 2 (c) has no application, because the contracts were not entered into pursuant to the power delegated by the President in 1917, it does not follow that the claims fall within the jurisdiction of the Comptroller General. For the Fleet Corporation is an entity distinct from the United States and from any of its departments or boards; and the audit and control of its financial transactions is, under the general rules of law and the administrative practice, committed to its own corporate officers except so far as control may be exerted by the Shipping Board. If, on the other hand, the contracts were made and cancelled by the Fleet Corporation under the power delegated by the President, the settlement and adjustment of the claim falls clearly within the powers conferred by § 2 (c) upon the Shipping Board.

There is nothing in the language of the statutes, or in reason, to support the suggestion that the Shipping Board has the power to adjust claims, but that the adjustment does not become operative unless there is approval of the final settlement by the Comptroller General. Nor is

Opinion of the Court.

275 U.S.

there any basis for the further suggestion of Skinner & Eddy that the Shipping Board has power to make settlement, if it can; but where a settlement is not made and a suit by the United States is brought or threatened, the Comptroller General is the official to whom must be presented all claims for credit in such suit. It is true that the Merchant Marine Act did not modify § 951 of the Revised Statutes or impair the right of a defendant to a credit if sued by the United States upon a Fleet Corporation contract. Since the passage of the Merchant Marine Act, as before, the defendant may set up the credit, if he can show disallowance by the appropriate accounting officers. But § 951 does not prescribe who the appropriate officer is or that the claim must be presented to a general accounting officer of the Government. As was held in United States v. Kimball, 101 U. S. 726, the requirement of the section is satisfied when the claim is presented and disallowed by the officer who has power to allow the claim, although he is not a general accounting officer of the Government.

The Court of Appeals of the District based its judgment of affirmance solely upon the ground that, since the claims involved were already in the course of litigation in two suits in another federal court, no other court of coördinate jurisdiction could interfere. The Comptroller General had originally taken a somewhat similar ground for declining to act. But later he stated, in the trial court, that his answer should be taken as broadly denying his jurisdiction to consider claims of this nature. And, in this Court, he specifically disclaimed reliance upon the ground taken by the Court of Appeals. We have no occasion to consider its validity. Nor need we consider whether the refusal of the Comptroller General to take jurisdiction was a disallowance of the claim within the meaning of § 951 or any of the other questions which have been argued concerning the application of that section. Affirmed.

Syllabus.

MAMMOTH OIL COMPANY ET AL. v. UNITED STATES.

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

No. 140. Argued April 12, 13, 1927-Decided October 10, 1927.

1. The lease and contract in this case-which involve inter alia the letting of a Naval Petroleum Reserve for exploitation by a private corporation and a scheme for obtaining fuel oil and elaborate storage facilities for the Navy by means of the royalties of crude oil provided for the United States in the lease-were without authority of law, and the United States is entitled on that ground to have them canceled. Pan American Petroleum Co. v. United States, 273 U. S. 456. Pp. 35, 53.

2. The facts and circumstances in evidence require a finding that, pending the making of the lease and agreement, the representative of the Government (former Secretary of the Interior) who dominated the transactions, and the representative of the lessee corporation, contrary to the Government's policy for the conservation of oil reserves for the Navy and in disregard of law, conspired to procure for the company all the products of the reserve on the basis of exchange of royalty oil for construction work, fuel oil, etc.; that the former so favored the latter and the making of the lease and agreement that it was not possible for him loyally or faithfully to serve the interests of the United States or impartially to consider the applications of others for leases in the reserve, and that the lease and agreement were made fraudulently by means of collusion and conspiracy between them. P. 35.

3. Evidence is to be weighed according to the proof which it was in the power of one side to produce, and in the power of the other to contradict. P. 51.

4. Having introduced evidence which, uncontradicted and unexplained, was sufficient to sustain its charge that the lease and contract were procured for the defendant, corporation through fraud participated in by the principal representative of the company, the United States was not required to call him as a witness; and his silence makes strongly against the company. It is as if he personally held the lease, were defendant, and failed to testify. P. 52.