Article 1059, which also appears under the same heading, provides: "Collectors of customs shall report without delay to the nearest I'nited States district attorney and to the Secretary of Commerce all violations of the provisions of the statistical laws." From the foregoing it seems clear that such fines as the one in question and similar ones collected under the act of July 16, 1892, as amended, are not collected for violations or evasions of the customs laws relating to duties on imports, but on account of violations of the provisions requiring the filing of manifest or declaration of exports for use in the Department of Commerce in computing statistics. Such being the case, it is evident that the collection of such fines should be reported to the Secretary of Commerce. The auditor's decision, holding that collection of fines imposed under the act of July 16, 1892, as amended, should be accounted for by collectors of customs in accounts rendered to the Department of Commerce and settled by the Auditor for the State and Other Departments, is accordingly approved. STREET CAR FARES. Employees of the Government engaged in inspection duty are entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred for street car fare in going from place to place in the city where stationed in the performance of their official duties, but are not entitled to reimbursement for such expenses incurred in going from place of residence to place of work. Decision by Comptroller Warwick, February 12, 1917: H. G. Richey, superintendent of construction, post office and courthouse, New Orleans, La., requested February 5, 1917, a revision of the action of the Auditor for the Treasury Department in disallowing, by Certificate No. 54894, dated January 31, 1917, his claim for reimbursement of forty cents paid for street car fare during the month of October, 1916, at New Orleans, his official station or headquarters. Said claim was for four round trips from Mr. Richey's office, United States customhouse building, New Orleans, to the marine hospital in said city, which is some sixty-five squares distant. The appellant states that each trip was made on official business in connection with his work at that station. Furthermore, he says: "I consider my office my headquarters and any expense incurred in traveling from there on official business I consider should be paid by the Government. If the boundary of the city of New Orleans was to be taken as my headquarters, then I would not be justified in paying car fare to depots or on trains within that'boundary. ** In disallowing said claim the auditor said: "The rule apparently governing the Supervising Architect's Office prior to the approval of this claim, as well as this office, has been Comptroller's Decisions Vol. X, 453, part of the syllabus of which is as follows: * * * "Officers or employees whose place of duty is fixed by law or by assignment of their superior officers are not entitled to reimbursement of street car tickets or transportation procured while traveling on official business or otherwise, unless such expenses are incurred in the transportation of Government property or official communications requiring their personal attendance." * * * The appropriation, "General expenses of public buildings, 1917,” (39 Stat., 271), from which it is proposed to pay this expense, is general in terms and includes all expenses of inspection in connection with the work on public buildings, contingencies of every kind and description, and incidental expenses not enumerated, etc. Notwithstanding the broad terms of said appropriation there are no departmental regulations governing expenses of this kind. However, a similar question was presented to this office whether customs inspectors should be reimbursed for car fare necessary in the performance of their official duties at the post where stationed, and in a decision of August 12, 1915 (74 MS. Comp. Dec., 631), it was held: "Any allowance or reimbursement made to an officer or employee for expenses incurred in going between his residence and his work would be in the nature of an additional compensation and, as such, prohibited by law, but expenses incurred in going from place to place in the performance of his official duties and to facilitate such performance are, when properly authorized, expenses incident to the work as distinguished from personal, or what are usually termed 'travel,' expenses. "The decisions of this office relative to travel expenses have no application to the case here presented because if the car fare of these inspectors is to be paid by the Government it is to be paid not as a traveling expense or a personal expense but as a necessary expense incident to the work on which they may be engaged. "If in the administration of the customs service you deem it necessary to purchase car tickets for the use of inspectors in the performance of their official duties, or to reimburse them for amounts expended for car fare where the purchase of tickets is impracticable, the appropriation in question is available for that purpose (20 Comp. Dec., 546; 74 MS. Comp. Dec., 102, July 14, 1915). But it is not necessary, nor do I think it would be advisable, for you to arbitrarily limit the radius of an inspector's station so that he would be beyond the limits of his station and in a travel status when performing his daily or regular duties at the port." The holding in that case would apply equally to this. A certificate of differences, allowing the claim, will issue. DISALLOWANCES BY AUDITORS. An auditor is without authority to make a disallowance in the settlement of a disbursing officer's account of items that were not paid by the disbursing officer, and for which no credit is claimed by said officer in his accounts. Decision by Comptroller Warwick, February 12, 1917: George G. Box, disbursing clerk, Department of Labor, applied January 30, 1917, for revision of the action of the Auditor for the State and Other Departments in settlement No. 8094, dated November 16, 1916, of Mr. Box's account for the quarter ended June 30, 1916, wherein the auditor disallowed credit for three items on vouchers and in amounts as follows: Voucher 66494, El Paso Speedometer Service Station_ Voucher 63132, W. H. Wagner_-_ $5.55 .75 2.25 The items disallowed will be considered in their order. (1) It appears that in response to advertisement for bids for certain specific repairs to an automobile owned and operated by the Immigration Service at its station at El Paso, Tex., the El Paso Speedometer Service Station submitted a proposal as follows: "The undersigned agrees to furnish the following articles and labor at the prices stated in connection with the overhauling of your Ford automobile: One right front fender--- One radiator, 1915 model. Rewiring, including furnishing material and labor. One brake and two clutch bands. Two side curtains, front_ Two side curtains, back. Celluloid in back curtain____ Labor of first-class mechanic in overhauling entire machine___ $2.50 18.00 1.50 1.00 4.00 4.00 1.50 15.00 Additional parts found necessary and grease and oil will be furnished at the usual prices. Two other firms also submitted proposals for the specific repairs and for overhauling the entire machine, their respective bids as to such overhauling being $30 and $35. The contract for the repair parts and overhauling was awarded to the El Paso Speedometer Service Station, and after making the specific repairs and additional ones determined upon after the car had been taken apart and examined, that company submitted charges for additional items as follows: 5 hours labor of mechanic, at 75 cents per hour-- 6 hours labor of laborer, at 30 cents per hour---. Total_ $3.75 1.80 5.55 The additional charges above set forth were paid by the administrative office, and the auditor disallowed credit therefor on the ground that the labor involved was included in the $15 bid for overhauling the entire machine, and that, therefore, the additional charges were without consideration and therefore unauthorized. With respect to the transaction here in question, the supervising inspector of the Mexican border district, El Paso, Tex., in a letter dated January 10, 1917, stated as follows: 66 * * * The matter of securing a remittance was taken up with the company named, and, after thorough discussion and full explanation of the situation, the manager of said company declined to make refund. As a further reason for the allowance of the amount in question, it is felt proper to state that, in addition to the information already furnished regarding the disputed portion of the account, further investigation disclosed that after the machine had been torn down, incident to overhauling, the company discovered that several parts of the machine were in such condition as to make advisable the replacing of same with new parts, but before removing such parts the manager of the company took the matter up with Inspector McKee, who was looking after the repairs, and it was explained that the old parts could be left as they were without additional expense, but to remove and replace the same would entail additional expense, both for labor and new parts. Inspector McKee undoubtedly discussed the matter with the writer, though he has no recollection thereof at this time. In any event, the company was instructed to replace the additional parts with the understanding that the charge for the extra labor would be allowed. Obviously, the company could have kept within its proposals by refraining to call attention to the advisability of replacing the additional worn parts and thus escaped its obligation to perform the labor necessarily incident to their replacement. Had the company done this it would simply have been a question of time when it would have been necessary to take the machine down again and incur the expense of labor incident thereto, and those involved in replacement of the additional worn parts. * * It is to be noted that the proposal which was accepted in this case provided for the furnishing of certain "articles and labor in connection with the overhauling" of the automobile; that the only labor specified therein was that included under the head of "labor of firstclass mechanic in overhauling entire machine," although it was, of course, known, and doubtless understood, that labor, not only of a mechanic, but in all probability also of a laborer, would be needed in installing the parts specified in the proposal and any additional ones found necessary. It would appear, therefore, that both parties to this contract used the term "overhauling" in the sense of necessary labor incident to examining the machine and installing whatever parts might be needed to put it in proper running order, not only the parts specified in the proposal, but also any additional ones that might be found necessary. This view is strengthened by the fact that while the proposal makes provision for additional parts, if found necessary, which, it was stated, were to be furnished at the usual price, there is no provision in the proposal relative to charging for any additional labor or the charge to be made therefor that might be involved in installing additional parts. The explanation of the supervising inspector above quoted does not strengthen the case from the standpoint of the contractor, and his statement to the effect that the contractor "could have kept within its proposals by refraining to call attention to the advisability of replacing the additional worn parts, and thus escaped its obligation to perform the labor necessarily incident to their replacement," is in the nature of an argument for making the additional payment to the contractor merely for doing what it was lawfully bound to do under its contract. For the reasons above indicated the action of the auditor with respect to this item is affirmed. (2) This item relates to the purchase from a commercial concern of gummed, printed labels for the use of the Department of Labor, separate charges being made in the voucher for the labels and for the printing thereof. In disallowing credit for the item here involved the auditor stated as follows: "66931, R. C. Ballantyne. Printing labels. Section 87 of act of Jan. 12, 1895 (28 Stat., 622), requires that all printing for the executive departments shall be done at the Government Printing Office. There is no question that the impression of the text on the labels was printing and that it was, moreover, the printing of a legend prescribed by the department, thus printing for a department. This requirement of section 87 can not be nullified by a provision of the general supply contract for departmental printing by commercial concerns; nor is it material that the Government Printing Office is not equipped to do the specific kind of printing involved. Other kinds of printing for which the Government Printing Office is not equipped and which are not done at the Government Printing Office are nevertheless performed under the direction of the Public Printer with charge against the appropriation for public printing and binding. The Comptroller in 9 Comptroller's Decisions, 666, points out the purpose of Congress that the Public Printer shall act as agent of the Government in procuring such departmental printing as must be done elsewhere than at his establishment and the constructive inclusion of such printing within the requirement of section 87." It has been ascertained that the legend or text printed on the labels by the commercial company at the direction of the Department of Labor consisted of certain letters used as symbols; and while the plain labels might be purchased and used by the general public, the |