A-79164, DECEMBER 17, 1936, 16 COMP. GEN. 594

A-79164, DECEMBER 17, 1936, 16 COMP. GEN. 594

TRANSPORTATION - SUPERIOR ACCOMMODATIONS - CARRIER PAYMENTS NOT RESTRICTED TO LOWEST FIRST-CLASS FARES THE RULE STATED IN DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1936, 16 COMP. GEN. 221, THAT A CARRIER WOULD BE PAID ONLY THE LOWEST FIRST-CLASS FARE WHEN THE TRANSPORTATION REQUEST CALLS FOR HIGHER-PRICED ACCOMMODATIONS, IS RESCINDED, CARRIERS BEING UNABLE TO DETERMINE WHETHER TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS PRESENTED TO THEM INVOLVE TRANSPORTATION WITHIN ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933, 47 STAT. 1516, AUTHORIZED WHERE THE TRANSPORTATION TO BE FURNISHED INVOLVES MORE THAN THE TRANSPORTATION OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OR THEIR DEPENDENTS, AND SAID DECISION NOT HAVING BEEN INTENDED TO APPLY TO SUCH EXCEPTIONS.

ACTING COMPTROLLER GENERAL ELLIOTT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, DECEMBER 17, 1936:

THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED YOUR LETTER OF NOVEMBER 18, 1936, AS FOLLOWS:

REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR DECISION DATED SEPTEMBER 9, 1936, A-79164, BASED ON SECTION 10 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933 (47 STAT. 1516; 5 U.S. CODE, SEC. 73B), WHEREIN IT IS STATED:

"ON AND AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1936, HOWEVER, PAYMENTS TO CARRIERS FOR TRANSPORTATION FURNISHED UPON GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS WILL BE RESTRICTED TO THE LOWEST FIRST-CLASS FARE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE TRANSPORTATION REQUEST IS FOR HIGHER PRICED ACCOMMODATIONS.'

ALTHOUGH THIS DECISION WAS RENDERED IN CONNECTION WITH A BILL OF THE NORFOLK AND WASHINGTON STEAMBOAT COMPANY, IT IS COUCHED IN GENERAL TERMS AND CONTAINS NO QUALIFICATIONS, HENCE MAY BE CONSTRUED TO APPLY TO RAILROAD AS WELL AS TO STEAMBOAT TRAVEL. INFORMATION IS REQUESTED WHETHER THE DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1936, WAS INTENDED TO APPLY TO RAIL AS WELL AS TO STEAMPSHIP TRAVEL.

SHOULD THE DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1936, A-79164, BE INTENDED TO APPLY TO RAIL AS WELL AS TO STEAMSHIP TRAVEL, THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS ARE CITED:

IN A DECISION DATED MAY 17, 1933, A-48568, IT WAS HELD THAT THE MOST THAT MAY BE ALLOWED FROM PUBLIC FUNDS FOR THE COST OF ACCOMMODATIONS IN A SLEEPING CAR IS THE REGULAR CHARGE FOR A LOWER BERTH.

IN A DECISION DATED JUNE 26, 1933, A-49378, AND AGAIN IN 15 COMP. GEN. 188, IT WAS HELD THAT DRAWING ROOMS IN SLEEPING CARS MAY BE USED AT PUBLIC EXPENSE WHERE NECESSARY IN THE TRANSPORTATION OF PRISONERS.

IN A DECISION DATED MARCH 31, 1934, A-53823, IT WAS HELD THAT HIGHER THAN MINIMUM FIRST CLASS ACCOMMODATION IS AUTHORIZED AT PUBLIC EXPENSE FOR MOVEMENT OF DETACHMENT OF TROOPS.

IN A DECISION DATED MAY 31, 1933, A-48894, IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE USE OF EXTRA FARE TRAINS IS DUE TO NEED OF THE SERVICE, EXTRA FARE TRAINS MAY BE CONSIDERED "THE TRANSPORTATION FACILITY USED.'

IT IS THE NAVY DEPARTMENT'S UNDERSTANDING THAT, AS A PRACTICAL ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER, YOUR DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1936, SUPRA, DOES NOT OVERRULE THE OTHER DECISIONS REFERRED TO IMMEDIATELY ABOVE, BUT THAT THE PRACTICE OF ALLOWING EXPENDITURES FROM PUBLIC FUNDS ON THE BASIS AUTHORIZED THEREIN WILL CONTINUE. IS THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT IN THIS MATTER CORRECT?

IF, HOWEVER, THE ABOVE CITED DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1936, IS APPLICABLE TO TRAVEL BY RAIL, AND IF THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT IS CORRECT, I.E., THAT THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE AUTHORIZING HIGHER THAN MINIMUM FIRST CLASS RATES REMAIN EFFECTIVE, MAY TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS BE DRAWN AND WILL THE CARRIERS BE ENTITLED TO PAYMENT FOR SERVICES ACTUALLY RENDERED ON SUCH REQUESTS IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES:

(A) TRAVEL OF PRISONERS AND GUARDS.

(B) TRAVEL OF SICK OR INSANE PATIENTS REQUIRING EXCLUSIVE ACCOMMODATIONS AND ACCOMPANIED BY ATTENDANTS.

(C)MOVEMENT OF DETACHMENT OF TROOPS.

(D) TRAVEL BY EXTRA FARE TRAINS WHERE OFFICIAL NECESSITY REQUIRES USE OF SUCH TRAINS.

IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSPORTATION OF INSANE PERSONS, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT RAILROADS REQUIRE CERTAIN SAFEGUARDS, WHICH, IF NOT COMPLIED WITH, WOULD RESULT IN REFUSAL TO ACCEPT INSANE PERSONS FOR TRANSPORTATION. SO FAR, NO SPECIAL DECISION HAS BEEN RENDERED BY YOUR OFFICE ON THIS POINT. HOWEVER, AS A MATTER OF ADMINISTRATIVE NECESSITY, IT HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE TO FURNISH HIGHER THAN MINIMUM FIRST CLASS ACCOMMODATION WHEN REQUIRED.

IF THE CARRIERS ARE TO BE PAID ONLY THE MINIMUM FIST CLASS RATES ON TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS ISSUED FOR HIGHER THAN MINIMUM FIRST CLASS ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE FOREGOING CASES AS INDICATED IN THE CITED DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1936, UNDER WHAT METHOD SHALL TRANSPORTATION COVERING THE ABOVE CASES BE PROCURED?

IT HAS BEEN A RECOGNIZED RULE FOR YEARS THAT WHERE DEPENDENTS OF OFFICERS DESIRE SUPERIOR SLEEPING ACCOMMODATIONS OVER AND ABOVE THAT AUTHORIZED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE, TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS MIGHT BE ISSUED FOR THE ACCOMMODATIONS DESIRED UPON COLLECTION OF THE EXCESS COST FROM THE OFFICER. AS THE GOVERNMENT IS FULLY PROTECTED IN THIS MATTER, IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THE CONTINUATION OF THIS PRACTICE?

IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUANCE OF TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS, IT IS THE PRESENT PRACTICE TO CALL FOR THE CLASS OF ROUND TRIP TICKET WHICH WILL PROVIDE RETURN TRANSPORTATION AFTER COMPLETION OF THE TRAVELER'S DUTY. WHERE THE CARRIERS AUTHORIZE THE SALE OF DIFFERENT LIMIT ROUND TRIP TICKETS, SHOULD GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS BE ISSUED FOR THE LONGER LIMIT ROUND TRIP TICKET WHERE NECESSARY, OR WILL THE CARRIERS BE EXPECTED, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ABOVE CITED DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1936, TO FURNISH ONLY THE SHORTEST LIMIT ROUND TRIP TICKET?

IF THE SHORTEST LIMIT ROUND TRIP TICKET IS CONSIDERED THE MINIMUM FIRST CLASS FARE, UNDER WHAT METHOD SHOULD THE TRAVELER BE ISSUED TRANSPORTATION WHEN THE LONGER LIMIT TICKET IS REQUIRED TO ENABLE HIM TO CARRY OUT THE ORDERS OF THE NAVY DEPARTMENT?

WITH REGARD TO THE MATTER GENERALLY IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT TRAVEL OF MILITARY PERSONNEL FALLS INTO TWO DISTINCT CATEGORIES, FIRST, TRAVEL SOLELY INCIDENT TO GETTING THE INDIVIDUAL HIMSELF FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER, AND SECOND, TRAVEL PRIMARILY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCOMPLISHING ANOTHER SPECIFIC PURPOSE, SUCH AS THE SAFE CONVEYANCE OF SECRET DOCUMENTS, ACCOMPANYING SICK AND INSANE PATIENTS, PRISONERS, ETC. THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES HAS APPARENTLY RECOGNIZED THIS PRINCIPLE IN CERTAIN OF THE DECISIONS REFERRED TO ABOVE.

SECTION 10 OF THE CITED ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933, IS VERY EVIDENTLY DESIGNED TO APPLY TO THE FIRST CATEGORY, VIZ., TO TRAVEL SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING THE INDIVIDUAL FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER. IT WOULD BE APPRECIATED IF THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER WERE BORNE IN MIND IN CONSIDERING THE SEVERAL QUESTIONS PRESENTED HEREIN.

SECTION 10 OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933, 47 STAT. 1516, PROVIDES:

WHENEVER BY OR UNDER AUTHORITY OF LAW ACTUAL EXPENSES FOR TRAVEL MAY BE ALLOWED TO OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES OF THE UNITED STATES, SUCH ALLOWANCES, IN THE CASE OF TRAVEL ORDERED AFTER THE DATE OF ENACTMENT OF THIS ACT, SHALL NOT EXCEED THE LOWEST FIRST-CLASS RATE BY THE TRANSPORTATION FACILITY USED IN SUCH TRAVEL.

IN DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1936, A-79164, 16 COMP. GEN. 221, WITH REFERENCE TO SAID SECTION, IT WAS STATED:

WHILE THIS STATUTORY PROVISION IS DIRECTED PRIMARILY TO THE "ALLOWANCES" TO OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES IT ELIMINATES ANY POSSIBILITY OF THE OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE BEING PERMITTED TO MAKE USE OF SUPERIOR ACCOMMODATIONS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE GOVERNMENT AND THEREFORE THE REASON NO LONGER EXISTS FOR THE PRIOR RULE PERMITTING THE CARRIER TO BE PAID IN EXCESS OF THE LOWEST FIRST-CLASS FARES WHEN CALLED FOR UPON THE TRANSPORTATION REQUEST. AS THE REQUESTS INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CLAIM WERE HONORED IN RELIANCE UPON THE PREVIOUS RULE, THIS OFFICE WILL NOT OBJECT TO PAYMENT TO THE CARRIERS UNDER THAT RULE FOR TRANSPORTATION FURNISHED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, 1936, NOT IN EXCESS OF THAT REQUESTED UPON THE FACE OF THE TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS. ON AND AFTER OCTOBER 1, 1936, HOWEVER, PAYMENTS TO CARRIERS FOR TRANSPORTATION FURNISHED UPON GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS WILL BE RESTRICTED TO THE LOWEST FIRST-CLASS FARE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE TRANSPORTATION REQUEST IS FOR HIGHER PRICED ACCOMMODATIONS.

IT WILL BE NOTED THAT THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933, UPON WHICH THE DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1936, WAS BASED IS APPLICABLE TO TRAVEL ALLOWANCES TO OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES. IT IS, THEREFORE, APPLICABLE TO ALL TRAVEL OF OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES AS INDIVIDUALS AND TO ALLOWANCES TO SUCH OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF THEIR DEPENDENTS. THE INTENTION OF THE DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1936, WAS MERELY TO STOP THE PRACTICE OF PAYING THE CARRIER--- PARTICULARLY FOR TRANSPORTATION BY WATER--- MORE THAN THE LOWEST FIRST-CLASS FARE WHEN THE KNOWN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SUCH AS TO REQUIRE THE COLLECTION OF THE EXCESS FROM THE TRAVELER BY THE GOVERNMENT. SAID DECISION WAS NOT INTENDED TO AND DID NOT CHANGE ANY DECISIONS SUCH AS THOSE REFERRED TO IN YOUR LETTER, SUPRA, IN WHICH THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933, WAS HELD INAPPLICABLE, DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE TRANSPORTATION FURNISHED INVOLVED MORE THAN THE TRANSPORTATION OF AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE OR THEIR DEPENDENTS. UPON FURTHER CONSIDERATION AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT SUCH EXCEPTIONS NECESSITATE THE USE OF TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS WHEN THE TRAVEL DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE ACT OF MARCH 3, 1933, AND THE CARRIER WOULD NOT BE IN A POSITION TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS PRESENTED TO THEM INVOLVED SUCH AN EXCEPTION, THE RULE STATED IN THE DECISION OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1936, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CARRIER WILL BE PAID ONLY THE LOWEST FIRST-CLASS FARE WHEN THE TRANSPORTATION REQUESTS SPECIFICALLY CALLS FOR HIGHER PRICED ACCOMMODATIONS, APPEARS IMPRACTICABLE OF OPERATION, AND IS HEREBY RESCINDED.