PURCHASE OF TYPEWRITING MACHINES. Under the restriction on the purchase of typewriting machines imposed by the act of July 16, 1914 (Public, No. 127, p. 61), mere improvements of more or less value, such as are made from time to time by all makers of first-class typewriting machines, which are added during the fiscal year, 1915, to a particular model of machine sold to the United States during the fiscal years 1913 and 1914, do not constitute a new model for which a Government department may pay a price in excess of the lowest price paid during the period of the fiscal years 1913 and 1914 for the model to which said improvements are added. Comptroller Downey to the Postmaster General, December 7, 1914: I have your letter of the 30th ultimo, requesting a decision as to whether payment may be made to the Underwood Typewriter Co. at a price of $70 each for their typewriting machines designated by them as Model H-5, in view of section 4 of the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation act of July 16, 1914 (Public No. 127, p. 61), which prohibits the use during the fiscal year 1915 of any money appropriated by the act for the purchase of any typewriting machine at a price in excess of the lowest price paid by the Government of the United States for the same make and model of machine during the period of the fiscal years 1913 and 1914. Substantially the same question was considered by this office in decision of September 5, 1914 (21 Comp. Dec., 129), but a definite ruling could not be made because the evidence then submitted did not justify this office in reaching a conclusion upon the facts. The question is now again presented as to whether the machine designated by the company as H-5 is the same model as was sold to the Government during the fiscal years 1913 or 1914 for $67.50. In the decision referred to it was assumed upon the facts then stated that the model H-5 was a new model. The law referred to (and a similar restriction is found in the sundry civil and postal appropriation acts) does not seek to regulate the prices at which typewriters shall be sold, but restricts Government officers in the use of appropriations and prohibits the purchase of machines during the present fiscal year at a price higher than that paid in the past two fiscal years. What was said in the decision referred to about the knowledge Congress must have had of the custom of the trade need not be repeated. It certainly was not the intention of Congress that an improvement upon a model of typewriter would justify Government officers in paying a higher price. It is contended by the attorneys for the Underwood Typewriter Co. that the improvements made upon the model they designate as G-5 were so radical as to create a new model, which the company has designated as H-5. Although they claim that the making of these improvements necessitated important structural changes in model G-5, they also state that these improvements are added to model G-5 typewriter at a charge of $5. It appears that the company does not advertise the improved No. 5 machines under the designation of G-5 and H-5, but that the old machine and the ones bearing the latter improvements are all advertised as model No. 5. From such evidence as is submitted it would appear that G-5 and H-5 are designations used in the sale of machines to the Government, and are not publicly advertised as or generally known by those designations. The purpose clearly intended by the legislation referred to was to limit the price the Government would pay for a particular make and model of machine, and not to have the limitation made ineffective by improvements of more or less value, such as are made from time to time by all makers of first-class typewriting machines. If the company had in the past or should in the future advertise the machines they designate as G-5 and H-5 as different models from the model known as No. 5, that fact would not be conclusive evidence of the creation of new models so as to prevent them from being classed as the same model as No. 5. But the fact that the company has not placed them on the market as different models, and has treated them as the same model in their dealing with the public, supports the view that they come within the class intended to be reached by the legislation in question. Upon the evidence submitted you are not authorized to purchase from the appropriation in the act of July 16, 1914, the typewriter known as H-5 at a price in excess of $67.50, it being in fact the same make and model, within the meaning of the statute, as was sold for that price. HEAT ALLOWANCES OF OFFICERS OF THE REVENUE-CUTTER SERVICE. Officers of the Revenue-Cutter Service are entitled to heat allowances under the same circumstances and to the same extent as are officers of corresponding rank in the Army. Reimbursement is not authorized for the value of any fuel not shown to have been actually consumed during the period covered by the voucher. Comptroller Downey to the Secretary of the Treasury, December 7, 1914: By your indorsement of the 3d instant my decision is requested as to the proper amount payable on the voucher submitted by D. F. A. de Otte, captain, United States Revenue-Cutter Service, assistant inspector, sixth life-saving district, as his heat allowance for the month of November, 1914. A captain in the Revenue-Cutter Service is entitled to the same heat allowances as a major in the Army under like circumstances and conditions. (Secs. 2 and 3, act of Apr. 12, 1902, 32 Stat., 100.) This officer certifies that he was on duty at Salisbury, Md., and occupied five rooms (his authorized allowance) as quarters during the month in question. He submits a receipted bill showing that he consumed 10,500 cubic feet of gas, and paid $13.13 for same, at the rate of $1.25 per thousand cubic feet. He certifies that this gas was furnished for heating purposes for the period from November 1 to 30, 1914. He also submits receipted bills showing the purchase of other fuel as follows: Nov. 3, 1914, ton stove coal, at $7.55.. $5.66 7.55 No evidence is presented to show that all or any part of the coal purchased was actually consumed for heating purposes during the period covered by the voucher. Salisbury, Md., for November is in zone 7, and the maximum money allowance in said zone for five rooms, on the basis of anthracite coal at $7 per ton, is $13.50. The equivalent of said allowance where gas at $1.25 per M cubic feet is used is ($1.13+$1.25+$13.50) $19.07. As the amount paid for the gas consumed ($13.13) is less than the allowance, reimbursement is authorized for the full amount of the gas bill. The difference between the total allowance on the gas basis and the amount paid for gas is ($19.07-$13.13) $5.94, or the value of 4,752 cubic feet of gas. This unused portion of his gas allowance is the equivalent of 1,346 pounds of anthracite coal-1 pound of coal being the equivalent of 3.53 cubic feet of gas (6,000/1,700-3.53). The value of 1,346 pounds of coal at $7.55 per long ton (the price paid in this case) is $4.54. Therefore, if this officer actually consumed for heating purposes, during the month of November, 1,346 pounds or more of the coal purchased and will submit satisfactory evidence to that effect, further reimbursement would be authorized to the extent of this amount-making the total amount payable to this officer as his heat allowance for the month in question ($13.13+$4.54) $17.67; but upon the voucher as now presented no more than $13.13 is payable as such allowance. 2216°-VOL 21-15-24 TRANSPORTATION OF DISCHARGED ENLISTED MEN. The transportation furnished by a carrier to a discharged enlisted man in addition to that furnished upon a Government request is a separate transaction not affecting the contract for the transportation furnished at the request of the Government. Comptroller Downey to Capt. G. B. Pond, Quartermaster Corps, United States Army, December 8, 1914: I have your request of November 21, 1914, for a decision upon a question presented to you by Luster Davis, late private Tenth Company, Coast Artillery Corps, a discharged enlisted man of the United States Army. The facts in the case as appear from the papers transmitted by you are as follows: The said soldier was furnished transportation in kind on discharge under the provisions of the act of August 24, 1912 (37 Stat., 576)— "That hereafter when an enlisted man is discharged from the service, except by way of punishment for an offense, he shall be entitled to transportation in kind and subsistence from the place of his discharge to the place of his enlistment, or to such other place within the continental limits of the United States as he may select to which the distance is no greater than from the place of discharge to place of enlistment, but if the distance be greater he may be furnished with transportation in kind and subsistence for a distance equal to that from place of discharge to place of enlistment, or, in lieu of such transportation and subsistence, he shall, if he so elects, receive 2 cents a mile, except for sea travel, from the place of his discharge to the place of his enlistment." The said soldier desired transportation from San Francisco, Cal., to Somerset, Ky., and was furnished a Government transportation request for transportation from San Francisco to Granger, Wyo., the ultimate point in the direction of Somerset, Ky., to which he was entitled. On presentation of this Government request to the agent of the railroad company asking for transportation from San Francisco, Cal., to Somerset, Ky., the agent demanded and was paid by said soldier, in addition to the said request, the sum of $40.53 in cash, the local rate from Granger, Wyo., to Somerset, Ky., and issued two tickets one San Francisco to Granger, the other Granger to Somerset--and the soldier traveled thereon to his ultimate destination. The passenger traffic manager of the Southern Pacific Co., in a letter to the secretary of the Interstate Commerce Commission dated October 17, 1914, stated that formerly they gave the value of a request held by a discharged soldier as a credit toward the purchase of a through ticket, or would redeem the request direct to the soldier, allowing him to add sufficient to that amount to pay for a through ticket to his ultimate destination, but that after the receipt of the decision of this office of August 14, 1914 (21 Comp. Dec., 76), notice was given to Capt. Pond to the effect that this procedure could no longer be followed, but that it would be necessary in every case to honor the request to the actual destination called for and, if a passenger desired to go to a farther destination, to collect the local fare from the destination of the request to the passenger's final destination. In the decision referred to I held in substance that in honoring transportation requests issued by the proper officers or agents of the Government to discharged enlisted men a transportation company must hereafter adhere to the stipulations of the requests upon them by issuing transportation of the class or character specified therein and between the points named. The discharged soldier referred to in indorsement of November 21, 1914, requested through you a decision of this office, contending66* * that I should have been allowed the money value of my Government transportation request, San Francisco, Cal., to Granger, Wyo., $34.40, as part payment of $53.60, which is the through commercial rate from San Francisco to Somerset, Ky., which would leave me $19.20 to pay instead of $40.53, the local rate from Granger, Wyo., to Somerset, Ky., which I paid." "3. The ruling of the Comptroller quoted by Mr. Fee does not seem applicable to my case, as I did not want to change to any other road, because the route San Francisco to Granger is on the direct line of travel, San Francisco to Somerset, Ky. "4. The Southern Pacific Co. received $34.40 for that Government transportation request, San Francisco to Granger, Wyo., and in all fairness and honesty I should be allowed the same as part payment on the through commercial-rate ticket." In your indorsement of November 21, 1914, requesting my decision in the premises, you state "1. It would appear that the complication presented by this communication is one that was not considered when the ruling of the Comptroller of the Treasury, referred to by Mr. Fee, was made, and in my opinion the case here presented does not come under that ruling. "2. The effect of the attitude taken by the railroads is to use the present example, that they receive for transporting a discharged soldier from San Francisco, Cal., to Somerset, Ky., the sum of $74.93. The value of a transportation request to Granger, Wyo., is $34.40, and the local rate from Granger, Wyo., to Somerset, Ky., $40.53, while the commercial rate on a through ticket, second class, San Francisco, Cal., to Somerset, Ky., is $53.60. In other words, a certain restricted class is paying a higher tariff than that scheduled at tariff rates, which appears to me distinctly contrary to the rulings of the Interstate Commerce Commission. "3. In so far as the ruling in question is concerned, in this instance it does not seem that the carrier has departed from the stipulations of the transportation request, as the man was actually carried to |