The lease was not renewed at the expiration of the term as provided in paragraph 5 above quoted, but it appears the Government continued to occupy the premises until November 20, 1926, when, by reason of the need for larger office space due to the creation of the State of New Jersey into a separate prohibition district, they were vacated, rental being paid at the rate specified in the lease for the fiscal year 1926, until November 30, 1926. It also appears that although diligent effort was made by the owners of the building to rent the vacated space to other parties, their efforts in that respect were unsuccessful until March 1, 1927, and the claim submitted covers the period the second floor of the property in question remained untenanted.

The question here involved is as to whether the Government, by the holding over, made itself liable for rent for a period equal to that reserved in the lease of October 1, 1925, or for nine months after June 30, 1926, there being nothing in the action or understanding of the parties to indicate that the holding over after June 30, 1926, was to be on a month-to-month basis or for a period of less than the period covered by the original lease. See in this connection 5 Comp. Gen. 172.

In connection with a case involving a similar state of facts to those here presented, which was considered by a former Comptroller of the Treasury, it was said:

The lease established the relation of landlord and tenant, and the tenant can not dissolve that relation by holding over and remain in possession only for such time as suits the tenant's pleasure. But if the lease was for a fixed term, the holding over raises a presumption of the tenant's willingness to continue the lease for a term of similar extent, if required by the landlord. It is the general rule and maintains in Illinois, where the lease was executed. (The Clinton Wire Cloth Co. v. Gardner, 99 Ills., 151.)

By the holding over of the tenant under such circumstances as imply an intention to continue the relation of landlord and tenant, acquiesced in by the landlord, the continuance of the tenancy is for another full period which can not be sooner terminated by the tenant without the consent of the landlord. And this rule applies to the Government, but restricted to the availability of an appropriation. (Smoot v. United States, 38 Ct. Cls. 418; Morgan v. United States, 14 id. 319.) (Decision of February 27, 1914, 68 MS. Comp. Dec. 1244.)

The general rule referred to in the above-quoted decision appears also to maintain in the State of New Jersey. Conover v. Crowell Machine Co., 33 N. J. Law Journal 83.

The term of the tenancy reserved in the lease of October 1, 1925, was for a period of nine months, the remainder of the fiscal year then current, at a fixed rate per annum, and under the applicable rule, no notice of an intention to renew the lease having been given by the Government as required by paragraph 5 thereof, and there appearing nothing to indicate that the holding over was to be on a month-tomonth basis or for a period less than the period covered by the original lease, the Government, by its holding over of the leased premises, made itself liable for rental for a period of time equal to

the period covered by the lease or to February 28, 1927. The office space covered by the lease was relet by the owners as of March 1, 1927, and the Government has been released by the owners from liability for rental thereon for any period after February 28, 1927. The owners of the property appear to have been diligent in their efforts to relet it and their acquiescence in the Government's vacating the office space covered by the lease appears to be negatived by the fact that bills covering rental during the unoccupied period were presented to the Government officers for payment as it became due, and an appropriation was available covering the rental of the premises during the fiscal year 1927.

In view of all the facts appearing and the law applicable thereto it must be held that rent is properly payable for the three months during which the property was vacant by reason of the action of the Government.

Accordingly, upon review, there is certified the sum of $624.99 as being due claimant corporation for which amount a settlement will issue in due course of business.

(A-19698)

CLAIMS-SETTLEMENTS-AUTHORITY

Under section 236 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by section 305 of the act of June 10, 1921, 42 Stat. 24, the authority to make settlements against debtors of the United States rests. in the first instance, in the General Accounting Office, and all claims arising in the administrative services against debtors should be transmitted to the General Accounting Office with report and recommendation as to settlement.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Interior, September 9, 1927:

There has been received your letter of August 26, 1927, to the affect that in connection with the construction of the Gibson Dam, Sun River project, bids were solicited for second-hand steel rails to be used in reinforcing concrete work; that the lowest bid received was that of the Pacific Hide and Fur Depot of $852.72 which was accepted; that the bidder refused to execute formal contract or supply the rails for the reason, as stated in its letter of May 3, 1927; that the rails "checked out short on the actual number of 272 rails, and also found many heavily encrusted with rust and of varied lengths"; that after notification of bidder in letter dated May 13, 1927, the rails were purchased from the next lowest bidder at a total cost of $1,085.90 to the United States, resulting in a loss of $233.18 to the Government by reason of the refusal of the Pacific Hide and Fur Depot to comply with the terms of the accepted bid. You further report that in response to a demand for payment of the loss of 6752°-28- 13

$233.18, the Pacific Hide and Fur Depot has tendered a remittance of $150 in settlement of the claim against it and you request decision as to whether such offer should be accepted.

Section 236, Revised Statutes, as amended by the act of June 10, 1921, 42 Stat. 24, provides that

All claims and demands whatever by the Government of the United States or against it, and all accounts whatever in which the Government of the United States is concerned, either as debtor or creditor, shall be settled and adjusted in the General Accounting Office.

This provision of law, which originated with the act of March 3, 1817, 3 Stat. 366, contemplates that unless otherwise specifically provided by subsequent legislation, all claims of the Government against its debtors shall in the first instance be settled and adjusted by the General Accounting Office. Sections 882, 886, Revised Statutes, as amended by section 306 of the Budget and Accounting Act of June 10, 1921, supra, as construed by the courts, give to the settlements of the General Accounting Office of claims of the Government against its debtors a prima facie effect when suit is brought to recover the amount certified to be due the Government. See Soule v. United States, 100 U. S. 8; Dennis v. United States, 52 Pac. 353; and United States v. Pierson, 145 Fed. Rep. 814.

Section 8 of the act of July 31, 1894, 28 Stat. 208, does not authorize a disbursing officer or the head of an executive department to require a decision of this office in the matter of the collection of a debt to the United States; said section relates to the rendition of decisions in advance of payment, that is to say where payments are to be made by or on behalf of the Government.

As the present submission discloses the facts in this case, the proper procedure to be followed to complete the record for action by this office is to transmit to this office the remittance of $150 with your recommendation as to the action to be taken. Reference should be made, also, to the voucher number and the name of the disbursing officer paying the Morse Bros. Machinery & Supply Co. for the steel purchased in lieu of that which the Pacific Hide and Fur Depot should have furnished under its accepted bid. If the amount tendered in the settlement can not be accepted, it will be returned to the debtor when this office has concluded its consideration of the claim.

(A-19720)

TRAVELING EXPENSES-TRANSFERS-CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES The transfer of a civilian employee of the Ordnance Department from his station at one place to a new station for permanent duty is tantamount to a discharge and reappointment and the employee is under the necessity of placing himself at the new duty station at his own expense. 6 Comp. Gen. 377; id. 602 distiguished.

Comptroller General McCarl to Lieut. James W. Walters, finance officer, United States Army, September 9, 1927:

There has been received by indorsement of August 26, 1927, from the office of the Chief of Finance, your indorsement of July 13, 1927, submitting, with request for decision whether payment thereon is authorized, voucher in favor of Frank W. Murphy, junior surveillance inspector, for $4.66 covering fractional per diem and transportation expenses incurred in effecting his transfer from Pedricktown, N. J., to New Brunswick, N. J., April 30, 1927.

The order authorizing the transfer is as follows:

1. By order of the Chief of Ordnance, you are directed to proceed from the Delaware ordnance reserve depot, Pedricktown, N. J., to the Raritan Arsenal, Metuchen, N. J., for the purpose of entering upon permanent duty, being official business pertaining to the operations of the Ordnance Department.

2. The travel directed is absolutely necessary in the military service and impracticable of postponement without detriment to the public service.

3. Transportation and Pullman accommodations will be furnished upon application to a Quartermaster Corps representative.

4. In addition to the transportation referred to above you will receive a flat per diem allowance of $6 while engaged in the performance of the travel herein directed, all in accordance with existing regulations.

5. Reimbursement of expenses mentioned in above paragraphs will be made by the finance officer, Raritan Arsenal from the appropriation Army transportation 1927 "D," Procurement Authority ORD. 5607 P 5006 and P 5056-A-9–7.

6. Application should be made to the depot quartermaster for the packing and crating of household effects, in accordance with the allowance provided in Army Regulations 30-960, the transportation of which will be paid from the appropriation Army transportation 1927 "D," procurement authority ORD 5607 P 4910 A-9-7.

In forwarding the voucher to this office the Chief of Finance has stated:

1. In forwarding this request of the disbursing officer for advance decision, it is deemed proper to state that, in the opinion of this office, the decision reported in 6 Comptroller General, at page 377, and cited in these papers, is not applicable to the present case, inasmuch as the employee here involved is a member of a general field service, whereas the employee concerning whom the decision above cited was rendered was not such an employee. As you are, no doubt, aware, the activities of the Ordnance Department of the Army require the moving about or changing station of skilled civilian employees of the arsenal service from place to place for the performance of the same character of duty, and even from the United States to the Philippine Islands, or other of our foreign possessions. Accordingly, for many years the civilian employees of the class here involved have been regarded as belonging to a service as mobile as the Army itself, and the ordering of such an employee from one station to another at public expense is done only when the interests of the service so require.

It is a well-established rule that when an employee is appointed for duty at one station and not for field duty generally and is thereafter transferred for duty to another station the situation is tantamount to a discharge and reappointment, and the employee is under the necessity of placing himself at his new duty station at his own expense. See 6 Comp. Gen. 377, and cases therein cited. In 6 Comp. Gen. 602, conditions were set forth under which an exception to the general rule might be recognized; that is, if it be shown, first, that the service is field duty and that the employee is appointed for gen

eral field duty and not for service at a particular place or within a limited district; second, that the appropriation to be charged with the expense incurred in the travel between the two stations is equally available for work to be performed at either station; third, that the duty required of the employee at both the old and the new stations is of the same general character and such as to require the employee to move from place to place in the field for its performance; fourth, that the head of the department or establishment or the officer authorized to issue the necessary travel orders certifies that the transfer originated from a Government need and is not for the personal convenience or desires of the employee. All of the conditions thus described are not met in this case. For instance, the travel order states that the transfer is " for the purpose of entering upon permanent duty" at the Raritan Arsenal, thus precluding any presumption that the duties to be performed by reason of the transfer are such as require an employee to move from place to place for their execution. This case, therefore, appears to fall within the general rule first above stated and not within the exceptions. Payment of the voucher is not authorized.

(A-19107)

MEDICAL TREATMENT, PRIVATE-NATIONAL GUARD

Where enlisted men of an organization of the National Guard are injured while en route to an encampment under proper orders, they are entitled, under section 4 of the act of June 3, 1924, 43 Stat. 364, if no service or Government facilities are available, to necessary medical and hospital care and treatment furnished from private sources at the expense of the United States.

Comptroller General McCarl to Lieut. Col. F. J. Killilea, United States property and disbursing officer, Massachusetts National Guard, September 12, 1927:

There has been received, through channels, your eleventh indorsement of June 9, 1927, requesting decision whether you are authorized to pay vouchers therewith transmitted in favor of Dr. Henry J. Walcot, Concord, Mass., $214, for medical and surgical treatment of Minard C. Stygles, private, One hundred and second Motor Transport Company, Massachusetts National Guard, and the Emerson Hospital, Concord, Mass., $269.50, for hospital services rendered Private Stygles, July 9-September 5, 1926, and Henry J. Dion, private, One hundred and second Motor Transport Company, July 9– July 15, 1926.

The papers transmitted with the vouchers show that the enlisted men were members of a crew of a service or repair truck of the company en route on the evening of July 9, 1926, from the home station of the organization, Woburn, Mass., to Camp Devens, Mass., to participate in the ordered encampment there of the Twenty-sixth Division, Massachusetts National Guard during the period July