in the active Army at this time of the character formerly assigned to men in the discontinued grade.

The submission made and the views expressed thereon must be understood as in a general sense so as to authorize promulgation of the proposed general order, except as noted, and to permit payments accordingly.

The legality and effect in individual cases must be for determination by this office when a question arises of the proper application thereto of the order, and such determination when made must thereafter become the rule.

INDIAN ALLOTMENTS TO HEADS OF FAMILIES.

The marriage of a Sioux Indian girl to a white man does not deprive her of her status as head of a family, and she is entitled as such to the benefits accruing under acts of March 2, 1889, 25 Stat. 694, and June 10, 1896, 29 Stat. 334.

Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, July 8, 1922.

The Secretary of the Interior applied June 17, 1922, for review of settlement No. I-68487 of April 19, 1922, wherein was disallowed the claim of Leona Harrison, a Standing Rock allottee, for all cash in lieu of other allotment benefits as provided by section 17, act of March 2, 1889, 25 Stat., 694, as amended by the act of June 10, 1896, 29 Stat., 334, the said acts providing for cash benefits to heads of families or single persons over the age of 18 years, and the disallowance having been made because the claimant, having married prior to reaching the age of 18, did not qualify under the terms of the statutes.

In the application for review it is stated:

Under settlement No. 68487 of the General Accounting Office, dated April 19, 1922, the share of Leona Harrison, allottee 3990, in the amount of $604.22, cash payment in lieu of allotment benefits, was disallowed by the General Accounting Office for the reason that the allottee was married before reaching the age of eighteen years.

The application of the allottee states that she is married to Leo Keogh, a white man. The marriage of a female Sioux to a white man does not defeat her rights to Sioux benefits, when she has an approved allotment, since she has the status of the head of a Sioux family. It is therefore requested that Sioux benefits in the amount of $604.22 be allowed in the case of this allottee.

The finding by the Secretary of the Interior that Leona Harrison, a Standing Rock allottee, on the date of the approval of her application, was the head of her family for the purposes of the distribution of Sioux benefits under the several statutes, is controlling. See decision of June 28, 1922, and authorities cited therein.

Upon a review of the matter the settlement is reversed and $604.22 certified due Leona Harrison.

AVAILABILITY OF AIR MAIL SERVICE APPROPRIATION FOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

Hangars, shops, and storehouses on landing fields of the Air Mail Service are public buildings or improvements within the prohibition of section 3733, Revised Statutes, and may not, therefore, be constructed from the appropriation for operation and maintenance, including incidental expenses, of the Air Mail Service in the act of June 19, 1922, 42 Stat., 657. (See, however, 2 Comp. Dec., 133.)

Comptroller General McCarl to the Postmaster General, July 12, 1922.

I have your letter of June 20, requesting decision of a question presented as follows:

The section of the Post Office Department appropriation bill which provides money for the operation of an air mail service for the fiscal year 1923, is couched in the following language:

"For the operation and maintenance of aeroplane mail service between New York, New York, and San Francisco, California, via Chicago, Illinois, and Omaha, Nebraska, including necessary incidental expenses and employment of necessary personnel, $1,900,000." (Act of June 19, 1922, 42 Stat., 657).

Efficient operation of the service during the fiscal year 1923 demands the erection of several buildings (hangars, shops, and storehouses) on one or more of the air mail service landing fields. May I have your opinion as to my right under this language to use part of the money for the erection of buildings of a more or less permanent nature on one or more of these landing fields?

The language of the appropriation does not provide either in express terms nor by necessary implication for the erection of buildings. The rule that an appropriation made for a particular object is available for all expenses which are necessary or incident to the proper accomplishment of said object is subject to the general statutory restrictions relative to the use of appropriations. See 6 Comp. Dec., 91 and 490; 7 id., 714.

Section 3733, Revised Statutes, provides:

No contract shall be entered into for the erection, repair, or furnishing of any public building, or for any public improvement which shall bind the Government to pay a larger sum of money than the amount in the Treasury appropriated for the specific purpose.

The question as to what constitutes a public building or public improvement within the meaning of said section 3733 has been before the office of the Comptroller of the Treasury on numerous occasions, and I think it may be said that the decisions uniformly have been to the effect that any structure in the form of a building not clearly of a temporary character is a public building or public improvement within the meaning of said section. See 10 Comp. Dec., 683, which related to the erection of a small building in which to install condensing machinery at the Government Hospital for the Insane; 13 Comp. Dec., 355, holding that portable buildings for use in detaining alien applicants for admission into the United States and for hospitals for such as may require treatment during the period of detention could not be constructed from the immigra

tion fund; 16 Comp. Dec., 685, in which it was held that a pontoon shed for the storage and protection of pontoon wagons and materials at Washington Barracks was a public building or public improvement; and 21 Comp. Dec., 420, in which it was held that an appropriation in general terms for experiments and demonstration in live-stock production was not available for the erection on an experimental farm of farm buildings-cottages, barns, feed houses, etc. There have been several unprinted decisions to the same effect. See particularly decision of August 12, 1911, to the effect that an appropriation " for the investigation and improvement of methods of crop production under semiarid or dry-land conditions" was not available for the erection of a so-called temporary shed to shelter the necessary farm animals and a portable house 12 by 16 feet for the temporary use of employees. These buildings were represented by the Secretary of Agriculture as "absolutely essential in connection with the use to which the land is to be put by the department" in carrying out the purposes of the appropriation. The appropriation now under consideration is an annual appropriation for a service which was first provided for in the act of April 24, 1920, 41 Stat., 579. Said act appropriated $1,250,000 for purchase of airplanes necessary to establish, operate, and maintain the airplane mail service between New York and San Francisco and for the operation and maintenance of said planes, "including stations, equipment, tools, and machinery and other necessary incidental expenses." The appropriation for the next fiscal year-1922-was made in the act of March 1, 1921, 41 Stat., 1153, and was identical, except as to amount, with the appropriation now in question.

It will thus be seen that while the appropriation for the fiscal year 1921 expressly provided for the establishment of the service and for stations, equipment, etc., the appropriations for the two succeeding fiscal years provided only for the operation and maintenance of the service as theretofore established, without providing for additional stations or improvements at existing stations. Therefore, there can be no justification for holding that the erection of the proposed buildings is absolutely essential to the accomplishment of the purpose for which the appropriation for the fiscal year of 1923 was made.

In the absence of specific statutory authority therefor, I am constrained to hold that the use of the appropriation in question for the erection of the proposed buildings would be in contravention of the provisions of section 3733, Revised Statutes, hereinbefore quoted. Accordingly, the question submitted is answered in the negative.

989449 0-52-3

DEDUCTIONS FROM PAYMENTS TO BENEFICIARIES OF WAR RISK INSURANCE.

In making payments to beneficiaries of the insured under the war risk insurance act no deduction is authorized for salary which may have been erroneously paid to the insured, or for any other amounts for which the insured may be indebted to the Government on account of claims which did not arise under the provisions of articles 2, 3, or 4 of the war risk insurance act.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Director, United States Veterans' Bureau, July 13, 1922.

I have your letter of June 15, 1922, requesting decision (1) whether payments to the beneficiary of insurance granted to the late Lieut. Col. Charles N. Barney, United States Army, retired, are authorized irrespective of any payments which may have been erroneously made to Colonel Barney as salary under his appointment as Acting Assistant Surgeon, Public Health Service, and (2) whether the Veterans' Bureau is authorized to make payment of insurance to designated beneficiaries generally irrespective of whether the insured may have been indebted to the United States on account of some claim which did not arise under the provisions of Articles II, III, or IV of the war risk insurance act.

It has been held that under the provisions of section 28 of the war risk insurance act, as amended by the act of June 25, 1918, 40 Stat., 609, payment of insurance to beneficiaries is not subject to deduction on account of a claim of the United States against the insured not arising under Articles II, III, IV of the war risk insurance act. 26 Comp Dec., 949. That decision states the law correctly. Both of your questions are answered in the affirmative.

PRACTICE SETTLEMENT OF UNLIQUIDATED CLAIMS.

A claim for payment for use and occupation of land, not under a valid contract, involves the settlement of an unliquidated claim proper for consideration by the General Accounting Office under the provisions of section 236, Revised Statutes, as amended by act of June 10, 1921, 42 Stat., 24, but payment of such a claim by an adininistrative department or establishment is not authorized.

The Comptroller General is not required or authorized to render an advance decision for the guidance of the administrative officers in approving or disapproving a claim before submission to the General Accounting Office for settlement.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Director, United States Veterans' Bureau, July 14, 1922.

I have your letter of June 22, 1922, requesting decision whether the United States Veterans' Bureau is authorized to allow and pay the claim of the Mack Copper Co. for use and occupation of land alleged to be the property of said company and which has been occupied by the United States Public Health Service and the United States Veterans' Bureau since November 22, 1920.

The period covered by the claim is from November 22, 1920, to May 31, 1922, and the amount claimed is at the rate of $60,000 per

annum.

It appears that the property in question was a part of a tract of land leased by the Army from F. J. Belcher, jr., trustee, July 17, 1917, the lease to cover the period from June 1, 1917, to May 31, 1922, at a rental of $1 for the term, and that said property was transferred by the Secretary of War to the Public Health Service November 22, 1920.

You state that the property is now being occupied by the United States Veterans' Bureau under a lease agreement entered into between the Government and the Mack Copper Co. covering the period from June 1, 1922, to June 30, 1923.

The matter here presented does not involve a payment to be made under a valid contract. It involves a settlement of an unliquidated claim. The United States Veterans' Bureau is not authorized to settle claims of this class. See section 236, Revised Statutes, as amended by section 205 of the act of June 10, 1921, 42 Stat., 24. Said section reads:

All claims and demands whatever by the Government of the United States or against it, and all accounts whatever in which the Government of the United States is concerned, either as debtor or creditor, shall be settled and adjusted in the General Accounting Office.

Where a claim requires administrative action in the form of approval or disapproval before settlement by the General Accounting Office the responsibility for such action is with the administrative head of the department, bureau, office, or establishment in which the claim arises, and the Comptroller General is not required or authorized to render a decision for the guidance of the administrative officer in taking such action.

The question submitted is answered in the negative.

PAYMENT OF SALARY AND EXPENSES OF PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE NURSE ATTENDING COLLEGE.

The attendance at college, either for her own improvement or the good of the service, is not within the scope of the appointment or duties of a nurse in the Public Health Service, and she is not entitled to any compensation while so occupied and rendering no service to the Government, nor to reimbursement for her traveling expenses in going to such institution or returning therefrom.

Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, July 14, 1922.

The Chief, Treasury Department Division, this office, submitted a memorandum decision of May 1, 1922, as follows:

Re pay and traveling expenses of Miss Minnie P. Goodwin, chief nurse in the Public Health Hospital at St. Louis, Mo., while absent taking a special course on hospital administration at Columbia University, New York.