thus limiting the scope of this provision to the several States of the Union. The appropriation made by section 5 is expressly declared to be in addition to other appropriations of a more general character which are applicable to the same or similar purposes."

I find no authority of law for use of the appropriation made by section 5, and by later acts for the same purposes, for any other purpose than that of assisting the several States in detention, isolation, quarantine, or commitment of civilians for protection of the armed forces of the United States against venereal diseases. Section 8 of the chapter provides that the terms "State" or "States" as used in the chapter shall be held to include the District of Columbia, thus accentuating the intent and purpose that the act shall cover and apply otherwise only to the several States of the Union. There is therefore no authority of law for expending the appropriation for activities of your board which are outside of the several States or the District of Columbia, and not in assistance of or cooperation with the activities of any State.

RETIREMENT DEDUCTIONS.

The entire amount of retirement deductions from Government employees' salaries paid partly by the Federal Government and partly by a State Government may be made from the part of the salaries paid by the Federal Government. Proper explanatory notes of the transaction should be made in the Remarks column on the Federal Government pay rolls.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of Agriculture, January 18, 1922:

I have your letter of December 30, 1921, stating that there are a number of employees of your department engaged on cooperative work authorized by law between the Federal Government and the several States whose salary is paid partly by the Federal Government and partly by the State Government from funds contributed by both Governments for carrying out the work.

Inasmuch as the 21 per cent retirement deductions are to be made from the combined salaries paid such employees, 27 Comp. Dec., 59, you ask if the entire deduction may not be made from the part of the salary paid by the Government instead of requiring the State to make the necessary deduction and transmit same to you for proper disposition, as is now being done. These employees, I understand, are employees of your department with fixed annual salaries. I see no objection to the proposed action, as under it the retirement fund receives all that is due it and the employees being paid the portion payable by the State without abatement receive all that they are entitled to, the appropriation is chargeable with no greater amount under the one procedure than under the other. However, proper explanatory notes of the transaction should be made in the Remarks column on the Government pay rolls.

AVIATION PAY TO STAFF OFFICERS OF ARMY.

Staff officers of the Army are not entitled to the 50 per cent increase of pay authorized by the act of June 4, 1920, 41 Stat., 768, for aerial flight duty, notwithstanding the proper performance of their staff duties may at times include a participation in aerial flights. 1 Comp. Gen., 263, affirmed. Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of War, January 18, 1922:

I have your letter of December 19, 1921, on the subject of increased pay for officers of the Ordnance Department who in the performance of their appropriate staff duties are required to participate in aerial flights.

You suggest that paragraph 12691, Army Regulations, as amended by C. A. R. 107, dated July 22, 1920, together with the following clause found in section 13a of the act of June 4, 1920, 41 Stat., 768, are sufficient to entitle such officers to the increased pay:

Officers and enlisted men of the Army shall receive an increase of 50 per centum of their pay while on duty requiring them to participate regularly and frequently in aerial flights;

*

You add that while the current appropriation, act of June 30, 1921, 42 Stat., 74, provides no funds specifically for extra pay for officers regularly participating in aerial flights except for officers of the Air Service, "this omission clearly indicates the intent that such pay should be taken from the appropriation For pay of officers of the line and staff,' and that it should not be construed as confining the extra remuneration to officers and enlisted men of the Air Service." This latter proposition is subversive of the well-settled rule of statutory construction that where specific provision is made for an object a general provision which, but for the specific provision might have been applicable, is not applicable to the object specifically provided for. The appropriation "For aviation increase," with its limitation "to officers of the Air Service," is, in these circumstances, exclusively available for the payment of aviation increase of pay. 1 Comp. Dec., 126, 236, 417, and 563 ; 2 id., 202; 4 id., 24 and 649; 19 id., 98; 22 id., 559.

Although, as just stated, no appropriation is available for the payment of such increase to officers of the Ordnance Department who in the performance of their appropriate staff duties are required to participate in aerial flights, there may be considered, pursuant to your request, the question whether in any event, in the present state of the law, such officers are entitled to aviation increase of pay, it having been held, November 17, 1921, 1 Comp. Gen., 263, that there was no authority of law for the payment of aviation increase of pay to officers of the staff corps and staff departments of the Army.

If the law cited stood independently, as the extract quoted, it could be accepted as entitling all officers of the Army, whether of the staff or of the line, to the increase of pay therein provided for participating in regular and frequent aerial flights. So standing, it is not am

biguous; but when read in its proper context, and having in mind that the statute in which it occurs was the act reorganizing the Army, that it is found in the section creating the Air Service, and that that section is otherwise devoted exclusively to the organization and personnel of the Air Service, the quoted extract is reasonably susceptible of different meanings. 36 Cyc., 1118; 2 Corpus Juris, 1313.

The decision of November 17, 1921, shows that except for the temporary war legislation of July 24, 1917, 40 Stat., 245, it has been the policy of Congress to limit aviation increase of pay to aviation officers that is, to the officers of the combatant Air Service-and largely upon this policy of Congress and the juxtaposition of the general words those words were held not to include staff officersofficers whose duties were not combatant.

The present submission sets forth the necessity for some officers of the Ordnance Department in the proper performance of purely Ordnance Department duties to participate in aerial flights, and expresses doubt as to the correctness of the decision.

Section 13a of the act of June 4, 1920, in which is the clause quoted is in full as follows:

SEC. 13a. Air Service: There is hereby created an Air Service. The Air Service shall consist of one Chief of the Air Service with the rank of major general, one assistant with the rank of brigadier general, one thousand five hundred and fourteen officers in grades from colonel to second lieutenant, inclusive, and sixteen thousand enlisted men, including not to exceed two thousand five hundred flying cadets, such part of whom as the President may direct being formed into tactical units, organized as he may prescribe: Provided, That not to exceed 10 per centum of the officers in each grade below that of brigadier general who fail to qualify as aircraft pilots or as observers within one year after the date of detail or assignment shall be permitted to remain detailed or assigned to the Air Service. Flying units shall in all cases be commanded by flying officers. Officers and enlisted men of the Army shall receive an increase of 50 per centum of their pay while on duty requiring them to participate regularly and frequently in aerial flights; and hereafter no person shall receive additional pay for aviation duty except as prescribed in this section: Provided, That nothing in this Act shall be construed as amending existing provisions of law relating to flying cadets. It is said in 36 Cyc, 1131, with citation of authorities:

The words, phrases, and sentences of a statute are to be understood as used, not in any abstract sense, but with due regard to the context, and in that sense which best harmonizes with all other parts of the statute. In expounding one part of a statute therefore resort should be had to every other part, including even parts that are unconstitutional, or that have been repealed. And where one part of the statute is susceptible of two constructions, and the language of another part is clear and definite, and is consistent with one of such constructions, and opposed to the other, that construction must be adopted which will render all clauses harmonious. Where the same word or phrase is used in different parts of a statute, it will be presumed to be used in the same sense throughout; and where its meaning in one instance is clear, this meaning will be attached to it elsewhere, unless it clearly appears from the whole statute that it was the intention of the legislature to use it in different senses.

Examining the act as a whole it is found that provisions intended to apply generally to all officers of the Army have been embodied in sections having general application to the Army as a whole, notably sections 4, 4c, 24, 24a, 24b, 24c, 24d, 24e, and 127a.

It is also found that each component of the Army is treated of in detail by separate sections, e. g., sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 9a, 10, 11, 12, 12a, 13, 13a, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22a. It is to be observed that in none of these latter sections, with the exception of section 9a, and possibly section 13a, can be found general language intended to be applicable to officers other than those of the component of the Army which is the subject of the particular section.

The first paragraph of section 127a is as follows:

Hereafter no detail, rating, or assignment of an officer shall carry advanced rank, except as otherwise specifically provided herein: Provided, That in lieu of the 50 per centum increase of pay provided for in this act any officer or enlisted man upon whom the rating of junior military aviator, or military aviator, has heretofore been conferred for having specially distinguished himself in time of war in active operations against the enemy, shall, while on duty which requires him to participate regularly and frequently in aerial flights, continue to have the rank, pay, and allowances and additional pay now provided by the act of June 3, 1916, and the act of July 24, 1917.

In the proviso of the paragraph is again found general language "any officer or enlisted man" in reference to flying pay; but here there is no question but that the context limits the phraseology to officers and enlisted men of the Air Service. Alexander v. Alexander, 5 Cranch, 1, 7-8. To apply the meaning of the general words, clearly conveyed in section 127a, to the same general words found in section 13a, relating exclusively to the Air Service, would not do violence to the language of section 13a; on the contrary, such a definition of the general words therein would be consistent with its apparent intent, with the act as a whole, and with the policy of Congress in its peace time legislation relating to the Air or Aviation Service.

On further consideration, I must adhere to the view expressed in the decision of November 17, 1921, that construction of the law being supported by many well-considered cases on statutory construction; among others, Brewer v. Blougher, 14 Pet., 178; United States v. Babbitt, 1 Black, 55; Reiche v. Smythe, 13 Wall., 162; Pollard v. Bailey, 20 Wall., 520, 525; United States v. Saunders, 120 U. S., 126, 129; Petri v. Commercial National Bank, 142 U. S., 644; McKee v. United States, 164 U. S., 287, 293.

If the view contended for should prevail, it would seem that it must be as the result of some congressional enactment to that end.

SALE OF SURPLUS PROPERTY-USE OF PROCEEDS.

Refunds to purchasers of surplus property to cover damages for breach of warranty by the Government, the amount of which has been properly determined, may be paid by a disbursing officer from funds kept on hand in a special deposit account which were derived from sales of other supplies of the same general character; but, in the absence of such funds, a claim for refund would be a matter to be reported by the proper administrative department to Congress for an appropriation, not being subject to adjudication by, and payment on the certificate of, the General Accounting Office.

Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, January 18, 1922:

Classic Mills (Inc.) applied, November 26, 1921, for a revision of the action of the Auditor for the War Department in disallowing by settlement No. 753544, dated November 27, 1920, its claim for $1,909.51 on account of damages alleged to have been sustained because a certain quantity of textile, brown osnaburg, purchased in August, 1919, at an auction sale of surplus Army supplies did not equal in quality the sample on the basis of which the purchase was made.

The auditor disallowed the claim upon the ground that no appropriation is available from which payment can be made.

On the evidence before me it appears that claimant purchased 93,147 yards of 28-inch 8-ounce brown osnaburg at 20.5 cents per yard, with the understanding that the goods would be of the same quality and condition as the sample exhibited at the time of sale.

The goods were delivered and paid for at some time between the latter part of August and the first part of December, 1919. Thereafter it was discovered that the goods were not of the same quality and condition as the sample, being streaked and fit for resale only as "seconds," and by letter dated December 24, 1919, claimant advised the surplus property division of the failure of the goods to comply with the requirements of sale and requested that the Government "advise us your disposition in the matter." In reply to said letter claimant was requested by letter dated December 31, 1919, to state whether it could use the goods in question at a fair price. By letter dated January 5, 1920, claimant replied that it could use the goods at 17.5 cents per yard, which would be equivalent to a rebate of 3 cents per yard on the entire lot, or $2,794.41. Other correspondence followed; the goods were inspected by Government inspectors in claimant's warehouse; and it was tentatively agreed that claimant should have and accept a rebate of 10 per cent on the amount paid, or $1,909.51. Payment of this amount was not made for the reason that by the time the matter was ready for final settlement the proceeds of this particular sale had been covered into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.

There would appear to be no doubt that there was a breach of warranty on the part of the Government in this case, and I think the amount agreed upon may be accepted as the proper measure of damages resulting from said breach.

If, in the disposition of surplus Army supplies, funds derived from the sale of other textiles are being held in a special deposit account, such funds may be used by the disbursing officer in whose special deposit account they are held to pay this claim in the sum of $1,909.51. See my decision of December 12, 1921, to the Secretary