Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

week or more. In this instance Mr. Masten was absent from his official headquarters only two days.

"An account was also submitted by Mr. Masten for $66.40, 'for actual and necessary expenses incurred during the month of December, 1904, while traveling on business of the PostOffice Department.' This Office disallowed the sum of $21.80, and certified the sum of $44.60 to the Postmaster-General. Warrant No. 1146, for the last-named sum, was drawn on the Treasurer of the United States of this city. That warrant was paid January 21, 1905.

66

Under the provisions of section 8 of the act approved July 31, 1894 (28 Stat., 208), Mr. Masten is precluded from obtaining a revision of the accounts named.

"The appointment of the commission named is authorized by that part of the act approved April 21, 1902 (32 Stats., 114), directing that no advertisement for pneumatic tube service shall issue until after a careful investigation shall have been made as to the needs and practicability of such service and until a favorable report, in writing, shall have been submitted to the Postmaster-General by a commission of not less than three expert postal officials, to be named by him.' In the act approved April 28, 1904 (33 Stats., 435), an appropriation of $500,000 is made for transmission of mail by pneumatic tubes or other similar devices.'

"By order No. 1253 the Postmaster-General appointed J. M. Masten, assistant superintendent Railway Mail Service, a member of that commission, and by order No. 1286 directed that in the case of J. M. Masten and F. W. Vaille, assistant superintendents of Railway Mail Service, their per diem which they are allowed will be suspended during the time that they are actually engaged in the work of the commission, and that when not so engaged their per diem allowance will be allowed.'

[ocr errors]

666

"The act approved April 28, 1904 (33 Stats., 440), provides: "Sec. 4. That on and after July first, nineteen hundred and four, all officers and employees of the Post-Office Department who are entitled to a per diem allowance when traveling in lieu of actual expenses shall only be allowed such per diem when actually engaged in traveling on official business away from their home, their official domicile, and their headquarters, except in cases of post-office inspectors while temporarily located at any place on business away from home, or their designated domicile, for a period of not exceeding twenty consecutive days at any one place; and the Postmaster-General shall designate an official domicile and headquarters within the division or territory to which such officer or employee is assigned.'

"By letter dated August 4, 1904, this office was advised that Washington, D. C., was the headquarters, official domicile, and home of Mr. Masten.

"On January 10, 1905, the Second Assistant PostmasterGeneral informed this office that Philadelphia, Pa., had been designated as the official headquarters and domicile of Mr. Masten from January 1, 1905.

"Referring to that part of Mr. Masten's letter stating that as a matter of fact my home is not in Washington, D. C., but in Philadelphia, Pa., since September last,' I invite attention to his account for salary and per diem for the month of November, 1904. That account shows the following: (Headquarters, official domicile, home and post-office address) Washington, D. C.' His salary and per diem account for December, 1904, shows (post-office address) Washington, D. C.

"The amounts named, $31.61 and $21.80, were disallowed for the reason that they cover expenses incurred in Washington, D. C., the official domicile and headquarters of Mr. Masten during the months of November and December, 1904, and therefore do not come within the meaning of the law authorizing reimbursement for traveling expenses (9 Comp. Dec., 359)."

I do not concur with the Auditor in the view that the acceptance by the claimant of payment for the items which were allowed by the Auditor precludes the claimant from obtaining a revision of his accounts. Section 8 of the act of July 31, 1894 (28 Stat., 208), contains the following provision:

"Any person accepting payment under a settlement by an Auditor shall be thereby precluded from obtaining a revision of such settlement as to any items upon which payment has been accepted."

This provision does not preclude a claimant who has accepted payment of one or more items in his claim, which have been allowed by an Auditor in his settlement thereof, from obtaining a revision of his account as to other distinct items therein. (2 Comp. Dec., 241.)

The claimant's accounts for traveling expenses comprise a large number of items, such as amounts expended for meals, rent of room, sleeping-car fare, parior-car fare, and laundry. Each one of these charges is a distinct item, and the acceptance of payment of those items which are allowed does not preclude the claimant from obtaining a revision of his account as to those which are disallowed.

The Auditor appears to base his decision, disallowing items of expenses incurred in Washington, D. C., on the provisions in section 4 of the act of April 28, 1904, supra.

These provisions have reference to the allowance of per diem compensation; but it is a well-established rule in the allowance of traveling expenses that ordinarily the official station or place of duty of an officer or employee is the place from which travel begins, and, except under special circumstances, which do not exist in this case, he is not entitled to reimbursement for expenses of subsistence or for car fare at his official station or place of duty as traveling expenses. The official station or place of duty of an officer or employee, as those terms are used in relation to traveling expenses, is the place where his official duties are usually performed. It appears that the official station or place of duty of the claimant as assistant superintendent of the Railway Mail Service is at Washington, D. C. I am therefore of opinion that he is not entitled to reimbursement of expenses incurred by him for subsistence or car fare in Washington as traveling expenses. The action of the Auditor in disallowing charges for such expenses is therefore affirmed.

TRAVELING EXPENSES ON TRANSFER FROM ONE POSITION TO ANOTHER.

The chief clerk in the office of the inspector of the Third light-house district in Porto Rico is not entitled to reimbursement of traveling expenses on being transferred to a similar position at St. Louis, Mo., as the two places are separate and independent appointments.

(Comptroller Tracewell to W. B. Caperton, inspector, Fifteenth light-house district, February 9, 1905.)

I have received through the Light-House Board your two letters of January 31, 1905, requesting my decision as to the payment of two vouchers you have prepared in favor of Mr. Joseph A. Rose.

The facts in these cases may be stated as follows:

Prior to October 12, 1904, Mr. Rose was chief clerk in the office of the inspector of the Third light-house district, San Juan, P. R., at a salary of $1,800 per annum. On October 12, 1904, the Secretary of Commerce and Labor made the following appointment:

"Mr. Joseph Arthur Rose, of New York, is hereby appointed chief clerk, office of the inspector of the Fifteenth

light-house district, in the Light-House Service at a salary of $150 per month, this appointment to take effect October 12, 1904, or as soon thereafter as oath of office is taken, vice Mr. George W. Atkins, deceased.

"(By transfer from the position of chief clerk, office of the inspector of the Third light-house district, San Juan, P. R., at $150 per month.)

"Ent'd 19 Oct., 1904."

This appointment was forwarded to Mr. Rose through the inspector of the third district at Tompkinsville, Staten Island, New York Harbor, but was there held, the inspector of said district cabling his assistant at San Juan, P. R., that he was holding a transfer and appointment for Mr. Rose as chief clerk of the fifteenth district at St. Louis, Mo. Mr. Rose sailed for New York November 2, reported to the inspector of the third district November 8, and thence proceeded to St. Louis, Mo., where he reported to the inspector of the fifteenth district and took the oath of office on November 11, 1904.

One voucher in question is for $29.45 as reimbursement to Mr. Rose for traveling expenses incurred by him while proceeding from Tompkinsville, N. Y., to St. Louis, Mo.; and the other is for $40, stated as for pay of clerk (not chief clerk) at the rate of $150 per month from November 3 to November 11, 1904, inclusive.

You state in your letter that on November 3 the successor of Mr. Rose was appointed as chief clerk at San Juan, P. R. It is stated in the indorsement of the naval secretary of the Light-House Board that

"It was not the Board's intention that Mr. Rose should be subjected to loss of pay or additional expense in being transferred from the Third to the Fifteenth light-house district.”

The position as chief clerk at San Juan and that as chief clerk at St. Louis, Mo., are entirely independent, and it seems that Mr. Rose abandoned the position at San Juan and that his successor was immediately appointed thereto; therefore, he ceased to be entitled to any compensation as chief clerk at San Juan from and after his abandonment of the office and the appointment of his successor.

Under the terms of his appointment as chief clerk at St. Louis, Mo., said appointment was not to take effect until the oath of office was taken, which was on November 11, 1904. This was a condition precedent, and because of that he is not

entitled to the pay of the office of chief clerk until the oath was taken.

It appears that Mr. Rose has never been appointed as "clerk" in the Light-House Service; therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation as such.

The appointment as chief clerk at St. Louis, Mo., being an independent appointment, and he being under no orders to make the journey from San Juan to St. Louis, I am unable to see how he would be entitled to any reimbursement for traveling expenses in making the said journey.

In conclusion, I will state that I think you are not authorized to make payment of either one of the vouchers in question.

TRANSFER OF CONTROL OF APPROPRIATION
FROM ONE DEPARTMENT TO ANOTHER.

The provision in the act of February 1, 1905, for the transfer of the con-
trol of the forest reserves from the Department of the Interior to the
Department of Agriculture operated also to transfer the control of the
appropriation "Protection of forest reserves, 1905," from the former
to the latter Department.
(Comptroller Tracewell to George W. Evans, disbursing clerk,
Interior Department, February 11, 1905.)

I have received your letter of the 6th instant asking my decision upon a question therein presented, as follows:

"There have been presented to me for payment a number of accounts of forest supervisors and forest rangers for the month of December, and for prior months, for services rendered in connection with the care and protection of the forest reserves. I, therefore, respectfully request that I may be advised whether or not I am authorized to pay these accounts or make any further disbursements of the appropriation for the Protection of forest reserves, 1905.'

"I inclose for your information a copy of the certified act received by this Department, approved February 1, 1905, entitled 'An act providing for the transfer of forest reserves from the Department of the Interior to the Department of Agriculture.'

From it you will observe (sec. 1):

"That the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. shall, from and after the passage of this act, execute or cause to be executed all laws affecting public lands heretofore or hereafter reserved under the provisions of section twenty-four

[ocr errors]
« PředchozíPokračovat »