of September who enters upon duty on the 26th day of September, at five days for the month; in other words, fivethirtieths of the one-tenth part of a school-teacher's annual salary. If the teachers in question had been employed and entered upon duty on the 1st day of October, instead of the 26th day of September, they could with equal logic claim pay for eighteen days in September.

I am unable to perceive any equity whatever in the contention that the salary of these teachers should commence prior to their appointments and entry upon duty, they being presumably engaged in their other and ordinary vocations before said date, but if I did see such an equity, it could not prevail over the clear and explicit rule, supra, of their employment. With this rule in full force, it is not easily seen what process of reasoning induced the board of education to arrive at the conclusion that these teachers should receive the full salary for the month of September less the days they did not teach therein. It was well understood by the board when this rule. was adopted relative to the pay of teachers that the schools in the District of Columbia did not and would not open for active school duties on the 1st day of September.

There is one matter that is incidentally raised by your submission that deserves notice, and that is the payment of the salaries of the teachers in ten months, or in ten equal installments, beginning with the month of September, instead of in twelve installments, as is usual with annual salaries of Government employees. It is not entirely free from doubt that since the passage of the act of April 28, 1904 (33 Stat., 513)

"That the annual compensation of officers, agents, and employees of the United States for services rendered subsequent to June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and four, shall be divided into twelve equal installments, one of which shall be the pay for each calendar month; and in making payments for a frac tional part of a month, one-thirtieth of one of such installments, or of a monthly compensation, shall be the rate to be paid for each day. For the purpose of computing such compensation each and every month shall be held to consist of thirty days, without regard to the actual number of days in any month, thus excluding the thirty-first day of any month from the computation, and treating February as if it actually had thirty days"

it does not control and govern the appropriations made to pay the school-teachers employed in the District of Columbia. If

so, the amount appropriated should be divided in twelve equal installments and one-twelfth thereof paid at the end of each calendar month. But if the act was construed to govern these appropriations it would result in such confusion as would practically overturn the present school system of the District. It would be difficult if not impossible to pay a teacher who actually taught every day of the school year for the months. of July and August, and if he or she should die on the last day of the active school year, the personal representatives of such could not be paid for these months, as such death would undoubtedly abrogate such employment from the date thereof. Notwithstanding the doubt above expressed, I shall hold, as at present advised, that the act of April 28, 1904, is not applicable to the expenditures of these appropriations for teachers, and that the practice of making the school year one of ten months instead of a full fiscal year is not contrary to law. It is in conformity with the practice in all cities of the United States, and has been the practice in the District for many years. It is fair to assume that Congress in making the appropriations for the pay of teachers recognized such practice and intended that the appropriations should be so used. To disturb it now would work untold evils with nothing to gain.

COMPUTING PAY OF SUBSTITUTE LETTER CARRIERS AND CLERKS FOR FRACTIONAL PART OF A MONTH.

When a letter carrier or a clerk at a first or second class post-office is absent with leave, the substitute carrier or clerk is entitled, in computing his pay for a fractional part of a month, to one day's pay for each day's service.

When a clerk in a post-office is absent as a witness for the Government, the substitute clerk is entitled to the same pay received by the clerk while so absent.

(Comptroller Tracewell to the Postmaster-General, December 13, 1904.)

In your communication of December 9, 1904, you request my decision of a question therein presented as follows:

"The postmaster at Detroit, Mich., has made the following inquiry of the Third Assistant Postmaster-General:

"Suppose a regular clerk or carrier happens to be off for

a full 31-day month, and three substitutes perform the work as follows:

"A working 15 days.

666

"B working 14 days.

666

"C working 2 days.

"31 days.

"How shall these substitutes be paid? This is not an unusual occurrence, and I would like to know in what proportion the pay should be divided.'

"Will you kindly advise me at the earliest practicable moment how the postmaster at Detroit, Mich., should be instructed in the premises, under the provisions of section 4 of the act making appropriations for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1905, and for other purposes, approved April 28, 1904 (Pub., 194)?”

The act of June 27, 1884 (23 Stat., 60), provides as follows:

"That all letter carriers at free-delivery offices shall be entitled to leave of absence, not to exceed fifteen days in each year, without loss of pay; and the Postmaster-General is hereby authorized to employ, when necessary, during the time such leave of absence is granted, such number of substitute letter carriers as may be deemed advisable, who shall be paid for services rendered at the rate of six hundred dollars per annum.

The act of April 28, 1904 (33 Stat., 439), contains the following appropriation:

"Free-delivery service: For pay of letter-carriers in offices already established, and for substitute letter-carriers, and for temporary carriers at summer resorts, holiday, election, and emergency service, twenty million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars."

The act of October 1, 1890 (26 Stat., 648), provides as follows:

"That * * the clerks and employees attached to first and second class post-offices * * * be allowed leaves of absence, with full pay, for not exceeding fifteen days in any one fiscal year. *

I am not aware of any provision of law specifically authorizing the employment of substitutes for clerks generally at first and second class post-offices, but the act of June 13, 1898 (30 Stat., 441), authorizes the Postmaster-General to employ substitutes in the place of clerks subpoenaed as witnesses in the United States courts in cases arising under the United

States laws, and provides for paying such substitutes "a sum equal to the compensation allowed the clerks during the time. actually absent from duty attending court." And the regulations of the Post-Office Department, section 301, provide for the employment of substitutes of clerks and employees at first and second class post-offices while on leave, at a rate of compensation not exceeding that of the absent clerk or employee, and the act of April 28, 1904 (supra, p. 433), contains the following appropriation:

"For compensation to substitutes for clerks of first and second class post-offices on vacation, one hundred thousand dollars."

Each of the above appropriations is for a gross sum, and therefore does not limit the amount to be paid to any one substitute for any one month. And each distinct period of service must be in a distinct position. I am therefore of opinion that a substitute for a letter-carrier or a clerk who is absent with leave under the above provisions is entitled to one day's pay for each day's service. But in the case of a substitute for a clerk who is absent as a witness, the law provides that he shall receive the same amount of compensation as that allowed the clerk while so absent, and the payment of a greater sum is not authorized.

DAMAGE TO LANDS LEASED AS A MILITARY

MANEUVER CAMP.

A contract for the use of certain lands for a military maneuver camp which, provided that "in the event of destruction by fire, due to any fault of the party of the first part (United States), there shall be paid to said J. H. Henry by the said party of the first part, for damages to the grazing lånd, at the rate of not to exceed 50 cents per acre, and 25 cents per acre for grain stubble," will be held to have defined and limited the damages for which the United States would be liable; and under such a contract the United States would not be liable for hay burned in the shock on said lands.

(Decision by Assistant Comptroller Mitchell, December 15, 1904.)

I have received by your authority the following letter from the Quartermaster-General, United States Army, dated October 14, 1904:

"By authority of the Secretary of War, the inclosed proceedings of a board of survey convened at Camp Ascension,

Cal., in July, 1904, to investigate and report upon damage to property of J. H. Henry by fire during army maneuvers on the Pacific coast in July, 1904, stated at $550, are respectfully submitted, with request for a decision as to whether payment of the claim can be made from the appropriation for encampment and maneuvers, organized militia, under the terms of the lease of the camp grounds, herewith."

The act of April 23, 1904 (33 Stat., 265), entitled "An act making appropriations for the support of the Army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1905, and for other purposes, among other things contains the following provision:

"For purchase of supplies for the Quartermaster's and Ordnance Departments, including the regular supplies, incidental expenses, barracks and quarters, transportation of the militia and its supplies, clothing, and equipage, leases of land, and damages of property, $600,000.”

It appears that on the 25th day of June, 1904, the United States, by its officer, and J. H. Henry, of Templeton, San Luis Obispo County, Cal., entered into a contract in writing by which, so far as the questions here presented are involved, they covenanted and agreed to and with each other as follows:

"That the said J. H. Henry shall, and by these presents does hereby, demise, let, rent, and lease to the United States of America, the tract of land known as the Rancho del Encinal,' consisting of twenty-two thousand (22,000) acres, more or less, situated in San Luis Obispo County, State of California, bounded on the east by the Salinas River, on the west by the Coast Range Mountains, on the north by a line two miles south of Fullerton, and on the south by a line two miles north of Santa Margarita, for use as a military maneuver camp by the United States troops and forces of the organized militia of the State of California.

"The United States to have and to hold the grounds of said ranch from the first day of July, nineteen hundred and four, to the thirtieth day of September, 1904.

"That the said J. H. Henry, for himself, his heirs, executors, and administrators, will warrant and defend to the United States, its officers and agents, the quiet and peaceable possession and occupancy of the aforesaid premises, and in case of any disturbance, by suit or otherwise, will defend the same free of charge to the United States in or before the proper State or United States courts.

*

*

*

華