tive September 1, 1940. Employ him and assign him to duty in your district and submit necessary reports. Select one company commander, issue necessary orders transferring him at earliest practicable date to Civilian Conservation Corps Headquarters, Vancouver Barracks, district, Washington, and radio Ninth Corps Area name of officer selected and date he will arrive at new station. Mr. Treadwell is available for this transfer." The records show that you were employed as a Civilian Conservation Corps company commander, grade CAF-7, on September 1, 1940, at Fort Moultrie, S. C., and that by Special Orders No. 87, dated September 3, 1940, you were "relieved from further duty at Fort Moultrie," and were directed to proceed to headquarters, Vancouver Barracks district, Civilian Conservation Corps, Vancouver Barracks, Wash., for duty. It appears that in accordance therewith you departed from Fort Moultrie on September 3, 1940, and used Government transportation_requests in the total amount of $89.52 to secure transportation to Vancouver Barracks, Wash. You submitted a claim for the payment of per diem in connection with your travel from Fort Moultrie to Vancouver Barracks and by settlement dated January 13, 1942, your claim was disallowed for the reason that Vancouver Barracks was your first post of duty; it being stated therein that you were indebted to the United States in the sum of $89.52, representing the cost to the Government of your transportation from Charleston, S. C., to Vancouver, Wash. Your letter of March 7, 1942, in response to a demand for remittance of the amount of the indebtedness, is as follows: "In reply to your letter of February 28, 1942, this is to advise that your letter of January 13, 1942, has been replied to through channels. "I am no longer on duty with the Civilian Conservation Corps but with the Army here. "My reply through channels was in effect as follows. Request reconsideration on the grounds that transportation was one of the considerations of accepting the employment, also that I was obeying official order in using the transportation, and was therefore not responsible for any errors made in this respect.' While an employee is usually entitled to reimbursement of travel expenses upon transfer between two duty stations, when properly authorized in advance, it has been repeatedly held that in the absence of any law otherwise providing upon appointment an employee must pay all of his expenses, both subsistence and transportation, in reporting to his first duty station (5 Comp. Gen. 941, id. 987, 6 id. 377, id. 537, 7 id. 203, 13 id. 390, 14 id. 564, 20 id. 820). And the rule is that the actual post of duty of an employee for the purpose of allowance of travel expenses and subsistence is required to be fixed with relation to the duties to be performed, and that the actual facts and circumstances as to the post of duty, and not the arbitrary announcement of an official headquarters not in accordance with the facts of the case, govern the right to the payment of travel expenses (10 Comp. Gen. 415, 417; 16 id. 732). It is clearly established by the telegram dated September 26, 1940, especially when read in the light of Special Orders No. 87, that the intention from the beginning was to make Vancouver Barracks, Wash., your first post of duty. Also, on the basis of your own statement "that transportation was one of the considerations of accepting the employment," it appears that your headquarters were fixed administratively first at Fort Moultrie, S. C., and later changed to Vancouver Barracks, Wash., for the express purpose of relieving you from the necessity of paying your own traveling expenses to your first duty station, Vancouver Barracks, Wash. Upon the basis of the present record it must be held that the administrative designation of your official headquarters as Fort Moultrie, S. C., was not in accordance with the facts and was ineffective to entitle you to travel expenses to your first duty station at Vancouver Barracks, Wash. Accordingly, the settlement of January 13, 1942, is sustained and it is requested that the amount of $89.52 be remitted to this office without delay. Respectfully, R. N. ELLIOTT, Assistant Comptroller General of the United States. [First endorsement] SPFDR 245.6 (Treadwell, M. L.) captain. MF. War Department, Services of Supply, Office Chief of Finance, Washington, August 18, 1942. To: Capt. M. L. Treadwell, United States Army, Headquarters Military Police Detachment, Camp Stewart, Ga. M. B. F. War Department, Services of Supply, office, Chief of Finance, Washington. November 10, 1942. To: Capt. M. L. Treadwell, headquarters, Military Police Detachment, Camp Stewart, Ga. 1. The foregoing letter is forwarded for compliance with the request of the General Accounting Office, Claims Division, as set forth in the third paragraph. It is requested that reply be made through this office. For the Chief of Finance: LAWRENCE MOTOR CO., INC. FEBRUARY 20, 1945.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. JENNINGS, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 1148] The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1148) for the relief of the Lawrence Motor Co., Inc., having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to authorize the Comptroller General of the United States to settle and adjust the claim of the Lawrence Motor Co., Inc., Richmond, Va., for the payment of rental for passenger cars furnished to the Office of Price Administration, Richmond, Va., for the period June 1, 1943, to January 4, 1944, inclusive, for use in transporting officials of said agency throughout the State of Virginia in connection with the performance of their duties, and to allow in full and final settlement of the claim the sum of not to exceed $5,391.30. The Comptroller General of the United States transmitted a request to the Speaker of the House of Representatives for this legislation. Therefore, your committee recommend favorable consideration of the bill. Appended hereto is a letter from the Comptroller General of the United States. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, The CONGRESS: Pursuant to the act of April 10, 1928 (45 Stat. 413), I have the honor to make the following report and recommendation concerning the claim of the Lawrence Motor Co., Inc., 2804-2814 West Broad Street, Richmond, Va., as payment of rental for passenger cars furnished to the Office of Price Administration, Richmond, Va., during the period June 1, 1943, to January 4, 1944, inclusive, for use in transportating officials of said agency throughout the State of Virginia in connection with the performance of their duties. It appears that the cars were furnished by the said company pursuant to an oral arrangement which was made informally with Mr. Henry L. Caravati, district administrative officer of the Richmond Office of Price Administration, under which the claimant agreed to rent passenger cars for use by officials of the Office of Price Administration at the rate of 11 cents per mile plus 50 cents per day for insurance on each automobile furnished. However, the record shows that Mr. Caravati had no authority to contract on behalf of the United States with respect to such matters and that no formal contract was entered into between the company and any authorized contracting officer of the Government for the rental . of the vehicles. At the conclusion of the period during which the services were furnished, the company presented invoices on which the sum of $6,582.43 was stated to be owing by the United States on account of the rental of the cars at the aforesaid rate. Since no agreement for the rental of the cars was entered into by an officer or employee of the United States having authority to contract on behalf of the Government, the claim is not one arising under a contract with the United States, nor is it one which otherwise could be charged against any existing appropriation. However, the record shows that the claimant furnished some transportation services during the period from June 1, 1943, to January 4, 1944. Also, in transmitting the matter to the General Accounting Office for settlement, the Office of Price Administration reported that the transportation was necessary in order to enable the officials of that agency to perform their duties and that it had been determined in advance that the hire of passenger carrying vehicles was more economical and advantageous to the Government than the use of common-carrier transportation. Furthermore, while the company originally claimed the amount of $6,582.43, it now has agreed to accept the sum of $5,391.30 in full and final settlement of the claim said amount representing payment for the cars at the rate of $0.10 per mile. In view of these circumstances, while the claim is not a legally valid one which properly may be adjusted under any appropriation heretofore made, it does, in my judgment, contain such elements of equity as to be deserving of the consideration of the Congress. Accordingly, I recommend to the Congress that an appropriation in the amount of $5,391.30 be made for the payment of the claim. If the Congress should agree with my recommendation in this respect, it is suggested that the enactment of a statute in substantially the following form will accomplish that purpose: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Comptroller General of the United States be, and he hereby is, authorized and directed to settle and adjust the claim of the Lawrence Motor Company, Incorporated, Richmond, Virginia, for the payment of rental for passenger cars furnished to the Office of Price Administration, Richmond, Virginia, during the period June 1, 1943, to January 4, 1944, inclusive, for use in transporting officials of said agency throughout the State of Virginia in connection with the performance of their duties, and to allow in full and final settlement of the claim the sum of not to exceed $5,391.30. There is hereby appropriated the sum of $5,391.30, or so much thereof as may be necessary, for the payment of said claim.' " LINDSAY C. WARREN, Comptroller General of the United States. 79TH CONGRESS 1st Session } HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT {. No. 177 DR. WALTER L. JACKSON AND CITY-COUNTY HOSPITAL FEBRUARY 20, 1945.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and ordered to be printed Mr. COMBS, from the Committee on Claims, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H. R. 1260] The Committee on Claims, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 1260) for the relief of Dr. Walter L. Jackson and City-County Hospital, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass. The purpose of the proposed legislation is to pay the sum of $130 to Dr. Walter L. Jackson and the sum of $48 to the City-County Hospital, of Ranger, Tex., for medical and hospital expenses rendered David C. Arterburn, a member of the United States Coast Guard, as a result of an emergency operation while on furlough May 10, 1943. STATEMENT OF FACTS It appears that on May 10, 1943, David C. Arterburn, a member of the United States Coast Guard was home on furlough and was stricken with appendicitis and was taken to the City-County Hospital, Ranger, Tex., for an emergency operation. Dr. Walter L. Jackson, a private surgeon performed the operation. There were apparently no governmental medical facilities or personnel available at Ranger, Tex., and according to Dr. Jackson, the dangerous nature of Arterburn's condition required an immediate operation. After the operation Dr. Jackson notified Arterburn's commanding officer and subsequently submitted a bill for medical services to the Coast Guard in the sum of $130, and bill for $48 to be paid the City-County Hospital was also submitted. The claims covered by this bill were considered by the General Accounting Office and were disallowed because of the rule that an enlisted man or officer on leave of absence may not be furnished private medical or hospital treatment at public expense. Your committee does not agree with the Navy Department that this bill should not be paid in that it would give this man preferred |