Comptroller General McCarl to George W. Evans, disbursing clerk, Department of the Interior, December 18, 1922:

By letter dated December 5, 1922, you transmit, with request for decision whether payment thereon is authorized, a voucher in favor of R. P. Clarke Co. in the amount of $5.88 for six brown duck aprons purchased for general laboratory use in the prosecuting of scientific research work at the United States Geological Survey.

The point upon which decision is requested is whether these aprons are to be regarded as personal furnishings, attention being invited to my decision of October 3, 1922, 2 Comp. Gen., 258. You also ask whether said decision is to be "considered retroactive, or effective from the date of its rendition and submission, in printed form, to the several executive departments."

The decision referred to did not change a practice theretofore established by decisions of this office or the former office of Comptroller of the Treasury. It was in accordance with previous rulings, and the principles thereof must be held applicable to payments made theretofore as well as thereafter. See the decisions cited therein. The duck aprons purchased for general laboratory use are not to be regarded as personal furnishings as were the chauffeur's suit, overcoat, gloves, etc., referred to in the decision of October 3, 1922. Payment on the voucher submitted is authorized.

UNIFORM GRATUITY FOR TRAINING DUTY-ENROLLED MEN OF MARINE CORPS RESERVE.

Enrolled men of the Marine Corps Reserve on first reporting in an enrollment for active duty for training in time of peace are entitled under the act of August 29, 1916, 39 Stat., 590, 593, to a credit of $30 for uniform gratuity, against which they may draw articles of clothing, subject to proper administrative and property requirements, but are not entitled for said duty to a separate clothing allowance in addition to or in lieu of said gratuity either under the act of July 1, 1918, 41 Stat., 711, 707, or otherwise. Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Navy, December 18, 1922: I have, by your direction, the letter of the Major General Commandant, United States Marine Corps, dated October 10, 1922, requesting decision as to the proper allowance for uniform gratuity and clothing to enrolled members of the Marine Corps Reserve holding enlisted ratings. It is understood that the members referred to are those who first report in their enrollment for active service for training and in peace time.

In substance, the question is whether such members are entitled, in addition to the uniform gratuity specifically provided for them as reserves, to the clothing allowance prescribed for enlisted men of the regular Marine Corps, and whether, if this latter allowance is payable, a member is entitled for the first year of his enrollment to the same allowance as enlisted men of the regular Marine Corps or

989449 0-52-26

whether the allowance payable for all years, including the first, is that prescribed for the second and succeeding years.

The act of August 29, 1916, 39 Stat., 593, provides:

A United States Marine Corps Reserve, to be a constituent part of the Marine Corps and in addition to the authorized strength thereof, is hereby established under the same provisions in all respects (except as may be necessary to adapt the said provisions to the Marine Corps) as those providing for the Naval Reserve Force in this act: *

The provisions of the act of August 29, 1916, relative to the Naval Reserve Force which are here brought into question are, pages 588, 590:

All members of the Naval Reserve Force shall, when actively employed as set forth in this Act, be entitled to the same pay, allowances, gratuities, and other emoluments as officers and enlisted men of the naval service on active duty of corresponding rank or rating and of the same length of service.— and

Members of the Naval Reserve Force shall, upon first reporting for active service for training during each period of enrollment, be credited with a uniform gratuity of $50 for officers and of $30 for men.

Upon reporting for active service in time of war or national emergency the uniform gratuity shall be $150 for officers and $60 for men, or the difference between these amounts and any amounts that may have been credited as a uniform gratuity during the current enrollment:

Subsequently the act of July 1, 1918, 40 Stat., 711, 707, provided: That the uniform gratuity for the members, other than officers, of each class of the Naval Reserve Force shall be the same as that prescribed for enlisted men of the Navy, but in time of peace the Secretary of the Navy shall prescribe the portion of the clothing gratuity to be issued to such members, other than officers, of the Naval Reserve Force.

OUTFITS ON FIRST ENLISTMENT: Outfits for all enlisted men and apprentice seamen of the Navy on first enlistment, at not to exceed $100 each; for the clothing gratuity of officers and other members of the Naval Reserve Force, not to exceed $150 each for officers;

The construction placed upon the above legislation of 1918 by the Comptroller of the Treasury and which has since prevailed is that its application is confined to men on active duty in war or peace other than for training duty, that it has no application to and in no way affects the prior provision in the act of August 29, 1916, as to gratuity to men on first reporting in an enrollment for training duty; that such gratuity continues thereafter as theretofore to be governed by the prior act of 1916; that under that act it is a right on first reporting in an enrollment for training duty to be credited with a uniform gratuity of $30 whether the reporting be in peace or war, and that if a man did not draw the full amount of $30 credited during his first period of active duty for training the balance remains to his credit against which he can draw articles of uniform when again assigned to active duty, subject to administrative and property accounting requirements. 27 Comp. Dec., 847, 689; 6 MS. Comp. Gen., 770, February 11, 1922; 80 MS. Comp. Dec., 510, February 3, 1917; par. 6, Article 1409, Marine Corps Manual

66

The effect of the above provision in the act of August 29, 1916, for the application to the United States Marine Corps Reserve of the same provisions in all respects (except as may be necessary to adopt the said provisions to the Marine Corps) as those providing for the Naval Reserve Force " in that act, in so far as it operates to confer a right upon men of the Marine Corps Reserve to a uniform gratuity credit on first reporting in an enrollment for training in peace time, is confined to the corresponding right possessed by men of the Naval Reserve Force, and therefore is to a credit of $30, against which articles of uniform may be drawn to the extent of said amount either in the first or subsequent period of active duty for training, subject to proper administrative and property accounting requirements.

As it was not the intent of the Congress to confer a greater gratuity right upon the men of the Marine Corps Reserve by their assimilation to men of the Naval Reserve Force for the purpose of uniform gratuity credit than that it had in the act of 1916 conferred upon the latter, and as men of the Naval Reserve Force possessed no right to a separate clothing allowance in addition to or in lieu of the $30 uniform gratuity credit for said training duty, either under the general legislation in the act of 1916 assimilating them for allowance and gratui ties to men of the regular Navy or otherwise, and as an express statutory provision governs to the exclusion of a general one otherwise applicable, it follows that men of the Marine Corps Reserve are neither entitled to clothing allowance in addition to or in lieu of said $30 credit. See in this connection 24 Comp. Dec., 263.

You are accordingly advised that enrolled men of the Marine Corps Reserve on first reporting in an enrollment for active duty for training in peace are confined to a $30 credit for uniform gratuity, against which they may draw articles of uniform to the extent of that amount either in their first or subsequent training period, subject to proper administrative and property requirements, and are not entitled for said active duty to any additional clothing allowance.

Neither provisions of the System of Accountability for the Marine Corps nor 25 Comp. Dec., 493, in so far as in conflict, should hereafter be followed. Payments in accordance therewith to men heretofore disenrolled will, however, not be disturbed.

DAMAGES FOR DELAYS IN THE COMPLETION OF INFORMAL CONTRACTS.

In the case of delays in the completion of informal procurement contracts by the Quartermaster General, or Quartermaster Corps, involving less than $500 the purchasing officer is authorized to note on the face of the voucher a statement of the damage resulting from the delay and to provide for the deduction thereof from the amount to be paid, and the disbursing officer may pay the same after deducting the amount of damage; if no damage result from the delay the purchasing officer may so certify on the voucher, which may then be paid in full by the disbursing officer. 2 Comp. Gen., 64, modified.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of War, December 19, 1922: I have your letter of November 29, 1922, as follows:

Reconsideration is requested of your decisions of July 27 and October 30, 1922 (14 MS. Comp. Gen., 2096), in respect to statement to accompany vouchers covering informal procurements involving less than $500, when delivery is not made within the time specified in the order.

In the former decision, 2 Comp. Gen., 64, it was stated that it did not seem possible that delay in such a case would involve any question of damage, and it was held that there should be attached to the voucher a statement (1) of the facts of the delay and (2) the reasons for acceptance notwithstanding the time stipulation, and (3) how the need at that time was met.

In the latter decision it was stated that it was not intended to require a statement fully setting forth all the facts in the premises "unless peculiar circumstances in a particular case make it desirable to record the details"; and further: "Generally, a brief statement will be sufficient but the extent thereof is largely dependent upon conditions arising in each transaction. In most cases the statement may be general in its terms; whereas, in a few particularity may be necessary."

The qualifications in the latter decision, as above indicated, are such that it will be impossible for a disbursing officer to be sure whether a voucher in such a case makes the necessary showing to avoid a suspension or disallowance in his accounts. Manifestly he can never know when, in the opinion of the General Acccounting Office, “ peculiar circumstances in a particular case" may make it desirable to record further details, or whether the voucher will be regarded as covering one of the many cases in which a statement in general terms will suffice or one of the few cases in which particularity may be necessary.

On the other hand, if an order is given for delivery within a specified time and delivery is not made within that time, there would appear to be a breach of the contract, for which the United States is entitled to recover any resulting damages. Therefore, if damages result from such a delayed delivery which is nevertheless accepted, it would seem that the damages should be deducted from the amount of the voucher. The statement of the purchasing officer upon the face of the voucher would appear to be a proper basis for the deduction of such damages by the disbursing officer in making payment. The right of the contractor to file claim with the General Accounting Office for the amount deducted would afford proper opportunity for review of the facts in case of controversy.

Whether the goods shall be accepted, notwithstanding delay in delivery be yond the time specified in the order, would appear to be a matter necessarily for proper administrative determination. The statement required by the decision of July 27, 1922, covers matters proper for consideration in such administrative action, and apparently would not affect proper accounting unless the good faith of the transaction were questioned. The furnishing in connection with all such vouchers of a statement of the facts upon which administrative discretion must thus be exercised would appear therefore to be unnecessary, in addition to adding greatly to the paper work in such cases; and the uncertainty as to the proper scope of such statement in the view of the accounting officers necessarily adds to the perplexity often confronting disbursing officers in making such payments.

In such cases it was formerly the practice for the purchasing officer either to place upon the face of the voucher a statement of the damage resulting from the delay and provide for the deduction thereof from the amount to be paid, or to certify that the delay in delivery had not in fact resulted in any damage to the Government. If the vouchers were otherwise correct the disbursing officer would in the former case pay the net amount after deducting the damages Indicated, and in the latter he would pay the full amount upon the certification that no damage had resulted from the delay.

It is the opinion of this department that the former practice as above outlined was correct legally and in accordance with good administration and proper principles of accounting, and it is hoped that upon a reconsideration of this question it may be again authorized.

Your previous submissions regarding this matter were understood as being opposed to the procedure now proposed. Bearing this in

mind, as well as those matters involving administrative determination, the conclusion reached in the decision of July 27 was thought to be satisfactory to all concerned. However, I offer no objection to the adoption of the procedure theretofore followed, as outlined. The decision is modified accordingly.

ARMS AND AMMUNITION-ENFORCEMENT OF NATIONAL
PROHIBITION.

The appropriation for "Enforcement of the Narcotic and National Prohibition Acts, Internal Revenue," is not available for the purchase of special types of arms and ammunition for prohibition officers which can not be furnished by the War Department under the act of March 3, 1879, 20 Stat., 412. Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Treasury, December 19, 1922:

I have your letter of December 11, 1922, requesting decision whether the appropriation "Enforcement of the Narcotic and National Prohibition Acts, Internal Revenue" is available for the purchase of certain types of shotguns and pistols and ammunition therefor to be issued to prohibition officers for use in their work, in view of the fact that the War Department is unable to furnish the special types of weapons and ammunition desired by the prohibition officers.

The act of March 3, 1879, 20 Stat., 412, provides that the Secretary of War is authorized and directed upon the request of the head of any department to issue arms and ammunition whenever they may be required for the protection of public money or property.

It has been held that the provision cited is exclusive and precludes the head of any department from using the appropriations of his department for the purchase of arms and ammunition for the protection of public money or property. See 23 Comp. Dec., 503.

If, as seems likely, the arms and ammunition are desired by the prohibition enforcement officers for their own protection in the performance of their duties, the arms and ammunition are a part of the personal equipment of the officers and should not be furnished at Government expense.

Answering your question specifically, the appropriation "Enforcement of the Narcotic and National Prohibition Acts, Internal Revenue" is not available for the purchase of certain types of weapons and ammunition which can not be furnished by the War Department.

MONUMENT UPON TOMB OF UNKNOWN AMERICAN SOLDIER IN ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY.

If the monument proposed to be erected upon the tomb of the unknown American soldier in the Arlington National Cemetery be necessary to the