Any arrangement for the transfer of these employees from the customs service to your department and continued payment of their salaries by the Treasury Department would be without authority of law. I regret that the plan submitted by you can not be approved by this office. PURCHASE OF FIREARMS. Cost of firearms and ammunition for personal protection of customs officers and employees on official duty may not be charged against the Government, but must be borne by the individual officers and employees, any arms purchased to be their personal property. Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, November 5, 1921. Joseph H. Lyons, collector of customs at Mobile, Ala., applied October 22, 1921, for a review of the action of the Treasury Department Division of the General Accounting Office, in disallowing by settlement No. 10094, dated September 28, 1921, credit for items. aggregating $109.50, representing payments made as reimbursement of amounts expended by certain officers or employees in the customs service for revolvers and holsters for their personal use while on duty. The payments in question are as follows: Voucher No. 1, paid March 15, 1921, to A. M. Palmes_. $37.50 37.50 34.50 It appears that the purchase for which each of these employees was reimbursed was made in August, 1920, although the reimbursement was not made until seven months thereafter. Credit for the payments was disallowed upon the assumption that the purchases were made for the protection of public money or property, the disallowance being based upon the provisions of the act of March 3, 1879, 20 Stat., 412, and the decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury dated March 6, 1917, 23 Comp. Dec., 503. It is now contended that these arms were not purchased or required for the protection of public money or property, the statement of the collector with reference to their purchase and use being as follows: The revolvers used by the inspectors at this port are a part of their necessary equipment in the discharge of their official duties. The arming of inspectors at this port became necessary shortly after the prohibition act went into effect. The crews of a number of vessels, particularly those of Latin extraction, assumed almost a belligerent attitude when their quarters were searched, and particularly when contraband spirits were found. This office made a thorough investigation of conditions, and found that the revolvers were absolutely necessary for the inspectors to protect their lives. The revolvers were not and are not used for the protection of public funds or property, but for the safety of the inspectors while on official duty. The appropriation "Collecting the revenue from customs, 1921," which is the appropriation sought to be charged in these cases, contains no specific provision for the purchase of firearms or for reim bursing customs inspectors or other employees for amounts expended therefor; and in the absence of such a provision it can not be held that said appropriation is available for said purposes. There is no law or regulation requiring the use of firearms by inspectors of customs, and in so far as the interests of the Government are concerned there would seem to be no necessity that such officers be armed. If individual inspectors feel the need of equipping themselves with firearms as a protection against possible personal assaults or violence, and may legitimately carry firearms, any expense incident to the furnishing of such equipment must be borne by them and not by the Government and the arms purchased will be their private property. Upon a review of the matter no differences are found and the settlement is sustained. EMPLOYMENT OF ACCOUNTANTS. The prohibition in act of April 6, 1914, 38 Stat., 335, as to the use of appropriations for employment of accountants or other experts to inaugurate new or change old methods of business in Government offices unless provision be made in specific terms, is applicable to accountants employed to determine whether changes are necessary or desired, whether or not they actually inaugurate or effect a change. Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, November 8, 1921. Haskins & Sells applied October 21, 1921, for a review of the action of the War Department Division of the General Accounting Office in disallowing by settlement No. 730705, dated August 11, 1921, their claim for $3,500 on account of services rendered in connection with the preparation of a report dated April 16, 1921, relating to the accounting system of the Rock Island Arsenal. The claim was disallowed because of the provisions of section 5 of the act of April 6, 1914, 38 Stat., 335, which read: That no part of any money appropriated in this or any other act shall be used for compensation or payment of expenses of accountants or other experts in inaugurating new or changing old methods of transacting the business of the United States or the District of Columbia unless authority for employment of such services or payment of such expenses is stated in specific terms in the act making provision therefor and the rate of compensation for such services or expenses is specifically fixed therein, or be used for compensation of or expenses for persons, aiding or assisting such accountants or other experts, unless the rate of compensation of or expenses for such assistants is fixed by officers or employees of the United States or District of Columbia having authority to do so, and such rates of compensation or expenses so fixed shall be paid only to the person so employed. Claimants contend that the services rendered by them were not such as come within the prohibition of the statute just quoted, but their contention is not supported by the record. It appears that on May 13, 1920, the Secretary of War addressed the office of the chief of manufacture directing "a thorough survey of the cost accounting and determination of overhead at one of the arsenals with a view to ascertaining whether or not changes are necessary to insure accuracy in estimating and final determination of cost"; and that on May 18, 1920, the Chief of Ordnance addressed Haskins & Sells advising them that it was desired to secure the services of a district manager and such assistants as might be necessary in connection with work to be done by said firm in regard to the cost-accounting system at Rock Island Arsenal, the work to be done being indicated as follows: A. Sufficient study of the laws governing the operation of the arsenals, reporting of costs, appropriations of money and accounting for money to insure correct interpretation of their bearing on cost accounting, overhead, etc. B. A survey and analysis of the items now being included in overhead and cost in manufacturing orders, construction work, maintenance and care of grounds and buildings, labor in storehouses experimental work and other auxiliary departments, with recommendation of changes and corrections in the present methods, if any, required by sound commercial business principles. C. Analysis of the application of general arsenal overhead, with special consideration of the proper distribution between military burden and manufacturing burden of the arsenal. D. Consideration of the handling of scrap and other possible credits to manufacture, with recommendations. E. An estimate of the percentage in money value of the part of the producing facilities of the arsenal not of a type to be used for general work for other departments. F. A statement of the percentage which might be deducted, if any, from the correct costs of manufacturing orders without actual financial loss to the Government, with recommendations as to how, if at all, this could be accomplished under present laws. Consider and report on the effect on the true cost this would have for orders under Ordnance appropriations and orders obtained from other Government departments. A procurement order for the work was issued June 28, 1920, in which the services to be performed were designated as follows: Make a study, investigation, and report upon the cost-accounting system for Rock Island Arsenal. in accordance with the letter of May 18, 1920, hereinbefore referred to. The services were to be paid for as follows: (a) For the services of a district manager $100 a day and neces sary expenses. (b) For the services of a supervisor $50 a day and necessary ex penses. (c) For other assistants $25 a day and necessary expenses for each. The report on the first part of the work contemplated was submitted under date of November 20, 1920, and payment therefor in the sum of $24,626.05 was made December 2, 1920, by Capt. N. H. Strickland, a disbursing officer of the Army. With reference to the status of the work at that time, the commanding officer of the arsenal, in an indorsement dated February 16, 1921, said: Haskins and Sells have made the preliminary report showing the results of the actual examination of the books and figures, but they have not submitted their so-called system report, in which they are to make recommendations for changing the accounting methods. The "preliminary report" mentioned in this indorsement referred to the work for which payment was made December 2, 1920, and the "so-called system report" is the report which was thereafter submitted in April, 1921, and on account of which the bill now under consideration was presented. The first paragraph of claimants' letter, dated May 26, 1921, submitting their bill for the services now in question, reads: We inclose herewith bill for our services in the preparation of our report, dated April 16, 1921 (rendered in five sections), covering recommendations for changes in the accounting system of the Rock Island Arsenal. That the services of the accountants engaged in this case were engaged for the purpose of effecting a change in the methods of transacting the business of the United States or for the purpose of determining whether such change was necessary or desirable, there would appear to be no room for doubt, and the fact that the claimants may not have actually inaugurated or effected any changes is not material in so far as the application of the statute is concerned. I think this case falls squarely within the provision hereinbefore quoted and that said provision was intended to apply to just such cases. In view of the express prohibition against the use of any appropriation to pay for the services involved, the fact that said services were rendered in accordance with orders from the Chief of Ordnance and that they may have been of value to the Government is not for consideration by this office. It was not within the jurisdiction of the Chief of Ordnance or the Secretary of War to order or contract for services for which no appropriation was available. Upon a review of the matter no differences are found and the settlement is sustained. WAR RISK INSURANCE. Monthly installments of war risk insurance accrued and unpaid at date of death of the insured, authorized to be paid under a Government life (converted) policy because of permanent and total disability, become part of the estate of the insured and are not payable to the beneficiary as such. Comptroller General McCarl to William H. Holmes, disbursing clerk, United States Veterans' Bureau, November 10, 1921. I have your letter of November 1, 1921, submitting voucher stated in favor of Mary Magdalene Manson, the beneficiary under policy No. K-219-825, dated October 1, 1920, on the life of William Daniel Manson. It is stated that the insured applied for and was granted $10,000 Government life (converted) insurance on the ordinary life plan effective October 1, 1920; that subsequent to conversion the insured was given a rating of permanent and total disability, effective March 3 (or 12), 1920; and that he died December 18, 1920. The voucher is stated for the commuted value of 237 installments unpaid under the policy in one sum in accordance with the terms of the policy, amounting to $9,904; three installments accrued to the insured prior to his death by reason of his permanent and total disability, October, November, and December, 1920, $57.50 each, a total of $172.50; and refund of two monthly premiums, November and December, 1920, amounting to $27.80, waived by reason of the permanent and total disability of the insured; a grand total of $10,104.30. You ask whether the installments accrued to the insured and unpaid at date of death may be paid to the beneficiary under the policy. No mention is made in your letter of the propriety of refunding to the beneficiary the premiums paid by the insured. Sections 400 and 402 of the act of October 6, 1917, 40 Stat., 409, and June 25, 1918, id., 615, provide: SEC. 400. That in order to give to every commissioned officer and enlisted man and to every member of the Army Nurse Corps (female) and of the Navy Nurse Corps (female) when employed in active service under the War Department or Navy Department greater protection for themselves and their dependents than is provided in Article III, the United States, upon application to the bureau and without medical examination, shall grant insurance against the death or total permanent disability of any such person in any multiple of $500, and not less than $1,000 or more than $10,000, upon the payment of the premiums as hereinafter provided. SEC. 402. That the director, subject to the general direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall promptly determine upon and publish the full and exact terms and conditions of such contract of insurance. The insurance shall be payable only to a spouse, child, grandchild, parent, brother, or sister, and also during total and permanent disability to the injured person, or to any or all of them. The insurance shall be payable in two hundred and forty equal monthly installments. Provisions for maturity at certain ages for continuous installments during the life of the insured or beneficiaries, or both, for cash, loan, paid-up and extended values, dividends from gains and savings, and such other provisions for the protection and advantage of and for alternative benefits to the insured and the beneficiaries as may be found to be reasonable and practicable may be provided for in the contract of insurance or from time to time by regulations. All calculations shall be based upon the American Experience Table of Mortality and interest at three and one-half per centum per annum, except that no deduction shall be made for continuous installments during the life of the insured in case his total and permanent disability continues more than two hundred and forty months. * Section 13 of the act of December 24, 1919, 41 Stat., 375, extends the class of beneficiaries named in section 402, and section 17 is in part as follows: That the Bureau of War Risk Insurance may make provision in the contract for converted insurance for optional settlements, to be selected by the insured, whereby such insurance may be made payable either in one sum or in installments for thirty-six months or more. The policy is, in part, as follows: This insurance is payable in monthly installments of $57.50 (hereinafter called the monthly installment) in the event of the total permanent disability of the insured or of his death, unless one of the optional settlements is selected as hereinafter provided, then, in the event of the death of the insured this insurance is payable in accordance with the optional settlement so selected. sum. This insurance, subject to the beneficiary provisions hereof, is payable to Mary Magdalene Manson-his wife-hereinafter called the beneficiary, in one Upon due proof of the total permanent disability of the insured while this policy is in force, the monthly installments shall, except as hereinafter pro7920°-22-Vol. 1—18 |