Most directly in point is Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, supra. There, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff did not have standing to litigate the question involving the membership qualifications of the Moose Lodge because he did not attempt to become a member; he did have standing to litigate the issues concerning the Lodge's guest policies because he was refused service while a guest. In discussing the standing requirement, the Court stated, 32 L. Ed. 2d at 634:

Any injury to appellee from the conduct of Moose Lodge stemmed not from the Lodge's membership requirements, but from its policies with respect to the serving of guests of members. Appellee has standing to seek redress for injuries done to others. [Citations omitted.] While this Court has held that in exceptional situations a concededly injured party may rely on the constitutional rights of a third party in obtaining relief, Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U.S. 249, 97 L. Ed. 1586, 73 S. Ct. 1031 (1953), in this case appellee was not injured by Moose Lodge's membership policy since he never sought to become a member.

It follows from Moose Lodge that the plaintiffs in the present case have no standing to litigate the issue of racial discrimination in the administration of the section 8(a) program because they did not even apply for participation in the program.

In Space Services of Georgia v. Laird, supra, the district court dismissed a similar challenge to the SBA's section 8(a) program on the ground that the plaintiff could "complain that the re is discrimination in the administration of the program only if he had tried to become a member of the class eligible for the program. Again, in Fortec Constructors v. Kleppe, supra, the district court held that the plaintiff had no standing to raise the issue of racial discrimination because he had not applied for participation in the program. The court concluded that "[since] the plaintiffs have never sought to be eligible for the section 8(a) program, and never having had an 8(a) contract to gain, they cannot now allege that a contract was lost.... Solely on the basis of some generalized interest in the fair administration of a program, plaintiffs cannot attack the award as racially discriminatory."

In effect, the plaintiffs are asking this Court to resolve a question that is not now before us. We must decline the invitation. See United States v. Raines, 1960, 362 U.S. 17, 80 S. Ct. 519, 4 L. Ed. 2d 524. Otherwise, the grasp of our decree would exceed its proper reach. We therefore conclude that it was error for the district court to consider the issue of racial discrimination in the administration of the program.

The decision of the district court must be REVERSED.

CHAPTER FOUR

LIMITATIONS ON SPENDING

Section 1. Funding Limitations

SECRETARY OF STATE

42 COMP. GEN. 226

[B-150074]

To the Secretary of State, October 29, 1962:

Reference is made to letter dated October 5, 1962, from the Acting Deputy Under Secretary of State for Administration concerning the proposed construction of a pneumatic tube delivery system between the White House and the Department of State.

It is further stated in the letter that sufficient funds remain in the Department's no year account "19X0536, Extension and Remodeling of the State Department Building," to cover the estimated cost of $234,000 for the installation of the secure pneumatic tube system. We are advised that your Department is of the opinion that these funds can be used, since the basic legislative history discloses that the need for a pneumatic tube system for the Department was recognized. In this connection reference is made in the letter to the Hearings before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Appropriations, 85th Congress, 1st Session.

The Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Administration states that in one instance a sum of $2,435,000 was headed "Special Items" and that included in this sum was money for pneumatic tubes. He further states, however, that the tubes were specifically justified as being within the Department and that a further examination of the legislative history of the extension and remodeling appropriations for the building in question does not disclose any specific reference to extension of the pneumatic tube system beyond the State Department Building proper.

Section 3678, Revised Statutes, 31 U.S.C. 628 states:

Except as otherwise provided by law, sums appropriated for the various branches of expenditure in the public service shall be applied solely to the objects for which they are respectively made, and for no others. [Italics supplied.]