Page images
PDF
EPUB

The matter presented for decision is whether the amounts collected pursuant to section 2290, Revised Statutes, are such as are allowable under section 2238, Revised Statutes, in addition to the salary therein referred to.

Section 2290, Revised Statutes, as amended by the act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat., 1097-1098, provides that any person applying to enter land, under certain conditions, shall be required to do certain enumerated things, including the filing of an affidavit, "and upon filing such affidavit with the register or receiver on payment of five dollars when the entry is of not more than eighty acres, and on payment of ten dollars when the entry is for more than eighty acres, he or she shall thereupon be permitted to enter the amount of land specified."

In 15 Comp. Dec., at page 521, it was said:

Section 2238, Revised Statutes, provides the schedule of fees to be allowed to registers and receivers.

The payment provided by section 2290, quoted by you, and which is referred to in section 2 of the act of March 21, 1864 (13 Stat., 35), as a "fee," is not included in the fees allowed to registers and receivers by section 2238, supra, but has always been held to belong to the United States, and the receivers have been required to account for the same revenue from public lands. (See paragraph 7, G. L. O. Circular, February 26, 1863; vol 2, Lester's Land Laws Regulations, and Decisions, p. 252.)

See also 17 Comp. Dec., 563.

In transmitting the claim for settlement the Commissioner of the General Land Office stated:

I inclose here with a claim amounting to $297.82 in favor of Mr. J. D. Campbell, register U. S. land office, Guthrie, Oklahoma, for original homestead fees September 1 to November 30, 1921. The claim is hereby disapproved for the reason that registers and receivers are not entitled to fees on original homesteads as a part of their compensation.

Claimant in his application refers as the authority for his claim to a document printed for the use of the Committee on Public Lands, Sixty-fourth Congress. This document, a compilation of the principal statutes of practical importance relating to the public lands, as compiled in the General Land Office, in so far as the matter here in question was concerned, was based on General Land Office Circular No. 105, which was in effect at the time of the compilation. Circular No. 105 reported original homestead application payments as fees, and with respect to the matter, the Commissioner of the General Land Office states:

Registers and receivers have never been allowed fees on original homestead entries, and the defect in Circular 105 was corrected in Circular No. 616, approved August 9, 1918, in paragraph 130 of which it is stated, after the enumeration of States to which the regulation applies.

"The following fees and commissions are chargeable by law to be collected by registers and receivers and which enter into computation of their compensation, except the homestead fee."

Upon a review of the matter the settlement is sustained.

COMPENSATION OF FIRST TWO DEPUTY COMPTROLLERS OF THE CURRENCY ON AND AFTER MARCH 4, 1923.

The agricultural credits act of March 4, 1923, 42 Stat., 1467, in addition to providing for a third Deputy Comptroller of the Currency further provides that "the salaries of the Deputy Comptrollers of the Currency shall "be fixed in advance by the Comptroller of the Currency" and directs that the salaries of the two existing deputies "shall be considered part of the expenses of the examinations provided for by section 5240 of the Revised Statutes, as amended," thereby in effect repealing the statutory salaries for the two existing deputies and the appropriations therefor and making it mandatory upon the Comptroller of the Currency to fix their salaries immediately, such salaries when so fixed to be effective from the date of the act.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Treasury, March 15, 1923:

I have your letter of March 9, 1923, requesting decision relative to the adjustment of salaries of Deputy Comptrollers of the Currency under the agricultural credits act of 1923, approved March 4, 1923, 42 Stat., 1467.

The miscellaneous administrative provisions of the act, section 209, provide that all national agricultural credit corporations shall be under the same supervision of the Comptroller of the Currency as national banks organized under laws of the United States; and authorizes appointment of a Deputy Comptroller of the Currency in addition to the two now authorized by law and such additional examiners, clerks, and other employees necessary to carry out the provisions of the act.

Fixing of salaries is provided for as follows:

The salaries of the Deputy Comptrollers of the Currency and of such additional examiners, assistant examiners, clerks, and other employees shall be fixed in advance by the Comptroller of the Currency. The salaries of the two Deputy Comptrollers now provided for by law and of all national-bank examiners and assistant examiners assigned to duty in the office of the bureau in Washington in connection with the supervision of national banks shall be considered part of the expenses of the examinations provided for by section 5240 of the Revised Statutes, as amended;

You ask whether the salaries of the two Deputy Comptrollers of the Currency now provided for by law will continue to be paid at the statutory rates of pay fixed for the present fiscal year until the compensation is fixed by the Comptroller of the Currency under the new act or whether it is necessary for this compensation to be fixed now; if so, should such compensation cover period from March 4, passage of the act.

The act of February 17, 1922, 42 Stat., 375, appropriations for Treasury Department, fiscal year 1923, provides for two Deputy Comptrollers of the Currency, one at $3,500 and one at $3,000, and the act of January 3, 1923, 42 Stat., 1096, appropriations for the Treasury Department, fiscal year 1924, makes the same provisions for the deputy comptrollers. These two places were statutory and salary therefor was appropriated from funds in the Treasury. The

provision in the act of March 4, 1923, authorizing the Comptroller of the Currency to fix the "salaries of the Deputy Comptrollers of the Currency" together with the provision therein directing that "The salaries of the two Deputy Comptrollers now provided for by law shall be considered part of the expenses of the examinations provided for by section 5240 of the Revised Statutes, as amended," operates to repeal, from March 4, 1923, the statutory compensation and the appropriations therefor in the two fiscal years cited; from and after that date the salaries are required to be paid out of the special deposit fund created under sections 5240, Revised Statutes, as amended.

The positions are not abolished but continued, and as there is no longer any statutory rate, the clause "shall be fixed in advance by the Comptroller of the Currency" necessarily becomes mandatory upon the comptroller to fix immediately the rate of compensation to be paid the deputy comptrollers from the special deposit fund. which will be effective from the date of the act, March 4, 1923. Your question is answered accordingly.

ALLOWANCES-WAR RISK INSURANCE.

The provisions of the act of December 24, 1919, 41 Stat., 371, authorize the payment of the family allowance to a soldier's dependent standing in loco parentis to him who has been paid an allotment from his pay and whose previous application for the allowance had been denied under the act of October 6, 1917, 40 Stat., 403, in force at the time.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Director United States Veterans' Bureau, March 16, 1923:

I have your letter of February 3, 1923, requesting decision whether a claim of one Harris R. Lupton for family allowance for his aunt, Mrs. Eva Rowe, may now be considered and paid by the Veterans' Bureau in view of the disallowance of the claim by the Bureau of War Risk Insurance on November 4, 1918.

It appears that this soldier executed on March 1, 1918, an allotment of his pay, as follows:

[ocr errors]

I hereby make voluntary allotments in addition to compulsory allotment, if any, as follows: Aunt and guardian, Eva Rowe, 148 Girard Ave., East Aurora, N. Y. (amount of my average monthly habitual contribution because of dependency) 40 (amount of allotment) $15.00.

The commanding officer stated under date of April 2, 1918, that Private Lupton, though having no beneficiary. within the permitted class, wished to claim an allowance for his aunt, who he claimed was absolutely dependent upon him for support, and to whose support he had contributed $40 per month, exclusive of board and lodging On November 4, 1918, the bureau disallowed this claim because the aunt was not at that time within the permitted class of family allow

ance beneficiaries. Throughout the period of the soldier's service from March 1, 1918, to April 30, 1919, a deduction from his pay of $15 per month was regularly made and that amount was paid to the aunt as a class E Army allotment not carrying family allowance. The soldier was honorably discharged May 10, 1919.

Section 204 of the war risk insurance act of October 6, 1917, 40 Stat., 403, provides for payment of the authorized class B family allowance to "a grandchild, a parent, brother, or sister" and to no other person. Section 22 of the same act defined the term "parent" as used in the act as follows:

(4) The term "parent" includes a father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, stepfather, and stepmother, either of the person in the service or of the spouse. The act of June 25, 1918, 40 Stat., 609 enlarged this definition to include father through adoption and mother through adoption.

Section 4 of the act of December 24, 1919, 41 Stat., 371, amended section 22 of the war risk insurance act by inserting therein the fol lowing:

(4a) The terms "father" and "mother" includes stepfathers and stepmothers, fathers and mothers through adoption, and persons who have stood in loco parentis to a member of the military or naval forces at any time prior to his enlistment or induction for a period of not less than one year: Provided, That this subdivision shall be deemed to be in effect as of October 6, 1917.

Under date of May 13, 1922, claim for family allowance in this case was made on behalf of Mrs. Rowe by the adjutant, Buffalo Chapter, Disabled American Veterans of the World War. Your doubt as to the legality of this claim seems to rest upon a regulation of the bureau of May 15, 1919, to the effect that applications for family allowance must be made while the enlisted man is still in the service, and will not be considered if made after his discharge from the service, and upon a decision of the former Comptroller of the Treasury hereinafter referred to.

Assuming the in loco parentis status of the aunt to be established in this case, the retroactive effect of the amendment of December 24, 1919, was to validate her original designation as a class B allottee; 2 Comp. Gen., 102. The question for decision is whether the claim for family allowance made on the original designation and disallowed by the bureau prior to the amendment may now be reopened for action under the amendment, and, if not, whether the claim made on behalf of the allottee after the soldier was discharged may be taken up for action, notwithstanding the regulation of May 15, 1919. The amendment of December 24, 1919, was enacted at a time when a great majority of the temporary enlisted force had been discharged. If effect is to be given to its retroactive proviso as it applies to the allotment and allowance provision of the law in a great majority of cases, it is necessary either that claims filed after its enactment, and therefore after discharge from service, shall be recognized, or that

claims made and rejected under the original law shall be treated as open for reconsideration under the amendment. The prior regulation was designed to put a time limit on the filing of claims for family allowance under laws in force at the time it was issued. It could not operate to prevent or restrict the retroactive effect of the subsequent statutory amendment.

This soldier made claim for family allowance at the time he made the supporting allotment of pay and indicated clearly and definitely his intention to make a class B allotment. So far as disclosed by the papers the only reason for rejection of the claim was the ineligibility of the allottee under the law at that time. The statute having removed the ineligibility there is no reason why the claim may not now be allowed, provided, of course, that the essential facts of the in loco parentis status and dependency are established.

I am referred in this connection to the decision of the former Comptroller of the Treasury in 27 Comp. Dec., 486. The matter under consideration was the amendment of the war risk insurance which extended the compensation benefits of those laws retroactively for the period April 6 to October 6, 1917, thus bringing within the said benefits a class of beneficiaries who had not theretofore been entitled thereto. The war risk laws require that claim for compensation must be filed within a specified time, and the comptroller held. that claim for compensation under the statute must be made after its enactment, unless claim therefor was pending in the bureau at the time of the enactment. In the instant case the claim for allowance was made on behalf of the beneficiary after the amendment was enacted and is based upon the former application for class B family allowance made by the soldier himself. There appears no inconsistency between the comptroller's decision and the conclusion which has been reached in this case.

TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS OF OFFICERS OF THE NAVY. Transportation of the dependents of an officer of the Navy from his old station to a city other than the officer's new station for the purpose of attending college, and in anticipation of change of station by the officer, but in advance of the issuance of orders therefor, is not transportation incident to the officer's permanent change of station and is not reimbursable. Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, March 16, 1923:

L. F. Bellinger, lieutenant commander, United States Navy, requested, December 23, 1922, review of settlement No. N-34622, dated December 1, 1922, disallowing his claim for reimbursement in a sum equal to what it would have cost the United States to have transported his dependent daughter, Margaret Bellinger, from New Orleans, La., to Boston, Mass., and his dependent son, Frederick

« PreviousContinue »