« PředchozíPokračovat »
and assuming that the amount thus advanced was actually espended by the seaman for necessary traveling expenses, the same will now be allowed. The practice, however, of making such advances is prohibited by law and should be discontinued. Vouchers 49, 374, 688, 749, 787, 789, 1100, and 1120, aggregating $107.75, are also claims for reimbursement for cash advanced seaman, and for the reasons above given will be allowed.
Voucher 505. Samuel W. Richardson. Per diem in lieu of subsistence while detailed to duty in connection with the Government exhibit at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition......
The explanation advanced by the disbursing officer is not considered to have satisfactorily explained this voucher. The only authority of law for the allowance of a per diem in lieu of subsistence to an employee detailed to duty at the Louisiana Purchase Exposition is found in section 14 of the act of March. 3, 1901 (31 Stat., 1443), which provides, among other things, as follows:
"The members of said board of management, with the officers and employees of the Government who may be detailed to assist them, including officers of the Army and Navy, shall receive no compensation in addition to their regular salaries, but they shall be allowed their actual and necessary traveling expenses, together with a per diem in lieu of subsistence to be fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury, while necessarily absent from their homes engaged upon business of the board."
By the act of June 28, 1902 (32 Stat., 445), an appropriation of $800,000 was made to pay the expenses of the Government exhibit, including per diems in lieu of subsistence to Government employees detailed to duty in connection therewith.
By authority of the above acts Mr. Richardson was detailed to duty at the exposition, and paid out of the appropriation for the Government exhibit a per diem of $3 per day in lieu of subsistence. He subsequently applied to the SurgeonGeneral of the Public Health and Marine-Hospital Service for an additional allowance of $2 per day in lieu of subsistence, to be paid out of the appropriation for the Public Health and Marine-Hospital Service, stating that the $3 per day he was receiving under the act of March 3, 1901, supra, was insufficient to meet his necessary expenses of subsistence.
Upon the recommendation of the Surgeon-General said additional allowance was approved by the Acting Secretary of the Treasury. It appears, however, that the Acting Secretary did not attempt or intend in granting such allowance to increase the per diem allowance which Mr. Richardson had been receiving under the act of March 3, 1901, supra, and which was paid, as provided for in said act, out of the appropriation for the Government exhibit. All he attempted or intended to do was to grant Mr. Richardson an allowance of $2 per day in lieu of subsistence out of the appropriation for the Public Health and Marine-Hospital Service, and unless this appropriation is applicable to the payment of said per diem the voucher in question must be disallowed. I find nothing in the law or regulations of said Service authorizing the payment under any circumstances of per diems in lieu of subsistence. The provisions therein relative to traveling expenses provide for the payment of actual expenses only. But even if it were authorized by the regulations, I am of the opinion that the payment to Mr. Richardson, while detailed to duty at the exposition, of such per diem allowance out of the appropriation for the Public Health and MarineHospital Service would clearly be prohibited, since it would be additional compensation within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1901, supra, which provides that employees detailed to duty in connection with the Government exhibit shall receive no compensation in addition to their regular salaries, actual traveling expenses, and the per diem in lieu of subsistence therein provided for. All of this Mr. Richardson was receiving, and the payment to him of another per diem out of some other appropriation is clearly prohibited.
The amount of the voucher is therefore disallowed, and a certificate of differences will issue accordingly.
Vouchers 1035 and 1075. These vouchers, aggregating $15.75, are for payments made in advance for medical journals. Payment in advance for periodicals is prohibited by section 3648 of the Revised Statutes (7 Comp. Dec., 62). However, as it appears that the periodicals for which the advance payments were made have since been received, and that no substantial benefit would inure to the Government through any action on my part at this time, the vouchers will now be allowed. The practice of making such advance payments, however, is prohibited by law and should not be continued.
Compensation paid an employee of a State from the appropriation made by the United States to the several States for establishing agricultural experiment stations is not compensation received "as an officer or employee of the Government," within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1885, which provided that no part of the appropriations for the Department of Agriculture should be paid as additional compensation to any person receiving at the same time other compensation as an officer or employee of the Government.
(Comptroller Tracewell to the Secretary of Agriculture, February 9 1905.)
In your communication of February 6, 1905, you request my decision upon a question which you therein present as follows:
"In view of the provisions of section 2, act of March 3, 1885, can payment of salary legally be made from an appropriation for the Department of Agriculture, and otherwise available, to a person who renders service to the Department, and who at the same time is employed by a State agricultural experiment station, and is paid by said station as a State officer, either in whole or in part from the annual appropriation of $15,000 included for each station in appropriations for the Department in furtherance of the act of March 2, 1887?" Section 2 of the act of March 3, 1885 (23 Stat., 356), contains the following provision:
"That no part of the money herein or hereafter appropriated for the Department of Agriculture shall be paid to any person, as additional salary or compensation, receiving at the same time other compensation as an officer or employee of the Government."
The particular question to be considered in this case is whether payment from the appropriation to establish agricultural experiment stations in connection with colleges established in the several States, contained in the act of April 23, 1904 (33 Stat., 293), to a person employed by a State agricultural experiment station, is compensation paid to him "as an officer or employee of the Government," within the meaning of the provision in the act of March 3, 1885, supra. If so, the payment to the same person of salary for services. rendered for the Department of Agriculture would be “additional salary or compensation," within the meaning of that
provision, and payment thereof from an appropriation for the Department of Agriculture would be thereby prohibited. This appropriation is made in pursuance of the act of March 2, 1887 (24 Stat., 440), which provides for establishing agricultural experiment stations under the direction of the colleges, or agricultural department of colleges, in each State or Territory established in accordance with the provisions of the act of July 2, 1862 (12 Stat., 503), which donated public lands to the several States and Territories which should provide colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts. For the purpose of paying the expenses of conducting investigations and experiments at such stations and of printing and distributing the results thereof this act appropriated, to be specially provided for by Congress in appropriations from year to year, the sum of $15,000 to each State entitled thereto under the provisions of the act.
It having been provided by this act that certain agricultural experiment stations shall be established "under the direction" of the State colleges, an appropriation was made to each State" to pay the expenses of conducting the investigations and experiments, etc. I think therefore that where money is so appropriated to a State, to be expended in its discretion for the purposes for which it is appropriated, persons employed by the State and paid therefrom are employees of the State; and that a payment to a person so employed is not compensation paid to him "as an officer or employee of the Government," within the meaning of section 2 of the act of March 3, 1885, supra.
I have the honor therefore to advise you that payment to a person who has been employed by the Department of Agriculture for services rendered by him under such employment, who had also been employed during the same time by a State agricultural experiment station and paid for services under such employment from the appropriation to the State referred to above, may be legally paid for his services under his employment by the Department from an appropriation for the Department which is properly applicable thereto.
TRAVELING EXPENSES OF THE COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE THE NEEDS OF THE PNEUMATICTUBE MAIL SERVICE.
Under the provisions in the act of April 28, 1904, a member of the commission appointed to investigate the needs of the pneumatic-tube mail service is not entitled to reimbursement of traveling expenses incurred at his official domicile in Washington, D. C.
A claimant who accepts payment of one or more items of his claim, which have been allowed by the Auditor in his settlement thereof, is not precluded by section 8 of the act of July 31, 1894, from obtaining a revision of his account as to other distinct items therein.
(Decision by Comptroller Tracewell, February 9, 1905.)
The Auditor for the Post-Office Department, by settlements dated December 15, 1904, and January 12, 1905, of the accounts of J. M. Masten, assistant superintendent of the Railway Mail Service, for traveling expenses incurred in November and December, 1904, as a member of a commission to investigate the needs and practicability of the pneumatic-tube mail service, disallowed items amounting to $32.09 and $21.80, respectively. By application filed January 18, 1905, the claimant requested a revision of his accounts.
The Auditor in his report upon his action says:
"I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your reference of the 19th ultimo of the appeal (No. 11043) of J. M. Masten, assistant superintendent Railway-Mail Service, from the action of this Office in disallowing $31.61 and $21.80 in his accounts as a member of a commission appointed by the Postmaster-General to make a careful investigation as to the needs and practicability of extending the pneumatic-tube service.
"As chairman of that commission Mr. Masten submitted an account for $75.44, 'for actual and necessary expenses incurred during the months of November and December, 1904, while traveling on business of the Post-Office Department.' This Office disallowed the sum of $32.09, and certified the sum of $43.35 to the Postmaster-General. Warrant No. 20896, for last-named sum, was drawn on the assistant treasurer, New York, N. Y. That warrant was paid January 12, 1905. The said disallowance of $32.09 consists of the $31.61 above. referred to and 48 cents for laundry at New York, N. Y. The order of the Postmaster-General, dated January 2, 1904, allows a reasonable expense for laundry when travel continues one