The wording of the law in this case indicates that it is permanent legislation intended to apply to enlistments entered into after November 11, 1918, as well as to those entered into prior to that date, although the purpose of the law apparently was to put those men who extended war enlistments on an equality with those who were discharged from their war enlistments and who immediately reentered the service. It has been held that travel allowance can be paid for one extension only, but it does not appear that the Comptroller has decided the point raised herein.

In section 6, supra, provision is made for two classes of enlisted or enrolled men of the naval service, namely:

1. Any such man discharged after November 11, 1918, from any branch of the naval service for the purpose of reenlisting in the Navy or Marine Corps.

2. Any such man who, either prior to or after June 4, 1920, extends his enlistment in the Navy or Marine Corps.

Under the terms of said section 6 any such man of either class 1 or 2 is "entitled to travel pay as authorized in section 3" of the act of February 28, 1919, which is 5 cents per mile to one of the two places therein described, at his option.

An extension of an enlistment becomes effective at the time of the expiration of such enlistment, and by said section 6 the man who extends his enlistment is, when the extension becomes effective, placed on the same footing as to travel pay as the man discharged from any branch of the naval service for the purpose of reenlisting in the Navy or Marine Corps.

In other words, in so far as travel pay is concerned, the extension of an enlistment at expiration of term of such enlistment is equivalent to a discharge and reenlistment.

The specific question submitted is answered in the affirmative.

COMPENSATION-FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OFFICIALS.

The payment of the salary of a Federal reserve bank official, in charge of the Government fiscal agency department, for any time after his death is a gratuity and can not be considered a necessary expense payable from the appropriation for expenses of loans, act of September 24, 1917, 40 Stat., 292.

Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, August 20, 1921:

The Secretary of the Treasury applied August 6, 1921, for review of settlement No. 12227, dated July 27, 1921, of the General Accounting Office, Treasury Department Division, whereby the amount of $1,733.73, was disallowed in voucher No. 22, account of J. L. Summers, disbursing clerk, Treasury Department, which amount covered reimbursement made by the said disbursing officer from the appropriation for "Expenses of loans, act of September 24, 1917, as amended," to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York of payments made by it to the widow of Channing Rudd, controller of the Gov

ernment loan organization of the bank, of the equivalent of his salary from November 9 to December 31, 1920, he having died suddenly on November 8, 1920.

As to the payment and subsequent reimbursement the Secretary

states:

The payment was made pursuant to a vote of the board of directors of the bank, continuing Mr. Rudd's salary to the end of the calendar year. This action is stated to have been in accordance with the policy of the bank, applicable to cases of its employees engaged in purely bank work.

The department, in line with its established policy to accord to the employees of the fiscal agency departments of Federal reserve banks, the same treatment accorded by the banks to their other employees, gave the item administrative approval after mature consideration, and it still feels that no modification of the approval should be made.

The appropriation for "Expenses of loans, act of September 24, 1917, as amended," 40 Stat., 292, provides:

SEC. 10. That in order to pay all necessary expenses, including rent, connected with any operations under this Act, except under section twelve, a sum not exceeding one-fifth of one per centum of the amount of bonds and warsaving certificates and one-tenth of one per centum of the amount of certificates of indebtedness herein authorized is hereby appropriated, or as much thereof as may be necessary, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be expended as the Secretary of the Treasury may direct: Provided. That in addition to the reports now required by law, the Secretary of the Treasury shall, on the first Monday in December, nineteen hundred and eighteen, and annually thereafter, transmit to the Congress a detailed statement of all expenditures under this Act.

The authority of the Federal reserve banks to act as fiscal agents of the Government and to be reimbursed for their expenses in connection therewith is in section 15 of the Federal reserve act approved December 23, 1913, 38 Stat., 265. Decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury dated November 12, 1919.

The appropriation against which this item is sought to be charged is in broad terms, as is indicated by that part thereof providing for it "to be expended as the Secretary of the Treasury may direct.” Undoubtedly the reason therefor was because of the necessity, considering the importance of the subject matter, for obtaining prompt and effective results unfettered by matters as affecting the ordinary routine of Government business of less relative importance. But, however broad the powers lodged in the Secretary by virtue of this act may be, the exercise thereof, as affecting payments to be made, must be subject to other provisions of the act and existing law. The act provides an appropriation "in order to pay all necessary expenses." An expense to be necessary must be authorized. The payment to the widow of this deceased bank employee was clearly a gratuity and apparently as such it was approved by the Secretary. Payments of gratuities as such are not authorized except in pursuance of express statutory enactment; therefore, the payment of the gratuity in this case, not being so authorized, must be held not to be a necessary expense of loans within the meaning of the act.

RETIRED PAY-NAVAL RESERVE FORCE OFFICERS.

An officer of the Naval Reserve Force who is retired after July 12. 1921, for disability incurred in time of war, is entitled by virtue of the act of that date, 42 Stat., 140, and sections 1453 and 1588, Revised Statutes, to retired pay amounting to 75 per cent of the shore-duty pay of the rank held when retired exclusive of any addition to his pay provided by the act of May 18, 1920, 41 Stat., 604.

Comptroller General McCarl to Lieut. L. S. Steeves, United States Navy, August 20, 1921:

I have your letter of August 9, 1921, requesting to be informed what is the rate of pay to which Lieut. Raymond J. Mercey, United States Naval Reserve Force, is entitled since being transferred to the retired list under orders dated July 23, 1921.

A naval retiring board found Lieut. Mercey incapacitated for naval service and that his incapacity was the result of an incident of the service. The President of the United States approved the board's finding on July 14, 1921, and directed that Mercey be retired from active service and placed on the retired list in conformity with the provisions of section 1453 of the Revised Statutes and the act of June 4, 1920.

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.

This was modified by the act of July 12, 1921, 42 Stat., 140, which 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 in time of war 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.

Section 1453 of the Revised Statutes provides:

When a retiring-board finds that an officer is incapacitated for active service and that his incapacity is the result of an incident of the service, such officer shall, if said decision is approved by the President be retired from active service with retired pay, as allowed by Chapter Eight of this Title.

Chapter 8 referred to relates to the pay, emoluments, and allowances pertaining to the personnel of the Navy, and section 1588 therein provides:

*

on ac

The pay of all officers of the Navy who have been retired count of incapacity resulting from long and faithful service, from wounds or injuries received in the line of duty, or from sickness or exposure therein, shall when not on active duty, be equal to seventy-five per centum of the sea pay provided by this chapter for the grade or rank which they held, respectively, at the time of their retirement.

This provision is further modified by the act of May 30, 1908, 35 Stat., 501, which provides that—

In computing the pay of retired officers of the Navy, the ten per cent addi tional pay allowed for sea duty or for shore duty beyond the continental limits of the United States shall not be included.

Also, the act of May 18, 1920, 41 Stat., 604, provides:

That the increases provided in this Act shall not enter into the computation of the retired pay of officers or enlisted men who may be retired prior to July 1, 1922.

The only authority of law for retiring officers of the Naval Reserve Force is that quoted above from the acts of June 4, 1920, and July 12, 1921, and otherwise there is no pay provided for retired officers of that force. It is reasonable to presume that Congress would not have provided a retired status for these officers without authorizing pay therefor. Therefore I am of opinion that the “same conditions" includes pay as provided in sections 1453 and 1588 of the Revised Statutes for officers of the Regular Navy so retired for physical disability.

Accordingly, you are advised that Lieut. Mercey, having been retired after July 12, 1921, if his disability was incurred "in time of war," is entitled to 75 per cent of the shore-duty pay of the rank he held when retired as provided in the act of May 13, 1908, 35 Stat., 128, such being the pay of his rank when retired exclusive of additional pay provided in the act of May 18, 1920.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE-ARSENAL EMPLOYEES.

A person who is paid a salary of $10,000 as superintendent of construction for a contractor on arsenal work, which contractor by the terms of his contract is an agent of the United States, occupies the status of an official of the Government and can not be considered an employee within the meaning of the acts of August 29, 1916, 39 Stat., 617, and July 9, 1918, 40 Stat., 870, which permit payment to arsenal employees for leave of absence accrued but not taken.

Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, August 20, 1921:

A. G. Moulton applied May 20, 1921, for revision of the action of the Auditor for the War Department in disallowing per settlement (claim No. 719471), dated May 24, 1920, his claim for $1,134.25 pay for leave earned but not granted or taken while serving as superintendent of construction at Nitro, W. Va., during the period from January 1, 1918, to March 3, 1919.

It appears that the claimant was employed by the ThompsonStarrett Co., acting as construction manager and agent of the United States in the construction of Government Explosives Plant "C," at a salary of $833.33 a month.

It has been held that employees of a contractor, who by the terms of his contract is an agent of the Government, are employees

of the United States and entitled to the benefits of the arsenal leave act of August 29, 1916, 39 Stat., 617. See 25 Comp. Dec., 827.

It has also been held that employees entitled to the benefits of the act of August 29, 1916, may be paid for leave of absence accrued but not taken. See 27 Comp. Dec., 156.

It appears that claimant's service was continuous during the period covered by the claim and that no leave with pay was taken by him. Under the decisions cited claimant is entitled to pay for 37 days at the rate of $833.33 per month, if he is an employee within the meaning of the act of August 29, 1916.

The various acts granting leave to Government employees are for the benefit of those who are subject to rules and regulations regarding the actual rendering of service during fixed periods on every working day. A person who is paid a salary of $10,000 a year as superintendent of construction is not one who would be ordinarily classed as an employee and be subject to the regulations which usually apply to those in the subordinate status of employee, and particularly in respect to accountability for time in rendering service as to which leave with pay has its relation. His status is that of an official rather than that of an employee, and I am constrained to hold that the claimant in this case was not an employee within the meaning of the act of August 29, 1916, and therefore not entitled to payment under the act of July 9, 1918, 40 Stat., 870.

Upon a review of the matter no differences are found and the settlement is sustained.

$60 BONUS-CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTORS.

A person inducted into the military service under the selective-service law who is assigned to noncombatant service as a conscientious objector and who is honorably discharged is entitled to the $60 bonus, or war-service payment, authorized by the act of February 24, 1919, 40 Stat., 1151.

Decision by Comptroller General McCarl, August 20, 1921:

Charles A. Pelleymounter applied July 16, 1921, for revision of the action of the Auditor for the War Department in deducting $60 in settlement No. 114487, dated June 25, 1921, from an amount otherwise due him as a private, Detachment of Conscientious Objectors.

The claimant was enlisted July 25, 1918, and was assigned to an organization composing a portion of the coast defenses of San Francisco, Calif., where he remained until August 31, 1918. He was then transferred to a detachment of conscientious objectors, and from which he was discharged the military service on December 18, 1918. The Adjutant General of the Army, August 12, 1921, states that