It appears, however, that the envelopes in this case were purchased from the appropriation "Contingencies, headquarters of military departments," which provides:

"For contingent expenses at the headquarters of the several military divisions and departments, including the staff corps serving thereat, being for the purchase of the necessary articles of office, toilet, and desk furniture, binding, maps, technical books of reference, professional and technical newspapers and periodicals, and police utensils, to be allotted by the Secretary of War, and to be expended in the discretion of the several military division and department commanders, seven thousand five hundred dollars." (Act of Mar. 3, 1911, 36 Stat., 1037.)

In cases identical with this it has been held that the above appropriation authorizes the purchase of envelopes in any manner approved by the department commander, notwithstanding the laws hereinbefore quoted. (18 Comp. Dec., 998; 62 MS. Comp. Dec., 1141, Sept. 12, 1912.)

The department commander has approved the payments now under consideration, and, in view of the fact that such payments have heretofore been sanctioned by this office, these items will now be allowed upon revision. But I can not concur in the construction placed by my predecessor upon the language of the appropriation "Contingencies, headquarters of military departments," supra.

Congress has enumerated in said appropriation the classes of articles for which it is available. And I think the discretion therein conferred upon the division or department commanders is as to when said articles are needed and as to the quality, quantities, etc., to be purchased. I do not think said discretion can properly be regarded as authorizing a purchase otherwise prohibited by law.

The headquarters of a military department is clearly a branch of the service coming under the jurisdiction of an executive department or Government establishment within the meaning of the abovequoted provisions of the act of June 26, 1906, and unless there is something in the language of the appropriation, supra, to exempt this service from the operation of said provisions, they must be held to apply and to prohibit the purchase of envelopes for said service (except in case of exigencies) in any other manner than under contracts made by the Postmaster General. I see nothing in the language of said appropriation to indicate that Congress intended such an exemption.

As hereinbefore stated, credit will be allowed for payments heretofore made from this appropriation in accordance with the practice heretofore sanctioned by this office, but hereafter the provisions of the act of June 26, 1906, supra, relative to the purchase of envelopes will be held to apply to all envelopes hereafter required for use at headquarters of military departments.

ADDITIONAL PAY TO ENLISTED MEN IN THE NAVY DETAINED IN THE SERVICE AFTER EXPIRATION OF ENLISTMENT PERIOD.

An enlisted man in the Navy detained in the service for five days after expiration of enlistment period, while on board an Army transport en route from Cavite, P. I., to San Francisco, Cal., for discharge, is not entitled to onequarter additional pay provided by section 1422, Revised Statutes, as amended by act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 484).

Assistant Comptroller Warwick to Paymaster James F. Kutz, United States Navy, July 22, 1913:

I have received through the Secretary of the Navy your letter of June 13, 1913, requesting a decision, as follows:

"1. I respectfully request your decision as to whether or not George Edwin Purtell, chief gunner's mate, United States Navy, is entitled to be paid one-fourth additional pay for the period intervening between expiration of enlistment and discharge, June 8, 1913, to June 12, 1913, both inclusive, on account of being detained in the service, for the period in question as essential for the public interests' under section 1422 of the Revised Statutes.

"2. Purtell enlisted at Boston, Mass., June 9, 1909, to serve four years. On expiration of enlistment he was on board the United States transport (Army) Logan, en route from the U. S. S. A 4, at Cavite, P. I., to the receiving ship at Mare Island, Cal., for discharge. "3. The order from the commanding officer was to pay off and discharge from the books of the receiving ship George E. Purtell, chief gunner's mate, United States Navy.

**

*

**

"5. It is not clear which commanding officer should furnish the pay officer with the certificate that Purtell was detained by such commanding officer under the provisions of section 1422, Revised Statutes, as amended Should this certificate be furnished. by the commanding officer of the U. S. S. A 4, the vessel to which Purtell belonged while on the Asiatic station, or by the commanding officer of the receiving ship at Mare Island, the vessel on which Purtell was serving at the time of discharge, June 12, 1913?"

Section 1422, Revised Statutes, as amended by the act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 484), provides:

"That it shall be the duty of the commanding officer of any fleet, squadron, or vessel acting singly, when on service, to send to an Atlantic or to a Pacific port of the United States, as their enlistment may have occurred on either the Atlantic or Pacific coast of the United States, in some public or other vessel, all petty officers and persons of inferior ratings desiring to go there at the expiration of their terms of enlistment, or as soon thereafter as may be, unless, in his opinion, the detention of such persons for a longer period should be essential to the public interests, in which case he may detain them or any of them until the vessel to which they belong shall return to such Atlantic or Pacific port, * * * and that all persons sent home or detained by a commanding officer, according to the provisions of this act, shall be subject in all respects to the laws and regulations for the government of the Navy until their return to an Atlantic or Pacific port and their regular discharge; and all persons so detained by such officer, or reentering to serve until the re

turn to an Atlantic or Pacific port of the vessel to which they belong, shall in no case be held in service more than thirty days after their arrival in said port; and that all persons who shall be so detained beyond their terms of enlistment, or who shall, after the termination of their enlistment, voluntarily reenter to serve until the return to an Atlantic or Pacific port of the vessel to which they belong and their regular discharge therefrom, shall receive for the time during which they are so detained, or shall so serve beyond their original terms of enlistment, an addition of one-fourth of their former pay.

I do not think that Chief Gunner's Mate Purtell is entitled under this statute to one-fourth additional pay for the five days spent on board the Army transport between the termination of his enlistment and his discharge. The statute makes it the duty of the commanding officer of a vessel on which an enlisted man is serving to send him to the United States, provided he desires to go, in some public or other vessel "at the expiration of his (their) enlistment or as soon thereafter as may be, unless, in his opinion, the detention of such person for a longer period should be essential to the public interests." Here are two alternatives provided: First, to return the man to the United States at the expiration of his enlistment or as soon thereafter as may be, and, second, when his services are essential to the public interests to detain him in the service. The commanding officer in this case acted upon the first alternative and sent Purtell to the United States by an Army transport and before the expiration of his enlistment. The second alternative of detaining him in the service was evidently not deemed essential to the public interests.

During the five days for which the one-fourth additional pay is claimed Purtell was not performing the duties of his rating, but was traveling home for discharge as a passenger on an Army transport.

I am of opinion that it is not within the meaning of section 1422, supra, to provide additional pay to an enlisted man in such a status. I therefore advise you, from the facts stated, that Purtell is not entitled to the additional pay.

In reply to your question as to what commanding officer should make the certificate in cases of detention, I have to advise you that the commanding officer by whose orders the detention is made is the proper officer to certify to the detention.

PAY OF EMPLOYEE WHO RETURNS TO DUTY PRIOR TO EXPIRATION OF LEAVE WITHOUT PAY.

An employee who is granted leave without pay for a certain period and who returns to duty prior to expiration of said leave is not entitled to pay for any period prior to the date he actually reports for duty.

Assistant Comptroller Warwick to George W. Evans, July 23, 1912:

I am in receipt of your letter of July 21, 1913, inclosing a voucher in favor of Harry H. Kalupy, a clerk in the Indian Office, Washing

ton, D. C., for services rendered from July 13, 1913, to July 15, 1913, inclusive, three days, at $1,000 per annum, or $8.33. You request my decision whether or not you are authorized to pay said voucher.

Accompanying the voucher is a written statement by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in which he says that this clerk was granted leave of absence, without pay, from July 7 to July 15, 1913, inclusive, but that he returned to duty on Monday, July 14, 1913. He also says that he should be paid from and including Sunday, July 13, 1913.

This employee's absence for a part of the period granted must be treated as leave that expired on the day preceding the day he returned to duty, and not as leave previously fixed to expire on a certain day. Therefore all days are counted in the leave from the time he went away until he reported for duty.

Where permission has been previously granted to a clerk to be absent for a specific period of time, no Sunday or holiday immediately following the last day of such leave is ordinarily charged to leave. This is upon the assumption that if the public office had not been closed on said day the clerk would have reported for duty; but in this case no such presumption arises, for he was to be absent both Sunday and Monday. The evidence shows that he reported for duty Monday, the 14th. Therefore, he is entitled to pay from that date. (See decision of this office, dated June 28, 1913, 65 MS. Dec., 1723.)

REIMBURSEMENT OF SPECIAL COMMISSIONER IN THE CUSTOMS SERVICE ON DUTY IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY FOR EXPENDITURES MADE FROM PERSONAL FUNDS FOR STATIONERY.

A special commissioner of the customs service purchased stationery supplies for use in his office from personal funds: Held, That he is entitled to reimbursement for amount so expended where an exigency existed, and that section 3683 of the Revised Statutes does not apply to the appropriation "Collecting the revenue from customs" from which reimbursement is made.

The amounts deducted from appropriation "Collecting the revenue from customs" and added to the appropriation 'Contingent expenses, Treasury Department, stationery, 1913," has not lost its identity and character as an appropriation for general expenses of the customs service, and section 3683 of the Revised Statutes does, not apply to same.

Comptroller Downey to S. R. Jacobs, July 24, 1913:

I have received your letter of the 22d instant, requesting a decision, as follows:

"There is transmitted herewith a voucher of L. M. Howland, special commissioner, Paris, France, covering his salary and expenses for the month of June, 1913, which has been approved for $546.15, payable out of the appropriation Detection and prevention of frauds upon the customs revenue, 1913,' and transmitted to me for payment.

"Included in said voucher are the following items:

“June 14. Bill of Oliver Typewriter Co. for Hotchkiss fasteners_

Francs.

4.00 112.90 70.50

"The appropriation Contingent expenses, Treasury Department, stationery, 1913,' reads in part as follows:

"For stationery for the Treasury Department and its several bureaus and offices, $50,000; and, in addition thereto, sums amounting to $86,150 shall be deducted from other appropriations made for the fiscal year 1913, as follows:

"Collecting the revenue from customs, $37,300 *** and said sums so deducted shall be credited to and constitute, together with the first-named sum of $50,000, the total appropriation for stationery for the Treasury Department and its several bureaus and offices for the fiscal year 1913.'

"The appropriation on 'Detection and prevention of frauds upon the customs revenue' is really a subhead of the appropriation Collecting the revenue from customs,' as the law provides an indefinite appropriation not to exceed $200,000 for detection and prevention of frauds upon the customs revenue, to be paid from the appropriation for collecting the revenue from customs. It would appear, therefore, that the charges for stationery in Special Commissioner Howland's account should be paid from the appropriation Contingent expenses, Treasury Department, stationery, 1913.' The acting supervising agent insists that, in view of the fact that Mr. Howland is stationed in a foreign country, the charges be allowed to stand as charges against the appropriation Detection and prevention of frauds upon the customs revenue, 1913.'

6

"The voucher is therefore submitted for your decision as to whether I am authorized to pay the charges for stationery out of the appropriation Detection and prevention of frauds upon the customs revenue, 1913.'

"Attention is invited to the fact that the bill of Th. Ballu, 112.90 francs, for stationery, contains charges aggregating 13 francs for cards and plates. In a memorandum accompanying the voucher Mr. Howland states:

"These charges are for my cards as special commissioner, of which I submit a sample. They are only used by me in the performance of my official duties, and I hope that this expenditure will be approved by the department.'

"Your decision is requested as to whether the charge for cards can be paid from either the appropriation Detection and prevention of frauds upon the customs revenue, 1913,' or the appropriation 'Contingent expenses, Treasury Department, stationery, 1913.''

The stationery appropriation quoted in your letter consists, first, of the $50,000 appropriated for the Treasury Department and its several bureaus and offices, and second, of various sums deducted from lump-sum appropriations for different branches of the service under said department, including the appropriation "Collecting the revenue from customs." The sum total of these amounts constitutes the