compensation between the period of thirty days while receiving his instructions, and for the time consumed in making the direct transit to his post of duty, until after he reaches his post and enters upon his official duties. It may be that the interests of economy and convenience afford a strong reason for the adoption of a practice such as is set out in your communication, but as the law now stands I know of no way to afford the relief for which you are seeking. SEA-DUTY PAY OF NAVAL OFFICERS PERFORMING TEMPORARY DUTY ON SHORE. Naval officers on duty at sea, who are ordered to duty on shore under orders which specify that such shore duty is temporary and in addition to their present duties, are entitled to the pay allowed officers on duty at sea by the act of May 13, 1908 (35 Stat., 128). Decision by Assistant Comptroller Mitchell, January 20, 1910: R. Wainwright, rear-admiral, U. S. Navy, appealed January 11, 1910, from the action of the Auditor for the Navy Department in settlement No. 3353, dated January 6, 1910, disallowing his claim for 10 per centum additional pay provided by the act of May 13, 1908 (35 Stat., 128), for officers of the Navy on sea duty, for the following periods: March 24 to June 13, 1909; June 30 to July 5, 1909; and October 9 to November 27, 1909, all dates inclusive, amounting to $300. The Auditor states his reasons for the disallowance as follows: "Claimant was not on duty at sea and is, therefore, not entitled to increase of pay for such service. (15 Comp. Dec., 656 and 901.)" The provision for the additional pay claimed (35 Stat., 128) is as follows: "All officers on sea duty * * * shall, while so serving, receive ten per centum additional of their salaries and increase as above provided, * * * "" If the appellant was on sea service during the periods referred to, he is entitled to the additional pay; otherwise he is not so entitled. This question, so far as relates to the first two periods for which the additional pay is claimed, was considered by this office in a decision of December 20, 1909 (51 MS. Comp. Dec., 1268), upon the appellant's appeal from the Auditor's disallowance of his claim for commutation of quarters and for heat and light during those periods. In that decision, which affirmed the Auditor's settlement disallowing commutation of quarters and heat and light during the periods in question, all the orders directing the duties are quoted and it was said: "Each of the orders supra assigning claimant to duty to be performed on shore stated: "This is in addition to your present duties.' "It thus appears that the said orders expressly imposed upon the officer the continued discharge of his sea duties and continued him in the status of being on sea duty. (United States v. Engard, 196 U. S., 511; MS. Comp. Dec., November 26, 1909; 43 MS. Comp. Dec., 1316, December 19, 1907; Collins v. United States, 37 Ct. Cls., 222; Roberts v. United States, No. 23521 Ct. Cl., March 1, 1909.)" The orders enjoining the duties for the last period, October 9 to November 27, 1909, are dated October 9, 1909, and are as follows: "SIR: Proceed to Washington, D. C., and report at the Navy Department for special temporary duty in connection with the general board. "Upon the completion of this duty, return to Philadelphia, Pa., or to such other port as the U. S. S. Georgia may be, and resume your duties on board that vessel. "This is in addition to your present duties. "Respectfully, 66 "G. VON L. MEYER, "Rear-Admiral RICHARD WAINWRIGHT, U. S. Navy, "Commander Third Division, U. S. Atlantic Fleet, "U.S. S. Georgia." The appellant reported for the duty assigned October 9, 1909, and returned to the U. S. S. Georgia November 28, 1909. These orders are the same in two important particulars as those that were considered in the case of United States v. Engard (196 U. S., 51), viz: (1) In specifying the duty on 52888°-VOL 16-10-30 shore as temporary, and (2) stating that it was in addition to his "present duties." The Supreme Court in the Engard case held that the officer was entitled to pay for sea duty under the orders. The court in that case referring to the argument submitted by the attorney for the Government said: "In effect, the proposition is that it must be assumed as a matter of law, in the absence of a finding to that effect, that the temporary shore duty was of such a permanent character as to render it impossible for the officer to continue to perform duty under his permanent sea assignment, and, therefore, as a matter of law caused such assignment to terminate. We think the converse is true, and that where the assignment of an officer to duty by the Navy Department expressly imposed upon him the continued discharge of his sea duties and qualified the shore duty as merely temporary and ancillary to the regular sea duty, that the presumption is that the shore duty was temporary and did not operate to interfere with or discharge the officer from the responsibilities of his sea duty to which he was regularly assigned." I am of opinion that the appellant is entitled to pay for sea service during the periods for which he makes the claim. This conclusion is not in conflict with the decisions to which the Auditor refers, as the facts in those cases are quite different from the facts in this. The Auditor's settlement is disaffirmed and the appellant is now allowed 10 per cent additional pay to his regular pay of $8,000 per annum for the periods March 24 to June 13, 1909; June 30 to July 5, 1909; and October 9 to November 27, 1909, being four months and fifteen days at $800 per annum, amounting to $300. A difference is therefore found from the Auditor's settlement in favor of the appellant of $300. EXPENSES OF INSPECTORS OF CONSULATES IN TRAVELING TO RESUME THEIR DUTIES AFTER LEAVE OF ABSENCE. Inspectors of consulates, who resume their duties after leave of absence at a place other than the one where they were when leave was granted, are entitled to their actual and necessary traveling and subsistence expenses in going from their homes in the United States to the place where they resume their duties of inspection, not to exceed what it would properly cost to travel from the place where they were performing duty when leave was granted to the place where they resume their duties upon the expiration of leave. Decision by Comptroller Tracewell, January 21, 1910: The Auditor for the State and other Departments has reported, under date of the 4th instant, the following decision for approval, disapproval, or modification: "Section 4 of the act approved April 5, 1906 (34 Stat., p. 100), provides: "That there shall be five inspectors of consulates, to be designated and commissioned as consuls-general at large, who shall receive an annual salary of five thousand dollars each, and shall be paid their actual and necessary traveling and subsistence expenses while traveling and inspecting under instructions from the Secretary of State.' "Under the provisions of this law Albert R. Morawetz was appointed and commissioned consul-general at large and assigned to inspect, among others, the United States consular offices in the West Indies Islands. While at Kingston, Jamaica, on or about September 12, 1908, he availed himself of a leave of absence duly granted by the Department of State, and left for his home in Baltimore, Md., from which place he on several occasions visited the Department of State in Washington, D. C., under special orders for conference and instructions in regard to the consular service in his district. 'He left Baltimore, his home in this country, on November 24, 1908, to resume his inspection duties.' (Letter of Hon. William Phillips, Third Assistant Secretary of State, dated September 23, 1908, filed with certificate No. 4354 herewith.) "On or about December 4, 1908, he arrived at Port au Prince, Haiti, and resumed his inspection duties. "In making the trip from his home in the United States to Port au Prince, on the expiration of his leave, 'to resume his inspection duties,' he incurred expenses aggregating $94.72, which he charged against the United States under the appropriation 'Expenses of consular inspectors, 1909,' which appropriation was made. "For the actual and necessary traveling and subsistence expenses of consular inspectors while traveling and inspecting under instructions from the Secretary of State.' (35 Stat., p. 180.) "Your attention is called to the fact that the same Congress in the same act in making the appropriation for traveling expenses for the same class of (diplomatic and consular) officers (35 Stat., p. 174) appropriates the sum of $30,000, 'but not including any expense incurred in connection with leaves of absence,' showing clearly that Congress does not intend to provide for the expenses of consular officers incurred in connection with leaves of absence. "The uniform practice so far as I am aware is for consular officers to defray these expenses personally; and I know of no case where such expenses have been paid by the Govern ment. "The Department of State, by letter of Wilbur J. Carr, esq., director of the consular service, for Mr. Knox, and dated December 15, 1909, herewith, expresses the opinion that this item should be allowed for two reasons: "First. At the time Mr. Morawetz was granted a leave of absence, one of the chief reasons which led this department to authorize him to visit this country was that he might have an opportunity to consult with the department in regard to his inspection work, and, as stated in the department's letter to you of September 23, 1909, during the time he was in the United States he visited the Department of State on several occasions in connection with his inspection work.' "It makes no difference what motives actuated the Department of State in granting his leave of absence. The important fact remains that Mr. Morawetz was on leave at his home in the United States, and that he returned therefrom 'to resume his inspection duties'-or, as expressed in the letter of December 15, 1909, 'to take up his inspection duties after visiting the United States.' "It was clearly within the power of the State Department to have ordered Mr. Morawetz to return to the United States in order that he might have opportunity to consult with the department in regard to his inspection work,' but no such order was issued, and he was granted leave of absence instead. "Each of these expressions clearly indicate that the resumption of his inspection duties was to take place at a future time-when he arrived at some consulate which was to be inspected. |