the collector of the port, the same to become effective upon the taking of the oath by the appointees. The cflices at $1,600 per annum each vacated by them were at the same time abolished.

The positions thus administratively ordained were not statutory positions, entitling the incumbents to statutory salaries or compensation at $2,500 each per annum or any other rate.

Section 2621 of the Revised Statutes provides:

"At each of the ports to which there are appointed a collector, naval officer, and surveyor it shall be the duty of the collector,

* *

"Seventh. To employ, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, proper persons as weighers, gaugers, measurers, and inspectors at the several ports within his district."

Section 2634 of the Revised Statutes provides:

"The Secretary of the Treasury may, from time to time, except in cases otherwise provided, limit and fix the number and compensation of the clerks to be employed by any collector, naval officer, or surveyor, and may limit and fix the compensation of any deputy of any such collector, naval officer, or surveyor."

I think the word "weighers," in the seventh paragraph of section 2621, Revised Statutes (supra), is used in a general sense to import weighers of different grades, and that under it the collector of the port of New York, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, was authorized to employ Thomas MacMath as an assistant weigher at $3 or $4 per diem, or as an acting weigher at $1,600 or $1,800 per annum.

In like manner, under section 2634 (supra), the Secretary of the Treasury, upon the recommendation of the collector, was authorized to limit and fix the salary of Thomas MacMath as clerk and assigned to duty as acting weigher of customs at $1,600 or $1,800 per annum.

The contention of the appellant, by her attorneys, that Thomas MacMath held the office of " United States weigher of customs" from May 12, 1909, to October 7, 1913, is not sustained either by law or precedent.

The devolution of the duties of an officer or employee of a higher grade upon an officer or employee of a lower grade, either by operation of law or by administrative action, does not ipso facto promote such officer or employee of lower grade to the higher grade, or entitle him to the salary thereto pertaining, in the absence of provision of law to that effect.

On the second page of the brief submitted by the attorneys of the appellant it is alleged of MacMath that "he was appointed to the offices of clerk' and 'acting United States weigher of customs' on May 12, 1909," apparently importing that he was appointed to two distinct offices. Further on in the brief it is claimed that "from

May 9, 1912, to October 7, 1913, he held two offices, namely, the office of clerk' and the office of United States weigher of customs,' and that these offices are not incompatible so as to prevent the claimant's intestate from being entitled to both salaries."

Such claim and contention have no substantial support from the facts above set forth. The reorganization affected on May 12, 1909, reduced the number of "United States weighers of customs," at compensation of $2,500 each, from five to one only, four positions of that class being abolished, and at the same time instituted 10 clerks, class 3, new offices, to act as 'acting United States weighers,' with compensation at the rate of sixteen hundred dollars ($1,600) per annum each," Thomas MacMath being one of the 10. (Letter Acting Secretary J. B. Reynolds to collector, New York, May 12, 1909.) The 10 appointees under this order took the oath of office as " clerk and acting United States weigher, class 3, port and district of New York," and on their promotion to compensation of $1,800 per annum took the oath of office as "clerk and acting United States weigher, class 4, collector's office, port and district of New York."

The assignment of these clerks to duty as "acting weighers" no more constituted them statutory "United States weighers," entitled to compensation of $2,500 per annum as such, in addition to the $1,600 or $1,800 already paid them in accordance with the terms of their appointment, than assignment of an eighteen hundred dollar clerk in this office to the duty of revising accounts or formulating legal decisions would constitute him a statutory expert accountant or law clerk, entitled to statutory salary of $2,000 per annum in addition to his salary of $1,800 per annum as clerk of class 4.

It appears admitted that Thomas MacMath accepted his appointment as clerk to act as acting United States weigher, first at compensation of $1,600 per annum, later at $1,800, and that he signed a waiver of any further claim for compensation than that named in the appointment.

The action of the auditor is affirmed.

PAYMENT OF RECLAIMED CHECKS.

A new check should be issued by the disbursing clerk, and not a duplicate of the reclaimed check, where the Treasurer has found it necessary to reclaim the amount of a check. For procedure to be followed, see decision.

Decision by Comptroller Downey, March 26, 1915:

The Auditor for the Interior Department submitted March 6, 1915, a decision by him upon the practice now followed of having disbursing clerks issue at the request of the Treasurer of the United States a check in substitution of a check paid upon a forged in

dorsement, but the amount of which has been reclaimed by the Treasurer.

The reclaimed check is marked by the Treasurer to show that the payment on it has been reclaimed and the refund credited in the Treasurer's account with the disbursing clerk. It is sent to the disbursing clerk, who issues a substitute check in the same number, date, amount, and name of payee, which he sends to the payee, and returns the reclaimed check (marked accordingly) to the Treasurer, who sends it back to the auditor with advices of the action taken.

The procedure maintains irrespective of whether the disbursing clerk's account has been settled by the auditor. It is reported as having been adopted when the change was made, February, 1913, of requiring disbursing clerks in general to keep their depositary accounts with the Treasurer. Prior thereto, the matter of paying the payee of the reclaimed check was treated as one for direct settlement by the auditor.

In his present submission, the auditor makes reference to the practice particularly in connection with checks making payment of pensions, and shows that he has before him a specific case in the unsettled account of the disbursing clerk for December, 1914; check No. 6270110, of date December 4, 1914, having been obtained from the auditor by the Treasurer for the purpose of making reclamation, and been returned marked "Reclaimed" and with a notation by the disbursing clerk that he had issued a substitute check March 3, 1915.

The auditor decides that no payment was made to the pensioner and that the amount of the reclaimed check ($36), included in the schedule of payments for the December account, must be disallowed against the disbursing clerk, while the amount of the substitute check will be for credit in the account for March, 1915.

The auditor subsequently, March 16, 1915, referred to this office for consideration in connection with his above submission pension check No. 2951601, drawn November 4, 1913, by the disbursing clerk for $81, and included in November, 1913, accounts settled by the auditor February 6, 1915. The check was withdrawn by the Treasurer and returned with notations by the Treasurer and the disbursing clerk, respectively, that reclamation had been made and the refund credited into the account of the disbursing clerk March 9, 1915, and substitute check issued March 11, 1915.

The practice referred to is not one directed by law or approved by this office, and the auditor's submission is not a construction which he is authorized to submit to the consideration of this office.

He is not compelled in settling accounts to permit a practice not specifically directed by law or approved by this office. If, however, the practice is one observed by all the auditors particularly upon the same subject matter, it is proper before the auditor departs from

it to submit his reasons to the Comptroller, and the Comptroller may express his opinion thereon under his authority over accounting so that there may not be varying accounting practices as to the same

matter.

It is necessary to let the Treasurer have the paid check in order to enable him to make reclamation, and the fact that the account of the disbursing clerk is pending before the auditor or has been settled is not to be urged against it.

But after reclamation has been made upon the check the question of payment of the payee is not one for direction by the Treasurer. He should return the reclaimed check to the auditor for proper action in connection with the accounts of the disbursing clerk. Such directions as might be necessary to the disbursing clerk should come from the auditor.

The check now issued by the disbursing clerk is referred to as a "substitute" for the reclaimed check. It is in fact a duplicate of that check. By issuing it as a duplicate it automatically relates to the account in which the reclaimed check appears, and the disbursing clerk makes no entry of the transaction aside from noting it on his stub of the reclaimed check.

It requires the auditor, however, to treat the duplicate check as an outstanding check in the account of the disbursing clerk, and irrespective of whether the account is pending for settlement or has theretofore been settled.

The reclaimed check has failed to make the payment for which it was issued. This does not necessitate or justify issuing a duplicate of that check to make the payment. It permits the disbursing clerk to issue a check on one day as of another date and merely make a memorandum of the transaction. The disbursing clerk should show the transaction in his accounts, and it would be shown if for the reclaimed check he issued a check of date the day of issue.

The payment to the payee of the reclaimed check may, of course, be by direct settlement by the auditor; but where it is simply a question of paying the payee, the auditor should direct the disbursing clerk to issue a new check to the payee, and in his next account credit the United States with the amount of the reclaimed check and debit the amount of the new check issued.

I do not think it necessary, however, by reason of reclamation of the check to make disallowances in the account in which that check appeared, as decided by the auditor. It would require reopening old accounts or their revision by the Comptroller if made within a year, and would logically also require the preparation of new vouchers and their certification before payment by the disbursing clerk could be made. There being no question but that of payment to the payee of

the reclaimed check, a simple proceeding is desirable, and I think the notations on the reclaimed check, together with the entries in the account current, are sufficient. In a pending account action on the item should be suspended until this appears.

The procedure will entail nothing additional upon the Treasurer, the same course being followed as now, except that the disbursing clerk will act under direction of the auditor, and a new check will issue instead of a duplicate.

It is to be understood that the views herein stated are to apply to the procedure in general, and are not limited to pension checks.

PURCHASE OF PASSENGER-CARRYING VEHICLES FOR THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA.

The District of Columbia is a "branch of the Government service" within the meaning of section 5 of the act of July 16, 1914 (38 Stat., 508), prohibiting the use of any appropriation for the purchase of any motor-propelled or horse-drawn passenger-carrying vehicle unless specific authority is given therefor.

66

The appropriation for means of transportation" for the workhouse at Occoquan, Va., does not give the specific authority required by this statute, and payment from said appropriation for a passenger-carrying automobile is unauthorized.

Comptroller Downey to the president of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, March 26, 1915:

I have your letter of the 19th instant, as follows:

"The Commissioners of the District of Columbia have the honor to transmit herewith a communication dated the 18th instant from the auditor of the District, requesting your decision in the matter of an account of the Buick Motor Co. for furnishing to the District workhouse at Occoquan, Va., a five-passenger automobile, which involves the determination of the question of the applicability of certain general legislation to the government of the District of Columbia, and will thank you for a ruling on the matter therein presented."

The auditor's communication is in effect a brief presenting arguments and citing authorities against the conclusion reached by this office in a decision of February 12, 1915, to the effect that the statute restricting the purchase of passenger-carrying vehicles for the service of "any of the executive departments or other Government establishments, or any branch of the Government service," applies to the service of the District of Columbia as well as to the various branches of the Federal service.

The argument is based upon two general propositions, namely: That the offices of the District of Columbia are not Federal offices, and that general laws and limitations in appropriation acts are noț