and test, as is usually the case, an employee of this office or of some district engineer office near the locality is sent to the place of manufacture to make the inspection. When inspection is satisfactory the manufacturer is directed to pack material for foreign shipment and to send to this office a shipping list showing weights, dimensions, and contents of packages, which list is used as a basis in preparing a transportation invoice submitted to the Quartermaster Department, with request for the bill of lading covering the shipment. The account is paid after notification has been received from the Quartermaster Department that the shipment has actually been made, the certificate on the bill inspected, accepted, and invoiced to Quartermaster Corps for transportation to destination,' being signed by a clerk or technical employee familiar with the facts of the case.

4. The method above outlined has been used for some years by this office as well as previously by the New London office, which prior to October 1, 1912, purchased materials and supplies for the seacoast defenses. While it is recognized that this method does not absolutely insure the Government actually receiving the material, since the packages may not contain the items claimed to be packed therein, any other method under the circumstances will involve additional expense to the Government or hardship on the seller. As usually from 3 to 10 days intervene between inspection and issuance of a Government bill of lading, it would be necessary to keep a representative of this office for this time at the factory to see materials packed and to insure that packages were not tampered with after packing. The only other course would be not to pay the account until the receiving officer has acknowledged the receipt of the material, which he is required to do as a matter of property accountability. In the case of shipments to Manila this would delay payment from four to six months, a manifestly unfair procedure to the seller.

"5. When the undersigned assumed charge of this office about a year ago, his attention was attracted to the fact that certain bills were certified to by a clerk, and the propriety thereof was duly considered, in view of the requirement of par. 420, D. O. and C., Office Chief of Engineers, but as no better solution presented itself under the special circumstances surrounding these purchases, the custom already in vogue in this respect was allowed to continue. When material is inspected, the employee making inspection can readily sign the certificate on bill, but he would not be in a better position to determine the actual receipt of the goods than a clerk unless he remained with the goods until packed and transferred to the transportation company, which would involve a delay of from 3 to 10 days awaiting the arrival of a Government bill of lading, as previously stated."

Subsequent to the above letter and upon the request of the auditor, paragraph 420, Digest of Orders and Circulars, Engineer Department, was amended by circular of November 9, 1914, to read as follows:

"420. The employee who receives supplies on behalf of the United States will be required to acknowledge their receipt by his signature on the bills attached to the vouchers; the certificate will include the actual date or dates on which the supplies, materials, or services were

received on behalf of the United States, the signature to be followed by the employee's pay roll designation, in form as follows: "Articles received in good condition, or services rendered. All as per order No. and this bill. Date, -. Signature,

Designation,

66

"In addition, the officer's or agent's certificate on the voucher must show that the articles have been delivered."

In his letter of March 8, 1915, to the Chief of Engineers the engineer officer in charge of the depot reports that in pursuance of the above order the method of certifying to the receipt of materials and supplies was changed by forwarding for certification the bills or vouchers to the parties who actually and personally received said materials and supplies, resulting in considerable inconvenience and delay in the settlement of accounts, and he requests that special authority be granted to return to the former method of having the receipt of the articles certified to by a clerk or technical employee in his office said to be familiar with the facts of each case.

The auditor was correct in insisting that so long as par. 420 of the engineer regulations was in force it should be observed in spirit as well as in letter and the certificate in question be signed by the officer or employee actually receiving the materials and supplies instead of by another. The mistake made by both the auditor and the Engineer Department, however, is in supposing that under ordinary conditions a second certificate on a purchase voucher or original bills attached to a voucher is necessary in addition to the formal administrative certificate approved by the Comptroller, or that same is necessarily required by the provision of Treas. Dept. Circular No. 52, 1903, quoted supra. Said circular was promulgated before standard forms of voucher were prescribed by Circular No. 52 of 1907, the latter containing all the supporting evidence or references thereto which it was believed at the time to be ordinarily necessary. It will be noted that the purchase voucher forms in the circular of 1907 make no provision for a second administrative certificate, nor was any such certificate contemplated, thus in effect repealing Circular No. 52 of 1903 in so far as it conflicted with Circular No. 52 of 1907.

The question of the certification of delivery and receipt of materials and supplies as a basis of payment there for has been considered by this office at various times, and it has been uniformly and consistently held:

1. Payment should not be made until the articles have been delivered to and received by a representative of the United States, and title thereto has passed to the United States.

2. One administrative certificate only is necessary, and that should be made by a responsible officer of the United States, known to the accounting officers of the Treasury as such, who has charge of the

purchase and delivery of the articles and is charged with the knowledge of and responsibility for the same. His knowledge of delivery and receipt may be gained either visually or through advice from his subordinates who have the personal knowledge, and when he signs the certificate of delivery he becomes the principal in the transaction under the well-known law of agency. It is not necessary that collateral evidence be furnished in support of the certificate of the officer in charge, unless perchance under special conditions it be made to appear that he could not have had immediate supervision or control over the delivery, such as in the present case, where the orders are received and the materials manufactured, inspected, delivered, and shipped at points outside the jurisdiction of the certifying officer.

I am therefore of opinion that paragraph 420, Digest of Orders and Circulars, Engineer Department, should not be made generally applicable to all purchases of materials and supplies, but should be amended so as to limit its application to the exceptional class of cases to which I have referred. The supporting evidence in such cases may be in the form of a certificate or report of the inspection and delivery accompanying the voucher, and need not be printed, stamped, or written on the face of the voucher.

In the case under consideration I do not regard the additional certificate of the clerk or technical employee in the office of the engineer officer in charge of the depot as of any material value in support of the engineer officer's certificate. It appears from the facts as developed by the correspondence submitted that the proper person to furnish the supporting evidence is the inspector, who as representative of the Government inspects and tests the material and supplies before same are packed and delivered for shipment to their ultimate destination. It further appears that in most cases the material and supplies are by the terms of the various contracts delivered f. o. b. cars at points of manufacture, so that delivery under the supervision of the inspector to the transportation company for shipment would constitute a delivery to the United States, by which title would pass and the contractor be entitled to payment upon the production of evidence of such inspection and delivery. A different rule would maintain where delivery was to be made by the contractor at point of ultimate destination, in which case payment could not be made until inspection upon arrival and report of actual receipt, and no exception should be made on account of delivery at points beyond the continental limits of the United States.

The best solution of the present difficulty which will insure prompt payment of vouchers is to retain the inspector at the works of the contractor long enough to inspect the materials, oversee their packing, accept delivery of same on behalf of the United States, and for

ward the shipment by Government bill of lading to its proper destination, reporting such facts as soon as accomplished to the engineer officer in charge of the depot. Such report, in the form of a certificate or otherwise, could then be used in support of the regular administrative certificate on the voucher.

The chief objection offered to this plan by the engineer officer in charge of the depot, in his letter of October 29, 1914, quoted supra, is that "usually from three to ten days intervene between inspection and issuance of a Government bill of lading," thus requiring the inspector to remain longer than would otherwise be necessary. The chief cause of this delay seems to be the roundabout method which it is stated prevails in the Quartermaster's Department in connection with the use of a quartermaster's bill of lading, viz, a shipper's invoice is prepared by the shipper, sent to the engineer officer in charge of the depot, by the latter forwarded to the Quartermaster's Department with request that a bill of lading issue, and then the Quartermaster's Department proceeds to accomplish the bill of lading and forward it to the shipper, who in turn delivers it to the carrier. I see no good reason why the inspector, acting as agent and representative of the Government in all its interested branches, should not be furnished with blank bills of lading and be authorized to accomplish same by invoicing the shipment directly upon the bill and otherwise completing it, delivering the original bill at once to the carrier. If this reform could be instituted, as it seems it ought to be, all waste of time would be avoided and the inspector would not be required to remain at the plant of the manufacturer longer than necessary in order to perform his essential duties of seeing not only that the materials and supplies are up to specifications, but that the articles which he inspects are actually packed, delivered, and shipped before the contractor is entitled to payment.

I wish, further, to call your attention to the references in paragraph 420, Digest of Orders and Circulars, and elsewhere in the accompanying correspondence, to the "bills attached to the vouchers" and "original bills," from which it is understood that the practice still continues in the Engineer Department and the War Department generally of permitting contractors and others with whom the department deals to submit their bills upon their own bill forms, oftentimes with the customary payee's certificate made thereon instead of on the Government voucher form, and the voucher completed by referring to the attached bill or copying in full the details of the bill onto the voucher form. The purpose of the tabulated statement on the form of purchase voucher is to show the items of the dealer's bill or account in detail, describing the article or service, quantity, unit, unit price, and amount; not to be filled in by officials of the Government nor used merely for references to an attached bill, but intended as a form of

bill or statement of account to be rendered by the dealer himself. The upper part of the voucher therefore becomes the dealer's bill, and it should be used for that purpose. The objects of this requirement are the attainment of greater accuracy by having bills stated in the form and with the evidence required, consolidation of bill and Government voucher into one convenient form, preservation of accounts upon good quality of uniform paper, and the avoidance of loading up the auditor's files with all sizes, shapes, and grades of commercial paper. Efforts have been made by this office since the publication of Treasury Department Circular No. 52 of 1907, and. more particularly since Circulars Nos. 34 and 35 of 1911 were promulgated to secure a uniform practice in this respect, which has resulted in great improvement. It is recognized that it is not always possible to secure a dealer's bill upon a Government voucher form, but it is a desirable end which should always be kept in view and accomplished to the fullest extent possible.

I have therefore to request that steps be taken to amend the departmental practice referred to and to reduce said objectional feature to a minimum.

COMMUTED VALUE OF PERSONAL PROPERTY DUE TO A SIOUX INDIAN. Under section 17, act of March 2, 1889 (25 Stat., 894), as modified by the act of June 10, 1896 (29 Stat., 334), the right to the commuted value of the personal property to which a Sioux Indian was entitled under said section 17, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior under said act of June 10, 1896, upon such determination becomes fixed, definite, and indefeasible, and upon the death of the Indian before payment belongs to the estate of the decedent.

Comptroller Downey to the Secretary of the Interior, May 11, 1915:

I have letter of Assistant Secretary Bo Sweeney, dated May 4, 1915, as follows:

"Under date of August 5, 1914, David Eagle Elk, a Sioux allottee of Pine Ridge Agency, S. D., made application for cash in lieu of benefits provided by the act of March 2, 1889 (25 Stat. L., 888-894), as amended by the act of June 10, 1896 (29 Stat. L., 321-334). The application was approved on February 1, 1915, and payment was made by warrant No. 7569, issued in pursuance of auditor's settlement No. 43430, dated February 26, 1915.

"The superintendent of the Pine Ridge Agency in a letter dated April 21, 1915, reported that the payee died on October 28, 1914.

"As the payee was dead at the time of the approval of his application and on the date of the auditor's settlement it is respectfully requested that the warrant in question be cancelled and a new warrant drawn payable to the order of John R. Brennan, superintendent of the Pine Ridge Indian Agency, Pine Ridge, South Dakota, for deposit to the credit of the estate of the deceased allottee. Several