"(5) The examination and audit of vouchers and accounts of the officials and employees covered by this chapter;

"(6) The providing of accommodations for the use of the courts and the various officials and employees covered by this chapter; and

"(7) Such other matters as may be assigned to him by the Supreme Court and the conference of the senior circuit judges.

"SEC. 308. The provisions of this chapter shall apply to the several United States circuit courts of appeals, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the several district courts of the United States in the continental United States, the Court of Claims, the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, the United States Customs Court, the District Court for the District of Alaska, the District Court for the District of Hawaii, the District Court of the United States for Puerto Rico, the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, the District Court of the Virgin Islands, and the United States Court for China. The term 'courts' as used in this chapter means the courts specified in this section. The term 'continental United States' as used in this chapter means the States of the Union and the District of Columbia.

SEO. 4. All unexpended appropriations for the support, maintenance, and operation of the courts specified in section 306 of the Judicial Code for the current fiscal year, and all unexpended appropriations covering judicial personnel as specified in section 304 (1) of the Judicial Code, including appropriations for the salaries of justices and judges who have retired or who have resigned under the provisions of section 260 of the Judicial Code (U. S. C., title 28, sec. 375), are hereby transferred to the control of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. SEC. 5. All powers and duties now conferred or imposed by law upon the Department of Justice or the Attorney General, relating to the administrative audit of the accounts and vouchers referred to in section 304 of the Judicial Code. are hereby transferred to and vested in the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

SEC. 6. All administrative powers and duties now conferred or imposed by law upon the Department of Justice or the Attorney General, respecting clerks of courts, deputy clerks of courts and clerical assistants, law clerks, secretaries, and stenographers to the judges, and librarians in charge of libraries of the courts, and such other employees of the courts not excluded by section 304 of chapter XV as hereinbefore set forth, are hereby vested in the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

With reference to your first question, as to whether the contracts executed by the Procurement Division, Treasury Department, cover the requirements of the Court of Claims, other United States courts. or your office, I have to advise that the Procurement Division is the sucessor to the functions formerly exercised by the General Supply Committee, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to the provisions of section 4 of the act of June 17, 1910. 36 Stat. 531, and section 1 of the act of February 27, 1929, 45 Stat. 1341, in the procurement of supplies for the executive departments and other Government establishments in Washington, the municipal Government of the District of Columbia, and certain field services. In construing the provisions of the 1910 act, which dealt specifically with the procurement of supplies "for the executive departments and other Government establishments in Washington," it was held that while the act did not require supplies for the field services to be purchased in the manner therein provided, such supplies could be purchased under the contracts of the General Supply Committee with the consent of the Secretary of the Treasury and of the contractors; that

where such contracts included supplies of a particular field service they would exclude any other means of procurement except in case of public exigency requiring immediate delivery; and that purchases by executive departments and other Government establishments in Washington, D. C., for delivery there and later shipment to the field were within the scope of the act, 18 Comp. Dec. 751; 19 id. 547; 22 id. 201; 7 Comp. Gen. 122. It was held, also, that by the term "other Government establishments in Washington," Congress must have intended to include only such establishments as are similar in character to the executive departments, that is, other executive establishments, and that the act was not operative outside of the executive branch of the Government, 23 Comp. Dec. 599; 5 Comp. Gen. 130.

By section 1 of Executive Order No. 6166, dated June 10, 1933, the General Supply Committee was abolished and the function of determination of policies and methods of procurement, warehousing, and distribution of property, facilities, structures, improvements, machinery, equipment, stores, and supplies exercised by any agency was transferred to a Procurement Division in the Treasury Department. Said division was empowered, with the approval of the President, to provide for procurement, warehousing, or distribution for any agency, by undertaking such functions itself or by other methods set forth in the Executive order. However, section 16 of the act of March 3, 1933, 47 Stat. 1517, pursuant to which said Executive order was issued, authorized reorganizations only in the executive branch of the Government, and section 21 of the Executive order limited the term "agency," as therein used, to the executive branch. In view thereof, the contracts of the Procurement Division have no broader application than did those of the former General Supply Committee, insofar as concerns agencies outside of the executive branch of the Government.

Under the former system of court administration, involving the procurement of supplies and equipment for the courts and court officials by requisition upon the Department of Justice at Washington, it was held that the items used in filling such requisitions should be obtained under the general supply contracts, on the theory that a purchase for the use of court officials was a purchase for the department. See 27 Comp. Dec. 712; A-15999, November 20, 1926. By the above-quoted provisions of section 304 of the Judicial Code, as amended by section 1 of the act of August 7, 1939, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States courts was placed in charge of the disbursement of the moneys appropriated for the maintenance, support. and operation of the courts, and of the purchase, exchange, transfer, and distribution of equipment and supplies. While said office is specifically designated in section 302 of the Judicial

Code, as amended, as an establishment at the seat of Government, it is clearly not an establishment in the executive branch of the Government, one of the chief reasons for its creation having been to remove the administration of the courts from the control of the executive branch and to turn it over to the courts themselves. See Senate Report No. 426, 76th Congress, 1st Session, on bill S. 188, enacted as the act of August 7, 1939.

Accordingly, as neither the Administrative Office of the United States courts nor the courts for which it serves as the administrative agency are in the executive branch of the Government, the contracts of the Procurement Division have no mandatory application to their respective requirements for supplies. However, it would appear in the interest of economy and good administration to obtain such supplies under the General Schedule of Supplies, provided the contractors will accept orders therefor. 5 Comp. Gen. 130.

As to your second and third questions, relative to the application of section 3709, Revised Statutes, to purchases made under appropriations for the Court of Claims or other United States courts-either by the courts or by your office-different considerations present themselves. Said section, 41 U. S. C. 5, provides:

* * Except as otherwise provided by law all purchases and contracts for supplies or services, in any of the departments of the Government, and purchases of Indian supplies, except for personal services, shall be made by advertising a sufficient time previously for proposals respecting the same, when the public exigencies do not require the immediate delivery of the articles, or performance of the service. When immediate delivery or performance is required by the public exigency, the articles or service required may be procured by open purchase or contract at the places and in the manner in which such articles are usually bought and sold, or such services engaged, between individuals.

It has been held frequently by the courts and the accounting officers that the provisions of the statute are designed to give all persons equal right to compete for Government business; to secure to the Government the benefits of competition; to prevent unjust favoritism by representatives of the Government in making purchases on public account; and to prevent collusion and fraud in procuring supplies or letting contracts, United States v. Purcell Envelope Company, 249 U. S. 313; Harvey v. United States, 8 Ct. Cls. 501; 3 Comp. Dec. 175; 14 id. 328; 6 Comp. Gen. 557; 18 id. 641. There is no exemption in the statute of any activity of the Government from the requirement to advertise, 3 Comp. Gen. 920. The act does not specify executive departments, but a former Comptroller of the Treasury, by construing its provisions in connection with certain amendments of 1894 dealing with the executive departments and other establishments at Washington-superseded by the act of June 17, 1910, considered abovearrived at the conclusion that the requirement of advertising was limited to the executive departments, 8 Comp. Dec. 128; 15 id. 606. However, such view completely overlooked the true significance of

the amendments and was specifically repudiated in a fully considered decision of this office under date of February 21, 1928, A-21057, in part as follows:

There is no exemption of the Mixed Claims Commission from the requirement to advertise which applies alike to all departments, independent establishments, boards, etc., of the Government (3 Comp. Gen. 920). In your letter of December 28, 1927, to this office you cite and quote from a decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury, dated August 20, 1901, 8 Comp. Dec. 128, holding that the requirements of section 3709, Revised Statutes, were not applicable to the procurement of supplies and services for the Spanish Claims Commission under the provisions of section 3 of the act of March 2, 1901, 31 Stat. 878. This decision was based on the amendments to section 3709, Revised Statutes, by the acts of January 27, 1894, 28 Stat. 33, and April 21, 1894, 28 Stat. 62, to provide a certain procedure relative to advertisement for proposals, etc., "for fuel, ice, stationery, and other miscellaneous supplies to be purchased at Washington for the use of the Executive Departments and other Government establishments" named in the first amendment. It was reasoned that the amendments having specified the Executive Departments, and certain other Government establishments particularly named, such amendments should be taken as a legislative definition of the establishments intended to be affected by the general provisions of section 3709, Revised Statutes. That this position cannot be sustained would seem clear from the fact that the amendments directed a procedure to be followed only in the purchase of miscellaneous supplies at Washington, to be contracted for annually, by the particular establishments therein named, and did not otherwise change the provisions of section 3709 which applied generally to all purchases of supplies and services in any of the departments of the Government. The fact that such amendments specified that the executive departments and other establishments named were to be governed in a certain manner in the purchase of certain of their supplies at Washington could not have the effect of limiting the general provisions of section 3709, to the activities which were named in the amendments for a particular purpose. The circumstance that the amendments specified executive departments whereas section 3709 applied to "any of the departments of the Government" would of itself seem conclusive that the term was used in the amendments for the particular purpose therein provided for and in no sense as a definition or limitation of the term "any of the departments of the Government" as used in section 3709. That the provisions of section 3709 are not limited to the activities named in the amendments of January 27 and April 21, 1894, supra, is further shown by subsequent legislative enactments limiting the applicability of section 3709 in cases of expenditures below specified amounts by various Government activities which were not named in the amendments. See for example the acts of June 12, 1922, 42 Stat. 638 (Civil Service Commission): February 13, 1923, 42 Stat. 1244 (U. S. Veterans' Bureau), and May 13, 1926, 44 Stat. 547 (Architect of the Capitol).

To the limited exemptions mentioned in the above-quoted decision there could be added many more set forth in the act of October 10, 1940, 54 Stat. 1109, particularly the exemption of $50 in section 1 of that act applicable to your office, the scope of which is here in question. Such limited exemptions, applicable to agencies in all branches of the Government, raise the clear implication that the Congress intended the requirements of section 3709, Revised Statutes, to apply to all activities of the Government not specifically exempted therefrom or otherwise provided for by law.

Said act of October 10, 1940, insofar as it applies to your office, provides as follows:

That section 3709 of the Revised Statutes shall not be construed to apply to any purchases or services authorized by any appropriation Act for the hereinafter enumerated departments and independent offices

(b) Where the aggregate amount involved does not exceed the sum of $50(1) The Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

As to the scope of the foregoing exemption, it is noted that the exemption of $50 which it superseded, act of May 14, 1940, title IV, 54 Stat. 211, 41 U. S. C. 6 gg, as well as the similar exemption in the Judiciary Appropriation Act, 1942, title IV. l'ublic Law 135, approved June 28, 1941, 55 Stat. 265, was a proviso to the appropriation for miscellaneous expenses of the Administrative Office of the United States courts. However, the language employed to exclude purchases not in excess of $50 from the statutory requirement for advertising is almost identical with that in the exemption of $25 provided by the act of May 29, 1920, 41 Stat. 631, in the case of purchases or services rendered for the Department of Justice. By the decision of July 29, 1920, 27 Comp. Dec. 113, quoted in part in the letter from the Chief Clerk of the Court of Claims, the latter exemption was held applicable to purchases made for court officials of articles authorized by the Department of Justice under any appropriation administered by the Department.

In view of the specific provisions of section 304 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the act of August 7, 1939, placing the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States courts in charge of the disbursement of the moneys appropriated for the maintenance, support, and operation of the courts-as defined in section 308 of the Judicial Code, as amended-the purchase, exchange, transfer, and distribution of equipment and supplies and the providing of accommodations for the use of the courts and court officials, the reasoning of the decision, 27 Comp. Dec. 113, applies with equal force to the present question. Under such reasoning, the exemption of $50 is applicable to any purchases or services for the Court of Claims or any of the other courts enumerated in section 308 of the Judicial Code, as amended.

The conclusions reached herein make it unnecessary to consider the correctness or incorrectness of the views of the former Assistant Comptroller General, set forth in the Chief Clerk's letter, in respect of the application of section 3709, Revised Statutes, to purchases under the appropriation for contingent expenses of the Court of Claims.

Summarizing the answers to your three questions, you are advised that purchases of supplies for your office or the courts are not required to be made under Procurement Division contracts, but may be so made with the consent of the contractors; and that the provisions of section 3709, Revised Statutes, are applicable to all purchases in excess of $50 made under appropriations for any of the courts enumerated in section 308 of the Judicial Code, as amended. It may