seized 3 packages at one place, 33 packages at another place, and 2 packages at still another place; that he constituted certain named persons, being the managers or proprietors of the places in which the goods were arrested, to serve as keepers without pay in connection with each of the six seizures; and that he furnished true and attested copies of the warrants, one each to the six designated keepers. It is alleged by the marshal whose accounts are under consideration that it was necessary for the fee deputy marshal executing the warrants to have 36 folios copied because of the fact that the notice of seizure had to be furnished, one to each of the two newspapers, and that true and attested copies of the warrants had to be furnished, one each to the six keepers.

The matters presented will be taken up in the order submitted:

(1) Rule 9 of the Rules of Practice for the Courts of the United States in Admiralty and Maritime Cases, in effect prior to March 7, 1921, is as follows:

In all cases of seizure, and in other suits and proceedings in rem, the process, unless otherwise provided for by statute, shall be by a warrant of arrest of the ship, goods, or other thing to be arrested; and the marshal shall thereupon arrest and take the ship, goods, or other thing into his possession for safe custody, and shall cause public notice thereof and of the time assigned for the return of such process and the hearing of the cause, to be given in such newspaper within the district as the district court shall order; and if there is no newspaper published therein, then in such other public places in the district as the court shall direct.

A fee deputy marshal is entitled to a fee of $2 for the serving of each "warrant and monition" under paragraph 13 of section 829 of the Revised Statutes; this much is not and need not be questioned. The question arises in this submission and under the circumstances thereof, as to how many distinct services there actually were as affecting the allowance of fees therefor. Rule 9 hereinbefore set out provides that there shall be a warrant of arrest of the goods, and it further provides that the marshal shall thereupon arrest and take the goods into his possession for safe custody. The goods, or the thing, in each of these cases was 12 and 39 unbroken packages, respectively. Manifestly it matters not, for instance, whether the constituent parts of the thing were located at one spot in an establishment, whether they were in different locations in the same establishment, or whether they were located in different establishments at widely separated points. By analogy: The process in an action in rem against a vessel is a warrant to attach the vessel; it covers not only the hull, but also rigging and sails, even if the latter have been taken ashore. See section 359, "Benedict's Admiralty, fourth edition," page 245. In this case there were but two distinct services for which the fee of $2 legally may be allowed under the statute, one fee of $2 under each writ.

(2) The settlement under which the Auditor for the State and Other Departments allowed the six fees referred to, three fees of $2

each for service on each warrant, is numbered 11131, and dated May 31, 1921. In this connection see the last paragraph of this decision. (3) It appears from an examination of the vouchers that the fee deputy claimed 12 fees of $2 each, six under each writ. As hereinbefore stated, the Auditor for the State and Other Departments allowed six of such fees, three under each writ; six fees, or three under each writ, remain suspended. The number of fees allowable is stated under subdivision (1) hereof.

(4) The copies of the writs furnished to the keepers appointed to hold in custody the parcels of merchandise were not furnished to or "at the request of any party" within the meaning of the statute. Rather they were furnished in conformity with the practice which obtains in admiralty cases, and independent of the request of anyone, a "party" or otherwise. See in this connection section 361, page 247, "Benedict's Admiralty, fourth edition."

(5) and (6) The fee deputy, as stated, did not charge specifically for "proclamation in admiralty"; however, he did charge 30 cents for each of the two copies of the writs furnished to the two newspapers, the marshal in whose accounts the items appear explaining that the charge covered six folios, three folios to each writ. Presumably this charge was made under paragraph 11 of section 829 of the Revised Statutes. No charge was made for the copies of writs or notices posted in the courthouse. Presumably the fee deputy was furnished with sufficient copies of the writs to accomplish these postings.

While not altogether free from doubt, I am constrained to authorize the allowance of fees for "proclamation in admiralty" covering the furnishing of copies of writs to newspapers under the circumstances of this case.

The auditing division will adjust and settle the accounts in accordance with the views herein expressed.

EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONAL SERVICES-BUREAU OF NATURAL

IZATION.

The employment of personal services by the Bureau of Naturalization, either in the District of Columbia or elsewhere, under the appropriation in the act of March 4, 1921, 41 Stat., 1425, providing for compensation, to be fixed by the Secretary of Labor, of examiners, interpreters, clerks, and stenographers, for the purpose of carrying on the work of the Bureau of Naturalization, is limited to the classes of persons specifically enumerated in the act, and there is no authority to use the appropriation to organize a division of citizenship training in the District of Columbia or to employ field agents to promote instruction and training in citizenship responsibili ties of applicants for naturalization.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of Labor, September 7, 1921:

I have your letter of August 25, 1921, requesting decision (1) whether the appropriation "Miscellaneous expenses, Bureau of

7920°-22-Vol. 1-10

Naturalization, 1922," is available for the employment of field agents to carry on work authorized by the ninth subdivision of section 4 of the act of June 29, 1906, as amended by the act of May 9, 1918, 40 Stat., 544, and (2) whether the item of $50,000 " for personal services in the District of Columbia" contained in the appropriation "Miscellaneous expenses, Bureau of Naturalization, 1922," is available for the employment of personal services in the District of Columbia "to carry on the work of the Division of Citizenship Training" in the Bureau of Naturalization.

The appropriation involved in these two questions is made in the sundry civil appropriation act of March 4, 1921, 41 Stat., 1425, and, in so far as material to the questions here presented, reads:

For compensation, to be fixed by the Secretary of Labor of examiners, interpreters, clerks, and stenographers, for the purpose of carrying on the work of the Bureau of Naturalization, provided for by the Act approved June 29, 1906, as amended by the Act approved March 4, 1913 (Statutes at Large, volume 37, page 736), and May 9, 1918 (Statutes at Large, volume 40, pages 542 to 548, inclusive), including not to exceed $50,000 for personal services in the District of Columbia, * $550,000.

The ninth subdivision of section 4 of the act of June 29, 1906, as amended by the act of May 9, 1918, authorizes the work of " promoting instruction and training in citizenship responsibilities of applicants for naturalization," the securing of the aid of and cooperation with official State and national organizations in connection with said work, and the employment of personal services in the District of Columbia incident thereto. For the purpose of carrying on this work for the fiscal year 1922 the act of March 4, 1921, supra, makes an appropriation available for the employment of examiners, interpreters, clerks, and stenographers and authorizes the use of not to exceed $50,000 of said appropriation for personal services in the District of Columbia.

The only classes of employees provided for under the appropriation in question are examiners, interpreters, clerks, and stenographers; and personal services of these classes may be employed either in the field or in the District of Columbia.

Neither the act of May 9, 1918, nor any other law specifically requires or authorizes the employment of field agents or the creation of a division of citizenship training in the Bureau of Naturalization. The authority to employ personal services in connection with said work must be held to depend upon the annual appropriation made therefor and to be limited by the terms of said appropriation. The appropriation enumerates specifically the classes of personal services which may be employed thereunder and contains no general clause relative to the employment of any other classes. It must be held, therefore, that the employment of persons either in the field or in the District of Columbia of classes other than those specifically enumerated in the appropriation is unauthorized.

If Congress had intended the creation and establishment of a division of citizenship training in the Bureau of Naturalization it may be presumed that provision therefor would have been made in the legislative, executive, and judicial appropriation act of March 3, 1921, 41 Stat., 1304, in which provision is made for the regular personnel of the Bureau of Naturalization.

RETIRED PAY-NAVAL RESERVE FORCE.

The act of July 1, 1918, 40 Stat., 710, having limited retirement from the Naval Reserve Force to those incurring disability in the line of duty, except in case of enlisted transferred members, retired pay or cash gratuity equal to the total amount of their retainer pay during the last term of their enrollment is no longer payable to enrolled members voluntarily retiring after 20 years' service, as authorized by the act of August 29, 1916. 39 Stat., 588.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of the Navy, September 9, 1921: By your direction, I have the letter of the Judge Advocate General, Navy Department, requesting decision whether Commander Edward E. Spafford, United States Naval Reserve Force-1 Ret., is entitled to a cash gratuity equal to the total amount of the retainer pay received by him during his last term of enrollment in the Naval Reserve Force upon his retirement on June 6, 1921.

It is stated that Commander Spafford resigned his commission as lieutenant commander in the Navy on December 10, 1914; enrolled in the Naval Reserve Force June 9, 1917, and was appointed a lieutenant commander in the Fleet Naval Reserve, and later a commander therein; that he was retired June 6, 1921, after 20 years' service under the provisions of the acts of August 29, 1916, and July 1, 1918. The act of August 29, 1916, 39 Stat., 588, provides:

That enrolled members who shall have completed twenty years of service in the Naval Reserve Force, and who shall have performed the minimum amount of active service required in their class for maintaining efficiency during each term of enrollment, shall, upon their own application, be retired with the rank or rating held by them at the time, and shall receive in lieu of any pay, a cash gratuity equal to the total amount of their retainer pay during the last term of their enrollment.

The same act also contained provision for the voluntary retirement of transferred members of the Fleet Naval Reserve after 30 years' service, including prior naval service.

The act of July 1, 1918, 40 Stat., 710, provides that

Service in the Navy, Marine Corps, National Naval Volunteers, and Naval Militia shall be counted as continuous service in the Naval Reserve Force, both for the purpose of retirement and of computing retainer pay: Provided, That no member of the Naval Reserve Force shall be eligible for retirement other than for physical disability incurred in line of duty:

Also in a preceding paragraph on the same page of that statute is the following:

Provided, That nothing herein shall operate to reduce the retainer pay allowed by existing law to enlisted men who, after sixteen years' or more naval

service, are transferred to the Fleet Naval Reserve, nor to deny to such enlisted men their privilege of retirement upon completing thirty years' naval service as now provided by law.

The act of June 4, 1920, 41 Stat., 834, provides:

That all officers of the Naval Reserve Force and temporary officers of the Navy who have heretofore incurred or may hereafter incur physical disability in line of duty shall be eligible for retirement under the same conditions as now provided by law for officers of the Regular Navy who have incurred physical disability in line of duty.

There is also a provision further modifying the retirement privilege of officers of the Naval Reserve Force in the act of July 12, 1921, 42 Stat., 140, but since the retirement in question was effected on June 6, 1921, that provision need not herein be considered.

Although the act of August 29, 1916, provides a cash gratuity "in lieu of any pay," the privilege granted was retirement "with the rank or rating held by them at the time," and the act of July 1, 1918, conditions the eligibility for retirement of all members, except transferred members of the Fleet Naval Reserve, to physical disability incurred in line of duty. Therefore it is evident from the language therein used that it was the legislative intent in the act of July 1, 1918, to modify the retirement privileges granted to members of the Naval Reserve Force in the act of August 29, 1916, and to restrict the privilege of retirement therein, except in case of enlisted transferred members, to retirement for physical disability incurred in line of duty. The Comptroller of the Treasury so held in letter of February 24, 1921, referred to in your submission and in decision of the Comptroller General of August 20, 1921, 1 Comp. Gen., 83, it is stated that the only authority of law for retiring officers of the Naval Reserve Force is that contained in the acts of June 4, 1920, and July 12, 1921, and that otherwise there is no pay provided for retired officers of that branch of the naval service.

Accordingly, you are advised that since the provision in the act of August 29, 1916, for voluntary retirement of enrolled members of the Naval Reserve Force after having completed twenty years' service therein was modified by the act of July 1, 1918, Commander Spafford is not entitled to any cash gratuity or retired pay by reason of his apparent voluntary retirement on June 6, 1921, from the Naval Reserve Force under the provisions of the acts of August 29, 1916, and July 1, 1918.

RETIRED PAY-ENLISTED MEN OF THE NAVY.

Enlisted men of the Navy retired before expiration of enlistment prior to July 1, 1920, with the war increase of pay authorized by the acts of May 22, 1917, 40 Stat., 87, and July 11, 1919, 41 Stat., 140, retain the right to include such war increase in computing their retired pay only until the expiration of the enlistment in which they were serving when retired or released from active duty under the act of July 1, 1918, 40 Stat., 719.