Under the views above expressed and the uncertain latitude of the order directing claimant to reside at or near West Raleigh and the War Department's interpretation of said order, I am of the opinion that claimant is entitled to forage for his mount at Henderson. (See 16 Comp. Dec., 128; 16 id., 638; 51 MS. Comp. Dec., 1429, December 30, 1909.)

The amounts claimed are not in excess of the officer's allowance for forage (Army Regulations, 1085, of 1908), and the Auditor's action in disallowing the same is likewise reversed.

ADDITIONAL PAY OF AIDS TO REAR-ADMIRALS.

Rear-admirals of the lower nine of the Navy are entitled to the same number of aids of the same corresponding rank as a majorgeneral in the Army, and lieutenants of the Navy are entitled to the additional pay of $150 per annum, as provided by the act of May 13, 1908 (35 Stat., 128), while serving as aids to rearadmirals of the lower nine.

Decision by Assistant Comptroller Mitchell, May 25, 1910.

W. M. Hunt, lieutenant, U. S. Navy, appealed May 16, 1910, from the action of the Auditor for the Navy Department in settlement No. 10084, of May 6, 1910, disallowing his claim for pay as aid to a rear-admiral of the lower nine from December 7, 1909, to March 17, 1910, three months and eleven days, at $150 per annum, amounting to $42.08, and charging him with aid's pay which he had received from October 23 to December 6, 1909, amounting to $18.33.

The reason given by the Auditor for his action is as follows:

"Claim for pay as aid to a rear-admiral of the second nine, December 7, 1909, to March 17, 1910, is disallowed because an officer above the rank of lieutenant, junior grade, is not entitled to such pay while serving on personal staff of a rearadmiral of the second nine. (See R. S., 1098.)

"Pay as aid October 23 to December 6, 1909, is herein deducted, disallowed, and found due the United States for the same reason given above."

The statutes relating to aids in the Army are sections 1098 and 1261 of the Revised Statutes, as follows:

"SEC. 1098. Each major-general shall have three aids, who may be selected by him from captains or lieutenants of

the Army, and each brigadier-general shall have two aids, who may be selected by him from lieutenants of the Army." "SEC. 1261. The officers of the Army shall be entitled to the pay herein stated after their respective designations:

* *

"Aid to major-general: Two hundred dollars a year, in addition to pay of his rank;

"Aid to brigadier-general: One hundred and fifty dollars. a year, in addition to pay of his rank.”

In the decision of this office of March 21, 1905 (11 Comp. Dec., 547), is was held that:

"Rear-admirals of the nine lower numbers, except for purposes of their own pay and allowances, are rear-admirals with the relative rank under section 1466, Revised Statutes, of major-generals in the Army, and that their aids are entitled under section 1261, Revised Statutes, to $200 a year in addition to the pay of their rank.”

The act of May 13, 1908 (35 Stat., 128), provides:

"Aids to rear-admirals embraced in the nine lower numbers of that grade shall receive one hundred and fifty dollars additional per annum, and aids to all other rear-admirals, two hundred dollars additional per annum each.”

In the decision of this office dated May 13, 1909 (15 Comp. Dec., 723), it was stated:

"Army aid's pay, with all the conditions attached, became applicable to naval officers by the personnel act of 1899; there was no direct repeal of those conditions by the act of May 13, 1908, nor is there any necessary implication that such repeal was intended."

That is to say, the conditions imposed by section 1098, Revised Statutes, as to the number and rank of aids allowed major-generals in the Army and made applicable to rearadmirals in the Navy by the personnel act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat., 1007), was not affected by the act of May 13, 1908, supra. The latter act, however, did change the rate of additional pay to be paid the aids of rear-admirals of the lower nine from $200 to $150 per annum.

As rear-admirals of the lower nine in the Navy rank with major-generals in the Army, and as major-generals in the Army are entitled to have three aids who may be selected from captains or lieutenants in the Army who correspond in rank with lieutenants, lieutenants junior grade, and ensigns in the Navy, I am of opinion that a rear-admiral of

the lower nine of the Navy is entitled to have the same number of aids of the same corresponding rank in the Navy as a major-general of the Army, and that therefore claimant while serving as aid to a rear-admiral of the lower nine in the Navy during the period in question is entitled to additional pay at the rate of $150 per annum as provided by the act of May 13, 1908, supra.

The action of the Auditor is reversed, and upon this revision the claimant will be allowed $60.41 ($18.33+$12.08).

REIMBURSEMENT OF COST OF VERIFICATION OF EXPENSE ACCOUNTS.

While it is the usual and preferred practice to include the cost of verification of expense accounts of civilian officers, employees, and agents of the Government in the accounts to which it pertains, there is no reason to refuse reimbursement of such items because they occur in another expense account. Disbursing officers, in submitting questions involving payments to be made on vouchers before them for payment, should submit the vouchers with their requests so that the Comptroller of the Treasury may be advised of the facts as shown by said vouchers.

Comptroller Tracewell to A. H. Quarles, special disbursing agent, May 26, 1910.

I have received your letter of May 17, 1910, in which you request my decision of a question therein presented, as follows:

"The receipt inclosed herewith (from Phil Gallaher to Dr. C. M. Rosin) has been taken from an expense account of C. M. Rosin, M. D., the government physician at Tanana, Alaska, and covers the affidavits on two expense accounts, which have recently been paid by this office. The vouchers paid bore the certificate and seal of the notary, but no charge was made in the vouchers for the notary fees. It is my understanding that a charge for notary fee to an expense account can be reimbursed only in the account to which it pertains. Please advise me if this is the rule of your office, and, if so, whether any exceptions are ever made to such rule."

In submitting a question involving a payment to be made by you on a voucher before you for payment, the voucher should be submitted with your request so that I may be advised as to the facts shown by said voucher. I take it that

the subvoucher inclosed is a part of an expense account of C. M. Rosin, M. D., the government physician at Tanana, Alaska, which is now before you for payment, otherwise I would have no jurisdiction to give you an authoritative answer to your question. (See sec. 8, act of July 31, 1894, 28 Stat., 208.) I also assume that said expense account is verified as required by paragraph 3 of Treasury Department Circular No. 52 of 1907.

Paragraph 3 of Treasury Department Circular No. 52, supra, requires expense accounts of civilian officers, employees, and agents of the Government to be verified by affidavit.

While it is the usual practice, and much to be preferred, to include the expense of the verification in the accounts to which it pertains, there is no reason to refuse reimbursement of such items because these items occur in another expense

account.

I have, therefore, to advise you that, if otherwise correct, upon the presentation of these items in an account, you are authorized to make payment of the same.

REIMBURSEMENT OF COST OF TRANSPORTATION OVER LANDGRANT RAILROAD.

Where a quarterman sailmaker of the Navy pays for transportation in excess of the land-grant rate reimbursement of such excess is unauthorized. In such cases the reimbursement of transportation charges should not exceed the amount which would have been paid had the services been requested and paid for by the Government.

Decision by Assistant Comptroller Mitchell, May 27, 1910.

Edward E. Kirby, a quarterman sailmaker, hull division, navy-yard, New York, appealed May 24, 1910, from a disallowance by the Auditor for the Navy Department in settlement No. 3092, dated May 17, 1910, of $4.72 of his claim for expenses incurred in traveling from Pensacola, Fla., to New York under orders of March 18, 1910. The sum disallowed was the cost of transportation in excess of the land-grant

rate.

The Auditor based his disallowance upon a decision of the Comptroller in the case of Wilson Reed, a naval employee, dated March 25, 1910.

In that decision it was said:

"I have frequently held that reimbursement of transportation charges should not exceed the amount which would have been paid had the services been requested and paid for by the Government. (See 12 Comp. Dec., 202; 13 id., 612; 46 Comp. MS. Dec., 1321, etc.) As said amount is all that can be charged to the Government I know of no authority for allowing any excess thereof as a reimbursement. As said excess is not an expense properly chargeable to the Government, no government appropriation can be used therefor. Neither is it the province of the Government to be a collecting agency for the benefit of individuals who pay unauthorized rates for services.

"Government employees traveling on public business should, as a rule, be furnished with transportation requests to be used for all travel on government business. If under any circumstances it becomes necessary for an employee to pay the cost of transportation, he should take a receipt setting forth the transportation furnished and amount paid therefor; the receipt can then be used by the traveler in presenting his claim against the transportation company for the refundment of the amount paid in excess of the authorized charges for the service

Following this decision the Auditor's settlement is approved and no difference found.

REIMBURSEMENT FOR LOSS OF ENLISTED MAN'S PRIVATE PROPERTY WHILE IN TRANSIT IN CUSTODY OF QUARTERMASTER'S DEPARTMENT OR REGIMENTAL AUTHORITIES.

Where private property of an enlisted man of the Army certified by the Secretary of War to have been necessary for him to have had in his possession in the line of duty is lost while in custody of Quartermaster's Department or regimental authorities, and said loss is without fault or negligence on part of claimant, such loss occurred as an incident to military service within the meaning of the act of March 3, 1885 (23 Stat., 350), and reimbursement is authorized thereunder.

Decision by Assistant Comptroller Mitchell, May 31, 1910.

The Secretary of War appealed May 20, 1910, from the action of the Auditor for the War Department in settlement