TRAVELING EXPENSES TAXICABS.

When an employee in a travel status establishes his headquarters at the terminus of the railroad rather than at his temporary duty station which had no railroad connection the cost of transportation by taxi between the two places is allowable only to the extent it would have been necessary to complete his journey to the temporary duty station.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Treasury, March 23, 1923: I have your letter dated February 17, 1923, SA-A, wherein referring to the decision dated January 31, 1923, which affirmed a disallowance of $2 for transportation between Sheridan and Fort Mackenzie, Wyo., in the case of H. S. McAllister because being in the nature of a subsistence expense it was in excess of the lawful limitation of $5 per diem, you submit what are considered additional facts and request that the matter be reconsidered on its merits and a modified decision be rendered.

The resubmission states that

Mr. McAllister was directed to proceed to Fort Mackenzie, Wyo., for the purpose of making an inspection, but, according to the settlement and subsequent decision, he has been allowed no transportation between Sheridan, Wyo., and Fort Mackenzie, Wyo. There being no railroad facilities direct to Fort Mackenzie, he alighted at the nearest railroad point, which was Sheridan, and proceeded to Fort Mackenzie by the only available means of transportation, viz, that of motor conveyance or taxi.

The department feels that the Government should reimburse the traveler for transportation incurred in going from headquarters to point of inspection and return, which question would seem to be entirely separate and apart from the one on which certain rules have been made concerning transportation between point of inspection and hotel.

Mr. McAllister did not seek reimbursement for several days' transpor tation between Sheridan and Fort Mackenzie. The item in question represents merely the expense incurred in going from Sheridan to Fort Mackenzie, or the completion of travel between Washington, D. C., and Fort Mackenzie, Wyo.

Relative to the foregoing statement, Mr. McAllister states on his voucher concerning this expense:

Taxi fare to Fort Mackenzie, no street cars running to Fort.

NOTE.-I made arrangement after this trip with the Supt. to take me back and forth a distance of 3 miles so my trips to the fort and to town thereafter were without cost to the Govt. Street cars were not started to the fort until June 11.

And by letter to the Supervising Architect dated November 11, 1922, Mr. McAllister also states that "The medical officer at the station very kindly thereafter placed at my disposal his private car, so it was not necessary for me to incur additional expense along that line while in that vicinity."

These statements, in connection with the facts disclosed by the travel voucher, establish the fact that Mr. McAllister, instead of locating himself at the place of duty, chose to establish himself at Sheridan, Wyo., from whence to proceed each day to his post of duty, and the travel expense in question was the unavoidable consequence attaching to the act of proceeding to the place where duty was performed, with an obligated return to place of subsistence. His immediate journey terminated upon arrival at Sheridan, because his prompt action in securing lodging there, together with the

subsequent entailed trips to his place of duty, resulted in the establishment of headquarters at that place.

The place of duty being at Fort Mackenzie, his action in locating at Sheridan can be viewed only as being for personal convenience, and any expenses incurred at that place can only be allowed as if incurred at Fort Mackenzie, his official station, and any expenses incurred by reason of his being located at Sheridan which would have been unnecessary if he had been located at Fort Mackenzie would be in the nature of personal instead of official expenses and not chargeable to public funds. 25 Comp. Dec., 163.

The travel allowance was upon an actual-expense basis and as lodging and subsistence would have been just as necessary at one place as the other the only item to consider is the cost of transportation to Fort Mackenzie. When a Government employee establishes headquarters at any other place than his post of duty any travel expense in excess of what it would cost at the post of duty would, like lodging and subsistence, be not a proper charge. As the item charged for transportation is disclosed to be no more than was necessary to completely place him at his post of duty, the sum of $2 disallowed will now be allowed.

SUBSISTENCE AND RENTAL ALLOWANCES OFFICERS AND WARRANT OFFICERS OF THE NATIONAL GUARD-EFFECT OF ACT OF MARCH 4, 1922, 42 STAT., 1507.

Officers and warrant officers of the National Guard while participating in the exercises or performing the duties provided for by sections 94 and 97 of the national defense act of June 3, 1916, 39 Stat., 206, 207, and section 5 of the act of September 22, 1922, 42 Stat., 1035, are entitled to a subsistence allowance. 2 Comp. Gen., 406, affirmed.

Officers and warrant officers of the National Guard with dependents attending encampments or maneuvers under section 94 or camps of instruction under section 97 of the national defense act of June 3, 1916, 39 Stat., 206, 207, are entitled to a rental allowance if their dependents are not occupying public quarters.

Officers and warrant officers of the National Guard without dependents attending encampments or maneuvers under section 94 or camps of instruction under section 97 of the national defense act of June 3, 1916, 39 Stat., 206, 207, are not entitled to a rental allowance. Officers and warrant officers of the National Guard, with or without dependents, who attend service schools under section 99 of the national defense act of June 3, 1916, 39 Stat., 207, as amended by section 5 of the act of September 22, 1922, 42 Stat., 1035, are entitled to a rental allowance if public quarters are not there available for the officer himself; but public quarters are available for the officer himself if he occupies public quarters, and he in consequence is not entitled to a rental allowance, notwithstanding a certificate of nonavailability of public quarters for his dependents may have been given.

In claims by National Guard officers or warrant officers for a subsistence or rental allowance because of a dependent mother the fact of the dependency of the mother should be established in the same manner as required for officers of the Regular Army.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of War, March 23, 1923: I have your letter of March 8, 1923, in which you state that it is the purpose of the War Department to issue instructions to

United States property and disbursing officers making payments to National Guard organizations by which they will be governed in carrying into effect the provisions of section 1 of the act of March 4, 1923, 42 Stat., 1507, and you request decision whether the War Department's interpretation of the section is a correct basis for formulating the instructions. It is stated that

This section is interpreted to provide for the payment hereafter of the subsistence allowance and rental of quarters to officers and warrant officers of the National Guard while participating in encampments or maneuvers, or in attending at military service schools, to validate all payments made and disallowed, and to authorize such payments as have been denied in accordance with a decision from your office prior to the enactment of the act just re ferred to.

The section in question provides:

That officers and warrant officers of the National Guard, while participating in exercises or performing the duties provided for by sections 94, 97, and 99 of the National Defense Act, approved June 3, 1916, as amended, and reserve officers and reserve warrant officers of any of the services mentioned in the title of the Pay Readjustment Act of June 10, 1922, while on active duty, including duty for training purposes, shall receive the allowances prescribed for officers and warrant officers of the regular services under sections 5, 6, and 11 of the said pay Act, and payments heretofore made, or accruing under the operation of this section, hereby made retroactive in effect, for rental allowances to officers and warrant officers of the National Guard or reserves while attending camps of instruction or service schools are hereby validated.

The section gives to officers and warrant officers of the National Guard participating in exercises or performing the duties provided for by sections 94, 97, and 99 of the national defense act, approved June 3, 1916, as amended, the subsistence allowance provided by section 5 of the act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat., 628, provision for the payment of which in such a situation is specifically made in section 14 of the same act; and the provisions were so construed by this office-2 Comp. Gen., 406, 407, answer to question (b.)

Section 94 of the act of June 3, 1916, 39 Stat., 206, bears the descriptive title "Encampments and maneuvers "; section 97 authorizes "camps for the instruction of officers and enlisted men of the National Guard"; and section 99 bears the descriptive title “National Guard officers and men at service schools, and so forth." The provisions of section 1 of the act of March 4, 1923, prospectively, are applicable to officers and warrant officers of the National Guard entitled to pay under all three of the sections of the national defense act mentioned. It is not clear from the clause in the section what precisely is "hereby made retroactive in effect," the payments made which it validates seemingly being limited to "payments

for rental allowances to officers and warrant officers of the National Guard or reserves while attending camps of instruction or service schools"; and that it does not in terms include attendance at encampments and maneuvers under section 94.

The section is palpably ambiguous, but the true intent of the section may be ascertained by a consideration of the conditions requiring the remedial legislation.

By decisions of September 29, 1922, 2 Comp. Gen., 241 and 243, it was held that active duty at training camps was not field duty within the meaning of section 6 of the act of June 10, 1922, and that members of the Officers' Reserve Corps with dependents who attended such camps were not entitled to the rental allowance notwithstanding their dependents did not occupy public quarters. This construction of section 6 was applied to officers of the National Guard with dependents attending encampments under section 94 of the national defense act by decision of October 17, 1922, 14 MS. Comp. Gen., 934. By decisions of October 30, 1922, 14 MS. Comp. Gen., 2047, and December 29, 1922, 2 Comp. Gen., 406, 408, answer to question (c), it was held in effect, with respect to officers of the National Guard attending service schools under section 99 of the national defense act, that if public quarters for the officer himself were available the rental allowance was not payable to the officer as though public quarters were not available because he had dependents who could not be accommodated in the quarters available for his own occupancy.

It seems to have been the purpose in the enactment of section 1 of the act of March 4, 1923, to relieve these situations and to extend the benefits of section 6 of the act of June 10, 1922, to officers with dependents attending encampments or maneuvers under section 94 of the national defense act, camps of instruction under section 97 of the act, and military service schools under section 99, and the construction of the provision adopted should advance the remedy of the conditions in the contemplation of Congress.

Accordingly, while the law is reasonably open to the construction that payments heretofore made of rental allowance to officers of the National Guard with dependents during attendance at encampments or maneuvers are not in terms validated by the act, they are nevertheless within the spirit and intent of the act, and relief will be accorded as in the case of rental allowance paid to officers with dependents while attending camps of instruction in all cases where the payment is established as proper, as hereinafter indicated.

Rental allowance is a contingent allowance, payable only "if public quarters are not available "; it is not payable to an officer without dependents who attends encampments, maneuvers, or camps of instruction, as quarters or shelter are furnished for the entire personnel by or at the expense of the United States. Such quarters or shelter constitute public quarters, and the contingency in which

rental allowance is payable to an officer without dependents does not

arise.

Officers of the National Guard with or without dependents, who attend service schools under section 99 of the national defense act, and for whom public quarters are not available, are entitled to the rental allowance prescribed by section 6 of the act of June 10, 1922. It should be observed, however, that as the service school is the officer's station, if an officer is given a certificate of nonavailability of public quarters because quarters for his dependents are not available, should the officer himself occupy public quarters the right to rental allowance ceases. In all cases of payment of rental allowance to National Guard officers attending military service schools, the usual certificate of nonavailability of public quarters will be required; supplemented by a certificate by the certifying officer that within his knowledge the claiming officer did not occupy public quarters either by assignment or as the guest of others to whom public quarters were assigned. The claiming officer will also be required to certify that he did not occupy public quarters either by assignment or as the guest of others to whom public quarters were assigned, "but resided at (giving the street address and city or town where he resided) during the period covered by this claim."

Officers of the National Guard with dependents attending encampments or maneuvers under section 94 of the national defense act or camps of instruction under section 97 are entitled to the rental allowance prescribed by section 6 of the act of June 10, 1922, if their dependents are not occupying public quarters during the period covered by the claim.

Any claims which have accrued since July 1, 1922, under the law as herein construed may be paid if appropriation and allotment therefor are available. Should appropriation or allotment be exhausted it will be for the War Department to prepare and submit estimates of appropriation therefor, in accordance with section 119 of the act of June 3, 1916.

It should be stated in this connection that in all cases of claims for allowances under sections 5 and 6 of the act of June 10, 1922 (whether for the increased subsistence allowance or for the rental allowance), because of a dependent mother under section 4 of the act of June 10, 1922, the officer will be required to establish the fact of dependency of the mother in the same manner as is required of officers of the Regular Army.

Your question is answered accordingly.