Government. The responsibility and the power both belong to these officers, and not to any other. The manner in which the record shall be kept is defined by law, and where it shall be filed and preserved is particularly prescribed. Whence is derived any authority on the part of the Secretary of War or even the President as Commander in Chief to alter or amend such a record? Can either of them do it while the court is in session? Manifestly not. Could the commanding officer compel the court to find any particular verdict or make any order or ruling in a case upon any matter within the jurisdiction of the court? Could he, for instance, require it to adjourn, or to refuse to hear a certain witness, or to rule in a particular way upon any question arising in the course of a trial? If the court, on application to make an alteration or amendment of the record, should refuse to do so, could the commander lawfully compel it to be done? How can the Secretary of War have any greater authority to change the solemn certified record of a court-martial than the commanding officer by whom the court has been ordered to assemble? The record is that which the court certify to have transpired on the trial, and embodies the action of the court. The fact that the court in due and legal form announces that it did so and so, or that so and so transpired, makes that record and the fact, and no one except the court itself can lawfully alter that record. If it were to be held otherwise there is not a record filed in the War Office that could not be subject to attack by ex parte affidavits, and that, too, at a time when the officers of the court might be dead or scattered to the ends of the earth and unable to defend the solemn certificates which they made; and all the judgments of courts-martial as filed and acted on would be open to perpetual contradiction on subsequent assertions of interested parties which it would be impossible to meet or disprove. In my judgment the Secretary is without power to alter or amend the record in this case, or to take any action inconsistent therewith. Respectfully, The SECRETARY OF WAR. JOHN W. GRIGGS. AMERICAN REGISTRY. Under section 4132, Revised Statutes, a vessel lawfully condemned and sold as a prize of war to an American citizen is entitled to an American registry, which is not lost by the subsequent reversal of the decree by the Supreme Court of the United States. The reversal of the decree operates only upon the fund produced by the sale of the vessel, and does not disturb the title and rights of the purchasers. Opinion of December 10, 1840 (3 Opin., 606), distinguished. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: By your communication of December 14, you inform me of the condemnation in the district court of the United States for the southern district of Florida of the Spanish steamship Buena Ventura as lawful prize of war; of the sale of the vessel subsequent to this condemnation to an American citizen; and of a grant of documents to her as a vessel of the United States under the provision of section 4132, Revised Statutes, which permits a vessel captured in war by citizens of the United States, and lawfully condemned as prize, being wholly owned by citizens, to be registered as directed in Title XLVIII, "Regulation of commerce and navigation," as a vessel of the United States. Your communication also informs me of the reversal of the judgment of condemnation in the lower court by the Supreme Court of the United States, and you thereupon inquire whether, in my opinion, the Bureau of Navigation should issue instructions for the cancellation of the American documents under which the Buena Ventura is now navigating. The language of section 4132 is as follows: "Vessels built within the United States, and belonging wholly to citizens thereof, and vessels which may be captured in war by citizens of the United States, and lawfully condemned as prize, or which may be adjudged to be forfeited for a breach of the laws of the United States, being wholly owned by citizens, and no others, may be registered as directed in this title." The object of the law is to be considered, and that evidently is to encourage purchase of such vessels thus con demned and sold, and to protect the title and statutory rights founded upon the sale. This vessel was condemned by the decree of the prize court after the regular and orderly course of procedure in prize law; that is, it was lawfully condemned. Upon the sale in pursuance of the decree the rights of the purchasers attached and were not thereafter divested. The reversal of the decree of condemnation by the Supreme Court operates upon the fund produced by the sale, which stands as the representative of the vessel for all purposes of the appeal and the resulting determination of the rights of the parties to the prize cause, that is, the United States, the naval captors, and the claimants; but does not disturb the title and rights of the purchasers under the decree of condemnation below and the sale in pursuance thereof. The opinion of my predecessor (3 Opin., 606) does not affect this case, because there, it appears, the vessel was not condemned for a breach of the laws of the United States, nor as prize. My opinion is that the Buena Ventura was properly registered under section 4132, and is entitled to retain her register, and therefore that the Bureau of Navigation should not issue instructions for the cancellation of the American documents under which she is now navigating. Very respectfully, JOHN W. GRIGGS. The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. NAVAL OFFICERS-ADVANCEMENT-CONFIRMATION— STATUS. On August 10, 1898, Commodore William T. Sampson was advanced eight numbers by the President and appointed a rear-admiral; Capt. John Philip was similarly advanced five numbers and appointed a commodore; Commander Bowman H. McCalla was likewise advanced five numbers and appointed a captain, all to take rank from date of appointment. None of these appointments were confirmed by the Senate. Lieut. Commander John E. Pillsbury was appointed a "commander from the 10th day of August, 1898, vice Commander Bowman H. McCalla, advanced and promoted," which appointment was confirmed by the Senate December 14, 1898. Lieut. Hawley O. Ritten house was nominated and confirmed by the Senate to be a lieutenantcommander rice Pillsbury, and other officers in line likewise promoted. On August 10, 1898, there was no vacancy in the grade of commander to which Pillsbury could have been appointed unless the advancement of McCalla was confirmed. Held: 1. The advancement and promotion of Sampson, Philip, and McCalla by the President alone, not being confirmed by the Senate, did not create vacancies in their respective offices. 2. As the Senate could not increase the number of commanders, the confirmation of Pillsbury necessarily either removed McCalla or it promoted him, and the Senate has said which it was, "in the place of McCalla, adranced and promoted." Therefore the appointment and confirmation of Pillsbury operated to duly advance, promote, and confirm McCalla to be a captain, and it created a vacancy which made regular the appointment and confirmation of Pillsbury, Rittenhouse, and other successive appointments. 3. The confirmation of an officer nominated for promotion may be made as well by the appointment and promotion of his successor as in any other way, provided it shows the assent of the Senate to such promotion. 4. Those below McCalla were promoted to fill vacancies, none of which existed prior to December 14, 1898, when the Senate confirmed Pillsbury. Therefore the act of June 22, 1874 (22 Stat., 191), does not apply to entitle them to pay in the higher grades from the time they took rank, respectively. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of February 6, 1900, with its inclosure, requesting my opinion upon certain questions propounded by the Comptroller of the Treasury and transmitted with your note. The questions submitted have relation to the status and pay of Commander Bowman H. McCalla, Lieut. Commander John E. Pillsbury, Lieut. Hawley O. Rittenhouse, and other naval officers referred to, upon the facts, which the Comptroller states as follows: "Commodore William T. Sampson, U. S. Navy, was, on August 10, 1898, advanced eight numbers by the President, pursuant to section 1506, Revised Statutes, and appointed a rear-admiral, to take rank from that date. At the same time Capt. John Philip was similarly advanced five numbers and appointed a commodore. Commander Bowman H. McCalla was similarly advanced five numbers, and appointed a captain, both to take rank from August 10, 1898. . "None of these proposed advancements in numbers and appointments were confirmed by the Senate, and * * * said attempted appointments did not have the effect of promoting the officers named to the several positions to which they would have been promoted had their proposed advancements been confirmed. "Lieut. Commander John E. Pillsbury was appointed to fill the vacancy intended to be created by the advancement of Commander McCalla, and, on December 14, 1898, was confirmed by the Senate, 'to be a commander from the 10th day of August, 1898, vice Commander Bowman H. McCalla, advanced and promoted.' "Lieut. Hawley O. Rittenhouse was likewise nominated, and, on the same day, confirmed by the Senate, 'to be a lieutenant-commander from the 10th day of August, 1898, vice Lieut. Commander John E. Pillsbury, promoted.' The officers next in the line of promotion, below Lieutenant Rittenhouse, were nominated, and, on said date, confirmed for the vacancies in the several grades below caused by his promotion. The officers regularly promoted received ad interim appointments prior to their confirmations, and also those advanced under section 1506, Revised Statutes, but whose advancements were not confirmed. “On August 10, 1898, there was no vacancy in the grade of commander to which Lieutenant-Commander Pillsbury could have been appointed in due course, unless the advancement of Commander McCalla to the grade of captain, as above stated, had created one, and the first vacancy thereafter would have occurred in regular course upon the retirement, September 30, 1898, of Rear-Admiral Montgomery Sicard. No nomination was, however, made to fill the vacancy caused by this retirement, nor to fill the vacancy caused by the retirement, October 24, 1898, of Rear-Admiral Edmund O. Matthews, for the reason that, as it was supposed, that the number of rear-admirals had been increased by the advancement of Commodores Sampson and Schley, under section 1506, it became necessary to withold further promotions to that grade until it should be reduced to the number fixed by law." The ad interim commissions to Sampson, Schley, Philip, |