« PreviousContinue »
and the deputy collectors so detailed shall be paid by the collector of internal revenue and disbursing agent for the district for which they are appointed and for which the allowance for their salary and expenses is made, the same as if all their services had been performed and expenses incurred in that district.
It is assumed that the designation of post of duty contemplated in your submission is for the purpose of fixing the deputy collector's status with respect to traveling expenses; and upon this assumption I have to advise that the officer's status with respect to such ex. penses should be determined by the actual facts or circumstances rather than by any arbitrary designation of d post of duty. If the detail is of such a permanent character as to amount to a change of duty station rather than a mere temporary absence from his regular post of duty, he would not while on duty at the place designated in the detail be entitled to reimbursement of actual expenses for subsistence or a per diem in lieu thereof.
The question presented is answered accordingly.
TRAVEL ALLOWANCE-ENLISTED MEN OF MARINE CORPS
DISCHARGED BECAUSE OF DEPENDENTS.
The discharge of an enlisted man of the Marine Corps before the expiratios
of his enlistment, by reason of dependent relatives is not a discharge for the convenience of the soldier and the enlisted man so discharged on or after September 22, 1922, 42 Stat., 1021, is entitled to the travel allow
ance provided by the act of that date. Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, May 15, 1923:
Jeo T. Byrd, former private, United States Marine Corps, applied February 17, 1923, for review of settlement No. N-275141, dated January 6, 1923, wherein was disallowed his claim for travel allowance from United States Marine Barracks, Mare Island, Calif., to Kansas City, Mo., upon his discharge from the United States Marine Corps, November 7, 1922.
The records show that on July 17, 1922, Byrd's mother submitted an affidavit alleging that her husband died on March 17, 1922, and requesting the discharge of claimant owing to the dependency upon him of herself and two minor children. At the time he was on duty in the Philippine Islands and was returned to the United States on board the U. S. S. Henderson.
The act of September 22, 1922, 42 Stat., 1021, provides:
Hereafter an enlisted man discharged from the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps. except by way of punishment for an offense, shall receive 5 cents per mile for the distance from the place of his discharge to the place of his acceptance for enlistment, enrollment, or muster into the service: Provided, That for sen travel involved in travel between place of discharge and place of acceptance for enrollment, enlistment, or muster into the service only transportation in kind and subsistence en route shall be allowed:
The construction placed upon those laws enacted prior to September 22, 1922, which authorized travel allowance when discharged,
except by way of punishment for an offense,” has been to exclude payment where the discharge is given by way of favor to or for the convenience of the soldier. United States v. Sweet, 189 U. S., 474; 24 Comp. Dec., 52. It was held, however, that where a discharge was granted from the Army, upon application of a surviving parent under the provisions of section 30 of the act of February 2, 1901, 31 Stat., 756, such a discharge was not by way of favor to, or for the convenience of, the soldier. 13 Comp. Dec., 686; 2 Comp. Gen., 302. See also section 29 of the acts of June 3, 1916, 39 Stat., 187, and June 4, 1920, 41 Stat., 775.
There appears no law specifically enacted for the Marine Corps or for the Navy making provision for discharge, such as the acts of February 2, 1901, June 3, 1916, or June 4, 1920. It is the facts incident to the discharge which constitute a discharge, not by way of favor to, or for the convenience of, the soldier, when granted on application of surviving dependent.
Discharges granted by reason of an application therefor made by a surviving dependent, differ from discharges referred to in 2 Comp. Gen., 612, granted for the convenience of a soldier. Under the September 22, 1922, act, travel allowance is provided for the enlisted men of the Navy and Marine Corps under the same conditions as for the enlisted men of the Army, and as enlisted men of the latter branch of the service are entitled to travel allowance when discharged upon the application of one who becomes a surviving dependent during the term of enlistment, enlisted men of the former branches may be paid travel allowance under like conditions.
The records show that claimant was accepted for enlistment on December 29, 1920, at Kansas City, Mo. The official distance from Marine Barracks, Mare Island, Calif., to Kansas City, Mo., is 1,951 miles, which at 5 cents per mile amounts to $97.55.
The pay roll covering the period August 3, 1922, to September 30, 1922, shows that no credit was given for foreign service pay. As he arrived at San Francisco September 1, 1922, he was entitled to $5.80 (20 per cent of $30 per month for 29 days, August 3 to September 1, 1922).
The pay roll covering the period May 1 to 30, 1922, shows that credit was given for pay as a marksman at $2 per month. As claimant's marksman qualification expired on April 4, 1922, this credit was in error.
Upon this review the settlement is reversed and $101.33 is certified due claimanto
PROCEEDS OF SALES OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS. The entire proceeds of sales of public documents are required by section 61 of
the act of June 12, 1895, 28 Stat., 610, to be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts, subject only to deduction from such proceeds of the cost of reprints authorized by joint resolution of March 28, 1904, 33 Stat., 584, and are not affected by the act of June 8, 1896, 29 Stat., 268, providing for the disposition of the proceeds of sales of public property
generally. 14 Comp. Dec., 536, adhered to. Comptroller General McCarl to the Public Printer, May 19, 1923:
I have your letter of May 1, 1923, requesting decision whether the expenses of sales of public documents to the public should be deducted from the proceeds of sales and credited to the appropriation originally charged with the expense before depositing said proceeds in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
It has been held by the former Comptroller of the Treasury that proceeds of sales of public documents should be covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts, subject only to deduction from such proceeds of the cost of reprints authorized by joint resolution of March 28, 1904, 33 Stat., 584, which deduction should be applied to reimbursement of the appropriation for public printing and binding in accordance with express provision of the joint resolution. 14 Comp. Dec., 536.
You now cite the provision of the act of June 8, 1896, 29 Stat., 268, that there may be paid from the proceeds of sales of public property the expense of such sales, and that only the net proceeds of such sales are required to be deposited in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts. You suggest that, as public documents are public property, their sale comes within the statute cited, which statute therefore should govern the disposition of the proceeds of such sales.
Sale of public documents is specially provided for by section 61 of the act of June 12, 1895, which also provides that all moneys received from such sales shall be covered into the Treasury, the only exception being the deduction afterwards authorized by the joint resolution of March 29, 1904. It is unnecessary to determine whether, if there was no special statutory provision for disposition of proceeds of sale of documents, such proceeds might be treated as proceeds of sale of public property under the act of June 8, 1896. The special statute governs and the decision of the former comptroller was correct.
I gather from your submission that it is the cost of printing the documents and not alone the cost of their sale that you propose to pay from the proceeds of sale. Only the cost of sale of public property is authorized by the act of 1896 to be deducted from the proceeds of the sale.
PURCHASE OF ELECTRIC POWER PLANT FROM APPROPRIATION
FOR ELECTRIC CURRENT.
The inclusion in the appropriation for regular supplies of the Army, of specific
authorization for construction or purchase of certain facilities for pro
of supplying such power or current.
I have your letter of April 24, 1923, reading:
It is requested that an advance decision be rendered as to whether or not the appropriation regular supplies," as contained in the act of June 30, 1922 (42 Stat., 727), is available for the purchase of certain lighting and power distribution systems in the Hawaiian Islands, which are at present installed on Government reservations and are the property of the Hawaiian Electric Co. The total value of these systems is $101,586.56, distributed as follows: Fort Armstrong
$162. 82 Fort Ruger.
2, 856. 59 Fort Shafter..
4, 574. 35 Schofield Barracks.
93, 992. 80
101, 586. 56 These systems were installed by the Hawaiian Electric Co. for the purpose of providing light and power to the posts enumerated and with the understand. ing that they would be purchased by the Government as soon as funds were available. The above systems are necessary for governmental use, and their acquisition by the United States is of vital interest to the War Department and will result in economy to the Government. It is not desired to ask Congress for a special appropriation for their purchase if present funds are applicable.
The appropriation for “ Regular supplies of the Army, 1923," 42
and the necessary power for the operation of moving-picture machines;
for furnishing heat and light for the authorized allowance of quarters
(see 42 Stat., 1385)
hospitals, storehouses, offices, the public buildings erected at private cost, in the operation of the Act approved May 31, 1902, and buildings for a similar purpose on military reservations for ice machines and their maintenance where required for the health and comfort of the troops and for ice for issue to organizations of enlisted men and officers at such places as the Secretary of War may determine, and for the preservation of stores;
for cold storage; for the construction and maintenance of laundries at military posts in the United States and its island possessions ;
Provided, That from this appropriation, not to exceed $1,250,000 shall be expended for power, heat, and electric current;
not to exceed $175,000 for maintenance and repair of electric wiring and fixtures :
The appropriation under consideration is essentially a supply appropriation, with here and there an authorization for the purchase or construction and maintenance of enumerated facilities for producing or supplying the services or things otherwise authorized to be purchased. The inclusion therein of the express authority to con
struct or purchase the enumerated facilities for manufacturing, producing, or providing such services or things implies a lack of author ity to so purchase or construct such facilities in the absence of er. press provision therefor, and such has been the construction involving similar matters. See 18 Comp. Dec., 353, wherein it was held that the appropriation for ice for preservation of rations did not authorize the purchase and installation of an ice-making machine, and see also 6 Comp. Dec., 324; 20 id., 641; 21 id., 768.
The estimates for the appropriation for “ Regular supplies of the Army, 1923,” contained in “The Budget, 1923,” pages 320 and 321, did not contemplate the purchase of lighting and power facilities These estimates provided specifically for the purchase of power, heat, electric current for light, and electric current for moving-picture machines. See 21 Comp. Dec., 420; 23 Comp. Dec., 547.
It is not stated when the installation of the systems was made nor what was the agreement under which the construction was placed upon Government reservations and with respect to which there was an understanding of purchase. See in this connection section 3744, Revised Statutes, requiring agreements of the War Department to be in writing and signed at the end thereof.
The matter as presented is simply a question of using an ordinary appropriation for an extraordinary purchase, to wit, the purchase of lighting and power systems on Government reservations.
The appropriation here in question must be considered as not available there for.
RETIRED PAY OF TRANSFERRED MEMBERS OF THE FLEET
The fact that transferred members of the Fleet Naval Reserve retired prior to
July 1, 1922, are borne on the retired list of the Navy does not entitle them to the retired pay prescribed by the act of June 10, 1922, for retired enlisted men of the Navy; they are only entitled to the retired pay pre
scribed for them by the act of August 29, 1916, 39 Stat., 591. Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Navy, May 21, 1923:
I have your letter of April 16, 1923, requesting decision whether members of the Fleet Naval Reserve of the Naval Reserve Force by transfer now borne on the retired list of the Navy may receive retired pay on and after July 1, 1922—and therefore retroactively to that date-computed on the rates of pay authorized for their rating in the act of June 10, 1922.
In other words, your query is whether members of the Fleet Naval Reserve by transfer who were retired prior to July 1, 1922, may have their retired pay—and in consequence their retainer pay, which (with