agents of the United States which necessitates the undersigned meeting a public expense from his private funds. With the greatest respect for the views of the quartermaster of the Corps, as above expressed, as to what purposes public funds under his department are appropriated, it is respectfully suggested that an authoritative opinion on this point lies with the accounting officers. It is therefore respectfully requested that such action be taken in this matter by your office as the importance of the subject in your opinion warrants.”

The quartermaster, U. S. Marine Corps, to whom the communication was referred for report, indorses it as follows:

"1. Respectfully returned to the brigadier-general commandant, U. S. Marine Corps. This office has no further report to submit in the case except that it is a fact, as stated in the within communication of Lieut. Col. George Richards, assistant paymaster, U. S. Marine Corps, that article 983, U. S. Navy Regulations, paragraph 5, directs that checks be sent by registered mail. Such paragraph reads as follows:

"Checks or currency, as the commanding officer of marines at the post may prefer, shall be sent him for the payment of enlisted men, and the payments shall be made under his direction. If checks are used, they shall be sent by registered mail; if currency, by express.

"Notwithstanding this fact, the only specific authority of law known to this office for the procurement of postage stamps is for use in forwarding foreign official mail matter, under the head of appropriation, contingent, Marine Corps, which reads as follows (33 Stat., 349):

666

*

*

*

*

postage stamps for foreign postage * "2. In view of the circumstances, it is recommended that the decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury be requested as to whether any authority of law exists under which this office would be warranted in procuring postage stamps for registering official domestic mail matter outside of Washington, D. C., as it is understood the Postal Laws and Regulations require the customary fee in such cases."

There can be no question that the Secretary of the Navy had the authority, with the approval of the President, to make the regulation quoted by the quartermaster. It imposes a duty on the paymaster to incur an expense for a public purpose which he can not be called upon to defray from his private funds.

I find no prohibition of law against the payment of a registry fee on letters, and am of opinion that the necessary expense of the same can be paid from the appropriation for "contingent, Marine Corps."

EXPENSES OF DISINTERRING AND TRANSPORTING TO HIS HOME THE REMAINS OF A DECEASED ENLISTED MAN OF THE NAVY.

The appropriation made in the act of April 27, 1904, for transporting to their homes the remains of deceased officers and enlisted men of the Navy is applicable, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Navy, to the reimbursement of the father of a deceased enlisted man for expenses incurred by him in disinterring and transporting to his home the remains of his son who died while on duty within the continental limits of the United States subsequent to April 21, 1898, notwithstanding such expenses were incurred prior to the passage of said act of April 27, 1904, but such reimbursement must not exceed what it would have cost the Government to have rendered the service in question.

(Assistant Comptroller Mitchell to the Secretary of the Navy, August 3, 1904.)

I am in receipt of your request for a reconsideration of my decision dated June 30, 1904, as to whether the claim of John N. Trussell for reimbursement of expenses incurred by him for transportation and burial of his son, John Carey Lafayette Trussell, late an apprentice, U. S. Navy, may be paid.

The facts in this case are understood to be as follows: The said apprentice, first class, of the Independence, enlisted on April 17, 1899, died at the naval hospital, San Francisco, Cal., November 2, 1903, before the expiration of his enlistment, and was buried by the Government at the naval cemetery, Mare Island, Cal., November 3, 1903. Subsequently, but prior to the act of April 27, 1904 (33 Stat., 340), hereinafter considered, claimant had the remains of his son disinterred and brought to the home of the deceased, which was Washington, D. C., and buried in the national cemetery at Arlington, and all at an expense incurred and paid by him as follows:

Undertaker in California, preparing body for shipment...

Wells-Fargo Express.....

Portion of telegrams exchanged ...

Undertaker, Washington, care of remains and taking to Arlington.

Total

$200.00

155.50

14.95

21.50

391.95

The claim is for reimbursement of said expenses incurred and paid by claimant, and the question presented is whether there is any law which will authorize such reimbursement?

In my decision of June 30, 1904, supra, my attention was called to only so much of the act of April 27, 1904, supra, as is therein set out.

The act of June 7, 1900 (31 Stat., 685), provides:

"To enable the Secretary of the Navy, in his discretion, to cause to be transported to their homes the remains of officers and enlisted men of the Navy and Marine Corps who die or are killed in action, ashore or afloat, outside of the continental limits of the United States, ten thousand dollars; Provided, That the sum herein appropriated shall be available for transportation of the remains of officers and men who have died or who have been killed while on duty at any time since April twenty-first, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight."

By the act of July 1, 1902 (32 Stat., 663), the above appropriation was made available until used.

The act of February 18, 1904 (33 Stat., 28), provides:

"Bringing home remains of officers and men, Navy and Marine Corps, who die abroad: To enable the Secretary of the Navy, in his discretion, to cause to be transported to their homes the remains of officers and enlisted men of the Navy and Marine Corps who die or are killed in action, ashore or afloat, outside of the continental limits of the United States, fifteen thousand dollars: Provided, That the sum herein appropriated shall be available for transportation of the remains of officers and men who have died or who have been killed while on duty at any time since April twentyfirst, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, and shall be available until used, and applicable to past as well as future obligations."

The act of April 27, 1904 (33 Stat., 340), entitled "An act making appropriations for the naval service for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and five, and for other purposes," provides:

"Transportation of Remains: To enable the Secretary of the Navy, in his discretion, to cause to be transferred to their homes the remains of officers and enlisted men of the Navy and Marine Corps who die or are killed in action ashore or afloat, and also to enable the Secretary of the Navy, in his discretion, to cause to be transported to their homes the remains of civilian employees who die outside of the continen

tal limits of the United States, fifteen thousand dollars: Provided, That the sum herein appropriated shall be available for payment for transportation of the remains of officers and men who have died while on duty at any time since April 21, 1898, and shall be available until used, and applicable to past as well as future obligations.'

*

*

The act of June 7, 1900, supra, embraced only "the remains of officers and enlisted men * who die or are killed in action, ashore or afloat, outside of the continental limits of the United States," but it was retroactive and embraced those who have died or who have been killed on duty at any time. since April 21, 1898."

men

*

The words in the act of June 7, 1900, supra, which limited the appropriation in that act to the transportation of remains of officers and men who lost their lives "outside of the continental limits of the United States" are not found in the act of April 27, 1904, supra, and this being true I am of opinion the latter act embraces "the remains of officers and enlisted * who die or are killed in action ashore or afloat" in as well as "outside of the continental limits of the United States," and my decision of June 30, 1904, supra, which restricted the use of the appropriation in the act of April 27, 1904, to the transportation of the remains of officers and enlisted men to those who die or are killed in action "outside of the continental limits of the United States," is reversed. The claimant states:

"I was not advised of his sickness and death (as I understand is the custom of the Department) until after he was dead and buried in the cemetery at Mare Island, Cal. Consequently, I had no opportunity to request that his remains be held or forwarded to his home. Had he served until the 4th of November (just two days later) and been in health he would have been discharged and sent home at the expense of the Government. I went to the Navy Department and asked that his remains be sent home, but was informed that it could not be done, since he died within the limits of the United States and there was no provision for bringing home the remains of any except those who die outside of the United States. Through the assistance of a friend in California I made arrangements to have his remains exhumed and embalmed, put in a metallic casket, and shipped to us by express. This, under the adverse conditions, was done at great expense, which I was without means to meet, and had

*

#

*

to borrow the greater portion of the money from sympathizing friends. As I am in poor health and employed as a bookkeeper at a very small salary, I am unable to repay my friends the loan

* *

The son died and was buried by the Government at the cemetery at Mare Island, Cal., and his father, upon his own responsibility and at his own expense, under the circumstances stated, had the remains disinterred and transported to the home of the deceased and buried before the passage of the act of April 27, 1904, supra. The question is, does said act authorize payment of this claim or any part of it, providing the Secretary of the Navy in his discretion approves payment? The first part of the act is as follows:

"To enable the Secretary of the Navy, in his discretion, to cause to be transferred to their homes the remains of officers and enlisted men of the Navy and Marine Corps who die or are killed in action ashore or afloat, fifteen thousand dollars

*

* *

This language is prospective and looks to the future, and authorizes the Secretary, in his discretion, "to cause to be transferred," etc., and would not, in my opinion, authorize reimbursement of expenses incurred by the family of the deceased officer or enlisted man, and would be limited to such expenses in transferring such remains as were incurred under the direction of the Secretary of the Navy. (5 Comp. Dec., 257.)

The second part of said act is as follows:

Provided, That the sum herein appropriated shall be available for payment for transportation of the remains of officers and men who have died while on duty at any time since April 21, 1898, and shall be available until used, and applicable to past as well as future obligations."

If this proviso had stopped after the words "shall be available until used," it would have been wholly retrospective, covering the period from the date of the passage of the act back to April 21, 1898, and its meaning would have been plain and definite. It is a canon of construction that, if it be possible, effect must be given to every sentence, clause, or word of a statute. What, then, was intended by the use in said act of the words "and shall be applicable to past as well as future obligations."