Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

On the occasion of a change of station of troops the carrier should furnish baggage cars for the transportation of the personal effects of the men, not exceeding one hundred and fifty pounds each. If it fails to do so this baggage may be placed in the freight cars with the Government property pertaining to the command and no charge should be made for it.

The Auditor's finding in this case would be substantially correct if it could be shown that the articles which he deducts were the property of the soldiers and not of the Government, and that not more than one hundred and fifty pounds belonged to any one person. As it is not now practicable to ascertain whether this was the case, the ordinary freight charges should be allowed and no deduction made.

[blocks in formation]

B.

ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE,

Washington, January 13, 1894.

The following extract from a decision of the Second Comptroller, Treasury Department, concerning claims made under the act approved March 3, 1885, entitled "An act to provide for the settlement of the claims of officers and enlisted men of the Army for loss of private property destroyed in the military service of the United States," is, by direction of the Secretary of War, published for the information of the Army:

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE SECOND COMPTROLLER,
Washington, D. C., November 8, 1893.

Hon. L. A. GRANT,

SIR:

Acting Secretary of War.

The statute as printed is divided into "first, second, and third." Independently of these specifications, it is apparent that only two clauses were intended to indicate "when" payment should be made.

The first clause commences with, "when" the others with "where." If it was intended to state three distinct instances when payment should be made, the change of expression would not occur; each clause would commence with "when" or with "where." If the "first" clause is not limited by the "second" and "third" clauses, then it is unlimited, except by the action of the Secretary of War, and payment must be made for the loss of all private property belonging to the officers and enlisted men of the Army, "when such loss or destruction was without fault or negligence on the part of the claimant." There is no limit to the amount, value or kind of property if the Secretary of War shall decide the articles "to be reasonable, useful, necessary and proper for such officer or soldier while in quarters engaged in the public service in line of duty." Such a construction of the statute at once makes the officers and soldiers of the Army a privileged class, entitled to payment from the Government for all private property lost without their fault. Nearly every article of dress, furniture, books, pictures, &c., found in the houses of officers of the Army, from a second lieutenant to the general commanding a department, may truly be certified to as reasonable, useful, necessary, proper, &c. All officers living at their post, especially in or near large cities, are supposed to maintain a style of living and entertaining suitable to their rank. What articles are reasonable and necessary, or rather what articles are not reasonable and necessary for the Major Generals in command and having quarters in New York and Chicago, and especially for the Major General Commanding the Army and living in Washington? It would be difficult to place a limit on the articles of dress, furniture, horses, carriages, books, pictures, statuary, plate, silver, gold, diamonds, and money which would be reasonable and proper for them to have while in the public service. And yet if the construction of the statute asked for should prevail, all losses of such property must be paid for by the Government if certified to by the Secretary of War. The manner of the loss,

whether by fire, theft, or otherwise, is not essential; it is sufficient to know that the loss was without fault or neglianze na the part of the claimant, and that the Secretary of War has decided that the artilies are useful proper, &c. But fortunately Congress 1d not intend to make the fats and seller of the Army a privileged class, and Congress did, by the act of March 1, 1985 make the manner of the loss an essential feature, and int payment to such articles as were lost without fault beclizes a the part of the caimant by reas of being shipped by order on unseaworthy vessels, all by reason of the claimant giving his attenting to the saving of Government property at the same time.

Frequently the meaning of a statute is made comparatively clear by transposition of livers clauses of its senten ses and clauses. By transposition the statute will show this realing: "Lost or destroyed in the military service under the following circunsatos, where the private property so lost or de stroyed was shipped in board an unseaw ethy vesel by order of any officer authorized to give such order or direct such shipment. And where it appears that the loss or destruction of the private property of the claimant was in consequence of his having given attention to the saving of the property belonging to the United States which was in danger at the same time and under similar cirem..stances, and when such less or dextraction was without fault or negligence on the part of the claimant.”

Very respectfully,

C. H. MANSUR,

Second Comptroller.

BY COMMAND OF MAJOR GENERAL SCHOFIELD:

THOMAS M. VINCENT,

Acting Adjutant General.

OFFICIAL:

C.

ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICE,
Washington, June 30, 1894.

The following opinion of the Second Comptroller of the Treas ury is published for the information and guidance of all concerned:

TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE SECOND COMPTROLLER,
Washington, D. C., June 15, 1694.

Travel of officers without troops over bond-
aided Pacific railroads under the act of
September 22, 1888.

In his opinion of April 15, 1889, on "through limited rates for transportation over Pacific railroads,” Comptroller Butler treated the subject undertwo heads-first, "Travel of officers prior to September 22, 1888, and transportation of troops;" and, second, "Travel of officers without troops under the act of September 22, 1888."

August 16, 1889, Comptroller Gilkeson considered the former (58 Op., 204), and established the practice since in effect in this office, which I see no reason to alter. He said nothing of the second branch of the subject, but September 27, 1892, he directed verbally that in the case of an officer who buys a ticket for a portion of his journey, the credit roads be given only their proportion of through limited rates which they would have received if requests had been issued for the entire service; and it is my opinion that this practice should continue.

Comptroller Butler states the general principle, "that the Government should have the benefit of through limited rates when its officer or employé performing the travel complies with all the conditions pertaining to through limited rates, and not otherwise;" and then, taking for his example the case of an officer en route from New York to San Francisco, goes on to show that he must buy a local ticket for a portion of his journey and present requests for transportation over the Pacific railroads, and, therefore, that it would be impossible for him "either to buy through tickets at through limited rates when the Pacific road was a part of the travel, or to file such a set of requests as would give the Government the privilege of through limited rates, for there would be nothing to establish the fact that the conditions of through limited rates were being, or had been complied with."

It is true that this is an anomalous state of affairs, under which a private passenger could not have the benefit of limited rates; but the lack of conformity to ordinary conditions is caused entirely by the fact that the Pacific roads are indebted to the Government. If it were not for that the system of travel on requests would be unnecessary. Officers and men could purchase tickets through to destination, and no question of conditions could arise to the disadvantage of the Government.

The true principle to govern in this matter of transportation, is that the Government shall have the benefit of through limited rates when it can comply with all the conditions appertaining to such rates, as it must do where no road of the through route is bond-aided. Where a railroad originally accepted the bonds and assistance of the Government, and some act of Congress in regard to the bonds interferes and prevents compliance with the after de

mands of such bond-aided railroad, then equity and good conscience dictate that the railroad shall not by its after agreement or regulation, entered into with connecting lines, set up a condition impossible of fulfillment on the part of the Government, and thereby prevent the Government from obtaining as low rates for similar transportation as the bond-aided railroad concedes to a single individual on a cash prepaid limited through ticket.

[blocks in formation]
« ZurückWeiter »