"There is no requirement of law that such vouchers shall be verified by affidavit, each department determining for itself what evidence it will require as to the correctness of such accounts rendered by its officers and employees." The decision in which this language occurs was one in which it was decided that if the Isthmian Canal Commission, under the direction of the President, should not require affidavits to expense accounts, such affidavits would not be required by the accounting officers of the Treasury. Under the broad powers given the President under the provisions of the Spooner Act as to the expenditure of money in the building of the canal, I think said decision was correct. but the dictum above stated is not correct and at no time in the history of the Government has a department determined for itself what evidence was necessary to have an account allowed by the accounting officers. I deeply regret that the language in question was used, as it may, at least in part, be responsible for your inquiry herein.

In the letter of June 13, 1922, referred to as the decision of the War Department Division, this office, attention was directed to the fact that on March 12, 1914, certain voucher forms were approved by the then Comptroller of the Treasury, among which was Form No. 1005, being for use in claiming reimbursement for traveling expenses, etc., and which form, as so approved, contained a certificate for verification by oath. On this basis, the notice to the disbursing clerk of the Panama Canal was in substance that the decisions, 11 Comp. Dec., 812, and 14 id., 13, in effect, had been overruled by the action in approving the voucher form as thus submitted and, though such unverified vouchers had theretofore been received and passed for credit without question in that respect, that further similar action, after notice, would be unwarranted and unauthorized.

The act of July 31, 1894, 28 Stat., 206, provided:

The Comptroller of the Treasury shall, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, prescribe the forms of keeping and rendering all public accounts,

Under this law the Comptroller of the Treasury, and the First and Second Comptrollers of the Treasury under prior laws, have, under the direction of the various Secretaries of the Treasury, provided that the civil officers, agents, and employees of the Government in the rendition of their expense accounts should verify such expense accounts under oath, and this was the almost universal rule as applied to all departments, establishments, etc., of the Government, subject only to statutory provision providing to the contrary, or to exceptions as to particular cases or classes of cases, notable among which exceptions were those cases involving confidential missions, etc., as to which a verification by oath would disclose the identity of one whose identity it was not desirable be known.

The extent of the exceptions as to the requirements of the oath to expense vouchers is not known nor is it important in connection with this consideration, but it is understood that for a considerable period prior to August 24, 1912, the matter of dispensing with the requirement, in part or in whole, was one which received serious

consideration, particularly by reason of the difficulties encountered by employees of the Government in having their vouchers sworn to, due in large measure to the remoteness of their stations or fields of operation. This culminated in the provision contained in the act of August 24, 1912, section 8, 37 Stat., 487, providing for the administering of oaths, without charge, by certain specifically designated officers or employees of the Government.

Thus the verification of expense accounts under oath, long recognized by the accounting officers as a necessary accounting requirement, received, if it had not theretofore received, specific legislative recognition and the requirement of such verification under oath may be said to be an established and settled matter, subject only to express statutory modification or exceptions in certain cases or classes of cases where to insist on the requirement would jeopardize the interests of the United States, etc. The objections thereto stated by the present submission are such as may be made by any of the Government services and can not maintain.

By virtue of the provisions of the Budget and Accounting act of June 10, 1921, sections 304 and 309, 42 Stat., 24 and 25, the authority of the Comptroller of the Treasury, under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, to prescribe the forms of keeping and rendering public accounts, was, on and after July 1, 1921, vested in and placed exclusively under the Comptroller General of the United States; therefore, I have the honor to advise you that the verification by oath or affirmation of expense accounts of employees of the Panama Canal will be required hereafter.

PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF RETIRED OFFICERS OF ARMY FOR ACTIVE DUTY ON AND AFTER JULY 1, 1922.

There is no provision in the act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat., 625, for either pay or allowances of retired officers of the Army of the grade of brigadier general or above for active duty, and, in the absence thereof, a retired major general on active duty as a member of the board convened under the act of June 30, 1922, 42 Stat., 723, is entitled only to his full inactive pay as a retired officer.

Comptroller General McCarl to Maj. Carl Halla, United States Army, August 25, 1922:

I have your letter of August 5, 1922, requesting decision whether you are authorized to pay the inclosed voucher in favor of Maj. Gen. J. T. Dickman, United States Army, retired, for the difference between the active and retired pay of a major general, and the subsistence and rental allowances of a major general on the active list, with dependents, for the period from July 24 to 31, 1922, under paragraph 15, S. O. 168-W. D., July 20, 1922, under which he was detailed to active duty as a member of the board convened by the

Secretary of War, pursuant to the following provision in the act of June 30, 1922, 42 Stat., 723:

That the Secretary of War shall convene a board of five general officers which may include retired officers, whose call to active duty for this purpose is hereby authorized, which board, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of War, shall recommend to the President the officers to be eliminated from the active list under the provisions of this act, the number of officers in various grades to be recommissioned in the next lower grade as hereinbefore provided, and the number of officers in various grades to be continued as additional until absorbed as hereinbefore provided:

The act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat., 625, in effect at the time of the detail and during it, contains no express provision for the pay of a retired officer of the grade of major general on active duty, its only express provision on the subject of the pay of retired officers on active duty being in section 17, which provides:

Retired officers of the Army,

below the grade of brigadier general

shall, when on active duty, receive full pay and allowances.

In the absence of any provision in this act as to the pay of a major general on active duty the existing provision therefor on June 30, 1922, continues and governs the pay of Major General Dickman for this active duty performed on and after July 1, 1922.

The existing law on the subject on June 30, 1922, applying to the pay of a major general so detailed in time of peace appears to have been the act of March 2, 1905, 33 Stat., 831, which provides:

That retired officers of the Army above the grade of major, heretofore and hereafter assigned to active duty, shall hereafter receive their full retired pay and shall receive no further pay or allowances from the United States.

See in this connection the acts of June 12, 1906, 34 Stat., 245, applying to lower grade officers; June 3, 1916, 39 Stat., 181, continuing in effect act of March 2, 1905, supra; August 29, 1916, 39 Stat., 627, as to retired officers temporarily in command of a post without a garrison; section 33 of the act of June 4, 1920, 41 Stat., 777, applying to lower grade officers; and section 51 of said act, 41 Stat., 785, as to details in time of war.

You are therefore advised that Major General Dickman for this detail is confined to his full retired pay as a major general. See 24 Comp. Dec., 721.

Neither the subsistence nor rental allowance authorized by sections 5 and 6 of the act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat., 628, are payable to a retired officer on active duty of the grade of major general, both sections confining their authorizations for such allowances for retired officers on active duty to those "below the grade of brigadier general or its equivalent."

You are therefore advised that you are not authorized to pay Major General Dickman either the difference in pay or the rental or subsistence allowance claimed.

The voucher is returned herewith.

RETIREMENT OF SCHOOL TEACHERS IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. The requirement that teachers in the District of Columbia, retired under section 4 of the act of January 15, 1920, 41 Stat., 388, must have been "employed continuously as a teacher" for 10 years in order to be entitled to a retirement annuity, is fulfilled if the teacher has been on the active list for 10 years preceding her retirement, although a portion of that time may have been on leave of absence.

Comptroller General McCarl to the President, Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, August 25, 1922:

I have your letter of July 22, 1922, requesting decision whether Miss M. L. Peabody, a teacher in the public schools of the District of Columbia, is entitled to retirement and payment of an annuity under the provisions of the act of January 15, 1920, providing for retirement of teachers in said schools.

It appears that Miss Peabody was appointed a teacher in the public schools of the District of Columbia October 20, 1910, and taught continuously therein to September 1, 1918. From September 1, 1918, to September 1, 1919, she was absent on leave without pay granted because of personal illness. From September 1, 1919, to December 14, 1920, she was again in an active teaching status in the schools. From December 15, 1920, to February 9, 1921, she was again absent on leave without pay because of personal illness. She was in an active teaching status from February 10 to June 30, 1921, and was again absent on leave without pay because of personal illness from July 1, 1921, to June 3, 1922, on which latter date the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia adopted an order retiring her from and after that date because of disability under the provisions of the act of January 15, 1920.

Section 4 of the act of January 15, 1920, 41 Stat., 388, provides:

That any teacher who shall have reached the age of forty-five, or who shall have taught continuously for fifteen years in the public schools of the District of Columbia, and who by reason of accident or illness not due to vicious habits has become physically or mentally disabled and incapable of satisfactorily performing the duties of teacher, may be retired by the Board of Education under the provisions hereinafter stated.

Miss Peabody had reached the age of 45 and therefore was eligible to retirement under the terms of this section, subject to other provisions of the retirement act.

Section 8 of the act provides:

No sum shall be paid to any teacher upon his retirement under the provisions of section 4 hereof unless he shall have been employed continuously as a teacher in the public schools of the District of Columbia for ten years immediately prior to his retirement.

Decision of this case turns upon the construction to be given to the word "employed" as used in this connection. If its scope is limited to employment in actual teaching, Miss Peabody can not qualify under section 8 of the act for payment of annuity. If, on the other hand, it relates to employment on the active list of public-school

teachers of the District she was so employed for more than 10 years preceding the date set for her retirement.

Sections 4 and 8 of the act deal with retirement for physical or mental disability. A ruling that would restrict the meaning of the word "employed" as used therein to an actual teaching status would perhaps exclude many cases which would seem to come within the intent and purpose of the law. It is of interest in this connection to note that section 4 uses different language in fixing the minimum service of teachers under 45 years of age who may retire for disability. In such cases the section requires that they shall have

taught continuously for fifteen years in the public schools in the District of Columbia.

Rule 43-D prescribed by the Board of Education of the District of Columbia limits consecutive temporary leave of absence of teachers in the public schools to not exceeding one calendar year. During periods of such authorized leave the teachers, being assignable to teaching duty upon expiration of the granted leave, continue in an active duty status, as distinguished from a permanent retired status formerly provided for in case of longer authorized absence. 1 Comp. Gen., 358. A teacher who has been in such active duty status continuously for 10 years and who has reached the age of 45 is eligible for retirement and payment of annuity under the provisions of sections 4 and 8 of the retirement act. Payment of Miss Peabody's retirement annuity will be governed accordingly.

PRINTING AND BINDING.

The act of June 30, 1906, 34 Stat., 762, prohibiting the use of appropriations for printing and binding except such as are made specifically and solely for printing and binding, has no application to printing the cost of which is not to be paid from appropriated funds but from funds raised by assessment, and such printing may be done at the Government Printing Office and charged to the special fund.

The printing of forms required by the Comptroller of the Currency in keeping record of bank examinations, etc., is an administrative expense of the Treasury Department and chargeable to the regular appropriation for printing and binding for that department, and the use of the funds for salaries and expenses of national bank examiners for such printing is prohibited by the act of June 30, 1906, 34 Stat., 762.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Treasury, August 25, 1922:

I have your letter of August 9, 1922, as follows:

The Public Printer, under date of August 3, 1922, returns to the Treasury Department a requisition for printing and binding (No. 404), calling for the printing of 500 copies of Form 1456, entitled "Record of Examinations of National Banks," for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the cost of the work to be paid from the fund for salaries and expenses of national bank examiners.

The basis of the rejection of the requisition by the Public Printer is a paragraph in the act approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat., p. 762), quoted in his letter of August 3, herewith.