as to the authority for payment of the item of "repairs" be submitted to the Comptroller of the Treasury for decision. The fee of $5 for examination appears to be properly charged on the statements made and may therefore be paid. The same is true of the item for dinner, which shows an actual expense, and the items for gasoline and oil, which appear to be reasonable for the distance traveled, and represent actual cost to the examining surgeon. But the item of "repairs," while it represents the amount expended on this trip, can not be considered as representing the actual cost of the wear and tear on the trip. A great deal of the wear and tear on the tires contributing to the blowout may have been occasioned by use of the automobile on private business prior to this trip, and therefore, as far as this trip is concerned, it is entirely too speculative in its character to admit of the definite ascertainment necessary in order to justify payment thereof. (69 MS. Comp. Dec., 1634, June 19, 1914.) The surgeon is entitled to reimbursement for actual expenses only when such expenses can be definitely ascertained. You are therefore advised that you are not authorized to pay the item of $4 for "repairs." TRAVELING EXPENSE ACCOUNTS. In the settling of an account an auditor is the sole judge as to the sufficiency of the evidence which he shall require in support of each item, and in cases where special means of transportation are hired an auditor is entirely within his rights if he requires subvouchers in support of the expenditure. Comptroller Downey to the Secretary of War, July 13, 1914: The Chief of Engineers, by your authority, transmits a letter of the Auditor for the War Department of date June 30, 1914, and requests a decision. * * * The auditor's letter notifies the Chief of Engineers, in substance, that your regulation relative to traveling expense accounts, that "Receipts will not be required for hack fare," is construed to refer to "transfers to and from railroad station at not to exceed fifty cents for each transfer," and not to include "the hire, by express agreement, of a team, carriage, and driver or automobile to make a special journey," and that receipts will be required for expenditures of this character unless a satisfactory reason be shown for not furnishing same in each instance. The transmission of this letter, with request for a decision, really presents no specific question, but I infer that it is probably intended to ask whether disbursing officers will be authorized hereafter to pay vouchers for traveling expenses of the character mentioned when not accompanied by the receipts which the auditor states that he will require. I know of no provision of law or regulation having the force of law which authorizes this office to determine in advance of a settlement by an auditor what evidence should or should not be required to support an account which he is called upon to settle; neither do I know of any law or regulation authorizing an auditor to render a decision upon such a question in advance of the settlement of an account. But the auditor's intentions in this case were no doubt good, and his object apparently was to remove the possibility of disallowance by reason of failure to furnish supporting evidence which he would regard as necessary. The Comptroller for some years has held that one of the necessary evidences of the correctness of traveling expense accounts of civilian officers and employees was verification by affidavit. But the Comptroller has also recognized the right of the head of a department to fix the maximum of expenditure for traveling expenses, to determine what were necessary traveling expenses, and to prescribe also the extent to which subvouchers should be required in support thereof. The result was that certain expenses were regarded as proper traveling expenses in one department which were not so regarded in another, and subvouchers were required in support of certain items of traveling expenses in one department which were not required in another. In line with this established practice, I have recognized the right of heads of departments to prescribe what expenses may be included in traveling expense accounts, even though the result has been to approve, by virtue of administrative action, the inclusion of items which I do not believe should be paid by the Government. Under the provision in the act of April 6, 1914, limiting subsistence expenses, it has been and will be necessary for me to determine whether certain expenses allowed by some of the regulations are traveling (transportation) expenses or subsistence expenses. Where such items may be regarded as within either classification their inclusion or otherwise in traveling expense accounts may still be regarded as a matter for administrative determination, but when held by the Comptroller to be properly classified as subsistence expenses they must be included within the statutory limitation on such expenses. But while this situation prevails with reference to the inclusion or otherwise of certain items in traveling expense accounts, resulting necessarily in different practices in different departments, it does not follow that there is any reason why the character of the evidence submitted in support of an account for auditing purposes should be different in one department from that required in another. Neither can it be conceded that the evidence regarded administratively as sufficient to support the various items of an account is all the evidence which the auditor may require for auditing purposes. I shall not, for reason first stated, attempt now to prescribe the scope or extent of supporting evidence which might or should be required in any or all cases, but it may properly be said generally that good accounting requires, wherever practicable, that sufficient evidence be furnished, and of such a character as to enable the auditor to determine the truth of the account. To this end verification is required. But verification can not be regarded as of itself sufficient and satisfactory in all cases. Dealing not with faith in humanity but with facts, we may question whether one who would render an unverified false account and thus procure for himself money to which he was not entitled would hesitate long about a verification. And since we know that in some cases safeguards are necessary, they must be adopted in all cases. Honest men do not ordinarily object to any reasonable requirement and, if there are others, objection on their part may be predicated on self-interest and should not weigh. The reasonable requirement, and the one which can be unreasonable in only a few minor instances which may be excepted, is the furnishing of receipts as subvouchers in support of the various items of an account. In my judgment the amount of expenditure for traveling expenses is sometimes not of so much importance as is proof of the fact that the expense charged was actually incurred and paid in the amount charged. There is no feasible way to demonstrate this fact to an auditor or to the Comptroller on revision but by a receipt. It must be admitted that there are many minor items of expense which are necessarily incurred under such circumstances that the taking of receipts is impracticable, but in all cases where practicable receipts should be furnished in support of the various items of expenditure or satisfactory reason shown for not so doing and mere inconvenience should not be regarded as impracticability. Receipts for "hack fares," meaning transportation, when authorized, from railroad station to hotel, have not heretofore been required by the auditors or by this office, but the hiring of a special conveyance for a particular trip is of a different character, and of such a nature that receipts may easily be procured, and good accounting requires that they should be furnished. More can not now be said directly on the question than that if the auditor, in the settling of an account, should conclude that he was not justified in passing an item such as that indicated without a receipt by way of subvoucher or satisfactory showing why it was not furnished, he would be entirely within his rights in requiring that it be furnished or such showing made. It follows that disbursing officers will pay at their peril if upon less supporting evidence than that required by the auditor. PRISON EXPENSES OF NAVAL COURT-MARTIAL PRISONERS. Naval court-martial prisoners are entitled to receive an allowance for prison expenses, not exceeding $3 per month, and at the expiration of their enlistments the actual amount used should be charged against the appropriation "Pay, miscellaneous," and no checkage should be made against any balance the prisoners may have to their credit on date enlistments expire. Decision by Comptroller Downey, July 14, 1914: W. H. Wilterdink, passed assistant paymaster, United States Navy, applied June 24, 1914, for a revision of the action of the Auditor for the Navy Department in disallowing, per certificate No. 6015-D, June 17, 1914, the following item: First quarter, 1914, marine prison. No. 12. William Hursh, private, balance due date of conviction, Aug. 29, 1912. Undrawn clothing credited on discharge.. Pay Aug. 29, 1912, to Sept. 24, 1912, date of expiration of enlist- Less hospital fund_ Less accrued gratuity. Amount chargeable for prison expenses__ $2.69 3.53 13. 00 19.22 $0.17 10.23 10.40 8.82 5.52 Amount short checked disallowed June 17, 1914 (P. Misc., 1913) 3.30 "The Auditor holds that issues made to a prisoner on account of prison expenses should be charged against any moneys standing to his credit in excess of the $20 provided by the sentence to be paid at discharge. In this case there accrued to the prisoner to date of dis charge $8.82, made up as follows: ($2.69 unforfeited balance at date of sentence, $3.53 clothing allowance on same date, and $2.60 prison allowance accrued, at $3 per month from Aug. 29, 1912, to Sept. 24, 1912, which should have been used to pay for prison expenses issued. From August 29, 1912, to August 28, 1913, there was issued to this man $27.35 on account of prison expenses paid for on public bill from 'Pay, miscellaneous,' no part of which was charged to the man's account.' William Hursh enlisted as a private in the Marine Corps on September 25, 1908; deserted on May 27, 1909; remained a deserter until July 13, 1913, when he was apprehended. He was tried by courtmartial, found guilty of desertion, and sentenced "to be confined for 18 months, then to be dishonorably discharged from the Marine Corps, to perform hard labor during said confinement, and after his accrued pay and allowances shall have discharged his indebtedness to the United States at the date of approval of this sentence to forfeit all pay and allowances that may become due him except the sum of $3 per month during said confinement for necessary prison expenses, and a further sum of $20 to be paid him when discharged from the service pursuant to this sentence." The sentence was approved by the Navy Department on August 29, 1912. There was due Hursh to August 28, 1912, $2.69, and he had a credit on account of undrawn clothing of $3.53, which had accrued from the date of return from desertion to the date prior to approval of sentence. This $3.53 was to be credited at time of discharge. He was entitled to be credited with pay to the date of the expiration of his enlistment, September 24, 1912, which amounted to $13 (36 days, at $15 per month). Of this amount $2.60 was reserved from forfeiture for prison expenses (26 days at $3 per month), 17 cents deducted for hospital fund, leaving $10.23, amount reserved from forfeiture to be paid on discharge. On September 24, 1912, date his enlistment expired, the pay officer having his account checked him with $5.52, which reduced his balance to $10. On August 28, 1913, he was discharged from prison and the naval service and was paid $13.53 (balance of $10 and $3.53 credit for undrawn clothing). The auditor holds that he should have been paid only $10.23, the amount of gratuity accruing to date his enlistment expired, and disallowed $3.30. During the period Hursh was confined in prison he was furnished various articles amounting to $27.35, which were paid for on public bill and charged against the appropriation "Pay, miscellaneous." The auditor's contention appears to be that no payments should be made and charged to "Pay, miscellaneous," on account of prison expenses of a prisoner after his enlistment expires until after he has exhausted all pay and allowances to his credit in excess of the gratuity reserved from forfeiture by the sentence and earned prior to expiration of the enlistment; and that in the case of Hursh of the sum of $3.53 credited to his account at time of discharge for undrawn clothing $3.30 should have been checked against his account as an offset against the $27.35 paid for his prison expenses from "Pay, miscellaneous." The act of February 16, 1909 (35 Stat., 622), provides: "SEC. 13. That persons confined in prisons in pursuance of the sentence of a naval court-martial shall, during such confinement, be allowed a reasonable sum, not to exceed three dollars per month, for necessary prison expenses, and shall upon discharge be furnished with suitable civilian clothing and paid a gratuity not to exceed twenty-five dollars: Provided, That such allowances shall be made in amounts to be fixed by, and in the discretion of, the Secretary of the Navy and only in cases where the prisoners so discharged would otherwise be unprovided with suitable clothing or without funds to meet their immediate needs." The first part of the above act provides that prisoners shall be allowed a reasonable amount for necessary prison expenses not exceeding $3 per month. This allowance is provided for in all sen |