an original construction of a statute, further action hereon is suspended for your approval, disapproval, or modification."

It will be noticed that the auditor states that he has disallowed the above charges for tuition, but has suspended "further action " thereon pending the comptroller's approval, disapproval, or modification of the decision reported by him. In this connection attention is called to section 8 of the act of July 31, 1894 (28 Stat., 208), which expressly provides that all decisions by auditors making an original construction or modifying an existing construction of statutes shall be forthwith reported to the Comptroller of the Treasury and "items in any account affected by such decision shall be suspended and payment thereof withheld until the Comptroller of the Treasury shall approve, disapprove, or modify such decisions and certify his actions to the auditor."

Under the act cited and the practice established thereunder the auditor has authority to suspend only, but not to disallow items in cases where he renders a formal decision and submits the same to the comptroller. The words "suspended" and "disallowed" have important technical meanings which necessarily are understood as defining the jurisdiction of the comptroller and of the auditor, and it is improper to use those terms in connection with the auditing of accounts otherwise than in their strict technical sense. It is evident that an item can not be both disallowed and suspended at the same time. The expressions are not interchangeable nor synonymous, and care should be exercised in their use in order to avoid confusion. They are intended to signify exactly what has been done, to reveal the exact condition of the item affected, and thus to show, among other things, definitely whether the comptroller has jurisdiction, and the extent thereof, or whether such jurisdiction has been retained by the auditor.

In the present case upon inquiring at the auditor's office I am informed that the item now in question has not been actually disallowed, but final action thereon by the auditor merely suspended, therefore the comptroller has jurisdiction to approve, disapprove, or modify the auditor's decision.

The act of May 21, 1908 (35 Stat., 174), provides:

"For six student interpreters at the embassy to Japan, who shall be citizens of the United States, and whose duty

it shall be to study the Japanese language with a view to supplying interpreters to the embassy and consulates in Japan, at one thousand dollars each, six thousand dollars: Provided, That said student interpreters shall be chosen in such manner as will make the selections nonpartisan: And provided further, That upon receiving such appointment each student interpreter shall sign an agreement to continue in the service as interpreter to the legation and consulates in Japan so long as his said services may be required within a period of five years.

"For the payment of the cost of tuition of student interpreters at the legation to Japan, at the rate of one hundred and twenty-five dollars per annum each, seven hundred and fifty dollars."

The said act also provides (p. 181) for:

"Interpreters to be employed at consulates in China, Korea, and Japan, to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of State, thirty-five thousand dollars."

The facts show that Mr. Caldwell, who had been for some time prior to April 19, 1909, an American student interpreter at the embassy to Japan, at Tokyo, on said date accepted an appointment, qualified thereunder, and entered upon his duties as interpreter to the consulate-general at Yokohama, Japan.

In thus accepting the position of interpreter to the consulate-general he relinquished his former employment as student interpreter to the embassy, and thereby ceasing to be such student interpreter was thereafter not legally entitled to the allowance "for the payment of the cost of tuition of student interpreters at the legation to Japan, at the rate of one hundred and twenty-five dollars per annum." It has been previously held by me (14 Comp. Dec., 28) that a person studying to be an interpreter can not at the same time be an interpreter within contemplation of law. "He may perform some of the duties of an interpreter, but that would not make him a statutory interpreter." It is also evident. that upon his ceasing to be a student interpreter that particular position would become vacant and subject to be filled by appointment under the law of another person who would be entitled as the legal incumbent to the allowance for tuition.

There is no express provision of law for the cost of tuition of interpreters employed at consulates in Japan, although it will be noted that the sum of $35,000 has been appropriated for "interpreters to be employed at consulates in China, Korea, and Japan, to be expended under the direction of the Secretary of State." Mr. Caldwell would be entitled under this appropriation to such compensation as the Secretary of State may, in the exercise of his legal discretion, determine properly allowable to him for services rendered as interpreter at the consulate-general (12 Comp. Dec., 238). This compensation has already been fixed at $1,500 per annum. It has not been the practice to allow the cost of tuition to interpreters, and in view of the law which specifically provides for the cost of tuition of student interpreters, but which is silent as to any such allowance for interpreters, I am of opinion that the auditor's decision to the effect that Mr. Caldwell, as interpreter, is not entitled to be paid for the cost of tuition at the rate of $125 per annum from April 19, 1909, to June 30, 1909, is correct, and said decision is therefore approved.

EXCHANGE ON CHECKS DRAWN BY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AGAINST FUNDS ADVANCED FOR TRAVELING EXPENSES AND DEPOSITED BY THEM TO THEIR PERSONAL CREDIT.

Where funds are advanced to government employees to assist them in meeting their proper expenses while traveling on official business, and such funds are deposited in bank by them to their personal credit, the exchange charged on checks drawn by such employees against the fund is a personal expense of the employees and the Government is not liable therefor.

Comptroller Tracewell to J. H. Mackey, disbursing clerk, Department of Justice, October 30, 1909:

I am in receipt of your letter of the 26th instant, in which you request my decision as to whether you are authorized to pay $3 to R. J. W. Brewster, inspector of prisons, being exchange on check cashed by him at Fairbanks, Alaska, August 11, 1909, while traveling on official business.

This check was drawn by Mr. Brewster against his personal account in the National Metropolitan Bank, Washington, D. C., and cashed by the First National Bank at Fair

banks, Alaska, as shown by the receipt attached to Mr. Brewster's voucher. The check was drawn for the purpose of getting sufficient funds to defray his traveling expenses, pending the payment by the disbursing clerk of Mr. Brewster's monthly traveling expense account. The funds against which the check was drawn were deposited in the National Metropolitan Bank by Mr. Brewster, or by his order, and were subject to his personal check, although it is understood that these funds, or a part thereof, had been advanced to him out of the appropriation Traveling and miscellaneous expenses, Department of Justice, 1910" (act of March 4, 1909, 35 Stat., 1013).

66

Mr. Brewster was entitled to be reimbursed in the sum of his proper traveling expenses, after the same had been incurred and properly vouched for, as is the general rule in cases where employees of the Government perform travel on official business. Any advance made to him to assist him in meeting his expenses may be considered as largely for his own convenience, and where, after such advance is made to him, he deposits same, or causes same to be deposited, in a bank to his personal credit, in the nature of a private account, he not being a disbursing officer, it would seem that the cost of getting possession of such money thereafter by him while traveling would be an expense personal in its character, and one which the Government is in no proper sense liable to pay.

The fact that the money was deposited in the bank instead of being kept by Mr. Brewster in his immediate personal custody was a matter in which the Government was not concerned, he being responsible for the amount after it had been advanced to him. The expense incident to drawing money out of the bank was the result of his own arrangement, and the fact that he used the money to pay his traveling expenses while traveling on official business, or the fact that the money had been originally advanced to him for that purpose out of Government funds, does not relieve him from paying the cost of exchange or make the Government liable therefor.

It is well settled that the expense incurred by an officer of the United States in cashing a disbursing officer's check issued to him in payment of his expense account is not a

proper charge against the Government (3 Comp. Dec., 42), and there is apparently less reason for burdening the Government with the expense of cashing an officer's check against his personal account in a bank to procure money previously advanced for the officer's convenience in meeting his traveling expenses.

The cost of exchange in this case can not properly be regarded as a traveling expense, and as I know of no regulation or law which provides, either expressly or by necessary implication, for its payment by the Government, you are therefore not authorized to pay same.

COMPENSATION AND EXPENSES OF THE NIAGARA FALLS COMMITTEE OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS.

The Secretary of War has authority, under the act of June 29, 1906 (34 Stat., 626), providing for the control and regulation of the waters of Niagara River and for the preservation of Niagara Falls, to appoint a body of expert assistants to aid in administering the provisions of said act, and the compensation and expenses of the persons so appointed are payable from the appropriation contained in section 6 of the said act of June 29, 1906, supra. The committee appointed under the act of June 29, 1906, supra, de signated as the "Niagara Falls Committee of Landscape Architects," is a committee authorized by law, and is not within the prohibition contained in section 9 of the act of March 4, 1909 (35 Stat., 1027).

Assistant Comptroller Mitchell to the Secretary of War, November 2, 1909:

By your authority, the Chief of Engineers, United States Army, under date of October 22, 1909, has referred to this office, for decision of the questions therein presented, a letter from Maj. Charles Keller as follows:

"I have the honor to forward herewith vouchers in favor of Frederick Law Olmsted for $1,079.73, F. D. Millet for $530.40, and John Stephen Sewell for $39.33; for their services and expenses as members of the Niagara Falls committee of landscape architects; with the request that these papers be forwarded to the Comptroller of the Treasury Department for decision as to whether they are in proper form, and if paid will be passed by him to the credit of my account."