at an increased cost to the Government, and if the regulations were designed to apply to such a case they are without authority of law. What the officer is entitled to for his dependents is clearly fixed in the law-transportation from his old to his new station by the shortest usually traveled route. He, himself, is entitled to mileage over that route. His selection of a circuitous route in connection with his travel in a mileage status without cost to himself gives him no right to transportation by the circuitous route for his dependents. The case is no different than had the route selected by the officer for his own travel resulted in increased cost to the Government and been charged against the officer in his mileage account. The item will be debited against the officer and collected in accordance with the mandatory requirements of the act of May 18, 1920, cited.

(A-20691)

POSTAL SERVICE-REINSTATEMENTS AND TRANSFERS

Where there is a reinstatement or transfer of a regular clerk in first and second class post offices or carrier in the City Delivery Service to the position of substitute in the same service, credit may be allowed for service as a regular clerk or carrier in order later to restore the reinstated or transferred clerk or carrier to the regular grade previously held.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Postmaster General, December 6, 1927: Consideration has been given to your letter of November 23, 1927, requesting decision of questions presented, as follows:

In your letter of October 28, 1927, replying to my letter of October 17, 1927, requesting your decision on certain questions therein presented pertaining to the reinstatement, transfer, and classification of post-office employees, you make reference to the third paragraph of my letter of October 17, 1927, which is as follows:

"As a rule, most of the persons transferred to or reinstated in positions in post offices are eligible to appointment to or reinstatement in regular positions. As it is not known at the time, in a majority of instances, whether a regular vacancy exists in the post office, it is and for many years has been our practice to authorize the transfer or reinstatement of the employees as senior substitute, to receive a designated salary when a regular vacancy occurs to which the employee can be assigned. Whether the stipulated salary is at the first grade or higher, we do not consider the advancement of the senior substitute, in these circumstances, a promotion, as intended and applied to substitute clerks, carriers, and laborers in post offices who have had no other civil-service status."

In commenting upon this paragraph you state:

** there would appear to be no statutory authority to advance a senior substitute through the automatic salary grade beyond that to which he 'would have progressed had his original appointment as substitute been to grade 1. That is to say, if an employee is reinstated or transferred to the position of substitute clerk or carrier, his promotion thereafter through the automatic salary grades must be in accordance with the express terms of the statute, which would allow for promotion purposes no credit for service in any position other than that of substitute clerk or carrier."

In presenting to you the three questions set forth in my letter of October 17, 1927, we did not have in mind the status of the intraoffice or interoffice transfers of post-office employes, nor the status of post-office employees who, by

reason of a reduction of force, due to a decrease in post-office business, it is necessary to relegate temporarily to the substitute roll, nor to those post-office employees who have been retired under disability under the provisions of section 6 of the retirement act of July 3, 1926, and who have been found by the Pension Bureau to be restored to an earning capacity, and whose reinstatement to a position in the post-office service as a moral obligation is incumbent upon the department.

When a reduction in the force of a post office is found necessary, due to a decrease in its receipts or as a matter of good administration, it is our policy to transfer the surplus employees to other post offices where vacancies exist and where their services may be needed. However, it is not always feasible to transfer such employees immediately into regular positions as clerks or carriers and we, therefore, have been transferring such employees as substitute clerks or carriers, pending the occurrence of regular vacancies, whereupon they resume their former grade and salary status. Likewise, if is not feasible to secure transfers to other post offices, the surplus employees are reduced to the head of the substitute clerical or carrier rolls, and upon the occurrence of regular vacancies they are advanced to such vacancies, resuming their former grade and salary status.

A like procedure is had in the case of a post-office employee who has been receiving annuity under the provisions of section 6 of the retirement act and who has been found by the Pension Bureau to be restored to an earning capacity. If at the time of the reinstatement of such employee a regular vacancy does not exist he is reinstated as senior substitute clerk, and upon the occurrence of a regular vacancy he is appointed thereto, resuming the grade and salary status which he occupied at the time he was retired under the provisions of section 6 of the retirement act.

In interoffice and intraoffice transfers between post-office employees deemed desirable and in the interest of good administration and as authorized by the act approved February 28, 1925, if a transfer to a regular position can not be arranged, we proceed by transferring the employee temporarily into the position of substitute, pending the occurrence of a vacancy in a regular position, and when appointed to a regular position he is given his former grade and salary status.

Your further opinion, therefore, is requested as to whether or not this department may lawfully and properly restore an employee to his former grade and salary status under the following conditions:

1. When relegated to the substitute roll by reason of a necessary reduction in the force of a post office; or where due to temporary physical incapacity the employee has voluntarily requested reduction to the substitute roll.

2. Where, in connection with the interoffice or intraoffice transfers of postoffice employees, it is necessary to temporarily reduce the person so transferred to the position of substitute pending a regular vacancy.

3. Upon the reinstatement as substitute clerk or carrier of a former regular clerk or carrier retired under disability and found by the Pension Bureau to be restored to an earning capacity.

Your submission of October 17, 1927, was understood as relating exclusively to reinstatements or transfers to the positions of clerks in first and second class post offices or carriers in the City Delivery Service from some other branch of the Postal Service or from some other branch of the Government service generally. Based upon this understanding, the decision of October 28, 1927, 7 Comp. Gen. 295, held, in so far as here material, that if the reinstatement or transfer was to the position of substitute clerk or carrier from some other branch of the Postal Service or the Government service generally, only service as a substitute clerk or carrier could be counted in determining the grade to which the clerk or carrier could be promoted automatically thereafter. No consideration was required in the de

cision of reinstatements or transfers of clerks in first and second class post offices or carriers in the City Delivery Service to substitute positions of the same class in the same post office, or another post office, made necessary or advisable for the reasons set forth in your present submission.

If the reinstatement or transfer is from a position of regular clerk in first and second class post offices or a carrier in the City Delivery Service to the position of substitute clerk or carrier, there would be no objection to the action of the administrative office, having due regard to the availability of appropriations and to the existence of vacancies, in giving consideration to service performed as a regular clerk or carrier, in the manner prescribed by law, in order to restore the transferred clerk or carrier to the automatic grade in which he served prior to the reinstatement or transfer.

The three specific questions submitted are answered in the affirmative.

(A-20783)

PROPERTY, PRIVATE-DAMAGED IN THE MILITARY SERVICE Reimbursement may be made an officer of the Army under the provisions of the act of March 4, 1921, 41 Stat. 1436, for the value of the authorized change of station allowance of private property damaged by storm after having been turned over to the quartermaster for packing, crating, and shipment.

Assistant Comptroller General Ginn to Maj. E. T. Comegys, United States Army, December 9, 1927:

There has been received your request dated November 25, 1927, for decision whether under the act of March 4, 1921, 41 Stat. 1436, you are authorized to make payment on an approved voucher stated in favor of Joseph W. Benson, first lieutenant, Air Corps, for $152 as reimbursement of the value of his private property which was damaged on September 29, 1927, by the collapse, resulting from a storm, of a building used as a carpenter shop at Scott Field, Ill.

It appears that by paragraph 3, War Department Special Orders, No. 185, dated August 6, 1927, Lieutenant Benson was transferred from Scott Field, Ill., to Brooks Field, Tex., and that he turned over to the quartermaster at Scott Field his authorized change of station allowance of household goods for packing, crating, and shipment to Brooks Field. The quartermaster appears to have been engaged in packing and crating the household goods when a heavy wind caused the building used as a carpenter shop to collapse, thereby injuring the household goods. The Secretary of War has approved the findings of the board of officers fixing the damage to the property at $152.

6752°-28-24

The third condition of section 1 of the act of March 4, 1921, supra, authorized reimbursement for loss, damage, or destruction of private property:

When during travel under orders such private property, including the regulating allowance of baggage, transferred by a common carrier, or otherwise transported by the proper agent or agency of the United States Government, is lost, damaged, or destroyed; but replacement, recoupment, or commutation in these circumstances, where the property was or shall be transported by a common carrier, shall be limited to the extent of such loss, damage, or destruction over and above the amount recoverable from said carrier.

All that was required of Lieutenant Benson in connection with the transportation of his private property had been effected by his delivery of the property to the quartermaster for packing, crating, and shipment. The property had not been delivered to the quartermaster for purposes of storage and it may be considered that such possession as the quartermaster had of the property was incident to its transportation. See 3 Comp. Gen. 610.

Payment of the voucher, if otherwise proper, may be made.

(A-20840)

TRANSPORTATION, WATER-PROPERTY LOST IN TRANSIT-DAMAGES RELIEF FROM LIABILITY UNDER "HARTER ACT "

In contracts for carriage by sea, there is an implied warranty that the vessel is in all respects seaworthy in fact and reasonably fit to carry the particular goods specified in the bill of lading. A vessel's liability for loss or injury to cargo from a breach of such warranty is not affected by the Harter Act of February 13, 1893, 27 Stat. 445.

The relief granted to carriers by section 3 of the Harter Act of February 13, 1893, 27 Stat. 445, is conditioned upon the discharge of the carrier's duty to use due diligence to provide that which it holds out to the shipper it is competent to furnish, to wit, a seaworthy vessel, properly manned, duly equipped, and supplied for the purposes of the contemplated voyage. Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, December 9, 1927:

Paul P. Noyes requested, October 6, 1927, review of settlement No. W-6242, dated September 27, 1927, wherein the sum of $513.91 otherwise found due claimant for lighterage, as therein specified, applied in partial liquidation of an indebtedness of $29,807.52 charged against him to cover the damages sustained by the United States on account of the loss of certain War Department ordnance material which was being transported by claimant on barges over San Francisco and Suisun Bays, from Fort Mason to Benicia Arsenal, Calif., the loss resulting from the collision of two of said barges, and the capsizing of one of them.

There appears to be no question as to the loss of the cargo of ordnance material by the capsizing of one of the claimant's barges on which it was being transported in the early morning hours of February 16, 1927, and the dumping thereof into Suisun Bay, with

resultant damages to the United States in the sum of $29,807.52. The claimant contends, however, that under the provisions of section 3 of the Harbor Act of February 13, 1893, 27 Stat. 445, he is not liable for such damages.

Said section provides as follows:

That if the owner of any vessel transporting merchandise or property to or from any port in the United States of America shall exercise due diligence to make the said vessel in all respects seaworthy and properly manned, equipped, and supplied, neither the vessel, her owner or owners, agent, or charterers shall become or be held responsible for damage or loss resulting from faults or errors in navigation or in the management of said vessel nor shall the vessel, her owner or owners, charterers, agent, or master be held liable for losses arising from dangers of the sea or other navigable waters, acts of God, or public enemies, or the inherent defect, quality, or vice of the thing carried, or from insufficiency of package, or seizure under legal process, or for loss resulting from any act or omission of the shipper or owner of the goods, his agent or representative, or from saving or attempting to save life or property at sea, or from any deviation in rendering such service.

The facts with reference to the loss appear to be as follows: Quantities of ordnance materials, consisting of shrapnel, fuzes, airway parachute flares, and powder charges for smoke puff outfits, consigned to the commanding officer of the ordnance intermediate depot, Benicia Arsenal, Calif., were discharged from the U. S. transport Kenowis at the Fort Mason docks and there delivered to Paul P. Noyes, a private carrier, for transportation to the Benicia Arsenal wharf, a distance of approximately 37 miles. The carrier accepted said materials under his existing contract of affreightment and undertook delivery thereof in two of his barges, Nos. 105 and 106, towed by his gas launch Anita, which were in charge of a gasboat operator and one helper. The gas boat and barges left the Fort Mason dock with such cargo about 6.50 p. m., February 15, 1927. While on the voyage, at about 3 o'clock a. m. on February 16, 1927, the tow and the barges encountered a storm when only a short distance from Benicia Arsenal, and the wind blew so hard that the water became too rough to make a landing at the dock and the tow then sought shelter across the channel on the Martinez side of the bay; but when about halfway across the channel the launch Anita lost her propeller, which rendered her helpless. The two barges then collided and one of them capsized and dumped her cargo into the sea, after which she righted herself. The launch was cast off from the barges, drifted about 300 feet, and was then anchored. The vessels were picked up about 4 p. m. of that day by the marine vessel South Shore and towed to Benicia.

In the approved report of survey by the War Department's ordnance surveying officer, dated April 21, 1927, it is stated:

I have examined all available testimony in this case, and I have personally investigated the same, and it is by belief that the loss of the property enumerated hereon of the value of twenty-nine thousand eight hundred and seven dollars and fifty-two conts ($29,807.52), was caused, first, by the carrier disre