A-33922, DECEMBER 20, 1930, 10 COMP. GEN. 275

A-33922: Dec 20, 1930

Additional Materials:

Contact:

Edda Emmanuelli Perez
(202) 512-2853
EmmanuelliPerezE@gao.gov

 

Office of Public Affairs
(202) 512-4800
youngc1@gao.gov

ARE LOANED TO INSPECT PARABOLIC REFLECTORS FOR THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT. THERE IS NO BASIS TO HOLD THAT THE SALARIES OF THE INSPECTORS. WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID UNDER NAVY APPROPRIATIONS. EITHER AFTER THE SERVICES ARE PERFORMED OR BY PAYMENT IN ADVANCE AND SUBSEQUENT READJUSTMENT. WAS WITHHELD PER PREAUDIT DIFFERENCE STATEMENT DATED AUGUST 15. THE GENERAL RULE IN CASES WHERE ONE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT LENDS THE SERVICES OF AN EMPLOYEE TO ANOTHER IS THAT THE PAYMENT BY THE ESTABLISHMENT RECEIVING THE BENEFIT OF THE SERVICES COVERS ONLY THE EXPENSE INCURRED BY THE EMPLOYEE DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME HE IS ENGAGED IN THE WORK OF THE BORROWING ESTABLISHMENT. REIMBURSEMENT IS IMPROPER.

A-33922, DECEMBER 20, 1930, 10 COMP. GEN. 275

DEPARTMENTS AND ESTABLISHMENTS - SERVICES BETWEEN - ACTUAL COST DEFINED WHERE THE SERVICES OF INSPECTORS OF ORDNANCE, NAVY DEPARTMENT, ARE LOANED TO INSPECT PARABOLIC REFLECTORS FOR THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, THERE IS NO BASIS TO HOLD THAT THE SALARIES OF THE INSPECTORS, WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID UNDER NAVY APPROPRIATIONS, REPRESENT "ACTUAL COST" OF SERVICES WITHIN CONTEMPLATION OF THE ACT OF MAY 21, 1926, 44 STAT. 605, DIRECTING REIMBURSEMENT OF ACTUAL COST OF MATERIALS OR SERVICES FURNISHED BY THE NAVY TO EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS OR INDEPENDENT ESTABLISHMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, EITHER AFTER THE SERVICES ARE PERFORMED OR BY PAYMENT IN ADVANCE AND SUBSEQUENT READJUSTMENT.

COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, DECEMBER 20, 1930:

CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO YOUR LETTER OF OCTOBER 22, 1930, RELATIVE TO DISAPPROVAL FOR PAYMENT UPON PREAUDIT OF $157.91 PROPOSED TO BE PAID UNDER DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PUBLIC VOUCHER NO. 412840, IN FAVOR OF PROPERTY ACCOUNTING OFFICER OF THE NAVY, REPRESENTING REIMBURSEMENT OF $154.91 FOR COMPENSATION OF EMPLOYEES OF THE OFFICE OF THE NAVAL INSPECTOR OF ORDNANCE FOR THE TIME ENGAGED IN INSPECTING 450 PARABOLIC REFLECTORS FOR THE BUREAU OF LIGHTHOUSES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, AND $3 FOR STATIONERY AND OFFICE SUPPLIES USED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS WORK. CERTIFICATION OF THE VOUCHER SUBMITTED TO THIS OFFICE BY THE DISBURSING OFFICER, BUREAU OF LIGHTHOUSES, COMMERCE DEPARTMENT, ON SCHEDULE 9082, WAS WITHHELD PER PREAUDIT DIFFERENCE STATEMENT DATED AUGUST 15, 1930, FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

VOUCHER RETURNED WITHOUT CERTIFICATION. THE GENERAL RULE IN CASES WHERE ONE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT LENDS THE SERVICES OF AN EMPLOYEE TO ANOTHER IS THAT THE PAYMENT BY THE ESTABLISHMENT RECEIVING THE BENEFIT OF THE SERVICES COVERS ONLY THE EXPENSE INCURRED BY THE EMPLOYEE DURING THE PERIOD OF TIME HE IS ENGAGED IN THE WORK OF THE BORROWING ESTABLISHMENT, THE SALARY OF SUCH EMPLOYEE REMAINING A CHARGE AGAINST THE APPROPRIATION OR FUND OF THE ESTABLISHMENT LENDING THE SERVICES. 7 COMP. GEN. 709. UNLESS IT CAN BE SHOWN THAT BY THE LOAN OF THE INSPECTOR TO THE COMMERCE DEPT. IT BECAME NECESSARY TO AUGMENT THE INSPECTING FORCE OF THE NAVY, REIMBURSEMENT IS IMPROPER. COST OF OFFICE SUPPLIES MAY BE REIMBURSED UPON PROPER ITEMIZATION.

THE VOUCHER WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RESUBMITTED TO THIS OFFICE BY THE DISBURSING OFFICER, BUREAU OF LIGHTHOUSES, AND AGAIN RETURNED ON PREAUDIT DIFFERENCE STATEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 1930, FOR THE REASON THAT ONLY ADDITIONAL EXPENSE ACTUALLY INCURRED IS ALLOWABLE. RELATIVE TO THIS MATTER YOUR LETTER STATES, IN PART, AS FOLLOWS:

IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE IS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCEDURE GOVERNING THE EMPLOYMENT OF CIVILIANS UNDER THE NAVAL ESTABLISHMENT. THE ATTEMPTED DISTINCTION BETWEEN ,REGULAR" EMPLOYEES AND OTHER EMPLOYEES DOES NOT APPLY TO CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF THE NAVAL ESTABLISHMENT INASMUCH AS THE NAVAL ESTABLISHMENT HAS NO "REGULAR" EMPLOYEES. DISCRETION AS TO THE NUMBERS AND RATES OF PAY OF CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES IN THE FIELD IS VESTED IN THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY AND THE NUMBER OF SUCH EMPLOYEES CONSTANTLY FLUCTUATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WORK LOAD OF THE ACTIVITY CONCERNED. THUS THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY BY A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE OF THE NAVAL ESTABLISHMENT FOR ANOTHER DEPARTMENT OR ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES THE EMPLOYMENT, OR THE RETENTION IN EMPLOYMENT, OF OTHER CIVILIANS TO PROPERLY PERFORM DUTY FOR THE NAVY.

IN THE PARTICULAR CASE IN QUESTION THE INSPECTION WORK WAS UNDERTAKEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRES OF THE CHIEF COORDINATOR, REPRESENTING THE PRESIDENT, THAT DEPARTMENTS AND ESTABLISHMENTS GENERALLY AVAIL THEMSELVES OF THE INSPECTION FACILITIES OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS WHENEVER NECESSARY. FURTHERANCE OF THE DESIRES OF THE CHIEF COORDINATOR THE NAVY HAS UNDERTAKEN A LARGE AMOUNT OF INSPECTION WORK FOR OTHER DEPARTMENTS WHERE SUCH DEPARTMENTS DESIRED TO AVAIL THEMSELVES OF NAVAL FACILITIES. IF THE NAVY IS NOT TO RECEIVE REIMBURSEMENT FOR SUCH INSPECTION IT IS BELIEVED THAT SUCH INSPECTIONS WOULD CONTRAVENE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3678 OF THE REVISED STATUTES (TITLE 31, SEC. 628, U.S.C.), WHICH PROVIDES THAT:

"ALL SUMS APPROPRIATED FOR THE VARIOUS BRANCHES OF EXPENDITURE IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE SHALL BE APPLIED SOLELY TO THE OBJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE RESPECTIVELY MADE AND FOR NO OTHERS.'

"AN APPROPRIATION BY CONGRESS OF A GIVEN SUM OF MONEY, FOR A NAMED PURPOSE, IS NOT A DESIGNATION OF ANY PARTICULAR PILE OF COIN OR ROLL OF NOTES TO BE SET ASIDE AND HELD FOR THAT PURPOSE, AND TO BE USED FOR NO OTHER; BUT SIMPLY A LEGAL AUTHORITY TO APPLY SO MUCH OF ANY MONEY IN THE TREASURY TO THE INDICATED OBJECT.' (HUKILL V. UNITED STATES, 16 CT.CLS. 562, 565.) IT IS APPARENT, THEREFORE, WITHOUT REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3678 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, THAT THE USE OF FUNDS FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN THAT FOR WHICH APPROPRIATED, IS UNLAWFUL. WITH SUCH PREMISE SUPPORTED BY SECTION 3678 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, THE NAVY DEPARTMENT FEELS THAT THE USE OF FUNDS APPROPRIATED FOR NAVAL PURPOSES TO PAY INSPECTORS PERFORMING WORK FOR OTHER DEPARTMENTS OR ESTABLISHMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT IS PROHIBITED BY STATUTE, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY THE ACT OF MAY 21, 1926, WHICH INFERENTIALLY AUTHORIZES THE USE OF NAVAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THAT PURPOSE CONDITIONED UPON THE REIMBURSEMENT TO THE NAVAL APPROPRIATIONS OF THE ACTUAL COST THEREOF.

YOUR DECISION OF APRIL 16, 1930 (A-31275) TO MAJOR J. B. HARPER, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, U.S. ARMY, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT PAYMENT OF A VOUCHER COVERING THE ACTUAL COST OF LABOR PERFORMED BY MECHANICS OF THE NAVAL AIRCRAFT FACTORY AT PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, IN REPAIRING AN ARMY AIRPLANE WAS AUTHORIZED, IS IN CONSONANCE WITH THE VIEWS OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT, BUT THE ACTION OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS IN CONFLICT THEREWITH.

THE ACT OF MAY 21, 1926, 44 STAT. 605, PROVIDES:

NAVAL WORKING FUND: HEREAFTER ANY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OR INDEPENDENT ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDERING MATERIALS OR SERVICES FROM THE NAVY SHALL PAY PROMPTLY BY CHECK UPON WRITTEN REQUEST FROM THE PAYMASTER GENERAL OF THE NAVY, EITHER IN ADVANCE OR UPON COMPLETION OF THE WORK, ALL OR PART OF THE ESTIMATED OR ACTUAL COST THEREOF, AS THE CASE MAY BE, AND BILLS RENDERED IN ACCORDANCE HEREWITH SHALL NOT BE SUBJECT TO AUDIT OR CERTIFICATION IN ADVANCE OF PAYMENT: PROVIDED, THAT PROPER ADJUSTMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE ACTUAL COST OF DELIVERY OF WORK PAID FOR IN ADVANCE SHALL BE MADE.

THE VOUCHER WAS NOT FORWARDED WITH YOUR LETTER, BUT YOU STATE THAT AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, THE NAVAL INSPECTOR OF ORDNANCE AT ROCHESTER, N.Y., INSPECTED 450 PARABOLIC REFLECTORS BEING PURCHASED BY THE AIRWAYS DIVISION OF THE BUREAU OF LIGHTHOUSES AND THAT THE COMPENSATION OF THE EMPLOYEES OF THE OFFICE OF THE NAVAL INSPECTOR OF ORDNANCE FOR THE TIME ENGAGED ON THIS WORK AMOUNTED TO $154.91. THE CITED ACT OF MAY 21, 1926, DIRECTS REIMBURSEMENT OF THE ACTUAL COST OF MATERIALS OR SERVICES FURNISHED BY THE NAVY TO ANY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OR INDEPENDENT ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT, EITHER AFTER THE SERVICES ARE PERFORMED OR BY PAYMENT IN ADVANCE AND SUBSEQUENT READJUSTMENT. THE PRIMARY QUESTION HERE INVOLVED IS WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL COST OF THE SERVICES PERFORMED FOR THE BUREAU OF LIGHTHOUSES. DECISION OF APRIL 16, 1930, A- 31275, CITED BY YOU AS APPLICABLE, HELD THAT PAYMENT FOR THE COST OF LABOR USED BY THE NAVAL AIRCRAFT FACTORY IN MAKING EMERGENCY REPAIRS ON AN ARMY PLANE WHICH WAS FORCED TO LAND AT PHILADELPHIA WHILE EN ROUTE TO DAYTON, OHIO, BECAUSE OF A DEFECTIVE OIL TANK, WAS AUTHORIZED UNDER THE SAID ACT OF MAY 21, 1926. THIS WAS IN CONSONANCE ALSO WITH THE ESTABLISHED RULE SET FORTH IN A DECISION OF JUNE 18, 1924, 3 COMP. GEN. 974, RELATIVE TO WORK DESCRIBED BY YOUR PREDECESSOR AS INVOLVING NOT THE LOANING OR DETAILING OF PERSONNEL BUT RATHER THE UNDERTAKING BY THE DEPARTMENT, IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS, TO DO FOR ANOTHER DEPARTMENT "REPAIR, ALTERATION, MANUFACTURE, OR NEW CONSTRUCTION WORK IN ITS REGULARLY ESTABLISHED PLANTS.' IT WAS POINTED OUT IN THAT DECISION THAT IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT ANY MATERIAL AMOUNT OF SUCH ADDITIONAL WORK REQUIRES INCREASED EXPENSE, AND IT WAS HELD TO BE IN CONFORMITY WITH SECTION 3678, REVISED STATUTES, TO REQUIRE THAT THE AMOUNT OF SUCH ADDITIONAL EXPENSE AS CAN BE ACCURATELY DETERMINED SHALL BE REIMBURSED BY THE PROCURING DEPARTMENT. THIS IS THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE OF THE NUMEROUS DECISIONS INVOLVING REIMBURSEMENT FOR OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED AND PROPER SERVICES RENDERED BY ONE DEPARTMENT OR ESTABLISHMENT FOR ANOTHER, AND IT IS IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE DECISIONS THAT THERE IS FOR DETERMINATION THE "ACTUAL COST" OF SERVICES WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CITED ACT OF MAY 21, 1926. CLEARLY, THERE IS NO ACTUAL COST TO BE REIMBURSED WHERE A DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN PUT TO NO EXPENSE THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCURRED IF THE SERVICES IN QUESTION HAD NOT BEEN PERFORMED, NOR IS THERE ANY BASIS FOR REIMBURSEMENT AS ACTUAL COST OF AMOUNTS WHICH CAN NOT BE ACCURATELY DETERMINED AND SHOWN TO BE DIRECTLY DUE TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE SERVICE IN QUESTION.

WITH RESPECT TO YOUR CONTENTION THAT THE PERFORMANCE OF DUTY BY A CIVILIAN EMPLOYEE OF THE NAVAL ESTABLISHMENT FOR ANOTHER DEPARTMENT OR ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT INCREASES COSTS BECAUSE IT REQUIRES THE EMPLOYMENT, OR THE RETENTION IN EMPLOYMENT OF OTHER CIVILIANS TO PROPERLY PERFORM DUTY FOR THE NAVY, YOUR ATTENTION IS INVITED TO DECISION A-31040, DATED MAY 6, 1930, WHERE IN ANSWERING A SIMILAR CONTENTION ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, UNITED STATES ARMY, IT WAS SAID:

YOU MAY BE INFORMED, HOWEVER, THAT ON THE FACTS NOW BEFORE THIS OFFICE THE PAYMENT IN QUESTION WAS NOT AUTHORIZED UNDER THE WELL ESTABLISHED RULE THAT ONE GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY MAY NOT BE REIMBURSED FOR SERVICES PERFORMED FOR ANOTHER EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IS SHOWN THAT INCREASED COSTS HAVE BEEN INCURRED. SUCH RULE IS NOT IN CONTRAVENTION OF SECTION 3678, REVISED STATUTES, REQUIRING ALL APPROPRIATIONS TO BE APPLIED SOLELY TO THE OBJECTS FOR WHICH THEY ARE MADE, BUT IS IN AID OF SUCH STATUTE, FOR UNLESS INCREASED COSTS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN INCURRED BY THE PERFORMING ACTIVITY, THERE IS NOTHING TO BE PAID AND IF PAYMENT IS MADE MERELY ON SOME THEORETICAL, OR HYPOTHETICAL, OR ESTIMATED BASIS, WHERE NO ACTUAL INCREASED COSTS ARE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED, THE EFFECT IS TO AUGMENT THE APPROPRIATION OF THE PERFORMING ACTIVITY AT THE EXPENSE OF THE APPROPRIATION OF THE REQUESTING ACTIVITY, AND THUS TO APPLY THE APPROPRIATION OF THE REQUESTING ACTIVITY TO THE PURPOSES OF THE PERFORMING ACTIVITY IN CONTRAVENTION OF SAID SECTION 3678, REVISED STATUTES. THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 3679, REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF FEBRUARY 27, 1906, 34 STAT. 48, CITED BY YOU, IS NOT APPARENT, AS THERE WOULD APPEAR TO BE NO QUESTION OF CREATING A DEFICIENCY IN THE APPROPRIATION IN THE ABSENCE OF A SHOWING THAT INCREASED COSTS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN INCURRED BY THE PERFORMING ACTIVITY AS A RESULT OF THE LOANED SERVICE. YOUR EXPLANATION THAT SOMEWHERE UPON FINAL ANALYSIS SOME INCREASED COST MAY HAVE BEEN INCURRED BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS ON ACCOUNT OF THE INSPECTION OF THE LUMBER IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO AUTHORIZE CHARGING THE APPROPRIATIONS OF THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND PUBLIC PARKS OF THE NATIONAL CAPITAL WITH THE SALARY OF THE INSPECTOR, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID UNDER CORPS OF ENGINEERS APPROPRIATIONS IF SUCH INSPECTION HAD NOT BEEN MADE. THE PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES AT NO INCREASED COST BY ONE GOVERNMENT ACTIVITY FOR ANOTHER IS A MATTER OF COMITY IN THE INTEREST OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE GENERALLY AND IS NOT TO BE TREATED ON THE BASIS OF A COMMERCIAL ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN TWO UNRELATED PRIVATE BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS.

TO THE SAME EFFECT IS DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1930, 10 COMP. GEN. 131, HOLDING THAT NAVY APPROPRIATIONS WERE NOT CHARGEABLE WITH THE SALARY OF A WAR DEPARTMENT ORDNANCE INSPECTOR WHOSE SERVICES WERE LOANED FOR A FEW DAYS TO INSPECT ORDNANCE FOR THE NAVY DEPARTMENT (AND SHOWING, INCIDENTALLY, THAT YOUR DEPARTMENT BENEFITS, IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, FROM THE APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES STATED). IN THAT DECISION IT WAS SAID:

IN SHORT, THE CONTENTION IS THAT BY LOANING MR. KELLEY'S SERVICES TO THE NAVY DEPARTMENT FOR TWO WEEKS, THE WORK THAT HE OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE DONE HAD TO BE PERFORMED BY OTHER EMPLOYEES AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THAT IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, AS A MATTER OF COST ACCOUNTING AMONG THE VARIOUS ORDNANCE PROCUREMENT PROJECTS, SOME PROJECT MUST HAVE BEEN CHARGED WITH THE COST OF SERVICES WHICH NEED NOT HAVE BEEN INCURRED IF MR. KELLEY'SSERVICES HAD NOT BEEN LOANED. MANIFESTLY, THIS IS TOO SPECULATIVE TO DETERMINE THAT THE WAR DEPARTMENT, AS A DEMONSTRATED FACT, ACTUALLY INCURRED AN INCREASED EXPENSE IN THE AMOUNT OF MR. KELLEY'S SALARY BY LOANING HIS SERVICES FOR THE SHORT TIME INVOLVED, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE APPROPRIATION INVOLVED IS A LUMP-SUM APPROPRIATION OF $4,000,000 MADE IN GENERAL TERMS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, MANUFACTURE, PURCHASE, AND MAINTENANCE OF AMMUNITION, ETC. * * *

SEE ALSO DECISION OF AUGUST 8, 1930, A-32601, HOLDING THAT THE DISBURSING CLERK, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CREDIT BY REASON OF THE CITED PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF MAY 21, 1926, SUPRA, FOR A PAYMENT TO THE PAYMASTER GENERAL OF THE NAVY AS REIMBURSEMENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE SERVICES OF A NAVY ENGINEER INSPECTING A RADIO MONITORING STATION FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE IN THE ABSENCE OF A SATISFACTORY SHOWING THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENTED ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ENGINEER BY REASON OF SUCH INSPECTION. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE SUBMISSION DOES NOT SHOW WHETHER THE INSPECTION OF THE REFLECTORS WAS MADE PERSONALLY BY "THE NAVAL INSPECTOR OF ORDNANCE AT ROCHESTER, N.Y.'--- APPARENTLY A PERSON REGULARLY ASSIGNED TO THAT POSITION--- OR BY EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO AID HIM IN CONNECTION WITH A REGULAR INSPECTION SERVICE APPARENTLY MAINTAINED BY THE NAVY AT ROCHESTER, OR WHETHER IT WAS NECESSARY TO EMPLOY ADDITIONAL INSPECTORS TO DO THE WORK, AND, IF SO, HOW MANY, AND FOR HOW LONG, AND AT WHAT RATES OF PAY. IF THE WORK WAS DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THEIR OTHER WORK BY INSPECTORS ALREADY EMPLOYED WHO OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN RETAINED AND PAID THE SAME SALARIES AND IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO AUGMENT DIRECTLY THE NUMBER OF INSPECTORS THERE, ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH ADDITIONAL WORK, THE MATTER APPEARS TO BE NO MORE THAN ONE OF THE TEMPORARY LOAN OF THE SERVICES OF AVAILABLE EMPLOYEES, AND THERE APPEARS NO BASIS FOR HOLDING THAT THE SALARIES OF THE INSPECTORS, WHICH OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID UNDER NAVY APPROPRIATIONS, CONSTITUTED ANY ACCURATELY DETERMINED ADDITIONAL EXPENSE OR REPRESENTS THE "ACTUAL COST" OF THE SERVICE WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF THE ACT OF MAY 21, 1926.

THE APPROPRIATION ACT OF JUNE 11, 1930, 46 STAT. 564, PROVIDES FOR VARIOUS ACTIVITIES OF THE BUREAU OF ORDNANCE, NAVY DEPARTMENT, INCLUDING INSPECTION, A LUMP SUM OF $11,669,400. SIMILAR AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATED FOR PRIOR YEARS.

THE FACTS PRESENTED ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO AUTHORIZE REIMBURSEMENT FROM APPROPRIATIONS OF THE BUREAU OF LIGHTHOUSES, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, FOR THE SALARIES OF INSPECTORS WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID UNDER APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE BUREAU OF ORDNANCE IF THE INSPECTIONS HAD NOT BEEN MADE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION TAKEN ON THE VOUCHER APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PROPER AND WILL NOT BE MODIFIED ON THE FACTS SUBMITTED.