United States v. Moseley

Background

The dispute involved the Secretary and disbursing agent of the Interstate Commerce Commission seeking $310.37 for telegrams sent at the Commission’s direction. The Treasury’s auditing officers disallowed the charges because the Comptroller required original telegrams or copies, or a certificate that the messages were confidential. The Commission instructed its Secretary to disregard that requirement, called the telegrams confidential, and invited the Comptroller to inspect records in the Commission’s offices. The Comptroller nevertheless upheld the disallowance, and the Secretary sued in the Court of Claims to recover the money he had paid into the Treasury under protest.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the Secretary’s paperwork and the Commission’s directive satisfied the Treasury’s demand for additional proof. The Court of Claims found that itemized vouchers, approved by the Commission chairman, were presented in the form required by law and relied on an earlier similar decision. The Supreme Court, through Justice McKenna’s opinion, agreed that the Secretary could not independently disclose the messages and that the Commission’s formal refusal to produce copies, combined with the vouchers and the offer to allow inspection, constituted substantial compliance with the Comptroller’s requirement. On that basis the Court affirmed the judgment that the Secretary was entitled to recover the $310.37.

Real world impact

The ruling lets a disbursing officer recover documented official expenses for confidential communications when an agency’s approved vouchers and a formal confidentiality directive address auditing concerns. The decision is narrow and depends on the specific facts and the agency’s approved records.