A-24687, JUNE 11, 1929, 8 COMP. GEN. 641

A-24687, JUNE 11, 1929, 8 COMP. GEN. 641

TRAVELING EXPENSES - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA METROPOLITAN POLICE TRAVEL PERFORMED BY AN INSPECTOR OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO OTHER CITIES FOR THE STUDY OF TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AND REGULATIONS FOR THE CONTROL OF TAXICABS HAVING NO CONNECTION WITH THE "PREVENTION AND DETECTION OF CRIME" IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, THE EXPENSE THEREOF IS NOT PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO THE APPROPRIATION FOR MISCELLANEOUS AND CONTINGENT EXPENSES, METROPOLITAN POLICE, CONTAINING A SPECIFIC APPROPRIATION FOR THE PREVENTION AND DETECTION OF CRIME. 8 COMP. GEN. 355 AFFIRMED.

DECISION BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL, JUNE 11, 1929:

J. R. LUSBY, DISBURSING OFFICER OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, REQUESTED, APRIL 2, 1929, RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION OF JANUARY 12, 1929, 8 COMP. GEN. 355, WHEREIN WAS SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF CREDIT IN HIS ACCOUNTS FOR $44.84 PAID TO INSPECTOR E. W. BROWN, OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE, AS REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVEL EXPENSES INCURRED DURING JANUARY, 1928, ON A TRIP TO NEW YORK CITY, PHILADELPHIA, AND RETURN.

THE APPROPRIATION CHARGED WAS THE ONE MADE FOR MISCELLANEOUS AND CONTINGENT EXPENSES, METROPOLITAN POLICE, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, WHICH CONTAINED NO SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES. THE ONLY EXPLANATION SUBMITTED WITH THE VOUCHER WAS THAT IT WAS "ON BUSINESS CONNECTED WITH THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT," THERE BEING NO SHOWING THAT THE TRAVEL WAS NECESSARY TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ANY OBJECT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR IN THE APPROPRIATION. SEE 6 COMP. GEN. 318.

WITH THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS FORWARDED THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT, DATED FEBRUARY 1, 1929, FROM THE CHIEF CLERK OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE COMMUNICATION OF J. R. MCCARL, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, DATED JANUARY 12, 1929, IN WHICH HE CITES OPINIONS AND REASONS FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE TRAVEL EXPENSES, AMOUNTING TO $44.84, OF INSPECTOR E. W. BROWN, OF THIS DEPARTMENT, INCIDENT TO A TRIP TO NEW YORK CITY AND PHILADELPHIA, PA., AND RETURN DURING THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 1928.

ON JANUARY 21, 1928, THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ISSUED AN ORDER, 293331, DIRECTING INSPECTOR E. W. BROWN TO PROCEED TO NEW YORK CITY AND PHILADELPHIA, PA., ON BUSINESS CONNECTED WITH THE METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, STATING THAT ALL EXPENSES INCIDENT THERETO WOULD BE PAID OUT OF THE CONTINGENT FUND OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

THIS TRIP WAS MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF STUDYING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS IN NEW YORK AND PHILADELPHIA THEN IN VOGUE AND OTHER CONDITIONS WHICH WERE TO BE INAUGURATED IN THESE DEPARTMENTS; ALSO REGULATIONS OF THESE TWO CITIES RELATIVE TO THE HANDLING OF TAXICABS AND TAXICAB DRIVERS.

THE BENEFITS TO BE DERIVED FROM THIS TRIP WERE CONSIDERED BEFORE INSPECTOR BROWN MADE THE TRIP, AND THE INFORMATION SO SECURED PROVED TO BE OF GREAT BENEFIT TO THE DEPARTMENT. I FEEL THAT THE EXPENSE OF THIS TRIP SHOULD BE CHARGED TO THE MISCELLANEOUS AND CONTINGENT EXPENSE APPROPRIATION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT UNDER THAT PART OF SAID APPROPRIATION WHICH READS "EXPENSES INCURRED IN PREVENTION AND DETECTION OF CRIME, AND OTHER NECESSARY EXPENSES.'

WHILE A STUDY OF TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AND OF THE REGULATIONS CONTROLLING TAXICABS AND TAXICAB DRIVERS IN NEW YORK AND PHILADELPHIA MAY BE OF SOME GENERAL BENEFIT TO THE METROPOLITAN POLICE IN THE HANDLING OF LIKE PROBLEMS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT SUCH A STUDY HAD ANY CONNECTION WHATEVER WITH THE PREVENTION AND DETECTION OF CRIME IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. THEREFORE, IT CAN NOT BE HELD THAT THE TRAVEL INVOLVED WAS NECESSARY TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ANY SPECIFIC PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE APPROPRIATION SOUGHT TO BE CHARGED WAS MADE. IT IS NOTED ALSO THAT IN THE ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1928, ACT OF MARCH 2, 1927, 44 STAT. 1300 AND 1301, THERE ARE THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS:

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF TRAFFIC

FOR PURCHASE, INSTALLATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC LIGHTS, SIGNALS, CONTROLS, AND MARKERS, PAINTING WHITE LINES, LABOR, CITY PLANNING IN RELATION TO TRAFFIC REGULATION AND CONTROL, AND SUCH OTHER EXPENSES AS MAY BE NECESSARY IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE COMMISSIONERS,

CONTINGENT AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES

* * * TRAVELING EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $3,000, INCLUDING NOT EXCEEDING $1,000 FOR PAYMENT OF DUES AND TRAVELING EXPENSES IN ATTENDING CONVENTIONS WHEN AUTHORIZED BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. * * *

WHILE THE TRIP HERE UNDER CONSIDERATION RELATED MORE TO THE OBJECTS MENTIONED UNDER THE APPROPRIATION FOR THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF TRAFFIC THAN TO THE OBJECTS MENTIONED UNDER THE APPROPRIATION SOUGHT TO BE CHARGED, EVEN THAT APPROPRIATION DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES.

WITH RESPECT TO THE INCLUSION OF A SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR TRAVEL EXPENSES IN THE CONTINGENT AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE APPROPRIATION FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, SUPRA, IT WAS STATED, IN 6 COMP. GEN. 318:

* * * IT MUST BE ASSUMED THAT THIS APPROPRIATION * * * WAS INTENDED TO BE EXCLUSIVE OF ALL OTHERS NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZING SUCH EXPENSES AND THAT THE CONGRESS DID NOT SANCTION THE PRACTICE OF INCURRING AND PAYING SUCH EXPENSE WITHOUT STATUTORY AUTHORITY.

CAREFUL CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BUT I DO NOT FIND THEREIN ANYTHING TO REQUIRE OR AUTHORIZE ANY CHANGE IN THE DECISION IN QUESTION IN SO FAR AS IT HOLDS THAT THE APPROPRIATION FOR METROPOLITAN POLICE IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR THIS ITEM OF TRAVELING EXPENSE. UPON RECONSIDERATION, THE DECISION OF JANUARY 12, 1929, MUST BE AND IS AFFIRMED.

AS THE FACTS NOW APPEARING DISCLOSE THAT THE TRIP OF INSPECTOR BROWN WAS IN CONNECTION WITH ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS, THE EXPENSES ARE PROPERLY CHARGEABLE TO THE APPROPRIATION "CONTINGENT AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES, D.C., 1928," SUBHEAD "TRAVELING EXPENSES," IN WHICH THERE APPEAR TO BE AMPLE FUNDS FOR THIS ITEM. ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER WILL BE ADJUSTED BY ALLOWING CREDIT FOR THE ITEM AND ISSUING THE NECESSARY TRANSFER AND COUNTER WARRANTS TO CHARGE SAID APPROPRIATION.