part of said institution, notwithstanding provision of bond for safe-keeping of such property. There is no distinction, so far as responsibility is concerned, between public property entrusted to officers of the Army and public property issued to educational institutions maintaining Reserve Officers' Training Corps units. 400.73, June 19, 1922.

An educational institution which has given a bond for the safe-keeping of arms, uniforms, equipment, etc., issued to it for use of a Reserve Officers' Training Corps unit, under section 47 of the National Defense Act of June 3, 1916, may carry insurance on such Government property for its own protection, but is not required to do so.

Such institution may properly reduce its bond to such amount as will cover all Government property issued to it "except uniforms, expendable articles, and supplies expended in operation, maintenance, and instruction," as provided by sec. 47, act of June 4, 1920 (42 Stat. 759, 777).

The obligation on the part of the Government to replace issued property which may be lost, damaged, or destroyed without fault on the part of the institution or its representatives is purely voluntary, and provision for such replacement should not be included in the bond. 168, Aug. 25, 1922.

Where survey reports indicate that loss of Government property issued to a school maintaining a unit of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps resulted from the failure of the institution to exercise ordinary care in protecting the same, the fact that the school authorities were not fully aware of their responsibility can not operate to relieve them from liability. 159, Sept. 17, 1924.

Where a truck issued to an educational institution for use in connection with a Reserve Officers' Training Corps unit thereat and left at a garage for repairs is pilfered of various spare parts, the United States should look to the institution for reimbursement, rather than prosecute suit against the garage. 159, July 28, 1926.

A university maintaining a unit of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps asks (1) whether the property issued to it, which is now covered by four bonds, may be covered by one new bond, and (2) if the new bond should be so worded as to require the university to carry fire insurance on such property as a protection to the Government or to require it to protect such property to the same extent as it does its own.

Held, (1) That as no administrative officer can cancel a bond or release the sureties thereon, the new bond can not be accepted in lieu of the outstanding bonds, which will remain in effect to cover any loss incurred thereunder, as established by a final inventory. After the inventory the Government would look only to the new bond for security for the new issue. (2) That under section 47 of the National Defense Act and AR 145-20, the institution is not responsible for loss by fire, flood, theft, tornado, or similar cause, unless such loss was occasioned by fault or neglect on its part. Therefore, the regulations do not contemplate that the institution must carry insurance in addition to furnishing the Government an adequate bond. 168, July 23, 1928.

MEDICAL TREATMENT

* 1654. While section 6, act of March 4, 1923 (42 Stat. 1508), as amended by sec. 4, act of June 3, 1924 (43 Stat. 364), provides for medical and hospital treatment at Government expense for members of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps injured in line of duty while at camps of instruction under the provisions of section 47a, National Defense Act, there is no provision for such treatment where the injury is incurred while at other regularly prescribed exercises of Reserve Officers' Training Corps units. 701, May 28, 1924.

TRANSFER OR WITHDRAWAL FROM INSTITUTION

1655. So far as the relations between the student and the United States are concerned (commutation of rations, etc.), an original contract to take a 2-year course is all that is required, so long as the student is attending a Reserve Officers' Training Corps institution, though he transfers before completion, and no new contract with the second institution is necessary; but the executive of the latter should exercise the same prerogative of selection as in the case of original entry. 326.6, Feb. 4, 1924.

A student enrolled in the advanced course, Reserve Officers' Training Corps, signed the customary contract, and drew commutation of rations and uniform from November 1, 1922, until June 9, 1924, presumably two academic years, leaving the institution without being graduated on the latter date. He pursued the prescribed course during the time for which he drew commutation, except attendance at training camp, from which he was excused by proper authority. Held, That he may not be required to refund the amount paid as commutation, because his contract was not breached, but was terminated by withdrawal from the institution, subject to revival should he return or enroll in some other insti tution, as provided in paragraph 23, AR 145–10. 326.6, Aug. 28, 1925.

A student at a university signed the contract for the advanced course, Reserve Officers' Training Corps, on February 7, 1927, but left the university soon after, and his name was "deleted from the contract." He returned to the university September 26, 1927, and applied for reinstatement "as of February 7, 1927." It was subsequently proposed to reinstate him in the Reserve Officers' Training Corps course "as of October 1, 1927," and "to permit him to sign contract as of that date"; it being stated that he was enrolled on that date but did not then sign the contract because he was believed to be still under the contract of February 7, 1927.

Held, citing section 47c of the National Defense Act (41 Stat. 778). That the student could not be reinstated as of any date prior to the one on which he was actually reinstated, and could not legally execute the contract as of a date prior to a date on which he did actually execute it; but that as the contract involved was apparently that contained in Q. M. C. Form No. 3 as revised July 11, 1924, which is arranged for the signature on one form of all students entering the course at a particular time, and there was apparently no attempt to discharge him from his obligation but merely an erasure of his signature on the theory that its retention was useless in view of his withdrawal from the university, he was not released from his contract by the erroneous erasure of his name therefrom, and the contract, which had been dormant during his absence from his course at the institution, was revived by his return; and that if he was enrolled on his return and had duly taken the prescribed training no further action of reinstatement was necessary, and the absence from the contract of the erroneously deleted name could be waived; it being assumed that if instruction of the class was proceeding during the period from September 26 to October 1, 1927, this period represents the time required for him to prepare to resume his " course at the institution." 326.6, Feb. 18, 1928.

VACATION PERIOD

1656. A student who completed one year in the advanced course January 30, 1926, applied for his vacation commutation for the periods June 1 to June 11. 1925, and July 24 to September 30, 1926. Held, That the provisions of section 47c of the National Defense Act of June 3, 1916, as amended by the act of

June 4, 1920, and paragraph 9d, AR 145-20, allowing regularly enrolled advanced students commutation of subsistence for that portion of the vacation period-ordinarily between two academic years-which is not devoted to advanced camps with subsistence furnished in kind, should be so liberally interpreted as to allow present payment of vacation commutation for the period June 1 to June 11, 1925, but not for the period July 24 to September 30, 1926, until after the training service required by law and agreement has been performed. 326.6, Apr. 27, 1926.

RIFLE PRACTICE

Secs.

1657. MATCHES AND COMPETITIONS.

1658. RIFLE CLUBS.

MATCHES AND COMPETITIONS

1657. Participation in national matches of the Small Arms Firing School at the Naval Rifle Range, Caldwell, N. J., is governed generally by section 113, act of June 3, 1916 (39 Stat. 166, 211). Inquiry is made whether a civilian rifle team from Porto Rico may participate. Section 62 of said act includes Porto Rico in the word "Territory." Section 9, act of March 2, 1917 (39 Stat. 951, 954), the organic act of Porto Rico, provides

"That the statutory laws of the United States not locally inapplicable, except as herein before or hereinafter otherwise provided, shall have the same force and effect in Porto Rico as in the United States, except the internal revenue laws."

The act of May 18, 1917 (40 Stat. 76), has been held to include and apply to Porto Rico. (Kopel v. Baker, 211 U. S. 476; De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 200.) The interrogatory is answered in the affirmative. 353.3, July 3, 1919. See act of May 28, 1928 (45 Stat. 786), in pari materia with section 113, National Defense Act, cited.

RIFLE CLUBS

1658. Liability under a bond to protect the Government from loss on stores loaned to a rifle club is not necessarily the cost of replacing a lost or destroyed article with a new one, but must be arrived at by considering each case upon its merits, and usually is the cost of replacing the article in the condition it was when lost or destroyed. 400.359, Mar. 11, 1929.

TEXTBOOKS AND MANUALS

1659. The Manual for Courts-Martial, United States Army, 1921, is a public document and not covered by copyright or subject to copyright. (Act of January 12, 1895, 28 Stat. 608.) 073, Aug. 19, 1922.

Secs.

CHAPTER 15

MONEY AND FINANCE

1660. ACCOUNTS.

1661-1665. CHECKS.

1666-1669. COMPTROLLER GENERAL.

1670. LETTERS OF CREDIT.

1671-1712. PUBLIC FUNDS.

1713. PRIVATE FUNDS.

1714-1728. MISCELLANEOUS FUNDS.

ACCOUNTS

1660. Inspection of accounts of disbursing officers is required, by act of April 20, 1874 (18 Stat. 33), to be made by a commissioned officer, whatever the intended purview of instruction of February 23, 1918, purporting to authorize inspection by enlisted men. Field clerks, unaccompanied by officers of the Inspector General's Department, may not properly make such inspections. 130, Aug. 20, 1918.

Field clerks became warrant officers by the act of April 27, 1926 (44 Stat. 328).

1661. Claim for reimbursement for an overdraft of company funds is made by the Guaranty Trust Co. of New York (Paris branch). The checks by which this overdraft was created were made the basis of charges against the officer whose name was signed to them, but the proof failed to show that the checks were actually drawn by him. It does not appear that this officer was authorized to draw, or that the trust company had any authority to honor, checks in excess of the deposit. When the bank honored checks for amounts which created an overdraft of the fund, it did so at its peril. The overdraft is not a just charge against the organization nor a valid claim against the Government. 123.5, Oct. 27, 1919.