officially as deputies of the marshal in representing him prevents them from receiving compensation as bailiffs for service which they were required to render as deputy marshals while acting as such. Second. Certain disallowances were made by the Auditor in cases where Mr. Swift had paid more than three bailiffs for days upon which the circuit and district courts were opened at the same time, presided over by the same judge, and adjourned at the same time. This action was no doubt taken by the Auditor because of the decision of the Comptroller in 1 Comp. Dec., 135. It is claimed by the marshal that section 715 and the provision in the appropriation for pay of bailiffs, "not exceeding three bailiffs in each court," authorize the appointment of six bailiffs for the circuit and district courts, three for each of said courts, although said courts are opened by the same judge sitting at the same time and place, and acting alternately as judge of the circuit and district courts, according as the business presented to him for determination is that of the circuit or district court. Such has not been the practical construction put upon the law by the accounting officers when the accounts for pay of bailiffs presented the facts in such a way that the question could be determined by them. In many places, as in Boston, several different judges frequently sit at the same time in different court rooms. They require different sets of officers and separate bailiffs. If the contention made by Marshal Swift is sound, he would be limited to three bailiffs for either the circuit or district court, although there might be sitting at the same time three or more judges in as many separate divisions of the same court; although when only one judge was sitting at the same time as both circuit and district judge he would be entitled to six bailiffs. In my opinion, the words "in each court" in the appropriation do not refer to the circuit and district courts when presided over at the same time by the same judge, but refer to cases where different judges are sitting at the same time in different places and holding either circuit or district courts, or separate divisions of either of those courts, for in such cases each judge is practically holding a separate court. This view seems to accord with the principle established in United States v. King (147 U. S., 676-682), where it was decided that where the circuit and district courts, or two divisions of the same court, were held at the same time in different places, requiring two staffs of officers, a clerk who was prohibited from receiving a greater per diem "than for an attendance on one court" was authorized to collect from the Government two per diem fees, the one for his own attendance and the other for the attendance of his deputy as his representative in the other court or division of the same court. As stated above, much difficulty is experienced in Boston in providing sufficient bailiffs when several courts are sitting at the same time, because of the proviso in the appropriation that not more than three bailiffs may be employed in each court. The construction which has always been placed upon this proviso by the accounting officers, as above explained, will relieve this difficulty to some extent, because three bailiffs are authorized for each judge who sits separately, and the fact that such difficulties have arisen in Boston, where many judges are sitting at the same time, tends in itself to establish the correctness of the construction placed by the accounting officers on this appropriation. It is suggested both by the judges and the marshal that difficulties exist in getting the proper character of men to serve continuously as bailiffs if they are only authorized to receive the $2 per diem prescribed by section 715 and then only for days upon which they actually serve as prescribed by that section. This difficulty arises no doubt from the fact that the general law applicable to all the districts in the United States does not work equally well in all, for in some districts court is only held for short periods and then generally only by one judge who sits as both circuit and district judge, while in other districts, as in Boston, the courts are in session almost con. tinuously throughout the year, and generally several judges. are sitting at the same time either in different courts or in separate divisions of the same court. The remedy lies in action by Congress, and the difficulty can not be corrected by the Comptroller, who is not authorized to allow payment for any other services than those which are prescribed by law, however inconvenient may be the enforcement of the law in any particular district. Upon a careful review of the matter, I see nothing requiring a change in the decision upon this question as made in 1 Comp. Dec., 135. Mr. Swift's account will be adjusted in accordance with the principle of this decision. R. B. BOWLER, Comptroller. THREE MONTHS' EXTRA PAY TO CERTAIN ENLISTED MEN OF THE NAVY ON REENLISTMENT. The three months' extra pay for reenlistment allowed by section 1573, Revised Statutes, to seamen, ordinary seamen, landsmen, firemen, coal heavers, and boys is limited to the six grades of enlisted men mentioned, and can not be allowed to a person enlisted as a steward. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, May 14, 1896. SIR: I am in receipt of your inquiry of May 12, 1896, in reference to the case of Albert W. Brown, steward to commander in chief, who was discharged from your ship April 30, 1896, by reason of the expiration of his term of enlistment, receiving an honorable discharge. It appears that the medical officer stated on the back of his discharge that he has "defective eyesight-right eye (waived by Bureau of Navigation, April, 1893)," and then below this indorsement, "Is not physically qualified for reenlistment." You state: "Brown desiring to reenlist, the question was again referred to the Bureau of Navigation and his physical deficiency has been again waived, and he has been reenlisted. "Now, I would respectfully inquire whether he is entitled to receive the three months' extra pay, or bounty, given to men reenlisting under an honorable discharge?" Replying to this question, I have to answer it in the negative. Section 1426, Revised Statutes, provides: "Honorable discharges may be granted to seamen, ordinary seamen, landsmen, firemen, coal heavers, and boys who have enlisted for three years." Section 1573, Revised Statutes, is as follows: "If any seaman, ordinary seaman, landsman, fireman, coal heaver, or boy, being honorably discharged, shall reenlist for three years, within three months thereafter, he shall, on presenting his honorable discharge, or on accounting in a satis factory manner for its loss, be entitled to pay during the said three months equal to that to which he would have been entitled if he had been employed in actual service." From these two sections it appears that Brown is not of the classes entitled to an honorable discharge as provided in section 1426, which discharge is a prerequisite to obtaining the advantages of the three months' extra pay provided for in section 1573; nor, if he were entitled to an honorable discharge, is he included within the classes specified in section 1573. The records show that he enlisted as a warrant officers' steward May 1, 1893. As early as the circular of the Secretary of the Navy of May 26, 1869, it was provided that— "All enlisted men, except officers' cooks and stewards, will receive, upon the expiration of their enlistments, if they so elect, continuous-service certificates, in lieu of the ordinary or honorable discharges heretofore issued." This express exception of officers' cooks and stewards was carried into the Regulations of the Navy Department, 1870, par. 1070, and into the Regulations of 1876, page 100, pars. 18, 19, and 20; and again in the circular of Secretary Chandler of November 21, 1884, it was provided: "All men (except officers' cooks, stewards, and servants enlisted for special service) now serving under enlistments for three years, or who may hereafter enlist for that period, shall receive an honorable discharge and continuous-service certificate' at the expiration of their terms of enlistment, upon the recommendation of their commanding officers." It appears, however, that this very proper exception, made in accordance with the statutory law on this subject, is omitted from the current regulations. This, however, can not affect the rights of parties. Under article 792 of the Navy Regulations of 1893, it is clear that the Navy Department has the power to review the finding of the medical and commanding officers that the person desiring to reenlist is physically disqualified, but in view of the above statutory provisions, this is immaterial, and Steward Brown can not be paid the three months' extra pay for reenlisting. Respectfully, yours, EDW. A. BOWERS, Pay Inspector GEORGE A. LYON, IN RE CLAIM OF THE UNION PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY FOR PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION. 1. The Government is entitled to the benefit of through rates when its officers or employees performing the travel, on "requests" or otherwise, comply with all the reasonable conditions pertaining to through rates imposed upon ordinary travelers, and not otherwise. 2. The law requires that the bond-aided railroads between the Missouri River and the Pacific Ocean be operated as a continuous line, and the Government is entitled to a through rate on said line when the "requests" show that the traveler is making a continuous journey, notwithstanding more than one "request" is issued for said travel. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE TREASURY, May 14, 1896. The claimant company appeals from the decision of the Auditor for the War Department disallowing the sum of 85 cents in the settlement of claim No. 124846. On April 23, 1894, Maj. C. W. Williams was ordered to proceed from San Francisco, Cal., to Philadelphia, Pa. In furtherance of this order, the Quartermaster's Department issued to said officer two "transportation requests," the first calling for transportation over the Central Pacific Railroad from San Francisco to Ogden, and the second over the Union Pacific Railroad from Ogden to Omaha; both of the requests showing that the officer was en route from San Francisco to Philadelphia. These requests were used to obtain transportation as far as Omaha. At Omaha the officer purchased a ticket to Chicago over the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad (a land-grant road), paying the full fare of $12.75 for the same. From Chicago he went to Cincinnati, for which no charge was made. From Cincinnati to Philadelphia $16.50 was paid, making $29.25 paid by the officer and reimbursed to him by the Pay Department. The price of a through ticket from San Francisco to Philadelphia was $73, of which the roads west of Omaha were entitled to $44.50 and the roads east to $28.50. The regular price of a ticket from San Francisco to Omaha was $50, and from Omaha to Philadelphia $31, making $81 for the entire journey, if two separate tickets were purchased. The Union Pacific has charged a special cut rate of $25 between Ogden and Omaha, which is less than its proportion of the regular rate from San Francisco to Omaha. |