The act of March 3, 1909 (35 Stat., 756), provides: "That the Secretary of the Navy is hereafter authorized to transport to their homes or places of enlistment, as he may designate, all discharged naval prisoners; the expense of such transportation shall be paid out of any money that may be to the credit of prisoners when discharged; where there is no such money, the expense shall be paid out of money received from fines and forfeitures imposed by naval courts-martial. * In Rules and Regulations for the Government of United States Naval Prisons, Prison Ships, and Disciplinary Barracks, promulgated by the Secretary of the Navy, it is provided: "68. Upon discharge a prisoner may be furnished transportation to his home, or place of enlistment, as the commanding officer of the prison may consider best, considering the interest of the man. It would seem that in general his home would be the better destination. The expense of this transportation shall be paid out of any money that may be to the credit of the prisoner when discharged. If he has no money to his credit, or not sufficient money, then the expense shall be paid from money received from fines and forfeitures imposed by naval courts-martial. "69. If the prisoner has money due him from the $20 reserved from forfeiture after transportation is paid for as above, he will be given the amount due. If the cost of transportation has reduced the amount due him below an amount sufficient to enable him to subsist himself on the trip for which transportation is provided, at the rate of $1.50 per day, and to leave then a balance of $10 upon arrival at his home or place of enlistment, such amount will be furnished him (chargeable to Pay miscellaneous') as will accomplish this result. * The appellant was discharged on account of expiration of enlistment. (See 61 MS. Comp. Dec., 277, Apr. 17, 1912.) He therefore comes within the terms of the act of June 29, 1906, supra. He is also a discharged naval prisoner, and therefore comes within the terms of the acts of February 16 and March 3, 1909, supra. (18 Comp. Dec., 538.) In the decision just cited the facts appear to be substantially the same as those in the case now under consideration, and it was held that the discharged prisoner under said act of March 3, 1909, and regulation 68 may be furnished with transportation to his home or place of enlistment, and further: "Under said act (Feb. 16, 1909) and regulation 69, supra, said seaman is entitled upon discharge to be furnished with $10 at his home or place of enlistment, together with $1.50 per day for subsistence while being transported thereto, not to exceed in all $25, provided that after crediting him with all proper credits when discharged and deducting therefrom the expense of his transportation as aforesaid he is without funds to meet his immediate needs." The question as to whether the travel allowance on discharge provided by the said act of June 29, 1906, was a proper credit when discharged was not raised or decided in said decision. In the case now under consideration I think it is a proper credit. There is nothing Under said act of June 29, 1906, the enlisted man discharged on Under the said act of March 3, 1909, the prisoner, whether discharged on account of expiration of enlistment, by sentence of a court-martial, or for other cause, is to be furnished transportation. and subsistence to his home or place of enlistment at his own expense, provided he has sufficient money to his credit with which to pay for same. The appellant was furnished transportation to New York, N. Y., at a cost of $21.05 and $1.50 for subsistence en route, which amounts were paid out of the more than $200 he had to his credit when discharged. The paymaster did not credit him with the travel allowance on discharge of 4 cents per mile to place of enlistment, and the claim therefor was disallowed by the auditor, as stated above. On this revision the said travel allowance, amounting to $33, will be allowed. PARTY TICKETS-CASH CONDITION. Where transportation is requested by the Government for a number of persons Where a party ticket is not called for and individual tickets are issued to the A railroad company has the right to waive any of its tariff requirements in The stipulation in the published tariff of a railroad company that cash be paid It having been the practice of transportation companies to accept "Government Decision by Comptroller Downey, August 15, 1913: The Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. appealed June 14, 1913, from the action of the Auditor for the War Department in settlement No. 17169, dated June 14, 1912. The company claimed $2,982.90 for passenger transportation service wholly within the State of Texas during the period from October, 1910, to February, 1912. The auditor allowed $2,188.70 and disallowed $794.20, itemized as follows: The aforesaid bills were rendered on the basis of regular singlefare rate, while the auditor allowed on the basis of party fares, as published in company's tariff No. 792 of 1910, which named rates as follows: "For a party of 10 to 20 persons, inclusive, all on one ticket, for a single-trip passage, 2 cents per mile per capita. Tickets for less than 10 may be issued at a gross rate prescribed for 10 adult passengers. "For a party of 21 to 24, inclusive, all on one ticket, the total amount charged shall be the same in dollars and cents as charged for a party of 25 persons. "For a party of 25 or more persons, all on one ticket, for a singletrip passage, 2 cents per mile per capita.' These rates appear to have been fixed by the Railroad Commission of Texas, which is authorized under the laws of Texas "to adopt all necessary rates, charges, and regulations to govern and regulate railroad freight and passenger tariffs," and is given the "power to correct abuses and prevent unjust discriminations and extortion in rates of freight and passenger tariffs on the different railroads in this State (Texas) and to enforce the same" through the courts. The said commission is required to "make and establish reasonable rates for the transportation of passengers over each or all of the railroads subject hereto, which rates shall not exceed the rates fixed by law." (See art. 6554, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1911.) The company in its publication of the aforesaid party fares stipulated that "These fares are available only when cash is paid at time ticket is issued." It appears that the chairman of the Railroad Commission of Texas in a letter dated July 11, 1911, to the depot quartermaster at St. Louis, Mo., said that the commission does not recognize the right of the company to undertake to enforce such a provision as that above quoted. The company contends, however, that the tariff with said clause was approved by the commission. It seems immaterial, however, whether said clause did or did not receive the approval of said commission, for reasons hereinafter set forth. It appears that the service under consideration was furnished on requests which called for transportation of the number of men indicated, but without specifying party ticket, and that a single ticket for the entire party was furnished in each of the cases except four, for which transportation was furnished as follows: On bill No. 111 the notation on the request, evidently made by the agent of the company at the time the transportation was furnished, shows that two tickets were issued for the 53 persons indicated thereon, at the rate of $9.75 each, the party rate. This evidently indicates that party tickets were issued for this service. On bills Nos. 177 and 101 the notation on the requests indicates that nine tickets in each case were issued, thus furnishing individual transportation. On bill No. 117 the notation on the request indicates that two tickets were issued for the nine persons indicated. The party rate could not be applied for said tickets, if properly issued, as the individual rate is less. Had a party ticket been issued for the entire number the party rate would have been less. In regard to the three cases last mentioned, as the Government did not call for a party ticket, the company was entirely justified in furnishing individual tickets, and is therefore entitled to payment for the class of transportation furnished-individual rates for individual service. In each of the remaining cases the whole number of persons indicated on the request was furnished transportation on a single ticket. The class of service received was therefore party service-the transportation of a number of persons on a single ticket, and therefore subject to all the incidents of party service on the part of both the travelers and of the railroad company. The only question is whether the stipulation that cash should be paid in advance is a condition necessary to secure the said rate. In other words, though the Government received the exact kind of service for which the party rates were available, is the individual rate to be charged therefor because cash was not paid in advance, the Government thereby paying more than private individuals for the same service-merely because not paid for at the time-the excess being in the nature of a penalty for delay in making payment? The chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission, in a letter addressed to the Quartermaster General, United States Army, July 27, 1907, said that when a reduced rate is offered conditionally such conditions should be observed and a condition that cash collection should be made at the time tickets are purchased is a condition binding on prospective purchasers, and only those who comply with it are entitled to the rate. But the right to enter into contract with the Government for the transportation of troops is free and untrammeled, and it is within the power of a railroad company to waive a condition in favor of the Government without violating the law. In the decision of this office of June 27, 1908 (45 MS. Comp. Dec., 2414), it was held, after quoting the aforesaid letter of the chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission, that 66 * * * When a reduced rate is offered conditionally upon the payment of cash in advance therefor such condition may be required in the application of the rate for the Government, but it is entirely proper for the carrier to waive this as well as any other requirement for Government business. "The acceptance of a request calling for party rates or a party ticket would constitute such a waiver. "But the mere fact that a single ticket is issued for the convenience of the Government for the transportation of a number of men does not constitute such a ticket a party ticket." There is no contention in this case that the single tickets issued for the various parties were issued "for the convenience of the Government," and it is immaterial whether a ticket so issued thus became a "party ticket." Party rates, in the tariff in question, were applicable to the specified number of persons" all on one ticket,” and the service furnished thereon was in every respect a party service. There was not in these cases an acceptance of a request specifically calling for party rates, but there was an acceptance of a request and the furnishing of party service. It may be suggested also in this connection that while appellant seems to rely on a former holding of this office indicating that an acceptance of a request "under protest " may save some rights and sets out in its statement of the case a "revised instruction" provid |