« ForrigeFortsett »
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 Ariny 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 wouli 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 al. lowances, 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 b; 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 perintter to attend Army service schools under the provisions of section 99 of the national defense act.
TRANSPORTATION OF AUTOMOBILES—EMPLOYEES OF SUPER
VISING ARCHITECTS OFFICE.
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 trans
portation 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., inci. dent 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 therefor 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 school before the termination of the period of instruction and therefore was not present when the other instructors were paid at the close of the school.
The claim was disallowed upon the ground that responsibility therefor had been assumed by the French Government under the agreements of November 20, 1919, and December 1, 1919, made between the Government of the United States and the Government of France.
An examination of said agreements shows that the agreement of November 20, 1919, known as the “European settlement,” related exclusively to transactions and obligations between the two Governments and made no reference whatever to claims of nationals of one Government against the other Government. The agreement of November 25, 1919, known as the “ general settlement,” also related to transactions and obligations between the two Governments and in Article IV thereof expressly stipulated that
This contract shall not be construed to relate to or in any wise affect claims or demands howsoever arising between the nationals of either country, on the one part, and the parties hereto, or either of them, or their nationals, on the other part.
The agreement of December 1, 1919, related to "all claims, demands, obligations, rights, actions, suits, and controversies of every nature" arising in France between the dates of April 6, 1917, and December 31, 1919– which any inhabitant or any person subject to the sovereignty of France * * * may now have or which may hereafter accrue, for damage to use or loss of property, or injuries to or death of persons, caused by or resulting from acts or omissions of members of the American military forces, or of any one connected therewith.
The claim here presented is not a claim for damage to or use or loss of property, or for personal injuries. It is a claim for services rendered under proper authority. Therefore, it does not belong to any of the classes of claims with reference to which France was substituted for the United States under the agreement of December 1, 1919, or any other agreement made between the United States and France.
Upon a review of the matter a difference of $270 is certified due claimant, the amount to be reported to Congress as a certified claim and paid in due course when an appropriation shall have been made
TRAVELING EXPENSES_ENLISTED MEN OF ARMY DETAILED TO
NATIONAL GUARD. Enlisted men of the Regular Army traveling on duty in connection with the
National Guard by privately owned automobile, instead of by railroad, are entitled to reimbursement for the cost of oil and gasoline, not exceeding the cost to the Goverument had the travel been by railroad, provided the voucher therefor is approved by their superior officer.
The act of June 3, 1916, 39 Stat., 199, provides only for reimbursement of actual
expenses of enlisted men of the Regular Army when traveling on duty in connection with the National Guard, and claims for expenses not actually incurred in lieu of actual expenditures constitute false claims against the
Government and subject the claimant to criminal prosecution. Comptroller General McCarl to Maj. F. J. Baker, United States Army, May 17, 1922:
There has been received your request of May 1, 1922, for decision whether you are authorized to pay voucher therewith transmitted, stated in favor of Sergt. George B. Stevens, D.E.M.L., for reimbursement of the cost of gasoline and oil consumed (presumably in motor equipment of some character the property of Sergeant Stevens) in making change of station directed by paragraph 2, Special Orders, No. 21, dated headquarters, Fourth Corps Area, Fort McPherson, Ga., February 14, 1922, which provides:
Upon recommendation of the senior instructor, North Carolina National Guard, and under authority contained in paragraph 11(b), Army Regulations, No. 615–200, War Department, October 12, 1921, Sergeant George B. Stevens, R-2, 166,051, detached enlisted men's list, sergeant instructor, North Carolina National Guard, will be sent from Mt. Gilead, North Carolina, to Charlotte, North Carolina, for permanent station, reporting upon arrival by letter to the commanding general Fourth Corps Area, Fort McPherson, Georgia, and to the Chief of the Militia Bureau, Washington, D. C., giving the date of his arrival and his mail address. Reimbursement for the travel performed will be made in accordance with the provisions of Bulletin No. 42, War Department, 1919. The journey is necessary for the public service and chargeable to procurement authority MB 14 P 2806 A 2, AE&TNG-I. Expense account for reimbursement will be submitted through these headquarters.
Two questions are raised: (1) Whether reimbursement may be made of the cost of gasoline and oil in lieu of transportation; and (2) whether voucher may be paid on the mere certificate of the enlisted man.
With respect to the first question, it has been uniformly held that officers and employees traveling on official business of the Government who are entitled to reimbursement of their expenses (and not a commutation thereof in the form of mileage) may include in such expenses in lieu of transportation by rail the cost of gasoline and oil actually consumed in privately owned automobiles, such expenses not to exceed the cost of transportation by rail. See 23 Comp. Dec., 540, 541, where it was said “employees are entitled to reimbursement for the actual cost of gasoline and oil used in their own automobiles for official travel.” And see also cases cited 23 Comp. L'ec., 562, 564.
It is inferred from the papers that Sergeant Stevens was detailed for duty in connection with the National Guard of North Carolina pursuant to section 100 of the national defense act, 39 Stat., 208. If so, under section 67 of that act, 39 Stat., 199, the funds appropriated for the support of the National Guard arem
* * * available under such rules as may be prescribed by the Secretary of War for the actual and necessary expenses incurred by officers and enlisted men of the Regular Army when traveling on duty in connection with the