continental limits of the United States, shall not be other than by Government transport, if such transportation is available: And provided further, That the personnel of the Navy shall have the benefit of all existing laws applying to the Army and Marine Corps for the transportation of household effects."

This legislation authorizes the furnishing of transportation in kind to the wife and dependent child or children of an officer, warrant officer, or noncommissioned officer of the grade of color sergeant and above on permanent change of station, and does not fix any time limit within which the travel should be performed. It would, therefore, appear that the travel should be performed within a reasonable time, depending upon the circumstances in each particular case, and it is believed that the act contemplates the determination by the head of the executive department concerned of what is a reasonable time within which such transportation in kind may be furnished. In this connection see decisions of the Comptroller of the Treasury of December 4, 1920, 27 Comp. Dec., 510, and March 11, 1921, 27 Comp. Dec., 790.

I have, therefore, to request your decision whether regulations promulgated by me pursuant to the foregoing act, to the effect that, so far as Army personnel is concerned, the journey will be completed by the wife and dependent child or children within ninety days from date of compliance with change of station ordered; that whenever exceptional circumstances make a longer delay imperative, application will be made for a further extension, in terms of days and months, to The Adjutant General of the Army, setting forth in detail all reasons therefor; that such application must be forwarded in time to permit action to be taken before the ninety-day time limit expires; and that the approval of the application by The Adjutant General of the Army will constitute the authority for the quartermaster to issue transportation within the time provided for therein, will meet with the approval of the General Accounting Office.

The purpose of this legislation was to place upon the Government the expense of transportation of dependents of officers or enlisted men of the grades named in section 12 of the act of May 18, 1920, 41 Stat., 604, as modified by section 4b of the act of June 4, 1920, 41 Stat., 761, upon a permanent change of station of the officers or enlisted men, thus relieving them of the expense thereof.

The transportation furnished dependents on change of station should be within a reasonable time after the issuance of orders therefor, and what is a reasonable time within which such transportation in kind may be furnished is primarily for determination by the Secretary of War. I see no reason, however, why you may not issue regulations that the dependents move at the same time as the officer or enlisted man, or that they fix a time, say 30 days, within which the travel must be performed, but providing that upon a presentation of facts showing conditions, such as illness, etc., rather than personal convenience of the officer or enlisted man, which prevented moving at the time of change of station or within the time specified in the regulations, an extension may be granted.

No objection is seen to the promulgation of regulations of the tenor herein stated.

So much of the decisions in 27 Comp. Dec., 510, 790, as conflicts with the facts here stated is modified to accord herewith.

PURCHASE OF NEWSPAPERS.

As section 192. Revised Statutes, shows an intention of Congress to restrict and confine expenditures in the executive departments on account of newspapers, authority to make such purchases should appear in express terms in the appropriation.

In the absence of express authority, the appropriation "Collecting the war revenue, 1922," is not available for payment by collectors of internal revenue of subscriptions to newspapers purchased for the purpose of gathering therefrom items reporting violations of the internal-revenue laws and other matters of interest to the Internal Revenue Service.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Treasury, August 25, 1921:

I have your letter of the 12th instant transmitting a letter dated August 9, 1921, from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to you, as follows:

I have the honor to request that an opinion be obtained from the Comptroller General of the United States as to whether or not the appropriation "Collecting the war revenue, 1922," is available for payment by collectors of internal revenue of subscriptions to newspapers purchased for the purpose of gathering therefrom items reporting violations of the internal-revenue laws and other matters of interest to the Internal Revenue Service. It is believed that much good can be accomplished if authorization is given to several collectors of internal revenue for each of them to subscribe to two or three newspapers, and after securing any valuable information therefrom for their use, to forward the clippings to this office for the benefit of the bureau.

Section 192 of the Revised Statutes contains the following provision: "The amount expended in any one year for newspapers for any department, except the Department of State, including all the bureaus and offices connected therewith, shall not exceed $100.00."

The appropriation entitled "Collecting the war revenue, 1922," provides for expenses of assessing and collecting the internal-revenue taxes, including the purchase of such supplies, equipment, furniture, mechanical devices, printing, stationery, law books, and books of reference, and such other articles as may be necessary for use in the District of Columbia and the several collection districts; and further provides that not more than $500,000 of the total amount appropriated ($29,600,000) may be expended by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue for detecting and bringing to trial persons guilty of violating the internal-revenue laws or conniving at the same, including payments for information and detection of such violations.

Particular reference is made to the ruling of the Comptroller of the Treasury, volume 10, page 706, in connection with the cost of newspapers purchased by internal-revenue agents for the purpose of ascertaining the market price of stocks and bonds in fixing the value of legacies. It was held in this opinion that such expenditure did not come within the provision of section 192 of the Revised Statutes, and that the expense was incident to the agent's duty and was therefore authorized.

The act of March 3, 1921, 41 Stat., 1274, under the heading "Internal revenue" makes two appropriations, one for salary and expenses collectors, deputy collectors, etc., and the other for expenses assessing and collecting the internal-revenue taxes, and as it appears that this contemplated expenditure is apparently for the uses of the collectors it must, if payable at all, be paid out of the first named. The Congress has clearly evinced an intention to restrict and confine expenditures in the executive departments on account of newspapers, section 192, Revised Statutes. The proposed purchase for the collectors and the sending of clippings therefrom to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue at Washington indirectly procures the

papers for that bureau. The benefit that collectors would derive through the use of newspapers in regard to violations of the internal-revenue laws and detecting and bringing to trial offenders is not determinative of the expenditure. The purchase of newspapers at public expense is one so readily open to abuse that I feel justified in requiring that the authority to make such purchases should expressly appear in the appropriation.

The inquiry is answered in the negative.

CONTRACTS FOR EMPLOYMENT OF ACCOUNTANTS.

Contracts for employment of accountants and assistants in connection with installation of a cost-keeping system in a Government-owned arsenal, where such employment is not expressly authorized by law, are illegal, and constitute no basis for a claim against the Government, the provisions of section 5 of the act of April 6, 1914, 38 Stat., 335, having prohibited the use of any appropriation for compensation or payment of expenses of accountants or other experts employed for similar work and their assistants, unless authority for employment of such services or payment of such expenses is stated in specific terms in the act making provision therefor. Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, August 29, 1921:

The Chief, War Department Division, General Accounting Office, transmitted to this office under date of August 16, 1921, settlements No. 66645, dated July 2, 1921, and 67207, dated August 6, 1921, wherein credit was allowed for $3,618 and $6,066, respectively, on account of payments made by Maj. H. C. Minton, Ordnance Department, to the firm of Patterson, Teele & Dennis for services rendered in connection with the installation of a cost-keeping system at Waterton Arsenal under contract dated October 14, 1919, as per vouchers No. 92, May, 1920, and No. 472, July, 1920.

The contract in question provides that the contractors shall furnish the necessary services for making a preliminary survey of the cost-keeping system at Watertown Arsenal, make recommendations for devising a cost-keeping system and install and put the recommended system in full operation after same has been approved by the contracting officer for the sum of $14,250, payments to be made not oftener than once a month and to be based upon the following schedule:

a. For supervision by partners, $50 per diem.

b. For time of senior cost accountants, $25 per diem.

c. For time of assistant accountants, $15 per diem.

There is no law expressly authorizing in specific terms the employment of such services or the payment of such expenses. Therefore, the contract of October 14, 1919, and the payments made thereunder were in direct contravention of the plain provisions of section 5 of the act of April 6, 1914, 38 Stat., 335, which reads:

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 em ployment 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 compen. sation 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.

Upon a reopening and review on my own motion of the settlements referred to they are reversed and differences of $3,618 and $6,066, respectively, are certified in favor of the United States.

The contract being in violation of law will be listed for report to Congress in compliance with section 312 (c) of the act of June 10, 1921, 42 Stat., 25.

REPORT OF ILLEGAL EXPENDITURES AND CONTRACTS TO

CONGRESS.

Expenditures and contracts made in violation of law which must be reported to Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States under provisions of section 312 (c) of the budget and accounting act of June 10, 1921, 42 Stat., 20, include only those resulting from action of the administrative officers of any department or establishment of the Government, but not illegal payments by a disbursing officer unless based on an expenditure or contract made by an administrative officer in violation of law when not the payment alone but the entire amount of the expenditure or contract must be reported.

Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, August 29, 1921:

The Chief of the Treasury Department Division of the General Accounting Office has submitted for my consideration a memorandum to the effect that certain payments are, and that certain other payments are not, required to be reported to Congress under authority of a provision in section 312 (c) of the budget and accounting act of June 10, 1921, which reads:

(c) The Comptroller General shall specially report to Congress every expenditure or contract made by any department or establishment in any year in violation of law.

The payments listed in the memorandum as coming within the classes required to be reported are as follows:

1. Any duplicate payment charged by a disbursing officer.

2 Payments under orders or requests for meals or transportation issued in the name of a particular person but used and signed by a different person.

3. Unofficial telegrams paid for by the department or bureau where received. 4. Any payment not authorized by law and all payments not in conformity with established practice or rulings applicable in the particular case.

The provision in question does not require that all erroneous or illegal payments shall be reported to Congress. It refers only to expenditures and contracts made by any department or establishment in violation of law. Therefore an illegal payment by a disbursing officer is not required to be reported unless it is based on an expenditure or contract made by an administrative officer of

the department or establishment, and in such cases it is not the payment alone but the entire amount of the expenditure or contract that should be so reported. It is the administrative act and not the disbursing act which must appear as in violation of law. Neither of the first three classes of payments hereinbefore listed and only such payments under the fourth class as may relate to obligations incurred by administrative officers in violation of law are required to be reported.

The following classes of payments are set forth in the memorandum as not being affected by the provision:

1. Duplicate payments shown by checks received but not charged by the disbursing officer.

2. Payments made from a wrong appropriation when there was an appropriation properly chargeable under the control of the department or establishment which incurred the obligation.

3. Overpayments, that is to say, payments in which the amount was excessive but the object of the expenditure was legal.

The conclusion as to each of these three classes is correct.

What has been stated herein must not be understood as any limitation upon reporting expenditures or contracts in violation of law. If in the audit there appears a doubt, the matter should be submitted to the law clerk assigned to the auditing division, whose views thereon shall be reported to the law division for consideration.

JAPANESE-CERTIFICATES OF NATURALIZATION AS AFFECTING PAY STATUS IN ARMY, NAVY, OR MARINE CORPS.

Accounting officers of the Government will accept certificates of naturalization issued by certain Federal courts, under provisions of the act of May 9, 1918, 40 Stat., 542, to Japanese who serve in the United States Army, Navy, or Marine Corps as sufficient evidence that the grantees of the certificates are lawful citizens of the United States and entitled to pay under General Order No. 34, during reenlistment periods in the Navy, or any other character of pay that may accrue to them by reason of such citizenship and their service in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Reserves, notwithstanding the fact that other Federal courts may refuse to issue certificates of naturalization to Japanese under said act. 27 Comp. Dec., 770, overruled. Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Navy, August 30, 1921: By your direction I have the letter of the Judge Advocate General of August 10, 1921, requesting revision of the action of the Auditor for the Navy Department in disallowing by settlement No. 68765, dated March 29, 1921, the claim of Frank Fujuwara, cabin steward, United States Navy, for pay under General Order No. 34, from May 19, 1919, to February 25, 1920.

Fujuwara holds certificate of naturalization showing that he was "admitted as a citizen of the United States of America" on the 19th day of May, 1919, by the United States District Court, Southern District of California. The certificate was granted under authority of the act of May 9, 1918, 40 Stat., 542. It appears that the Federal courts are divided in their opinion relative to whether the act of

7920°-22-Vol. 1-8