Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-08-17
DISTINCTION MADE
Secretary Brackets Paris Living Ex-
penses Disallowed.
COMMISSIONER PECK'S WERE PASSED
An Interesting Opinion by Con-
troIer TracewelI.
IHE FACTS IN THE CASE

Controller Tracewell has rendered an in
tereSting opinion as to the personal ex-
penses of Major Fred Brackett secretary
and disbursing agent of the Paris exposi-
| tion commission. Mr.. Tracewell took up a
number of items which the auditor for the
State and other departments had disal-
lowed and on which Major Bracket had
appealed to the controller One of these
was for Fred Bracket travelling expenses
in Paris on exposition work; for actual and
| necessary living expenses from April 1 to
80 1900 both dates inclusive, thirty days
at s. per day, $21O" The controller de-
cides that Major Bracket is not entitled
to this, and in the course of a long opin-
ion says:
THE auditor disallowed the amount OF
this voucher for the reason that Paris was
held to be the official headquarters Of AIR.
Brackett during the period for which he
claims reimbursement, and that he was not
entitled to personal expenses while there.
CommissiOner General Peck's Case.
1T was said in my decision of May IL,
1901 that Paris was not the official head
quarters of Mr.. Bracket for this period,
but that decision was based upon a voucher
presented for payment by Commissioners
General Peck for travelling expenses Wh1ie
living at hotel in Paris. AS presented the
only question involved was whether COM
missioner General Peck was to be consid-
cred as travelling while at Paris. In the
sense that he was not at his ofnclal mead
quarters. and it was held that neither MT:
Bracket nor Mr.. Peck was at his official
Headquarters while in Paris. 1t now ap-
pears that Mr.. Bracket charges for travel
ing expenses while keeping house with ms
family in Paris. In note on the voucher
Mr.. Brackett states: 1t is not possible for
me ts itemize the said expenses, as am
keeping house in the apartment where my
own individual living expenses In rooms
and food exceed seven "a dollars per diem:
"It appears from evidence submitted in
response to inquiries from this office, that
during period of 2S7 days. of which the
period covered by this particular voucher
was a part, Mr.. Bracket was living with
his family ond keeping house in a rented
apartment in Paris. He bought furniture,
set common table, hired servants and
paid all the household expenses In COM
mon. He kept no itemized account OF the
common expenses and no account Whatever
of his individual expenses.
Three Questions Raised.
This raises the following questions in
regard to this expenditure:
list Does the action of Mr.. Bracket
constitute Paris his home for this period.
within the meaning of that term as con-
strued by the accounting officers as 1t
affects travelling expenses?
I'D. Does his status as a traveller with
n the eonnua During IN thls aee perod?
I'D Is the proof submitted in support OF
the items claimed such as Is required by
the accounting officer in support OF claims
for reimbursement for travelling expenses;
and If not. has he shown any valid reason
for not furnishing such proof that would
justify this office In accepting the evidence
presented as the best obtainable and In ad-
justing the account In the best manner pos
cib he evidence submitted?
The Uniform Practice.
'"The uniform practice Of the accounting
officers in constituting the law has been to
hold that a person cannot be paid travel
ing expenses under it while he was at his
home official station or headquarters, the
theory being that he cannot travel while at
these places. In order to be entitled to be
reimbursed for travelling expenses under
this statute 1t has always been held. and
correctly so, that the status of the person
seeking reimbursement for travelling ex-
penses under it must be that of traveller
(as contradistinguished from that of a per-
son living at home or with his family.
when a person rents an apartment, fur
nishes 1t, moves his family therein, hires
servants, sets common table, pays the
expenses In connection Herewith In COM
mon with his own expenses, and does all
acts usually done by a householder and
makes no attempt to keep his individual
expenses separate from those of his family
he must be held to abandon his status as
a traveller within the meaning Of this stat
ute His expenses become common ex-
penses and are not divisible, and 1t Is i'm
practicable to determine what his actual
individual expenses are for any given
period while SO living. He enjoys the COM
forts Of home and family and Is not put to
the extraordinary expenses of travel that
Is contemplated by the act above quoted.
Whether such place be called his home or
not. he has abandoned his status as
al for hfc ny1yv1
ience, and cannot while so living be al
lowed travelling expenses
Eject Of Mixing Accounts.
when he 80 lives and keeps his ao-
counts to bring an element into their
audit that is entirely foreign to the duties
of the accounting officers to settle it will
be assumed that by so mixing hts accounts
he abandons his right to reimbursement for
any portion of the expenses incurred dur
ing such period. He cannot be permitted
to live and keep his accounts as a house.
holder and the head of a family and ac-
count for his travelling expenses as a part
of the common expenses Of maintaining
said household at the same time. The two
relations are inconsistent, and having
chosen the one that he will assume for the
period he Is bound by 1t and its conse-
Quences.
"F'or the reasons given he is not entitled
to travelling expenses for the period claimed
er Paris should be considered his home
within the technical Specification OF this
term during this period or not. The char
acter Of proof submitted In support of the
item for reimbursement is for the reasons
above given not sufficient to Justify an al
lowance."
Allowed Mr.. Pecl<'s Expenses.
The controller allowed the expenses OF
Commissioner General Peck for the rea-
son, It is stated. that Mr.. Peck boarded at
a hotel and kept his expenses separate from
that of his wife and other members of
the family. His bill was rendered sepa-
rately. While the decision Of Major Brack-
ett's case Is for only one month 1t really
covers nearly year.
Taxed ON Amount Paid I'm.
Assistant Secretary Taylor today heard
argument of counsel In the matter OF the
amount OF stamp tax due on certificates