tences of courts-martial by reserving from forfeiture $3 per month for prison expenses, but this reservation from forfeiture terminates with the expiration of enlistment, after which the necessary prison expenses are charged against the appropriation "Pay, miscellaneous." However, it has been the practice to charge the necessary prison expenses incurred after the expiration of enlistment against the balance due a prisoner at the time his enlistment expired when the balance is in excess of the $20 reserved from forfeiture. Such is the action of the auditor in this case.

I do not think this practice is correct, as the prisoner does not receive any allowances if he happens to have a balance to his credit in excess of $20.

After a man's enlistment has expired he should receive an allowance for his necessary prison expenses, not exceeding $3 per month, and the amount actually used should be charged to "Pay, miscellaneous," and no checkage of this amount should be made against his balance due at date enlistment expired. (14 Comp. Dec., 722; 10 id., 702.) If it becomes necessary to expend more than $3 per month for unusual expenses, such as dental treatment, etc., then the balance may be used to make up the deficit.

Under this construction the action of the auditor in disallowing $3.30 is reversed and certificate of difference will issue.

TRAVEL EXPENSES OF NAVAL OFFICER FOR TRAVEL OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES.

A naval officer was ordered to travel on public business from Guam to Washington, D. C., "by way of Government transportation," and later "authorized" to perform that portion of the travel from Guam to San Francisco at his "own expense"; he availed himself of the authorization for the travel from Manila to San Francisco, proceeding on a merchant steamer: Held, that he is entitled to reimbursement for his actual individual expenses of the travel from Guam to San Francisco to the extent that he would have incurred such expenses had he performed the travel for the whole of said distance by way of Government transportation.

Decision by Comptroller Downey, July 16, 1914:

K. C. McIntosh, passed assistant paymaster, United States Navy, applied April 27, 1914, for revision of the action of the Auditor for the Navy Department in settlement No. 65266, dated April 16, 1914, of his claim for reimbursement of expenses which he would have incurred had the travel performed by him from Guam, L. I., to San Francisco, Cal., under orders of April 26 and June 2, 1913, been by Army transport instead of by merchant steamer.

Orders of April 26, 1913, issued to him by the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation, read:

"Upon reporting of Paymaster Frank T. Watrous, on or about June 26, 1913, you will regard yourself detached from duty at the

naval station, Guam, and from such other duty as may have been assigned you, will make the necessary transfers to that officer of public funds on hand and on deposit, including public property, will proceed to your home in the United States by way of Government transportation; settle accounts and await orders.

"2. Immediately upon your arrival home report your local address in full and the date of your arrival to the Bureau of Navigation." (See article 705, Instructions to Naval Regulations, 1913.) These orders he received May 29, 1913.

On June 2, 1913, the commandant at Guam, at the request of claim ant, cabled the Bureau of Navigation as follows:

"Request you to authorize Passed Assistant Paymaster Kenneth C. McIntosh after being relieved to return Manila per steamer to San Francisco will pay expenses."

On the same date the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation replied by cable as follows:

"P. A. Paymaster K. C. McIntosh, U. S. N., after being relieved authorized proceed San Francisco, own expense."

The exact date of the receipt of this reply by claimant does not appear, but he states he received it prior to his departure from Guam. The Army transport Logan entered the harbor of Guam July 27, 1913, on which date claimant boarded her for the purpose of acquainting his relief with his duties. He was detached from duty at Guam on July 28; proceeded on that date on the Logan to Manila; arrived at Manila at noon August 3; appears to have remained in Manila. until noon August 14, leaving Manila on that date on the Pacific Mail steamship Mongolia for Hongkong; arrived in Hongkong on Augusst 16; left Hongkong on August 23, for San Francisco by merchant steamer; arrived in San Francisco September 21; and completed the travel to his home, Washington, D. C., September 27, 1913. He has been paid mileage for the travel from San Francisco to Washington, D. C.

He certifies that he actually incurred the expense of travel from Guam to San Francisco, amounting to $331.84, or $164.34 in addition to his expenses by merchant steamer from Manila to San Francisco, itemized as follows:

Subsistence, U. S. A. T. Logan, Guam to Manila, July 27 to Aug. 3------ $6.67 Hotel bill, Aug. 3 to noon Aug. 14, Manila (exact amount unknown, but between 206 and P207, Philippine currency)

Tips, Manila_____

Baggage to and from hotel, Manila...

Passage, Pacific Mail S. S. Mongolia_

Hotel, Hongkong, Aug. 16 to 23.

Tips, Hongkong.......

Baggage to and from hotel, Hongkong--

103.00

10.00

4.00

167.50

35.67

4.00

1.00

331.84

Receipted bills are submitted for the items of his subsistence on the transport Logan, Guam to Manila, and for hotel bills (for apparently himself, wife, baby, and nurse) at Manila for $103.17, and at Hongkong for $35.67.

Of such expenditures he claims reimbursement to the extent of $120.17, itemized as follows:

Subsistence, U. S. Army transport Logan, Guam to Manila, July 27

to Aug. 3, noon----.

$6.67

Noon of Aug. 3 to noon of Aug. 17, 1913, 15 days.

75.00

Subsistence, Manila to San Francisco, noon of Aug. 17 to noon of

The Secretary of the Navy approved the claim to the extent of $45.17, "withholding approval of the item of hotel expenses, Manila, $75, until such time as hotel receipt is filed."

The auditor disallowed the claim because

"He was authorized to proceed to San Francisco, Cal., at his own expense.

"His original orders of April 26, 1913, to proceed via transport were modified at his request by cablegram of June 4, 1913, authorizing him to proceed to San Francisco, Cal., at his own expense. Having accepted such, he thereby waived his right to transportation on the transport, of any claim he may have had against the Government for the expense of his travel." (Comp., Apr. 26, 1912; Mar. 24, 1913; Nov. 19, 1913.)

For travel performed on public business under orders naval officers are entitled, under the act of March 3, 1901 (31 Stat., 1029), to mileage if within the United States, and to actual expenses if outside of the United States. This statutory right is one they can not waive or be estopped from enforcing. (20 Comp. Dec., 741.)

Orders to travel on public business from Guam to Washington were issued to claimant on April 26, 1913, with the direction that the travel be "by way of Government transportation." Had he so traveled he would have incurred expenses of subsistence on transport from Guam to Manila, and from Manila to San Francisco, and expenses of delay in Manila during the stay of the transport there. He would not have incurred any expense for transportation and would not have been entitled to be reimbursed for such an expense.

By cable of June 2 he was authorized to travel from Guam to San Francisco at his "own expense," and availed himself of the authorization for the travel from Manila to San Francisco.

This authorization did not abrogate or supersede his orders of April 26 in so far as they required him to perform travel for the

entire distance from Guam to Washington, but only so amended the clause therein directing the travel "by way of Government transportation" as to permit him, in lieu thereof, to perform it by merchant steamer at his "own expense." The condition at his "own expense," must have meant at his own expense for transportation, for which no expense would have been incurred by him on transport, or, in other words, without any resultant expense to the Government because of his travel by a merchant steamer in lieu of by a transport. Not having been relieved of the duty of performing travel under - orders for the entire distance from Guam to Washington, neither the attachment of such condition nor his acceptance thereof can divest him of his statutory right to the necessary actual expenses of such travel. He will, therefore, be reimbursed for his expenses of subsistence from Guam to San Francisco and expenses in Manila to the extent that he would have incurred such expenses had he traveled by the transport. (54 MS. Comp. Dec., 1039, Sept. 9, 1910; 30 id., 337, Aug. 2, 1904.)

The charge for his individual subsistence per day on the Army transport Logan, from Guam to Manila, was $1. The itemized bill and receipt for said subsistence cover a period from July 27 to August 3, 63 days, the receipt specifying that it is from supper, July 27, to breakfast, August 3. As claimant was not detached from duty at Guam until July 28, his status did not become that of a traveler prior to that date. He can, therefore, only be reimbursed for the expense of such subsistence for 63 days, amounting to $6.33 instead of $6.67 as claimed.

The items of expenditure, which he claims he would have incurred had he proceeded from Manila to San Francisco upon the Logan, aside from that of hotel bill at Manila, are not in excess of the maximum amounts allowed therefor by the regulations of the department. (Navy Regulations, 1913, art. 4495.)

As to the hotel expenses at Manila, claimant computes the period he would have had to remain in Manila had he proceeded from there to San Francisco by the Logan, noon of August 3 to noon of August 17, 1913, as “15" days instead of 14 days, correct computation, and the hotel expenses which would have been incurred by him during such period at $5 per day instead of at his proportionate share of the actual total daily rate paid by him in Manila from August 3 to 14 of that period for himself, wife, baby, and nurse, $9.38 per day, amounting to not over $3.75 per day.

His hotel expenses for the 14 days, at $3.75 per day, amount to $52.50, instead of $75, as claimed, and the total expenses which would have been incurred by him individually had he proceeded from Guam to San Francisco by the route directed in his orders of April 26 instead of availing himself of the permission granted to him to select

his own means of travel from Manila to San Francisco to $97.33, instead of $120.17 as claimed. Said amount of $97.33 is less than the amount of his actual corresponding individual expenses of travel by the route selected by him.

A certificate of difference in his favor for said amount of $97.33 will issue.

PAYMENTS AFFECTING APPROPRIATIONS UNDER THE ENGINEER DEPARTMENT.

Payments under the act of April 27, 1914 (Public, No. 91, p. 21), are required to be made through the proper disbursing officers instead of by direct settlements of the auditors as heretofore under Treasury Department Circular No. 54, dated August 14, 1907. Such payments should be made by checks drawn on the Treasurer of the United States in favor of the proper payee in the same manner that payment is made to a creditor of the Government. Comptroller Downey to the Secretary of Commerce, July 18, 1914:

I have your letter of July 7, 1914, in reference to the following provision in the Army appropriation act of April 27, 1914 (Public, No. 91, p. 21):

"Hereafter in the settlement of transactions between appropriations under the Engineer Department, or between the Engineer Department and another office or bureau of the War Department, or of any other executive department of the Government, payment therefor shall be made by the proper disbursing officer of the Corps of Engineers or of the office, bureau, or department concerned."

You inclose a copy of General Orders, No. 6, of the Office of the Chief of Engineers of the Army, dated May 18, 1914, which order, after quoting the law just referred to, reads as follows:

"2. The object of the provision is to facilitate the settlement of the class of accounts referred to and to make available at an earlier date the funds due the creditor office. It is desired, therefore, in all cases when it is practicable and advantageous to both offices concerned that this method of settlement be hereafter employed in lieu of that prescribed in A. R. 619 and 671.

"3. It is recognized, however, that in some cases it may be advisable to have the funds transferred by the auditor, as heretofore, e. g., when the selling office is not a disbursing office, or when the selling office has no authority to receive the funds by transfer, or for other reasons desires that the transfer be made by the auditor. When such accounts are forwarded for settlement by the auditor, the reason for the transfer by that method rather than by the other should be stated. "4. In making settlements under the above-cited provision, the purchasing officer will render the usual form of purchase voucher with bill or invoice attached, with his monthly account, and refer to this order as authority for the payment by this method. The selling officer should take up the amount on his account current under the appropriation to be credited and attach a copy of the bill or in