B-134573, MAY 20, 1958, 37 COMP. GEN. 776

B-134573: May 20, 1958

Additional Materials:

Contact:

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

 

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

IS A CRIMINAL PROVISION AND ENFORCEABLE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE COURTS. THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO MAKE A BINDING DETERMINATION CONCERNING THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISION. WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED IN THE EXERCISE OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE AUDIT. IT DOES NOT APPEAR SUCH PARTICIPATION IS IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. 1914 WHICH PROHIBITS GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES FROM RECEIVING ANY SALARY FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES. A FINAL DETERMINATION CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF SUCH A CRIMINAL PROVISION IS FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE COURTS. SUCH LETTER WAS IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST OF THE CHAIRMAN ON DECEMBER 2. OF PARTICULAR CONCERN TO YOU APPEARS TO BE THAT PORTION OF OUR LETTER WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE UNITED STATES MAY BE SAVED THE COST OF TRAVELING EXPENSES OUR DECISIONS HAVE INDICATED GENERALLY THAT THE PAYMENT BY OTHERS OF THE TRAVELING EXPENSES OF AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT IN A REGULAR DUTY AND PAY STATUS IS PROHIBITED BY 18 U.S.C. 1914.

B-134573, MAY 20, 1958, 37 COMP. GEN. 776

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL - CONTRIBUTIONS FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES - CEREMONIAL FLIGHTS IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT 18 U.S.C. 1914, WHICH PROHIBITS GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES FROM RECEIVING ANY SALARY IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR SERVICE FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES, IS A CRIMINAL PROVISION AND ENFORCEABLE BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE COURTS, THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO MAKE A BINDING DETERMINATION CONCERNING THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISION. ALTHOUGH A DETERMINATION BY THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD AS TO THE CONTINUING OFFICIAL NATURE OF CEREMONIAL FLIGHTS, IN WHICH OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND THEIR WIVES PARTICIPATE AS GUESTS AND AT THE EXPENSE OF PRIVATE AIR CARRIERS, WILL NOT BE QUESTIONED IN THE EXERCISE OF THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE AUDIT, IT DOES NOT APPEAR SUCH PARTICIPATION IS IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. 1914 WHICH PROHIBITS GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES FROM RECEIVING ANY SALARY FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES; HOWEVER, A FINAL DETERMINATION CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF SUCH A CRIMINAL PROVISION IS FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE COURTS.

TO THE CHAIRMAN, CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, MAY 20, 1958:

THIS REFERS TO YOUR LETTER OF MARCH 19, 1958, CONCERNING OUR COMMUNICATION OF DECEMBER 24, 1957, B-134573, TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE. SUCH LETTER WAS IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST OF THE CHAIRMAN ON DECEMBER 2, 1957, FOR OUR VIEWS REGARDING CERTAIN PRACTICES SET FORTH IN THAT LETTER. OF PARTICULAR CONCERN TO YOU APPEARS TO BE THAT PORTION OF OUR LETTER WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:

IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THE UNITED STATES MAY BE SAVED THE COST OF TRAVELING EXPENSES OUR DECISIONS HAVE INDICATED GENERALLY THAT THE PAYMENT BY OTHERS OF THE TRAVELING EXPENSES OF AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT IN A REGULAR DUTY AND PAY STATUS IS PROHIBITED BY 18 U.S.C. 1914. ALSO, WE HAVE INDICATED THAT SUCH A PRACTICE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNAUTHORIZED AUGMENTATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. ( ITALICS SUPPLIED.)

AND WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER PAYMENT OF THE TRAVELING EXPENSES OF WIVES OF OFFICIALS OF THE GOVERNMENT GOING ALONG ON A PARTICULAR TRIP AT THE EXPENSE OF AN OUTSIDE ACTIVITY WOULD BE PROHIBITED BY 18 U.S.C. 1914, WE SAID "WE HAVE HAD NO OCCASION TO CONSIDER SUCH A MATTER," AND CONTINUED:

IT WOULD SEEM INCONSISTENT FOR THE STATUTE TO PROHIBIT THE SUPPLEMENT OF THE SALARY OF AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE FROM AN OUTSIDE SOURCE, BUT NOT PROHIBIT AN INDIRECT BENEFIT GIVEN TO THE OFFICER'S OR EMPLOYEE'S WIFE. IN ANY EVENT, THIS PRACTICE WOULD NOT APPEAR TO BE IN KEEPING WITH THE HIGH STANDARDS OF CONDUCT WHICH SHOULD BE EXPECTED FROM GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES.

OBVIOUSLY, YOU EXPRESS CONCERN AS TO WHETHER THE FOREGOING STATEMENTS WERE INTENDED TO ENCOMPASS CERTAIN PRACTICES SURROUNDING SO CALLED "PREINAUGURAL" AND "INAUGURAL" FLIGHTS OF AIR CARRIERS SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, WHICH CEREMONIES HAVE BEEN PARTICIPATED IN BY MEMBERS AND EMPLOYEES OF YOUR BOARD. YOU RECITE AT GREAT LENGTH AND WITH COMPLETENESS THE BACKGROUND FACTS SURROUNDING SUCH CEREMONIAL FLIGHTS, THE SUMMARY OF WHICH FOLLOWS:

SINCE PASSAGE OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT OF 1938, 49 U.S.C. 681, AND UNDOUBTEDLY LONG PRIOR THERETO, IT HAS BEEN THE CUSTOM FOR AIR CARRIERS TO CONDUCT CEREMONIAL FLIGHTS CELEBRATING THE INAUGURATION OF NEW SERVICE, OR THE USE OF SIGNIFICANTLY NEW TYPES OF EQUIPMENT, AND TO INVITE OFFICIALS OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN SUCH FLIGHTS. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT BY FAR THE MAJORITY OF THESE FLIGHTS RELATE TO SERVICE TO POINTS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND, AS A PERCENT OF THE TOTAL, OFFICIALS OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS REPRESENT THE LARGEST SINGLE CATEGORY OF PERSONS PARTICIPATING. YOU ALSO ADVISE THAT GUESTS ON THESE FLIGHTS HAVE INCLUDED, IN ADDITION TO OFFICIALS OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, OFFICIALS OF OTHER AGENCIES OF THE GOVERNMENT, MEMBERS OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS, GOVERNORS AND OTHER STATE OFFICIALS, MAYORS AND OTHER CITY OFFICIALS, AND MEMBERS OF THE PRESS.

YOU CONTINUE TO EXPLAIN THAT, IN YOUR OPINION, THESE CEREMONIAL FLIGHTS MAKE A REAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT OF AIR TRANSPORTATION AS WELL AS TO THE PROMOTION OF FRIENDLY RELATIONS WITH FOREIGN COUNTRIES. ONE OF THE PURPOSES OF THESE FLIGHTS, YOU SAY, IS TO PUBLICIZE, BOTH AT HOME AND ABROAD, THE SERVICE AND/OR THE EQUIPMENT. AT STOPS ALONG THE WAY, IF ANY, AND INVARIABLY AT THE ULTIMATE DESTINATION, THERE ARE WELCOMING CEREMONIES AND, MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, THE PARTY IS OFFICIALLY ENTERTAINED BY THE FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OR COMMUNITY INVOLVED. FROM THE COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING STANDPOINT ALONE, YOU SAY THAT SUBSTANTIAL BENEFITS ACCRUE TO THE CARRIER PROVIDING THE NEW SERVICE, AND SUCH FLIGHTS AFFORD WHAT MAY BE TERMED "FREE PUBLICITY" TO THE CARRIER. HENCE, THE "MORE IMPORTANT THE PARTICIPANTS, THE GREATER THE PUBLICITY.'

YOU FURTHER ADVANCE THE OPINION THAT PARTICIPATION IN CEREMONIAL FLIGHTS BY PERSONNEL OF THE BOARD IS VALUABLE FROM THE REGULATORY STANDPOINT, IN PART BECAUSE IT SERVES TO ACQUAINT THE BOARD WITH THE ACTUAL OPERATIONS OF THE AIR CARRIERS AND, IN MUCH GREATER PART, BY REASON OF THE CONTRACTS AND EXCHANGE OF VIEWS WHICH IT PERMITS WITH LOCAL, STATE, AND FOREIGN OFFICIALS. HENCE, PARTICIPATION BY OTHER OFFICIALS OF THE GOVERNMENT, PARTICULARLY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, NOT ONLY ENHANCES THE PRESTIGE AND DIGNITY OF THE FLIGHT, BUT CONTRIBUTES SUBSTANTIALLY TO THE BENEFITS ACCRUING THEREFROM TO THE UNITED STATES. IN SUPPORT OF THIS REASONING, YOU DIRECT ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT, UNLIKE THE CONCEPT OF FREEDOM OF THE SEAS, EACH NATION CLAIMS SOVEREIGNTY IN THE AIR SPACE ABOVE IT, AND AVIATION RIGHTS ARE DEPENDENT UPON NEGOTIATION AND AGREEMENT AND CONTINUED GOOD RELATIONS BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES INVOLVED; AND, IN THIS CONNECTION, YOU POINT OUT THAT THE BOARD HAS IMPORTANT RESPONSIBILITIES IN CONNECTION WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS UNDER SECTION 802 OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS ACT OF 1938, 49 U.S.C. 602, AS AMENDED.

REGARDING WIVES ACCOMPANYING THEIR HUSBANDS, YOU SAY:

ON SOME CEREMONIAL FLIGHTS THE WIVES OF OFFICIALS HAVE BEEN GUESTS. ADDITION TO THE WIVES OF FOREIGN DIGNITARIES, THERE HAVE BEEN WIVES OF OFFICIALS OF OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, AND WIVES OF MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESS, AS WELL AS WIVES OF BOARD OFFICIALS. WHEN VIEWED AGAINST THE NATURE, PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND OF CEREMONIAL FLIGHTS, NO IMPROPRIETY IS PERCEIVED IN WIVES ACCOMPANYING THEIR HUSBANDS IN SUCH CASES, AS GUESTS OF THE AIR CARRIER CONCERNED. CUSTOM AND USAGE ARE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THIS CONNECTION (AS THE OPINION OF DECEMBER 24, 1957 ITSELF RECOGNIZES) AND CUSTOM AND USAGE WITH RESPECT TO CEREMONIAL FLIGHTS HAS BEEN FOR WIVES TO BE INVITED TO ACCOMPANY THEIR HUSBANDS USUALLY ON THOSE OCCASIONS WHEN THE WIVES OF FOREIGN DIGNITARIES ARE INVITED TO ACCOMPANY THEIR HUSBANDS. THERE IS GOOD REASON WHY THIS SHOULD BE SO. IN MEETING OTHER OFFICIALS AND DIGNITARIES, AND BEING ENTERTAINED BY THEM, THE PRESENCE OF THE WIFE IS MOST HELPFUL. BASICALLY, THE SITUATION IS NO DIFFERENT FROM THAT WHICH EXISTS IN ANY OTHER AREA OF FOREIGN RELATIONS. IT IS CUSTOMARY FOR HIGH RANKING OFFICIALS TO BE ACCOMPANIED BY THEIR WIVES WHEN ATTENDING VARIOUS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES SO THAT THE OVERALL POSITION OF THIS NATION MAY BE ENHANCED BY AN EXCHANGE OF SOCIAL AMENITIES. IT WOULD SEEM TO BE NO LESS PROPER FOR WIVES TO ACCOMPANY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ON CEREMONIAL FLIGHTS. CERTAINLY, IT IS NOT FORBIDDEN BY STATUTE, AND IT IS SUPPORTED BY CUSTOM AND USAGE.

AND, CONCERNING THE LEGALITY OF SUCH TRIPS, YOU CONCLUDE:

CONTRARY TO THE APPARENT IMPLICATION OF THE DECEMBER 24, 1957, OPINION, A CAREFUL ANALYSIS REVEALS NOTHING IN 18 U.S.C. 1914 WHICH MAKES IT IMPROPER OR UNLAWFUL FOR AN AIRLINE TO DEFRAY ANY OR ALL OF THE EXPENSES OF A CEREMONIAL FLIGHT INSOFAR AS GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE CONCERNED. THAT STATUTE PROHIBITS A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE FROM RECEIVING ANY SALARY IN CONNECTION WITH HIS SERVICES, AS SUCH OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE, FROM ANY SOURCE OTHER THAN THOSE SPECIFIED IN THE STATUTE, AND ALSO PRECLUDES ANY SUPPLEMENTATION OF HIS SALARY FOR SERVICES PERFORMED BY HIM FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS HELD THAT THE PAYMENT BY BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND HOTEL BILLS OF AGENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE IN RELATION TO OFFICIAL DUTY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION, 33 OP. ATTY. GEN 273 (1922). RATHER, HE HELD THAT THERE MUST BE A BENEFIT TO THE EMPLOYEE IN THE COMPENSATION SENSE AND THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION WHERE THE EMPLOYEE "DOES NOT PERSONALLY BENEFIT BY THE PAYMENTS FROM OUTSIDE RCES.' MOREOVER, INASMUCH AS 18 U.S.C. 1914 EXTENDS EQUALLY TO THE GIVER AND THE RECIPIENT IN CASES OF SALARY SUPPLEMENTATION, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN CONTRIBUTIONS MADE BY AIRLINES AND BY OTHERS WHO MAY DEFRAY SOME OF THE EXPENSES CONNECTED WITH CEREMONIAL FLIGHTS, SUCH AS REPRESENTATIVES OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS, CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE, AND SO FORTH. THEREFORE, THE OPINION OF DECEMBER 24, 1957 WOULD APPEAR TO PLACE THE LATTER CATEGORY OF PERSONS, AS WELL AS THE AIR CARRIERS, IN VIOLATION OF LAW.

AS NOTED ABOVE, THE OPINION OF DECEMBER 24, 1957 STATES THAT PRIOR DECISIONS HAVE "INDICATED GENERALLY" THAT THE PAYMENT BY OTHERS OF TRAVELING EXPENSES OF AN EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS IS PROHIBITED BY 18 U.S.C. 1914 AND THAT SUCH A PRACTICE WOULD RESULT IN AN UNAUTHORIZED AUGMENTATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. IT IS BELIEVED THAT PARTICIPATION IN A CEREMONIAL FLIGHT CAN, AND SHOULD BE, DISTINGUISHED FROM OFFICIAL "TRAVEL" IN THE ORDINARY SENSE OF THE TERM. TYPICALLY,"TRAVEL," AND THE INCURRENCE OF "TRAVELING EXPENSES," ARE INCIDENTAL TO THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS AT A PARTICULAR POINT AWAY FROM THE EMPLOYEE'S HEADQUARTERS. IN THE CASE OF CEREMONIAL FLIGHTS, HOWEVER, THE OFFICIAL BUSINESS IS MAKING THE FLIGHT, I.E., BEING ON BOARD THE AIRCRAFT, AND EVENTS TAKING PLACE EN ROUTE, OR AT THE ULTIMATE DESTINATION, ARE MERELY INCIDENTAL TO THE FLIGHT. EXPRESSED ANOTHER WAY, THE "CEREMONY" IS THE FLIGHT. THE PURPOSE OF PARTICIPATING IN SUCH FLIGHTS IS NOT PRIMARILY TO PERMIT OFFICIAL BUSINESS TO BE PERFORMED AT THE ULTIMATE DESTINATION OF THE FLIGHT, BUT RATHER, TO HAVE BEEN A PASSENGER ON THE FLIGHT.

THUS, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE EXPENSES DEFRAYED BY AN AIR CARRIER IN CONNECTION WITH PARTICIPATION BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN CEREMONIAL FLIGHTS ARE NOT, IN FACT,"TRAVELING EXPENSES" OF THE KIND TO WHICH THE OPINION OF DECEMBER 24, 1957, AND PRIOR DECISIONS, REFERRED. WHETHER IT BE CONCLUDED THAT THIS DISTINCTION IS, OR IS NOT, A VALID ONE, IT HAS IN FACT BEEN MADE BY THE BOARD. SPECIFICALLY, WHEN OFFICIALS REPRESENTING THE BOARD HAVE PARTICIPATED IN A CEREMONIAL FLIGHT WHICH DID NOT ORIGINATE IN WASHINGTON, D.C., THEIR NORMAL TRAVELING EXPENSES FROM WASHINGTON, D.C., TO THE POINT OF ORIGINATION OF THE FLIGHT AND RETURN FROM THAT POINT TO WASHINGTON, D.C., HAVE BEEN BORNE BY THE GOVERNMENT.

IT ALSO IS UNDERSTOOD INFORMALLY THAT NO PER DIEM IS AUTHORIZED FROM THE POINT OF ORIGIN OF THE FLIGHT AND RETURN.

IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, YOU REQUEST TO BE ADVISED SPECIFICALLY WHETHER, IN OUR OPINION, ANY OBJECTION IS PERCEIVED TO PARTICIPATION BY OFFICIALS OF THE GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING OFFICIALS OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, OR THEIR WIVES, IN CEREMONIAL FLIGHTS AS GUESTS AND AT THE EXPENSE OF THE AIR CARRIER CONDUCTING THE FLIGHT.

AT THE OUTSET, WE SHOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT OUR LETTER OF DECEMBER 27, 1957, WAS NEITHER A ,RULING" NOR A "DECISION" WITHIN THE STRICT MEANING OF THOSE WORDS. THE LETTER WAS WRITTEN IN RESPONSE TO AN INQUIRY OF DECEMBER 2, 1957, FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE, REQUESTING OUR "VIEWS" REGARDING CERTAIN "PRACTICES" SET FORTH IN THAT LETTER. ONE SUCH PRACTICE--- WHICH APPARENTLY IS OF PRIMARY CONCERN TO YOU AND YOUR AGENCY--- WAS DESCRIBED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN AS FOLLOWS:

AGENCY OFFICIALS HAVE HAD THEIR TRAVEL AND/OR OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENSES PAID BY INDIVIDUALS, CORPORATIONS, OR ASSOCIATIONS, SUBJECT TO THE AGENCY'S REGULATORY AUTHORITY FOR TRIPS MADE BY THE OFFICIALS CONCERNED IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES. SINCE THESE TRIPS WERE WITHIN THEIR OFFICIAL FUNCTION, THESE OFFICIALS COULD HAVE BEEN REIMBURSED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

THE SUBCOMMITTEE'S LETTER TO US DID NOT MENTION INDIVIDUALS, AND, THEREFORE, OUR VIEWS WERE FURNISHED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE EXAMPLES PRESENTED TO US AND WE HAD NO INFORMATION OTHER THAN THAT SET FORTH IN THE LETTER. THEREFORE, IN RESPONSE TO THIS SPECIFIC INQUIRY, WE ADVISED THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT PRIOR OPINIONS OF THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL HAVE INDICATED GENERALLY THAT THE PAYMENT BY OTHERS OF THE TRAVELING EXPENSES OF AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OF THE GOVERNMENT IN A REGULAR DUTY AND PAY STATUS IS PROHIBITED BY 18 U.S.C. 1914. HOWEVER, WE EXPLICITLY POINTED OUT THAT AN OPINION OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, REPORTED IN 33 OP. ATTY. GEN. 275, INDICATED A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT VIEW WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICABILITY OF 18 U.S.C. 1914; AND, SUCH BEING THE CASE, WE EXPLAINED THAT IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, SINCE THE LAW IN QUESTION WAS A CRIMINAL STATUTE, A FINAL DETERMINATION AS TO ITS APPLICATION TO A GIVEN SITUATION WAS WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THAT OFFICIAL. AND, IN THIS CONNECTION, WE WOULD LIKE TO HERE EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT WHILE IN FREQUENT INSTANCES DURING THE PAST WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS PARTICULAR STATUTE, AND ON MANY OCCASIONS HAVE CAUTIONED AGAINST POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF ITS PROVISIONS, WE HAVE MANY TIMES EXPLAINED THAT SINCE SECTION 1914 IS A CRIMINAL STATUTE ITS ENFORCEMENT IS PRIMARILY A FUNCTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE COURTS, AND HAVE EXPRESSLY POINTED OUT THAT OUR OPINIONS WITH RESPECT THERETO MAY OR MAY NOT BE SHARED BY THAT DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO MAKE A BINDING DETERMINATION AS TO THE PROPER INTERPRETATION OF THIS STATUTE. THEREFORE, ANY CONTRARY CONSTRUCTION OF OUR ROLE IN THIS AREA IS AND SHOULD BE REGARDED AS INCORRECT. FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE AUDIT FUNCTIONS OF THIS OFFICE I HAVE NO REASON TO QUESTION YOUR DETERMINATION AS TO THE CONTINUING OFFICIAL NATURE OF THE FLIGHTS MENTIONED OR THE PARTICIPATION THEREIN BY OFFICIALS OF THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, OR THEIR WIVES, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES RELATED. WHILE IN MY OPINION SUCH ACTION WOULD NOT BE A VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. 1914, THAT IS, AS STATED ABOVE, A MATTER FOR FINAL DETERMINATION BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OR THE COURTS.