goods of officers and others shipped at public expense shall not be made at regular tariff rates without any deductions on account of the land-grant act."

The Judge Advocate General by aforesaid indorsement, after referring to the letter of the Quartermaster General, said:

"2. There would seem to be no doubt but that the proviso here quoted removed the obstacle referred to in the Comptroller's decision against the allowances by the accounting officers of the full freight rate. I suggest, however, that the question of whether the disbursing officers may now pay the full freight rate on such shipments be referred to the Comptroller for his decision in accordance with the Acting Quartermaster General's request."

My predecessor, in the decision of June 30, 1915, referred to (21 Comp. Dec., 889), said:

"This office is not necessarily bound to follow the decisions of the Court of Claims, but where the Department of Justice acquiesces without appeal in a decision, as in this case, in accordance with which decision any future claims presented to the Court of Claims would presumably be decided, claimants, unless there be other reason therefor not involved in the decision, should not be required to resort to the court to secure that which would undoubtedly be granted, but the decision should be followed, and the imposition of unnecessary burdens in the accomplishment of predetermined results avoided."

In accordance with this view the then Comptroller, by another decision of the same date (21 Comp. Dec., 887), allowed the payment for the transportation over land-grant railroads of the personal effects of a Government officer at full tariff rates without land-grant deduction when the payment therefor was made from an appropriation which contained no limitation as to the amount to be paid therefor.

He, however, held that the limitation in the Army appropriation act, as to payment for transportation over land-grant railroads, prevented the accounting officers from allowing from said appropriation for any service over said roads any amount in excess of 50 per cent of tariff rates.

The proviso quoted by the Quartermaster General from the act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1917, is apparently intended as a removal of the said limitation in the use of the appropriation and of permitting the accounting officers to allow full payment to land-grant railroads from the said appropriation for the class of service indicated.

It is in effect a legislative construction that the limitation as to the - use of the appropriation for the payment of transportation over land-grant railroads is not applicable in the payment for "transportation of property or persons where the courts of the United States have held that such property or persons do not come within the scope of the deductions provided for in the land-grant acts."

In other words, the accounting officers may use the appropriation for the payment of the full amount that may be determined to be due for the class of service indicated without reference to the preceding limitation as to payment to land-grant railroads.

The act referred to is dated August 29, 1916, and is therefore effective from said date. In view of the decisions of the court and the language of the act, I am of opinion that payment for the transportation of such personal effects of Army officers as may be authorized by law after the date of said act may be made at the full tariff rates over land-grant railroads without deduction of 50 per cent as required by decision of this office of June 30, 1915. (21 Comp. Dec., 889.)

The payment for the transporation over land-grant railroads of the personal effects of Army officers will then be on the same basis as the payment for the transportation of the personal effects of other Government officers as per decision of this office of June 30, 1915. (21 Comp. Dec., 887.)

The act provides that nothing in the preceding provisos of the act "shall be construed to prevent the accounting officers of the Government from making full payment to land-grant railroads ***.” While this language in form indicates payment by the accounting officers there is nothing in the law requiring direct settlements for such service to be made by the accounting officers. As disbursing officers have been authorized to make payments for said service, I think the act may be construed as authorizing the accounting officers to allow credit to disbursing officers for such payments as would be allowed directly by the accounting officers, and therefore if accounts are so paid by disbursing officers, the accounting officers will be justified in allowing credit therefor in the settlement of said officers' accounts.

TRANSPORTATION, AGREED VALUATION.

The fact that a bill of lading contains a limitation of value whereby the carrier's liability is to be measured in the case of loss or damage does not give the carrier the right to possession of the property at the agreed valuation, in the event of damage in transit.

Decision by Comptroller Warwick, September 26, 1916:

The Texas-Mexican Railway Co. applied September 11, 1916, for a revision of the action of the Auditor for the War Department in disallowing, per settlement No. 26564, August 9, 1916, its claim for $89, included in deduction of $189 from voucher No. 653, April, 1915, accounts of Capt. E. W. Tanner.

The facts in the case are as follows:

A shipment was made per bill of lading No. 170, May 21, 1914, from the National Stock Yards, Illinois, to Laredo, Tex., of two carloads (37) horses. The bill of lading shows, by indorsement of the consignee, that "horse No. 302 has not been received; horse No. 809 received with right hind leg injured; injuries to both horses are due to faulty construction of car." The payment for the transportation, including feed charges, of said horses was made by Capt. E. W. Tanner, per his voucher No. 653, April, 1915, the total charges thereon being shown to be $229.67, with deduction of $189 on account of "value of one horse injured and sold by railroad company en route."

The shipment was made on the usual Government bill of lading form, one of the conditions of which is that bill of lading is subject to all the conditions of the uniform or standard bill of lading.

The company claims that, in accordance with paragraph 12 of the uniform bill of lading, its liability does not exceed $100 for each horse. Its claim for the difference ($89) was disallowed by the auditor for the reason that "the carriers having removed the horse from the car en route and made disposition of same would therefore appear to be liable for the full value thereof."

It appears that the value of the horse is $189, and that the company, having removed and sold the same, is liable for the full value of the horse.

The limitation of value of the horses as specified in the bill of lading does not give the carrier the right to take possession of the horses at the stipulated valuation.

The auditor's action is affirmed.

COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES.

All proper claims for personal injuries to Government employees occurring prior to the date of passage of the act of September 7, 1916, are payable from departmental appropriations under, and subject to the limitations of, the act of May 30, 1908, while all such claims for injuries occurring on and after September 7, 1916, are payable from the employees compensation fund provided in the act of September 8, 1916.

Comptroller Warwick to the Secretary of Labor, September 27, 1916:

I have your request of September 21, 1916, for decision as to the proper appropriation from which payment of compensation for injuries should be made during the period from the approval of the act of Congress of September 7, 1916 (Public, No. 267, 64th Cong.), entitled "An act to provide compensation for employees of the United States suffering injuries while in the performance of their

duties, and for other purposes," to the date of the organization of the commission created thereby.

As the payments of these injury claims are not to be made by you, or under your direction, I have no jurisdiction, under section 8 of the act of July 31, 1894 (28 Stat., 208), to render you a binding decision upon the question as submitted.

However, in view of the importance of this legislation, and as it appears you are in doubt as to whether you are authorized to approve such claims for allowance under the act of May 30, 1908 (35 Stat., 556), I will state my views on the legislation involved in a general way merely as an advisory opinion, which is, however, not to be regarded as conclusive when a question of payment is properly presented.

The foregoing act of September 7, 1916, created a commission, to be known as the "United States Employees' Compensation Commission," to be composed of three commissioners appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to administer and carry out the provisions thereof.

Section 28a of said act provides, in part, as follows:

"Upon the organization of said commission and notification to the heads of all executive departments that the commission is ready to take up the work devolved upon it by this act, all commissions and independent bureaus, by or in which payments for compensation are now provided, together with the adjustment and settlement of such claims, shall cease and determine, and such executive departments, commissions, and independent bureaus shall transfer all pending claims to said commission to be administered by it."

The deficiency act of September 8, 1916 (Public, No. 272, 64th Cong., p. 24), makes two appropriations for carrying out the purposes of the act of September 7, 1916, above referred to, one in the amount of $50,000, for miscellaneous expenses, providing for salaries and necessary expenses of the commission, and the other in the amount of $500,000, for the employees' compensation fund. These appropriations are available for expenditure only by the commission when organized, and cover all claims for injuries occurring from and after the passage of the act of September 7, 1916.

Claims for injuries occurring prior to the passage of the said act are provided for under the provisions of section 41 thereof, as follows:

"That for injuries occurring prior to the passage of this act compensation shall be paid under the law in force at the time of the passage of this act."

This latter provision continues the old law of May 30, 1908, in force up to the date of the organization of the commission for the purpose of adjusting and settling claims for injuries occurring prior to the

date of approval of the act of September 7, 1916. Upon the organization of the commission, all such claims which are still pending for adjustment and settlement are required, under section 28a, above, to be transferred to the commission to be administered by it, and the Secretary of Labor is thereafter relieved of all duties in the matter; but this procedure will not affect the manner of payment of such claims.

All claims for injuries occurring prior to the passage of the act of September 7, 1916, are to be paid as heretofore from departmental appropriations under the act of May 30, 1908, while those for injuries occurring after the passage of the said act are to be paid from the employees' compensation fund carried in the deficiency act of September 8, 1916.

MILEAGE OF RETIRED ARMY OFFICERS SERVING AS WITNESSES. A retired officer of the Army who serves as a witness before a court-martial is entitled, for travel performed in going to and returning from the court, only to the mileage provided for civilian witnesses in such cases, and not to the mileage provided for officers of the Army traveling under competent orders, without troops, although he was expressly ordered by the Secretary of War to appear as a witness before the court-martial.

Decision by Comptroller Warwick, September 28, 1916:

Frank R. Lang, major, United States Army, retired, applied September 13, 1916, for a revision of the action of the Auditor for the War Department in disallowing, per settlement No. 88005, dated April 8, 1916, his claim for mileage at the rate of 7 cents per mile for a journey performed in May, 1915, from New York, N. Y., his place of residence, to Columbus Barracks, Ohio, and return, in obedience to a summons to appear as a witness before a general court-martial.

He states that prior to March 26, 1915, he not only did not comply with the summons of the court-martial but informed the judge advocate of the court-martial that it was impossible for him to do so. This action on his part resulted in the issuance of an order by the War Department. The order is paragraph 5 of War Department Special Orders, No. 71, dated at Washington, D. C., March 26, 1915, and worded as follows:

"5. Major Frank R. Lang, United States Army, retired, will proceed to Columbus Barracks, Ohio, when notified by the judge advocate of a general court-martial at that post that his presence is desired for duty as a witness before a general court-martial, and upon the completion of this duty will return to the place of receipt by him of this order. The travel directed is necessary in the military service."

The closing words of said Special Orders, No. 71, are: "By order of the Secretary of War."