paid commutation of quarters when the public quarters at said station were occupied by other officers and enlisted men as follows:

The Army Regulations of 1910 provide:

"1040. At each post and station where there are public quarters in buildings belonging to the United States, the quartermaster, under direction of the commanding officer, will allot to each officer the quarters to which his rank entitles him."

"1044. An officer will not occupy more than his proper allowance of quarters, except by permission of the commanding officer when there is an excess of quarters at the station. The allowance will be reduced pro rata by the commanding officer when the number of officers and troops present makes it necessary. If the public buildings are inadequate, the commanding officer will apply, through the department commander, to the Secretary of War for authority to hire necessary quarters."

"1045. Officers on duty without troops at stations where there are public quarters will be furnished them in kind. If insufficient, application for authority to hire quarters will be made as directed in paragraph 1044.”

"1322. An officer on duty without troops at a station where there are no public quarters, or where the public quarters are inadequate, is entitled to commutation therefor."

It would appear from the facts hereinbefore set forth with reference to the stations at Fort Myer and Watertown Arsenal that these regulations have not been strictly observed.

The reason assigned by the commanding officer at Fort Myer for the seemingly unauthorized allotment of quarters at that station is that the "rooms constituting a set of quarters are determined by the construction of the houses, which precludes the division into suites." With reference to the allotment of quarters at Watertown Arsenal the Chief of Ordnance, United States Army, said:

"These quarters were built for the occupancy of one family, with all that that implies, and are not suited to the occupancy of two families.

"One set of quarters might be assigned to several bachelors, but this is considered objectionable, as they are usually the younger officers doing school work, and such a course would require one of the officers regularly stationed there, and who assists in the administration and operation of the arsenal, to live at some distance, which

is undesirable, as frequently two shifts are at work, requiring frequent visits to the shop out of the regular hours, and the presence of such officers is frequently required in emergencies."

The conditions at these two stations with respect to quarters (which I understand are not exceptional) naturally suggest the inquiry as to why single quarters, suitable for the use of but one officer and consisting of 16, 13, and 11 rooms, are constructed at military posts when a lieutenant general is entitled to only 10 rooms? Also as to why 14 sets of 9-room quarters were constructed at a station where there is only one officer entitled to occupy 9 rooms as quarters, and why at a station where there are only six officers above the grade of captain, and only three above the grade of major, there are 30 sets of quarters consisting of 6 or more rooms each? However, the question of construction of quarters or changes in construction to provide quarters of the size authorized by law is not now before me, and the accounting officers have no jurisdiction or control over the assignment of quarters.

An officer on duty with troops at a post where there are public quarters is entitled to quarters in kind and to occupy such number of rooms, not exceeding the number to which his rank entitled him, as may be assigned to him. In the case of such an officer the accounting officers of the Treasury have no authority to question the action of the War Department in assigning quarters unless a payment from the Treasury is proposed to be made to some officer on duty without troops at the post for commutation of quarters on the ground that "there are no public quarters" for him. To determine the legality of the claim of the latter officer it is essential that evidence be furnished as to the facts relative to quarters at the post. The fact that an officer's application for assignment of quarters in kind is denied does not entitle him to commutation of quarters if, in fact, there were public quarters at the post or station which might have been assigned to him. His redress in such a case, if any, would be against the officer responsible for the denial of quarters in kind.

A statement was made by the commanding officer at Fort Myer, in his letter of May 22, 1913, that “"All officers' quarters at Fort Myer were occupied during the period, November 1 to 30, 1912."

This statement or certificate is accompanied by a list of officers' quarters and occupants for November, 1912, which list is quoted herein. That evidence indicates clearly that while all the quarters were occupied, they all were not occupied by officers entitled to quarters, so that within the meaning of the law and in fact there were public quarters at Fort Myer for officers in addition to those already provided for. The permission that is given by the War Department, or its officers, to allow those not entitled to public quarters to occupy

them does not authorize a conclusion of law that there were no quarters there available for officers assigned to duty at the post.

The question has been raised by the auditor as to the effect to be given by the accounting officers to the certificate of an officer of the War Department upon the subject of quarters. In my opinion such a certificate does not have any greater value as evidence than the certificates made by such officers upon other vouchers when certifying to facts. The accounting officers are charged with the duty of settling the public accounts. The character and quantity of evidence needed to establish a fact must be determined by them; otherwise the conclusion reached, which is "final and conclusive upon the executive branch of the Government," will be in effect that of the officer who decides what evidence shall go to them.

It is understood so generally as hardly to need a statement now that the accounting officers do audit the public accounts upon the evidence furnished largely by the certificates of fact made by responsible Government officers. But, with very few exceptions made by law, the certificate or approval of an officer is not intended to be conclusive upon the accounting officers. The latter must render a decision upon the legality of a claim for payment, or for credit in an account, upon the facts. Upon them is cast the responsibility for securing the facts. Upon other officers is the duty of furnishing, upon request, such evidence, in addition to certificates, as may be called for by the accounting officers. This right to call for evidence is inseparable from the duty to audit and to decide questions of law and fact. It must be exercised reasonably, as must any public duty, but the accounting officer, and not an administrative officer incurring liabilities or expending the public funds, must determine the extent to which it is necessary to go in any particular case in collecting the evidence to establish what he believes to be an essential fact as a basis for decision.

Soon after the law of 1878 was passed it was held that the provision-" officers may be furnished with quarters in kind in such public quarters, and not elsewhere"-meant that if such quarters were "insufficient" or "full," other quarters could be rented, or if the officer was on duty without troops, he could be paid commutation. It might have been more in accord with the wording of the statute to hold that no quarters other than the public ones could be used, and no commutation paid, or at any rate that quarters in kind (owned or rented by the Government) was the only provision to be made for any officer on duty at the post.

In view of the fact that the statute of 1878 and the later one passed in 1907 have been construed to authorize commutation of quarters for an officer on duty without troops at a post where quarters are inadequate, the practice will not be disturbed at the present time.

The decision by the auditor as it is summed up in the last paragraph thereof, so far as it relates to the conclusiveness of the certificate, is modified to the extent that the certificate will be accepted as prima facie evidence of the facts underlying the conclusion certified to, but will not be considered as the best evidence in all cases, nor as relieving the auditor of the responsibility of determining the facts and securing the evidence necessary to a decision.

66

As to the wording of the certificate, or the character of evidence needed to establish the fact that the place is one "where there are no public quarters," so as to entitle an officer to commutation of quarters, it is not sufficient that a certificate be made that quarters are 'fully occupied." These two words have an indefinite and uncertain meaning, depending upon the point of view of the person using them. They may be used to state a conclusion that could not be reached upon an application of the law, as interpreted by the accounting officers, to the admitted facts.

In paragraph 1045 of the Army Regulations the word "insufficient" is used, while in parapraph 1322, which is identical as to conditions, the word "inadequate" is used without being intended, it would seem, to convey a meaning different from the meaning sought to be conveyed by "insufficient."

We thus find the words "occupied," "fully occupied," and "full ” to describe a condition existing as to quarters in kind, and the words "insufficient," "inadequate," "unavailable," "unassignable," and "unsuitable" are used to denote various views of the reasons for the conclusion as to the nonexistence of quarters in kind.

It was held by this office (2 Comp. Dec., 187), that quarters could not be hired at a post for an officer on duty with troops when it appeared that the officers already on duty were entitled to 70 rooms and the number of assignable rooms was 204. It may be assumed that the question of adequacy of quarters was raised under conditions similar to those in the cases now under consideration-that is, where an officer is assigned to a single house containing many more rooms than he is entitled to.

But whether or not the extra rooms in a house built for one family can be considered as assignable, or available, or unoccupied, within the meaning of the law, I am of the opinion that, under existing conditions as to construction of houses, the rooms in excess of authorized allowance in a single house assigned to and occupied by an officer and his family are not rooms that must necessarily be assigned to another officer, but that while such conditions exist these excess rooms are not quarters, and probably ought not to be provided with furniture, or light, or separate heating.

It is assumed, of course, that the War Department makes an assignment of quarters with due regard to the public interests, and

when necessary to pay commutation of quarters to officers on duty at a post or station, other things being equal, it will place in quarters in kind those officers receiving the highest rate of commutation, and so assign officers to quarters as to reduce the amount paid to the minimum.

Commutation of quarters for an officer on duty at a post where there are public quarters can not be granted by an order. The facts determine the right. While the only rooms unoccupied by those entitled to quarters are rooms in single houses in excess of the authorized allowance of the occupants of those houses, there are no public quarters within the meaning of the law. But the contrary is true when there are quarters occupied by persons not entitled to quarters.

The question whether or not there are inhabitable although undesirable public quarters, and all other questions involved in payment of commutation must be decided by the auditor or Comptroller in each case. While they might prefer to accept the decision of other officers, they can not shift their duty in this matter, and must accept certification of facts and conclusions only so far as they believe the situation justifies that course.

RATE OF EXCHANGE.

Where a banking corporation under a contract with the United States collected a sum of money in a foreign country for the United States, which sum was not actually converted into United States gold, its accounts with the United States should be settled on the basis of the quoted exchange value of the foreign monetary unit in United States gold on the date and at the place of accounting in the foreign country, and not on that of an arbitrary rate of exchange fixed by a bankers' commission.

Decision by Comptroller Downey, August 18, 1913:

The International Banking Corporation of New York appealed April 17, 1912, from the action of the auditor for the State and Other Departments in settlement No. 64670, dated April 10, 1912, of its account for the period ending December 31, 1904, as agent of the United States to receive the indemnity to be paid to the United States by the Chinese Government, and also for a reconsideration of the decision of this office of December 3, 1904 (11 Comp. Dec., 253), relating to the accounting for the collection of the first semiannual installment of interest received from the Chinese Government on account of said indemnity. This involves the accounts for the three. years 1902, 1903, and 1904 of the said International Banking Corporation.

The balance due from the appellant to the United States under the decision of December 3, 1904, supra, was $5,627.45. The auditor in settlement No. 64670, supra, certified a balance due the United