[ 1 ] 4 



" ' or for any other service or duty whatsoever unless authorized by law,' " 

 to be permanent in its operation, and applicable to all future appropria- 

 tions, where officers of the army are employed in such service or duty ; 

 and that it appears from the record, that this was the very ground on 

 which the Treasury Department rejected the claim of Doctor Minis for 

 commissions. The same question has been made and fully argued in the 

 case of Gratiot vs. the United States, at the present term, and we have 

 given it our deliberate consideration. We are of opinion that such is not 

 the true interpretation of the terms of the proviso ; and that it is limited 

 exclusively to appropriations made at the session of eighteen hundred and 

 thirty-five. 



" It would be somewhat unusual to find engrafted upon an act making 

 " special and temporary appropriations, any provision which was to have 

 " a general and permanent application to all future appropriations. Nor 

 " ought such an intention on the part of the legislature to be presumed, 

 " unless it is expressed in the most clear and positive terms, and where 

 " the language admits of no other reasonable interpretation. The office 

 " of a proviso generally, is either to except something from the enacting 

 *' clause or to qualify or restrain its generality, or to exclude some pos- 

 '' sible ground of misinterpretation of it, as to extending to cases not in- 

 " tended by the legislature to be brought within its purview. A 

 " general rule, applicable to all future cases, would most naturally be 

 " expected to find its proper place in some distinct and independent en- 

 " actment." 



Indeed, that was a much stronger case than this, for in that case, the 

 words used in the proviso might have been construed to give it a perma- 

 nent operation. There are no such words in this proviso. On the con- 

 trary, the words '■' during the present session," immediately precede the 

 proviso, and are directly connected with it, and to construe this proviso 

 as permanent, is to violate the express language and manifest intention of 

 the law and the settled rules of construction. 



In conclusion, I entertain no doubt, that if the question were before4he 

 Supreme court of the United States, it would be decided unanimously by 

 that tribunal, upon the principles adopted by them in the case of Minis 

 before quoted, that the effect of this proviso was temporary and limited 

 by the operation of the act to which it was appended, and that as regards 

 all future sessions of Congress, the mileage of the Members and Senators 

 from California must be governed by the act of 22d January, 1818, until 

 otherwise provided by law. 



Very respectfully, 



Your obedient servant, 

 (Signed) R. J. WALKER. 



Office of the Sergeant-at-Arms, 

 House of Representatives, March 3, 1851. 

 I certify that the Committee on Mileage of the House of Representa- 

 tives have unanimously reported as follows, in reference to the mileage of 

 the members from the State of California : 



" There having been no special provision regulating the mileage of the 



