PAYMENT FOR SUBSCRIPTIONS TO PERIODICALS. A subscription to a periodical is properly payable from the appropriation current at the time the subscription is given, although the delivery may extend into the next fiscal year. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, March 28, 1896. SIR: I have received, with your letter of the 14th instant, a voucher in the name of Gustav E. Stechert, being his account for perio licals furnished to the Department library for the six months ending December 31, 1895, in pursuance of a subscription for the calendar year 1895, given in December, 1894. You ask whether the voucher is payable from the library appropriation for the fiscal year 1895 or 1896, the expense for the period from January 1 to June 30, 1895, having been paid from the 1895 appropriation. In reply I have to inform you that the voucher is payable from the appropriation for 1895. It has been the uniform praetice of the accounting officers to hold that a subscription for periodicals was payable from the appropriation available at the time the subscription was given, notwithstanding the delivery of the periodicals would be extended into the next fiscal year. Respectfully, yours, Mr. F. L. EVANS, R. B. BOWLER, Comptroller. Disbursing Clerk, Department of Agriculture. RESTATEMENT OF EMOLUMENT ACCOUNTS BY AUDITOR. When the Auditor allows certain items suspended in the fee account of an officer of a United States court, such action requires the statement by him of a supplemental emolument account to include such allowances, and not a reopening of the former settlement. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, March 28, 1896. SIR: I am in receipt of your letter of the 25th instant, in which you state that in the settlement of the emolument account for 1894 of G. W. Sproule, clerk United States circuit court for the district of Montana, it was found that his net receipts, after proper credits for suspensions and disallowances, fell short of the maximum of $3,500 which he was entitled to receive by the sum of $28.25, which amount would be payable to him upon satisfactory explanations to suspended items; that subsequently, upon explanations made to suspended items, he was allowed upon further settlement the sum of $155.40, all of which was duly certified for payment, it having been overlooked that he was only entitled to receive payment of $28.25, and therefore that he was overpaid $92.25. You ask how the matter is now to be corrected, and whether this can be done by your office, or can only be done by settlement made by this office. From the above statements it is clear that it was within your jurisdiction to make the additional allowance of $155.40. The only error was in certifying the wrong amount for payment. When an emolument account has been settled and subsequently thereto further items are allowed, in explanation to suspended items or on the presentation of further accounts, it is manifest that these new settlements require the stating of a new emolument account based upon these later settlements. An emolument account must therefore be restated upon each new settlement made by the Auditor. The restatement of these emolument accounts is in fact a statement of new accounts based upon the settlements by the Auditor, and therefore is in no sense a reopening and reviewing of the previously settled emolument accounts. For these reasons it seems entirely clear that the restatement of an emolument account, in order to furnish a basis for a call upon Mr. Sproule to refund the amount paid to him in excess of his maximum compensation, is within the jurisdiction of your office. Respectfully, yours, R. B. BOWLER, The AUDITOR FOR THE STATE AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS. IN RE CLAIM OF WILLIAM LANSING FOR PAY, ALLOWANCES, AND TRAVELING ALLOWANCES. As a general rule, when an officer is honorably discharged on his resignation tendered on the ground of physical disability, he must be regarded as involuntarily discharged, and entitled to traveling allowances, as provided in the act of January 29, 1813 (2 Stat., 794; section 1289, Rev. Stat.). Where, however, it affirmatively appears that the disability existed when the officer entered the service, or was caused by his own misconduct after he entered the service, the rule aforesaid can not apply, and traveling allowances should be denied. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, March 30, 1896. William Lansing, by his attorney, W. W. Durbin, of Kenton Ohio, appeals from the decision of the Auditor for the War Department, as evidenced by certificate No. 219595, dated June 3, 1895. Claimant was enrolled September 21, 1861, at Truxton, N. Y., mustered into service October 10, 1861, to serve three years as captain Company G, Seventy-sixth New York Volunteers, and was discharged at Washington, D. C., February 22, 1862, by Special Order, No. 52, Army of the Potomac, upon his resignation, for reasons stated therein as follows: "The undersigned, William Lansing, captain of Company G, Seventy-sixth Regiment New York Volunteers, would respectfully represent that since he entered upon the duties of camp life his health has very rapidly failed until he is unable to do any service, and he is thoroughly convinced that he will never be able to endure the labor, exposure, and fatigue of camp life. He therefore respectfully tenders his resignation as such captain and requests that he be honorably discharged as a volunteer in the United States service." It was not accompanied by a surgeon's certificate. J. L. Goddard, of Truxton, N. Y., formerly second lieutenant in Captain Lansing's company, testifies that the claimant while in service contracted diarrhea and affection of the back, and he is pensioned for said disability. The Auditor disallowed his claim for pay and allowances upon the ground that he had been paid in full, and his claim for travel pay upon the ground that "as he was discharged for personal reasons he is not entitled to travel pay." It is understood that the indefinite phrase "for personal reasons" was used in the disallowance as meaning "for his own conven ience," but there is nothing in the case to support such a conclusion. This case is covered by the decision in the case of Lieutenant McCluskey, as follows: "As a general rule, but subject to the exceptions below stated, where an officer tenders his resignation upon the ground of physical disability, and the resignation so tendered is accepted and he is honorably discharged, he must, in my opinion, be held to be involuntarily discharged, and therefore entitled to traveling allowances. "Where, however, it affirmatively appears that the disability existed before the officer entered the service, and was of such a character as to unfit him for service, or that his disability, though contracted after he entered the service, was the result of his own misconduct, the rule aforesaid can not apply, and traveling allowances should be denied." (Digest Second Comp. Dec., vol. 3, sec. 1444; vol. 54, p. 382.) The acceptance and muster into service of an officer or enlisted man raises a presumption that he was physically qualified for the service. The record and evidence in this case show that the claimant resigned on account of a disability which did not exist at the time he entered the service. It was not caused by his own misconduct. He is therefore entitled to traveling allowances as provided in the act of January 29, 1813 (2 Stat., 796; section 1289, Rev. Stat.). Upon examination of the above-mentioned claim I find and certify that there is due from the United States to the claimant on revision of his account the sum of sixty-five dollars and ninety-two cents ($65.92), being traveling allowances as per statement of differences herewith. EDW. A. BOWERS, BURIAL EXPENSES OF INDIAN PUPILS DYING AT LINCOLN INSTITUTE. The appropriation for support and education of Indian pupils at Lincoln Institute is available for the burial expenses of pupils dying while there. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, March 31, 1896. SIR: I am in receipt of your communication of March 20, 1896, as follows: "In the matter of the claim of Lincoln Institute for reimbursement for burial expenses of two Indian pupils, during October, 1895-June, 1896. "The act of March 2, 1895 (28 Stat., 905), contains the following proviso: "For support and education of two hundred Indian pupils at Lincoln Institution, Philadelphia, at one hundred and sixtyseven dollars per annum each, thirty-three thousand four hundred dollars.' "The burial of these pupils by the Lincoln Institute was necessary for and incidental to the object of the appropriation above named. There is no other appropriation out of which these expenses can be paid. The appropriation is available at least to the amount appropriated for each pupil. 666 Expenditures which have been necessary for or incidental to effecting the object of any appropriation as expressed in the act making the same, and which have not been otherwise specifically provided for, and such expenditures only, must be charged to such appropriation.' (Digest Second Comp. Dec., vol. 3, sec. 95.) "This claim, together with the amounts paid for these pupils, does not exceed the amount of $167 appropriated for support and education of each pupil. The claim should therefore be allowed." While this construction is not free from doubt, still I am of the opinion that when the purpose of this appropriation is considered, it is not straining the phraseology "support and education" unduly to hold that the burial expenses of these pupils may properly be regarded as falling under the term "support," and the same may be paid out of the balance remaining from the first three quarters of the current fiscal year. Respectfully, yours, EDW. A. BOWERS, The AUDITOR FOR THE INTERIOR DEPARTMENT. REFUNDMENT OF PROCEEDS OF GOODS FORFEITED FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF CUSTOMS LAWS. There is no law authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury to refund the proceeds of goods forfeited for an alleged violation of the customs laws when the forfeiture is enforced by a proceeding in court and not under sections 3071-3079 of the Revised Statutes. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, April 3, 1896. SIR: I am in receipt of your communication of February 7, stating that Mr. Jules Haegheman has made an application |