Applying the rule to the present case, when the employee has been paid for April his basic salary to the end of April will amount to $325, 60 per cent of which is $195. The employee is entitled to only $15 increase of compensation for April, since that amount added to the $180 increase of compensation previously received gives a total of $195.

You are advised that the voucher for February and March may be paid as submitted and the voucher for April may be paid in the sum of ($20.47 plus $15) $35.47 if the vouchers are correct in all other respects.

INCREASE OF COMPENSATION TO CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES.

The right of civilian employees to receive the increase of compensation for any fiscal year depends on whether the employees come within the purview of the act granting the increase for that year and not upon their contracts of employment, and the fact that certain employees signed contracts of employment purporting to include the increase as part of their basic salary does not bar the receipt of the increase in addition to the amount specified in the contract, if otherwise entitled thereto.

A civilian employee who entered the Government service prior to June 30, 1920, resigned after that date and was subsequently reinstated during the fiscal year 1922 is entitled to the increase of compensation from the date of reinstatement without the certification required in case of an original entry into the service after June 30, 1920.

Comptroller General McCarl to Maj. Charles F. Eddy, United States Army, May 16, 1922:

I have your letter of April 6, 1922, requesting decision whether payment is authorized of vouchers in favor of Marcelle Maufus, A. C. Gschwend, T. J. Fitzgerald, Nesta Jones, Ruth McMillan, Georgette Lamere, and Forest Yeo-Thomas for increase of compensation for services rendered in the office of the finance officer in Paris from July 1 to December 31, 1921.

It appears that all of the employees named were in the service of the United States prior to June 30, 1920; have been paid at rates less than $2,500 per annum; and did not receive an increase in salary in excess of the rate of $200 per annum during the fiscal years 1921 or 1922; and that they have not been paid increase of compensation for the period named in the vouchers. You are advised that payment of the vouchers in favor of the employees named in the preceding paragraph is authorized.

It is pointed out, however, that it is much better practice to pay the increase of compensation to employees who are entitled thereto at the same time the basic compensation is paid. The time to determine whether an employee is entitled to increase of compensation is when the service begins rather than months afterwards, when changes in the administrative officers or other changes make it dif ficult to ascertain the facts. In the event that a claim should later

be submitted by the employee for increase of compensation there is less danger that previous payment will be overlooked if the payment of increase of compensation was made on the same pay roll with the basic salary than if increase of compensation was paid on a separate voucher.

You also submit vouchers in favor of Yvonne Masson and Renelle Martin for increase of compensation for the period from July 1 to December 31, 1921, with the statement that these employees signed contracts dated July 1, 1921, which included increase of compensation. You are advised that the right to increase of compensation is not a matter of contract, but depends upon whether the employee comes within the provisions of the act granting the increase of compensation for the fiscal year in which the employee rendered service. Since the employees named are otherwise entitled to increase of compensation for the period named in the vouchers, the fact that they signed contracts purporting to include increase of compensation as part of the basic pay does not deprive them of the right to increase of compensation. You are advised that payment of these vouchers is also authorized. See in this connection 27 Comp. Dec., 823.

In regard to the voucher in favor of Mildred A. James for increase of compensation for services rendered from August 10 to December 31, 1921, it appears that the employee entered the service prior to June 30, 1920, resigned in December, 1920, and was reinstated August 10, 1921. Such reinstatement is not regarded as a new entry into the service so as to require certificate to cntitle an employee to increase of compensation if otherwise entitled. You are advised that payment of the voucher in favor of Mildred A. James is authorized.

TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENTS-ARMY RESERVE CORPS OFFICERS.

The act of May 18, 1920, 41 Stat., 604, providing for transportation of dependents of officers upon permanent change of station, does not authorize the furnishing of such transportation to the dependents of an Army Reserve Corps officer when proceeding to his first duty station upon being called into active service, nor upon his return home from his last station upon release from active duty.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of War, May 16, 1922:

I have your letter of April 29, 1922, requesting decision whether officers of the Reserve Corps when ordered to active duty with the War Department General Staff under sections 3a and 5 of the national defense act, 41 Stat., 760 and 762, are entitled to transportation for their dependents under section 12 of the act of May 18, 1920, 41 Stat., 604, from their homes to their first station and from their last station to their homes.

Section 3a and the fourth paragraph of section 5 of the act in question provide that the committees of the War Department General Staff charged with the initial organization and territorial distribution of the National Guard and the Organized Reserves and the formulation of policies and regulations affecting those units shall be composed in part of reserve officers who hold or have held commissions in the National Guard. Section 37a of the act, 41 Stat., 776, provides:

To the extent provided for from time to time by appropriations for this specific purpose, the President may order reserve officers to active duty at any time and for any period; but except in time of a national emergency expressly declared by Congress, no reserve officer shall be employed on active duty for more than fifteen days in any calendar year without his own consent. A reserve officer shall not be entitled to pay and allowances except when on active duty. When on active duty he shall receive the same pay and allowances as an officer of the Regular Army of the same grade and length of active service, and mileage from his home to his first station and from his last station to his home, but shall not be entitled to retirement or retired pay.

The current Army appropriation, 42 Stat., 73, under "Pay and so forth, of the Army," subhead "Pay of officers," contains the following provision:

For pay of the officers of the Officers' Reserve Corps, $250,000: Provided, That no portion of this appropriation shall be expended for the pay of a reserve officer on active duty for a longer period than fifteen days, except such as may be detailed for duty with the War Department General Staff under section 3a and section 5 (b) of the Army Reorganization Act approved June 4, 1920.

The question submitted was presented to the Acting Judge Advocate General of the Army and in an opinion dated April 24, 1922, that officer held:

I do not consider that the act of May 18, 1920, 41 Stat., 601, 604, which provides that the United States will furnish transportation in kind for the wife and dependent child or children of an officer upon permanent change of station, authorizes the furnishing of such transportation when upon being called into active service a reserve officer proceeds to his first station; nor upon his return home from his last station when relieved from active duty. The reserve officer while on active duty is entitled to the same pay and allowances as an officer of the Regular Army of the same grade and length of active service. Sec. 37a, act of June 4, 1920, 41 Stat., 759, 776. An officer in the Regular Army is not entitled to transportation for his wife and dependent child or children, upon reporting to his first station, nor upon returning to his home from his last station, neither of these being a permanent change of station. The reserve officer would not, therefore, be entitled to such allowance under authority of the enactment above refered to, which places him upon a parity, with regard to pay and allowances, with the officers of the Regular Army; and I know of no statute which expressly gives him this allowance. I am therefore of the opinion that reserve officers on active duty are not entitled to have their dependents transported by the Government from their homes to the first station and from their last station to their homes.

I concur in this conclusion. See also 27 Comp. Dec., 61 and 391, and decision of May 10, 1922, 1 Comp. Gen., 637, respecting transportation of dependents of National Guard officers ordered or permitted to attend Army service schools under the provisions of section 99 of the national defense act.

The appropriation in act of February 17, 1922, 42 Stat., 386, providing for the transportation of household goods incident to change of headquarters of certain officers and employees of the Supervising Architect's Office, is limited to the transportation of furniture, furnishings, utensils, books, paintings, etc., used in the house or home of the employee, and does not authorize the transportation of an employee's automobile at Government expense.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Treasury, May 16, 1922: I have your letter of May 4, 1922, requesting decision whether automobiles may be included in the shipment of 5,000 pounds of household goods of supervising superintendents and other employees under the Supervising Architect when made pursuant to the authority contained in the act of February 17, 1922, appropriating funds for the Treasury Department for the fiscal year 1923, under "Public buildings, repairs, equipment, and general expenses," subhead "General expenses," 42 Stat., 386.

The provision is:

for the transportation of household goods, incident to change of headquarters of supervising superintendents, superintendents, and junior superintendents of construction, and inspectors, not in excess of five thousand pounds at any one time, together with the necessary expense incident to packing and draying the same, not to exceed in any one year a total expenditure of $4,500;

The term "household goods" has been "defined to mean articles of household use of a permanent nature, which are not consumed in their enjoyment," and "household " is defined as "the place where one holds house, his home." 21 Cyc., 1115 and 1113.

The term is therefore limited to furniture and furnishings, utensils, books, paintings, etc., used in the house or home of the employee, and would not include an automobile. It may also be observed that railroad tariffs do not classify automobiles as household goods; nor does the term when used in its ordinary or usual sense import other than household articles.

You are therefore informed that an automobile may not be included in the 5,000 pounds of household goods permitted to be transported at Government expense incident to a change of headquarters of the employees named in the statute.

MILEAGE-TRANSPORTATION OF REMAINS OF RETIRED ARMY OFFICER DYING PRIOR TO TRAVEL

Orders retiring an Army officer on account of physical disability incident to service and directing travel to his home do not authorize the payment of mileage for the transportation of his remains when the officer dies before performing the travel authorized.

Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, May 16, 1922:

Lottie Gaul requested April 18, 1922, review of settlement No. W-134665, dated February 15, 1922, disallowing her claim as widow

of Edward M. Gaul, warrant officer, United States Army, retired, for mileage from San Antonio, Tex., to San Francisco, Calif., incident to his retirement under paragraph 1 of War Department Special Orders, No. 113-WO, dated August 10, 1921, reading as follows:

1. Warrant Officer Edward M. Gaul, having been found by an Army retiring board incapacitated for active service on account of physical disability incident thereto, and such findings having been approved by the President, his retire ment from active service, under the provisions of section 4a of the act of Congress approved June 4, 1920, and section 1251, Revised Statutes, is announced. He will proceed to his home. The travel directed is necessary in the military service.

The officer was then very ill and confined in the station hospital, Fort Sam Houston, Tex., at which post he had been on duty prior to his retirement. He died August 16, 1921, six days after his retirement, and the claimant, his wife, transported his remains to his home at San Francisco, Calif., and has asserted claim for mileage for the distance from the place of retirement to his home to which he was ordered to go upon retirement.

In so far as the order was an authority for travel it was necessary thereunder that the travel be performed in the lifetime of the officer, and he having died before complying therewith it can not be viewed as any authority to claim the expense for transportation of the re mains on the same basis as if the travel had actually been performed by the officer while living.

The settlement disallowing claim for mileage in the instant case was properly made and must be affirmed.

PERSONAL SERVICES OF FRENCH CITIZENS.

The agreements between the Governments of the United States and France under dates of November 20, 1919, and December 1, 1919, known as the "European settlement" and " general settlement," respectively, did not embrace claims of individuals for personal services rendered under proper authority, and do not bar payment to a French citizen for services as instructor at an American artillery school in France during the period of the World War.

Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, May 16, 1922:

The Secretary of War applied February 21, 1922, for a review of settlement No. 794122, dated November 3, 1921, War Department Division of this office, in which was disallowed the claim of Marechaldes-Logis Rousseau for $270 as compensation for services rendered as instructor at the American artillery school at Saumur, France. from November 1, 1917, to July 31, 1918.

There appears to be no question that M. Rousseau rendered the service claimed for and that under the regulations in force at that time he was entitled to compensation there for at the rate of $30 per month. It was the practice to make payment for such service at the close of the school or period of instruction and the reason that M. Rousseau was not paid was that he was detached from the