
    ROBERT F. ROSE AND WALTER H. LEE, COPARTNERS, TRADING AS THE NATIONAL SHORTHAND REPORTING COMPANY, v. THE UNITED STATES
    [No. B-109.
    Decided January 21, 1924]
    
      On the Proofs
    
    
      Federal Board for Vocational Training; transcript of hearings; poioer to contract. — The Federal Board for Vocational Training had no authority to contract for a copy of the transcript of hearings before a special Senate committee investigating the activities of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance, the Public Health Service, and the Federal Board for Vocational Training, the same not being incident to the direct administration of the board itself, and not involved in its operation.
    
      
      The Reporters statement of tlie case:
    
      Mr. George R. Shields for tlie plaintiffs. King & King were on the briefs.
    
      Mr. Albert E. Maries, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Robert II. Lovett for the defendant.
    The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:
    XJp to, on, or about, October 1, 1921, the plaintiffs, Robert F. Rose and Walter H. Lee, were partners, trading and doing business as the National Shorthand Reporting Company. On or about the date mentioned the partnership was dissolved, the partners retaining their partnership interests, however, in all outstanding claims and accounts, including the claim against the United States here involved.
    II. In June of 1921 the plaintiffs were employed by a special Senate committee, under authority of Senate Resolution No. 59, 67th Congress, 1st session, to report the proceedings had by and testimony taken before a special committee appointed to investigate the manner, methods, and scope of the activities of the Bureau of War Risk Insurance, the United States Public Health Service, and the Federal Board for Vocational Education, and to furnish said committee with a daily transcript of the proceedings had before it.
    III. Following the first session of the committee at which testimony was taken, the chairman of the Federal Board for Vocational Training requested that the plaintiffs furnish that board with a copy of the transcripts of the hearings before the committee, and the plaintiffs agreed to do so, and thereafter delivered by special messenger daily a copy of the transcript of the hearings had before the Senate select committee. No order in writing was given the plaintiffs for such transcript at the time, and no price was fixed therefor. The customary and established rate is 15 cents per folio of 100 words. After the hearings had been concluded and the final transcript delivered, plaintiffs made out and presented to the Federal Board for Vocational Education, or its successor, the Veterans’ Bureau, a bill for the copy theretofore furnished, amounting to 5,175 folios, at 15 cents per folio, $776.25.
    IV. On August 3, 1921, the Federal Board for Vocational Education made out .a formal purchase order No. 22/368n for the transcript furnished said board at the special request of its chairman, and a voucher was duly prepared certified by the plaintiffs to be correct and just and by the chief clerk of the Veterans’ Bureau, which bureau had then succeeded to all the duties of the Federal Board for Vocational Education, that the transcript had been received in good condition, that the same was necessary for the public service, and that the price charged was just, reasonable, and in accordance ■with the agreement had by the parties. The amount was approved for $776.25.
    V. The voucher was sent to the General Accounting Office for direct settlement, but payment thereof was refused by the Comptroller General on the ground that the Federal Board for Vocational Education had exceeded its authority in contracting for the transcript that had been furnished. The plaintiffs have not been paid all or any part of the agreed price for the transcript furnished. The price charged was reasonable and in accordance with the usual and standard price for reporter's copy of hearings.
   MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

This case was before the Comptroller General. On December 6, 1921, he held adversely to plaintiffs’ contention, resting his decision primarily upon a construction of the appropriation made by Congress for furnishing vocational rehabilitation to disabled veterans of the late war, holding, in effect, that inasmuch as the information sought and furnished concerned an independent investigation by a committee of the United States Senate, in no wise incident to the direct administration of the board itself, and not involved in its operation, it was obviously not a proper expense within the purview of the appropriation act, and the officials of the board were not legally authorized to incur it.

We have given the matter careful attention because of the manifest equities of the claim. Nevertheless, from a legal aspect we think the Comptroller General’s ruling was correct, and. must dismiss the petition. The plaintiffs’ only remedy, in our opinion, is by direct appeal to Congress.

The petition is dismissed.  