"Salaries and expenses, United States Court for China (indefinite portion, act May 6, 1910, vol. 36, p. 343, sec. 1): In all, estimated for 1923, $1,000.”

It would appear that the citation should have been to the act of June 30, 1906 (34 Stat., page 816), establishing the court, rather than to the act of May 6, 1910, which was the annual appropriation act.

In order that there may be no doubt in the mind of the department in dealing with the expenditures of the United States Court for China your decision is requested upon the question whether the allowance of eight dollars per day for the judge and district attorney when attending sessions of court outside Shanghai, which, according to your decision of April 20, 1923, is construed to cover subsistence expenses only, is to be paid from the indefinite appropriation cited or from the $10,000 appropriated for "printing and binding opinions of the court and court expenses, including reference law books," or from the appropriation "transportation of diplomatic and consular officers," from which, according to the decision cited, the transportation expenses of the judge and district attorney, exclusive of subsistence, are payable.

The appropriation "Transportation of diplomatic and consular officers" provides as follows:

To pay the itemized and verified statements of the actual and necessary expenses of transportation and subsistence, under such regulations as the Secretary of State may prescribe, of diplomatic and consular officers and clerks in embassies, legations, and consulates and their families and effects in going to and returning from their posts, or of such officers and clerks when traveling under orders of the Secretary of State, but not including any expense incurred in connection with leaves of absence,

The further provision of the enactment quoted in your letter is that this appropriation "shall be available for the transportation of the officers of the United States Court for China to the same extent as for the transportation of such diplomatic and consular officers."

It seems clear that Congress intended that the actual and necessary expenses for subsistence of the judge and district attorney, not to exceed $8 per day, when attending sessions of court held outside of Shanghai, should be paid from the appropriation "United States Court for China " by appropriating so much as may be necessary for said purposes during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1923.

The expenses of transportation and subsistence of the officers of the court in going to and returning from the various places of holding court may be paid from the appropriation "Transportation of diplomatic and consular officers," under such regulations as the Secretary of State may prescribe, within the limitations fixed by Congress.

RENTAL ALLOWANCE-AWAITING TRANSPORTATION-OFFICERS

OF THE NAVY.

Officers of the Navy detached from duty and awaiting Government transportation to new station are entitled to rental allowance for the interval be tween detachment from duty and the beginning of travel if no publie quarters are available.

Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, May 12, 1923:

R. S. Culp, commander, United States Navy, requested May 4, 1923, review of settlement No. N-86925, dated April 9, 1923, disallowing his claim under section 6 of the act of June 10, 1922, 42

Stat., 628, for rental allowance from September 10 to 29, 1922, inclusive, while awaiting transportation to the Canal Zone. The claim was disallowed on the ground that the officer was in a travel status and such quarters as were necessary were furnished by the United States either through reimbursement of traveling expenses or through mileage.

Claimant was serving aboard the U. S. S. Melvin September 11, 1922, when he was informed in orders that upon the reporting of his relief he would stand detached from his ship and would proceed via the first available Government transportation to the Canal Zone for shore duty. The orders gave him the option of proceeding at his own expense to Hampton Roads, Va., and from thence aboard the U. S. S. Nitro to the Canal Zone. Amendatory orders dated September 19, 1922, read as follows:

1. Your dispatch orders of September 6, 1922, assigning you to duty with the Governor, Canal Zone, are so far modified that upon arrival of the U. S. S. Sirius at San Diego, Calif., you will report to the commanding officer of the U. S. S. Sirius for duty on board that vessel.

2. Upon the arrival of the U. S. S. Sirius at the Canal Zone you will regard yourself detached from duty on board that vessel; will carry out the remainder of the above orders.

Apparently his relief reported September 8, 1922, for on that date claimant applied to headquarters twelfth naval district for transportation and his order bore an indorsement from said headquarters that no transportation was available. He was detached from duty aboard the Melvin on September 9, 1922, and reported for duty aboard the Sirius on September 30, 1922. During the interval claimant resided with his family at 1402 Eighth Street, Coronado, Calif., and claimed rental allowance for the period of 21 days.

Section 6 of the act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat., 628, so far as is here material, provides:

*

*

That each commissioned officer on the active list or on active duty below the grade of brigadier general or its equivalent, if public quarters are not available, shall be entitled at all times, in addition to his pay, to a money allowance for rental of quarters, *. The rental allowance shall accrue while the officer is on field or sea duty, temporary duty away from his permanent station, in hospital, on leave or absence, or on sick leave, regardless of any shelter that may be furnished him for his personal use, if his dependent or dependents are not occupying public quarters during such period. ***, but

no rental allowance shall be made to any officer without dependents by reason of his employment on field or sea duty.

The statute provides rental allowance at all times when on field duty, sea duty, temporary duty away from permanent station, in hospital, on leave of absence, and on sick leave. 2 Comp. Gen., 399. Upon detachment from the Melvin claimant lost his status as an officer on sea duty. 17 Comp. Dec., 371; 2 Comp. Gen., 415. His travel status had not commenced and he was in the status of an officer at a shore station with his family awaiting Government trans

portation, and since quarters in kind were not available he is entitled to rental allowance. See 2 Comp. Gen., 430; id., 435; id., 745.

Upon review of the matter the settlement is reversed and $84, being rental allowance for the period September 9 to 29, 1922, inclusive, for a commander, is certified due claimant.

TRAVELING EXPENSES-DRINKING WATER-SUBSISTENCE WHILE AWAITING TRANSPORTATION.

The opinion of numerous travelers that the drinking water furnished free of charge during a lengthy journey over both land and water in India and Europe is unwholesome can not be considered sufficient evidence of the character of the water as to authorize reimbursement to a consular officer for expenditures for drinking water covering an extended journey of that nature. Per diem in lieu of subsistence may be allowed a consular officer for the time necessarily spent at a stop-over in transit awaiting train accommodations. Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, May 12, 1923:

W. W. Corcoran, United States vice consul de carriere, class 2, Boulogne-sur-Mer, requests review of so much of settlement S-30314, November 4, 1922, as concerns the sum of $30.86, representing two items which are stated as:

(b) Amount of charges for drinking water obtained while traveling from Madras, India, to Boulogne via Bombay, May 20 to June 20, 1921, which were suspended for certificate from board of health at Bombay and the ship's physician that the drinking water furnished gratis was unsafe to use, and disallowed for the reason that explanation offered was not considered as sufficient ground for allowance, $15.86; and,

(c) Amount of charge for subsistence in Venice suspended for a certificate from the railway company or other evidence showing that trains were not running daily, or other contingencies which made the delay unavoidable, disallowed as per item (b), $15.

In justification of the purchase of drinking water the vice consul states that

It is a notorious fact that the majority of passengers traveling from India to Europe consider the water ordinarily served as dangerous. This is especially so for a person who, like myself, was recovering from tropical fever.

The travel regulations of the Department of State provide under the caption of "Subsistence," paragraph 15—

(g) Drinking water, when necessary, as hereinafter defined and limited; and paragraph—

22. Drinking water shall not be charged except when no drinking water is furnished gratis or when that furnished free is not safe to drink.

The provisions are for actual expenses of subsistence, and the authorization of charges for drinking water is a conditional one.

It is observed from the diary of expenses that the charges for drinking water cover the land journey in India as well as the voy

age to Italy, and no evidence is produced of an unwholesome condition of the water throughout the trip other than the opinion, ascribed to a majority of passengers, that the water ordinarily served is dangerous. These expenses were incurred daily, and such charges would seem to have suggested the propriety of securing some certificate at the time, particularly from the ship's doctor, in substantiation of an unusual and otherwise personal expense. The situation strongly indicates merely a personal apprehension and a precautionary procedure that can not be viewed as based upon such facts as show reasonable evidence of the necessity therefor, and accordingly the circumstances are not deemed sufficient to warrant an allowance. The disallowance is affirmed as to this item. 21 Comp. Dec., 319.

(c) In explanation of the expense incurred by the delay at Venice the vice consul states that it was occasioned by his inability to obtain train accommodations for several days, and in corroboration has requested a statement from the local railway office to that effect; but the American consul at Venice reports that the local agency of the sleeping-car company, to whom the matter was referred, declined to record such a fact.

The travel regulations provide, paragraph―

3. Stopping over at any point, or any detention en route, without prior authority therefor, except as hereinafter provided, will not be permitted unless unavoidable, and the reasons therefor must be satisfactorily explained by a statement of the facts, which must accompany the traveling expense account but should not be embodied therein. The expense of stopping over at any point en route may not be charged to the Government if the stop-over was for any personal reason except illness, in which latter event a certificate of the attending physician should be furnished with the account.

The account covering this journey has been finally approved administratively without exception to this delay in transit, signifying the explanation as acceptable; and as the stopping over is asserted to have been due to inability to secure necessary sleeping-car accommodations, Venice to Paris, and not for personal reasons, the same will now be admitted.

Accordingly upon review there is now allowed the sum of $15.

JUDGMENTS

APPROPRIATIONS AVAILABLE FOR ADMIRALTY
INVOLVING VESSELS OF THE EMERGENCY FLEET CORPORA-
TION.

In view of the provision in the act of June 12, 1922, 42 Stat., 647, prohibiting the payment of judgments in admiralty from the funds appropriated therein for the Emergency Fleet Corporation, such judgments payable during the fiscal year 1923 must be paid from the permanent indefinite appropriation provided by section 8 of the act of March 9, 1920, 41 Stat., 527. Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, May 12, 1923:

Under date of November 2, 1922, this office settled claims of Clarence Zimmerman and Thomas Simuro based upon judgments

989449 0-52-49

rendered in their favor on suits in admiralty brought under the act of March 9, 1920, 41 Stat., 525, and allowed the amounts adjudged against the United States, certifying the same, by certificates Nos. S-36488 and S-36489, respectively, for payment from the appropriation made by section 8 of the act aforesaid.

The judgments were for wages and for the value of personal effects lost by the libellants. A question has arisen as to whether the judgments are chargeable to the permanent indefinite appropriation made by the act of March 9, 1920, for payment of judgments within the purview of sections 4 and 7 of the act, or from the operating appropriation or fund from which the wages and value of effects would have been paid if they had been paid without suit.

Section 8 of the act aforesaid provides:

That any final judgment rendered in any suit herein authorized, and any final judgment within the purview of sections 4 and 7 of this Act, and any arbitration award or settlement had and agreed to under the provisions of section 9 of this Act, shall, upon the presentation of a duly authenticated copy thereof, be paid by the proper accounting officers of the United States out of any appropriation or insurance fund or other fund especially available therefor; otherwise there is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, a sum sufficient to pay any such judgment or award or settlement.

Section 4 of the act deals with libels against privately owned vessels on causes of action arising or alleged to have arisen from the previous possession, awnership, or operation of such vessels by the United States or by the Emergency Fleet Corporation. Section 7 of the act deals with the arrest, attachment, or seizure by process of any court of any country other than the United States of any vessel or cargo within the purview of sections 1 and 4 of the act.

Section 1 of the act provides for proceedings in personam against the United States or the Emergency Fleet Corporation in cases where vessels owned by the United States or the Emergency Fleet Corporation would, if privately owned, be subject to proceeding in admiralty. The section provides that decrees thereafter obtained thereunder "shall be paid as provided in section 8 of this act."

Judgments under sections 1, 4, and 7 of the act are payable in accordance with section 8 out of any appropriation or insurance or other fund especially available therefor; otherwise from the permanent indefinite appropriation made by section 8.

The former Comptroller of the Treasury held that a judgment for salvage obtained under the act of March 9, 1920, was payable from the appropriation, or fund, against which the claim would have been charged if it had been paid without legal proceeding for its enforcement, and not from the indefinite appropriation made by section 8 of the act. 27 Comp. Dec., 987. The decision was rendered May 18, 1921. The act of June 12, 1922, 42 Stat., 648, making ap