A-61975, MAY 11, 1936, 15 COMP. GEN. 979

A-61975: May 11, 1936

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

CHECKS - WRONGFULLY ISSUED - RECLAMATION AND PAYMENT TO PROPER PAYEE - COTTON-OPTION CONTRACTS RECLAMATION CANNOT BE EFFECTED FROM A SECOND ENDORSER WHO ACCEPTED A CHECK FOR VALUE AND WITHOUT NOTICE OF LACK OF TITLE FROM A FIRST ENDORSER TO WHOM THE GOVERNMENT HAD MADE DELIVERY WHERE THE VARIATION IN THE SPELLING OF THE SURNAME OF THE FIRST ENDORSER AND THE PARTY FOR WHOM THE CHECK WAS INTENDED IS SUCH AS TO JUSTIFY THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE OF IDEM SONANS. WHERE A CHECK IN CONNECTION WITH A COTTON-OPTION CONTRACT WAS ISSUED TO AND NEGOTIATED BY AN IMPROPER PAYEE PAYABLE FROM FUNDS DERIVED FROM THE SALE OF COTTON THUS OPTIONED. 1936: THERE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED THE MATTERS PRESENTED IN YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 9.

A-61975, MAY 11, 1936, 15 COMP. GEN. 979

CHECKS - WRONGFULLY ISSUED - RECLAMATION AND PAYMENT TO PROPER PAYEE - COTTON-OPTION CONTRACTS RECLAMATION CANNOT BE EFFECTED FROM A SECOND ENDORSER WHO ACCEPTED A CHECK FOR VALUE AND WITHOUT NOTICE OF LACK OF TITLE FROM A FIRST ENDORSER TO WHOM THE GOVERNMENT HAD MADE DELIVERY WHERE THE VARIATION IN THE SPELLING OF THE SURNAME OF THE FIRST ENDORSER AND THE PARTY FOR WHOM THE CHECK WAS INTENDED IS SUCH AS TO JUSTIFY THE APPLICATION OF THE RULE OF IDEM SONANS. WHERE A CHECK IN CONNECTION WITH A COTTON-OPTION CONTRACT WAS ISSUED TO AND NEGOTIATED BY AN IMPROPER PAYEE PAYABLE FROM FUNDS DERIVED FROM THE SALE OF COTTON THUS OPTIONED, PAYMENT MAY NOT BE MADE TO THE PROPER PAYEE FROM FUNDS OBTAINED FROM THE SALE OF OTHER OPTIONED COTTON NOR FROM ,ADVANCES TO AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION," BUT THE APPROPRIATION MADE BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 11, 1936, 49 STAT. 1116, MAY BE CHARGED IN SUCH CASES.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, MAY 11, 1936:

THERE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED THE MATTERS PRESENTED IN YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 9, 1935, AS OLLOWS:

IN YOUR DECISION A-61975, DATED JUNE 1, 1935, REGARDING CHECK NO. 1,913,186 FOR $80.10, DRAWN JANUARY 29, 1934, TO THE ORDER OF J. E. SHEARON, BY W. R. FUCHS, FORMER DISBURSING CLERK, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, UNDER HIS DISBURSING SYMBOL 78-003, YOU STATED: "THAT EITHER THROUGH ERROR OF THE DISBURSING CLERK IN THE MAILING OF THE CHECK OR THE COUNTY AGENT (TO WHOM IT IS UNDERSTOOD THE DISBURSING CLERK IN CERTAIN INSTANCES MADE DELIVERY OF THE CHECKS IN BULK FOR DELIVERY BY HIM TO THE PROPER PAYEES) THE CHECK IN PAYMENT OF THE EXERCISE OF THE OPTION EXECUTED BY THE FORMER SHEARON" (JOHN E. AND BUCK SHEARON, R.F.D. 4, LOUISBURG, NORTH CAROLINA),"WHICH IS THE CHECK IN QUESTION HERE, WAS DELIVERED TO THE LATTER SHEARON" (J. E. SHEARON, R.F.D. 1, LOUISBURG, NORTH CAROLINA),"WHO WRONGFULLY NEGOTIATED SAID CHECK AND OBTAINED THE PROCEEDS THEREOF.'

YOU FURTHER STATE THAT "THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE CHECK HERE WAS NEGOTIATED ARE SUCH AS TO BRING THE CASE WITHIN THE RULE LAID DOWN IN 6 COMP. GEN. 532, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT "THERE HAS BEEN NO FORGERY OF A GOVERNMENT CHECK WHERE THE PERSON WHO INDORSED IT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE PROCEEDS, BUT WHOSE NAME AND ADDRESS HAD BEEN PLACED ON THE FACE OF THE CHECK AS PAYEE THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR * * *.'"

YOUR DECISION CONCLUDES WITH THE STATEMENT "* * * YOU ARE ADVISED THAT RECLAMATION PROCEEDINGS ON THE INVOLVED CHECK MAY NOW BE ABANDONED. HOWEVER, IT APPEARING THAT THE WRONGFUL NEGOTIATION OF THE CHECK HERE RESULTED FROM AN ERROR OF THE DISBURSING CLERK OR HIS AGENT (THE COUNTY AGENT), APPROPRIATE ACTION WILL BE TAKEN BY THIS OFFICE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE DISBURSING CLERK TO CHARGE SAID OFFICER WITH THE AMOUNT OF THE GOVERNMENT'S LOSS ARISING FROM THE PAYMENT OF SAID CHECK.'

YOUR CONCLUSION TO CHARGE THE DISBURSING CLERK WITH THE AMOUNT OF THE CHECK IS APPARENTLY BASED ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE WRONGFUL NEGOTIATION OF THE CHECK WAS A RESULT OF MISMAILING BY THE DISBURSING CLERK OR HIS AGENT.

THIS CASE IS ANALOGOUS TO THE ONE COVERED BY YOUR DECISION A-59416, DATED MAY 16, 1935. WHILE YOUR STATEMENT AS TO THE DELIVERY BY THE DISBURSING CLERK TO THE COUNTY AGENT OF CERTAIN CHECKS IN BULK FOR FURTHER DELIVERY TO THE PROPER PAYEES IS CORRECT, CHECKS ISSUED AS A RESULT OF THE EXERCISE OF A COTTON-OPTION ARE MAILED DIRECT TO THE PAYEE, THE ADDRESS BEING FURNISHED TO THE DISBURSING CLERK BY THE COTTON-OPTION OFFICE, OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER, AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION. THE SUBJECT CHECK WAS ISSUED AS THE RESULT OF THE EXERCISE OF A COTTON-OPTION AND THE PROCEDURE OUTLINED ABOVE WAS FOLLOWED. AS THE DISBURSING CLERK, THROUGH HIS EMPLOYEES, MAILED THE CHECK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADDRESS FURNISHED HIM THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION, IT SEEMS THAT NO BLAME CAN BE ATTACHED TO HIM FOR ITS MISMAILING. IN VIEW OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS BELIEVED THAT YOU WOULD NOT FEEL JUSTIFIED IN TAKING ACTION TO CHARGE HIS ACCOUNT WITH THE AMOUNT THEREOF. YOUR REPLY AS TO THIS POINT IS SOLICITED.

IF YOU AGREE THAT, IN THIS INSTANCE, THE PROPOSED RECOURSE TO THE DISBURSING CLERK TO MAKE GOOD THE POSSIBLE LOSS TO THE GOVERNMENT, IS NOT JUSTIFIED, THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER YOU WILL INTERPOSE NO OBJECTION TO THE RE-ISSUANCE OF A CHECK TO THE PROPER PAYEE OR PAYEES PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT. TWO IMPORTANT FACTORS APPEAR TO REQUIRE CONSIDERATION IN THIS CONNECTION.

THE FIRST OF THESE IS THAT AN EXAMINATION OF THE CONTRACTS INVOLVED BRINGS TO LIGHT SOME FACTS WHICH WERE APPARENTLY UNKNOWN WHEN YOUR DECISION WAS RENDERED. THUS, IT APPEARS THAT THE JAMES EDWARD SHEARON WHO EXECUTED THE AFFIDAVIT DESCRIBED IN THE SECOND PAGE OF YOUR DECISION IS APPARENTLY THE JAMES E. SHEARIN WHO EXECUTED COTTON-OPTION CONTRACT 55-035 -710 AND WHO GIVES HIS ADDRESS AS BOX 314, LOUISBURG, NORTH CAROLINA. STATES THAT HE LATER RECEIVED HIS OWN CHECK FOR $50.00 WHICH OUR RECORDS SHOW TO BE CHECK NO. 2279475 FOR $50.00 DRAWN FEBRUARY 19, 1934, TO THE ORDER OF JAMES SHEARIN AND GOV. FARM. CR. ADM., BY W. R. FUCHS, FORMER DISBURSING CLERK, UNDER SYMBOL 78-003.

WHILE YOU STATE THAT "CHECK NO. 1913186 * * * WAS DELIVERED TO AND NEGOTIATED BY A PERSON HAVING A NAME IDENTICAL WITH THAT OF THE PAYEE DESCRIBED IN THE CHECK," IT SEEMS THAT THIS MAY NOT BE ENTIRELY CORRECT AS THE RIGHTFUL PAYEE'S NAME IS SHEARON AND THE NAME OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THE CHECK WAS DELIVERED APPEARS ON HIS CONTRACT AS SHEARIN. THIS CIRCUMSTANCE IS BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION AS IT IS BELIEVED THAT IT MAYTEND TO DIFFERENTIATE THIS CASE FROM THE RULE LAID DOWN IN 6 COMP. GEN. 532, SUPRA. IF, DUE TO THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SPELLING OF THE LAST NAMES OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED, THE PARTY WHO NEGOTIATED THE CHECK IS NOT ABSOLVED FROM THE RESPONSIBILITY, SHOULD NOT RECLAMATION PROCEEDINGS BE RE- INSTITUTED?

THE SECOND FACTOR IN THIS CASE, WHICH SEEMS TO REQUIRE CONSIDERATION IN THE ABSENCE OF RECLAMATION ON CHECK NO. 1913186, ARISES FROM THE FACT THAT THE FUND AGAINST WHICH THIS CHECK WAS DRAWN IS A SPECIAL DEPOSIT ACCOUNT, SYMBOL NO. 66.2-400, THE SOURCE OF FUNDS BEING THE SALE OF CERTAIN SPECIFIC LOTS OF COTTON. AS A RESULT OF THE EXERCISE OF THE OPTION UNDER CONTRACT 783, THREE BALES OF COTTON WERE SOLD AND THE PROCEEDS DEPOSITED IN ACCOUNT 66.2-400, FOR PAYMENT TO J. E. SHEARON. THE NEGOTIATION OF THE SUBJECT CHECK WOULD SEEM TO EXHAUST THE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR THIS PARTICULAR TRANSACTION AND IT SEEMINGLY WOULD FOLLOW THAT, IF RECLAMATION IS NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT OR IF COLLECTION OF A LIKE AMOUNT IS NOT EFFECTED FROM MONEYS THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BECOME DUE THE PARTY NEGOTIATING THE CHECK, THE REISSUANCE OF A CHECK TO THE RIGHTFUL PAYEE WOULD CONSTITUTE AN EXCESS CHARGE AGAINST THE FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE SALE OF THE THREE BALES OF COTTON.

THE QUESTION AS TO THE FUNDS AGAINST WHICH A SECOND CHECK COULD BE ISSUED IN SUCH A CASE, IN THE ABSENCE OF RECLAMATION ON THE ORIGINAL CHECK WRONGFULLY NEGOTIATED, TAKES ON ADDED IMPORTANCE IN VIEW OF YOUR DECISION A-63126, DATED OCTOBER 8, 1935, IN THE MATTER OF COTTON-OPTION CHECK NO. 2453669 FOR $28.00 DRAWN TO THE ORDER OF WILLIAM J. JORDAN, AGAINST THE SAME SPECIAL DEPOSIT ACCOUNT AND SUBJECT TO THE SAME CONDITIONS AS TO THE SOURCE OF FUNDS.

AS THERE IS CONSIDERABLE DOUBT ON THIS SUBJECT, IT IS REQUESTED THAT YOU ADVISE ME WHETHER FUNDS IN THIS SPECIAL DEPOSIT ACCOUNT ACCRUING THERETO OUT OF TRANSACTIONS OF AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT CHARACTER AND INTENDED FOR OTHER PURPOSES MAY BE LEGALLY USED IN THE REISSUANCE OF COTTON-OPTION CHECKS IN THESE AND SIMILAR CASES, IN THE ABSENCE OF RECLAMATION ON THE ORIGINAL CHECKS OR COLLECTION OF LIKE AMOUNTS FROM MONEYS OTHERWISE DUE THE PARTIES WHO NEGOTIATED THE CHECKS. IN THIS CONNECTION, YOU MAY ALSO WISH TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE QUESTION WHETHER SUCH REISSUED CHECKS MIGHT PROPERLY BE CHARGEABLE TO THE APPROPRIATION "3X018--- ADVANCES TO AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION," FROM WHICH CASH RENTAL-BENEFIT PAYMENTS WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE PRODUCERS IF THEY HAD NOT ELECTED TO ACCEPT AN OPTION ON CERTAIN COTTON IN LIEU OF SUCH CASH PAYMENTS.

THE FACTS APPEAR ADMITTED THAT WHILE THE SUBJECT CHECK WAS INTENDED FOR AND ISSUED IN FAVOR OF J. E. SHEARON, WHOSE FIRST NAME IS JOHN, IT WAS ACTUALLY DELIVERED TO A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS JAMES EDWARD SHEARIN, WHO APPEARS TO HAVE SIGNED HIS NAME AT TIMES J. E. SHEARON AND AT OTHER TIMES J. E. SHEARIN. BOTH OF THESE MEN LIVED NEAR LOUISBURG, NORTH CAROLINA--- THE ONE FOR WHOM THE CHECK WAS INTENDED ON RURAL ROUTE NO. 4 AND THE ONE TO WHOM THE CHECK WAS DELIVERED ON RURAL ROUTE NO. 1. THE ERROR IN DELIVERY APPARENTLY WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYEE OF THE DEPARTMENT WHO TYPED THE ADDRESS ON THE "NOTICE OF EXERCISE OF OPTION" ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE CHECK WAS ISSUED ERRONEOUSLY GAVE THE ROUTE NUMBER AS "1" INSTEAD OF "4.' THUS IT APPEARS THE DEPARTMENT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DELIVERY OF THE CHECK TO THE MAN WHO CASHED IT AND IT IS REPORTED THAT THE CASHING ENDORSER HAD KNOWN SAID MAN "FOR THE PAST TWENTY YEARS.' UNDER THE RULE OF IDEM SONANS THE VARIATION IN THE SPELLING OF THE SURNAME OF THE FIRST ENDORSER DOES NOT AFFECT THE RIGHTS OR LIABILITIES OF THE SECOND ENDORSER. CONSEQUENTLY, RECLAMATION CANNOT BE EFFECTED FROM THE SECOND ENDORSER WHO ACCEPTED THE CHECK FOR VALUE AND WITHOUT NOTICE OF LACK OF TITLE FROM THE FIRST ENDORSER TO WHOM THE DEPARTMENT HAD DELIVERED IT (6 COMP. GEN. 532). ACCORDINGLY, AS TO THIS PHASE OF THE MATTER THE DECISION OF JUNE 1, 1935, MUST BE AND IS AFFIRMED.

WITH RESPECT TO THE LIABILITY OF THE DISBURSING OFFICER IT IS NOW REPORTED THAT THE CHECK WAS ACTUALLY DELIVERED TO THE ADDRESS ADMINISTRATIVELY CERTIFIED TO THE DISBURSING OFFICER--- THUS ESTABLISHING THE FACT THAT THE ERROR RESULTING IN THE LOSS WAS COMMITTED BY THE CERTIFYING OFFICER AS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE DISBURSING OFFICER. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES NO FURTHER ACTION WILL BE TAKEN TO CHARGE THE DISBURSING OFFICER FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE CHECK BUT A CHARGE WILL BE RAISED FOR SUCH AMOUNT AGAINST THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ERRONEOUS CERTIFICATION AS WELL AS AGAINST SHEARON (SHEARIN) WHO ERRONEOUSLY RECEIVED PAYMENT ON THE CHECK, AND COLLECTION ATTEMPTED AS IN OTHER SIMILAR CASES. BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN IN RAISING A CHARGE AGAINST THE CERTIFYING OFFICER, HOWEVER, IT IS REQUESTED THIS OFFICE BE ADVISED OF THE NAME OF THE PERSON ADMINISTRATIVELY FOUND RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ERRONEOUS CERTIFICATION WITH A REPORT AS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TAKEN TO EFFECT RECOVERY FROM SUCH PERSON.

IN MY LETTER TO YOU DATED JUNE 1, 1935, IN THIS CASE, YOU WERE ADVISED FOR REASONS THEREIN STATED THAT NO OBJECTION WOULD BE INTERPOSED BY THIS OFFICE TO THE REISSUANCE OF A CHECK TO THE PROPER PAYEE AND YOU NOW INQUIRE AS TO WHAT FUND MAY PROPERLY BE CHARGED IN THE REISSUANCE OF SUCH CHECK.

THE SUBJECT CHECK WAS ISSUED PURSUANT TO A COTTON-OPTION CONTRACT ENTERED INTO UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT OF MAY 12, 1933, SECTION 6 OF PART 1 OF TITLE I OF WHICH ACT (48 STAT. 33), PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:

SEC. 6. (A) THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO OPTION CONTRACTS WITH THE PRODUCERS OF COTTON TO SELL TO ANY SUCH PRODUCER AN AMOUNT OF COTTON TO BE AGREED UPON NOT IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF REDUCTION IN PRODUCTION OF COTTON BY SUCH PRODUCER BELOW THE AMOUNT PRODUCED BY HIM IN THE PRECEDING CROP YEAR, IN ALL CASES WHERE SUCH PRODUCER AGREES IN WRITING TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF COTTON PRODUCED BY HIM IN 1933, BELOW HIS PRODUCTION IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, BY NOT LESS THAN 30 PERCENTUM, WITHOUT INCREASE IN COMMERCIAL FERTILIZATION PER ACRE.

(B) TO ANY SUCH PRODUCER SO AGREEING TO REDUCE PRODUCTION THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE SHALL DELIVER A NONTRANSFERABLE-OPTION CONTRACT AGREEING TO SELL TO SAID PRODUCER AN AMOUNT, EQUIVALENT TO THE AMOUNT OF HIS AGREED REDUCTION, OF THE COTTON IN THE POSSESSION AND CONTROL OF THE SECRETARY.

(C) THE PRODUCER IS TO HAVE THE OPTION TO BUY SAID COTTON AT THE AVERAGE PRICE PAID BY THE SECRETARY FOR THE COTTON PROCURED UNDER SECTION 3, AND IS TO HAVE THE RIGHT AT ANY TIME UP TO JANUARY 1, 1934, TO EXERCISE HIS OPTION, UPON PROOF THAT HE HAS COMPLIED WITH HIS CONTRACT AND WITH ALL THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE WITH RESPECT THERETO, BY TAKING SAID COTTON UPON PAYMENT BY HIM OF HIS OPTION PRICE AND ALL ACTUAL CARRYING CHARGES ON SUCH OTTON; OR THE SECRETARY MAY SELL SUCH COTTON FOR THE ACCOUNT OF SUCH PRODUCER, PAYING HIM THE EXCESS OF THE MARKET PRICE AT THE DATE OF SALE OVER THE AVERAGE PRICE ABOVE REFERRED TO AFTER DEDUCTING ALL ACTUAL AND NECESSARY CARRYING CHARGES: PROVIDED, THAT IN NO EVENT SHALL THE PRODUCER BE HELD RESPONSIBLE OR LIABLE FOR FINANCIAL LOSS INCURRED IN THE HOLDING OF SUCH COTTON OR ON ACCOUNT OF THE CARRYING CHARGES THEREIN: PROVIDED FURTHER, THAT SUCH AGREEMENT TO CURTAIL COTTON PRODUCTION SHALL CONTAIN A FURTHER PROVISION THAT SUCH COTTON PRODUCER SHALL NOT USE THE LAND TAKEN OUT OF COTTON PRODUCTION FOR THE PRODUCTION FOR SALE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, OF ANY OTHER NATIONALLY PRODUCED AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY OR PRODUCT.

(D) IF ANY COTTON HELD BY THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE IS NOT DISPOSED OF UNDER SUBSECTION (C), THE SECRETARY IS AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO SIMILAR OPTION CONTRACTS WITH RESPECT TO SUCH COTTON, CONDITIONED UPON A LIKE REDUCTION OF PRODUCTION IN 1934, AND PERMITTING THE PRODUCER IN EACH CASE TO EXERCISE HIS OPTION AT ANY TIME UP TO JANUARY 1, 1935.

THE CONTRACTOR HERE HAVING EXERCISED HIS OPTION TO HAVE THE COTTON SOLD, THE CHECK IN QUESTION WAS CHARGED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE AGAINST THE FUND DERIVED FROM THE SALE OF THE COTTON THUS OPTIONED--- AS COVERED IN SUBSECTION (C) OF THE STATUTE, SUPRA. YOU NOW SUGGEST THAT UPON PAYMENT OF THE CHECK HERE BY THE TREASURER OF THE UNITED STATES THE FUND THUS MADE AVAILABLE FOR SUCH PAYMENT BECAME EXHAUSTED, AND YOU, THEREFORE, REQUEST TO BE ADVISED WHETHER FUNDS SIMILARLY DERIVED FROM THE SALE OF OTHER COTTON BUT INTENDED FOR OTHER PURPOSES MAY BE LEGALLY USED IN THE REISSUANCE OF THE COTTON-OPTION CHECK HERE AND IN OTHER SIMILAR CASES. HAVING IN VIEW THE FACT THAT FUNDS PROVIDED FOR THE PAYMENT OF COTTON- OPTIONS EXERCISED BY CONTRACTORS PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE STATUTE, AND OF THEIR CONTRACTS, ARE DERIVED FROM THE SALE OF A PARTICULAR QUANTITY OF COTTON STIPULATED IN THE CONTRACTS, THE REISSUANCE OF A CHECK UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES HERE INVOLVED FROM SIMILAR FUNDS DERIVED FROM THE SALE OF OTHER COTTON WOULD NOT APPEAR TO BE PROPER AND LEGAL AS SUCH ACTION WOULD, IN EFFECT, CONSTITUTE AN IMPROPER DIVERSION OF FUNDS HELD IN THE ACCOUNT IN TRUST FOR OTHER CONTRACTORS.

YOU SUGGEST FOR CONSIDERATION THE AVAILABILITY OF THE APPROPRIATION ENTITLED "3X018--- ADVANCES TO AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ADMINISTRATION" -- THE APPROPRIATION FROM WHICH CASH RENTAL-BENEFIT PAYMENTS WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE PRODUCERS IF THEY HAD NOT ELECTED TO ACCEPT AN OPTION ON CERTAIN LOTS OF COTTON IN LIEU OF SUCH CASH PAYMENTS BUT SINCE THE OPINION AND JUDGMENT DATED JANUARY 6, 1936, IN THE BUTLER CASE SUCH APPROPRIATION MAY NO LONGER BE CHARGED FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER--- HOWEVER NO OBJECTION WILL BE INTERPOSED TO THE REISSUANCE OF A CHECK IN THIS AND OTHER LIKE CASES CHARGEABLE TO APPROPRIATIONS MADE IN PUBLIC, NO. 440, APPROVED FEBRUARY 11, 1936 (49 STAT. 1116), AS AN OBLIGATION OR COMMITMENT INCURRED PRIOR TO JANUARY 6, 1936, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT.