requiring that all purchases and contracts for supplies or services, in any of the departments of the Government, except for personal services, shall be made by advertising a sufficient time previously for proposals respecting the same, unless immediate delivery of the supplies or performance of the service is required by a public exigency.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of Agriculture, September 13, 1927:

There has been received your letter of August 8, 1927, requesting review of settlement K-7379-A, dated April 29, 1927, of the October 1 to December 31, 1925, accounts of A. Zappone, disbursing clerk, Department of Agriculture, wherein credit was disallowed for payments in the sum of $325.14, made on vouchers 79162 and 79163, dated October 24, 1925, to the Western Electric Co., for telephones and telephone equipment furnished the Forest Service, United States. Department of Agriculture. The disallowance was made because of failure to comply with section 3709, Revised Statutes.

The circumstances attending the purchase of the telephones and equipment are stated in your request for review of the settlement as follows:

The purchases in question cover certain telephone equipment. The Forest Service has somthing in excess of 33,000 miles of telephone line throughout the national forests. Practically all of this mileage and necessary telephone instruments are maintained by the ranger personnel who are also expected and required to be proficient in many other respects, i. e., timber management, grazing administration, fire protection, trail construction, public relation activities, etc. Efficient telephone systems are of prime importance in the administration of the national forests, particularly in the matter of fire protection. The importance of standarizing telephone instruments and equipment and thereby simplifying the ranger's problem of maintenance, is believed to be perfectly obvious; and the saving thereby effected by the Government patent.

There are in use in the Forest Service various makes of telephone instruments, including those supplied by the Western Electric Company, Kellogg Switchboard and Supply Company, Universal High Power Telephone Company, and General Electric Company. On individual forests there is a tendency towards standardization of equipment used on a particular forest. If telephones and equipment of different types were used on the same forest, it would require the purchase and maintenance of a large stock of repair parts, since such parts are not interchangeable between different makes of telephone instruments. The most serious consideration, however, is the fact that the rangers can, with a minimum outlay of time and expense, be trained to keep in repair the instruments if they are of the same or similar makes. If the makes vary to any degree it requires the services of expert mechanicians. It is not practicable or even possible to have a corps of telephone repairmen go over the lines. That must be part of the rangers' duties else the entire system of fire patrol will fall down. By continued use of certain equipment, forest officers have become familiar and accustomed to the location of the apparatus inside the sets and are familiar with the circuits and repair parts which are needed for the instruments that have been adopted as standard in their districts. Last year the department considered the question of having telephone instruments and equipment placed on the General Supply Schedule, and after more or less correspondence with the district officers, it was decided against this step, largely because one district or forest had standardized on a particular make of instruments and other districts or forests on other makes. At this time, however. all officers in charge were put on notice that they would be held entirely accountable for any failure to observe the $50 limit in the purchase of telephone instruments in the absence of competitive bids. The expenditures under suspension were made prior to the issuance of the letter of instructions in this respect, dated January 22, 1927. Most of the department's purchases of telephone instruments are now for the purpose of replacement and such purchases are in small amounts.

Section 3709, Revised Statutes, provides that all purchases and contracts for supplies in any of the departments of the Government, except for personal services and except in cases of emergencies, shall be made after advertising a sufficient time previously for proposals respecting same. It has been frequently held by the courts and by the accounting officers of the United States that the provisions of the statute are designed to give all manufacturers, etc., equal right to compete for Government business; to secure to the Government the benefits which flow from competition; to prevent unjust favoritism by representatives of the Government in making purchases on public accounts; and to prevent collusion and fraud in procuring supplies or letting contracts. Unless the purchase represents an expenditure of $50 or less and within the exception created by the act of March 1, 1899, 30 Stat. 957, to said section 3709, Revised Statutes, its provisions are mandatory, its requirements are to be strictly observed, and no procedure amounting to noncompliance with its terms is authorized.

The reasons assigned for the procedure followed in the matter of these purchases amount to nothing more than arguments in favor of standardization as against competition and involve questions of policy that are no longer open for administrative consideration, the Congress having definitely determined the matter by the enactment of the provisions of section 3709, Revised Statutes. Hence, there is no authority of law for standardization of equipment in the Forest Service, and the procedure followed in effecting the purchases here in question was illegal and unauthorized. See 5 Comp. Gen. 771, 776, 835 and 963. However, as the purchases were made before either of the cited decisions was rendered, and under an apparent misunderstanding of the administrative officers as to the requirements of the law, and in view of the instructions issued to correct the illegal practice, the items will not be further questioned in the accounts of the disbursing officer.

(A-19696)

TRAVELING EXPENSES-FIRST-DUTY STATION-UNITED STATES

MARSHALS

Under the long-established rule that has been followed by the accounting officers of the Government, officers and employees upon their appointment to positions in the service of the United States must bear the expenses incurred in reporting to their designated posts of duty.

The taking of the oath of office by a newly appointed United States marshal, the execution of an official bond, and the designation of a deputy to act in his absence, before proceeding to his post of duty, do not operate to relieve the marshal of the obligation to bear the expenses incident to reporting to the place where his duties are to be performed.

Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, September 14, 1927:

There has been submitted by The Panama Canal for settlement an unpaid voucher stated in favor of John T. Barrett, marshal of the Canal Zone, in the amount of $82.88 to cover expenses of travel of that official from Washington, D. C., to the Canal Zone, that were incurred during the period from July 16, 1927, to August 3, 1927, while proceeding to his post of duty under an appointment of July 6, 1927.

It appears from the record as submitted that after his appointment as marshal of the Canal Zone Mr. Barrett qualified for the office in Washington, D. C., on July 16, 1927, by taking the prescribed oath of office and executing the required bond, and it is asserted that he entered upon the duties of his office on that date by requesting the Chief of Office of The Panama Canal, Washington, D. C., to send a radiogram to the Canal Zone, reading as follows:

From John T. Barrett, marshal of the Canal Zone, to Charles L. Parker, deputy marshal: You are hereby authorized to conduct business of office of marshal of the Canal Zone in my name while I am absent.

The radiogram is stated to have been sent upon the suggestion of the Governor of The Panama Canal for the purpose of relieving at the earliest possible moment an embarrassing situation that had arisen in the marshal's office at the Canal Zone due to the removal from office while absent from the Canal Zone of Mr. Barrett's predecessor, effective as of June 27, 1927.

It is an established rule of long standing that in the absence of a specific statute or contract of employment to the contrary an officer or employee of the Government, upon his appointment to an office or position in the service of the United States, must bear the expenses incurred by him in reporting to his designated post of duty or first duty station. See 4 Comp. Dec. 629; 5 id. 179; id. 662; 11 id. 691; 22 id. 577; 26 id. 920; 5 Comp. Gen. 274; id. 941; id. 987. And the taking of an oath of office before proceeding to the post does not operate to place the officer in a duty or official travel status while reporting for duty. See decision of June 14, 1921, to the Attorney General in re district judge for the district of Porto Rico.

A "travel status" for which expenses of travel are authorized to be paid an officer or employee of the Government was defined in the act of April 6, 1914, 38 Stat. 318, as being "while traveling on duty outside of the District of Columbia and away from his designated post of duty," and by the subsistence expense act of 1926, 44 Stat. 688, as being "while traveling on official business and away from their designated posts of duty."

Under the provisions of section 2 of the act of December 29, 1926, 44 Stat. 924, amending the Panama Canal act, the appointment by the President of the district judge, the district attorney, and the

marshal of the Canal Zone for a term of four years each is authorized and it is provided therein that "each shall reside within the Canal Zone during his term of office." Thus under this enactment the marshal's post of duty was established and fixed as being in the Canal Zone, at which place he is required, except during authorized leave of absence, to reside during his term of office.

The Canal Zone having been designated by law as the post of duty of the marshal of the Canal Zone, under the rule referred to above the marshal is not entitled to reimbursement of travel expenses except for authorized travel on official business away from said post of duty.

The arrangements made by the marshal in Washington, D. C., relative to the sending of the radiogram, the execution of his bond, etc., can not be held to be such an entry upon duty as to operate to place him in a travel status or to relieve him of the obligation to bear the expense of reporting at his designated post of duty, or, in other words, to relieve him of such expenses as he would have been required to bear had he proceeded directly to the Canal Zone without making such arangements while in Washington, D. C.

The facts and circumstances in this case do not warrant the reimbursing of the marshal for the expense of placing himself in the Canal Zone, his duty station, and the claim submitted covering such expense will, accordingly, be disallowed.

(A-18654)

RENTAL ALLOWANCE-FIELD DUTY-NAVY AND MARINE CORPS

OFFICERS

Officers of the Navy and Marine Corps, without dependents, who were ordered to Nicaragua with and as members of an expeditionary force to protect the lives and property of American citizens sojourning there during the progress of an organized armed rebellion against the Government of Nicaragua are, while performing such duty, on "field duty" within the meaning of section 6 of the act of June 10, 1922, as amended by the act of May 31, 1924, 43 Stat. 251, and are not entitled to rental allowance.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Navy, September 15, 1927:

There has been received your letter of May 23, 1927, requesting review of settlements Nos. K-6224-N and K-7851-N, dated May 6, 1927, disallowing in the accounts of Capt. Joseph G. Ward, assistant paymaster, United States Marine Corps, the amounts paid by him. as rental allowance for the period January 7 to February 28, 1927, to the following officers having no dependents:

Capt. Richard Livingston, 2nd Lieutenants F. H. Brink, LeP. Cronmiller, jr., and M. S. Swanson, United States Marine Corps, and Lieut. Max Silverman (M. C.), United States Navy.

It appears that by order dated January 5, 1927, the commandant, United States naval station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, directed the Second Battalion, Fifth Regiment, United States Marine Corps, which included these officers, then on duty at that station, to embark on board the Argonne immediately upon her arrival, equipped for expeditionary work in Nicaragua for 400 men. The order recited:

1. Special service squadron has landed naval forces in Nicaragua to protect lives and property of American citizens. Additional forces are being sent to Nicaragua on board the Argonne, including twenty-five marines from Key West and twenty-five marines from Coco Solo. The Argonne is expected to arrive at Guantanamo on six January.

2. This force will embark on board the Argonne immediately upon her arrival, equipped for expeditionary work in Nicaragua for four hundred men. 3. (a) Prepare immediately for embarkation and expeditionary service. Reinforce battalion by sixty-four men and necessary replacements of sick men of battalion from marine barracks, detachment, to total four hundred men.

This force embarked as directed January 7, 1927, and arrived at Bluefields, Nicaragua, January 11, 1927.

Section 6 of the act of June 10, 1922, as amended by the act of May 31, 1924, 43 Stat. 251, provides that no rental allowance shall accrue to an officer having no dependents while he is on field or sea duty.

The disallowance was based on the ground that these officers were on field duty.

The Executive order of August 13, 1924, issued under the provisions of the act of May 31, 1924, defines the term “field duty" as follows:

(c) The term "field duty" shall be construed to mean service, under orders, with troops operating against an enemy, actual or potential.

It is contended that the word "enemy" in this connection is confined to its meaning in international law as "a nation at war with another," and as the United States is not at war with Nicaragua, the service of all the officers in question who are regularly attached to the expeditionary forces of the Marine Corps in Nicaragua is service, under orders, with troops, operating, however, against no enemy, actual or potential. It has not been suggested that any of these officers were put to expense to procure quarters, nor that they were not in fact furnished by or at the instance of the United States (directly or indirectly) with quarters adequate and proper for the duty to which assigned.

In 25 MS. Comp. Gen. 279, September 8, 1923, in considering what was "duty in the field" under the act of April 16, 1918, 40 Stat. 530, and "field duty" under section 6 of the act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat. 628, and referring to the act of February 27, 1893, 27 Stat. 480, providing that officers temporarily absent on duty in the field shall not lose their right to quarters, or commutation thereof, at their permanent station, it was stated:

Offensive or defensive military operations with a view to an actual or potential enemy is contemplated by the act of 1893, and it has not been held