The articles shipped appear to be clearly analogous to the articles for which the fourth-class rate is applied, and there appears to be no reason why the Government should pay any higher rate therefor. PAY AND ALLOWANCES OF NAVAL OFFICERS DETERMINED BY ACTUAL DUTY PERFORMED. The actual duty performed by officers of the Navy under their orders and not the class of duty specified in their orders determine the rate of pay and allowances which they are entitled to receive. Where quarters are available on a vessel for use of the pay officer, payment of commutation of quarters to him is not authorized. An officer performing duty in connection with vessels, but who does not mess on board the vessel and is not quartered on board the vessel, is not entitled to 10 per cent additional pay authorized for sea duty. Decision by Comptroller Downey, March 19, 1914: Paymaster D. G. McRitchie, United States Navy, applied February 21, 1914, for a revision of the action of the Auditor for the Navy Department in disallowing by settlement No. 5160-D, dated August 21, 1913, the following items: "No. 2, F. H. Baasen, pay clerk. Received sea pay December 6-31, 1912, at $2,250 per annum, $156.25, plus rations for 26 days, $7.80, $164.05. Entitled to only shore pay at $2,000 per annum. Difference disallowed August 21, 1913, $25.16. "Duty with pay officer of the reserve torpedo group, who is in a shore status, determines duty of clerk as on shore unless orders state otherwise. 66 THIRD QUARTER, 1913. "No. 2, F. H. Baasen, pay clerk. Difference between sea pay at $2,250 and shore pay at $2,000 per annum for three months, January 1 to March 31, 1913, plus $27 credited as commuted rations for this period, disallowed August 21, 1913, same as in 2/13 account, $89.50." Under date of November 26, 1912, the following order was issued by the Secretary of the Navy to Paymaster D. G. McRitchie: "At such time as will enable you to arrive at Charleston, S. C.. on December 2, 1912, you will regard yourself detached from duty as assistant to the general storekeeper, navy yard, Norfolk, Va., and from such other duty as may have been assigned you; will proceed to Charleston, S. C., and report to the commandant of the navy yard at that place for duty at the station under his command as pay officer in charge of the accounts of the reserve torpedo group, and for additional duty in charge of the accounts of the U. S. S. Hartford. "This employment on shore duty is required by the public interests." Paymaster McRitchie nominated Frank H. Baasen for the position of paymaster's clerk for duty with him as paymaster of the reserve torpedo group, and on November 27, 1912, the following orders were issued to Mr. Baasen: Having been nominated by Paymaster David G. McRitchie, United States Navy, for appointment as a paymaster's clerk in the United States Navy for duty as clerk to the pay officer of the reserve torpedo group, Charleston, S. C., you are authorized to report to the commandant, navy yard, Charleston, S. C., for the physical examination required by article 1619, C. N. R., No. 17, U. S. Navy Regulations, 1909. "If found qualified the examining officer will indorse such fact upon this order, and your appointment as paymaster's clerk in the United States Navy will take effect from the date of the execution of your oath of office, and you will report to the commanding officer, United States reserve torpedo group, Charleston, S. C., for this duty. "Immediately upon the completion of the examination, forward to the Bureau of Navigation a true copy of this order, with all indorsements thereon, together with your acceptance and oath of office." Pay Clerk Baasen reported to the commanding officer of the reserve torpedo group for this duty on December 6, 1912, and was assigned to quarters on board the U. S. S. Olympia, which vessel was being used as a tender for the torpedo group. Paymaster McRitchie also nominated Walter E. Morton for the position of paymaster's clerk for duty with him on the U. S. S. Hartford and on November 27, 1912, the following orders were issued to Mr. Morton: "Having been nominated by Paymaster David G. McRitchie, United States Navy, for appointment as a paymaster's clerk in the United States Navy for duty as clerk to the pay officer on board the U. S. S. Hartford, you are authorized to report to the commandant, navy yard, Charleston, S. C., for the physical examination required by article 1619, C. N. R., No. 17, United States Regulations, 1909. "If found qualified the examining officer will endorse such fact upon this order, and your appointment as a paymaster's clerk in the United States Navy will take effect from the date of the execution of your oath of office, and you will report to the commandant, navy yard, Charleston, S. C., for this duty. "Immediately upon the completion of the examination, forward to the Bureau of Navigation a true copy of this order, with all endorsements thereon, together with your acceptance and oath of office." Pay Clerk Morton reported to the commandant of the navy yard, Charleston, S. C., December 16, 1912, for this duty and was ordered by him to report to the commanding officer of the U. S. S. Hartford, which he did on the same date. He was assigned quarters on board that vessel. Under the above orders Paymaster McRitchie has been allowed shore pay and commutation of quarters; Pay Clerk Morton has been allowed sea pay; Pay Clerk Baasen was credited by the pay officer with sea pay and commutation of rations, but the auditor in his settlement of the accounts allowed credit for shore pay and disallowed the difference between sea pay at $2,250 and shore pay at $2,000 per annum, and also disallowed amount credited for commuted rations. The account of Pay Clerk Baasen is the one which the pay officer requests this office to revise. Pay Clerk Baasen's orders directed him to report to the commanding officer of the reserve torpedo group for duty, and shore duty is not mentioned in the orders. The reserve torpedo group, during the period in question, consisted of 8 torpedo boats, 2 destroyers, 2 submarines, and the U. S. S. Olympia as tender. The U. S. S. Olympia is a vessel of the second class with an authorized complement of more than 175 men, but during the period from December 6, 1912, to March 31, 1913, there were only 96 men on board that vessel. The complement of the other vessels in the reserve torpedo group numbered over 300 men. In accordance with the decision of this office (14 Comp. Dec., 576), the pay officer was entitled to a clerk for service on the Olympia and reserve torpedo group. (See also 44 MS. Comp. Dec., 1452, Mar. 9, 1908.) Pay Clerk Baasen was quartered and messed on board the Olympia and all his duty was with the accounts of the men on board that vessel and the vessels of the reserve torpedo group. From the above facts it appears that all the requirements for sea duty were present in his case, and he is entitled to the pay and allowances provided for a paymaster's clerk on sea duty. (19 Comp. Dec., 136; 67 MS. Comp. Dec., 1019, Nov. 24, 1913.) The action of the auditor is reversed and certificate of difference for $114.66 will issue. In settlement No. 5160-D, the auditor allowed Paymaster McRitchie, under the orders above quoted, shore pay at the rate of $2,880 per annum and commutation of quarters at the rate of $48 per month. While the orders of the Secretary of the Navy in this case state that the duty assigned was to be shore duty, the facts of the case would clearly indicate that no shore duty was contemplated, and it is evident that none was performed. He performed no duty in connection with the navy yard proper, there already being two pay officers and three pay clerks on duty there. All the duty assigned him was in connection with the accounts of naval vessels which were in port at the Charleston Navy Yard. In the Navy Register of January 1, 1913, the name of Paymaster D. G. McRitchie is carried as pay officer of the U. S. S. Hartford and the reserve torpedo group, Charleston. It is understood that there were quarters available on the U. S. S. Hartford for use by the pay officer during the period in question. Paymaster McRitchie was the only officer attached to these vessels who was not receiving pay and allowances for sea duty. In a decision of this office, dated August 29, 1912 (19 Comp. Dec., 136), it was held that a pay officer who was not quartered and did not mess on board a vessel was not entitled to receive the 10 per cent additional pay authorized for sea service. In the same case it was held that when quarters were available on a receiving ship for the use of the pay officer, but he lived and messed on shore, that he was not entitled to be paid commutation of quarters. Paymaster McRitchie's service as pay officer of the reserve torpedo group and of the U. S. S. Hartford appears to have had all the requisites of service at sea except that he was not quartered and did not mess on board a vessel; hence he was not "subjected to such restrictions, regulations and requirements as are incident to service at sea." (62 MS. Comp. Dec., 21, July 3, 1912; 67 id., 1151, Dec. 4, 1913.) Not having been quartered and not having messed on board a vessel he was not entitled to 10 per cent additional pay authorized for service at sea. (19 Comp. Dec., 136.) As quarters were available for his use on board the U. S. S. Hartford, he was not entitled to commutation of quarters. (19 Comp. Dec., 136; 67 MS. Comp. Dec., 1019, Nov. 24, 1913.) From the above it will be seen that Paymaster McRitchie's correct rate of pay was his grade pay with increase for length of service, or what is known as "shore-duty pay," and he was not entitled to commutation of quarters. The sum of $144 credited his account as commutation of quarters from January 1 to March 31, 1913, and allowed by the auditor in his settlement, is now disallowed. FEES OF UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS IN EXTRADITION CASES. Section 2 of the act of August 3, 1882 (22 Stat., 215), providing specially for fees of commissioners in extradition cases has been superseded by the commissioner's fee bill found in section 21 of the act of May 28, 1896 (29 Stat., 184), and a commissioner, for his services in extradition cases, is entitled to fees allowed by the latter act for like services in ordinary criminal cases. Decision by Comptroller Downey, March 20, 1914: William A. Hayes, 2d, United States commissioner, Boston, Mass., applied February 9, 1914, for a revision of the action of the Auditor for the State and Other Departments in disallowing, by settlement No. 25,105, dated January 27, 1914, for September and December quarters, 1913, the following items: Item No. 1. Disallowed (see par. 1593, Instructions). These were not $3.25 8.50 5. 25 Item No. 3. Disallowed. See Comp. MS. Dec., in re Humphries, Dec. 15, 1897 (copy can be obtained from the Comptroller on application), in which he held this fee not allowable; also his more recent dec. in re Lowell, June 13, 1913, in which he holds that a fee of 75c. is allowable under a proper construction of the fee bill of May 28, 1896-Cases No. 16, 21, 23 26, 30, 38, 39, 43, 50 and 51, and 55. Item No. 1. Warrant and copy to bring def't into court. No fee provided in fee bill, act May 28, 1896. See also sec. 1030, Revised Statutes, disallowed__ 12.00 Case vs. Louis Martin No. 16. Item No. 2. Copy of complaint; copy of warrant and copy of warrant of commitment with ctfs. & seals and U. S. Comr's ctf. No fee provided for these services. Disallowed____ 3.35 Cases No. 21, 39, & 42. Item No. 3. Transcript. See 20 Comp. Dec., 24. Copy can be obtained by applying to the Comp. of the Treas., Washington, D. C. 3@ 60c., disallowed__ Cases Nos. 35 and 36. Item No. 4. Charge in excess of 75c. (see MS. Dec. of Comp. in re Lowell, June 13, 1913) for search warrants. 2@ 25c., disallowed. 1.80 .50 The items will be considered in the order stated above. 17.65 SEPTEMBER QUARTER, 1913. [Item 1, page 8. Extradition of Richard D. Isaacs to Canada.] Charges for copy of complaint with certificate and seal_ $1.05 .65 .75 .80 3.25 The commissioner has charged these fees under section 2 of the act of August 3, 1882 (22 Stat., 215), providing specially for fees of commissioners in extradition cases. This provision has been superseded by the commissioners fee bill found in section 21 of the act of May 28, 1896 (29 Stat., 184). (Howe v. United States, 42 Ct. Cl., 35; 43 id., 175; 14 Comp. Dec., 693.) For his services in this extradition case the commissioner is entitled to the fees allowed by the act of 1896 for like services in the ordinary criminal case. |