tion of household goods, per bill of lading No. T-578735, August 19, 1921, the same having been charged to the appropriation "Field investigations of public health, 1922." Request is made that the amount be charged to the appropriation "Field investigations of public health, 1921," for reasons stated, as follows: You are informed that bill No. 2200, voucher No. 13877, amount $91.20 covers the transportation of the personal effects of Associate Sanitary Engineer H. W. Streeter moving from Cincinnati, Ohio, to Joliet, Ill., on August 19, 1921, under orders dated April 27, 1921. In view of the fact that the shipper's orders authorizing the transportation of these personal effects were issued in April 1921, it is apparent that their movement should be charged to the same appropriation as other expenses created under this order. As this item of $91.20 has been erroneously charged to "Field investigations of public health, 1922," without provision for ample funds to meet its payment, it is requested that the necessary adjustment be made so that the appropriation "Field investigations of public health, 1921," be charged, and Field investigations of public health, 1922," be credited with a like amount. 66 The expense for transportation of the personal effects of Associate Sanitary Engineer H.. W. Streeter, from Cincinnati, Ohio, to Joliet, Ill., under bill of lading dated August 19, 1921, was properly incurred during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1922. The issuing of the travel order in 1921 did not in itself obligate the appropriation for the fiscal year 1921, but was dependent on the transportation involved therein being in fact performed within the fiscal year. Under the provisions of section 3690, Revised Statutes, the expense can not be charged to the appropriation for the fiscal year 1921, but must be charged to the appropriation for the fiscal year 1922, as charged in the settlement. See 22 Comp. Dec., 349. Upon review of the matter no differences are found and the settlement is sustained. ACCOUNTING-PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST OF SEED-GRAIN LOANS. Funds received as repayment of the principal of seed-grain loans made under the act of March 3, 1921, 41 Stat., 1347, should be credited to the appropriation from which drawn, but any interest received on such loans must be deposited to "Miscellaneous receipts." Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, May 12, 1922: The Chief of the State and Other Departments Division, this office, submitted April 24, 1922, the matter as to whether the amounts collected, principal and interest, on account of loans made to farmers for the purchase of seed grain, pursuant to the act of March 3, 1921, 41 Stat., 1347, properly are for credit under the appropriation for said purposes, same act, or whether they properly are for credit to miscellaneous receipts. The memorandum decision of the Chief of the State and Other Departments Division is, in part, as follows: I hold that the appropriation "Farmers' seed-grain loans, 1921-1922." is not a revolving fund and that "advances, loans, or sales" made by the Secretary of Agriculture under this act the whole of the proceeds of repayment of said loans, principal and interest, should be covered in to the credit of "Miscellaneous receipts" general fund. The act of March 3, 1921, 41 Stat., 1347, provides: PURCHASE OF SEED GRAIN for drought-STRICKEN AREAS.-That the Secretary of Agriculture is hereby authorized, for the crop of 1921, to make advances or loans to farmers in the drought-stricken areas of the United States, where he shall find that special need for such assistance exists, for the purchase of wheat, oats, barley, and flaxseed for seed purposes, and, when necessary, to procure such seed and sell same to such farmers. Such advances, loans, or sales shall be made upon such terms and conditions and subject to such regulations as the Secretary of Agriculture shall prescribe, including an agreement by each farmer to use the seed thus obtained by him for the production of grain or flaxseed. A first lien on the crop to be produced from seed obtained through a loan, advance, or sale made under this section shall, in the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture, be deemed sufficient security therefor. The total amount of such advances, loans, or sales to any one farmer shall not exceed the sum of $200. All such advances or loans shall be made through such agencies as the Secretary of Agriculture shall designate. For carrying out the purposes of this section there is hereby appropriated, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $2,000,000, to be immediately available. The appropriation by its terms is limited to the crop of 1921, and the loans are necessarily accomplished when the seeding for such crop is made. The repayments of the loans must come after the seeding, and hence there can be no authority again to use for loans the funds which have been or hereafter may be credited to the appropriation from the repayment of the original loans. The appropriation thus can not become a revolving fund. The placing of the repayments of loans to the credit of the appropriation follows the procedure of moneys not finally expended under an appropriation being returned thereto. It is understood, however, that interest on the loans has also been credited to the appropriation. This is not authorized. The interest is not moneys coming out of the appropriation and may not be returned thereto. The interest is properly for credit to miscellaneous receipts, 26 Comp. Dec., 295, but the amount of the principal may be credited under the appropriation. The memorandum decision as modified is approved. TRANSPORTATION OF ENLISTED MEN OF THE COAST GUARDLAND-GRANT DEDUCTIONS. The members of the Coast Guard ceased to be troops of the United States on August 28, 1919, when they were by Executive order returned to the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, and transportation furnished after that date to members of the Coast Guard is not subject to land-grant deductions. Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, May 12, 1922: The Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. applied, per letter of May 9, 1922, for review of Treasury Department Divis ion settlement No. 41769, April 8, 1922, in disallowing $2.15 on its claim per bill T-3601-1-22 for $55.49, for transportation furnished an enlisted man of the Coast Guard from Galveston, Tex., to Elizabeth City, N. C., per request T-188381, January 1, 1922. The disallowance was made on account of land-grant deduction. The company in its application for review claims the amount thus deducted, contending that land-grant deduction is not applicable for the transportation of the Coast Guard, in accordance with decision of the Supreme Court of April 10, 1922, in the case of the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v. United States, in which it was held that members of the Coast Guard are not troops of the United States when the Coast Guard operates under and at the expense of the Treasury Department. In said opinion it was stated that— The Coast Guard was established by act of January 28, 1915, c. 20, 38 Stat. 800, in lieu of the then existing Revenue-Cutter Service and Life-Saving Service, and was composed of those organizations. The Revenue-Cutter Service had been considered a civil service. (15 Op. Atty. Gen. 396; 16 Op. Atty. Gen., 288; 8 Comp. Dec., 852; 15 Comp. Dec., 807.) But to its primary function of an armed police force some characteristics of a military force had always been attached; and from time to time Congress had conferred upon it additional incidents of the military service. (See 28 Op. Atty. Gen., 543, 547; 30 Op. Atty. Gen., 75.) When the Coast Guard was established it was constituted " a part of the military forces of the United States"; and section 1 provides that it "shall operate under the Treasury Department in time of peace and operate as part of the Navy in time of war or when the President shall so direct. subject to the Secretary of the Navy in time of war the expense of the Coast Guard shall be paid by the Navy Department." Congress further manifested its intention to class the Coast Guard with the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps by the provisions in the acts of August 29, 1916, c. 417, 39 Stat., 556, 600, 601, and c. 418, sec. 1, 39 Stat., 610, 649. When The military force of the United States is and always has been a unit, although divided for purposes of administration into several branches; and there is nothing in the land-grant acts to indicate an intention on the part of Congress to differentiate between the several branches in respect to transportation charges. We are of opinion that the term "troops" is not confined to land forces, and that it includes men and officers in every branch. Since those in the Navy and Marine Corps are to be deemed troops within the meaning of those acts, members of the Coast Guard should also be deemed such when serving as part of the Navy. But at other times members of the Coast Guard are not troops; for then it operates under, and at the expense of, the Treasury Department. The operation of the Coast Guard was under the Treasury Department from its organization in accordance with the act of January 28, 1915, until the declaration of war on April 6, 1917, when it operated under the Navy Department, where it continued until August 28, 1919, when by Executive Order No. 3160 of said date. the Coast Guard was directed on and after that date to operate under the Treasury Department. The transportation under consideration was rendered after the Coast Guard had been returned to and was under the operation of the Treasury Department, at which time its members are not to be considered troops of the United States and their transportation is therefore not subject to land-grant deduction. The settlement is reversed and a difference of $2.15 is certified due claimant. SUPPLEMENTAL CONTRACTS. A supplemental contract based upon the substitution of a small amount of material of a character different from that in the original contract and increasing the price more than 250 per cent in lieu of canceling the original contract and advertising for new bids is in violation of sections 3709 and 3744, Revised Statutes, and payment of the increased price is not authorized. Comptroller General McCarl to Maj. E. O. Hopkins, United States Army, May 13, 1922: I have your letter of April 29, 1922, requesting a decision as to your authority to pay a voucher in amount of $5,625, in favor of the Witteman Aircraft Corporation, covering the first partial payment on contract of February 6, 1922, which contract is supplemental to a contract dated June 30, 1921, the doubt as to the authority for making payment arising from the provisions of the said supplemental contract which are stated as imposing obligations upon the Government not authorized by the original contract and therefore without consideration. Article 1 of the contract of June 30, 1921, provides: The contractor hereby agrees to sell to the Government and the Government hereby agrees to purchase one (1) set complete control surfaces for Zodiac airship in accordance with Air Service drawings Nos. 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834, 1835, 1836, 1837, 1838, 1839, 1840, 1941, 1842, and 1843, as set forth in Air Service order No. 520135 * the amount of any increase or decrease in the price or compensation shall be determined by a board constituted as provided for in Article V hereof. Article 4 of the contract of June 30, 1921, provides: For the faithful performance of the terms of this contract the Government hereby agrees to pay to the contractor the sum of eight thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars ($8,750.00). Article 5 of the contract of June 30, 1921, provides: the amount of the same shall be determined by a board of three members selected as follows: One member to be selected by the contractor, one member by the contracting officer, and a third by these two. A decision agreed to by a majority of the said board shall be the decision of the board and shall be final on all questions arising under this article. A communication, bearing date of January 30, 1922, attached to the supplemental contract, states: WITTEMAN AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Hasbrouck Heights, New Jersey. GENTLEMEN: Reference is made to Air Service order No. 520135, placed with your company June 28, 1921, for control surfaces for Zodiac airship. The Chief of Air Service authorizes that inasmuch as it is to the interest of the Government to substitute duralumin tubing instead of steel tubing as originally called for, and, as your company has agreed to same at a toal cost of $22,500, or an increase of $13,750, said price being approved, that above order be amended to provide for the substitution of duralumin tubing, and read as fol lows: 1 set complete, control surfaces for Zodiac airship, in accordance with Air Service drawings already furnished your company, with the exception that duralumin tubing is to be used instead of steel; changes to be in accordance with blueprints attached hereto and made a part of this amendment_---- $22,500.00 The following itemized list shows the actual cost of material and labor for the construction of the Zodiac control surfaces: A. Material: 1. Duralumin tubing O. D. x .042, 1,280 ft. 13" O. D. x .042. 530 ft. Total 400#, @ $2.20, including freight_ $880.00 2. Lynite castings for joint fittings, 160#, @ $1.80, delivered 13. Lumber for erecting frames and shipping crates, 2,000 ft. comm. yellow pine--- 150.00 14. Steel, etc. for making necessary tools to machine castings, etc_ 100.00 Total cost of material_. 2, 843.00 B. Engineering: 1. 1,000 hours @ current rate $3.00 (of which about $1,000.00 has already been expended) – 3,000.00 6,100.00 6, 100.00 12,200.00 |