volved will likewise be admitted in a subsequent settlement in accord. ance with the reasons stated herein.

RECOVERY OF UNPAID ALLOTMENTS OF ARMY PAY.

The making of a class "E" allotment under the act of March 22, 1889, 30 Stat 981, by an enlisted man of the Army vests no property right in the allottee unless and until the allotment has been paid by the collection or negotiation of the check by the allottee, and when such checks have been returned unclaimed and covered into "Outstanding liabilities" the amounts thereof are properly payable to the soldier making the allotment.

Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, May 26, 1923:

Will Rowe has requested review of settlement No. W-156376, this office, dated December 8, 1922, allowing him $7 as refund of class "E" allotment deducted from his pay as private, United States Army, and not received by the allottee.

The Finance Officer of the Army has reported that claimant executed class "E" allotment as follows:

Allottee: Elliott Rowe, Rochelle, Ga.
Rate: $7.00 per month for 60 months.
Effective: August 1, 1918.

Paid to include: June 30, 1919, date of discontinuance.
Check for the month of June returned and cancelled.

The allowance made by the settlement represented the $7, amount of check for June, 1919, returned and canceled.

It now appears from the records of this office that the followingdescribed checks issued in payment of said allotment were returned unclaimed and amounts thereof have been covered into the Treasury to the credit of "Outstanding liabilities" under the provisions of section 306, Revised Statutes:

Section 306, Revised Statutes, provides that the amount of the checks covered into the appropriation account "Outstanding liabilities" after three years shall be carried to the credit of the parties in whose favor such checks issued or to the persons who are entitled to receive pay therefor.

Class "E" allotments made by enlisted men of the Army are those executed voluntarily under the act of March 2, 1899, 30 Stat., 981, for the support of their families or relatives, for their savings or for other purposes, and have never carried allowances or other obligations of the Government. They are revocable at the will of the allotter and vest no property right in the allottee unless and until they have been paid to the allottee. As checks must be collected or negotiated by the payee before payment may be considered as lawfully made so as to vest any property right to the proceeds in the payee, the amount of these checks which were not negotiated or collected by the payee prior to his death is for restoration to the pay account of the soldier making the allotment, and no portion thereof constitutes assets of the deceased allottee's estate. 10 Comp. Dec., 208; 24 id., 521; 26 id., 855.

In this case, therefore, the fact that the checks were all returned and the aggregate amount thereof covered into "Outstanding liabilities" is conclusive proof that the allottee did not acquire any title to the proceeds, and the record of the deductions from the pay of the claimant constitutes sufficient proof of his ownership in the proceeds.

Upon review of the matter there is certified the sum of $70 additional due claimant, payable under the appropriation account "Outstanding liabilities."

CHIPPEWAS IN MINNESOTA FUND-APPROPRIATIONS IN
SPECIFIC TERMS.

The "Chippewas in Minnesota fund" created by the act of January 14, 1889, 25 Stat., 645, as a permanent fund to be credited with the proceeds from the sale of certain lands and timber belonging to the Chippewa Indians, is not subject to expenditure unless and until appropriated by Congress; accordingly the transfer thereto from the general fund of the Treasury of the amount found due the Chippewas for their lands embraced in the Minnesota National Forest and certified to the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with, the act of May 23, 1908, 35 Stat. 268-271, does not constitute an appropriation of the money out of the Treasury such as is required by the act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat., 560, to be authorized by Congress in specific terms.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Treasury, May 26, 1923:

I have your letter of May 12, 1923, requesting decision whether the act of May 23, 1908, 35 Stat., 268-271, relative to the purchase of forest lands by the United States from the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota, provides the appropriation out of which the amount found due the Indians in accordance with the terms of the act may

be transferred from the general fund of the Treasury to the credit of the Indians.

The act of January 14, 1889, 25 Stat., 645, opened to sale and homestead certain lands belonging to the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota and created a permanent fund in the Treasury which has been designated "Chippewas in Minnesota fund," to the credit of which all money accruing from the disposal of said lands, less expenses, was required to be deposited. This fund was to draw interest at the rate of 5 per cent per annum for 50 years, the interest to be payable to the Indians in the manner prescribed by the act. The permanent fund was to remain intact except when otherwise appropriated by Congress. The act of June 27, 1902, 32 Stat., 400, and other acts, have provided certain amendments relative to the procedure in disposing of the land and timber but made no change in the character of the permanent fund.

The act of May 23, 1908, 35 Stat., 268-271, here brought particularly in question, created the forest reserve, now known as the Minnesota National Forest, embracing lands belonging to the Chippewa Indians, and prescribed the manner for disposal of a portion of the timber and for payment for the timber and land by the United States. A commission of three members was authorized, one to be designated by the President, one by the Secretary of the Interior, and one by the Indians, to appraise the value of the timber and land belonging to the Indians. The findings of the commission were required to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior and certified by him to the President of the United States, from which findings an appeal, within 60 days, was allowed the Indians. The act further provided:

At the end of said sixty days, if no appeal has been taken or if an appeal has been taken, then, upon the determination thereof by the President, the Secretary of the Interior shall certify the amount found by said commissioners, or if modified by the President the amount determined by him, to the Secretary of the Treasury, who shall thereupon place such amount to the credit of all Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota as a part of the permanent fund of said "All of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota" provided for in an Act of Congress entitled "An Act for the relief and civilization of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota," approved January fourteenth, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, and the Acts supplementary thereto, and the amounts so certified to the Secretary of the Treasury shall draw interest at the rate of five per centum per annum, pursuant to the terms of said Acts.

In accordance with this act, the commission certified to the Secretary of the Interior January 16, 1923, the total sum of $1,490,195.58 as due the Chippewa Indians, and these findings were finally approved by the President April 9, 1923, and that amount certified to you April 14, 1923, by the Secretary of the Interior.

Your doubt arises because of the requirement in the act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat., 560, that an act must "in specific terms" declare an

appropriation to authorize the withdrawal of money from the general fund of the Treasury. See also act of June 30, 1906, 34 Stat., 764.

The enactment of May 23, 1908, was intended to provide the full authority and complete procedure for transferring the purchase price of the forest reserve created thereby from the general funds of the Treasury to the credit of the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota for their use in accordance with the laws then in force. It was an authority to make the necessary book entries to transfer the moneys from one account to another, and although the vehicle of accomplishing this may be an appropriation warrant, the authority for such book entries although desirable is not necessarily required to be in appropriation language necessary to authorize uses of moneys through appropriation. The purposes for which such fund is available and the manner in which the money shall be paid out are provided by the earlier act and there would appear to have been no necessity for a more specific appropriation in the act of 1908.

Your question is answered in the affirmative.

AMPLIFIERS IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

Amplifiers may be regarded as mechanical equipment, and when the installation thereof is necessary in connection with the reasonable and proper use of public buildings the expense of installation may be paid from the appropriation for Mechanical equipment for public buildings."

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Treasury, May 29, 1923: I have your letter of May 21, 1923, requesting decision whether the appropriation "Mechanical equipment for public buildings, 1923," is available for the expense of installing amplifiers in public buildings occupied by Federal courts.

The appropriation in question is made in the act of February 17, 1922, 42 Stat., 385, and is specifically made available "for installation and repair of mechanical equipment in all completed and occupied public buildings under the control of the Treasury Department.” I am of opinion that amplifiers may be regarded as mechanical equipment within the meaning of the term as used in the appropriation and have to advise that if the installation of said amplifiers is deemed necessary in connection with the reasonable and proper official use of the public building for the purpose for which it was intended the appropriation in question is available for their installation.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE-SUBSTITUTE POSTAL CLERKS.

Substitute clerks and carriers in post offices and substitute railway postal clerks are not entitled to either annual or sick leave with pay.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Postmaster General, May 29, 1923:

I have your letter of May 19, 1923, requesting decision whether substitute clerks and carriers in post offices and substitute railway postal clerks are entitled to annual and sick leave with pay.

With reference to such employees you state that "substitute railway postal clerks are paid a proportionate part of the annual rate of salary for service actually performed" and that "substitutes in post offices are paid on an hourly basis, which is not based on an annual rate of salary."

The granting of leave of absence with pay to employees in the Postal Service is provided for under provisions in the act of June 5, 1920, 41 Stat., 1052, as amended by section 3 of the act of June 19, 1922, 42 Stat., 660, as follows:

Hereafter employees in the Postal Service shall be granted fifteen days' leave of absence with pay, exclusive of Sundays and holidays, each fiscal year, and sick leave with pay at the rate of ten days a year, exclusive of Sundays and holidays, to be cumulative for a period of three years, but no sick leave with pay in excess of thirty days shall be granted during any three consecutive years. Sick leave shall be granted only upon satisfactory evidence of illness and if more than two days the application therefor shall be accompanied by a physician's certificate.

The fifteen days' leave shall be credited at the rate of one and one-quarter days for each month of actual service.

It appears that the interpretation placed upon these provisions by the Post Office Department is that said provisions have no application to substitute employees, and I concur in that interpretation.

There would appear to be neither justification nor reason for granting leave of absence to substitute employees; that is to say, employees whose service is not continuous and who work only at intervals as their services may be required. The theory upon which leaves of absence are authorized is not that the employees may receive a gratuity in the form of pay without service but that the employee may be relieved from continuous service without loss of pay. If the terms of the employment are such that continuous service and continuous pay are not contemplated there can be no occasion for the granting of leave, and it must be assumed that the law was not intended to provide for leave with pay in such cases. The substitute