« 이전계속 »
whose favor the certificate was made was dead at the time such certificate was given, it should, upon satisfactory proof of the person or persons entitled under the law and the regulations of the Department to receive the amount found due, be amended by you accordingly. Similar action should be taken in a case where the name of the claimant has been incorrectly stated in the certificate or the wrong address given.
"'řhis instruction has, however, no application to the settlement of accounts, such as for pensions, etc., where the persons next entitled to payment in case of death are specifically pointed out by law.
“R. B. BOWLER, Comptroller.” A payment to either of the joint administrators would be a good payment. (Lyman v. Gedney, 114 III., 388; Edmonds et al. v. Crensharo, 14 Pet., 166.)
The surviving administrator has the same authority to receive and receipt for the debt that he had before the death of his co-administrator, which is as much as they both had.
The person entitled to payment is clearly pointed out by law in this case as one or both of the joint administrators, and so long as one survives does not seem to fall within either the letter or spirit of the regulation above quoted, which only applies to cases where the only payee dies, or, in case of joint creditors, all the payees of the joint debt.
Mr. Clark should be so advised, and this would seem to be all the action that is necessary to be taken by this office.
COMPUTING PAYMENTS OF SALARY FOR A FRAC
TIONAL PART OF A MONTH.
Where an officer or employee who receives annual or monthly compensa
tion is absent with leave without pay, one day's pay should be deducted
from his compensation for the month for each day he is so absent. (Comptroller Tracewell to Rufus B. Merchant, disbursing
clerk, Post Office Department, September 8, 1904.) In your communication of September 6, 1904, you request my decision of a number of questions which you therein present as follows:
“Your communication of the 2d instant, has been received, in which you have decided that an employee being absent twenty-five days in July should receive one-thirtieth of the
installment of pay for each day's service he actually served, being six days from July 1 to 6, and thus entitling him to six days' pay.
*I have two other decisions made by your office, one in which there is an absence of three days and twenty-seven days pay allowed (letter of August 10, 1904, to the Secretary of the Treasury), and the other in which but twenty-nine days' pay is allowed, there being an absence of one day (letter of July 28, 1904, to the Secretary of the Treasury). Both of the above cases occurred in a thirty-one day month.
" As these cases do not appear to be sufficient guides for deductions for absences without pay for various periods of time in thirty-one-day months, I am compelled to submit for your decision, cases of absence without pay for different periods, which occurred on my pay rolls for July and August.
“On my July pay-roll were the following cases: “A clerk of class 3 was absent without pay nineteen days.
“ A clerk of class 3 was on leave without pay two days, July 14 to 15.
A clerk of class 2 was on leave without pay three days. “A clerk of class 1 was on leave without pay twenty-three days, from July 8 to August 19.
“A clerk of class 1 was absent without pay six days.
- A clerk of class E was absent without pay twenty-one days.
* A clerk of class E was absent without pay twenty-four days.
** A clerk of class E was absent without pay seven days. “A clerk of class E was on leave without pay
four days, July 6 to 9.
A clerk of class E was on leave without pay nine days, July 1 to 9.
A clerk of class D was absent without pay twenty-three days.
* A clerk of class D was absent without pay one day. “A clerk of class D was absent without pay thirteen days. ** A watchman was absent without pay twenty days. * August pay roll:
"A clerk of class 3 resigned to take effect August 8 and was absent without pay five days. * A clerk of class 1 was on leave without
seventeen days, August 15 to 31.
* A clerk of class D was on leave without pay five days, August 22 to 26.
"In these cases I have indicated the actual number of days which they were reported to me to be absent without pay and not in a pay status, and I would respectfully request that you inform me in each specific case how many days' pay shall be allowed.”
I think the proper rule to be applied in all cases of this kind is as follows:
Where an officer or employee who receives annual or monthly compensation is absent with leave without pay, one day's pay should be deducted from his compensation for the month for each day he is so absent.
I have therefore to advise you that in each of the cases specified by you, you are authorized to make payment in accordance with this rule.
I have also to advise you that the decision rendered to you by the Acting Comptroller of the Treasury September 2, 1904, was made under a misapprehension of facts and is in conflict with this rule, and it is hereby reversed; and if not acted upon by you, you will apply the same rule in that case.
AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE LAND FOR A BRIDGE
The appropriation made in the act of April 27, 1904, for continuing the
construction, including approaches, of the highway bridge across the Potomac River at Washington, D. C., and for any and all other purposes connected therewith, is applicable to the purchase of land for a site for the approaches of said bridge.
(Comptroller Tracewell to the Secretary of War, September 16,
By reference by the Chief of Engineers by your authority, dated September 6, 1904, of a communication from Col. A. M. Miller, Corps of Engineers, of the same date, you request my decision of the question which he therein presents as follows:
“1. The following acts providing for the construction of a highway bridge across the Potomac River have been passed and approved:
“(a) Act of Congress (Public No. 49), approved February 12, 1901, contains the following:
“Sec. 12. That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, authorized to enter into a contract with the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Company or any other party to construct within two years after the passage of this act, at a point not less than five bundred feet above the site of the present Long Bridge, a new and substantial bridge for highway travel, of
iron or steel, resting upon masonary piers and provided with suitable approaches, and with a sufficient draw, all in accordance with plans and specifications to be approved by the Secretary of War; and there is hereby appropriated (one-balf out of the revenues of the District of Columbia and one-half out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated) the sum of five hundred and sixty-eight thousand dollars; or so much thereof as may be necessary, to be paid from time to time, as the construction of the said bridge progresses, by the Secretary of War, under such regulativns as he shall prescribe.'
** (6) Ihe above-mentioned section was amended in the act (Public, No. 218) making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia, approved July 1, 1902, in the following terms:
"• Highway bridge across Potomac River: Section twelve of the “-Act to provide for eliminating certain grade crossings on the line of the Baltimore and Potomac Railway Company in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, and requiring said company to depress and elevate its tracks and to enable it to relocate parts of its railroad therein and for other purposes," approved February twelfth, nineteen hundred and one, is hereby amended by striking out therefrom the words "two years and inserting in lieu thereof the words “four years," and the limit of cost for the bridge across Potomac River is hereby increased to nine hundred and ninety-six thousand dollars. And the Secretary of War is authorized to enter into a contract or contracts for the construction of said bridge within the said limit of cost.'
** (c) In the act (Public, No. 187) making appropriations for the government of the District of Columbia, approved April 27, 1904 (33 Stat., 372), was the following item:
66. For continuing construction, including approaches, of the highway bridge across the Potomac River at Washington, District of Columbia, and for any and all purposes connected therewith, four hundred and twenty-eight thousand dollars; and the total cost of said bridge and approaches shall not exceed one million one hundred and ninety-six thousand dollars.'
* 2. I would respectfully request that the opinion of the Comptroller of the Treasury be requested as to whether, under the above acts and amendment, the War Department is authorized to purchase the necessary land for approaches to the bridge.
The provisions of law quoted by you supra do not contain any express provision for the purchase of land on which to construct the approaches to the bridge. It is implied by your question that it will be necessary to purchase land “ for approaches to the bridge."
My attention has also been called to the report of the board of engineers constituted to select a site and formulate plans, etc., for the bridge (H. Doc. No. 138, 57th Cong., 1st sess.), on page 12 of which there is an estimate of the cost of the bridge, one item of which is as follows:
“Southwest approach, including temporary roadway to Alexandria turnpike and land damages, $34,180;” and it has been suggested that the appropriation baving been made in pursuance of this report should be construed as intended to provide for the purchase of the land for the approaches.
Section 3736 of the Revised Statutes provides as follows:
“No land shall be purchased on account of the United States except under a law authorizing such purchase.
In 7 Comp. Dec., 524, it was held that in view of this express prohibition the purchase of land for a fishery station could not be implied from the provisions of the act of May 12, 1900, authorizing the establishment of such a station and appropriating money for the necessary surveys, erection of buildings and other structures. In that decision I said:
“In a letter of the 6th instant the Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries acknowledged the receipt of my letter to you, and replied as follows:
• The act of Congress in question authorizes and directs the Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries to establish a station for the investigation of fishery problems at some point in North Carolina, and provides $12,500 for the necessary surveys, erection of buildings and other structures, and for the proper equipment of said station. While the act does not specifically authorize the purchase of land, it directs that other steps be taken which would be impossible without the possession of the land, and accordingly it would seem obvious that the purcbase of sufficient land for the station was intended by this act.
“While it is true that when an appropriation is made for a specific object, it by implication confers authority to incur expenses which are necessary to its execution, or appropriate or incidental thereto, this rule can not be invoked in the face of an express prohibition of law, especially if a sufficient meaning can be given to the appropriation without disregarding the prohibition contained in some other statute. The act of May 12, 1900, supra, certainly does not in terms authorize the purchase of land. Whether it by necessary implication au