amounts appropriated for particular purposes. In addition, the bureaus are interested in other appropriations which might be indicated as for the navy as a whole, such as for the increase of the Navy, emergency fund, aviation, etc. In these latter cases, the amounts to be spent under each bureau are not stated, it being left to the Secretary to allot proper amounts to each bureau interested.

Under what has been called the "leading appropriation" of each bureau, practically any expenditure made by that bureau could be located. The supplemental appropriations are usually merely additional sums for specific objects, also covered generally by the leading appropriation. Under Treasury Department rulings, where there is an appropriation covering in specific terms a proposed expenditure, such expenditure cannot be charged to another appropriation, also covering in general terms the same object, although in the absence of the specific appropriation the general appropriation could have been used. It has not been found possible however to adhere strictly to this ruling, in the case of naval appropriations. Cases frequently arise in which expenditures might be located to one appropriation, but for various reasons are charged to another. In fact, it is so customary to distribute charges in accordance with the convenience of the bureau or bureaus concerned that such action has become a routine matter. Certain classes of expenditure are customarily charged to a given appropriation, another class to a second appropriation, and so on. While it is true that possibly a majority of all charges must by their nature each be charged to one, and only one, appropriation, there remains a respectable minority which can be located to this or that appropriation, and the decision as to where to locate the charge is made from motives of policy, or after consideration of the available balances under the appropriations concerned.

A few years ago the Navy Department issued a general order instituting a new system of official correspondence. To make clear the application of the new methods, sample letters with endorsements were incorporated in the order, and as it was desirable to use typical cases familiar to the service generally, the subject of the correspondence in one case was made to relate to a proposed extension of navy yard facilities, where the main question involved was what appropriation should be used. This

is found in the naval instructions of to-day, and illustrates pretty well our attitude of mind in regard to the distinctions between appropriations.

As a matter of fact, the question of which appropriation to use for a given piece of work is one that is constantly arising, and is not only a serious difficulty, but usually causes a vexatious loss of time. A recent example is as follows:

The supply officer at a navy yard having worked out, in conjunction with the Public Works Department, a plan for the installation of certain sand unloading machinery, correspondence took place, of which the following is an abstract:

(a) The public works officer states that his department has no funds available for the equipment. That it is portable equipment similar to other kinds, the property of the storehouse. Requests information as to whether supply officer concurs, as further action is dependent upon determining which bureau shall pay for the equipment.

(b) Supply officer considers the installation properly chargeable against a public works appropriation.

(c) Public works officer does not consider argument used by supply officer as sound; furthermore, as prospect of obtaining funds for project from Bureau of Yards and Docks is not bright, suggests that supply officer take such steps as are practicable towards purchasing the equipment.

(d) Commandant approves.

(e) Supply officer submits requisition under "Maintenance, Supplies and Accounts."

(f) Bureau of Ordnance returns requisition, as not chargeable to appropriation indicated. States that it appears to be chargeable to appropriation "Naval Gun Factory Tool and Machine Plants."

This correspondence consumed over two months. A perfectly conscientious effort was made by all concerned to properly locate this charge. It will be noted, however, that the problem was to determine the source from which the funds were to be obtained. The proper head under which to record the expenditures when made, that is, the expense classification, was not even considered. The accounting system will handle that phase of the matter with ease, no matter what appropriation supplies the funds.

The naval accounting system has recognized that an accurate statement of purposes for which money has been expended is essential, the mere record of the amount expended from each appropriation being insufficient. Each expenditure is therefore located under one of the main "titles" of the naval establishment, descriptive of the purpose for which the money was used. Thus,

every appropriation is dissected according to these titles. It might be thought that one appropriation would naturally be expendable under one title, and so on. To show how far from the truth such a view is, a diagram has been drawn, in which the appropriations for the fiscal year 1917 are listed and connected by lines to the various objects of expenditure, or titles. It was found impracticable to list all the appropriations, on account of the great number of them, so the diagram includes only the most important ones by name, arranged or grouped under each bureau. The number of the remaining ones not named is also stated in each case, and all titles which pertain to these appropriations are indicated by connecting lines.

It is believed that the diagram gives a better idea of the interweaving and complication of the appropriation system than could be described by pages of writing. The fact that every title, or object of expenditure, draws funds from a great number of appropriations is clearly brought out. In other words, although there are such a great number of different sums appropriated, the objects of expenditure are relatively few, and consequently it would seem more reasonable, if separate appropriations for particular purposes are to be made, that at least but one appropriation be allowed for each purpose.

However, this does not really carry us to the root of the matter. The point to be most carefully noted in this connection is that exclusive of sums allowed for specific work, such as items under "public works," the amounts which we carry on our books as appropriations are in fact merely the final approved estimates of the sums which will be needed during the ensuing fiscal year for the various purposes of the naval establishment. When we solidify these estimates into fixed sums, as though we had plans and specifications for definite work ahead, we become involved in many difficulties in the practical carrying on of affairs. Especially is this true under existing conditions where the terms of many of the appropriations" are vague and incomprehensive, and where so much overlapping exists as to the possible objects of expenditure. Let us examine for a moment the regular course of procedure in expending the sums appropriated for the navy. As we have seen, each bureau, at the beginning of a fiscal year, has at its disposal a group of appropriations to be used in carrying on the work in which such bureau is interested. The money must be so apportioned amongst the various yards, ships etc., that each month the

66