and held to be subject to the limitations above stated as to the availability of moneys in the regular account, and that payments were authorized to be made from the special deposit account where the regular account moneys were not available.

No fixed itemization can be made of the payments which are authorized from special deposits.

The views expressed indicate the rule which should be followed.

TRANSPORTATION-DEDUCTION FOR LOST PROPERTY.

Where it is alleged by an agent of the Government that property shipped on a Government bill of lading was not received at destination, but no notation of the shortage was made on the original bill of lading or the transportation company notified in some other manner within the prescribed time of the shortage, the transportation company can not be held responsible for the value of the articles alleged not to have been delivered, and no deduction on account of same is authorized.

Decision by Comptroller Warwick, February 3, 1917:

The Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Co. applied January 9, 1917, for a revision of the action of the Auditor for the Interior Department in disallowing, by settlement 51486, September 23, 1916, $1.90 on account of the loss in transit of certain supplies, per bill of lading 5568, April 3, 1916, from Rock Island, Ill., to Lund, Utah. The disallowance was made by the auditor because of the report of a shortage of said supplies by the Indian Office.

The company in its application for revision contends that a clear receipt was given for all the goods shown on said bill of lading.

It appears from the records of the Indian Office that the notation of the shortage of this property was placed on the duplicate bill of lading, from which the office assumed that the notation was made on the original bill of lading, and that no formal notice of the shortage was sent to the railroad company until August 30, 1916.

The shortage of any supplies should be noted on the original bill of lading in the space provided therefor. Because of the failure to make the notation in this case, with no other notice within the prescribed time to the company of the shortage of the supplies, there is no basis for holding the company responsible, as due notice of all shortages should be given. The amount, $1.90, deducted on account of the loss of this property, will therefore be certified for allowance.

DAMAGE TO PERSONAL PROPERTY USED BY AN EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT WHILE IN THE DISCHARGE OF HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES.

Where the personal property of an employee of the Government is damaged while being used by him in the discharge of his official duties, and it appears that he was not required to furnish said property either under his contract of employment or under a contract of hire, the expense incurred in repairing the damaged property is not a proper charge against the Government, and reimbursement of the employee for such expense is not authorized.

Comptroller Warwick to A. Zappone, disbursing clerk, Department of Agriculture, February 6, 1917:

I have your letter of the 1st instant, reading as follows:

"There is transmitted herewith bureau voucher No. 2888, which has been submitted to me for payment.

"The voucher is in favor of A. H. Howell, assistant biologist, for $8.75, and covers reimbursement for expenses incurred by him for repairs to his own gun, which was broken while being used in official work.

"Attached to the voucher is a letter from the Chief of the Biological Survey, as follows:

""There is forwarded herewith a reimbursement account of Mr. A. H. Howell for repairs to a gun owned by him and broken while being used in official work. Mr. Howell claims reimbursement for this expense under the following provision of the act approved March 4, 1913, Public, No. 430 (37 Stat., 843): Hereafter the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to reimburse owners of horses, vehicles, or other equipment lost, damaged, or destroyed while being used for necessary fire fighting, trail, or official business, such reimbursement to be made from any available funds in the appropriation to which the hire of such equipment is properly chargeable.' There is some doubt regarding the legality of such a payment, owing to the fact that there was no contract entered into between the United States and the owner of the gun providing that in consideration of the use of the gun it should be kept in repair while being used officially.'

I am in doubt whether I am authorized to pay the account in view of the fact that although the gun was being used on official business, no contract of hire had been entered into, and therefore have to request your decision whether I may lawfully pay the same."

The voucher submitted and herewith returned covers two items, totaling $8.75, and is explained by Mr. Howell as follows:

1916.

Nov. 18. Repairing shotgun stock.

This gun is the property of A. H. Howell, used exclusively for official field work. The stock was broken as a result of falling on it while collecting specimens of mammals for the department Oct, 20, 1916.

Dec. 24. Repairing auxiliary shotgun barrel____.

This barrel is also the property of A. H. Howell; it was broken Oct. 28, 1916, while trying to extract a shell in the field; the repairs were paid for after returning to Washington.

$8,00

.75

With respect to reimbursement of Mr. Howell for the expenses in question under the act of March 4, 1913, quoted in your submission, it has been held by this office (21 Comp. Dec., 46) that the owners entitled to reimbursement under that act are those only from whom the horses, vehicles, or other equipment was hired, the reimbursement to be paid from the appropriation that was available for the hire of such property.

In the present case it is stated specifically that the gun was not hired to the Government by Mr. Howell under any contract, either express or implied; and, without discussing other conditions necessarily incident to lawful reimbursement under the act cited, for the reason already stated reimbursement of Mr. Howell for the expenses in question is not authorized under that act.

Whether the claimant is otherwise entitled to reimbursement of such expenses, assuming that they were not occasioned by his own negligence, remains for consideration.

From your submission it appears that Mr. Howell was using the gun in question-his own property-as a part of his equipment in discharging his official duties. It is not shown that the gun was an absolutely necessary part of such equipment; and, even if it were, it does not appear that he was required to furnish it under his contract of employment, or that he furnished it under a contract of hire. In furnishing his own gun under the circumstances stated, therefore, he acted as a volunteer, and, as such, he is not entitled to reimbursement for damages to the gun so voluntarily furnished. (21 Comp. Dec., 153.)

You are advised, therefore, that payment of the voucher submitted and herewith returned is not authorized.

LEAVE WITHOUT PAY.

The appointment of a person to a position in the Government service held by an employee who is absent on leave without pay automatically separates the absent employee from the service, and he can reenter the service only by reinstatement in accordance with the laws and regulations pertaining to the civil service.

Comptroller Warwick to the Secretary of State, February 6, 1917:

I have your letter of the 26th ultimo as follows:

"This department finds it necessary occasionally, for good and sufficient reasons, to grant a statutory employee leave of absence without pay for a certain period, this usually occurring in cases of a long spell of illness where the employee is unable to render service and has exhausted all regular and sick leave. In such instances it has been held by the department that it is authorized to call upon the Civil Service Commission for a certification of a temporary employee

to fill the place, and draw the compensation provided for the class during the leave without pay of the regular employee.

"As there appears to be some difference of opinion upon the proposition, your decision is respectfully requested as to whether the department is authorized to follow the practice stated above."

In reply you are advised that an office or position can not be held by two persons at the same time. The appointment of a person to a position held by an employee absent on leave without pay would automatically separate the absent employee from the service and he could reenter the service only by reinstatement in accordance with the laws and regulations pertaining to the civil service (6 MS. Comp. Dec., 763, May 10, 1898).

The usual practice in the executive departments in dealing with situations such as is referred to in your letter is to accept the resignation of the absent employee and to make the appointment to fill the vacancy thus created conditional and subject to revocation upon the return of the absent employee within a year from the date of the acceptance of his resignation.

INSURANCE OF BAGGAGE.

An employee of the Government is not entitled to reimbursement for an amount paid by him as insurance on baggage containing valuable papers which are the property of a bureau of the Government of the District of Columbia, where the appropriation does not specifically provide for the payment of insurance.

Decision by Comptroller Warwick, February 7, 1917:

L. C. Wilson, disbursing officer, District of Columbia, applied January 23, 1917, for a revision of the action of the Auditor for the State and Other Departments in disallowing, by settlement No. 8231, dated January 18, 1917, credit for an item of 20 cents, being a part of the amount paid to Roger W. Polk on voucher 86098, as reimbursement for expenses incurred May 23, 1916, in connection with a trip from Providence, R. I., to Washington, D. C., as an assistant engi neer to the Public Utilities Commission of the District of Columbia. The item in question represents the amount paid as insurance on a trunk said to contain valuable papers belonging to the Public Utilities Commission. The auditor disallowed credit for said item for the reason that "the comptroller has repeatedly held that appropriations are not available for the payment of insurance without specific provision."

It appears that this trunk was transported as Mr. Polk's authorized allowance of personal baggage and that it would have been transported in the same manner without the payment of the 20-cent fee in question. The payment of this fee did not secure any additional

or better service in the care or handling of the baggage, but was intended merely to provide for a greater indemnity in case of loss. It was not, therefore, a necessary expense of travel, and as the appropriation to which the payment was charged does not provide specifically for the payment of insurance, the action of the auditor in disallowing credit for the item must be affirmed (23 Comp. Dec., 269).

STREET CAR FARES.

Government employees who are paid a per diem in lieu of subsistence are not entitled to reimbursement for expenses on account of street car fares between the point in the city where they are working and the point where they are lodging.

Decision by Comptroller Warwick, February 7, 1917:

Ward Barnum, electrical engineer, Interstate Commerce Commission, requested January 27, 1917, a revision of the action of the Auditor for the State and Other Departments in disallowing, by certificate No. 12391, dated January 6, 1917, his claim for reimbursement of $5.30 paid for street car fare during the month of October, 1916, while on temporary duty at Richmond, Va.

The claim which was disallowed by the auditor is for street car fare, 20 cents a day for each working day in October, 1916, and 10 cents for one Sunday. Claimant stated that it was necessary to make two round trips per day between his hotel and the Southern Railway shops in Richmond, where he was at work, in order to get something to eat at noon. His claim was disallowed by the auditor for the following reasons:

"You are informed that your claim in the sum of $5.30 for car fares paid by you during October, 1916, in proceeding between your hotel at Richmond, Va., and the Southern Railway shops, two round trips, 20 cents a day except on October 29, when a single round trip was performed, has been settled per M. S. and C. certificate 12391 of this date and disallowed.

"The record shows that you were assigned to daily duty at the Southern Railway shops at Richmond for the entire period in question. You have been paid a per diem in lieu of subsistence covering the entire term for which the street car transportation is claimed. Your case under these conditions becomes analogous to that decided by the comptroller in 22 Comp. Dec., 656, wherein he held that certain employees detailed from a point outside the District of Columbia for service in the Treasury who were entitled to their subsistence expenses during the period of such detail (just as you were entitled to your subsistence expenses at Richmond) could not be reimbursed the amounts paid as car fares in proceeding from their residence to the Treasury for their daily work. I am aware of no feature of your claim which materially distinguishes your situation from that with which the comptroller dealt in the decision cited. The distance be