ing that its agents in honoring Army and Navy transportation requests for party rates or party ticket shall make an indorsement across the face of the request, "party fares are not applicable to this transportation and this request is accepted under protest," there is no showing that any such indorsements were made on the requests in question. My opinion as to the effect of such an indorsement is therefore not now of importance.

Though the transportation under consideration was wholly within the State of Texas, and therefore not within the scope of the interstate commerce law, yet the principles governing the case are similar. I am not prepared to say that a railroad company would have the right to refuse a service to the Government unless all conditions imposed upon the public are complied with, and such question is not now before me; neither was it before my predecessor when he rendered the decision just referred to. His statement that the condition may be required in the application of the rate can not be construed to mean that a railroad company would have the right to refuse any particular service to the Government unless all conditions imposed upon the public are complied with.

I agree with the chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission that a railroad company has the power to waive any of its tariff requirements in favor of the Government without violating the law. This is quite different from saying that it has the power to enforce all its requirements against the Government, though as a general proposition a railroad company may contract with the Government on the same conditions as with private parties.

But when the Government asks for the transportation of a number of men from one point to another, and the railroad company furnished a single ticket therefor, being in all respects the exact kind of transportation furnished an equal number of other persons on a single ticket, which is called a party ticket and charged for at party rates, I fail to see the distinction which would authorize the holding that the ticket furnished the Government should be paid for at a higher rate.

The stipulation that cash be paid in advance for passenger transportation can not be considered a condition upon which said rate is based, for it is a well-known fact that cash in advance of service or at the time the ticket is issued is the usual and regular requirement upon which transportation is furnished, and no such transportation can ever be required by any one or any party without the payment of cash, whether so stipulated in the tariff or not.

If credit is ever allowed in any individual case, it must be a matter of acceptance of the promise of the person receiving the same to pay therefor as the equivalent of cash. Under no condition can it be presumed that any particular person or number of persons could of 42853°- -VOL 20-14- -6

right demand that transportation be furnished without the payment of cash in advance or at time the ticket therefor is issued.

No person has the right to demand credit of another and no railroad company names rates which can be called credit rates which can be available to anyone upon credit.

If a party of 10 or more should present themselves to the claimant company without the cash to pay for a party ticket, will it be presumed that the agent would issue a ticket for the service to be paid therefor at some time in the future at individual rates, or could said party demand that transportation be furnished them to be paid for in the future at individual rates? Though rates are named without the stipulation that cash be paid in advance, it does not follow that they are available on credit.

The matter of credit can not be a matter of right to any individual, and no person, firm, or corporation would undertake to do any business whatever with a rate for credit which would be available for everyone. Consequently common carriers which are to make rates for the public without discrimination can not make a credit rate.

The stipulation that the fares are available only when cash is paid at the time the ticket is issued might operate to prevent credit being given for such fares, as under said conditions it would probably be a discrimination to give credit for such tickets. But it is not unlawful to waive any requirements as to the Government, and the issuance of a party ticket to the Government without cash when ticket is furnished would not subject the company to any penalties therefor.

The party tickets being furnished the Government, which subjected the travelers to the same conditions as all other travelers on party tickets, there is no reason why the Government should pay a higher rate merely because not paid for at the time.

It has been the practice of the transportation companies to accept Government transportation requests in lieu of cash and furnish the transportation indicated thereon and present the said requests to the proper Government official for the payment for the services thereby shown to have been requested and furnished.

This method of doing business between the Government and the transportation companies has long been accepted as equivalent to a cash basis and generally operates to their mutual advantage. When transportation is so furnished the only recoginzed basis of payment therefor is the cash basis.

The transportation under consideration was furnished in accordance with this long-established practice.

Bearing in mind the general practice on the part of railroad companies of selling transportation for cash only, with notable exception in the case of Government transportation, where requests have generally been accepted in lieu of cash, in connection with the practical

be

impossibility in many cases of cash payment on the part of the Government, the stipulation in question seems to be particularly directed at the Government and designed to deprive the Government of rates granted the general public.

The transportation was therefore furnished the Government on its personal credit, which was considered as equivalent to cash and so accepted.

The service furnished on party tickets was the same class of service for which like parties were charged party rates. The Government, receiving the same transportation, should not be required to pay a higher rate therefor.

Settlement for the service under consideration should be made at party rates for the party service and at individual rates for individual service, which is the same rates charged the public for like and similar service.

The auditor's action is therefore affirmed as to all the items under consideration except the three heretofore mentioned.

ประติ

HEAT AND LIGHT ALLOWANCE OF NAVAL OFFICERS.

Where a naval officer occupies quarters other than public, fuel or illuminating supplies for which can not be measured, he will be entitled only to the allowance prescribed in the regulations for the number of rooms actually occupied, exclusive of bathrooms and rooms used in common with other guests.

An officer's certificate as to the number of rooms actually occupied by him, if sufficiently specific, will ordinarily be accepted by the accounting officers as sufficient evidence of the fact of occupancy, but it is not conclusive and other evidence may be required.

An officer while absent with leave is not entitled to heat and light allowance for his permanent quarters unless during the period of such absence those quarters are occupied by his family or persons dependent upon him for support. Assistant Comptroller Warwick to the Secretary of the Navy, August 15, 1913: By your indorsement of the 11th instant my decision is requested of questions presented by the pay officer of the Navy pay office, Portsmouth, N. H., as follows:

"1. The attached certificate for heat and light furnished to Naval Constructor G. A. Bisset from June 1 to June 30, 1913, $9.60, is forwarded herewith for transmission to the comptroller for decision as to the legality of payment on this certificate.

"2. Mr. Bisset is on duty at this station under orders from the Navy Department. He occupies quarters other than public, there being no public quarters available for his use. He was on leave of absence from June 23 to July 26, 1913, both dates inclusive. His certificate dated July 1, 1913, states that he occupies quarters at Sinclair Inn, and that there is no means by which the quantity of heat and light consumed within the limits of his apartment can be definitely ascertained. It is noted that he was on leave of absence during a part of the period in question.

"3. Under date of February 5, 1908 (14 Comp. Dec., 475), the Comptroller decided that '* * * when an officer occupies quarters other than public, where the quantity of the illuminant is not measured by separate meter readings, payment may be made to the owner or authorized agent for light for the full allowance of light for the number of roms to which the officer's rank entitles him, at the price specified by the regulation, as amended by General Order No. 136.'

"4. Under date of May 26, 1913, in deciding a question of heat and light for Lieut. Commander H. A. Pearson, the Comptroller states that 'For such period, while waiting orders in Washington, D. C., evidence has been furnished to effect that he was in occupancy of one room as quarters at Army and Navy Club, Washington, D. C., neither the heat nor light for which was separately measured. He is now allowed the maximum allowance of heat and light for one room for such period. It is not stated in this latter decision that it is the intention to reverse the former decision or change the law, though this ruling may imply such change. No information as to this change reached me until August 1, 1913.

*

*

"5. A decision is requested on whether or not the number of rooms occupied as quarters determines the allowance of heat and light; if

will an officer's certificate or statement be accepted by the accounting officers as sufficient evidence as to the number of rooms occupied ; also, whether or not an officer on leave, whether for 30 days or more, actually occupying no quarters at his permanent station, loses his right to heat and light allowance during such absence."

With reference to the decisions cited by the pay officer you are advised that so much of the decision of February 5, 1908 (14 Comp. Dec., 475), as held that payment is authorized of the full heat an:1 light allowance for the number of rooms to which the rank of the officer entitles him, regardless of the number of rooms actually occupied or the quantity of fuel or illuminating supplies used, has been abrogated. And under the decisions now in force payment is not authorized of heat or light allowances for rooms not actually occupied; that is to say, where an officer occupies quarters other than public, the fuel or illuminating supplies for which can not be measured, he will be entitled to no more than the allowances prescribed in the regulations for the number of rooms actually occupied. (19 Comp. Dec., 675, Apr, 24, 1913; 65 MS. Comp. Dec., 448, Apr. 23, 1913; 65 id., 1081, May 26, 1913; 65 id., 1094, May 27, 1913; Dec. of July 30, 1913, to G. F. Downey, Lt. Col., Q. M. C., U. S. A.; Dec. of July 30, 1913, to Wm. B. Rochester, Maj., Q. M. C., U. S. A.; Dec. of Aug. 4, 1913, to Secy. of Navy.)

An officer's certificate as to the number of rooms actually occupied by him ordinarily will be accepted if sufficiently specific by the accounting officers as sufficient evidence of that fact, but it is not conclusive, and in any case the accounting officers may require other evidence.

The certificate of Naval Constructor Bisset, referred to in the pay officer's letter, supra, and which reads: "I certify that I used five

rooms as quarters at the Sinclair Inn, June 1 to June 30, 1913," is not sufficient evidence that he actually occupied as quarters five rooms during the period in question. Said certificate should show the number of rooms actually and exclusively occupied as his quarters and that said number does not include bathrooms, storerooms, or rooms used in common with other guests or tenants, such as public dining room, parlor, kitchen, halls, etc.

If an officer's quarters at his permanent station are actually occupied during his absence with leave by his family or persons dependent upon him for support (and evidence of such fact accompany the voucher), payment of the heat and light allowance for such quarters during such period is authorized; but if said quarters are not so occupied, the officer is entitled to no heat or light allowances for the period of his absence on leave.

The questions submitted are answered accordingly.

INDORSEMENT OF WARRANTS ISSUED FOR PAYMENT OF FUNDS BELONGING TO INDIANS.

As a general rule warrants payable to individual Indians should be indorsed personally by the payees, but where there exists difficulties in the way of procuring the payees' personal indorsements, precluding or materially retarding the accomplishment of the objects for which the payments are made, or where the law itself makes an exception, indorsements for or in the names of the payees by some duly authorized and designated party have been regarded as sufficient. However, the question in each case where it is sought to make an exception to the general rule with respect to indorsements must be decided upon the laws and facts appertaining thereto. Assistant Comptroller Warwick to the Secretary of the Interior, August 18, 1913: I am in receipt of your letter of August 7, 1913, requesting to be advised as to whether settlements made by the auditor for payment of shares of the principal of trust funds belonging to Indians, shares of interest on such trust funds, $50 cash payments, the commuted value of Sioux benefits, and back annuities may properly be certified for payment by issuance of either separate or consolidated warrants payable to the order of the superintendent having jurisdiction of the Indians "for deposit to the credit of (naming the particular

Indian or Indians)."

It is understood that at the present time these settlements are certified for payment by issuance of warrants payable to the individual Indians, and hence said warrants must be indorsed by them before same can be deposited to their credit in a bonded bank by the superintendent. The objections to this method of procedure are stated by you as follows:

"Considerable difficulties are frequently experienced in procuring indorsements. Ofttimes the Indian resides at a point distant 50