governments as well, the officers of which are responsible to the central government.

This construction has resulted in an established practice of selling military stores, old materials as well as expendable, to the provincial governments and depositing the proceeds to credit of the appropriation for purchase of such material current at time of sale, thereby creating an exception to the requirements of section 3618, Revised Statutes.

I believe the statute of 1906 is susceptible of the construction placed upon it by the War Department, and there is no reason for disturbing the past practice with respect thereto.

Accordingly, credit to the appropriation "General appropriation Q. M. C. 1921," of the proper amount of the proceeds of the sale in question was proper.

SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE-SEA OR FOREIGN SHORE DUTY PAY-WARRANT OFFICERS OF COAST GUARD.

Warrant officers of the Coast Guard on duty at a station in Alaska on or after July 1, 1922, are entitled to the cash subsistence allowance prescribed by sections 5 and 11 of the act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat., 628, 630, but not to rations in kind, the laws providing for rations in kind having been repealed by section 22 of said act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat., 633. Warrant officers of the Coast Guard on shore duty beyond the continental limits of the United States on or after July 1, 1922, are neither entitled to be paid at new sea duty rate as prescribed in section 10 of the act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat., 630, nor at the former shore rate as increased for foreign duty in effect on June 30, 1922, increase of pay for foreign service having been expressly repealed by section 15 of the act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat., 632.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Treasury, January 3, 1923.

I have your letter of October 26, 1922, requesting decision whether on and after July 1, 1922, Boatswain Thomas A. Ross, United States Coast Guard, on duty at the Coast Guard Station at Nome, Alaska, is entitled to a ration in kind or a commutation thereof and whether he is entitled to the sea rate of pay for shore duty beyond the continental limits of the United States of which in receipt on June 30, 1922.

By reason of section 3 of the act of January 28, 1915, 38 Stat., 801, warrant officers of the Coast Guard became entitled, when attached to a cutter or station, to a ration or commutation thereof previously allowed by the Revenue-Cutter Service Regulations.

By reason of section 14 of the act of May 18, 1920, 41 Stat., 604, warrant officers of the Coast Guard in the service on the date of the act were entitled to continue in the receipt of rations in kind or commutation therefor while on duty at a station ashore. 27 Comp. Dec., 15, 18.

Section 16 of the act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat., 632, known as a "saving clause," refers to pay to which officers may continue in the receipt of subsequent to June 30, 1922, but does not include officers' allowances. Section 21 of this act specifically provides that nothing in the act shall operate to change in any way existing laws or regulations made in pursuance of law governing the allowances in kind for rations for enlisted men. No reference is made to saving the allowance in kind for officers.

Section 22 of this act of June 10, 1922, provides:

That the provisions of this Act shall be effective beginning July 1, 1922, and all laws and parts of laws which are inconsistent herewith or in conflict with the provisions hereof are hereby repealed as of that date.

Taking into consideration that section 5 of the act of June 10, 1922, prescribes a subsistence allowance for commissioned officers to be paid at all times, in addition to pay, and that section 11 extends the benefits of section 5 to warrant officers of the Coast Guard, I conclude that by reason of section 22 the laws which previously authorized subsistence in kind to warrant officers of the Coast Guard are repealed, and that on and after July 1, 1922, the subsistence allowance, payable in cash, only is authorized.

For administrative reasons it may be desirable for Boatswain Ross to secure his rations from the general mess of the station at Nome. If he is accorded the privileges of that mess, he should be charged with the value of the rations furnished but should be paid the subsistence allowance authorized by section 11. 52 MS. Comp. Dec., 857, February 18, 1910.

That part of your question relative to the matter of subsistence is answered accordingly.

By reason of section 8 of the act of May 18, 1920, 41 Stat., 603, Boatswain Ross became entitled to the same pay as a warrant officer of the Navy. The act of July 11, 1919, 41 Stat., 140, prescribed that warrant officers of the Navy on shore duty beyond the continental limits of the United States, while so serving, should receive the same pay as was or may be authorized by law for sea duty. Previous to this enactment warrant officers of the Navy received the same rate of pay for shore duty, whether beyond the continental limits of the United States or within said limits. The conferring of sea rates of pay for shore duty that was beyond the continental limits was therefore a grant of an increase in pay for said shore duty. Section 15 of the act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat., 632, provides: That existing laws authorizing increase of pay for foreign service are hereby repealed, effective July 1, 1922.

The instant effect of section 15, applicable alike to commissioned and to warrant officers, is as to warrant officers to repeal the abovereferred-to provision of the act of July 11, 1919, and as with the

percentage increase for commissioned officers, so with the increase in shore pay for warrant officers for shore duty when without the limits of the United States, the increase of which an officer may be in receipt on June 30, 1922, is not authorized subsequent to that date by reason of section 16.

You are accordingly advised that on and after July 1, 1922, Boatswain Ross is not entitled to the rate of pay applicable for sea duty under section 10 of the act of June 10, 1922, nor to the former shore rate with its increase for foreign duty to which he may have been entitled on June 30, 1922. On and after July 1, 1922, shore pay only is payable as prescribed in section 10.

AIR TRAVEL TO AND FROM ENCAMPMENTS-SUBSISTENCE OF
OFFICERS AND ENLISTED MEN OF NATIONAL GUARD.
Officers of the National Guard en route to and from authorized encampments
are entitled to the same transportation and to the same subsistence allow-
ance as officers of corresponding grades of the Regular Army, but are not
entitled to reimbursement of any greater expenses of travel or subsistence
by reason of travel by airplane than by rail.
Enlisted men of the National Guard en route to and from authorized encamp-
ments are entitled to transportation and to subsistence in kind (or com-
mutation thereof) to the extent provided by War Department regulations
and orders; but are not entitled to reimbursement for any greater expenses
of subsistence or travel by reason of having performed the travel by
airplane.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of War, January 3, 1923.
I have your letter of December 14, 1922, as follows:

The inclosed vouchers covering expenses incurred by officers and enlisted men of the 13th Observation Squadron, Tennessee National Guard, while en route from Nashville, Tennessee, to Montgomery, Alabama, by aeroplane to participate in the annual encampment of that organization, have been submitted to the Militia Bureau for approval.

This travel was being performed by aeroplane in accordance with proper orders from the Adjutant General of Tennessee, rather than by rail, and the expenses were incurred by reason of the aeroplane becoming disabled en route and being abandoned.

Under ordinary circumstances this method of travel would have been the most economical to the United States Government, as in addition to the cost of transportation of these officers and men it would have been necessary to knock down the planes for shipment, reassemble them at the location of the encampment and repeat this procedure at the termination of the encampment. In view of the foregoing, a decision is requested as to whether or not these expenses are properly chargeable against funds allotted for the support of the National Guard, in view of the provisions of section 94 of the act of June 3, 1916, as amended by the act of June 4, 1920.

All but one of the vouchers transmitted are stated as for "Expenses, Nashville to Montgomery and return by airplane." The supporting papers show that in the cases of Jetton, Rascoe, Brooks, Seward, Berkley, Egli, and Zellner they participated only in the return trip from Montgomery to Nashville. In the cases of Seward, Brooks, and Zellner, neither the voucher nor the supporting papers show the towns or cities in which meals and lodging were procured.

In the cases of each of the others it appears that a night stop was made at Birmingham, whether they were en route to or from Montgomery. The supporting papers accompanying the vouchers of Fox and Blackard show that they were apparently forced down at Centerville, Ala., and the supporting papers with voucher for Rascoe that he was apparently forced down at Pulaski, Tenn. No evidence appears in the other cases of forced landings all seem to have completed the particular trip by air except Fox and Blackard, who seem to have traveled by rail from Centerville to Montgomery, and in the case of Rascoe, while he states he was "forced down in Pulaski," he seems to have completed the trip to Nashville by air. Seward claims reimbursement for railroad fare from Deca ur to Birmingham.

No voucher is submitted for Capt. Matt H. Dobson, jr., but his detailed statement of expenses is included with the papers. Lieutenant Rascoe states:

Forced down in Pulaski.

Supper, bed, and breakfast (15 gal. gas) for self and mechanic_------
Lunch same day, self and mechanic_--_-

$6.00 1.00

Staff Sergeant Brooks's account contains charges for each of the meals, commencing with dinner August 27, 1922, to lunch August 29, 1922, and lodging on the 27th and 28th. He does not show where the meals and lodging were procured but his account contains an item "Gasoline at Pulaski, Tenn., $2.40." No receipts for lodging and for purchases of gasoline are furnished in any of the cases, nor is the name of the mechanic given in any case where expenses on his account are alleged to have been incurred.

By an examination of the vouchers it appears that in a journey by air from Nashville, Tenn., to Montgomery, Ala., a distance by air of something less than 300 miles, more than 24 hours were consumed, and that although departure from Nashville seems to have been sufficiently early in three of the cases to require lunch at Decatur or Albany, Ala., in none of the cases was the journey to Montgomery completed on that day; all stopped for the night at Birmingham, and on the return trip all stopped at Birmingham for the night; and that in the cases of Blackard and Berkley stop on the following night was made at Franklin, Tenn., and in the case of Rascoe and Brooks at Pulaski, Tenn. In the cases of Fox and Blackard there seems to have been a forced landing at Centerville, Ala., and in the case of Rascoe at Pulaski on the return trip. In the other cases, so far as the papers transmitted disclose, what is being claimed is expenses of subsistence while traveling by airplane from Nashville to Montgomery or from Montgomery to Nashville, or both, in connection with the annual encampment of the organization.

Sections 94 and 97 of the act of June 3, 1916, 39 Stat., 206 and 207, provide, in part.

SEC. 94. ENCAMPMENTS AND MANEUVERS.— and the officers and enlisted men of such National Guard while so engaged shall be entitled to the same pay, subsistence, and transportation as officers and enlisted men of corresponding grades of the Regular Army are or hereafter may be entitled by law.

SEC. 97. * * Officers and enlisted men attending such camps shall be entitled to pay and transportation, and enlisted men to subsistence in addition, at the same rates as for encampments or maneuvers for field or coastdefense instruction.

The language of section 97 removes whatever doubt there may be as to subsistence (other than the money allowance for subsistence) for officers of the National Guard attending encampments under section 94; they are entitled only to the same transportation as officers of corresponding grades in the Regular Army; only enlisted men are entitled to subsistence.

There is no more reason or authority for reimbursing officers of air-service organizations flying from their home rendezvous to the place of encampment of their actual expenses of subsistence en route than there is for reimbursing officers traveling with their organizations by rail or by marching. Neither are entitled to subsistence in kind or at the expense of the United States, and the mode of travel does not affect the question.

With respect to enlisted men, paragraph 7 of General Orders, No. 14, dated Headquarters, Tennessee National Guard, Office of The Adjutant General, Nashville, Tenn., August 8, 1922, provides:

7. The Quartermaster Corps will furnish the necessary transportation and Pullman accommodations and commutation of subsistence at not to exceed thirty (30) cents per meal for each meal actually consumed per man while traveling to and from camp, payable upon presentation of proper receipts to the United States Property and Disbursing Officer. Meals will be procured by organization commander en route and receipts for expenditures taken by them in every case showing number of men subsisted and amount per meal. No reimbursement will be made in excess of the amount provided herein.

The enlisted men involved in the vouchers submitted may be paid commutation of subsistence in accordance with this order if the order conforms to the requirements of the War Department on the subject.

Your question is answered accordingly.

CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY FUND-ADJUSTMENT OF ERRONEOUS TRANSFERS TO.

Where owing to an erroneous estimate an excess amount is transferred from the appropriation available for salaries in a Government department or establishment to the civil service retirement and disability fund the amount in excess of the correct estimate for the period in question may be restored to the salary appropriation; it is not permissible, however, to restore the amount by which a correct estimate exceeds the deductions actually made from the employees' salaries.