I believe carries out the spirit as well as the letter of the law. It is manifestly fair alike to the clerk and to the Government, as it is not considered at all probable that the discretion and power delegated to the Attorney-General by Congress in this respect will ever be abused to the extent of depriving any clerk of a sufficient allowance to defray the necessary expenses of his office where sufficient fees have been earned under the law to cover said expenses. In view of the above I see no error in the settlement made by the auditor and his action is therefore affirmed. PAY OF NAVY OFFICERS ABROAD WHILE EN ROUTE FROM ONE POST OF DUTY TO ANOTHER. Naval officers detached from a ship or station abroad are not entitled to additional pay for sea service while traveling on an army transport to another ship or station. Assistant Comptroller Mitchell to the Secretary of the Navy, July 13, 1909: By your reference of the 25th ultimo of a letter from Passed Asst. Paymaster J. R. Hornberger, U. S. Navy, you request my decision as to whether Lieut. V. S. Houston, U. S. Navy, is entitled to the 10 per cent additional pay for sea service or shore duty abroad, March 9 to April 6, 1909, while traveling on board an army transport from Cavite, P. I., to Honolulu, Hawaii, under orders of January 25, 1909, directing such travel, as follows: "You are hereby detached from duty on board the U. S. S. Charleston; will take passage in the first available transport for Honolulu, T. H. "Upon your arrival at Honolulu, T. H., you will report to the commandant of the naval station, Hawaii, for duty as assistant to the inspector of the twelfth light-house district, San Francisco, Cal., in charge of the light-house establishment for the Territory of Hawaii, * * The provision for the additional 10 per cent to regular pay, act of May 13, 1908 (35 Stat., 128), is as follows: "All officers on sea duty, and all officers on shore duty. beyond the continental limits of the United States, shall, while so serving, receive ten per centum additional of their salaries and increase as above provided, and such increase shall commence from the date of reporting for duty on board ship or the date of sailing from the United States for shore duty beyond the seas or to join a ship in foreign waters." When Lieutenant Houston was detached from the Charleston he ceased to be entitled to sea-duty pay in connection with that ship, and as he was ordered to shore duty beyond seas while abroad there is no law entitling him to the 10 per cent additional for shore duty in Hawaii until he reported for duty there. Was he entitled to sea pay by reason of traveling on board an army transport? Section 1571 of the Revised Statutes provides: "No service shall be regarded as sea service except such as shall be performed at sea, under the orders of a department and in vessels employed by authority of law." The army transport upon which Mr. Houston traveled was employed by authority of law, and proper service aboard such a vessel entitled a naval officer to sea pay. (7 Comp. Dec., 289.) Section 1571, supra, does not make all service upon a vessel employed by authority of law sea service, but merely provides there can be no sea service except upon such vessels. Lieutenant Houston was not attached to the army transport on which he traveled and had no duty to perform in connection with her. He was merely traveling, in obedience to orders, from one station to another, and was not serving on sea duty within the meaning of the provision authorizing the 10 per cent additional pay. See Farenholt v. United States (42 Ct. Cl., 114), in which the claimant was not allowed sea pay while traveling on an army transport. I am of opinion that for the time in question Lieutenant Houston is entitled only to the regular pay of his grade. USE OF "INDIAN MONEYS, PROCEEDS OF LABOR." The funds "Indian moneys, proceeds of labor," belong to the Indians and are for their exclusive benefit, and the application thereof to reimburse the appropriation "Contingencies, Indian Department, 1909," for expenses of supplying and equipping agencies properly paid from the latter appropriation, is not authorized. Decision by Assistant Comptroller Mitchell, July 14, 1909: Revision of sixteen settlements was asked by letter of the Secretary of the Interior, dated June 29, 1909, as follows: "In view of the present depleted condition of the appropriation Contingencies, Indian Department, 1909,' and the many demands being made upon it, I respect fully request that you cause the settlements which include the following items to be revised and proper warrants to issue, charging 'Indian moneys, proceeds of labor, Pawnee,' with $352.33, and crediting Contingencies, Indian Department, 1909,' with a like amount: Accounts of George W. Nellis, superintendent Pawnee School. Voucher 1, first quarter, 1909, in favor of James Bowman, for shelled corn____ Voucher 5, first quarter, 1909, in favor of John Buffalo, for hay Voucher 53, second quarter, 1909, in favor of Fred Bruns, for shelled corn_ Amount. $84.90 99. 00 60. 77 CLAIMS. Settlement No. 7017, claim No. 185231, Mineralized Rubber Co Settlement No. 7312, claim No. 185845, George H. Holzbog_. Total 4.38 2.47 .30 5.50 11.40 .70 .60 4.44 3.00 2.92 7.91 1. 12 58.00 3.60 1.32 352.33 "Payment for the foregoing was originally authorized to be made from Contingencies, Indian Department, 1909,' by department letters of June 10, 1908, and September 15, 1908. The said claim settlements were made at various dates from October 1, 1908, to February 16, 1909, and the account settlement on April 26, 1909. So far as shown by the vouchers and claims in question, the expenditures were made for articles for agency use such as are usually paid for from governmental appropriations, as appears to have been originally intended and done in the cases under consideration. Of the amount $352.33 asked to be transferred, $60.77 pertains to an account not yet settled by the auditor, regarding which the Comptroller has no jurisdiction to take action upon revision. Of the residue ($291.56), $243.90 was expended for hay and grain to feed agency stock and coal for agency use, the remaining $47.66 being expended in numerous small amounts for various articles for agency use, presumably accounted for as government property. The act of March 2, 1887 (24 Stat., 463), provides: "That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized to use the money which has been or may hereafter be covered into the Treasury under the provisions of the act approved March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-three, and which is carried on the books of that department under the caption of Indian moneys, proceeds of labor,' for the benefit of the several tribes on whose account said money was covered in, in such way and for such purposes as in his discretion he may think best, and shall make annually a detailed report thereof to Congress." This act gives a discretion to the Secretary, but I think such discretion is subject to the condition that the expenditure of such funds be for the benefit of the particular tribe on whose account they were collected and covered into the Treasury, and that such benefit within the contemplation of the act is the exclusive benefit of the Indians, to be distinguished from the more remote and general benefit resulting to them from the establishment and maintenance of agencies with their employees and equipment under the administrative control of the Interior Department. In other words, "Indian moneys, proceeds of labor," belong to the Indians, and are not to be charged with the expenses of administration for which government appropriations are available, or which the Government is bound to defray. From the facts in the case it is not seen how the transfer asked for can be brought within the principles above set forth to use the Indians' money to reimburse a government appropriation for amounts properly expended therefrom for supplies and equipments for the agency. I do not think the "depleted condition of the appropriation, Contingencies, Indian Department, 1909,' and the many demands being made upon it" affect the question of the transfer asked for, provided that the appropriation was available for the purposes to which applied, as appears to have been the case. Upon revision I am unable to see my way clear to direct the transfer requested. CANCELLATION OF CHECKS OF RECEIVERS OF PUBLIC MONEYS. While the provision of section 306 of the Revised Statutes for the deposit in the Treasury to credit of "outstanding liabilities" of moneys represented by outstanding checks, etc., of disbursing officers of the Government does not, technically speaking, apply to receivers of public moneys at United States land offices in respect to unearned fees and other trust funds, receivers are not permitted to cancel their checks drawn to the order of an applicant as a return of such moneys unapplied, and subsequently returned unclaimed. Comptroller Tracewell to the Secretary of the Interior, July 14, 1909: I am in receipt of your communication of July 8, 1909, as follows: "I have the honor to submit, for your decision, whether a receiver of public moneys at a United States land office is a disbursing officer' within the meaning of section 306 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. "Receivers of public moneys at United States land offices are bonded, under section 2236 of the Revised Statutes, in the penal sum of not less than $10,000. These receivers of public moneys deposit to their official credit, with their designated depositaries, certain moneys which are received by them in connection with applications for lands, etc., as 'Unearned fees and other trust funds,' until these moneys are either applied and deposited to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States when the applications, etc., are approved, or returned to the parties tendering same in the event that the application, etc., in connection with which tendered is rejected. Receivers are permitted to return such moneys only by their official checks. * * * "If your decision should be that the receivers of public moneys are not disbursing officers' within the meaning of section 306, Revised Statutes, it is the intention of the General Land Office to issue instructions that checks issued for the return of Unearned fees and other trust funds,' and subsequently returned to the receiver unclaimed, should be |