When such a voucher is made out and certified by the dealer and by the proper administrative officers, and the differences found are properly itemized and certified, if the Treasury Auditor can then require other and additional evidence of the facts so proven by the entries on the face of the voucher, and without the auditor having reason to doubt the correctness of the investigation of facts and certification thereof by the administrative officers, it may well be asked why the facts and the differences should be certified in the manner required by the form of voucher prescribed by the Comptroller. In the present case the prescribed form of voucher was used exactly in the manner contemplated when it was prescribed, the differences found being clearly noted and certified by the proper officers. In many branches of the public service vouchers are prepared in the administrative office and not by dealers. They are made correct according to the records of the Government office and sent to the dealer for certification. They are certified and approved by the administrative officers, and the space on the voucher for differences is not used. In the present case it would appear that the District government, although using the form in the manner required, has not avoided work and has not, by a compliance with the form prescribed by the Comptroller, been able to avoid a call of the Auditor for the State and Other Departments for additional evidence to sustain the facts already fully and accurately certified on the face of the voucher. The changing of the amounts of these vouchers through the use of the difference statement was not an alteration of the voucher, but the use of the prescribed methods for the correction of a mistake therein. The form having been properly used as contemplated, it follows that such a method of correcting errors should be recognized as proper and sufficient or the form should be changed and the practice adopted of requiring incorrect vouchers to be sent back to the dealer for correction. In the present case the vouchers show on their face clearly that the question of the quantities received and the prices was brought properly to the attention of the officers of the District. They corrected the vouchers to conform to the quantities actually received and to the contract prices, and certified the differences in a way to show clearly the facts as they found them. It is my opinion that both of these vouchers are sufficiently certified as to the errors found to justify their allowance as corrected. Theoretically, the same degree of accuracy should prevail in matters involving a few cents as in those involving many dollars, but practically a method of procedure may be recognized in one case which ought not to prevail in the other. This was the principle underlying the action of the Comptroller in prescribing vouchers of the form here in question. In cases of small differences I regard the certification of such differences on the face of the vouchers by responsible administrative officers as an advantageous method of correcting errors, and if the certificate be made sufficiently specific to indicate the particular respect in which the voucher is erroneous and the real facts as they are certified to justify the disbursement, credit should be given to the disbursing officer. It is not intended to hold that all vouchers of disbursing officers which are completed according to the prescribed form, with the necessary certifications, approvals, etc., shall be passed to the credit of the disbursing officer. There may be many cases in which additional evidence must be developed by an auditor before he passes the voucher, but when that evidence, in the case of small amounts of money, is ascertained and certified in the manner and form prescribed by the Comptroller, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, and there is nothing upon the face of the voucher or within the knowledge of the auditor that would raise a suspicion of an inaccurate statement of the facts, the voucher should be regarded as sufficient as to the facts to give the disbursing officer credit. In the case of the accounts of the District of Columbia, the law has provided an auditor of the District whose duty relates particularly to the accuracy of financial transactions of the District. Due weight should be given to his examination and certification of vouchers, especially as to the facts which are within the knowledge of District officials and can not be made known, in the usual course of business, to Treasury Department officials except by written certificates appearing upon vouchers. The two items involved in this revision will be allowed. COMPUTATION OF COMPENSATION FOR FRACTIONAL PART OF A 31-DAY MONTH. An officer or employee will be paid for each day in a 30 or 31 day month for which he is in a duty or pay status, except for the thirty-first day. The concluding proviso of the act of June 30, 1906 (34 Stat., 763), viz, “That for one day's unauthorized absence on the thirty-first day of any calendar month one day's pay shall be forfeited," does not apply where the absence is for more than that one day of that month. Decision by Comptroller Downey, June 27, 1914: C. S. Hebert, collector and special disbursing agent, United States Customs Service, at New Orleans, requested June 23, 1914, a revision of so much of the action of the Auditor for the Treasury Department as disallowed 83 cents in his disbursement accounts, as shown by said auditor's certificate of settlement No. 7893, dated April 16, 1914. Said disallowance was made because of an overpayment to one Mary Vigne, a charwoman with salary at $300 per annum, on supplemental pay roll for October, 1913, from the appropriation "Operating force for public buildings, 1914." It seems that this employee was absent sick from August 1 to 4, 1913, and was granted 15 days additional leave to begin August 5, 1913, and thereafter was absent in a no-pay status the remainder of the month. For the 15 days additional leave granted her this employee was paid to and including August 22, 1913, or for 18 days. During this additional leave period there were two Sundays and two half days on Saturdays. The auditor disallowed for one of these days because the woman was absent without pay the remainder of this 31-day month, or for a period of 9 days, and only allowed pay for twenty-one thirtieths of $25, or $17.50; difference, 83 cents. The foregoing has been the method of computing pay for absences of this kind, but in my decision of April 30, 1914 (20 Com. Dec., 772), attention was called to the rules laid down in the act of June 30, 1906 (34 Stat., 763), for the division of time and computation of pay for services, one of which is: "The thirty-first day of a thirty-one day month shall be excluded from computation." The concluding proviso of the section referred to, viz, "That for one day's unauthorized absence on the thirty-first day of any calendar month one day's pay shall be forfeited," does not apply in a case like this. And in said decision it was also said: "The theory of the law is the determination of the days for which an employee is to be paid, not the deductions from pay. The result in most cases is the same, but occasionally the traveling of the wrong road may lead to error." Based upon this construction of the act of June 30, 1906 (34 Stat., 763), an employee who is absent on the thirty-first of a 31-day month will be charged with one day's pay only in case the absence is for that one day of that month. It is to be conceded that the law contains some foolish features, and that its application does not in all cases do equity. But with that we are not concerned. It is our duty to apply it as written, and we can not escape the specific provision quoted above and applicable here as to the exclusion of the thirty-first from computation when not covered by the concluding proviso. The action of the auditor is overruled. INDEX. A. Page. Abrogation, constructive, of contract by Government, effect of_____ 171 Acceptance, freight shipments by Government officers, what constitutes__ 263 Clerks' fees in pauper bankrupt cases. 759 Expenditures from half-and-half appropriations under direction of 275 Fees of clerks of United States courts in naturalization cases.. 764 32 Method of- Administrative officers who receive public moneys‒‒‒‒ 526 Payment of principal and interest of 3.65 bonds of District of 441 Special deposit moneys held by miscellaneous officers__ 479 Proceeds of erroneous sales of public lands in reclamation States. 415, 597 Army officers as to nonavailability of public quarters not bind- 87 Naval officers as to number of rooms occupied as quarters not 83 Claim appropriated for by Congress is final adjudication of and 288 Form of voucher prescribed by comptroller as sufficient evidence___ 863 473 1 664 When bound by finding of military authorities as to absence of Accounts: Administrative officers when receiving public moneys- 69 526 412 Comptroller of the Treasury has no jurisdiction over item suspended 169 352 Accounts Continued. Jurisdiction of an auditor over item suspended in settlement of---- Must be passed on by auditor before the comptroller has juris- Page. 169 349 290 Navy pay officers allowed only time actually necessary not exceed- 559 Rate of exchange applicable to settlement of, of banking corporation 95 680 Separate items in, should be settled as an entirety... 626 Special deposit, covering cost of transportation of excess baggage of 479 Actual expenses. (See Expenses.) Additional compensation. (See Compensation.) Additional pay: Account service in Porto Rico_--_- Army- Enlisted men qualifying as sharpshooters and marksmen_-_-_ During leave of absence after duty in foreign country--- 819, 821 825 28 333 Navy- Aides to rear admirals__. 675 Enlisted men of, detained in service after expiration of enlist- 37 Officer of, not entitled to 10 per cent, while traveling from sea Revenue-Cutter Service, officers of, under act of June 30, 1902____. Administrative officers: Liquidation of indeterminate damages by, without authority__. Appointment of, of estate of Army officer, by court, when neither 481 618 144 390 520 5 Payment to, of compensation of injured employee_-_- 555 740 Advance decisions, disbursing officers requesting, should submit vouchers_ 203 tract rates without readvertisement____ 582 Advertising, rate for, based on sworn statements on file__ 837 675 Alaska: Fees of United States commissioners in, for collecting poll tax and 847 Fees of witnesses whose depositions are taken for use in land hear- 308 Alley, private, adjacent to public building, paving of, at Government 192 |