A-8966, JUNE 4, 1925, 4 COMP. GEN. 1013

A-8966: Jun 4, 1925

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

ARE ENTITLED. THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A PER DIEM IN LIEU THEREOF. PAYMENTS OF A PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE NOT EXCEEDING $4 HERETOFORE MADE WILL NOT BE DISTURBED. MAY BE REIMBURSED FOR TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES INCURRED WHICH ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED UNDER DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS. 1925: THERE IS FOR CONSIDERATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ACCOUNTS OF DON C. THE QUESTION (1) WHETHER THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND OTHER OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ARE ENTITLED TO A PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE WHEN SENT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ATTEND TO ANY INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES. - WHICH ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED UNDER REGULATIONS. OR ANY OTHER OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS SENT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ANY STATE.

A-8966, JUNE 4, 1925, 4 COMP. GEN. 1013

TRAVELING EXPENSES OF OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND OTHER OFFICIALS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WHEN SENT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ATTEND TO ANY INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES, ARE ENTITLED, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 370, REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MARCH 4, 1923, 42 STAT. 1503, TO REIMBURSEMENT OF ACTUAL EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $6 PER DAY, BUT THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A PER DIEM IN LIEU THEREOF. PAYMENTS OF A PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE NOT EXCEEDING $4 HERETOFORE MADE WILL NOT BE DISTURBED, HOWEVER. (MODIFIED BY 4 COMP. GEN. 1066.) OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, REFERRED TO IN DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 1122, DATED NOVEMBER 1, 1920, WHEN SENT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ATTEND TO ANY INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES, MAY BE REIMBURSED FOR TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES INCURRED WHICH ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED UNDER DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS--- SUCH AS CHARGES FOR DRAWING ROOM ON TRAIN AND TIPS--- IN SUCH AMOUNTS AS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, SUBJECT ONLY TO STATUTORY LIMITATIONS.

DECISION BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL MCCARL, JUNE 4, 1925:

THERE IS FOR CONSIDERATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ACCOUNTS OF DON C. FEES, DISBURSING CLERK, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE QUESTION (1) WHETHER THE SOLICITOR GENERAL AND OTHER OFFICERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ARE ENTITLED TO A PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE WHEN SENT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ATTEND TO ANY INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES, AND (2) WHETHER THE OFFICERS REFERRED TO IN CIRCULAR NO. 1122, ISSUED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL NOVEMBER 1, 1920, MAY BE REIMBURSED FOR TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES--- SUCH AS CHARGES FOR DRAWING ROOM ON TRAIN AND TIPS--- WHICH ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED UNDER REGULATIONS.

SECTION 370, REVISED STATUTES, AS AMENDED BY THE ACT OF MARCH 4, 1923, 42 STAT. 1503, PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS:

WHENEVER THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, AN ATTORNEY, AN ASSISTANT ATTORNEY, A SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, OR ANY OTHER OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS SENT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ANY STATE, DISTRICT, TERRITORY, OR COUNTRY TO ATTEND TO ANY INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES, THE PERSON SO SENT SHALL RECEIVE, IN ADDITION TO HIS SALARY AND THE NECESSARY EXPENSES OF TRAVEL, HIS ACTUAL EXPENSES INCURRED FOR SUBSISTENCE, NOT TO EXCEED $6 PER DAY WHILE ABSENT FROM THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT, THE ACCOUNT THEREOF TO BE VERIFIED BY AFFIDAVIT.

AS THIS STATUTE MAKES SPECIFIC PROVISION FOR THESE PARTICULAR OFFICERS WHEN ENGAGED ON THE DUTY SPECIFIED, THEREBY EXCEPTING THEM FROM THE LIMITATIONS PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT OF APRIL 6, 1914, 38 STAT. 318, AND MAKES NO PROVISION FOR THE PAYMENT OF PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE, IT MUST BE HELD THAT SUCH OFFICERS WHEN SENT BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO ATTEND TO ANY INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A PER DIEM IN LIEU OF SUBSISTENCE. SEE 2 COMP. GEN. 619. HOWEVER, THIS DECISION WILL NOT BE APPLIED TO REQUIRE THE DISALLOWANCE OF CREDIT FOR PAYMENTS HERETOFORE MADE BY DISBURSING OFFICERS OF A PER DIEM NOT EXCEEDING $4 IN LIEU OF ACTUAL EXPENSES OF SUBSISTENCE IN SUCH CASES. THE FIRST QUESTION IS ANSWERED ACCORDINGLY.

THE APPROPRIATION FOR TRAVELING EXPENSES FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (SEE ACT OF MAY 28, 1924, 43 STAT. 216, FOR CURRENT FISCAL YEAR) IS IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS:

FOR TRAVELING AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS AND EMERGENCY EXPENSES, INCLUDING ADVANCES MADE BY THE DISBURSING CLERK, AUTHORIZED AND APPROVED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, TO BE EXPENDED AT HIS DISCRETION, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3648, REVISED STATUTES, TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING, $7,500.

THE PUBLISHED REGULATIONS GOVERNING TRAVELING EXPENSES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, DATED FEBRUARY 1, 1921, PROVIDE:

THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS SHALL GOVERN THE ALLOWANCE OF TRAVELING EXPENSES, INCURRED FOR TRAVEL ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS, EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFIC LAWS, REGULATIONS, OR ORDERS PROVIDE OTHERWISE.

CIRCULAR NO. 1122, ISSUED BY ATTORNEY GENERAL PALMER ON NOVEMBER 1, 1920, WHICH IS STILL IN FORCE, READS:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT THE CIRCULARS AND ORDERS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH RESPECT TO ALLOWANCES FOR TRAVELING EXPENSES, THE ISSUE AND EXCHANGE OF TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS, AND THE RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS BE, AND THE SAME HEREBY ARE, WAIVED AS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, SOLICITOR GENERAL, ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS GENERAL, PRIVATE SECRETARY AND ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND THE CHIEF CLERK AND ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT OF THE DEPARTMENT, AND SAID OFFICIALS WILL BE ALLOWED THEIR ACTUAL AND NECESSARY TRAVELING EXPENSES WITHIN THE LIMITATIONS OF LAW AND WILL BE ALLOWED TO ISSUE AND EXCHANGE TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS IRRESPECTIVE OF SUCH REGULATIONS.

THE PROVISION JUST QUOTED EXEMPTS FROM THE RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE TRAVEL REGULATIONS THE OFFICERS THEREIN DESIGNATED. THEREFORE, SUCH OFFICERS ARE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES INCURRED WHILE TRAVELING ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS FOR SUCH ITEMS AND IN SUCH AMOUNTS AS MAY BE AUTHORIZED OR APPROVED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SUBJECT ONLY TO LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS PRESCRIBED BY STATUTE. ACCORDINGLY QUESTION 2 IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.