Decision by Comptroller Tracewell, March 14, 1910:

The Southern Pacific Company appealed February 19, 1910, from the action of the Auditor for the War Department in settlement 10145, dated December 23, 1909. The company claimed $631.69 for freight service in April and May, 1909. The Auditor allowed $628.78 and disallowed $2.91. The company contends for the amount disallowed as follows:

"Said disallowance arises from the application by the honorable Auditor on shipment of 11,450 pounds iron bedsteads and mattresses from Dayton, Ohio, to Soldiers Home, Cal., of minimum carload rate of 9 cents (12,000 pounds), from Los Angeles to Soldiers Home, said third-class rate, he states, being authorized by western classification No. 45, page 51, item 18, which reads as follows:

Furniture and furniture frames, exclusive of bank, store, saloon, or office furniture. Minimum weight, 12,000 pounds carload, third class.'

"I would, however, invite your attention to item 9, page 51, of same classification, which reads as follows:

"Bedsteads, iron and brass, metal couch frames, folded flat, spring beds, compressed, and metallic mattresses, cots, and cribs. Minimum weight, 30,000 pounds carload, fifth class.'

"This last-quoted extract covers the shipment referred to precisely, and therefore if the honorable Auditor wishes to apply carload rating on this shipment, said rating would necessarily be at fifth class, minimum carload 30,000, as provided in said extract, as item 18 referred to by him does not apply to this case. The company, however, has applied a first-class less-than-carload rate on the shipment (which in this case would be less-than-carload rate provided), in accordance with page 57, item 14, of said classification."

The items requiring consideration in this case were shipped in one car from Dayton, Ohio, to Soldiers Home, Cal., per bill of lading No. 75, dated April 15, 1909, and designated as follows:

It is understood that the casters and bolts are parts of the bedsteads, and therefore take the same rating.

The question in controversy is the rate properly applicable, under western classification No. 45, from Los Angeles, Cal., to Soldiers Home, Cal., the through rate on the shipment being made on Los Angeles.

All the items are properly classed and included under the general heading of "furniture" in the classification referred to. The cost of the transportation of the articles under consideration from Los Angeles, Cal., to Soldiers Home, Cal., at the less-than-carload rating would have been

7.32

17.50

Iron bedsteads (head and foot ends and parts), 6,650 pounds, second class, at 11 cents...

Total....

As these articles were all loaded in one car, the carload rating, if cheaper than the less-than-carload rating, is applicable thereto, provided a full minimum carload is paid for.

Classification No. 45, on page 51, item 18, provides carload rating as follows:

"Furniture and furniture frames, exclusive of bank, store, saloon, or office furniture, class 3, minimum weight 12,000 pounds."

On the same page provision is made for carload rating on various articles of furniture, among which "iron bedsteads and metallic mattresses" are rated fifth class for minimum carload of 30,000 pounds, and mattresses, other than wire, second class, minimum carload 10,000 pounds. Neither of these ratings is applicable to this shipment, which is a mixed carload of furniture.

The question to be determined is whether the carload rating on "furniture" above indicated is applicable.

This rating on furniture appears to apply on all articles of furniture except those specifically excluded therefrom. If the exclusion extended to all articles of furniture for which

a specific rating is elsewhere given there would appear to be scarcely any articles upon which the furniture rate could be applied, for specific ratings are given on the various articles of furniture as wardrobes, tables, chairs, bedsteads, metallic mattresses, and mattresses other than wire, etc.

It will be observed that the only kinds or character of furniture specifically excluded from the benefit of the carload rating on "furniture" as shown above are "bank, store, saloon, or office furniture." The ordinary rule of construction applying in such cases is that the exclusion of one or more things by name or description implies the inclusion of all others of the same character. This rule may, however, be negatived by proper means.

There is another well-known rule of construction that must not be lost sight of, viz: The specific enumeration of particular items in a class by themselves will control over a general classification in which they might have been included but for the specific enumeration.

Keeping these two rules in mind we will try to determine what classification and rate applies to the furniture in question.

Item 9, page 51, of No. 45 of the western classification provides:

"Bedsteads, iron and brass, metal couch frames, folded flat, spring beds, compressed and metallic mattresses, cots, and cribs, minimum weight 30,000 carload, fifth class."

On the same page of 45 there are various other articles of furniture specifically enumerated, each with different conditions attached as to minimum carload weights and with different rates applied. To obtain the carload rates specially authorized for these enumerated articles of furniture the shipper must pay for the full minimum carload weights provided therefor.

"Bank, store, saloon, or office furniture" are specifically excluded from the benefit of item 18 for furniture generally, and are provided for in item 9.

It is the usual if not the uniform custom in preparing classifications, when it is desired to exclude specific articles from the benefit of a general classification of the same kind of articles, to add the letters N. O. S. (not otherwise speci

fied) at the end of or to the general classification. In previous issues of the western classification these letters appeared under the general head of furniture. Their absence in No. 45, together with the specific exclusion of "bank, etc.” furniture is significant, to say the least, and appears to warrant the conclusion that the furniture in question can be rated under item 18 by complying with its terms.

Furthermore, the specific enumeration in the classification book of various kinds of furniture with varying conditions and rates, with also a general classification under the heading of furniture, specifically excluding from the benefits thereof only “bank, store, saloon, or office furniture," specifically provided for under another heading, leads to the conclusion that if it had been the intention to exclude other kinds of furniture from the benefits of item 18 said other kinds would have been mentioned in some way in the exclusion.

It appears clear, then, that the articles of furniture not specifically excluded are included in the general term “furniture." There appears to be no other reason why certain articles which are specifically provided for elsewhere should also be specifically excluded if the more specific rating itself would exclude them from the general application.

In view of all the facts and circumstances alluded to above, I am led to the conclusion that the Government is entitled to the benefits of the classification and rate found in item 18 above referred to on the furniture which is the subject of this appeal.

The shipment under consideration, embracing various articles of furniture and constituting without doubt a mixed carload of furniture, is therefore entitled to the carload rating on furniture, as follows:

15,130 pounds of furniture (including bedsteads, common and wire mattresses) at third-class rate, 9 cents, $13.62.

The cost of the shipment at less-than-carload rating is $17.50, and at the carload rating is $13.62. The latter is therefore the proper charge.

The Auditor allowed for these items $15.22. The difference, $1.60, will be certified to the Auditor for disallowance, to be deducted from some pending claim of the company.

REPAIRS TO MOTORCYCLE OWNED BY A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE AND USED IN THE DISCHARGE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES.

An employee whose place of employment is at the seat of government in the District of Columbia and who has been authorized by the Secretary of Agriculture to perform travel in the District of Columbia and the States of Virginia and Maryland in the discharge of official business, and who is further authorized to incur the expense of repairs to a motorcycle owned by him and used in the discharge of his official duties, is not entitled to payment of the cost of repairs incurred in the District of Columbia.

Comptroller Tracewell to A. Zappone, disbursing clerk, Department of Agriculture, March 16, 1910:

I have received your letter of March 4, 1910, in which you request my decision of a question therein presented, as follows: "The Secretary of Agriculture, under the act of March 4, 1909, making appropriations for the general expenses of the Bureau of Animal Industry of this department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1910, authorized Mr. R. G. Stedman, an employee, by letter of January 10, 1910 (No. 3743, 'To perform travel in the District of Columbia and the States of Virginia and Maryland, for the purpose of tagging cattle, and in the discharge of other duties in connection with the investigation of tuberculosis.' The letter of authority from the Secretary contained the following provisions:

"Authority is further granted to incur the following expenses in Washington, D. C.:

"Incidental expenses, including * * * repairs to a motorcycle owned by you and used in the discharge of official duties.

"The expenses incurred under this authorization, not to exceed $25, will be paid from the appropriation "General expenses, Bureau of Animal Industry, 1910," (inspection and quarantine.)"

"Pursuant to this authority, Mr. Stedman incurred the following expenses for repairs to his motorcycle, and inclosed a voucher for the same in his account:

"The matter is referred to you for an opinion as to the

legality of this charge against the department.".