total appropriation for stationery for the department, including these branches.

Commissioner Howland is an officer of the Customs Service whose salary and traveling expenses are payable out of the appropriation for the detection and prevention of frauds upon the customs revenue, which appropriation is deducted and set apart from the sum appropriated generally for collecting the revenue from customs. (Act of Aug. 24, 1912; 37 Stat., 417, 434.) A part of this general appropriation has thus been set aside for the purchase of stationery, and all stationery purchased for this branch of the service must be charged to the appropriation thus made. (Decision of Nov. 15, 1912; 63 MS. Comp. Dec., 686.)

Ordinarily an officer who is not authorized to disburse public money should not supply himself with stationery, or other like articles, from his own funds; but should obtain them in the manner regularly provided by law and through regular channels. It is well settled, however, that an officer may, in an emergency, where the articles are needed for immediate use, and the regular source of supply is not available, purchase such articles from his personal funds and secure reimbursement from the proper appropriation, subject, of course, to proper certification and approval of the voucher. (8 Comp. Dec., 43.)

The usual certificate of urgent and unforeseen public necessity for these purchases is appended to the voucher. If the items shall be properly approved as a charge against the stationery appropriation you are authorized to pay them from that appropriation, after first deducting the charge for plate and cards of the special commissioner, which are not proper charges against the Government. (10 Comp. Dec., 506.)

The decision of November 15, 1912, supra, held that the collector of internal revenue at Atlanta, Ga., was not entitled to reimbursement for the expense of stationery purchased by him under an exigency of the service, because stationery for his service is now appropriated for under the contingent appropriation for the Treasury Department, in the same manner as the stationery for the Customs Service, set forth above, and no written order for this purchase had been made by the head of his department as required by section 3683 of the Revised Statutes.

The same reasons apply to this case, and if the decision is correct a like conclusion must be reached; but I do not so interpret the law of the case.

It is true that a certain part of the appropriation for the expense of collecting customs revenues has been set apart for the purchase of stationery, and has been combined with the stationery appropria

tion of the Treasury Department proper, which is designated by the appropriation act as a contingent appropriation. It does not follow, however, that the fund thus set apart has lost its identity and character as an appropriation for general expenses of the Customs Service, which is not a contingent fund within the meaning of section 3683 of the Revised Statutes.

The provisions for stationery of the department proper and its various outside bureaus and offices were probably combined for the purpose of bringing all purchases together under the contracts and schedules of the General Supply Committee, and purchases should be made accordingly wherever practicable; but the statute providing for such contracts also provides for purchases under public exigencies requiring immediate delivery, and under such exigency articles may properly be purchased in open market. (Act of June 10, 1912; 36 Stat., 531.)

Subject to conditions stated above, I see no objection to the allowance of these items without a prior written order of the head of the department for their purchase; and the decision of November 15, 1912 (63 MS. Comp. Dec., 686), is modified accordingly.

PURCHASE OF SUPPLIES FOR THE RECLAMATION SERVICE.

The act of June 17, 1910 (36 Stat., 531), relative to purchase of supplies for executive departments and other establishments in Washington is not applicable to the field force of the Reclamation Service.

Assistant Comptroller Warwick to C. G. Duganne, July 24, 1913:

I am in receipt of your letter of July 19, 1913, requesting my decision of a question therein stated, as follows:

"Herewith is a voucher in favor of the Yawman & Erbe Manufacturing Co. for $16.75, covering the purchase of one vertical filing section, without locks, No. 60, together with a letter from the Director of the Reclamation Service advising me of the reason for making the purchase and his approval of same.

purch

"I am in doubt as to my authority for paying the voucher, because of disallowances made in my accounts by the Auditor for the Interior Department in connection with similar purchases, and I respectfully request your decision as to whether or not the provisions of section 4 of the act of June 17, 1910 (36 Stat., 531), apply to purchases made by the Reclamation Service here in Washington."

The act of June 17, 1910 (36 Stat., 531), is limited in its scope and application to "the executive departments and other Government establishments in Washington" (see decisions of this office dated June 20, 1913, 19 Comp. Dec., 834, and July 7, 1913, 20 id., 4), and therefore has no application to the Reclamation Service, which is

not a department or establishment of the Government in Washington, but a field service. (11 Comp. Dec., 595; 13 id., 733.)

The voucher submitted, therefore, if otherwise correct, may properly be paid by you.

PAYMENT UNDER A POWER OF ATTORNEY GIVEN BY A CONTRACTOR WHO HAS GONE INTO BANKRUPTCY.

The holder of a power of attorney is not authorized to receive checks for amounts due his principal who has gone into bankruptcy and for whom a receiver has been appointed, but such checks must be made to the receiver.

Comptroller Downey to the Public Printer, July 25, 1913:

I have your letter of July 19, 1913, requesting a decision indicating the party to whom payment should be made where a receiver in bankruptcy has been appointed for a contractor, and a power of attorney has been given by the contractor to another person to receive checks for certain supplies furnished under the contract.

You state the facts as follows:

"Certain contracts were entered into with the Universal Supply Co. for furnishing specific items of material and paper for the public printing and binding, and orders were placed with the contractor amounting to approximately $3,000. Complete delivery was made on some of the orders and partial delivery made on others.

"Under date of January 21, 1913, the Government Printing Office received notice from a firm of lawyers stating that a trustee was about to be elected and requesting that payments be made to Mr. Robert S. Conklin as receiver. The letter was accompanied by a form of petition in bankruptcy indicating that the Howe Scale Co. had petitioned the court to have the Universal Supply Co. adjudicated an involuntary bankrupt. This petition gives evidence of bearing date the 16th day of October, 1912. The date and month in the body of the petition has been stricken out and the month of September inserted, leaving the date blank.

"Under date of October 9, 1912, power of attorney was given to Mr. Robert W. Post, treasurer of the Westport Paper Co., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Connecticut and doing business in the town of Westport, Conn., constituting and appointing him a true, sufficient, and lawful attorney to receive from the Public Printer all checks payable to the Universal Supply Co. for four cars of binder's board to be shipped by the Westport Paper Co. on Government orders 6131 and 6648, issued in favor of the Universal Supply Co.

"The Universal Supply Co. subsequently became a defaulting contractor, and under the terms of their contract the Public Printer was authorized to purchase suitable stock in the open market, charging the original contractor with any excess cost that might be incurred on account of such action. Purchases were made in the open

market at an excess expense to the Government of approximately $198.27. The president of the Universal Supply Co. died, and the receiver in bankruptcy in settling the affairs of the Universal Supply Co. does not raise any question regarding the deductions made by the Government on account of excess expense in obtaining suitable stock because of the default of the contractor, but does raise a question as to paying the Westport Paper Co. the sum of $622.02, under the power of attorney given to Mr. Robert W. Post as its treasurer, under date of October 9, 1912, stating that the power of attorney was given subsequent to the filing of the petition in bankruptcy although prior to the appointment of a receiver.

"The total sum of $2,781.91 is due and payable on account of these contracts, and this sum is being held by the Government Printing Office pending your decision as to whether $622.02 should be paid to Mr. Robert W. Post, treasurer of the Westport Paper Co., under the power of attorney given by Mr. John L. St. John, president of the Universal Supply Co., under date of October 9, 1912, and $2,159.89 should be paid to Mr. Robert S. Conklin as receiver in bankruptcy of the Universal Supply Co., or whether a check for the entire sum of $2,781.91 should be drawn in favor of the Universal Supply Co. and forwarded to Mr. Robert S. Conklin as receiver in bankruptcy."

There have been submitted no papers, and your inquiry will have to be answered with respect to the facts as they are set forth by you.

The payment of the proper amount due under the contract should be made to the receiver in bankruptcy on the filing with you of a certified copy of the court's decree appointing the receiver and authorizing him to receive payment of moneys due or to become due the bankrupt, and showing also that the receiver has qualified as such.

The bankruptcy act of July 1, 1898 (30 Stat., 562), as amended by the acts of 1903 and 1910 (32 Stat., 800; 36 Stat., 842), makes voidable a preference given within four months of the filing of the petition or after the filing thereof and before the adjudication.

It is for the court to determine whether the power of attorney gives a preference, and particularly as in connection therewith the holder appears to have furnished goods. Whether these goods were sent the Government after the bankruptcy and under an arrangement between the parties made before or after the bankruptcy is not clear, but so far as concerns the Government they were furnished under the contract by the contractor and payment goes to the receiver in bankruptcy.

Such rights as the holder of the power of attorney may claim are properly asserted against the bankrupt's estate in the court having jurisdiction of the proceedings, and the power of attorney does not authorize you to deliver the checks as therein provided for and as against the receiver in bankruptcy. (See also sections 3477 and 3737 of the Revised Statutes.)

LIGHT ALLOWANCE TO OFFICERS OF THE ARMY-TRANSPORTATION OF BAGGAGE OF OFFICERS OF THE ARMY TRAVELING IN A MILEAGE STATUS.

An officer of the Army on duty in a foreign country as military attaché who occupies six rooms as quarters and office and whose authorized allowance is four rooms for quarters and one room for office is entitled to be furnished necessary electricity for light not exceeding the quantity authorized for his allowance of rooms.

An officer of the Army who is paid mileage for travel performed is not entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred by him for transportation of personal baggage, i. e., such as an officer usually takes with him on a mileage journey for the performance of temporary duty. Paragraphs 1137 and 1153 of the Army Regulations of 1910, being contrary to the act of June 12, 1906 (34 Stat., 246), are without legal force or effect.

Decision by Assistant Comptroller Warwick, July 29, 1913.

Samuel G. Shartle, captain, United States Army, appealed January 9, 1913, from the action of the Auditor for the War Department in settlement No. 23652, dated June 18, 1912, in disallowing certain items in his disbursing accounts as military attaché and acting quartermaster, United States Army, American embassy at Berlin. The several items will be stated, considered, and passed upon in their order as they appear in the settlement:

Voucher 6-B, quarter ended March 31, 1911, and 3, 4, and 10–B, quarter ended June 30, 1911, were payments to the Berliner Elektricitats Werke, Berlin, for electric light furnished for the quarters of appellant covering the period from February 18, 1911, to June 30, 1911. Payments were made at the commercial rate for the light actually used. It appears that appellant occupied quarters at Berlin consisting of six rooms, one of which he used as his office, and that light for all the rooms was measured by 1 meter. The auditor disallowed $12.86 of the amount paid on said vouchers, and in his disallowance he said:

Officer is entitled to the light allowance for four rooms as quarters. The quantity supplied for these four rooms is not measured by separate meter readings, and therefore section 1073. Army Regulations, 1910, third paragraph, applies, which entitles him to the prescribed allowance for four rooms, at the rate of 6 cents a kilowatt-hour for electricity. Regarding the office room, there is no separate meter for same, and in this case the prescribed allowance as per section 1073. Army Regulations, 1910, applies also. In view of the foregoing the computation for fiscal year 1911 is as follows: