constitute an extension within the meaning of the statute. It is apparent, therefore, that the extension on August 9, 1922, was not one authorized by law and claimant was not entitled to any travel pay by reason thereof.

Upon review of the matter the settlement is reversed and the amount of $32.75 thereon allowed is hereby disallowed.

APPROPRIATION WITHOUT YEAR.

The appropriation of $1,500,000 for the acquisition of land for the enlargement of the Government Printing Office in the annual appropriation act of June 12, 1922, 42 Stat. 646, which act in addition to thus appropriating prescribes the terms and procedure for the acquirement of said land, is removed from fiscal year restrictions and is available until expended. Comptroller General McCarl to the chairman, Commission in Charge State, War, and Navy Buildings, March 5, 1923:

I have your letter of February 10, 1923, requesting decision whether any part of the appropriation of $1,500,000 made by the annual appropriation act of June 12, 1922, 42 Stat. 646, for the acquisition of land for public purposes which may remain unobligated on June 30, 1923, may thereafter be obligated and expended without further authorization by Congress. Also whether the institution of condemnation proceedings would obligate the appropriation, and if so whether a request for condemnation proceedings addressed by the commission to the Attorney General would be sufficient to create the obligation.

The appropriation is carried by an annual appropriation act, and if it stood alone its availability for obligation might be limited to the fiscal year for which the act carrying it provides. See section 7, act of August 24, 1912, 37 Stat. 487. But the appropriation act not only appropriates the money for acquisition of the land but prescribes in terms what land shall be acquired and the procedure for its acquisition, thus giving specific statutory authority for the use of the money to carry through the authorized procedure; which is to acquire the land by purchase if practicable, otherwise by condemnation proceedings in accordance with the act of August 30, 1890, 26 Stat. 213.

The appropriation has properly been placed upon the books of the Treasury Department as available for expenditure without fiscal year limitation, and may be obligated and expended accordingly.

DAMAGES TO PERSONS AND PROPERTY.

The act of December 28, 1922, 42 Stat., 1066, providing for the settlement of claims for damages to or loss of private property where the amount does not exceed $1,000, due to the negligence of officers or employees of any department or establishment of the Government acting within the scope of their employment, does not repeal or supersede the act of June 16, 1921, 42 Stat., 63, for settlement of claims for damages to persons and property by or through the operations of the Post Office Department, except so far as in conflict. Claims for damages to or loss of privately owned property due to the negligence of an officer or employee of the Government acting within the scope of his employment which originate on or after December 28, 1922, can only be considered under the act of that date, and claims for such damages which have been considered under the act of June 16, 1921, 42 Stat., 63, and disallowed, may be again presented and considered under the act of December 28, 1922, 42 Stat., 1066.

Claims for damages to property resulting from a cause other than negligence on the part of an officer or employee of the Government, and otherwise coming within the provisions of the act of June 16, 1921, 42 Stat., 63, may be considered and settled under said act and can not be considered under the act of December 28, 1922, 42 Stat., 1066.

Claims for damages to persons can not be considered under the act of December 28, 1922, 42 Stat., 1066, and if they otherwise come within the act of June 16, 1921, 42 Stat., 63, and an appropriation is available therefor, they may be considered and settled under that act the same as though the act of December 28, 1922, had not been enacted.

Claims for damages to private property which have been considered and an award made and accepted under the act of June 16, 1921, 42 Stat., 63, may not be again considered under the act of December 28, 1922, 42 Stat., 1066, even though the claim originally exceeded the $500 maximum allowed under the earlier act.

Claims for damages under the act of December 28, 1922, 42 Stat., 1066, accruing between April 6, 1917, and December 28, 1922, may be presented at any time within one year after the date of the act.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Postmaster General, March 5, 1923:

By your letter dated January 11, 1923, decision is requested of questions presented as follows:

In the act approved June 16, 1921, 42 Stat., 63, the following provision was made:

"When any damage is done to person or property by or through the operation of the Post Office Department in any branch of its service and such damage is found by the Postmaster General upon investigation to be a proper charge against the United States, the Postmaster General is hereby invested with power to adjust and settle any claim for such damage when his award for such damage in any case does not exceed $500; and the sum of $35,000 is hereby appropriated for the fiscal year 1922 to carry out the provision of this paragraph."

In the act making appropriation for the Post Office Department for the year ending June 30, 1923, approved June 19, 1922, 42 Stat., 455, appears the following provision:

"To enable the Postmaster General to pay claims for damages to persons or property in accordance with the provisions of the Deficiency Appropriation Act approved June 16, 1921, $35,000."

By the act of Congress approved December 28, 1922 (Public, No. 375, Sixtyseventh Congress), it is provided as follows:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That when used in this Act the terms 'department and establishment' and department or establishment' mean any executive department or other independent establishment of the Government; the word 'employee' shall include enlisted men in the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps.

"SEC. 2. That authority is hereby conferred upon the head of each department and establishment acting on behalf of the Government of the United States to consider, ascertain, adjust, and determine any claim accruing after April 6, 1917, on account of damages to or loss of privately owned property where the amount of the claim does not exceed $1,000, caused by the negligence of any officer or employee of the Government acting within the scope of his employment. Such mount as may be found to be due to any claimant shall be certified to Congress as a legal claim for payment out of appropriations that may be made by Congress therefor, together with a brief statement of the character of each claim, the amount claimed, and the amount allowed: Provided, That no claim shall be considered by a department or other independent establishment unless presented to it within one year from the date of the accrual of said claim.

66

SEC. 3. That acceptance by any claimant of the amount determined under the provisions of this Act shall be deemed to be in full settlement of such claim against the Government of the United States.

"SEC. 4. That any and all Acts in conflict with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed."

In this connection your advice on the following points would be appreciated: 1. To what extent does the act of December 28, 1922, modify or repeal the act of June 16, 1921, and the act of June 19, 1922?

2. Should this department consider any claim on account of damage to property after December 28, 1922, whether the claim accrued before or after that date, under the said acts of June 16, 1921, and June 19, 1922?

3. Should this department consider any claim on account of damage to the person after December 28, 1922, whether the claim accrued before or after that date, under the acts of June 16, 1921, and June 19, 1922?

4. Should any claim on account of damage to the person be considered under the act of December 28, 1922?

5. Should any claim heretofore considered under the provisions of the acts of June 16, 1921, and June 19, 1922, and settled to the extent of $500, although the original claims called for more than that sum, be, upon request, reopened and considered for any amount under the act of December 28, 1922, and if so up to what amount?

6. How should the following provisions of the act of December 28, 1922, be construed with respect to any claim accruing between April 6, 1917, and December 28, 1922, but which claim has not been presented to the department prior to the latter date? and determine any claim accruing after April 6, 1917

(a)

*

་་
*

(b) "*

That no claim shall be considered by a department or other independent establishment unless presented to it within one year from the date of the accrual of said claim.

Prior to the enactment of the provision in the act of June 16, 1921, quoted in your letter there was no general law authorizing payment of claims for damages resulting from the operations of the Post Office Department, such claims being payable, if at all, only under private act of Congress. The provision in the act of June 16, 1921, applies only to claims arising on or after July 1, 1921, 1 Comp. Gen., 5, but it is general in character and relates to any damages done to person or property by or through the operation of any activity of the Post Office Department. With respect to such claims the Postmaster General is given the power and jurisdiction to determine whether they are proper charges against the United States and to adjust and settle any such claims, provided his award in any case does not exceed $500. If the Postmaster General, upon investigation of any case of damage within the provisions of this statute, should find that the claim is a proper charge

against the United States, but that the amount properly payable thereon would exceed $500, he would not be authorized to adjudicate and settle such claim, and he could do no more than report it to Congress for consideration in like manner as though the provision in the act of June 16, 1921, had not been enacted. But if the amount awarded by the Postmaster General does not exceed $500 and payment thereon is accepted by the claimant, such payment constitutes a full and final settlement of the entire claim, and the claimant is thereby precluded from asserting thereafter any other claim arising from the same damage. In the consideration of claims under the provision of the said act of June 16, 1921, prior to December 28, 1922, it was not necessary to determine whether there was or was not negligence on the part of any officer or employee of the department. See 27 Comp. Dec., 187, with reference to a similar provision relating to damages incident to the training, practice, operation, or maintenance of the Army.

As originally introduced, the bill which later became the act of December 28, 1922, 42 Stat., 1066, quoted in your submission, would have superseded the act of June 16, 1921, and similar provisions with reference to claims for damages arising under other departments. But by an amendment offered and agreed to in the House February 8, 1922, the bill was limited to claims for damages "caused by the negligence of any officer or employee of the Government acting within the scope of his employment." Therefore, as finally enacted the act of December 28, 1922, does not supersede the provision in the act of June 16, 1921, and repeals it only to the extent that it is in conflict therewith. The first question is answered accordingly.

With reference to your second question, you are advised that if a claim comes within the provisions of the act of December 28, 1922, it can not be considered and settled under the act of June 16, 1921, even though but for the act of December 28, 1922, it could have been considered and settled under the former provision. Hence, if the claim is on account of damages to or loss of privately owned property caused by the negligence of any officer or employee of the Government it can not be considered and settled after December 28, 1922, under the provision in the act of June 16, 1921, and appropriation made in pursuance thereof for the fiscal years 1923 and 1924. However, if the claim is for property damage resulting from a cause other than negligence on the part of an officer or employee of the Government and otherwise comes within the provisions of the act of June 16, 1921, it may be considered and settled under said act and can not be considered under the act of December 28, 1922.

If the claim is on account of damages to person it can not be considered under the act of December 28, 1922, which relates only to

claims on account of damages to or loss of property. Hence, if a claim on account of damage to person otherwise comes within the provisions of the act of June 16, 1921, and an appropriation is available therefor, it may be considered and settled under said act, the same as though the act of December 28 had not been enacted. This answers your third and fourth questions.

Your fifth question is answered in the negative; but if any claim accruing after April 6, 1917, on account of damages to or loss of private property, where the amount of the claim does not exceed $1,000, has been considered under the act of June 16, 1921, and disallowed because the loss or damage was caused by negligence of any officer or employee of the Government acting within the scope of his employment, it may now be considered in accordance with the provisions of the act of December 28, 1922.

With reference to your sixth question, there is apparent conflict between the two provisions quoted. The provision that no claim shall be considered by a department or other independent establishment unless presented to it within one year from the date of the accrual of said claim was an amendment offered and agreed to in the House February 8, 1922, the bill at that time applying only to claims "accruing after the passage of this act." The Senate Committee on Claims proposed an amendment striking out "the passage of this act" and inserting in lieu thereof "April 6, 1917." This amendment was agreed to in the Senate September 9, 1922, and as thus amended the bill thereafter was enacted into law. There can be no doubt that it was the intent of Congress that effect should be given to this later amendment. Considering the act as a whole and bearing in mind that the provision relative to April 6, 1917, was a later amendment than the one limiting time within which the claims could be presented, I think it must be held to be the purpose and effect of the two provisions that claims under the act for damage or loss accruing between April 6, 1917, and December 28, 1922, may be considered if presented to the department within one year after December 28, 1922.

Attention is invited to the fact that claims allowable under the provision in the act of June 16, 1921, are to be paid from the annual appropriations made available therefor, whereas claims allowable under the act of December 28, 1922, are to be certified by the department to Congress and can not be paid unless and until an appropriation therefor be made after such certification.