the Attorney General has given an opinion to the effect that these contractors are instrumentalities of the Federal Government.

Pending an authoritative decision of the controversy, direct payment by the Government for these telegrams which the company may invoice to the contractor, might be made under the terms of these contracts. There are, however, two obstacles in the way of this procedure, namely:

1. The requirement that the original telegram be attached to the invoice, as telegraph companies refuse to surrender the original.

2. The requirement for the payee's certificate on the invoice, to the effect that the bill is correct and unpaid, and the rate charged is no greater than the rates charged the general public; as the telegraph company will omit the certificate on the invoice to the contractor.

If these requirements were waived, it is believed that the problem would be temporarily solved and that such waiver would in nowise jeopardize the interests of the Government. Accordingly, it is requested that such waiver be authorized, under cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contracts.

The various contracts executed by the War Department upon a costplus-a-fixed-fee basis provide generally for the reimbursement of the contractor's expenses in performing the work, among which are included minor expenses such as telegrams, but there is reserved to the Government the right to pay directly to the persons concerned all sums due from the contractor for labor, materials or other charges. Evidently the War Department has decided to exercise its reserved right to pay directly such telegraphic charges as may be incurred by the contractor in connection with the work, but doubt has arisen as to the propriety of so doing because of the refusal of the telegraph companies to forward with their invoices to the contractor the original copies of transmitted telegrams and to certify such invoices in the manner customarily required of invoices presented to the Government covering official telegraph service. It would appear that the position of the telegraph companies is due to the reported dispute as to whether the Government rate or the commercial rate applies to telegrams filed by cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contractors and apparently is dictated by a fear that compliance with either of these requirements might prejudice their contention that commercial rates apply to such messages.

As to claims presented to the Government for telegraph service, it is a long established practice to require that the originals of outgoing messages be filed in support thereof. See 16 Comp. Gen. 217; 14 id. 825. The certificate required on invoices presented to the Government for such services is that prescribed by circular letter of April 2, 1938, A-51607, A-49009. It is not apparent to this office why a compliance with either of these requirements would adversely affect the position of the telegraph companies in the matter if the messages were invoiced at the commercial rate and payment accepted under protest.

However, since the procedure contemplated by you is in lieu of reimbursing the contractor for telegraph expenses on the basis of

its paid invoices or other original papers as certified and verified by the contracting officer, you are advised that objection will not be made by this office to the direct payment by the Government of such invoices rendered to cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contractor when supported by certified copies of transmitted messages, provided the invoices are certified and verified both by the contractor and the contracting officer, or his representative, as being proper charges against the contract work, such payments to be made at the Government rate. It is assumed that any necessary administrative measures will be taken to prevent a duplication of payments for such telegraphic services.

(B-19088)

TELEGRAMS EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS FOR PAYMENT

While the general rule is that claims for telegraphic services, not of a confidential nature, must be supported by the originals of the outgoing messages when presented to the Government for payment, where the messages originate in a foreign country in which the transmitting company is not permitted by its regulations to surrender the originals, copies of the originals will be accepted in support of vouchers, provided appropriate steps are taken by the administrative office to prevent a duplicate payment for the same services.

Comptroller General Warren to Maj. F. J. Stagliano, U. S. Army, July 31, 1941: I have your letter of July 3, 1941, requesting to be informed whether payment is authorized upon the voucher therewith transmitted in favor of the Cable and Wireless (West Indies) Limited, of Bermuda, in the amount of $36.41, representing the fees for transmitting cable and telegraph messages on official business. Your doubt in the matter arises from the fact that copies, instead of the original messages, accompany the voucher, it ordinarily being required that such vouchers be accompanied by the originals rather than copies. 14 Comp. Gen. 825; 16 id. 217.

In a statement dated July 3, 1941, from Major John Towers, attached to the voucher, it is explained

1. The Cable and Wireless (West Indies) Ltd. inform me that company regulations prevent them from supplying operator serviced originals of messages transmitted for this station. Bills prepared for payment have accordingly had attached thereto copies of the originals.

2. It is desired to stress the necessity of reaching an early decision as to how these bills can be paid within a reasonable time. Attention is invited to the fact that we are dealing with a British Company and one which has cooperated to the fullest extent in furnishing this base with communications when our own facilities had not been completed.

The general rule of the accounting offices of the Government requiring the furnishing of original messages is set forth concisely in the syllabus of the decision cited, supra, 14 Comp. Gen. 825, as follows:

Claims for telegraph services, not of a confidential nature, when presented to the Government for payment, must be supported by the original of the outgoing messages.

This general rule has been adhered to consistently for many years. However, in cases of obligations incurred in foreign countries there must be taken into consideration the laws, customs, and business methods of such countries. In the present case the messages originated in a foreign country in which it is represented the transmitting company is not permitted by its regulations to surrender the original messages. Under such circumstances the furnishing of the original messages need not be required.

Accordingly, payment upon the voucher as supported by copies is authorized, if otherwise correct, and provided appropriate steps have been taken administratively to prevent a duplicate payment for the same services.

(B-18996)

COMPENSATION-ADMINISTRATIVE WITHIN-GRADE PROMOTIONS— EFFECTIVE DATE OF STATUTORY PROHIBITION

While the appropriation act containing the prohibition against the use of "any appropriation available for obligation during the fiscal year 1942" for the payment of within-grade promotions until such time as a uniform withingrade promotion plan shall take effect pursuant to law was not approved until July 3, 1941, the prohibition is effective from the beginning of the fiscal year, and, therefore, is applicable to a within-grade promotion administratively approved in June 1941, but made effective on July 1, 1941.

Comptroller General Warren to the Chairman, U. S. Maritime Commission, August 1, 1941:

I have your letter of July 21, 1941, as follows:

On June 20, 1941 and June 26, 1941 the Commission formally approved a number of administrative within-grade salary advancements for certain of its employees. Such within-grade salary advancements were to become and became effective on July 1, 1941.

On the dates the above-mentioned advancements were approved (namely, June 20 and June 26, 1941) and on the date they were to become effective (namely, July 1, 1941) there existed no legal prohibition which would preclude the Commission from approving and granting such advancements. Consequently, on July 1, 1941, such within-grade salary advancements became effective.

However, on July 3, 1941, 2 days after such advancements became effective, the Second Deficiency Appropriation Act of 1941 was approved by the President of the United States and became law (Public Law No. 150-77th Cong.). Section 302 of that act provides that

"No appropriation or part of any appropriation available for obligation during the fiscal year 1942, including funds of Government-owned or controlled corporations, shall be used for granting within-grade salary advancements to any officer or employee of the Government of the United States, the District of Columbia, or of any such corporation, who is compensated on a per annum basis and who occupies a position the compensation of which is fixed (1) according to the schedules prescribed by the Classification Act of 1923, as amended, or (2) by Executive Order Numbered 6746, or (3) administratively according to schedules patterned after such Classification Act: Provided, That this section shall cease to be operative whenever a uniform, within-grade, salary-advancement plan for positions compensated according to such Classification Act, as amended, shall take effect, pursuant to law."

The employees whose salaries were advanced as stated above are employees within the categories specified in the above-quoted section 302.

Except for the general prohibition against the use of any part of the Commission's appropriations for within-grade salary advancements, there is nothing in section 302 which specifically indicates that the Commission did not have the authority to make within-grade salary advancements prior to July 3, 1941. Inasmuch as section 302 of the Second Deficiency Act of 1941 provides that "no appropriation or part of any appropriation" made available to the Commission for obligations during the fiscal year 1942 "shall be used for granting withingrade salary advancements" until such time as a uniform within-grade salary advancement plan shall take effect, what is the legal effect of such a provision on those within-grade salary advancements legally and properly made and which became effective prior to the enactment thereof? Notwithstanding the provisions of section 302, can part of the appropriation made available to the Commission be used to pay the within-grade salary advancements made prior to July 3, 1941? It is requested that you advise the Commission concerning the matter herein set forth. A copy of a memorandum of our General Counsel, discussing the question, is enclosed for your consideration.

Section 302 of the act approved July 3, 1941, 55 Stat. 575, quoted in your letter, constitutes an absolute prohibition against the use of any appropriation available for obligation during the fiscal year 1942 for the payment of within-grade salary advancements to the classes of personnel coming within the purview of the act until such time as a uniform within-grade salary-advancement plan shall take effect pursuant to law.

Notwithstanding the fact that the appropriation act containing the restriction was not approved until July 3, 1941, unquestionably the prohibition is applicable from the beginning of the fiscal year 1941, from which date the appropriations for paying the increases are made available, that is, during the entire fiscal year 1942. The legislative history of the enactment shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the Congress intended to prohibit all within-grade salary advancement to classes of personnel coming within the purview of the act that would otherwise be made effective by administrative action during the fiscal year 1942, until the uniform plan for within-grade, salary advancements then proposed in a pending bill has become effective.

The effective date of salary changes resulting from administrative action, exclusively, is the date the action is taken by the administrative officer vested with the proper authority, or a subsequent date specifically fixed. 4 Comp. Gen. 957; 6 id. 133; 10 id. 514, 517. On the basis of the facts presented, the increases in compensation mentioned in your letter did not become effective on June 20 and 26, 1941, the dates of the Commission's formal approval, but on July 1, 1941– during the fiscal year 1942. While it is true, as you state, that there was then no statutory prohibition against the increases in compensation and the promotions became effective on July 1, 1941, by reason of the administrative action prior to the date of the approval of the act containing the restriction, the quoted act creates a situation whereby no funds are made available for payment of the administrative within

grade salary increases granted in this case. Compare decision of June 20, 1941, B-17647, 20 Comp. Gen. 919.

You are advised, therefore, that the within-grade salary advancements in question may not now be made effective. I appreciate your having forwarded here a copy of memorandum of your General Counsel discussing the question and whose views were fully and sympathetically considered in arriving at the conclusion herein stated. Whether the advancements in question may hereafter be made effective during the fiscal year 1942, will depend upon the terms and conditions of the controlling statutes if and when a "uniform, within-grade, salary-advancement plan for positions compensated according to such Classification Act, as amended, shall take effect, pursuant to law" (quoting from the proviso to the appropriation provision).

(B-18773)

CONTRACTS-COST-PLUS-TRAVELING, ETC., EXPENSES OF
CONTRACTOR'S EMPLOYEES

A provision in a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract providing for reimbursement to the contractor for expenditures in connection with transportation and traveling expenses of his employees in connection with the work does not authorize reimbursement for (1) living expenses of employees at the site of the work prior to the arrival of their families, (2) traveling expenses of employees in returning to their homes for their families and household effects, or (3) expenses of moving such families and household effects to the site of the work.

Comptroller General Warren to Lt. Col. George Dobert, U. S. Army, August 4, 1941:

There has been received by indorsement of July 10, 1941, from the Chief of Finance, your letter of June 27, 1941, requesting decision whether you are authorized to make payment on a voucher transmitted therewith in favor of the Atmospheric Nitrogen Corporation, in the amount of $3,314.13, covering reimbursement under contract No. W-ORD-499, dated February 7, 1941, for travel, hotel, and miscellaneous expenses paid by the contractor to its employees.

The voucher is supported by itemized statements of the expenses incurred by the employees, together with their signed receipts indicating the payment of such expenses to them either directly by the contractor or indirectly through its reported parent company, The Solvay Process Co. An explanation of the expenditures and the basis upon which reimbursement is claimed is set forth in a letter of April 29, 1941, from the Atmospheric Nitrogen Corporation to the contracting officer's representative as follows:

Article III-A-I-f of contract W-ORD-499 provides for reimbursement for contractor's expenditures as follows:

"f. Transportation and travelling expenses to and from the work of the necessary field forces for the economical and successful prosecution of the