Under the opinion of the Attorney-General, supra, and the long-continued administrative practice sanctioned by the accounting officers, I am of the opinion that proceeds from sale of articles manufactured in Indian manual training schools, proceeds from sale of stock or products raised on school farms, and proceeds from sale of hides from school stock are available for the purchase of such supplies for the school where they are derived as the Secretary of the Interior may direct.

Upon revision of said settlement, a certificate of difference will issue to effect payment of $732.80 from "Indian moneys, proceeds of labor, Lawrence School."

PAYMENT OF GRATUITY OF ONE MONTH'S EXTRA PAY TO OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN CASE OF DEATH.

The one month's extra pay to officers and employees of the Senate and House of Representatives, carried in the urgent deficiency act of August 5, 1909 (36 Stat., 127), is a gratuity, and where an officer or employee dies without receiving the amount of said extra pay the gratuity lapses and payment thereof to any person is unauthorized.

Comptroller Tracewell to R. B. Nixon, financial clerk, United States Senate, August 27, 1909:

I am in receipt of your letter of the 25th instant, which reads:

"The act making appropriations to supply urgent deficiencies, etc., approved August 5, 1909, contains, on page 10, the following:

To enable the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives to pay to the officers and employees of the Senate and the House borne on the annual and session rolls on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and nine, including the Capitol police, the official reporters of the Senate and House, and W. A. Smith, Congressional Record clerk, for extra services during the first session of the Sixty-first Congress a sum equal to one month's pay at the compensation then paid them by law.'

"You will observe that it was necessary that a person should be on the annual or session roll on the 1st day of July, 1909, to be entitled to a benefit of this provision.

"Mr. Layton was, and had been for some time, the Acting Assistant Doorkeeper of the Senate at an annual salary of $2,592, and at the time of the approval of this act was on sick leave, and died on the 6th day of August. On the morning of the 6th I obtained from the Treasurer of the United States a check payable to his order for the amount of his extra pay, and a letter was written transmitting it to him. Prior to the mailing of this letter a dispatch was received from California informing me that he died at noon on the same day. He had receipted for the check, and had not the dispatch been received the letter would have left here on the night of the 6th.

"On the 23d instant I was informed by his sister-in-law that his wife had administered upon his estate.

Question: Shall I deliver the above-mentioned check to his wife upon the presentation of the certificate of the court that administration letters had been issued to her?"

It raises the question whether you are, under the facts therein set out, authorized to pay to the administrator of the estate of Mr. Layton, who was borne on the rolls of the Senate on the 1st day of July, 1909, as the acting assistant doorkeeper thereof at an annual salary of $2,592, one month's extra pay as is provided therein to be paid said assistant doorkeeper.

You state that Mr. Layton died in California at noon, on the 6th day of August, 1909. The act in question became a law on the 5th day of August, the day before the death of Mr. Layton. You also state that on the morning of the 6th you obtained a check for the amount of said one month's extra pay from the Treasurer of the United States, payable to Mr. Layton or his order, but did not mail the same because of a telegram received that he departed this life at noon of said day.

I am unable from these facts, taking into consideration the difference in time between Washington and California, to determine whether the check was executed before or after his death. The difference in time is about three hours. But from my view point it is not material whether the check was executed before or after his death. It was not mailed to him or delivered to him in any other manner prior to his death. The extra month's pay carried in the act, supra, is a gratuity and lapses in case it is not reduced to possession of the donee. Mr. Layton had an inchoate right to receive from

the Government the amount of the extra month's pay, but on his death without receiving it this inchoate right expired and did not pass to his widow or children, because they are not beneficiaries under said act, and does not pass to his legal representatives as an asset of his estate. The doctrine herein announced is clearly set forth in the case of Semple v. United States (24 Ct. Cl., 424-426).

I am therefore constrained to hold that by the death of Mr. Layton before he had received the extra month's pay the right to seek it expired and that you are not authorized pay the same to any person.

to

EXTRA COMPENSATION OF MEMBERS OF THE BROWNSVILLE COURT OF INQUIRY.

The extra compensation of $1,500 each, provided by the act of August 5, 1909 (36 Stat., 122), for the officers of the army composing the Brownsville court of inquiry, is entire and indivisible, and the payment of a portion of such extra compensation to an officer before his entire services as a member of said court are performed is unauthorized.

Acting Comptroller Mitchell to William B. Rochester, jr., paymaster, U. S. Army, August 30, 1909:

I am in receipt of your letter of August 20, 1909, requesting my decision of a question therein presented, as follows:

"I have the honor to submit herewith the account of Maj. Gen. J. P. Sanger, U. S. Army, a member of the 'Brownsville' court of inquiry, for four months' extra compensation, at the rate of $1,500 per annum, provided for by act of Congress approved August 5, 1909, and to request your decision as to whether or not I can pay same."

The act of March 3, 1909 (35 Stat., 836), provides:

"That the Secretary of War is hereby authorized to appoint a court of inquiry, to consist of five officers of the United States Army not below the rank of colonel, which court shall be authorized to hear and report upon all charges and testimony relating to the shooting affray which took place at Brownsville, Texas, on the night of August thirteenth-fourteenth, nineteen hundred and six. Said court shall, within one year from the date of its appointment, make a final report, and from time to time shall make partial reports to the Secretary of War of the result of such inquiry *

*

Paragraph 7 of Special Orders, No. 79, War Department, dated at Washington, April 7, 1909, provides as follows:

"Under the provisions of an act of Congress approved March 3, 1909, a court of inquiry is appointed to meet in Washington, D. C., at the call of the president thereof 'to hear and report upon all charges and testimony relating to the shooting affray which took place at Brownsville, Texas, on the night of August thirteenth-fourteenth, nineteen hundred and six,' and to determine which soldiers and noncommissioned officers, if any, of Companies B, C, and D, Twentyfifth Infantry, who were discharged from the military service as members of said regiment under the provisions of Special Orders, No. 266, November 9, 1906, War Department, are qualified for reenlistment in the Army of the United States. Said court shall within one year from the date of its appointment make a final report, and from time to time shall make partial reports to the Secretary of War of the results of such inquiry.

The act of Congress approved August 5, 1909 (36 Stat., 122), provides:

"For expenses of the court of inquiry provided for in the act approved March third, nineteen hundred.

To provide for payment of extra compensation for the officers composing the board appointed to pass upon the eligibility of colored troops discharged by executive orders on account of the Brownsville riot for reenlistment in the army, one thousand five hundred dollars each, seven thousand five hundred dollars, the same to be in full for extra compensation for their entire services connected therewith."

The above act of August 5, 1909, provides" for payment of extra compensation for the officers composing the board" of "one thousand five hundred dollars each, the same to be in full for extra compensation for their entire services." By the act of March 3, 1909, supra," said court shall within one year. from the date of its appointment make a final report, and from time to time shall make partial reports to the Secretary of War of the result of such inquiry The service may be completed within any time less than a year, but the “court shall within one year from date of its appointment make a final report." The $1,500 each is "to be in full for extra compensation for their entire services," regardless of the time required for the service. The consideration to be paid for the service is an entire considera

* *

tion, viz, $1,500 each, and the service is entire and indivisible in its nature so far as the question presented is concerned.

In other words, the $1,500 each, being an entire and indivisible consideration, is to be paid for a particular service, which is entire and indivisible. I am of opinion that until the entire service is performed no part of the consideration, which is for the entire service, is due. I am constrained to answer your question in the negative.

FORAGE AND SHELTER FOR MOUNT OF AN OFFICER OF THE MARINE CORPS.

An officer of the Marine Corps required to be mounted, who provides himself with a suitable mount at his own expense and keeps the same at his home in the immediate vicinity of his station where it is available at any time for use by him in the performance of his official military duties, is entitled to forage for such mount, but not to transportation of forage at public expense from his station to his home.

Such officer is not entitled to payment for the care of his private mount, nor to an allowance for shelter of same at his home unless shelter in kind, in a government stable, at his station was not available or was refused when applied for.

Acting Comptroller Mitchell to the Secretary of the Navy, August 31, 1909:

By your reference of the 28th ultimo with request for a decision of the question therein presented, I have received a communication from Maj. H. L. Roosevelt, Assistant Quartermaster, U. S. Marine Corps, depot quartermaster, San Francisco, Cal., requesting to be informed whether three vouchers for $21.64, $11.74, and $15, respectively, the first two in payment for forage for his horse covering the period from March 5 to May 31, 1909, and the third in payment for shelter and care of his horse for the month of May, 1909, are proper charges against the United States under circumstances hereinafter set forth.

It appears from the papers submitted that during the period indicated Major Roosevelt's official station and place of duty were in the city of San Francisco, Cal., and that he resided for his own convenience and pleasure at San Rafael, Cal., a place distant about 14 miles from San Francisco.

It