CHAUFFEURS' LICENSES.

Under existing law and appropriations an employee of the Federal Government who pays a fee to a State for a chauffeur's license to operate a Governmentowned motor vehicle on public business is not entitled to reimbursement therefor from public funds. Quaere, whether the Federal Government, while denying the right of a State to exact from it a motor vehicle license fee, should at the same time accept such a license and place the tag evidencing it upon such motor vehicle.

Comptroller Warwick to the Secretary of the Interior, January 10, 1917:

I have your letter of December 29, 1916, requesting to be advised whether payment may be made, and under what appropriation, to the State of Maryland of fees for chauffeurs' licenses, the State motor vehicle commissioner having advised you that, under the State law, the licenses for motor vehicles can be furnished without charge, but that payment of the usual fee of $3 for a chauffeur's license would be required.

This office has repeatedly negatived that there is authority to use appropriations to make payment to States of license fees in connection with Government motor vehicles. (See 15 Comp. Dec., 231; 66 MS. Comp. Dec., 247, July 22, 1913; 50 id., 700.)

This conclusion is generally based on the ground that the license fee is equivalent to a tax and may not be exacted of the Government. This was the conclusion reached in the decision of the former Comptroller of July 22, 1913, above cited, to the Secretary of Agriculture; and the further question of the chauffeur's license, which you now also present, was there considered and disposed of as follows:

"There is reason why the States should be free to require that operation of motor vehicles be licensed. It is found in the right to protect persons and property on the public highways from danger arising from the handling of powerful machines by incompetent

persons.

"But an employee of the Government has upon his own shoulders the duty of presenting himself as competent in every way for the duties of his employment. If a personal license is necessary to render him competent to discharge the duties of his employment, the right to require which I do not attempt to decide, he should fit himself for the discharge of those duties at his own expense."

I think it is the right of the Government to determine for itself the qualifications of those of its employees in the capacities such as here referred to, and that there is grave doubt of the right of the State to exact a license fee of the Government employee acting in such capacity.

But be this as it may, I agree with the general conclusion that the appropriations may not be used to pay State fees for chauffeurs' licenses.

There may be serious doubt as to whether the Government should deny the right of a State to exact a motor vehicle license fee to be paid by the Government, and yet at the same time.accept such a license and place the tag evidencing it upon the motor vehicle. It might be proper, when the Government denied the right of a State to levy a tax or license fee on the operation of a Government vehicle through a State, to have the Federal character of the vehicle indicated in a way to identify it as the property of the Government and guarantee its travel unmolested.

This, however, is not a question upon which this office can render a decision or express an opinion. Neither can it render a decision or express an opinion upon the question whether any particular person operating any vehicle in a State should have the chauffeur's license required by the laws of the State. These questions are proper ones for settlement by the opinions of law officers of the Government. or otherwise. (See 28 Opin. Att. Gen., 604.)

Until provided by appropriations by Congress or legislation upon the subject, this office is of the opinion that any license fees that may be paid by chauffeurs can not be reimbursed from appropriations heretofore made.

COUNTING WORDS IN OFFICIAL CABLEGRAMS.

Until the Postmaster General shall have prescribed a different method, words in official messages transmitted partly by telegraph and partly by cable should be counted in accordance with the method regularly employed with respect to commercial messages so transmitted.

Comptroller Warwick to the Secretary of the Navy, January 10, 1917:
I have your letter of the 22d ultimo, as follows:

"1. The West India & Panama Telegraph Co. has submitted a bill for $5.43 to cover transmission of a cable message on 4 August, 1916, from San Juan, P. R., to Washington, D. C. The charge of $5.43 is arrived at as follows: 49 words at 10 cents, to cover the cable charge, and 53 words at 1 cent for land-line tolls. In connection with the question of payment, the Director Naval Communications makes the following statement:

666* * * The number of words are charged for as 49 cable count from San Juan to Florida, the routing and rate between these points being free from San Juan to Santiago, 10 cents per word from Santiago to Key West, from Key West to Washington the Postmaster General's rate of 20 and 1. However, for this part of the service the check is raised four words, presumably on a different basis of counting, i. e., that commonly called Government domestic count.

666 This office is of the opinion that the message should take cable. count throughout the transmission, inasmuch as the point of the origin, San Juan, is a cable point and the message a cablegram, and that therefore the number of chargeable words from Key West to

Washington should be at cable count at the rates fixed by the Postmaster General in his annual circular.'

"2. In the audit of telegraph and cable messages it is noted that two separate and distinct methods of counting the number of words in the same class of messages are at present being countenanced in the Navy Department, viz, land-line tolls on radiograms and cablegrams.

"3. Cable messages transmitted to foreign countries via Western Union Telegraph Co. or Postal Telegraph & Cable Co. to the point where the cable begins, thence to destination, or vice versa, are counted twice, once by telegraph count for land-line tolls and again by cable count for cable charges. Charges are figured for the land portion at Government rates established by the Postmaster General, at domestic count. The cable charges are obtained by multiplying the number of words, cable count, by the company's cable rate. The two sums obtained by the two different methods of counting are added and constitute the charge paid by the Government for the service.

"4. Radio messages are counted once, and the same number of words are paid for from point of origin to destination. If the message were a radiogram, i. e., a message from a ship to shore, or vice versa, the Western Union Telegraph Co. or Postal Telegraph & Cable Co.'s charge for land-line tolls would be based on the number of words, cable count. The method of counting the number of words in radiograms is provided for in the proceedings of the London Radiotelegraphic Convention, which follows the rule set forth in the International Telegraph Convention. The United States is a signatory party to the former but not to the latter convention.

5. While the telegraph and cable companies of the United States are not bound by the International Telegraph Convention, except that part which applies to radiograms, it is common practice for these companies to conform to that convention in the matter of counting of words for cablegrams. The so-called cable count is based on the International Telegraph regulations. In charging for a commercial message, the cablegram takes this count for the purpose of charges from point of origin to destination, even though the message originates in the interior of the United States.

66

6. The Postmaster General, in his annual order fixing the Government rate in accordance with the act of 1866, does not fix any specific method of counting words, but merely states that all words shall be counted 'exclusive of place from and date.' In the case of a Government domestic message, it follows that the number of chargeable words is arrived at according to the method of counting a commercial domestic message, except that in addition the words in address and signature are also counted instead of simply the text. In the absence of a specific method of counting, it would seem that a Government cablegram should take the same method of count as is used for a commercial cablegram, and as stated above, a cominercial cablegram is charged for at cable count from point of origin to destination and not on domestic basis for the telegraph portion of the transmission and cable count for the cable transmission.

"7. A decision is requested as to the proper count to be applied. in computing the land line tolls on the message referred to."

The method of counting the words in a message necessarily affects the amount to be paid for its transmission. Therefore the provision of section 5266, Revised Statutes, authorizing the Postmaster General to fix the rates to be charged on Government telegrams also authorizes him to prescribe the method of counting the words in such telegrams. But in the absence of any regulation or ruling by the Postmaster General on the matter, the count on Government messages should be in accordance with the established practice with reference to commercial messages.

I infer from your submission that the telegraph companies of the United States in transmitting other than Government messages apply the domestic count to messages transmitted over land lines only and the cable count to messages transmitted partly by cable and partly by telegraph. If such be the case, the same practice should obtain with respect to Government messages until such time as the Postmaster General shall prescribe a different count.

You are advised, therefore, that if it is the custom of telegraph companies to apply the cable count on commercial cablegrams from place of origin to place of destination, the same count should be applied to Government cablegrams. The question submitted is answered accordingly.

GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHMENTS AT THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT IN RE ACT OF JUNE 17, 1910.

The National Training School for Boys, located in the District of Columbia, is a Government establishment at the seat of Government within the meaning of the act of June 17, 1910, relative to the purchase of miscellaneous supplies for such establishments, and, accordingly, comes within the operation of said act.

Decision by Comptroller Warwick, January 10, 1917:

Samuel W. Curriden, treasurer of the National Training School for Boys, applied December 14, 1916, for a revision of the action of the Auditor for the State and Other Departments in disallowing, by settlement No. 7601, dated November 10, 1916, credit for the sum of $5.91, being the difference between the amount paid for lumber and nails, as per vouchers Nos. 9, 12, and 224, quarter ending March 31, 1916, and the contract price of said articles as set forth in the schedule compiled by the General Supply Committee.

Mr. Curriden contends that the National Training School for Boys is not a Government establishment within the meaning of the provisions of section 4 of the act of June 17, 1910 (36 Stat., 531), and therefore that the provisions of said section, relative to the purchase of miscellaneous supplies, have no application to the purchases now under consideration.

This institution was established by authority of Congress to perform a governmental function, and is maintained and supported by appropriations from funds of the United States. The fact that the board of trustees appointed by the President to govern and manage the school is constituted a corporation for certain purposes does not make the institution any the less a Government establishment. It has been held to be a department, bureau, or office of the Government within the meaning of Treasury Department Circular No. 54, of 1907 (63 MS. Comp. Dec., 113, Jan. 6, 1914; 75 Id., 583, Nov. 12, 1915), and "a branch of the public service of the United States within the District of Columbia" (21 Comp. Dec., 236, 238).

I can find no authority or justification for holding that it is not a Government establishment within the meaning of the act of 1910; and, as it is not a field service but an establishment located in Washington, it comes within the scope and effect of said act and is bound by the contracts made by the Secretary of the Treasury under the provisions thereof, regardless of whether it has given the Secretary estimates of its needs (20 Comp. Dec., 578).

As these purchases were made in direct contravention of the provisions of the statute, the auditor would have been justified in disallowing credit for the entire amounts paid (21 Comp. Dec., 730). He has seen fit, however, to allow credit for the amount that it would have cost the Government if the purchases had been made through the General Supply Committee, and the interests of the Government do not require that this allowance be disturbed.

LONGEVITY PAY, QUARTERMASTER CLERKS, MARINE CORPS.

An officer warranted as a quartermaster clerk in the Marine Corps under the act of August 29, 1916, is not entitled to credit, in computing his longevity pay, for prior service rendered by him as a civilian clerk in the Quartermaster's Department, Marine Corps.

Comptroller Warwick to the Secretary of the Navy, January 11, 1917:

I have your letter of December 9, 1916, requesting decision as to whether John W. Mueller, quartermaster clerk, United States Marine Corps, appointed under the act of August 29, 1916 (39 Stat., 611), is entitled to credit in computing his pay for prior service as clerk in the Quartermaster's Department, United States Marine Corps.

The said act provides:

"That the warrant grades of Marine gunner and quartermaster clerk are hereby established, and the appointment as herein prescribed of twenty Marine gunners and twenty quartermaster clerks is hereby authorized. Officers in those grades shall have the rank and receive the pay, allowances and privileges of retirement of war