Obrázky stránek

Company M, Eighth Regiment of Infantry, under the following circumstances:

'Galaghan, while serving as an enlisted man at Skagway, Alaska, stole and made away with certain property of the United States; he also stole two blank Government checks, one of which he filled out for $225. To the fraudulent instrument so prepared he forged the signature of the post quartermaster. He then uttered the check and succeeded in disposing of it for its face value. He then fled from the scene of his crime, but was captured and returned to the custody of the military authorities by A. E. Snyder, superintendent of the Northwestern Mounted Police, who acted upon the request of the post quartermaster whose name had been signed to the forged check, and upon the promise of the post commander that he would be reimbursed for the expenses incident to the pursuit, capture, and delivery of the offender. On his return to the military authorities Galaghan was tried by general court-martial for larceny, forgery, and desertion. He was convicted under all of these charges and was sentenced to confinement at hard labor in the penitentiary for five years. The United States penitentiary at Fort Leavenworth, Kans., has been designated as the place of confinement, and the prisoner has been sent to that institution to undergo his sentence of imprisonment. The items of expense incurred in the arrest and delivery, which amount in all to $95.91, are set forth in the inclosed copy of a bill for reimbursement rendered to the post quartermaster at Skagway by the officer who captured the offender.

"Galaghan committed several offenses, for all of which he was duly tried and convicted and is now undergoing sentence. The two most important offenses committed were forgery and desertion, the latter being a consequence of the former in that, having successfully disposed of the forged check, the offender desired to place himself beyond the reach of the officers of justice. The law regulating the payment of rewards for the apprehension and delivery of deserters is embodied in the act of appropriation for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1904 (act of March 3, 1903, 32 Stat., 936), which contains provision

"For the apprehension, security, and delivery of deserters, including escaped military prisoners, and the expenses incident to their pursuit: and no greater sum than $50 for each deserter or escaped military prisoner shall, in the discretion of the Secretary of War, be paid to any civil officer or citizen for such services and expenses.'

"Paragraph 135, Army Regulations of 1901, an executive regulation adopted in furtherance of the enactment above. cited, provides that


"A reward of $30 will be paid to any civil officer having

authority for the apprehension and delivery to the proper military authorities at a military station (or at some convenient point as near thereto as may be agreed upon) of any deserter from the military service, except such as can claim exemption from trial under the statute of limitations, and such officer will also be reimbursed for actual cost of tickets over the shortest usually traveled route for himself to and from such station or point and for the deserter to such station or point not to exceed $20. The reward and actual cost of tickets will be paid by the Quartermaster's Department, and will be in full satisfaction of all expenses for arresting, keeping, and delivering the deserter. The payment will be reported to the commander of a company or detachment to which the deserter belongs.'

"The requirements of law and regulations governing the payment of rewards for the apprehension and delivery of deserters are plain and present no difficulties in execution. In the case under discussion, however, it has been seen that the desertion of the offender was the consequence of the commission of the more serious offense of forgery, and an attempt on the part of the offender to flee from justice brought him within the scope of the forty-seventh article of war, which defines the military offense of desertion. Independently of the offense of desertion, it was the duty of the local military authorities to make every effort to secure the arrest, trial, and conviction of the forger; it appears that the efforts so put forth were successful and resulted in the apprehension of the offender and in his subsequent trial and conviction for the several offenses, including forgery and desertion, with which he was charged.

"It has been seen that an express clause of appropriation, in the annual act of appropriation for the support of the Army, makes provision for the payment of rewards and the reimbursement of expenses incurred in the apprehension and delivery of deserters; but there is no specific appropriation in the army appropriation bill or in any other act of appropriation, the execution of which is vested in this department, out of which persons who apprehend and deliver offenders to the proper military authority for trial, for other offenses than desertion, can be reimbursed for expenses incurred by them in such apprehension and delivery. In the absence of an express appropriation, and as the expenditure incurred is clearly one not provided for in other estimates,' it would seem as if reimbursement in this case might properly be made from the appropriation for 'Contingencies of the Army.'


"Having regard to the offer of the post commander to pay the expenses incurred in the apprehension of Galaghan, I will ask whether the total expense so incurred, amounting to $95.91, can be paid to Mr. Snyder; $20 of that amount being paid

from the appropriation for 'incidental expenses' and $75.91 from the appropriation for contingencies of the Army. It may be noted, in conclusion, that the Corporal Dooley' whose name appears in the inclosed expense account is not a noncommissioned officer in the Army and is in no way connected with the military establishment, but is a member of the Northwestern Mounted Police."

The statute and regulation cited by you pertain to the apprehension, securing and delivery of deserters, including escaped military prisoners, and to them alone. The appropriation for contingencies of the Army, 1904, provides—

"For all contingent expenses of the Army not provided for by other estimates, and embracing all branches of the military service, to be expended under the immediate orders of the Secretary, twenty-five thousand dollars." (32 Stat., 927.)

This appropriation is intended to cover expenses connected with the administration of the Army which can not be foreseen and yet are liable to arise. (See 10 Comp. Dec., 648, and authorities therein cited.)

If Galaghan's apprehension and delivery were based solely upon the ground that he was a deserter from the Army, then, under the law, no greater sum than $50 could be paid in his case, $30 of which would be as a reward and $20 for expenses. In view, however, of your statement that said soldier was apprehended as a thief and forger as well as a deserter, and in view of the fact that there is no specific appropriation under the War Department from which persons who apprehend and deliver offenders to the proper military authority for trial, for other offenses than desertion, can be reimbursed for expenses incurred by them in such apprehension and delivery, I see no legal objection to the payment of the whole or so much of the expenses incurred by Mr. Snyder in the apprehension and delivery of said soldier to the military authorities as was necessary, providing such expenses and payment thereof are authorized and approved by you, the same to be paid as indicated in your letter, namely, $20 from the appropriation for incidental expenses, Quartermaster's Department, and the balance from the appropriation "Contingencies of the Army, 1904."


A matron in the Immigration Service is not entitled to reimbursement of expenses for subsistence incurred while performing extra services at her regular place of employment.

(Acting Comptroller Mitchell to William L. Soleau, disbursing clerk, Department of Commerce and Labor, September 3, 1904.)

With your communication of September 1, 1904, you transmit a voucher in favor of Rachel Ellis, employed as a matron in the Immigration Service, for actual necessary expenses incuried and paid by her during the month of July, 1904, as per itemized statement annexed amounting to $15.25, for my decision of the question whether you are authorized to pay her the amount thereof.

The itemized statement on the voucher shows that the amount stated to have been incurred and paid for actual necessary expenses consisted of 22 items specified as "breakfast money," 50 cents each; 4 items specified as "breakfast and supper," $1 each; and 1 item specified as notary fee, 25 cents. The voucher also contains a certificate signed by her as follows:

"I hereby certify that on each of the days on which meals are charged in the above account I was on duty by order of the Commissioner of Immigration, either before or after official hours, and that said meals were, in each instance, taken either before or after such hours."

From the papers transmitted by you it appears that the matron was employed at a salary of $720 per annum, without provision for any allowance for expenses. The terms of this employment would not preclude an allowance for actual necessary traveling expenses, while traveling under orders, such expenses not being regarded as compensation. (4 Comp. Dec., 712.) But the expenses for which the matron claims reimbursement are not described as traveling expenses, and no evidence that she was authorized to travel or that she actually performed travel is furnished. The expenses appear to be for subsistence at her place of employment. Such expenses are in the nature of additional compensation and are not provided for by the terms of her employment.

Moreover, the items specified as "breakfast money" are not a proper description of expenditures actually made for meals, and if intended as such should be specified in terms clearly indicating that the expenditures were actually made therefor.

I have therefore to advise you that you are not authorized to pay the amount of the voucher submitted.


Payment of a warrant in favor of two joint administrators may be made to either of them, and in case of the death of one, may be made to the survivor.

(Assistant Comptroller Mitchell to the Auditor for the Interior Department, September 7, 1904.)

I have received your communication of the 3d instant as follows:

"Inclosed please find Treasury warrant (Indian) No. 7148, issued April 25, 1904, on certificate No. 52465, for $2,330 in favor of Josephine Gilbert and James Ellison, administrators of the estate of Singleton Gilbert, deceased.

"This warrant has been returned by the attorney for claimants, with evidence of the death of James Ellison, one of the joint administrators, with statement that payment had been refused for want of his indorsement and with the request that it be made payable to Josephine Gilbert, the surviving administratrix.

"It is believed that payment may be made to the surviving administratrix, and therefore it seems unnecessary to amend the certificate, as authorized by Department Circular No. 85, of April 25, 1895.

"The warrant with accompanying correspondence is referred to you for consideration and such action as you may deem proper, and also the settlement of April 23, 1904."

The circular referred to by you provides:

"Washington, D. C., April 25, 1895.

"To the Auditors, Treasury Department:

"When an account has been settled by you and certified for payment, and it subsequently appears that the person in

28007-Vol. 11-05-9

« PředchozíPokračovat »