
    HERBERT S. WARD v. THE UNITED STATES
    [No. E-77.
    Decided June 15, 1925]
    
      On the Proofs
    
    
      Departmental regulations; reimbursement of subsistence. — Where the Secretary of Agriculture, under proper airthority, issued a regulation providing for the reimbursement of subsistence paid by an employee of the Government, while traveling on x>ublfe business and plaintiff travels from Washington, D. C., to Alexandria, Va., at 11 o’clock, a. in., and returns at 2 o’clock, p. m., of the same day, on public business, he is entitled to reimbursement for a meal paid for at Alexandria.
    ' The Reporter's statement of the case:
    
      Mr. Herbert S. Ward in propria persona.
    
    
      Mr. Joseph Henry Oohen, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney Gener'dL Herman J. Galloway, for the defendant.
    The following are the facts as found by the court:
    I. The plaintilf is a resident and citizen of the State of Oregon and of the United States. He holds an appointment and is employed as an inspector in the Department of Agriculture. His designated post of duty is Washington, D. C.
    II. On October 6, 1924, at or about 11 a. m., Alex. McC. Ashley, chief inspector of the Department of Agriculture, orally directed and authorized the plaintiff to proceed at once from Washington, D. C., to Alexandria, Va., and authorized the plaintiff to incur necessary expenses for travel and subsistence. These oral instructions were subsequently confirmed and ratified in writing by the chief inspector and the Secretary of Agriculture.
    III. The plaintiff left his offical station at Washington, D. C., at 11.15 a. m. on October 6, 1924, performed the duties ordered, and returned to his official station at 2 p. m. on the same day. He incurred expenses for transportation, which were duly allowed and paid by the department, and an expense of $1.50 for subsistence in Alexandria, Va., which item was suspended by the department because of prior rulings by the Comptroller General.
    
      IY. On or about July 1,1924, the Secretary of Agriculture issued to Alex. McC. Ashley, chief inspector of the Department of Agriculture, the plaintiff’s immediate superior officer, the following letter of authorization:
    UNITED States Department oe Agriculture,
    Oeeice oe the Secretary,
    Washington, 1). C., July 1,
    
    Authorization No. 27-Sec.
    Mr. Alex. McC. Ashley,
    
      Chief Inspector, Department of Agriculture.
    
    Sir : Authority is hereby granted you and your assistants (under your specific direction) to incur expenses, in accordance with the fiscal regulations of the department, for the purposes enumerated and during the period named below, payable from the appropriation miscellaneous expenses, Department of Agriculture, 1925, or from the appropriations of any bureau of the department for which such travel is performed.
    Area of travel: Continental United States.
    Purposes of travel: Special investigations under orders of the Secretary of Agriculture.
    Period of travel: Indefinite.
    Expenses authorized: Actual traveling and other necessary expenses, expenses of subsistence not to exceed $5.00 per day.
    No freight charges to be incurred hereunder.
    Permanent station: Washington, D. C.
    Very truly yours,
    (Sgd.) Henry C. Wallace,
    M. Secretary.
    
    V. The relevant provisions of the fiscal regulations of the Department of Agriculture, under authority of which the plaintiff spent the aforesaid sum of $1.50 for subsistence, read as follows:
    “ 31. Authority to Travel Secured in Advance. — Specific written authorization should be secured before any travel is performed for the department. In a case of actual and extreme emergency, however, an account for expenses not previously authorized may be approved. (Laws 936, 949, 956.)
    “ 33. Actual Traveling Expenses. — Proper and legitimate actual traveling expenses are those usual and essential to the comfort of travelers, and, when authorized, may embrace any of the following items of expenditure, if actually incurred, provided that reimbursement for subsistence expenses shall in no case exceed $5 a day:
    “(A) Customary charges for subsistence (except as provided in 33-r) not to exceed $5 in any one day.
    “ Subsistence will include the following expenses incurred when absent from official station:
    “ 1. Meals: In the absence of explanation of necessity the following table will govern the allowance of charges for meals taken en route upon departure from or arrival at official station:
    Breakfast when departure is before or arrival is after 8 a. m.
    Dinner when departure is before or arrival is after 1 p. m.
    Supper when departure is before or arrival is after 6 p. m.
    “ 2. Waiter fees, not to exceed 30 cents per day, except in Arkansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee, where antitipping laws are in force. (Subparagraph amended by omission of Geoi’gia from States enumerated; effective Axxgust 18,1924.) ”
    YI. Thereafter the plaintiff filed with the Comptroller General a claim for several items which had been suspended by the Department of Agriculture from his expense account, including the said item of $1.50. The Comptroller General was advised by the Secretary of Agriculture that said expense of $1.50 was incurred under proper authorization and in accordance with departmental regulations. The Comptroller General on January 8,1925, disallowed the item of $1.50, stating:
    “Claim for $1.50, expense of meal at Alexandria, Va., Oct. 6, 1924, is disallowed, for the reason that the,travel involved only 2 hours 45 minutes absence from Washington, permanent station of claimant.”
    The Comptroller General caused to be remitted to the plaintiff a check, dated January 15, 1925, for-$10.54, in payment of the aforesaid claim, which check has not been cashed.
    The court decided that plaintiff was entitled to recover.
   MEMORANDUM BT THE OOURT

The applicable statute contemplates the allowance of such expenses as that herein sued for, and contains no prohibition within the scope of which this case falls.

Tlie Secretary of Agriculture, duly authorized, had promulgated regulations in aid of and not in contravention of the statute and having, therefore, the force of law, and the item of expense herein sued for was an authorized charge under the regulations.

The plaintiff was traveling outside the District on official, business, under competent orders, at such hours of the day as entitled him to subsistence expense under the regulations, and we find no applicable limitations based upon the duration of an absence from the district ox the distance therefrom. which one must travel to become entitled to subsistence.

The expense of a meal might be saved to the Government’ by seeing to it that an absence of this short duration be “sandwiched” between meal hours, but that is purely an administrative matter, and it is hardly to be expected that Government business be regulated by such minor considerations.

It is not disputed that the plaintiff saw fit to eat during, the hours of his absence from the District, which embraced a usual meal hour within the regulations, or that he ate, at the expense claimed, and no reason appears why he should not be reimbursed accordingly.

GRahaM, Judge, took no part in the decision of this case.  