effecting a permanent change of official headquarters, and by orders of September 15, 1947, his permanent transfer was ordered from Bismarck to Minot, North Dakota, travel to commence on or about September 15. Each of the travel orders authorized the shipment of the employee's personal and household effects and the transportation of his immediate family, the first in accordance with the terms of Executive Orders 8588 and 9587, as amended, and the second, in accordance with Executive Order 9805. The initial authorization for the shipment of the effects from Chicago, Illinois, to Bismarck, which authorization was to have terminated October 14, 1947, was extended on October 9, 1947, to expire not later than October 14, 1948, and the second authorization covering shipment of the effects was to expire two years from the effective date of the applicable transfer. The employee transferred to the new duty station as directed, but because of his inability to locate suitable living quarters at Bismarck he did not move either his family or his household effects to that point. However, under date of November 17, 1947, his effects, weighing 3,040 pounds, were moved from Phillips, Wisconsin, to Minot, North Dakota, and the employee now claims reimbursement upon a commuted basis for the entire distance of that movement. Relative thereto, you state in your letter that if the shipment had been made from Phillips to Bismarck, the cost under Executive Order 8588 would have been $172.06 and that the cost from Bismarck to Minot, under Executive Order 9805, would have been $93.02, or a total for both movements, $265.08. While it is not so stated in the record, it is assumed that Phillips, Wisconsin, comes within the meaning of the words "some previous place of residence" as used in section 8 of Executive Order 9805, and this decision is rendered upon that basis. Since the transfer of the employee from Bismarck to Minot, North Dakota, was not ordered until September 15, 1947, it is obvious that no commitment was made with respect to the movement of his effects to Minot, until subsequent to the effective date of Executive Order 9805, namely November 1, 1946. Accordingly, the amount of reimbursement allowable is to be measured by the terms and conditions of said Executive order-which order was promulgated under authority of section 1 of the act of August 2, 1946, Public Law 600, 60 Stat. 806— notwithstanding the fact that the first change of station preceded the effective date thereof. 20 Comp. Gen. 479, 483. That is to say, among other things, it applies to the change in reimbursement for the movement of household effects from an actual expense basis to a commuted basis. Hence, whatever be the distance chargeable to the Government, the entire amount due is to be figured upon a commuted basis in accordance with Executive Order 9805. With respect to the question of the amount of reimbursement allowable, arising because of the movement of the effects having been made from Phillips, Wisconsin, rather than from the employee's last official station, the record shows (1) that both of the transfer orders issued to the employee authorized the shipment of his effects at Government expense, (2) that the movement of the effects was accomplished within the time limit allowed by each order, and (3) as compared with the cost of the separate shipments (Chicago or Phillips to Bismarck; Bismarck to Minot) which could have been made legally, the advantage still is with the Government, since the cost of the direct shipment from Phillips to Minot is less than it would have cost to make the separate shipments. Under those circumstances, it is immaterial that the expense of shipping the goods from Phillips, Wisconsin, directly to the new station (Minot) was considerably greater than the expense that would have been incurred had the shipment been from the last duty station, Bismarck, North Dakota, to Minot, North Dakota. See 20 Comp. Gen. 568; 27 id. 267 (B-70546), referred to by you, and also, B-71377, December 12, 1947. In connection with the above, it is relevant to note at this point that the present law and regulations (Public Law 600 and Executive Order 9805, supra) do not expressly preclude the Government from paying the full amount allowable upon a commuted basis for shipment of household effects directly from a previous place of residence to the third duty station, as here--the first sentence of the proviso of section 8 of the current regulations being inapplicable to a situation such as this. Turning to the question of the amount of reimbursement allowable for transportation of the employee's immediate family from Phillips, Wisconsin, to Minot, North Dakota, the record shows that their travel was performed by privately owned automobile during the period November 15 to 16, 1947, or subsequent to the expiration date of the authorization granted in the travel order of October 14, 1946, to wit, six months from the effective date of the employee's transfer to Bismarck-no extension of time having been granted, as required. Hence, any right to transportation of his immediate family at Government expense upon the basis of that transfer expired prior to the date of their travel. Accordingly, you are advised that the maximum amount of reimbursement allowable for transportation of the employee's immediate family is the constructive cost of their transportation from Bismarck to Minot, North Dakota, by the most economical usually traveled route, via the mode of conveyance actually used, namely, privately owned automobile, not to exceed the cost between those 料 points by common carrier. Cf. B-28260, October 24, 1942; B-38603, Action on the voucher should be taken in accordance with the above. (B-73738) APPROPRIATIONS—AVAILABILITY-PURCHASES OF AIR TRANSPORTA- The purchase by the Civil Aeronautics Board of air transportation tickets for Comptroller General Warren to the Acting Chairman, Civil Aeronautics Board, Reference is made to your letter of February 16, 1948, requesting a decision as to whether the Civil Aeronautics Board is authorized to expend current funds for the purchase of air transportation tickets to be used as evidence of violations of the tariff provisions of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, as amended, 49 U. S. C. 401, et seq. The underlying problem is explained as follows: Many instances come to the Board's attention of advertisements in newspapers and periodicals and of window displays offering air transportation at less than currently effective tariff rates. Because of the limitations of the Board's staff it has been a practical impossibility to make a thorough and complete investigation of each such instance. Enough has been established to inform the Board that actually there is a wide spread sale of tickets at less than effective tariff rates in the New York area. Proof of these sales is extremely difficult to obtain. Enforcement of the tariff provisions of the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, as amended, would be rendered much speedier and more effective if the Board were authorized to expend funds for the purpose of purchasing tickets to be used as evidence of tariff violations. Purchases by investigators at prices less than or more than the effective tariff rates would constitute clear evidence of crime. Your letter invites attention to sections 403 (a), 403 (b) and 902 (d) of the said act, 49 U. S. C. 483, 622, (1) requiring every air carrier to publish complete tariffs for public inspection, (2) prohibiting carriers from collecting or receiving a greater or less or different compensation for air transportation than the rates contained in its tariffs. and from refunding, directly or indirectly, any portions of rates or charges so specified, and (3) providing criminal penalties in case of violations. Also, reference is made to section 205 (a) of the act, 49 U. S. C. 425, quoted in your letter as follows: The Authority is empowered to perform such acts, to conduct such investigations, to issue and amend such orders, and to make and amend such general or special rules, regulations, and procedure, pursuant to and consistent with the provisions of this Act, as it shall deem necessary to carry out such provisions and to exercise and perform its powers and duties under this Act. Furthermore, the letter sets forth the provisions of section 1007 (b) of the act, 49 U. S. C. 647, authorizing the Board to proceed in the district courts of the United States for the enforcement of its provisions. The procurement of evidence is a usual incident to investigation and prosecution; and it has been held by the accounting officers of the Government that specific authority to make purchases of goods in order to procure evidence of violations of law is not necessarily required, if general provision has been made in an appropriation for expenses necessary to the administration and enforcement of such law. 26 Comp. Dec. 780. In such connection, the appropriation act for the Civil Aeronautics Board for the current fiscal year, Public Law 166, approved July 9, 1947, 61 Stat. 297, is available for "necessary expenses of the Civil Aeronautics Board." Since the purchase of air transportation tickets for use as evidence of tariff violations reasonably may be regarded as a proper incident of the functions required to be performed by the Civil Aeronautics Board, as set forth above, the expenditure of funds for such purpose from the current appropriation act is authorized. (B-45103) APPROPRIATIONS-AVAILABILITY-UTILITIES FOR NAVY OFFICERS' MESSES In view of the provisions of sections 15 and 16 of the act of August 2, 1946, respecting Navy officers' messes ashore, appropriated funds available for utilities generally at naval installations may be used to pay for utilities consumed in officers' messes of the closed type; however, such funds are not available to pay for utilities consumed in connection with those activities of officers' messes of the open type which are of a social or recreational nature, as distinguished from activities primarily related to the function of providing adequate meals for naval personnel. Comptroller General Warren to the Secretary of the Navy, March 15, 1948: Further reference is made to your letter of September 9, 1947, JAG:II: RT: eo, with enclosures (acknowledged October 21, 1947), requesting a decision "as to the liability of a Commissioned Officers Mess (OPEN) for the payment for utilities to the Treasurer of the United States." It appears that your request for decision arises as a result of a question raised by representatives of the General Accounting Office who, while making an inspection of the accounts and records of Lieutenant S. G. Hale, Supply Corps, U. S. Navy, Naval Air Training Bases, Pensacola, Florida, found that during the period May, 1945, to April, 1947, the cost of utilities (electricity, gas, water, steam and 796802-48- -35 sewerage disposal) for all activities of the Commissioned Officers' Mess (Open) at the said Base was paid from appropriated funds. It has been reported that such activities are: the Mustin Beach Officers' Club (which includes a restaurant, bar, food and equipment storeroom, entertainment area, and liquor salesroom); the Mustin Beach Officers' Golf Club (which includes a golf club bar, cafe, and golf course); the Saufley Field Officers' Club; the Corry Field Officers' Club; the Cadet Bar; and the Building 600 Bar. It has been reported, also, that for some years prior to May, 1945, the cost of utilities used by such activities was billed to the officers' mess and apparently paid from nonappropriated mess funds, and that such billing and payment were discontinued in May, 1945, in conformity with letter of the Bureau of Naval Personnel dated April 6, 1945 (Interpretation No. 4, Bureau of Naval Personnel Regulations for Commissioned Officers' and Warrant Officers' Messes Ashore), a copy of which was received with your letter and which, in paragraph 10 thereof, states that— Water, heat, gas, light and power may be furnished from appropriated funds for Commissioned Officers' Messes OPEN and CLOSED. You indicate that the above-quoted paragraph was based on an advisory opinion of the Judge Advocate General of the Navy dated December 13, 1944 (copy of which was received with your letter), wherein it was held, in pertinent part, that— All operating services, such as water, heat, electricity, gas, refrigeration, official telephone, etc., which are necessary to the general operation of the building as a naval activity, may be furnished at government expense, to an officers' mess of the closed type. It is a matter for policy determination whether this privilege shall also be extended to a mess of the open type, which is generally operated for the convenience and social benefit of officers and their civilian guests. Under the above-mentioned regulations issued by the Bureau of Naval Personnel, commissioned officers' messes ashore are divided into two categories, "Open" and "Closed." Guests may be invited to an open mess under conditions specified by the commanding officer; while closed messes include the type of organizations formerly known as Bachelor Officers' Messes, and the classes of persons who may use the facilities of a closed mess are restricted within narrow limits. Navy officers' messes have been likened to Army post exchanges, for some purposes (26 Comp. Gen. 122), and it is understood that both Army exchanges and Army officers' clubs are required, under current regulations of the Department of the Army, to pay for utilities consumed by them in excess of a normal amount, "normal" being defined as "relating directly to provisions or shelter (fuel for space heating, light for space lighting, water for drinking and bathroom facilities)." Bureau of Naval Personnel Circular Letter No. 103-46, dated May 3, 1946, promulgating the policy, approved by the Chief of Naval |