ance with the decision of this office of December 20, 1910 (17 Comp. Dec., 428), and reimbursement of the cost of the transportation of the excess over the regulation allowance has been collected from the officers on the basis of the said rates less said land-grant deduction in accordance with a decision of this office dated June 26, 1911 (17 Comp. Dec., 997), the amount over said net rates originally collected from the officer having later been returned to him.

The company contends that wherein the aforesaid shipments exceed the "regulation change of station allowances," it is entitled for the transportation of such excess at the full tariff rates without landgrant deduction, and files a lengthy brief in which it contends that as the officer is required by law to reimburse the Government for the cost of the transportation of said excess, he is not entitled to any deduction from tariff rates therefor and that the said reimbursement should be made at the full tariff rates which should be paid to the company for said services.

The transportation under consideration was furnished under the authority of the Army Regulations and the Army appropriation act of March 23, 1910 (36 Stat., 255), which act in making appropriation

"For transportation of the Army and its supplies, including transportation of the troops when moving either by land or water, and of their baggage, including the cost of packing and crating

Provided that

"Hereafter baggage in excess of regulation change of station allowances may be shipped with such allowances and reimbursement collected for transportation charges on such excess."

In accordance with the foregoing act the War Department, by General Orders, No. 121, June 28, 1910, after specifying the weights of personal baggage that may be transported at public expense for the different ranks of officers, provided that—

Baggage in excess of the foregoing allowances will be shipped upon the same bill of lading with the regulation allowance, upon deposit with the shipping officer, prior to issue of the bill of lading, of a sum equal to the commercial freight charges on the excess, to be ascertained from or through the agent of the carrier at point of shipment, and cost of exchange for remittance to the officer who will settle the transportation charges. The excess will not be shipped on Government bill of lading unless such deposit be first made.'

Said regulation appears to be entirely consistent with the law, and the provision for collecting in advance appears to be a wise and a proper method of securing the reimbursement of the charges contemplated in the act.

Congress authorized the said transportation and thus primarily made the appropriation chargeable with the expense thereof, but

as it expressly provided for reimbursement therefor, I do not think the expense thus authorized is to be considered as an expense by the United States or in fact a payment from the appropriation for transportation of the Army and its supplies. The expense in fact is one to be borne by the officer, and the Government by its regulation wisely provides for collection therefor from the officer in advance, thereby securing the funds with which to make payment for said transportation without using the Government appropriation therefor. The said property is not in any sense the property of the Government, but is merely authorized to be shipped with the regulation allowances and to be paid for by the officer.

It has been recognized that an officer in the discharge of his duties requires a greater amount of personal belongings than that which the carriers will transport free on a regular ticket. This property, to the extent that it is necessary for the officer in the discharge of his duties for the Government, becomes invested with a quasi public character, and as such the land-grant railroads are under obligation to transport it on the same terms as other Government property. (See decision of this office of October 13, 1901–11 Comp. Dec., 174.) But any excess over the said amount can be in no sense Government property, nor is it property which the Government is obligated to transport, and the railroad company can not be required to transport it as public property. The authorization of Congress that the same may be transported with the authorized allowance does not change its character in any sense, for the act authorizing the shipment is merely permissive and requires the officer to pay the cost thereof.

The provision in the appropriation act (36 Stat., 256, and others of like import) that payments to land-grant railroads shall not be in excess of the basis indicated applies only to the moneys authorized to be expended therefrom and payable by the Government for service rendered to the Government and not to the transportation of the officer's baggage, for which reimbursement is required by law and funds therefor secured in advance under regulations made in conformity to said law.

I am therefore of the opinion that the excess over the regulation change-of-station allowance of the baggage of an officer of the Army authorized to be shipped with such allowances is not subject to landgrant deduction but to be paid for and reimbursement collected at the tariff rates applicable on said excess for the shipment as made.

Where the excess of an officer's baggage is shipped in connection with his authorized regulation allowance on one bill of lading, the cost of the shipment is to be determined as an entirety and the reimbursement by the officer is to be determined on the proportion that said excess bears to the weight of the entire shipment, the regulation 42853°-VOL 20-14- -37

allowance to be subject to the proper land-grant deduction and the excess without any such deduction.

The apportionment of the charges for a carload shipment between the officer and the Government has long been the practice. (See decision of the Second Comptroller, dated July 21, 1893, Digest 2d Comp. Dec., vol. 4, sec. 358; 3 Comp. Dec., 305.)

The decisions of this office of December 20, 1910 (17 Comp. Dec., 428), authorizing land-grant deductions on the transportation of the excess over the regulation change of station allowances of baggage of officers and of June 26, 1911 (17 Comp. Dec., 997), authorizing reimbursement by the officer on the basis of the net rates thus determined, and all other decisions of this office, to the extent that they are in conflict herewith, are hereby overruled.

In view of the aforesaid decisions, thus setting forth the basis of payment for the transportation of the excess over the officer's regulation change of station allowance and of the reimbursement by him of the charges thereon, this decision will not be applied to the readjustment of accounts heretofore adjusted in accordance with said decisions whether said adjustment has been made by a disbursing officer or through a settlement by the auditor. Any claim the railroad company may have for the transportation of the officer's excess in addition to the amount thus paid and reimbursed, must be made, if at all, upon the officer direct, as the appropriations for "Transportation of the Army and its supplies" are not available to make any payments for transportation over the land-grant roads specified in the said appropriation acts, in excess of 50 per cent of tariff rates.

The collateral question as to what is the duly authorized regulation change of station allowance has not been considered in this decision, and the right of consideration thereof is reserved without prejudice until such time as the matter may be properly before this office.

For the reasons above given, the action of the auditor in disallowing the claim for additional allowance on the items specified is affirmed.

BINDING FORCE OF CONTRACTS FOR MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES, MADE BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY.

Contracts for miscellaneous supplies, as made by the Secretary of the Treasury bind "the executive departments and other Government establishments in Washington" to order, and the contractors to deliver as ordered, the miscellaneous supplies required for the use of such departments and establishments.

No establishment or agency of the Government that is not an "executive department or other Government establishment in Washington" has any interest in or is bound by the contracts for supplies made by the Secretary of the Treasury.

Comptroller Downey to the Secretary of the Treasury, February 24, 1914: I am in receipt of your letter of the 14th instant, as follows: "In connection with section 4 of the act of Congress approved June 17, 1910 (36 Stat., 531), I beg to submit, for your opinion, the following questions:

"(a) Whether or not it is optional with a nonestimating field service to procure its supplies under contracts negotiated by the General Supply Committee;

(b) Whether or not it is optional on the part of the contractor to honor requisitions drawn on him for supplies by field services which have not furnished the General Supply Committee with estimates to meet their requirements, and have not informed the Secretary of the Treasury, through their departmental heads, of their intention to purchase such articles of supplies under the general supply contracts;

66

(c) Whether or not it is optional with a field service, which does furnish the General Supply Committee with estimates for certain articles to meet its requirements, to purchase such supplies independently of the general schedule.

"Attached will be found some correspondence bearing upon certain questions which have arisen in connection with the administrative work under the act above cited, and you are requested to return these papers with your opinion."

The act of June 17, 1910 (36 Stat., 531), which prescribes and regulates the manner of contracting for and buying all miscellaneous supplies "for the executive departments and other Government establishments in Washington" has no application to and does not regulate the purchase of such supplies for the use of Government establishments outside of Washington. No purely "field service" of the Government is within the purview of said act. (19 Comp. Dec., 834; 20 id., 4, 42, 188.)

For the miscellaneous supplies necessary to supply the needs of "the executive departments and other Government establishments in Washington," the Secretary of the Treasury is not only authorized but is required to advertise and contract, and whether or not contracts for such supplies, as made by him, are in accordance with estimates made by the departments and establishments concerned is altogether beside the question. Departments or establishments that come within the scope and effect of the act of June 17, 1910, supra, are bound by the contracts made by him, whether they have given him estimates of their needs or not.

And, conversely, Government establishments that do not come within the meaning of said act are not bound by and have no interest. in or concern with contracts made by the Secretary of the Treasury. No agency of the Government, except such only as can be classed "an executive department or other Government establishment in Washington," is bound by the contracts for supplies made by the Secretary of the Treasury by virtue of the act of June 17, 1910, and

no contractor operating under contracts so made is obliged to honor requisitions from a Government establishment for the needs of which the Secretary of the Treasury had no power or authority to undertake to meet or supply.

Contracts to be effectual and binding must be mutual. Unless a contract provide that one party take as needed and required, the agreement of the other to deliver as directed lacks mutuality. It would be a queer contract which required a contractor to deliver supplies at agreed prices, as and when directed, but left it optional with the other party to buy elsewhere at any time more favorable terms or prices could be obtained.

I think the act of June 17, 1910, contemplates and requires that the Secretary of the Treasury advertise and contract for all miscellaneous supplies required for the common needs of the executive departments and other Government establishments in Washington, and that under contracts made within the scope of that authority, the departments, etc., and the contractors are mutually and firmly bound, and that for establishments of the Government not within the scope of said act, i. e., establishments outside of Washington, he has no authority to contract in such form as to bind either the establishment to order or the contractor to deliver supplies so contracted for.

The specific questions presented I will not undertake to answer categorically. What I have said will doubtless serve to clear up the points you have in mind.

PAY OF NAVAL OFFICER PERFORMING DUTY FOR CUBAN GOVERNMENT. Where a naval officer is assigned to duty as adviser to the Cuban Government the authority of the Secretary of the Navy to make such assignment can not be questioned by the accounting officers, and the officer so assigned is entitled to the same pay and allowances as though on purely naval duty for the United States in Cuba.

Comptroller Downey to the Secretary of the Navy, February 24, 1914:

By your indorsement of the 18th instant my decision is requested of a question presented by the pay officer, navy yard, Washington, D. C., as follows:

"Lieut. Edward C. S. Parker, United States Navy, has presented to this office orders reading as follows:

66

66

"NAVY DEPARTMENT, "Washington, February 9, 1914. To: Lieut. Edward C. S. Parker, United States Navy, Navy Department, Washington, D. C.

"Subject: Detached temporary duty Navy Department, Washington, D. C.; to Habana, Cuba, as adviser of Cuban Government in naval affairs.

"1. You are hereby relieved from temporary duty in the Navy Department, Washington, D. C., and from such other duty as may have