to pay a voucher therewith submitted in favor of the George J. Grant Construction Co. for $973.82, covering 112 days' rental (at $8 per day), of a Thew steam shovel under lease dated December 20, 1913, and cost of certain repairs to said shovel, made necessary by reason of accidents thereto while in use by the Government.

By the terms of said lease the George J. Grant Construction Co., as lessor, leased a Thew steam shovel to the Government for use in cofferdam work at Lock and Dam No. 1, Minnehaha, Minn., for a period of 60 days, more or less, beginning with the day said shovel should be delivered to the Government, and ending with the day it was returned to the lessor, this time to be extended at the option of the lessee. The lease fixed the compensation to be paid for use of said shovel at $8 per day, Sundays and holidays excepted, for the time that the same was in the possession of the Government. Article 5 of said lease provided that

"At the expiration or earlier termination of this lease the lessee shall yield up said property to the lessor in as good condition as when received, loss and damage by fire, act of God, and ordinary wear and tear excepted

The Government was given possession of the leased dredge on January 10, 1914, and under the lease or verbal extensions thereof it retained possession thereof and used the same until May 21, 1914, a period of 112 working days. While being used by the Government, as reported by the engineer officer

"The cab was somewhat damaged by a blast in the material we were handling-the frozen condition of the material made it necessary to blast, and the uneven freezing made it difficult exactly to foresee the effect of the blast. No neglect on the part of any employee caused the damage."

Then in moving the machinery, after the work was completed, to the railroad for delivery to the lessor the engineer officer further states that

"the heavy rains had caused a softening of the roadway and it gave way under the machine, causing the shovel to tip over and damage the turntable. No neglect on the part of any employee caused the damage."

The shovel was returned to the lessor in a damaged condition, none of the damage sustained as above shown being repaired by the Government for the reason that

"To hold the shovel while we got the material would have meant paying $8 per day for rental. I therefore decided it was economy to return the shovel and pay for the repairs."

The lessor has submitted an itemized statement of the cost alleged to have been incurred in repairing the damages above noted, amount

ng to $77.82. By the voucher submitted it is proposed to pay the bill as rendered plus the agreed rental of the shovel for 112 days. The lease makes the Government responsible for all damages to the shovel not due to fire, act of God, or ordinary use. The damages here in question quite clearly, I think, were not due to any of the excepted causes, but to causes for which the lease makes the Government responsible. The bill presented, if it includes no more than fair charges for the work of repairing the damages occasioned as above set forth, and not otherwise, constitutes a proper charge against the Government. (See decision of this office dated May 11, 1914, case of Rowley & Son, 69 MS. Comp. Dec., 832.) The rental charges also appear to be in accordance with the rental contract, and proper.

The voucher submitted, if otherwise correct in itemization and amount, may therefore properly be paid.

MOTOR-PROPELLED VEHICLES FOR USE OF NAVY YARDS.

The appropriation for "Maintenance, Bureau of Yards and Docks," Navy Department, which provides for all vehicles, including motor-propelled vehicles, has reference to vehicles for use at navy yards for freight-carrying purposes only, and not for vehicles for carrying passengers.

Comptroller Downey to the Secretary of the Navy, September 18, 1914:

I have your letter of September 11, 1914, requesting my decision of a question as follows:

"Section 5 of the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation act, approved July 16, 1914 (Public, No. 127, p. 61), reads as follows:

"No appropriation made in this or any other act shall be available for the purchase of any motor-propelled or horse-drawn passenger-carrying vehicle for the service of any of the executive departments or other Government establishments, or any branch of the Government service, unless specific authority is given therefor, and after the close of the fiscal year nineteen hundred and fifteen there shall not be expended out of any appropriation made by Congress any sum for purchase, maintenance, repair, or operation of motorpropelled or horse-drawn passenger-carrying vehicle for any branch of the public service of the United States unless the same is specifically authorized by law, and in the estimates for the fiscal year nineteen hundred and sixteen and subsequent fiscal years there shall be submitted in detail estimates for such necessary appropriations as are intended to be used for purchase, maintenance, repair, or operation of all motor-propelled or horse-drawn passenger-carrying vehicles, specifying the sums required, the public purposes for which said vehicles are intended, and the officials or employees by whom the same are to be used.'

66* * *

"The following is an excerpt from the appropriation 'Maintenance, Bureau of Yards and Docks, 1915 (Public, No. 121, p. 9): fire apparatus and plants; machinery; purchase and maintenance of horses and driving teams; carts, timber wheels, and all vehicles, including motor-propelled vehicles for freight-carrying purposes only for use in the navy yards; tools and repair of the same; stationery; *

"In view of the provision of law first above quoted, the department respectfully requests your decision as to whether or not specific authority is contained in the second-quoted provision for the purchase, during the current fiscal year, of horse-drawn passenger-carrying vehicles for official purposes."

Various groups of expenditures are set forth in said appropriation (in the act of June 30, 1914) for "Maintenance, Bureau of Yards and Docks; " each is defined by a semicolon, one of which reads:

66* * *; carts, timber wheels, and all vehicles, including motorpropelled vehicles for freight-carrying purposes only for use in the navy yards;"

In reading this paragraph alone doubt arises as to whether the vehicles mentioned were to be freight-carrying vehicles, limited to use in navy yards, or whether vehicles for any purpose could be purchased; but when considered in connection with the later act (section of the act of July 16, 1914, supra), which prohibits the purchase of horse-drawn passenger-carrying vehicles unless specific authority is given therefor, there seems to be no doubt that it does not specifically authorize the purchase of vehicles for carrying passengers. I am of opinion, therefore, that the purchase of vehicles is limited to those for use at navy yards for freight-carrying purposes.

EXPENSE OF SUBSISTENCE.

The act of April 6, 1914 (Public, No. 82-63d Cong., p. 7), limits the allowance and payment of expenses of subsistence to any officer or employee of the United States while traveling on official business outside of the District of Columbia and away from his designated post of duty, to the expense of subsistence actually incurred by such officer or employee. Said act also limits the allowance of expenses of subsistence actually incurred by any such officer or employee, either in the District of Columbia, or elsewhere, to not exceeding $5 per day.

Comptroller Downey to S. R. Jacobs, disbursing clerk, Treasury Department, September 18, 1914:

I have your letter of the 5th instant, as follows:

"I submit herewith a voucher in favor of Albert S. Macgregor, Treasury site agent, covering his expenses from August 7 to 31, 1914, which voucher has been duly approved in the sum of $139.01 and submitted to me for payment out of the appropriation 'General expenses of public buildings, 1915.'

"It appears from papers attached to the voucher that on August 6, 1914, the Secretary of the Treasury, by letter addressed to Mr. Macgregor at New York, reappointed him an agent to select sites for public buildings with compensation at the rate of $300 per month together with actual necessary expenses, to take effect August 7, 1914. On August 28, 1914, a telegram was addressed to Mr. Macgregor at Shelbyville, Ind., as follows:

"Department letter 17th (6th?) instant amended to allow you $4 per diem for subsistence in lieu actual expenses while engaged in field.'

"In his voucher Mr. Macgregor has charged a per diem of $4 per day in lieu of subsistence for each and every day from August 7 to August 31, inclusive. It appears, however, from the itemized statement of his voucher that he did not leave New York for Washington until August 10, arriving in Washington the same day; that he made a trip to Leesburg, Va., and return, on August 13, and again on August 15, leaving Washington on August 18 for Portland, Ind., and apparently spending the balance of the month at various points in Indiana.

"The per diem in lieu of subsistence was presumably granted by the Secretary of the Treasury under the provisions of section 13 of the sundry civil appropriations act approved August 1, 1914. I have carefully examined said section, and am in doubt as to the particular days for which Mr. Macgregor should be allowed per diem in lieu of subsistence. In a memorandum attached to the voucher, the acting executive officer, Office of Supervising Architect, states that Mr. Macgregor's headquarters are considered to be New York City. It will be observed that he has charged per diem in lieu of subsistence for three days while in New York City and five days while in Washington, D. Č.

"The voucher is therefore submitted with request for your decision as to the amount I am authorized to pay Mr. Macgregor."

The telegraphic amendment of Mr. Macgregor's allowance for expense of subsistence is not nor does it purport to be retroactive in its operation. It took effect from and after its receipt and acceptance by him. The per diem allowance of $4 in lieu of subsistence. provided by the amendment is not divisible, and the change from actual expenses, the right to which had vested for August 28, 1914, prior to receipt of the telegram on that day, to a per diem basis under the amendment is effective from and after that date.

On August 29, 30, and 31, 1914, Mr. Macgregor was engaged in field work or was traveling on official business outside of the District of Columbia and away from his designated post of duty at New York City. Under the terms of the amendment to his original allowance for subsistence and the provisions of section 13 of the act of August 1, 1914 (Public, No. 161-63d Cong., p. 81), he is entitled to a per diem of $4 in lieu of subsistence for these days.

He is entitled upon proper showing to reimbursement for actual expenses of subsistence incurred prior to August 29, 1914, under the

terms of his appointment of August 6, 1914, the general laws and decisions relating to subsistence, and the following provision of the act of April 6, 1914 (Public, No. 82, 63d Cong., p. 7) :

"On and after July first, nineteen hundred and fourteen, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, no officer or employee of the United States shall be allowed or paid any sum in excess of expenses actually incurred for subsistence while traveling on duty outside of the District of Columbia and away from his designated post of duty, nor any sum for such expenses actually incurred in excess of $5 per day; nor shall any allowance or reimbursement for subsistence be paid to any officer or employee in any branch of the public service of the United States in the District of Columbia unless absent from his designated post of duty outside of the District of Columbia, and then only for the period of time actually engaged in the discharge of official duties."

The language of this statute is susceptible of more than one reasonable construction. At first glance it may seem to prohibit the allowance and payment to any officer or employee of expense of subsistence incurred within the District of Columbia. More careful consideration, however, suggests another construction more in harmony with the apparent purpose of the law and the general policy of past legislation and rulings relating to subsistence.

The first part of the statute quoted limits the allowance and payment to all officers and employees for expenses of subsistence while traveling outside of the District of Columbia and away from the designated post of duty to such expenses actually incurred. It does not thus limit expenses of such officers and employees incurred in the District of Columbia and away from the designated post of duty, but leaves the latter expenses to be governed by other laws and regulations relating to such expenses.

Next the statute provides that actual expense of subsistence in excess of $5 per day shall not be allowed. This applies to all expenses of subsistence, whether incurred in the District of Columbia or elsewhere.

The remainder of the statute relates to officers, and employees of branches of the service in the District of Columbia, and has no bearing on this case.

The appointment of August 6, 1914, merely provides in general terms for "actual and necessary expenses" in addition to salary.

Under general laws and rulings, Mr. Macgregor is not entitled to subsistence while at his official station in New York. Under the terms of his appointment and the act of April 6, 1914, supra, he is entitled to actual expenses of subsistence, not exceeding $5 per day while traveling on duty away from New York, both in and outside of the District of Columbia. He is also entitled to actual necessary