resolution of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat., 883), is about $55,000, and these funds have been made available for expenditure under my direction. "In view of the present emergency I propose, if the same meets with your approval, to designate Brig. Gen. William L. Marshall, United States Army, retired, to take charge of the work and to cooperate with the Imperial Valley irrigation district and Imperial County commissioners. "Cordially yours, "The PRESIDENT, "The White House. "Approved: 66 WOODROW WILSON." 66 "FRANKLIN K. LANE." "DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Washington, April 22, 1914. "William L. Marshall, brigadier general, retired, is hereby appointed consulting engineer in charge of Imperial Valley, Colorado River, construction work, at a salary of $7,500 per annum, to take effect when he enters upon duty, by transfer from the Reclamation Service, at the same designation and salary. Under Senate joint resolution of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 883). "FRANKLIN K. LANE, Secretary." The joint resolution of Congress approved June 25, 1910 (36 Stat., 883), provides as follows: "That the sum of $1,000,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to be expended by the President for the purpose of protecting the lands and property in the Imperial Valley and elsewhere along the Colorado River, within the limits of the United States, against injury or destruction by reason of the changes in the channels of the Colorado River, and the President is authorized to expend any portion of such money within the limits of the Republic of Mexico as he may deem proper in accordance with such agreements for the purpose as he may make with the Republic of Mexico." The act of July 31, 1894 (28 Stat., 205), provides: "SEC. 2. No person who holds an office the salary or annual compensation attached to which amounts to the sum of $2,500 shall be appointed to or hold any other office to which compensation is attached unless specially heretofore or hereafter specially authorized thereto by law; but this shall not apply to retired officers of the Army or Navy whenever they may be elected to public office or whenever the President shall appoint them to office by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." * * * Gen. Marshall was not appointed to an office by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The President, under whose authority the appropriation is to be expended, gave his approval to the proposed designation of Gen. Marshall by the Secretary of the Interior "to take charge of the work and to cooperate with the Imperial Valley irrigation district and Imperial County commissioners" and under this authority the Secretary of the Interior appointed him "consulting engineer in charge of the Imperial Valley, Colorado River, construction work." As to the possible effect of the President's approval of the “designation" of Gen. Marshall to take charge of this work, see Woodwell v. United States, 214 U. S., 82, and Evans v. United States, 226 U. S., 567. Section 1765 of the Revised Statutes, discussed in these cases, is as follows: "No officer in any branch of the public service, or any other person whose salary, pay, or emoluments are fixed by law or regulations, shall receive any additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation, in any form whatever, for the disbursement of public money, or for any other service or duty whatever, unless the same is authorized by law, and the appropriation therefor explicitly states that it is for such additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation." Under this and other sections it was held in the Saunder's case (120 U. S., 126) that there is no prohibition against the holding by one person of two distinct offices, places, or employments, each of which has its own duties and its own compensation, and reference is made to a decision of a former Attorney General to the effect that the prohibition does not apply to distinct employments "with salaries or compensation affixed to each by law or regulation." This holding is of course subject to the prohibition found in section 1763 which is practically the same as the act of July 31, 1894, quoted, without the exception, where the salary of the office held is more than $2,500. In Gen. Marshall's case he holds an office the salary of which is more than $2,500, but section 1763 does not apply because his appointment or designation to take charge of the Imperial Valley work is not an appointment or designation to discharge the duties of any other office within the meaning of that section. But the case has not been brought within the holding in the Saunder's case so as to except it from the operation of section 1765 and the holdings thereunder because, so far as appears, his appointment or employment in connection with the Imperial Valley work is not a distinct employment in a place or position, the salary of which has been fixed by law or regulation. His appointment by the Secretary of the Interior fixes his compensation, but it has been repeatedly held that fixing a compensation for the individual appointed to the place is not equivalent to fixing by regulation the compensation of the place antecedent to the appointment and independent of the individual appointed. It is worthy of note that in an advance decision of my predecessor to the Secretary of the Interior, of date June 30, 1910 (53 MS. Comp. Dec., 1677), upon a question submitted as to authority to employ and pay Gen. Marshall as consulting engineer in connection with certain work of the Reclamation Service it was held, as here, that the proposed employment was not in violation of the act of July 31, 1894, quoted above, but it was also said "to meet the reasoning in the case of Woodwell v. United States": "I suggest that you fix the compensation of the place or employment to be held by Col. Marshall under you, prior to his employment, by a general regulation, which compensation so fixed will go to the holder of the employment whoever he might be." It must be concluded from what has been said that an affirmance of the action of the Auditor is required. FEES OF FIELD DEPUTY MARSHALS. A petition in bankruptcy is not a writ for serving which a field deputy marshal is entitled to the statutory service fee of $2. Decision by Comptroller Downey, December 31, 1914: Arthur P. Carpenter, United States Marshal, Rutland, Vt., applied December 9, 1914, for a revision of the action of the Auditor for the State and other departments in disallowing per certificate No. 6184, dated November 6, 1914, the following: Item 4. Fees for service of petitions, disallowed. $4.00 Item 5. Fees for service of bill of complaint, motion for preliminary injunction, and affidavit in support of injunction, disallowed.... 6.00 Item 8. Commitment fee in excess of rate authorized by the Attorney General, disallowed.... .18 "Only 25 cents each is charged by same jailer in period April 1 to May 31, 1914." Item 9. Jail rent not authorized in schedule of rates furnished this office by the $3.43 The marshal states that this case involves the question of what fees a United States marshal shall charge private litigants in civil cases for the service of process. This is incorrect, for the only question that arises in the inarshal's appeal of items disallowed by the auditor is what amount the United States will pay a field deputy marshal for service of process. The Comptroller of the Treasury has no jurisdiction to render a decision as to what fees a United States marshal shall charge private litigants in civil cases for the service of process, that being a question for the determination of the court upon the taxation of costs, and a question not related to that of compensation of a deputy. (See 16 Comp. Dec., 844.) Having no jurisdiction to render a decision which will be final and conclusive, the Comptroller is likewise not warranted in expressing an opinion as to what fees the court shall tax and allow. (See 18 Comp. Dec., 543, 545, and decision to the Attorney General, dated Jan. 8, 1914.) The appeal then calls for a decision as to what, if any fee, shall be paid from moneys of the United States to a field deputy marshal for service of the following: First. Creditor's petition in bankruptcy, charged at $2 each.. Second. Bill of complaint.. Third. Motion for preliminary injunction. Fourth. Affidavits in support of injunction.... (See pp. 5 and 10, vou. 4, Deputy Thomas Reeves.) $4.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Section 829, Revised Statutes, provides among other things: "For service of any warrant, attachment, summons, capias, or other writ, except execution, venire, or a summons or subpoena for a witness, two dollars for each person on whom service is made. ***" Bouvier defines a writ as: "A mandatory precept, issued by the authority and in the name of the sovereign or the State for the purpose of compelling the defendant to do something therein mentioned. It is issued by a court or other competent jurisdiction and is returnable to the same." Under existent decisions (5 Comp. Dec., 674; 16 id., 484) this office held that a creditor's petition in bankruptcy cases was a writ within this provision of the fee bill. Under these decisions in force when the payment was made the charge was proper, and the item disallowed by the auditor will therefore be allowed for this reason alone. I am not in sympathy with the holding that a petition in bankruptcy is a writ. From the very nature of the instrument it emanates from an individual and is presented to the court for the purpose of bringing matters therein set forth, before the court. Decisions in conflict with this holding are overruled. The fees for service of bill of complaint and motion for preliminary injunction are proper charges under former rulings of this office which will be followed in this case and they will be allowed. Charge for separate service of affidavits is unauthorized and auditor's disallowance thereof is affirmed. As to item 8 of the disallowances, commitment fees, the marshal quotes from section 6253 of the Public Statutes of Vermont, that: * * the fees of the keepers of jails shall be as follows: For the commitment of each prisoner, to be paid by the committing officer, 34 cents." And from section 6109: "A keeper of such jail or of the house of correction shall not receive such prisoner unless the United States pays the keeper 50 cents a month for each prisoner during the time he is confined therein, with the fees for committing and discharging him." It has been the practice for several years, I am informed by the Department of Justice, to pay 34 cents for each commitment, and 25 cents key fee on discharge of the prisoner in this district, and in addition the 34 cents commitment fee is authorized by State law. The 18 cents disallowed by the auditor will be allowed upon revision. Item 9, jail rent, at the rate of 50 cents per month, in amount $3.43, disallowed by the auditor, will be allowed upon revision for the reasons given in item 8. HEAT AND LIGHT FOR QUARTERS OCCUPIED BY THE FAMILY OF AN ARMY OFFICER WHO IS ABSENT ON TEMPORARY DUTY. Where an officer occupying quarters with his family at a station where he is on duty is assigned to temporary duty at some other station and his family continues to occupy the quarters at the old station during his absence, the necessary heat and light for the quarters so occupied by his family may be furnished at Government expense to the extent of the officer's authorized allowance provided he does not receive or claim his heat and light allowance or any part thereof for quarters elsewhere. Comptroller Downey to Depot Quartermaster, Galveston, Tex., January 5, 1915: I have your letter of the 21st ultimo, requesting my decision as to whether payment is authorized for the electric current consumed for lighting purposes in the quarters occupied by the family of Capt. A. W. Brown at Texas City, Tex., during the months of July, August, September, and October, 1914. I infer from your letter that Capt. Brown was on temporary duty at Vera Cruz, Mexico, during the period in question; that Texas City was his regular station at the time of his assignment to temporary duty at Vera Cruz; that during the period of his absence on such temporary duty his family continued to occupy the quarters he had occupied while on duty at Texas City; and that he has not received or claimed his authorized light allowance, or any part thereof, for the period in question at any place other than Texas City. If such be the facts, payment is authorized upon the execution of a proper voucher supported by sufficient evidence as to the existence of such facts. This holding is not in conflict with the decision of November 13, 1913, hereinafter referred to, nor any other decision of this office, as it has never been held that an officer's authorized allowance of heat and light may not be furnished for quarters occupied by his family at his regular duty station during the period of his absence therefrom on temporary duty. You also request to be advised as to whether the "Note" published on page 6 of Bulletin 50, War Department, November 14, 1914, operates to suspend the decision of this office of November 13, 1913 (20 Comp. Dec., 320). This note, appearing as it does in connection with a ruling of the Judge Advocate General following the decision of November 13, 1913, |