There is a certificate attached to each of the first three vouchers described for the purpose of showing that exigencies existed.

In a sense this statement does show an exigency existed at the time of the purchase, but it was such an exigency as arose from negligence in not providing against it, the outgrowth of a need which should have been foreseen and provided against. Hence, while in a sense an exigency, it was not such an exigency as justified the officer in making the purchase, for he could not create an exigency for his own justification.

The only authority officers of the Public Health Service have to make purchases of this kind is found in paragraph 649, Regulations United States Public Health Service, which reads:

"For such absolutely necessary purchases and repairs as require immediate attention bills involving small amounts may be incurred without special authority, but it must be clearly established that the expenditure was immediately necessary, that the necessity therefor could not have been foreseen by ordinary care

* *

But under all the circumstances of these cases the Government is, in my judgment, liable to the parties who furnished the goods, and they should not suffer by disallowance because of some one's else negligence. Without going back of the certifications, they may be regarded as sufficient and their payment is authorized.

The fourth voucher, in favor of James B. Laughlin, contains a statement that may be considered as justifying the purchase as made. This purchase was made on the 18th of June, and it appears that a requisition made in April remained unfilled. While this officer should have made inquiry about stationery ordered so long before by writing the department urging that the needed articles be sent him at once, yet he may have expected their receipt daily, and for that reason taken no other steps to procure them, and their nonarrival forced and justified the purchase made. Payment of this voucher is authorized.

Relative to the last three items described, there is no attempt to show by certification, either formal and in general terms or detailed, that exigencies existed requiring these purchases.

The dealers no doubt made the sales in good faith and without fault on their part and probably ought to have their money, but, as stated, there is no attempt to show authority for making the purchases and if there was no authority for making the purchases there may be no liability on the Government to pay, and if there is no liability on the Government there may be a liability on the part of those who made the purchases. It is charitable sometimes to overlook irregularities and pay the bills with a warning to "sin no more," but violations of the law and regulations in these respects are becoming so numerous and sometimes, as in these cases, so wholly without any attempt to justify the manner of purchase that I think

charity would better be subordinated to duty and the offenders who offend without even color of justification be left to personally assume the liability, at least until they can successfully assume the burden of justifying the incurring of the obligation as against the Government. Until so certified as to justify the purchases as made the three vouchers in question should not be paid. These vouchers can not be treated as those first disposed of without flagrant disregard of the law and regulations.

Speaking generally, it may be said that the frequency with which such cases are presenting themselves indicates the necessity of vigorous administrative action to the end that the law and the regulations thereunder be regarded rather than that they be brushed aside. as a needless obstruction whenever some one's impulse or convenience prompts a purchase irrespective thereof. Not only are the law and regulations too lightly held and exigencies of too easy creation, but through resort thereto it frequently happens, as in these cases, that prices paid are two to four times the cost of the same articles furnished in the regular way.

Exigencies will arise and the law so recognizes, but the effort should be to minimize their number rather than to create them.

Cooperation in different quarters can do much to correct the evil. Care should be taken to anticipate needs when regular requisitions. are made. Needs afterwards apparent and not then supplied can generally be anticipated a sufficient length of time in advance to justify resort to special requisition and in such cases the requisition should be promptly filled. And when purchases have been made without a sufficient justification approval of the voucher should be withheld, and if the practice is persisted in some method should be found of disciplining the offenders.

REIMBURSEMENT OF EMPLOYEES OF THE FOREST SERVICE FOR HORSES, VEHICLES, ETC., LOST, DAMAGED, OR DESTROYED.

Employees of the Forest Service who are required by their contract of employment to furnish horses, vehicles, etc., as a part of their equipment are not included among the owners entitled, under the act of March 4, 1913 (37 Stat., 843), to reimbursement for such property lost, damaged, or destroyed in said service.

Comptroller Downey to the Secretary of Agriculture, August 5, 1914:

I have received your letter of July 22, in which you request to be advised as to whether you are authorized to pay three claims presented under the following provision in the act of March 4, 1913 (37 Stat., 843):

"That hereafter the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to reimburse owners of horses, vehicles, and other equipment lost, damaged, or destroyed while being used for necessary fire fighting, trail, or official business, such reimbursement to be made from any available

funds in the appropriation to which the hire of such equipment is properly chargeable.'

You state the facts in the three claims as follows:

"1. On January 4, 1914, Assistant Ranger M. E. Ames was engaged in carrying official mail and supplies to his ranger station, in pursuance of his official duties, using for that purpose as a saddle horse a 4-year-old gelding, weighing 1,300 pounds, belonging to himself. The weather was very bad, the roads were covered with snow to a considerable depth, and the horse was required to break a trail through the snow for the entire trip. Owing to the heavy traveling and stormy weather it took Mr. Ames five hours to reach the Wiant ranch, a distance of 10 miles. He remained there that night, feeding and stabling his horse in an open barn, where it was exposed during the entire night to heavy winds and extreme cold. Mr. Ames proceeded to the ranger station the next day. Owing to the stormy weather still prevailing, it took six hours to cover the remaining 10 miles. The horse had been strong and in perfect condition prior to the trip in question, but began to weaken immediately thereafter, and on March 24, 1914, died as a result of the overwork and exposure sustained on the trip in question. It was not in a fit condition to be worked at any time subsequent to the trip. It appears from the evidence submitted that Mr. Ames exercised as much care as was possible under the circumstances, and that the disability and subsequent death of the horse were not due to any negligence on his part, but were due solely to the unwonted exertion of breaking through the snow for the entire distance traveled, and the exposure during the night in the open barn to the severe cold and storm. The horse is shown to have been worth one hundred and fifty dollars ($150), and Mr. Ames claims reimbursement in that

amount.

"2. On July 24, 1913, Supervisor Herbert Graff, of the Idaho National Forest, while carrying in supplies to a crew engaged in the examination of land within the said forest to determine whether it was subject to listing under the act of June 11, 1906 (34 Stat., 233), stopped for the night at the ranger station of Forest Ranger Charles M. De Witt, and turned the Government-owned pack horse into the pasture at the ranger station where Mr. De Witt's privately owned horse was also feeding. Some time during the night Mr. De Witt's horse was kicked by the Government horse and its right hind leg broken between the stifle and pastern joints. The leg and shattered bone plainly disclosed the imprint of the shoe and calk with which the Government horse had been roughshod only the day before. Mr. De Witt's horse had to be shot in the morning. Mr. De Witt used his horse on the day before the accident on his regular work of fire patrol and grazing administration, and contemplated similar duties for the day following. No other means was available for the care of Mr. De Witt's horse nor for the Government pack horse, for the reason that there was but the one inclosure in which the horses could be secured for the night. It further appears that this station is one that is occupied by a ranger for the summer season only, and that Ranger De Witt is temporarily detailed to that station during the summer and has his permanent headquarters elsewhere the balance of the year. Mr. De Witt values his horse at $75, and requests reimbursement in that amount.

"3. On November 1, 1913, Ranger John F. Kruse, after scaling an amount of timber on a timber sale in the Flathead National Forest, started to drive to Kalispell, Mont., to confer with the supervisor on official business. On arriving at Columbia Falls, Mr. Kruse stabled his team and rig at a livery barn and proceeded to Kalispell by train. On his return the next day he found that the livery barn had burned during his absence and that his team, buggy, and equipment were totally destroyed. Mr. Kruse enumerates his loss as follows:

"He claims reimbursement for this amount."

In connection with these claims you also make the following

statement:

"Your attention is invited, in the consideration of these cases, to the fact that the regulations and instructions of this department require forest officers to furnish at their own expense saddle and pack animals for official use. Regulation G. A. 3 reads, in part, as follows:

"Forest officers and employees regularly assigned to field duty may be required to own and equip saddle and other animals necessary to carry on their official duties.'

"In each of the above cases the rangers were required, under this regulation and their instructions issued pursuant thereto, to furnish horses and equipment necessary for the transaction of their official duties."

The law above quoted was enacted by Congress in the identical language in which it was submitted by the Department of Agriculture in connection with the estimates for appropriations for the fiscal year 1914. The estimate or draft of proposed legislation was followed by the following:

"NOTE.-It is extremely desirable that the above provision be enacted into law. In fighting forest fires the Forest Service depends very largely upon being able to hire horses and conveyances which may be necessary for the transportation of men and supplies. It often happens that owing to the hazardous nature of this work and the danger of injury to horses, vehicles, or other equipment, the owners of such equipment decline to furnish it in the absence of any guaranty of return in good condition, and great difficulty is experienced in securing the necessary means of transportation at times when it is most needed for the protection of the national forests."

In the hearings before the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives the head of the Forest Service explained the desirability of the proposed legislation by a reference to the difficulty of hiring horses and vehicles in connection with the work of inspection and the work of fire protection and improvement.

While estimates and hearings do not affect the construction of a statute, I have referred to them merely to show that they did not mention losses that had been or might be sustained by employees of the Forest Service.

There is no specific reference in this law to the employees of the Forest Service, and from the foregoing quotation from your letter it appears that each of the three employees whose claims are the subject of decision was required to furnish horses or other equipment necessary for the transaction of his official duties. The law is in general language, and upon first reading would seem to cover reimbursement to all owners of horses, vehicles, and other equipment lost, damaged, or destroyed in the manner stated, and by reason of the use of the phrase or official business" there would seem to be some justification for the view that the law was intended to cover the loss of horses, etc., owned by employees of the Forest Service while such employees are on any official business.

66

While the question of whether or not there should be a law to provide for reimbursement of a Forest Service employee for the loss of his horse while it was used under his contract of employment in the very service for which it was intended to be employed is one for determination by Congress, I do not believe that a statute in general words should be construed to provide for reimbursement in such cases unless that meaning of the law is clear.

In considering this law it is to be noticed that it authorizes the Secretary "to reimburse" owners, and in the last clause it provides that "such reimbursement" is to be made from the appropriation to which the hire of "such equipment" is properly chargeable. I think it was intended by this language to limit the owners entitled to reimbursement to those from whom equipment is hired, and to provide that when the equipment is hired for use in the Forest Service, whether for necessary fire fighting, trail, or official business, the expense of hire being payable from an available appropriation, if the equipment so hired is lost, damaged, or destroyed, the reimbursement therefor shall be made from the same appropriation. This provides a fund for carrying out the purpose of the law-the same fund for the hire and reimbursement.

Considering the evident purpose of this law, and the fact that a law authorizing reimbursement of employees for loss of equipment provided by them under the terms of their employment when such losses occur while they are on any official business, would be unusual, I think the language of this law clearly limits the reimbursement provided for to such owners as are not employees of the service required to furnish their own equipment.

You are advised therefore that no one of the three claims can be paid under this law.