These expenses were disapproved by the Surgeon General's Office in accordance with 24 Comp. Dec., 87, for the reason that Professor Stiles was traveling on a per diem basis, meaning thereby that the expenses in question were in the nature of a subsistence expense in excess of the $4 per diem and therefore unauthorized.

It is as to this ruling that Professor Stiles takes exception contending that the travel related to his official duties and was not incident to subsistence.

The orders for the travel were, in effect, to go to San Francisco and such other places in the State of California as might be necessary, for the purpose of making the required investigations. He was for all intentions continuously in a travel status, and there appears no necessity for establishing what under the circumstances constituted headquarters, that being the real effect of locating himself in a hotel at San Francisco, from which to make excursions into near-by territory, thereby obliging a return thence for subsistence. But having pursued that plan, it is an unescapable fact that the travel expense in question was the unavoidable consequence attaching to the act of going forth to the place where duty was performed with the obligated return to place of subsistence.

A per diem was provided to cover the necessary subsistence, and it is immaterial where, when, or under what circumstances it was obtained, but no additional sum is authorized for what would under such circumstance supplement the subsistence allowance. 24 Comp. Dec., 162; 26 Comp. Dec., 341.

Under the circumstances the administerial disapproval was correct as being in harmony with decisions of the former Comptroller, and of this office, and payment of the sum claimed is not sanctioned.

WAR-RISK INSURANCE-PAYMENTS TO ESTATE OF INSURED. The filing of a claim on behalf of the alien distributees of a deceased holder of a marine and seamen's insurance policy under section 3a, act of September 2, 1914, as amended by act of June 12, 1917, 40 Stat., 103, if in due form and filed within the two-year limitation applicable to such claims, stops the running of the statute as to all of the distributees, as the payment under the policy is to the estate of the deceased, and payment to the duly authorized representative of the estate of the insured of any unpaid portion of the insurance may be made at any time thereafter upon application by such representative accompanied by evidence that he is in a position to make proper distribution thereof at that time.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Director, United States Veterans' Bureau, December 23, 1922:

I have your letter of November (received in this office November 10, 1922), requesting decision whether you are authorized to pay insurance on the life of George Bulgarea under marine and seamen's policy No. S. I. 567, issued under war risk insurance act of September 2, 1914, as amended June 12, 1917.

It appears that the policy aforesaid carried $1,500 insurance on the life of George Bulgarea payable under the law to the estate of the insured for distribution to his family, and that under the laws of Transylvania, of which country deceased is a citizen, his estate is inherited by his father and mother in equal shares. The mother's share has been paid to her, but the father disappeared in 1916 and has not been heard from. It is said that under the Hungarian Code of Procedure 10 years must elapse before a person less than 70 years of age at the time of his disappearance can be declared dead, and that in this case the term of 10 years is reckoned from January 1, 1917.

You request decision whether payment of the father's share of the insurance may be made to the legal representative of the estate of the insured provided the court will appoint such representative; and if not, whether the father or the legal representative of his estate when he is declared dead may make claim for the insurance in view of the hereinafter quoted provision in the act fixing a time limit for filing claims under the act.

Section 3a of the war risk insurance act of September 2, 1914, as amended by the act of June 12, 1917, 40 Stat., 103, provides that a payment for loss of life

shall be made to the estate of the insured for distribution to his family free from liability of debt

No claim under this section shall be valid unless made by the master officer, or member of the crew concerned, or his estate, or a person designated under this section, within two years after the date on which the President suspends the operation of this Act in so far as it authorizes insurance by the United States.

It appears that under date of July 12, 1921, the American consul at Bucharest, Roumania, forwarded to the Secretary of State a claim on behalf of the heirs of this decedent for the full $1,500 of this insurance. The claim itself is not before me, but it would seem that if it is in due form, it is sufficient to avoid the bar of the statute above quoted and authorize allowance and payment of the claim or any part thereof at any time hereafter that the state of facts warrant allowance and payment.

The claim is not primarily one of the missing father, nor is it one which he himself or his estate would be authorized to make directly. Under the terms of the statute only the estate of the insured is authorized to present and prosecute the claim. The question for determination, therefore, is whether there is at this time authority to pay the claim to the estate of the insured; and if so, whether there is any one authorized to act for the estate in receiving the money and discharging the United States from this obligation.

Until the father has been judicially determined to be dead, or if alive until his whereabouts is known, there can be no distribution

of his share of the insurance. Should the Government pay it to a representative of the estate it must remain in the hands of such representative until claimed by the father, or by his estate when he shall have been adjudged to be dead. There is no reason why the money should not remain in the hands of the United States until such time as it can be properly distributed.

For the present there seems to be no occasion to make any payment on this account. Should a condition arise where the father's share of the insurance is ready for distribution and a showing be made to the bureau that there is a duly constituted and authorized representative of the estate of the insured to whom payment may lawfully be made, such payment will be authorized. There does not appear to be any ground for payment at this time nor any occasion for further action by the bureau upon the record as it now stands.

WAR-RISK INSURANCE-REINSTATEMENT OF LAPSED POLICIES. The filing of an application for reinstatement of a lapsed policy of war risk insurance during the life of the insured without the actual tender of the premiums as required by the regulations, and the rejection thereof by the then Director of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance for medical reasons, does not establish a legal basis for reinstatement of the insurance by the Veterans' Bureau after the death of the insured. Reinstatement under section 27 of the act of August 9, 1921, 42 Stat., 156, of a lapsed war risk insurance policy is authorized only in case the deceased soldier had due him at the time the policy lapsed disability compensation equal to or in excess of the premiums due thereon.

Comptroller General McCarl to William H. Holmes, disbursing clerk, United States Veterans' Bureau, December 23, 1922:

I have your letter of October 30, 1922, requesting decision whether you are authorized to pay a voucher for $2,925.93 in favor of Myrtle Diana Prindle, as widow and beneficiary of a policy of $3,000 converted insurance applied for by, but not in fact issued to, Williamı Miner Prindle, who died February 5, 1922.

It appears that William Miner Prindle was discharged from the military service February 13, 1919, with $10,000 yearly renewable term insurance in force, of which his mother was beneficiary. After his discharge this insurance lapsed for failure to pay premiums. On February 5, 1921, he applied for reinstatement of $3,000 of the insurance and for conversion thereof into a 20-payment life policy payable in one lump sum, semiannual premiums, the wife instead of the mother to be beneficiary of the converted insurance.

The regulations of the former Bureau of War Risk Insurance required that in cases of application for reinstatement and conversion of lapsed or canceled term insurance, the applicant should during his lifetime make tender of the premiums for one month (the grace period) on the amount of term insurance to be reinstated and converted, and also of the first premium on the converted insurance.

This applicant did not remit with his application or at any time thereafter the premiums the tender of which was required by the regulations as a condition precedent to reinstatement and conversion of the insurance, although the letter accompanying his application is said to have stated that when the bureau advised him that his application for reinstatement was accepted he would make remittance for the amount of money necessary to effect the reinstatement. This offer to remit was not a tender of the premiums. The application for reinstatement and conversion was rejected for medical reasons and the applicant so advised, consequently no premiums were ever paid to the bureau.

After Mr. Prindle's death the Veterans' Bureau ruled that the application for reinstatement and conversion was valid because the disability causing its rejection was not due to disease intervening after the lapse of the insurance, citing a decision of this office of September 3, 1921, 1 Comp. Gen., 108.

The decision cited reviewed a decision of the former Comptroller of the Treasury to the effect that certain insurance which had been reinstated by the Bureau of War Risk Insurance was valid notwithstanding that at the time of reinstatement the applicant had a disqualifying disability, the law providing that insurance should be granted without medical examination having been applied by the Comptroller to reinstatement as well as to the original grant of

insurance.

There is no justification for the use of that decision of this office as authority for the award of insurance in this case. After quoting section 27 of the act of August 9, 1921, dealing with reinstatement of insurance, which act was passed after the former Comptroller's decision was rendered, the decision of this office continued as follows:

All pending and future applications for reinstatement of insurance will be dealt with under this section, and if any doubtful question of payment shall arise in connection with any such application it may be submitted by the Veterans' Bureau for decision of the Comptroller General. The effect of the Comptroller's decision is now limited to those cases which were in fact reinstated by the Bureau of War Risk Insurance upon a misstatement of the comparative condition of the applicant's health, intentional or otherwise. This review, therefore, will be limited to the operation of his decision upon those

cases.

If the bureau was unwilling to assume undivided responsibility for this award the question whether payment of insurance under the $3,000 converted policy may lawfully be made should have been submitted to this office for decision. Certainly, there is nothing in the former decision to sustain a conclusion that because the former director might, and probably should, have granted the application, the insurance could afterwards be reinstated by his successor in office after the death of the applicant, or that because the applicant bad

expressed his willingness to pay the premiums required for reinstatement such expression can now be accepted as the equivalent of the tender of premiums required by regulation, or that the case may be decided upon any other basis than the provision of the act of August 9, 1921, hereinafter quoted.

It is clear that there was in fact no reinstatement of this insurance prior to the death of the insured. Section 27 of the act of August 9, 1921, 42 Stat., 156, makes specific and exclusive provision for payment of insurance in cases where the insured has let his insurance. lapse and has died without having it reinstated, as follows:

That where any soldier has heretofore allowed his insurance to lapse, while suffering from wounds or disease suffered or contracted in line of service, and was at the time he allowed his said policy to lapse entitled to compensation on account thereof in a sum equal to or in excess of the amount due from him in premiums on his said insurance, and has since died from said wounds or disease without collecting or making claim for said compensation, or being allowed to reinstate his policy on account of his physical condition, then and in that event said policy shall not be considered as lapsed, and the Veterans' Bureau is hereby authorized and directed to pay to the beneficiaries of said soldier under said policy the amount of said insurance less the premiums and interest thereon at 5 per centum per annum compounded annually in install. ments as provided by law.

Mr. Prindle was in fact denied reinstatement of his insurance because of his physical condition. The case therefore comes directly under the provision quoted and must be decided in accordance with its terms.

It does not appear that there was any compensation due to Mr. Prindle at the time his insurance lapsed. At the time of his death his compensation rating established November 7, 1921, stood temporary partial 15 per cent from discharge to August 1, 1921. It is understood that all compensation under this rating was claimed and collected by him before his death. There is therefore no authority in the statute for payment of insurance in this case.

You are not authorized to pay the voucher upon the facts submitted.

EMPLOYEES OF VETERANS' BUREAU-REIMBURSEMENT FOR QUARTERS, HEAT, AND LIGHT PROCURED AT HOME.

Administrative assistants employed by the Veterans' Bureau and entitled to quarters, heat, and light in kind, or to reimbursement for actual expense of quarters, heat, and light when not available in kind and procured elsewhere under proper authority, may not be reimbursed for payments to their wives of the estimated cost of quarters. heat, and light at their own homes. Comptroller General McCarl to William H. Holmes, disbursing clerk, United States Veterans' Bureau, December 26, 1922:

There has been received your communication of October 18, 1922, inclosing approved voucher in the amount of $60 in favor of Samuel H. Leopold, administrative assistant, first class, United States Veterans' Hospital No. 35, in reimbursement for money paid to Mrs.