"Of course this man is a deserter, but his desertion was probably the result of his other and more serious offense; and if the proviso be literally construed, it would forbid the payment of a greater sum than $50 for his apprehension and delivery.

"It is questionable, however, whether it should be construed to apply to his apprehension as an embezzler of government funds.

* * *

"Unless the payment of the reward is regarded as forbidden by the proviso limiting the amount to be paid for the apprehension of this man, he being a deserter, to the sum of $50, the appropriation for 'Contingencies of the army' could be applied to the payment of a reward, there being no specific appropriation therefor, and the Secretary of War having a broad discretion as to the expenditure of such appropriation for any contingent expenses of the army not otherwise provided for.'

"As Congress was legislating upon the question of desertion and not with respect to other offenses of a more serious character, it is not believed that the provision in question should be construed as limiting the amount that could be paid in this case to $50.

"However, as the question is not clear and as the Comptroller may take a different view in the matter, it is believed to be advisable to request his decision in advance of offering the proposed reward."

The act of March 3, 1909 (35 Stat., 732), making appropriation for the support of the army for the fiscal year 1910, under the head "Contingencies of the army," provides:

"For all contingent expenses of the army not otherwise provided for, and embracing all branches of the military service, including the office of the Chief of Staff, to be expended under the immediate orders of the Secretary of War, fifteen thousand dollars."

also, under the head "Incidental expenses, Quartermaster's Department" (p. 743), said act provides:

"for the apprehension, securing, and delivering of deserters, including escaped military prisoners, and the expenses incident to their pursuit, and no greater sum than fifty dollars for each deserter or escaped military prisoner shall, in the discretion of the Secretary of War, be paid to any civil officer or citizen for such services and ex

penses;

The above-named soldier is not only charged with the crime of desertion from the army, but with the crime of em

bezzlement of government funds pertaining to the military establishment as well. It would seem that his apprehension and delivery is particularly desired with a view to his trial by court-martial for the offense of embezzlement. So far as known to this office there is no specific provision of law or appropriation for the apprehension and delivery of soldiers charged with crimes other than that of desertion, and for this crime the law makes no provision for the payment of a greater sum than $50 for their apprehension, securing, and delivery. This provision relates solely to the crime of desertion. Such reward can not be offered or paid for any other offense.

The appropriation, supra, for contingent expenses is to be expended under your immediate orders. If, in the exercise of your discretion in the use of this appropriation, you deem it advisable to offer a reward for the apprehension and delivery of this soldier as an embezzler of government funds pertaining to your department, and he is apprehended and delivered to the military authorities as such, I can see no legal objection to the payment of such reward as you may offer for such crime from the appropriation "Contingencies of the army," providing, of course, you specifically order the payment of such amount from such appropriation.

PAY OF CHIEF WARRANT OFFICERS IN NAVY.

The act of March 3, 1909 (35 Stat., 771), protects from reduction in pay warrant officers in navy theretofore or thereafter promoted six years from date of warrant.

Decision by Acting Comptroller Mitchell, September 3, 1909:

The Auditor for the Navy Department has reported for approval, disapproval, or modification his decision of August 20, 1909, as follows:

"William J. Wren, chief carpenter, U. S. Navy, has presented to this office a claim for difference of pay on account of his promotion from October 11, 1904, to November 4, 1905, under the act of March 3, 1909 (35 Stat., 771), which reads as follows:

666*

*

*, and no warrant officer, heretofore or hereafter promoted six years from date of warrant, shall suffer a

reduction in pay which, but for such promotion, would have been received by him

* * * "

"Claimant was commissioned chief carpenter in the navy from April 27, 1904. His commission is dated October 11, 1904.

"At the time of his promotion to chief carpenter he was receiving pay after twelve years' service at sea, $1,800, and when commissioned a chief carpenter his pay was reduced to $1,680, being the pay of a second lieutenant in the Marine Corps, with 20 per cent additional for length of service. He now claims the difference of pay for said period while at sea under the clause contained in the act of March 3, 1909, supra.

"Section 12 of the act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat., 1007), provides:

* *

"That boatswains, gunners, carpenters, and sailmakers shall after ten years from date of warrant be commissioned chief boatswains, chief gunners, chief carpenters, and chief sailmakers, *: Provided, That chief boatswains, chief gunners, chief carpenters, and chief sailmakers shall on promotion have the same pay and allowances as are now allowed a second lieutenant in the Marine Corps; Provided, * * *, and immediately after the passage of the act, boatswains, gunners, carpenters, and sailmakers, who have served in the navy as such for fifteen years, shall be commissioned in accordance with the provisions of this section,

* * * "

"By the act of April 27, 1904 (33 Stat., 346)

666* ** *

boatswains, gunners, carpenters, and sailmakers shall be eligible for appointment to chief boatswains, chief gunners, chief carpenters, and chief sailmakers after six years from date of warrant.'

"The Comptroller (MS. Dec., June 15, 1904) held that chief warrant officers were not entitled to increased pay as such prior to the date of their commission. It was also held by the Comptroller (MS. Dec., September 9, 1904) in the case of James J. Haley that the act of June 7, 1900, did not protect from reduction in pay of a warrant officer promoted and commissioned to be a chief warrant officer.

"In William J. Littell v. The United States (36 Ct. Cl., 22) it was said, quoting from the syllabus:

"The purpose of the act as amended is to assimilate the pay of officers of the navy to that provided for officers of corresponding rank in the army, with the proviso that the present and future pay of such officers shall not be reduced below that to which they would be entitled if the act had not been passed.'

"As was said in the Littell case, supra, the language of the act of March 3, 1909, supra, was doubtless intended to prevent any reduction in the pay of warrant officers who had

been or might be promoted and commissioned chief warrant officers to which they might have been entitled at the time of the passage of the act of March 3, 1899, or to which they might become entitled.

While it was the purpose of that act as thus amended to assimilate the pay of this class of officers with that provided for a second lieutenant in the Marine Corps, it was also intended that, if by the provisions of the act the present or future pay of such officers should thereby be reduced, they were in such event to receive the pay provided under existing laws the same as though said act had never been enacted. "I am of opinion and so decide that the claimant is under the act of 1909, supra, protected from reduction in pay by reason of his having been promoted and commissioned as chief warrant carpenter and is entitled to the pay he was receiving or entitled to receive at the time of his promotion while at sea."

The decision of the auditor that Chief Carpenter William J. Wren, U. S. Navy, who was a warrant officer promoted six years from date of warrant on October 11, 1904, is entitled under the said act of March 3, 1909, for the period from October 11, 1904, to November 4, 1905, to the higher pay he would have received but for such promotion is approved.

MAINTENANCE OF AN INSANE PERSON COMMITTED TO A HOSPITAL BY ORDER OF A UNITED STATES CONSUL-GENERAL.

A person adjudged insane and committed to and confined in a hospital by an order of the proper authorities is a prisoner within the meaning of the act of March 2, 1909 (35 Stat., 682), making provision for the expenses of prisons for American convicts, and the appropriation made by said act is available for the keeping and feeding of an insane person, a citizen of the United States, who is adjudged insane and committed to a hospital by an order of a United States consul-general.

Comptroller Tracewell to the Secretary of State, September 7, 1909: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of August 30, 1909, in which you request my decision of a question which you therein present as follows:

"I transmit herewith a copy of a dispatch from the American consul-general at Constantinople, Turkey, in regard to the commitment of an insane person to a hospital by the American consular court for Turkey, together with a copy

of the views of the solicitor of this department as to the responsibility of the United States Government for the payment of the charges for his keeping, and the fund available from which these charges are to be paid.

"The department would be glad to receive an expression of your views as to whether the appropriation for the keeping and feeding of prisoners is available in the manner that the solicitor suggests."

It appears from the accompanying papers that Meyer A. Gropper, a citizen of the United States, while visiting his sister in Constantinople became so violent and abusive that it became impossible for his sister or her husband to care for him. He was brought before the consul-general at Constantinople, who adjudged him to be insane and committed him to the French hospital at Chickli in that city. He had no visible means of support nor property which could be made available by the consul-general to provide for his support in said hospital. Neither his sister nor her husband would, nor could they, be made to pay for his treatment while in said hospital. Before the hospital authorities would admit him. it became necessary under the facts stated for the consulgeneral to guarantee the payment of the expenses of his keeping.

Under the facts stated the consul-general insists that the United States is liable for his maintenance while in said hospital, and it is suggested by the solicitor of your department that expenses of keeping him in said hospital may be paid from the appropriation made by the act of March 2, 1909 (35 Stat., 682), making provision for the expenses of prisons for American convicts, which provides:

66* * * Paying for the keeping and feeding of prisoners in China, Korea, Siam, and Turkey, nine thousand dollars: Provided, That no more than fifty cents per day for the keeping and feeding of each prisoner while actually confined shall be allowed or paid for any such keeping and feeding. This is not to be understood as covering cost of medical attendance and medicines when required by such prisoners. "Rent of prison for American convicts in Turkey, and for wages of keepers of the same, one thousand dollars *

*

As appears from the papers transmitted, the solicitor of your department is of the opinion that Meyer A. Gropper is a prisoner within the meaning of the act quoted, and that,