in the case of Charles Deuter v. Harrisburg Railway Company presented to you for payment under the appropriation "Military and naval compensation" may be paid by you and charged to that appropriation.

The transcript for which this fee is charged was for the attorney for the plaintiff in the case, which is a suit for damages against the railway company instituted by a beneficiary of the Veterans' Bureau at the direction of the bureau, in accordance with the provisions of section 313 of the war risk insurance act as amended by section 18 of the act of June 25, 1918, 40 Stat., 613.

Section 313 aforesaid provides that if the injury or death for which compensation is payable is caused under circumstances creating a legal liability upon some person other than the United States to pay damages therefor, the director, as a condition to payment of compensation, may require the beneficiary to assign to the United States any right of action he may have to enforce that liability; or, if it appears to be for the best interest of the beneficiary, the director may require him to prosecute the said action in his own name. The section provides further that

The cause of action so assigned to the United States may be prosecuted or compromised by the director, and any money realized or collected thereon, less the reasonable expenses of such realization or collection, shall be placed to the credit of the military and naval compensation appropriation.

In case of recovery on suit brought or compromise settlement effected by the beneficiary, or in his behalf, the section provides that the amount recovered shall be credited upon any compensation payable to the beneficiary on account of the same injury or death.

There is no specific provision for payment of expenses of suits brought by the director or under his direction, but authority for such payment is implied by the statutory provision for the exercise of this power and the performance of this duty by the director. It has been suggested that the appropriation for military and naval compensation should be used for this purpose in preference to the general administrative appropriation of the bureau, because of the provision that net recoveries on suits shall be placed to the credit of the former appropriation, although the practice heretofore has been to charge such expenses to the general administrative appropriation. The conduct of suits brought by the director or under his direction and regulation is a matter of bureau administration, and the necessary and proper resulting expense is an administrative expense of the bureau, properly chargeable to the appropriation for administration of the bureau. The statute contemplates that all expenses connected with these suits shall be paid from the amount recovered; and wherever it is practicable to do so, payments should be made without use of the bureau appropriation; but where it is necessary

to pay an expense in advance of final adjudication of the suit, it should be paid from the general bureau appropriation.

The expense in question was duly authorized and therefore is a proper charge against the appropriation "Salaries and expenses, United States Veterans' Bureau, 1923." Payment is authorized accordingly.

REENLISTMENT ALLOWANCE-REENLISTMENT IN NAVY ON OR AFTER JULY 1, 1922, FOLLOWING DISCHARGE FROM ENROLLMENT IN FLEET NAVAL RESERVE.

Enlisted men of the Navy who, prior to July 1, 1922, had enrolled in the Fleet Naval Reserve within four months of discharge from the regular Navy, or who subsequent to July 1, 1922, had enrolled therein within three months of discharge from the regular Navy, and whose reenlistment in the regular Navy on or after July 1, 1922, was within three months of discharge from the Reserve, are entitled to the reenlistment allowance provided by section 10, act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat., 630.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Navy, October 31, 1922: I have by your direction the letter dated August 3, 1922, from the Acting Paymaster General of the Navy, requesting decision whether an enlistment allowance is payable under the act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat., 625, upon reenlistment following service in an enrolled status in the Fleet Naval Reserve.

The act of August 22, 1912, 37 Stat., 331, provided for a gratuity upon reenlistment in the regular naval service within four months of discharge therefrom, as follows:

If any enlisted man or apprentice, being honorably discharged, shall reenlist for four years within four months thereafter, he shall, * *

*

be 'entitled

to a gratuity of four months' pay equal in amount to that which he would have received if he had been employed in actual service.

These provisions were extended by the act of August 29, 1916, 39 Stat., 590, to those reenlisting in the regular naval service on discharge from the Fleet Naval Reserve, as follows:

That men who have enrolled in the Fleet Naval Reserve within four months of the date of their discharge from the regular naval service shall, upon reenlistment in the regular naval service within four months of the date of discharge from the Fleet Naval Reserve, be entitled to the same gratuity and additional pay as if they had reenlisted in the regular naval service within four months of discharge therefrom.

The provisions of these enactments were limited by the act of July 12, 1921, 42 Stat., 139, as follows:

SEC. 2. That hereafter no enlisted man in the Navy shall be paid on reenlistment an honorable discharge gratuity, or any proportionate part thereof, in excess of any amount equal to one month's pay for each year of service in the last expiring enlistment of such enlisted man.

There is no question that the provisions of the act of August 22, 1912, authorizing reenlistment gratuity were repealed by section 10 of the act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat., 630, as follows:

Existing laws authorizing a reenlistment gratuity to enlisted men of the Navy and Coast Guard are hereby repealed, and an enlistment allowance

equal to $50 multiplied by the number of years served in the enlistment period from which he has last been discharged, but not to exceed $200, shall be paid to every honorably discharged enlisted man of the first three grades who reenlists within a period of three months from the date of his discharge; and an enlistment allowance of $25 multiplied by the number of years served in the enlistment period from which he has last been discharged, but not to exceed $100, shall be paid to every honorably discharged enlisted man of the other grades who reenlists within a period of three months from the date of his discharge.

The specific repeal is of the laws authorizing reenlistment gratuity to the Navy and Coast Guard. If this repeal is construed as embracing the act of 1916 relating to reenlistment in the regular Navy after discharge from the Fleet Naval Reserve, the effect would be that no gratuity would be provided for reenlistment under such conditions. It is not necessary to give effect to the repeal to consider it as embracing the act of 1916. A doubt appears in the matter, however, from the fact that the act of 1916 relates to reenlistments within four months, whereas the act of 1922 authorizes gratuity on reenlistment within three months. The four months' provision related to the reenlistment conditions then imposed by law and was descriptive thereof, and it is not so vital to the substance of the act of 1916 that the three months' provision of the act of 1922 may not be substituted therefor. Accepting the substance of the act of 1916 as providing for the condition of reenlisting through the Fleet Naval Reserve, for which there is no substituted provision in the act of 1922. I am constrained to consider the act of 1916 not repealed to that extent. The requirement therein for reenlistment within four months becomes inconsistent with the provision in the act of 1922 for reenlistment within three months, and under the provisions of section 10 of said act of June 10, 1922, that all laws or parts of laws inconsistent therewith are repealed, the four months' provision of the act of 1916 is repealed, but this leaves its substance fully in force with the substitution of the three months' provision.

The clear purpose and intent of the act of August 29, 1916, was to authorize payment of honorable-discharge gratuity to enrolled members of the Fleet Naval Reserve who reenlisted in the regular Navy within the statutory period after discharge prescribed for enlisted men of the regular Navy to retain continued-service status, which at the time of enactment was within four months.

While not so specifically stated, the enlistment allowance prescribed by the act of June 10, 1922, is in lieu of the previously authorized honorable-discharge gratuity. The act of June 10, 1922, repeals the right to the latter, but the repeal provision is not to be construed as repealing the right of enrolled members of the Fleet Naval Reserve to the new enlistment allowance. See also 26 Comp. Dec.,

489.

A member of the Fleet Naval Reserve who prior to July 1, 1922, enrolled within four months of discharge from the regular Navy and on or subsequent to July 1, 1922, enlists in the regular Navy within three months of discharge from the reserve has within the intent of the act of August 29, 1916, reenlisted within three months of the date of his discharge from his previous service in the regular Navy and is entitled to the enlistment allowance provided in section 10 of the act of June 10, 1922.

To be entitled to the allowance where the enrollment takes place on or subsequent to July 1, 1922, the enrollment must likewise have been within three months of discharge from the regular Navy as well as the reenlistment in the regular Navy being within three months of discharge from the Fleet Naval Reserve.

Your question is answered accordingly.

PUBLIC BUILDINGS-REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS.

Treatment of the walls and ceilings of a public building with sound-deadening felt is not an item of repair or preservation but an improvement, and is not payable from the appropriation for repairs and preservation of public buildings.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Treasury, November 1,

1922.

I have your letter of October 23, 1922, as follows:

The acoustical properties of the district court room on the fourth floor of the post office and subtreasury building at Boston, Massachusetts, are reported by the judges to be very bad, and request made that steps be taken to improve the same.

It is proposed to place sound-deadening felt of approximately one inch in thickness on the plastered walls and ceiling, and over this apply cloth, either plain or decorative in nature, leaving between the cloth and the sound-deadening felt an air space of about one-half inch. This treatment would be applied in panels, which would readily lend themselves to the spaces on the walls and ceiling. The edges would be covered with a suitable wood molding, all properly secured to the plastered surfaces.

The question has arisen as to whether the annual appropriation for “Repairs and preservation of public buildings" is available for the work, and your opinion relative to the same would be appreciated.

The proposed sound-deadening treatment of this court room is not a repair to the building, nor is it an item of expense of preservation of the building. It constitutes a contemplated improvement of the building which is not within the express terms of the appropriation. While use of this appropriation for minor improvements has been permitted (see 7 Comp. Dec., 684), the general policy has been to so restrict its use as to exclude payment from it for alteration or improvement of a building of any considerable magnitude or importance, as to which it is customary and proper to obtain specific appropriation.

In this instance the proposed improvement appears to be not one merely of convenient arrangement but one involving correction of defective construction, which should not be undertaken without spe

cific authorization or appropriation therefor. You are accordingly advised that the appropriation "Repairs and preservation of public buildings" is not available for payment of expense of this proposed improvement.

DISCHARGES FOR DEPENDÈNCY-ENLISTED MEN OF ARMY.

A discharge by reason of dependent relatives, issued before the expiration of his enlistment to an enlisted man of the Army, by virtue of section 29 of act of June 3, 1916, 39 Stat., 187, as amended by act of June 4, 1920. 41 Stat., 775, is not a discharge for the soldier's convenience, and entitles the soldier to the deferred enlistment allowance payable upon honorable discharge from an original three-year enlistment entered into between June 4, 1920, and June 30, 1921.

Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, November 4, 1922.

Martin Lester, private first class, Troop D, Eleventh Cavalry, discharged, requested, August 28, 1922, review of settlement W-853916, dated August 3, 1922, disallowing his claim for enlistment allowance of $90 by reason of his original enlistment, September 3, 1920, for a period of three years.

Claimant was honorably discharged May 3, 1921, under the provisions of section 29 of the act of June 3, 1916, 39 Stat., 187, as amended by section 29 of the act of June 4, 1920, 41 Stat., 775, authorizing the Secretary of War, in his discretion, to discharge any enlisted man of the Army for causes occurring after his enlistment where members of his family become dependent upon him for care and support. He was discharged before the expiration of his threeyear enlistment. Claim for $90 enlistment allowance was disallowed in the settlement, of which review is requested, on the ground that the discharge was for the soldier's own convenience.

The enlistment allowance in effect on September 3, 1920, when claimant originally entered the military service for a period of three years was provided for by section 27 of the act of June 4, 1920, 41 Stat., 775, in language as follows:

Hereafter original enlistments in the Regular Army shall be for a period of one or three years at the option of the soldier, and reenlistments shall be for a period of three years. Existing laws providing for the payment of three months' pay to certain soldiers upon reenlistment are hereby repealed, and hereafter an enlistment allowance equal to three times the monthly pay of a soldier of the seventh grade shall be paid to every soldier who enlists or reenlists for a period of three years, payment of the enlistment allowance for original enlistment to be deferred until honorable discharge.

The act of June 30, 1921, 42 Stat., 74, repealed this provision providing for an enlistment allowance, but it was held that those originally entering the military service during the interval from June 4, 1920, to June 30, 1921, and who had payment of their enlistment allowance deferred until their honorable discharge were not deprived of the allowance by reason of the intervention of the act