eral Board from the next succeeding annual allotment from such fund to such State. "SEC. 16. That the Federal Board for Vocational Education may withhold the allotment of moneys to any State whenever it shall be determined that such moneys are not being expended for the purposes and under the conditions of this act. "If any allotment is withheld from any State, the State board of such State may appeal to the Congress of the United States, and if the Congress shall not direct such sum to be paid it shall be covered into the Treasury. "SEC. 17. That if any portion of the moneys received by the custodian for vocational education of any State under this act, for any given purpose named in this act, shall, by any action or contingency be diminished or lost, it shall be replaced by such State, and until so replaced no subsequent appropriation for such education shall be paid to such State. No portion of any moneys appropriated under this act for the benefit of the States shall be applied, directly or indirectly, to the purchase, erection, preservation, or repair of any building or buildings or equipment, or for the purchase or rental of lands, or for the support of any religious or privately owned or conducted school or college." Other sections of the act prescribe certain conditions and limitations under which the money appropriated shall be paid to and expended by the States. While these moneys were appropriated for the use of the States, to be paid over to custodians appointed by the State and disbursed on requisitions of State boards, subject only to the annual reporting of receipts and expenditures required by section 8 of the act, they are not given outright to the States. The purposes for which they may be expended by the States, and the terms and conditions governing such expenditures are prescribed by the Federal statute. The States hold the money in custody for such expenditure only as is provided for by the statute. Under section 15 all unexpended balances of yearly allotments are, in effect, returned to the United States through the procedure of deducting such balances from the next yearly allotment. The provision of section 16 authorizing the withholding of the yearly allotment of any State when the Federal Board shall determine that moneys previously allotted and paid are not being expended for the purposes and under the conditions of the act is equivalent to recovery from the State of money not lawfully expended in accordance with the Federal statute. Thus while the Federal Government does not directly control the custody and expenditure of these funds, it retains supervision over the expenditure, and the right to enforce the statutory provisions by the statutory procedure. The specific questions submitted are answered as follows: 1. Money paid over to the States is held in custody by the States for the specific purposes provided for by the Federal statute. The State has the unrestricted control over the custody and expenditure of the funds for such purposes, but has no absolute, unrestricted right, title, or interest in the moneys. When it has paid the money over to the States, the Federal Government has parted with its right to control the custody and disbursement of the funds, except in so far as proper accounting therefor may make necessary, and retains its right to supervise the disbursements and to hold the State responsible for lawful expenditure of the money. 2. Section 13 of the act provides that the State treasurer, as custodian of these moneys, "shall receive and provide for the proper custody and disbursements of all money paid to the State from said appropriation." The Federal Government retains no control over the manner in which these funds shall be held in custody by the State treasurer. The State treasurer acts primarily as a State official and not as a United States official. He is presumably bonded as such, and must act according to State requirements, unless they conflict with accounting requirements of the United States. Conflict not appearing in the present matter, this question (2) is one which the Comptroller General of the United States is not required to decide. 3. I understand the question to relate merely to the holding of the moneys separate and apart from the general fund of the State that is subject to legislative appropriation, and not to the right of the State to appropriate these particular moneys to purposes other than those provided for by the Federal Statute. For reasons given in answer to question 2, this office cannot undertake to answer this question. I may say, however, that section 14 of the Federal statute provides that the moneys shall be paid out upon requisition of the State board, as reimbursement for expenditures already incurred, to such schools as are entitled to receive the money under the provisions of the act. The States are required to accept the provisions of the act. 4. This question, also, is one not now for decision by this office. The State is responsible to the Federal Government for the lawful expenditure of these moneys but not for the manner in which they are held in custody by the State treasurer. The treasurer's responsi bility is to the State government, by which he is appointed custodian of these funds. See 2. 5. I think he is, but his responsibility is to the State, which in turn is responsible to the Federal Government for lawful expenditure of the funds under penalty of being refused further allotment if expenditures are in violation of the Federal statute. 6. No, except that proper accounting be provided for. 7. A withholding would be authorized on the next allotment as provided by section 16 of the Federal statute, in case the Federal Board should determine that the payments were not such as are contemplated by the statute. 8. No. Only in case the moneys have not been expended, or are not being expended for the purposes and under the conditions of the act does the statute authorize the withholding of further payment to the State. Generally the Federal Government is not concerned with the manner in which the funds are held in custody by the treasurer, who is the State custodian and answerable to the State for his custodianship. See 2. Respectfully, (Signed) J. R. McCARL, Comptroller General. INDEX OF STATES Alabama, 15-7, 18, 29, 40-1, 43, 51-3. California, 8, 10, 35-6. Colorado, 18-22, 23, 31. Delaware, 34-5. Florida, 30-1. Idaho, 7-8. Illinois, 49-50. Indiana, 3-4, 50-1. Iowa, 47, 53-4. Kansas, 10-11, 31-2, 54-8, 61. Kentucky, 22-3, 43, 47-9. Michigan, 17-8, 23, 43. Mississippi 23-7. Missouri, 9, 42. Montana, 46-7. Nebraska, 8. New Mexico, 37-8. North Carolina, 37. North Dakota, 32-3. Oklahoma, 41. Oregon, 33-4. Rhode Island, 37. South Carolina, 38-40. Texas, 27-30. Washington, 6-7, 8, 36-7. Wyoming, 5, 34, 59. 67 INDEX OF CASES Board of Education of City of Detroit v. Fuller, 218 N. W. 764 (1928), Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Public Service Commission of Missouri, Foster v. Board of Education of the City of Topeka, 289 Pac. 959 Hamiel v. Rice, 169 So. 687 (1936), 26. Hendrix v. Morris, 127 Arkansas 222, 191 S. W. 949 (1917), 52–3. Kennedy v. Miller, 32 Pac. 558 (1893), 9. Marrs v. Mumme, 25 S. W. (2d) 215 (1930), 27–9. Miller v. State ex rel. Russell, 94 So. 706 (1923), 24–5. Mills v. School Directors, 154 Illinois App. 119 (1910), 49–50. Mumme v. Marrs, 40 S. W. (2d) 31 (1931), 29. Riecks v. Independent School District of Danbury, 257 N. W. 546 Ross v. Trustees of the University of Wyoming, 31 Wyo. 464, 228 Pac. Schmidt v. Blair, 213 N. W. 593 (1927), 53–4. School Dist. No. 33 v. Trice, 32 Pac. (2d) 906 (1934), 41. State ex rel. Ratner v. Cruzan, 243 Pac. 329 (1926), 54–6. State ex rel. Robertson et al. v. Lee, 287 S. W. 37 (1926), 42. State ex rel. Stephens v. Keaster, 266 Pac. 387 (1928), 46–7. The State of Indiana and Others v. Springfield Township, 6 Ind. 83 State v. Clausen, 160 Wash. 618, 295 Pac. 751 (1931), 6–7. State v. Searle, 77 Neb. 155, 109 N. W. 770 (1906), 8. State v. State Board of Education, 33 Idaho 415, 196 Pac. 201 (1921), 8. Varn, County Treasurer, v. Beattie, State Comptroller General, 172 Wilmore v. Annear, 65 Pac. (2d) 1433 (1937), 19-21, 23, 31. Williams v. Board of Education of City of Parsons, 79 Kansas 202, |