period covered by such service. The rights of the Government and the employee have accrued and can not be changed. Officers of the Government have no authority to pay more than the fixed rate.

Upon the facts appearing, I do not feel justified in reversing the auditor's action, which is affirmed,

SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES OF FIELD EMPLOYEE, WAR DEPARTMENT. An order of the War Department to the effect that the duty being performed by a certain civilian employee of the field service thereof was to be regarded as temporary duty will not be regarded by the accounting officers as of any binding effect with reference to subsistence expenses of said employee, when, as a matter of fact, the employee was not on temporary duty, but was at his regular station, apparently boarding at home, and the order was issued evidently for the sole' purpose of conferring upon him a right to subsistence expenses.

Decision by Comptroller Warwick, July 7, 1916:

Capt. W. L. Lowe, Quartermaster Corps, United States Army, applied June 29, 1916, for a revision of so much of the action of the Auditor for the War Department in settelment No. 37628, dated March 27, 1916, as disallowed therein an item amounting to $123, being a payment by voucher No. 407, November, 1914, of said amount to Messenger George W. White, civilian, for subsistence at $1 per day covering the period from July 1 to October 31, 1914, being 123 days. The auditor disallowed the voucher because:

"This expenditure is apparently not a proper one. The messenger has not left his home or permanent station, and bases his claim for temporary duty pay on the fact that the clerk and messenger with the 2d Cav. Brigade, to which Messenger White was formerly attached, and whose headquarters were moved from Ft. Bliss to Douglas, Ariz., and the clerk at headquarters 8th Cav. Brigade, to which White is now attached, who is on temporary duty from his permanent station, the Presidio of San Francisco, were drawing temporary duty

pay.

"The reason for additional pay for temporary duty away from one's permanent station is based on additional cost to the employee on account of his living away from home. Messenger White did not receive pay for temporary duty prior to the change of headquarters of the 2d Brigade; he was then located at Ft. Bliss, and is still located at Ft. Bliss; his status has not changed, and consequently he is not entitled to temporary duty pay.

"The purpose of placing Messenger White on a temporary duty status by order of the Sec. of War was to entitle him to draw temporary duty pay.

"See Comp. Decision March 11, 1901, 7 Comp., 502, and particularly the paragraph on page 504 where he says, 'The only purpose of assigning Maj. Falk to a station in Washington would seem to have been to put him in a status entitling him to commutation of quarters, and I am unable to hold that this could be accomplished in that manner.'

"Officer fails to reply to inquiry as to relationship existing between Messenger George W. White and J. F. White, who signs receipts attached to voucher. This was requested in order to determine whether or not Messenger White was boarding at home."

The facts are not as full and clear as they might be, but it appears from the papers of the settlement that sometime in the year 1913 Messenger White was transferred from station at Chicago, Ill., to station at Fort Sam Houston, Tex., and later, from the latter place to Fort Bliss, Tex. So far as the records show, the latter place became his permanent station. He was not on temporary duty there from any other station. While he was at such place, or during the period in question, it appears that both the Second and Eighth Cavalry Brigade were on temporary duty there and for that reason it was thought that Messenger White should be entitled to reimbursement of subsistence as was paid to him.

The employee's regular station was Fort Bliss. The fact that the Second and Eighth Cavalry Brigade and other civilian employees were there on temporary duty did not affect or change his status. Fort Bliss remained his permanent station. It is well understood that, in the absence of a provision of law therefor, a civilian employee is not entitled to subsistence or reimbursement therefor at his permanent station.

It is true that on November 9, 1914, the assistant and chief clerk of the War Department, "By order of the Secretary of War," issued an order that

"The duty of Mr. White at headquarters, 8th Brigade, while those headquarters are at Fort Bliss, Texas, is to be regarded as temporary duty within the meaning of subparagraph 5 of A. R. 733."

Apparently the only purpose of said order was to place the employee in a temporary-duty status at his regular station, in order that he might draw the increase for subsistence. I do not think his right to draw the increase for any period could be accomplished in this manner; but if it could be, it would seem to be ineffectual to authorize payment for any period prior to the date of the order. An order that a duty is to be regarded as temporary is a conclusion or opinion and not the assignment of a duty, temporary or otherwise. The payment in question is for the period from July 1 to October 31, 1914.

The voucher is open to another objection, and that is, that the relationship existing between Messenger White and J. F. White, who signed the receipts attached to the voucher, is not explained. The auditor asked for an explanation, but none was given him. The supposition is that Mr. White was living and boarding at his home. Upon the facts appearing, the auditor's action is affirmed.

*

AMERICAN SEAMEN.

A Filipino serving as a seaman in a vessel of Philippine registry flying the American flag, whether shipped in the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, is not an American seaman within the meaning of the statutes providing for the relief of distressed American seamen.

A Filipino serving as a seaman in an American vessel registered and enrolled in the United States is not an American seaman within the meaning of the statutes providing for the relief of distressed American seamen unless he was regularly shipped in a port of the United States.

An alien shipping in a port of the Philippine Islands as a seaman in an American vessel does not thereby acquire the status of an American seaman within the meaning of the statutes providing for the relief of distressed American

seamen.

Comptroller Warwick to the Secretary of State, July 8, 1916:

I have your request of June 23, 1916, for decision, as follows:

"There is enclosed for consideration a copy of a despatch from the American consul general at Shanghai, China, requesting instructions as to the status of Filipinos within the meaning of the statutes relating to the relief of seamen by the American consular officers. The consul general desires a ruling particularly with regard to―

"1. Whether a Filipino seaman on a vessel of Philippine registry, flying the American flag, shipped in the Philippine Islands or elsewhere, is entitled to relief as an American seaman.

"2. Whether a Filipino seaman on an American vessel registered or enrolled in the United States is entitled to relief as an American

seaman.

"3. Whether the shipment of a foreigner on an American vessel in a port of the Philippine Islands confers upon such foreigner the status of an American seaman under paragraph 260 of the Consular Regulations of 1896."

Section 4577, Revised Statutes, directing relief of seamen, provides as follows:

"It shall be the duty of the consuls, vice consuls, commercial agents, and vice commercial agents, from time to time, to provide for the seamen of the United States, who may be found destitute within their districts, respectively, sufficient subsistence and passages to some port in the United States, in the most reasonable manner, at the expense of the United States, subject to such instructions as the Secretary of State shall give

The appropriation for such relief, for the current fiscal year (Public, No. 131, 64th Cong., p. 12), provides as follows:

"For relief and protection of American seamen in foreign countries and in the Panama Canal Zone and shipwrecked American seamen in the Territory of Alaska, in the Hawaiian Islands, Porto Rico, and the Philippine Islands, $40,000."

Upon the question as to the application of the above section of the Revised Statutes, and the availability of an appropriation simi

lar in terms to the one for the current fiscal year providing relief to American seamen, it was held, in 8 Comp. Dec., 545:

"2. The seamen of the merchant marine of the United States alone are those whom the law contemplates relieving; therefore, citizens of the United States who ship in foreign vessels are not American seamen within the meaning of the relief laws. If at the time of applying for relief they are by habit and intent bona fide members of the American merchant marine, they are entitled thereto, although their last service may not have been in an American vessel. "3. Seamen, whether citizens of the United States or foreigners, who are regularly shipped in an American vessel in a port of the United States, or such persons as come under the provisions of section 2174 of the Revised Statutes, are considered American seamen. "4. Seamen, other than American, whether citizens of the United States or foreigners, shipped on foreign vessels, whether in ports of the United States or in foreign ports, are not considered American

seamen.

"5. No provision is made for the relief of shipwrecked seamen of foreign vessels, but shipwrecked seamen of American vessels are entitled to relief regardless of their nationality."

The foregoing states in clear terms the rules to be applied in the present case.

The act of July 1, 1902 (32 Stat., 691), providing for the establishment of a temporary government for the Philippine Islands did not extend the laws of the United States to those islands, but, on the contrary, section 1 specifically provided that they should not apply. Neither are they made applicable by the later act of March 23, 1912 (37 Stat., 77), nor has there been any legislation by Congress looking to the naturalization of vessels of the Philippine Islands. Such vessels are not a part of the merchant marine of the United States within the meaning of the foregoing relief statutes.

Prior to the passage of the act of July 1, 1902, the shipping of the Philippine Islands was dealt with by the Philippine Commission, and since the passage of that act, by the Philippine Government established thereby. (See decision of Jan. 17, 1914, upon auditor's construction, 68 MS. Comp. Dec., 353.)

In accordance with the foregoing, the questions submitted are answered as follows:

1. No.

2. Not unless he has acquired the character of an American seaman by being regularly shipped in a port of the United States. 3. No.

REFINISHING FIXTURES AS DISTINGUISHED FROM REPAIRING. Where a contract provides that the contractor shall install in a public building new lighting fixtures of a certain specified finish and shall repair certain old fixtures therein, nothing being stated as to the finish thereof, the con

tractor may not lawfully be required, as a part of the repair work on the old fixtures, to refinish them, at his own expense, so as to harmonize with the new.

Decision by Comptroller Warwick, July 10, 1916:

The Reading Chandelier Works requested, June 20, 1916, a reconsideration of the decision of this office, dated February 17, 1916, affirming the action of the Auditor for the Treasury Department in disallowing, per certificate No. 43934, dated May 3, 1915, its claim for $300.50, a sum alleged to be due it as extra compensation for work done under, or in connection with, a contract. dated October 12, 1914, covering the furnishing of new, and the repairing of old, lighting fixtures at the courthouse and post-office building, New York .City.

By the terms of the contract in question the Reading Chandelier Works undertook, in accordance with specifications and plans thereto attached, "to manufacture and install new lighting fixtures and to repair old lighting fixtures" at a lump-sum price of $3,346 for the specified work.

The contract specifications set out in detail the number, type, etc., of the fixtures that were to be manufactured and installed, but did not specify in like detail the number, kind, or location of the old fixtures that were to be "repaired," nor were the kind and extent of the repairs that would be required thereon specified.

Paragraph 40 of the specifications described the work to be done as follows:

"These specifications and drawings cover the manufacture and installation of all interior lighting fixtures noted in schedule and repairing of old fixtures now in place as hereinafter noted."

As before stated, however, the old fixtures "now in place" were not specified in detail.

Other provisions of the contract specifications having a bearing on the claim now in question were as follows:

"22. Proposals.-Proposals as hereinbefore called for must be based on drawings Nos. 322, L-600, L-601, L-602, and these specifications, and the drawings and specifications must be interpreted together, and all work called for in either, or not included in either but necessary to the satisfactory completion of the work, must be included in the proposals.

23. Visit the building.-Bidders are requested to visit the building and inform themselves as to all the conditions, and failure to do so will in no way relieve the successful bidder from the necessity of furnishing any material or performing any labor that may be required to complete the work in accordance with the true intent and meaning of the specifications and drawings without additional cost to the Government."