sistence in private hospitals, of officers, enlisted men, and civilian employees of the Army, of applicants for enlistment, and of prisoners of war and other persons in military custody or confinement, when entitled thereto by law, regulation, or contract: Provided, That this shall not apply to officers and enlisted men who are treated in private hospitals or by civilian physicians while on furlough;

A like-worded provision is found in subsequent acts, including the act of August 29, 1916 (39 Stat., 639, 640), appropriating funds for the period from July 1, 1916, to June 30, 1917.

The term "on duty" which appears in the act of June 12, 1906 (34 Stat., 255), and prior appropriation acts for the Medical and Hospital Department of the Army and which excluded from the benefits of the appropriation those not "on duty" is omitted from the later appropriation acts effective on and after July 1, 1907, and in lieu thereof there is a proviso that the law "shall not apply to officers and enlisted men who were treated in private hospitals or by civilian physicians while on furlough."

Private Norman B. Faunce, who was absent from his command on a pass of less than 24 hours' duration was not on furlough" in the usual acceptance of that term. In the settlement of the bounty claims under the joint resolution of April 12, 1866 (14 Stat., 352), which precludes payment of bounty to those wounded while "on furlough or leave of absence," it is held (Digest Second Comp. Dec., vol. 3, sec. 260), that-

"A soldier on a pass or permit to be absent for less than twentyfour hours is not on furlough or leave of absence within the meaning of the joint resolution approved April 12, 1866, and on his discharge for wounds accidentally received while so absent is entitled to bounty as on discharge for wounds received in line of duty."

In my opinion the Judge Advocate General of the Army has given the correct view of the law (see Howland, p. 254, par. VIII), in these words:

"An officer absent by verbal permit for not exceeding 24 hours, or a soldier absent on pass for not exceeding 24 hours, is considered to be in a duty status, and a bill for medical services properly incurred while in such status is not a private indebtedness but an obligation of the Government to be paid out of the proper appropriation.

Its correctness and convincing qualities are not impaired by the fact that said paragraph was overruled by opinion of Judge Advocate General (published on p. 5), War Department Bulletin No. 20, of May 14, 1914), in case of a soldier absent on a pass of more than than 24 hours' duration.

The decisions in 17 Comp. Dec., 472, and 19 Comp. Dec., 382, relating to officers and enlisted men of the Navy are based on section 1586, Revised Statutes, and are not applicable to the claim in this case.

In view of the facts that the soldier was not absent on furlough but was absent on a pass for a period of less than 24 hours; that he was disabled without any fault or negligence on his part; and that the attendance of an Army surgeon could not be obtained; and in view of all other facts presented in this case, upon a revision of the auditor's settlement No. 541277, I find and certify that there is due from the United States to the claimant, Charles P. McGarry, a difference of fifty dollars ($50); being for medical attendance he rendered said Norman B. Faunce during the period stated in the claim.

VALUE OF ESTIMATES IN CONSTRUING LUMP-SUM APPROPRIATIONS. Where the annual estimates submitted to Congress as required by law show the objects for which it is proposed to expend a lump-sum appropriation asked for, such objects not being in contravention of law, and Congress appropriates the amount estimated, in the general language proposed in the Book of Estimates, and without amendment as to any of the objects proposed, such appropriation is to be construed as available for all the objects specified in the estimates.

Comptroller Warwick to the Secretary of Commerce, April 2, 1917:

I have your letter of March 24, 1917, as follows:

"In the 'Act making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and eighteen, and for other purposes,' approved March 3, 1917, there is a lump-sum appropriation of $647,000 for securing information for census reports, provided for by law.' This amount is the total lump-sum appropriation submitted in our estimates to Congress last December. On page 124 of the Book of Estimates, under the heading Collecting Statistics, Bureau of the Census,' you will find a detailed statement of the various amounts making up this lump-sum appropriation for the several inquiries for the fiscal year 1918.

"Two of these inquiries are of particular importance at this time, as follows:

Decennial statistics of marriage and divorce, 1907 to 1915, inclusive__ $120,000 Annual statistics of marriage and divorce, 1916 and 1917

Total__

61,000

181,000

"This total for marriage and divorce is carried in the appropriation bill for the fiscal year 1918. The appropriation bill passed by the last session of Congress for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1917, carried an item of $80,000 in the lump-sum appropriation for collecting statistics for the inquiry on marriage and divorce.

There is at this time no statute authorizing a census of marriage and divorce. A joint resolution 'Authorizing and directing

the Director of the Census to collect and publish statistics of marriage and divorce' passed the Senate June 3, 1916. It was referred to the Committee on the Census in the House of Representatives, and the chairman of that committee submitted a favorable report to the House on December 11, 1916. The joint resolution was placed on the Calendar for Unanimous Consent and came before the House on February 5, 1917, at which time it was stricken from the calendar on objection of Mr. Stafford, of Wisconsin.

66

In view of the foregoing facts, this department recently requested the opinion of its solicitor upon the following questions: "(1) As the matter now stands, has the Director of the Census the authority to expend the appropriation already made by Congress for collecting and publishing statistics of marriage and divorce?

66

(2) If the director has no authority to make such an investigation, can such authority be given him by the President of the United States or by the Secretary of Commerce under the provisions of section 8 of the act establishing the Department of Commerce and Labor?

"(3) If the appropriation made by Congress can not be expended for a census of marriage and divorce, has the Director of the Census any authority to expend this sum in any investigation already authorized, or in any investigation, other than marriage and divorce, which the President of the United States or the Secretary of Commerce may authorize?

"In an opinion dated March 23, 1917, the solicitor answered each of the above questions in the affirmative, but suggested that as they related to the availability of appropriations, it would be advisable to secure a decision from you in the premises. I would accordingly be pleased to have your decision upon the questions stated."

The appropriation involved in your submission is carried in the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation act of March 3, 1917 (39 Stat., 1112), and is in the following terms:

"For securing information for census reports, provided for by law, semimonthly reports of cotton production, periodical reports of stocks of baled cotton in the United States and of the domestic and foreign consumption of cotton; quarterly reports of tobacco; per diem compensation of special agents and expenses of same and of detailed employees, whether employed in Washington, District of Columbia, or elsewhere; the cost of transcribing State, municipal, and other records; temporary rental of quarters outside of the District of Columbia; for supervising special agents, and employment by them of such temporary service as may be necessary in collecting the statistics by law, including $15,000 for collecting tobacco statistics authorized by law in addition to any other fund available therefor: Provided, That the compensation of not to exceed five special agents provided for in this paragraph may be fixed at a rate not to exceed $8 per day, $647,000."

It will be noted that the collection of statistics relative to marriage and divorce is not specifically provided for in the appropriation quoted; nor does there appear to be any other statute expressly authorizing the collection of such statistics. Whether, however, the

collection of such statistics is authorized, notwithstanding, under the appropriation quoted, is for consideration.

As stated in your submission, in submitting to Congress the estimates of expenditures proposed to be made under the appropriation in question, it is clearly set forth that it was proposed to use, of the entire amount asked for, $120,000 for the collection of decennial statistics of marriage and divorce, and $61,000 for the collection of annual statistics on the same subjects.

The entire amount estimated for under this appropriation was allowed by Congress. The estimates in question were submitted in accordance with the provisions of the act of August 1, 1914 (38 Stat., 680), which requires that there shall be submitted in the annual Book of Estimates, following every estimate for a general or lumpsum appropriation, a statement showing among other things the objects or classes of expenditures specified or contemplated in the estimates and the amount it is proposed to expend for each.

The submission of such a statement is (and doubtless was intended to be) clear notice to Congress of the uses to which it was contemplated to apply the money asked for if appropriated; and the appropriation by Congress in lump sum and in the general language proposed in the book of estimates gives rise to a presumption so strong, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, as to be controlling of the construction of the appropriation act, that Congress approved the objects of expenditure proposed in the estimates and intended that the funds appropriated should be applied to those objects. This presumption is particularly strong in any case (as in the present one) where Congress has not only enacted the appropriation in the language proposed, but in the exact amount specified in the estimates. As to the value in general of estimates in construing appropriation acts, see 11 Comp. Dec., 132, 139.

Of course, where the objects of expenditure as proposed in the estimates are in conflict with the provisions of positive law, a different question is presented, determination of which is dependent upon more factors than those above indicated. In the present case, however, it appears that there is no statute prohibiting the collection of statistics with respect to marriage and divorce, and that the estimates submitted with respect to the collection of such statistics are not in conflict with other provisions of law.

Your doubt in the present case as to the availability of the appropriation for the objects in question appears to be based on the fact that a joint resolution authorizing and directing the Director of the Census to collect and publish statistics relating to marriage and divorce was introduced in the last Congress but, after passing the Senate, was stricken from the unanimous-consent calendar in the House and failed of passage.

While it appears to have been the general policy of Congress in the past to enact, from time to time, legislation specifically authorizing and directing the Director of the Census to collect and publish statistics relating to various subjects, it does not follow that the appropriation in question is not available for the proposed expenditures simply by reason of this policy. Nor does it follow, from the introduction in Congress of a bill or resolution expressly authorizing and directing that action be taken by or under an executive department, that authority for such action is not found in existing law.

In this connection it may be stated that in the debate on the floor of the House on the joint resolution mentioned it was stated generally that authority for the collection and assembling, in the fiscal year 1918, of statistics with respect to marriage and divorce was given in the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation bill for that year then pending in Congress. That appropriation bill afterwards became law without amendment in any way with respect to statistics relating to marriage and divorce.

Since, as before shown, it was distinctly stated in the estimates of expenditures proposed to be made under the appropriation here involved that a certain specified amount thereof would be applied to the collection of statistics with respect to marriage and divorce, and since, with due notice of such estimates, Congress appropriated the entire amount asked for under this appropriation, I am of the opinion that the collection of such statistics is authorized under that appropriation, such action not appearing to be in violation of positive law.

Your first question is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative; and answer to your other questions becomes unnecessary.

TRANSPORTATION, LAND-GRANT DEDUCTION, NATIONAL GUARD.

Where organizations of the National Guard are called out by the President in the national defense, charges for their transportation over land-grant railroads from their home stations to the mobilization camps and from the place of their muster out of the Federal service to such home stations are subject to land-grant deduction.

Comptroller Warwick to the Secretary of War, April 3, 1917:

I have received, per indorsement of March 10, 1917, your request for a decision as to whether transportation from home rendezvous to mobilization camp of militia and National Guard organizations called into the Federal service by the call of the President of the United States of June 18, 1916, is subject to land-grant deduction, as well as their return transportation from the point of muster out of the Federal service to home station.