Gambar halaman

paid as a laborer in the Munitions Building regular salary at the rate of $660 per annum and additional compensation at the rate of $210 per annum.

Regardless of the fact that she has held two positions since Sep. tember 27, 1920, she was entitled to an aggregate of no more than $240 per annum under thë laws authorizing payment of additional compensation. 26 Comp. Dec., 51. Therefore, as she was in receipt of additional compensation at the rate of $144 per annum from the Treasury Department at the time of her employment under the Superintendent of the State, War, and Navy Department Buildings, she should have been paid in connection with said latter employment additional compensation at the rate of $96. per annum only. Accordingly, it would appear that she has been overpaid by you in the sum of approximately $336. As the employee has no legal right to retain the amount thus erroneously paid to her under a mistake of fact—it being understood that the payments were made by you without knowledge of the fact that she was receiving additional compensation under the Treasury Department—no further payment should be made to her by you on account of either salary or additional compensation until the amount of the overpayment has been collected or otherwise adjusted.

The specific question submitted is answered in the negative.


The prohibition against the use of the appropriation “ Indian schools : Support,

1922,” for the support of Indian schools specifically appropriated for, does not extend to the Pawnee Manual Labor School, which is not specifically named in but receives the benefit of an appropriation for the support of two manual labor schools made annually for fulfilling treaties with the

Pawnee Indians of Oklahoma.
Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, March 10, 1923:

The Secretary of the Interior applied November 28, 1922, for a review of settlement 1–20372 of October 31, 1922, in which was disallowed credit for payments aggregating $1,200 made by H. O. Decker, chief clerk and special disbursing agent, Pawnee Agency, for material, supplies, etc., for the Pawnee Manual Labor School.

Of the payments in question 17, aggregating $691.74, were made from the appropriation "Indian schools: Support, 1921," and 9, aggregating $508.26, were made from the appropriation “Indian schools: Support, 1922," and credit was disallowed because of the proviso attached to each of said appropriations which reads:

That no part of this appropriation shall be used for the support of Indian day and industrial schools where specific appropriation is made.

See act of February 14, 1920, 41 Stat., 411, and act of March 3, 1921, 41 Stat., 1228.

[blocks in formation]

It appears that the Pawnee school, in connection with which the expenditures in question were made, receives the benefit of the appropriation of $10,000 made annually under the heading “ for fulfilling treaties with Pawnees, Oklahoma." See act of February 14, 1920, 41 Stat., 425, and act of March 3, 1921, 41 Stat., 1241. The disallowance was made upon the assumption that these annual appropriations bring the Pawnee Manual Labor School within the class of “ Schools where specific appropriation is made.”

It now appears from information furnished by the Secretary of the Interior in his letter of March 3, 1923, in reply to letter from this office dated February 16, 1923, that it has been the uniform practice since as far back as 1872, to use the general appropriations made for the support of Indian day and industrial schools not otherwise provided for to the extent necessary in the maintenance of this Pawnee Manual Labor School and that it has been the practice to exclude from the benefits of said general appropriations only those Indian schools which are appropriated for in like manner as is the school at Albuquerque, N. M.; Bismarck, N. Dak.; Carson City, Nev.; Cherokee, N. C.; Chilocco, Okla.; etc. With respect to these schools specific appropriation is made and I think the prohibiting proviso attached to the appropriation "Indian schools: Support," was intended to apply solely to them and not to the Pawnee school for which a certain provision is made in the annual appropriation which reads:

For fulfilling treaties with Pawnees, Oklahoma : For perpetual annuity, to be paid in cash to the Pawnees (article 3, agreement of November 23, 1892), $30,000; for support of two manual-labor schools (article 3, treaty of September 24, 1857), $10,000; for pay of one farmer, two blacksmiths, one miller, one engineer and apprentices, and two teachers (article 4, same treaty), $5,400; for purchase of iron and steel and other necessaries for the shops (article 4, same treaty), $500; for pay of physician and purchase of medicines, $1,200; in all, $47,100.

Upon a review of the matter a difference of $1,200 is certified for credit in the accounts of the special disbursing agent.



The employment of an insurance broker to negotiate for the best contract

obtainable from insurance companies for the insuring of registered mail shipments, in lieu of soliciting proposals directly from various insurance firms is not authorized by any existing law, and is in contravention of

the provisions of the act of August 5, 1882, 22 Stat., 255. Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Treasury, March 10, 1923: I have your letter of February 28, 1923, as follows:

I should like to refer to your decision of July 20, 1921, 1 Comp. Gen., 21, to the effect that the provisions of section 3709 of the Revised Statutes require advertising within the meaning of the law in contracting for insurance on registered nlail shipments of currency, coin, and securities under the Treasury Department, and to ask your further opinion as to whether it would be permissible under the law to make a new contract for such insurance, in place of the one now in effect, by engaging a single broker to go out and get the best contract obtainable from insurance companies competent to handle the business. It appears from the department's experience in placing the existing contract that there is little or no competition in these matters between the insurance companies, which are governed largely by conference rates, and it has been suggested that in these circumstances it might be possible to get a better contract by commissioning one man to do the work and get the best possible contract. This practice, it is understood, has been followed by the Emergency Fleet Corporation, as well as by many private businesses.

It is understood from your submission that the question involved is whether you are authorized to engage, by appointment or contract, a broker “ to go out and get the best contract obtainable from insurance companies competent to handle the business.”

You do not indicate the appropriation from which you propose to pay for the services of such broker or the basis of the proposed rate of compensation. However, I know of no authority of law for the proposed employment, and, furthermore, said employment would appear to be in contravention of the provisions of the act of August 5, 1882, 22 Stat., 255.

Answering your question specifically, I have to advise that the procedure outlined in your letter is not authorized.


Where the household goods of two officers of the Army on change of station

are delivered by one consignor to one forwarding station in one working day and consigned to the same destination and forwarded in one car, the Government is entitled to the carload rate thereon if less than the rate applicable therefor as separate shipments; and the fact that the carrier may have issued separate bills of lading for each officer's goods is not

material. Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, March 12, 1923:

The Southern Pacific Co. applied per letter of December 20, 1922, for review of settlement W-687281. November 29, 1922, by which was disallowed its supplemental bill F-05935–B, claiming $303.09 in addition to $400 paid by Maj. Carl Halla per voucher 7254, June, 1922, for transportation per bills of lading 1060546 and 1060551, December 3, 1920, of household goods and personal effects of two officers of the Army changing station from Chicago, Ill., to San Francisco, Calif., both shipments being loaded in car C. & A. 27765. The bills of lading were signed by the general agent, E. L Kemp, of the Chicago & North Western Railway Co., acknowledging the receipt of the property specified on the bills of lading from N. R. Tompkins, lieutenant colonel, Quartermaster Corps, depot quartermaster, consigned to quartermaster, Fort Mason, San Francisco, Calif.

The total weight of the property thus shipped and loaded in one oar was 17,886 pounds, for which payment was made on the basis of a minimum carload weight of 20,000 pounds, at the carload rate of $2 per hundred pounds as provided per item 1820, transcontinental freight bureau tariff 1-D and supplement 4 thereto. The carrier claims $400, the minimum charge for a carload, for the 10,957 pounds specified on bill of lading 1060551 and an additional sum of $309.09, based on the l. c. 1. rate, for the 6,929 pounds specified on bill of lading 1060546, thus claiming a total of $703.09 on a less than a minimum carload of freight loaded in a single car.

The claimant in its application for review of settlement W-68728} contends that it is entitled to the additional allowance for the reason that two bills of lading were issued for the shipment and therefore a separate charge should be made on account of each bill of lading under the tariff rules, though the property is all loaded in the same car, and reference is made to the rules of the tariff and to Interstate Commerce Commission conference ruling No. 175.

These shipments moved under the commodity ratings provided in items 1820 and 1825 of transcontinental freight bureau westbound tariff No. 1-S, I. C. C. No. 1077, which is governed, except as otherwise provided in the tariff, by western classification No. 56 (consolidated classification No. 1). General rule 20, page 107 of T. C. F. B. tariff 1-S, provides:

20. In order to entitle a shipment to the carload rate, the quantity of freight requisite under the rules to secure such carload rate must be delivered at one forwarding station in one working day by one consignor, consigned to one consignee and destination, except that when freight is loaded in cars by consignor it will be subject to the car-service rules and charges of the forward. ing railroad.

Railroad agents at forwarding points will not sign shipping receipts or bills of lading bearing the notation "part carload lot” until shipping receipts or bills of lading for the whole carload have been presented and the freight received, in order that bill of lading may be obtained at the carload rate. Only one original bill of lading for the whole carload shall be issued except that separate bills of lading may be issued for carload freight, subject to internal-revenue tax, a portion of which is shipped in bond and the balance tax paid.

Railroad agents at forwarding points will not receive property in carloads for distribution by railroad agents to two or more parties; delivering agents will deliver property only to consignee thereof or to the party or parties presenting consignee's written order, and will not recognize orders from consignor or consignee providing for distribution of carload shipments among various consignees or calling for split deliveries according to brands, marks, sizes, or other identification of packages, nor will railroad agents at delivering points in any way act as the representative of the consignor or consignee for the distribution of carload shipments.

Western classification No. 56 (consolidated classification No. 1) provides as follows:

Rule 16, sections 2, 3, and 4

SECTION 2. When both carload and less-than-carload ratings are provided for the same article, the term " less than carload" covers shipments in quantities less than the minimum weight provided for carloads. (Subject to Rule 15.)

SECTION 3. A single shipment of less-than-carload freight is a lot received from one shipper, on one shipping order or bill of lading, at one station, at one time, for one consignee and one destination.

SECTION 4. Two or more single shipments shall not be combined and way. billed as one shipment, but must be carried as separate shipments, and at not less than the established minimum charge for each shipment.

Rule 14:

Carload ratings or rates apply only when a carload of freight is shipped from one station, in or on one car, except as provided in rule 24, in one day, by one shipper for delivery to one consignee at one destination. Only one bill of lading from one loading point and one freight bill shall be issued for such carload shipment. The minimum carload weight provided is the lowest weight on which the carload rating or rate will apply.

Rule 12, section 1:

Single less-than-carload shipments of freight of one class will be charged for at actual or authorized estimated weight and at the rating applicable.

Interstate Commerce Commission conference ruling 175 states: A coffee broker purchased from three different merchants at New York three lots of coffee for shipment to one customer as one carload. The three lots were delivered to the carrier under circumstances that would have entitled them to go to destination as a carload shipment had proper instructions been given. Because of the failure of the shipper's agent to give such instructions the three lots went forward to destination as three shipments, at the less-than-carload rate. Upon inquiry by the carrier whether it might assess the carload rate: Held, That freight charges must be collected on the basis of the less-than-carload rate.

In regard to conference ruling 175 of the Interstate Commerce Commission, it does not appear that the three lots of coffee. in that case were shipped in one car and the proper inference from the statement made in the ruling is that they were not. Furthermore, an explanatory note in the bulletin in which the ruling is printed states that “the rulings express the views of the commission on informal inquiries involving special facts.” The ruling on the three lots of coffee apparently is a precedent only in cases involving a like set of facts, and has no application to the case now under consideration.

It is noted that the tariff rules require that in order to secure a carload rate the requisite quantity of freight must be delivered at one forwarding station in one working day, from one consignor, consigned to one consignee, all of which conditions were complied with in the case now under consideration. These rules provide that but one bill of lading shall be issued for a carload shipment, which is in the nature of an instruction to the receiving agent and is directory only. This instruction can not relate to the shipper as the carrier is required by law (par. 11 of sec. 20 on the interstate commerce act as amended March 4, 1915, 38 Stat., 1197, and February 28, 1920, 41 Stat., 494), to issue a bill of lading for any property received by it for interstate transportation. It was the duty of the agent of the carrier in this case to have issued but one bill of lading for the transportation of this property loaded in one car.

The issuing of two bills of lading for shipment of property in one car can not require payment of any excess over the carload rate applicable for the shipment. The service rendered by the carrier and received by the Government in the case under consideration was the transportation of less than a carload of property received from

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »