held office for thirty years after the law passed reached many different conclusions as to its meaning, reference may be made to the report of the legislative committee to ascertain the purpose of Congress. (Chesapeake Telephone Co. v. Manning, 186 U. S., 246; Binns v. United States, 194 U. S., 486, 495.)

The bill that became the law of March 3, 1885, was H. R. 5713. The following is an extract from H. R. Report No. 1045, Fortyeighth Congress, first session, which accompanied bill H. R. 5713: "The Committee on Military Affairs, having had under consideration House bill 5713, respectfully report: It is so manifest that the United States should compensate the officers and soldiers of the Army for property lost or destroyed in the military service, where such loss or destruction was without fault or negligence on the part of the claimants, either in consequence of giving attention to the saving of the property of the United States, which was in danger at the same time, or by being shipped on board an unseaworthy vessel by order of an officer authorized to give such order, that your committee recommend the passage of the bill,

While statements of individual Members are not an aid in construing a law of Congress, the following is quoted from the debate in the Senate February 24, 1885, upon said bill H. R. 5713:

*

*

*

*

*

"Mr. FRYE. And the payment in case of a loss by fire is limited, is it not?

"Mr. COCKRELL. It is.

"Mr. FRYE. Where an officer or soldier in taking charge of Government property sacrifices his own.

"Mr. SEWELL. The limitation extends to the articles necessary for the position of the officers or men, not to watches, trinkets, or anything of that kind, but to the necessary equipment of the soldier or officer."

*

"Mr. COCKRELL. This does not cover anything in the shape of carpets, or pianos, or gold watches, or silk dresses, or things of that kind. The committee has never allowed compensation for them, and this is the most restrictive language ever proposed." (Congressional Record, 48th Congress, 2d Session, Vol. 16, Part 3, pages 2081 and and 2082.)

A consideration of the law and the circumstances surrounding its enactment in the light of the above-quoted report of the Committee on Military Affairs discloses fully and accurately the intent of Congress.

Claimant declares that the private property for which he claims reimbursement was such part of his personal effects as would not be required in the Philippine Islands, and was turned over by him to the depot quartermaster at Seattle, Washington, for storage.

Therefore, his property destroyed by fire was not "lost or destroyed in the military service" within the meaning of the act of

March 3, 1885 (22 Comp. Dec., 385); furthermore, the loss or destruction was not under either of the two circumstances described in the law.

Upon a revision of the auditor's settlement I find and certify a debit difference of three hundred and twenty-four dollars ($324), the entire amount allowed claimant by the auditor being disallowed for reasons hereinbefore stated.

So much of the decisions of this office published in 2 Comp. Dec., 644; 3 id., 636; and 20 id., 238, as is in conflict with the conclusion herein stated will not be followed hereafter.

LONGEVITY PAY, NAVAL MILITIA AND NATIONAL NAVAL VOLUNTEERS. Officers of the Naval Militia in the service of the United States are not entitled to credit, for purposes of longevity pay, for previous service rendered in the Naval Militia or National Naval Volunteers when not in the service of the United States.

Officers of the Naval Militia in the service of the United States are entitled,

under the same conditions as officers of the Regular Navy or Marine Corps are so entitled, to credit, for purposes of longevity pay, for previous service rendered in the Navy.

Officers of the National Naval Volunteers in the service of the United States are not entitled to credit, for purposes of longevity pay, for previous service rendered in the Naval Militia or National Naval Volunteers when not in the service of the United States.

Officers of the National Naval Volunteers in the service of the United States are entitled, under the same conditions as officers of the Regular Navy or Marine Corps are so entitled, to credit, for purposes of longevity pay, for previous service rendered in the Navy.

Comptroller Warwick to the Secretary of the Navy, May 10, 1917:

By indorsement of April 28, 1917, you ask that I decide questions submitted to you by the Chief of the Division of Naval Militia Affairs, as follows:

1. "Are officers of the Naval Militia or National Naval Volunteers, who are in the service of the United States, entitled to longevity pay for previous Naval Militia service?"

2." For previous service in the National Naval Volunteers?" 3. "For previous service in the Navy?"

4. "Will service as a Naval Militia or National Volunteer officer entitle such officer to longevity pay for actual time as such in the service of the United States?"

The pay of officers of the Naval Militia (other than those enrolled in the National Naval Volunteers) "when called into the service of the United States," is the same pay as "are or may be provided by

law for the Regular Navy." (Sec. 7, act of Feb. 16, 1914, 38 Stat., 285.)

The pay of officers of the National Naval Volunteers for time of active service under the call of the President is the same pay as that provided on or after August 29, 1916, for a person of their respective rank or grade in the Navy or Marine Corps. (Act of Aug. 29,

1916, 39 Stat., 596, par. 5.)

The questions are answered in the order in which presented.

1. No.

Naval Militia officers (other than those enrolled in the National Naval Volunteers) while called into the service of the United States are not entitled to be credited for longevity pay purposes with previous Naval Militia service (not rendered in the service of the United States), for the reason that such service is not service with which a corresponding officer in the Navy proper would be entitled to be credited for longevity pay purposes. (Acts of May 13, 1908, 35 Stat., 128, and Mar. 3, 1883, 22 Stat., 473. See also 23 Comp. Dec., 152.) Those National Naval Volunteer officers who correspond for pay purposes with Navy officers are not entitled for time of active service under the call of the President to be credited for longevity pay purposes with previous Naval Militia service (not rendered in the service. of the United States), for the same reason that Naval Militia officers. (other than those enrolled in the National Naval Volunteers) would not. (See preceding paragraph.)

Those National Naval Volunteer officers who correspond for pay purposes with Marine Corps officers are not entitled for time of active service under the call of the President to be credited for longevity pay purposes with previous Naval Militia service (not rendered in the service of the United States), for the reason that such service is not service with which a corresponding officer in the Marine Corps proper would now be entitled to be credited for longevity pay purposes. (See sec. 1612, Rev. Stats.; secs. 1262, 1263, Rev. Stats.; act of June 18, 1878, 20 Stat., 150; act of Feb. 24, 1881, 21 Stat., 346; act of June 30, 1882, 22 Stat., 118; sec. 12, act of Apr. 22, 1898, 30 Stat., 363; sec. 10, act of Jan. 21, 1903, 32 Stat., 776; act of Feb. 16, 1914, 38 Stat., 283; act of May 27, 1908, 35 Stat., 399; act of Aug. 29, 1916, 39 Stat., 597.)

2. No. Because previous service in the National Naval Volunteers (not time of active service in that organization under the call of the President) is not service with which their corresponding officers for pay purposes in the Navy or Marine Corps would now be entitled to be credited for longevity pay purposes. (See statutes, supra; also 23 Comp. Dec., 152.)

3. Yes. For any previous service in the Navy with which the officers of the Navy or Marine Corps with whom they correspond for

pay purposes would now be entitled to be credited for longevity pay purposes. (See statutes, supra; 23 Comp. Dec., 153.)

4. It is preferred not to answer this question at present. It does not appear that it will be involved in any payment to be made for some years. It is therefore a question the deciding of which may properly be postponed until a case arises, so that in deciding it the law then in effect may be construed.

TRANSPORTATION, LAND-GRANT DEDUCTION IN REMAIL CARRIED BY FREIGHT.

Under authority of section 5 of the act of July 28, 1916, payment for the transportation, over land-grant railroads, of mail carried, under special arrangement on freight trains, may be made, without land-grant deduction, aţ rates not exceeding the usual and just rates charged the public for the transportation of articles similar as to cost of service.

Decision by Comptroller Warwick, May 10, 1917:

The Auditor for the Post Office Department has submitted for approval, disapproval, or modification his decision of April 24, 1917, construing that portion of section 5 of the act of July 28, 1916 (39 Stat., 412, 428), so far as it relates to the transportation over landgrant railroads of periodicals conveyed under special arrangements in freight trains.

The decision is as follows:

"Sections 4001 and 4002, Revised Statutes, the act of July 12, 1876 (19 Stat., 79), the act of June 17, 1878 (20 Stat., 142), the act of March 3, 1905 (33 Stat., 1088), the act of March 2, 1907 (34 Stat., 1212), and the act of May 12, 1910 (36 Stat., 362), require the Postmaster General to fix the compensation to be paid for the transportation of mails on railroad routes at rates not exceeding the rates therein named, based on the weight of mails carried on the routes.

"Effective September 1, 1911, the Post Office Department inaugurated a change in the manner of transporting certain periodical publications. As time was not an essential feature in the transportation the periodicals were forwarded in the regular mail trains from places where they were published to designated points where they were transferred to freight trains and carried in carload lots to points near their final destination, when they were again returned to mail trains for delivery. The plan was placed in operation in the middle western states (third contract section) on the date named, and in the southern states (second contract section) July 1, 1912. Further extension of the plan was prohibited by the act of August 24, 1912 (37 Stat., 547), but the prohibition was repealed by the act of July 28, 1916 (39 Stat., 424).

"Prior to the inauguration of the plan advance decisions were rendered by the Comptroller of the Treasury that the total cost of

the mail transported on any route should not exceed the total amount that could be legally allowed therefor, if all mail matter for said route was transported together and paid for at the maximum rates prescribed by law for said route (Decision of May 22, 1911, MSS., and May 27, 1911, 17 Comp. Dec., 900).

"The Post Office Department therefore established two classes of mail routes, one being a route over which the regular mails were transported and the other being a lap route over which the periodical mail matter was carried, both covering the same mileage and the same route. Sec. 1325, Postal Laws and Regulations, provides that the maximum compensation that may be paid for the transportation of mails on a lap route is the difference between the rate earned by the average daily weight of the first or original route, and the rate that would be earned if the average daily weight of the lap route were added thereto.

"The Department weighed the mails on both classes of routes for the statutory period. The weights taken on the regular routes formed the basis for the readjustment of pay on such routes, severally, at the maximum statutory rate, and the weights of the periodical matter taken on the lap route formed the basis for ascertaining the amount that would have been paid for its carriage at the maximum statutory rate if such mail had been transported on the original routes. In effect this amount constituted a credit against which the freight bills for the transportation of the periodical mails could be charged in accordance with agreements made with the railroad companies concerned, to accept payment for the service at such reduced rates."

Sec. 4001, Revised Statutes, provides:

"All railway companies to which the United States have furnished aid by grant of lands, right of way, or otherwise, shall carry the mail at such prices as Congress may by law provide; and, until such price is fixed by law, the Postmaster General may fix the rate of compensation.

"Provisions to the foregoing effect appear in the acts making grants of lands in the States of Missouri and Iowa, approved June 10, 1852 (10 Stat., 8, 10), and May 15, 1856 (11 Stat., 9, 10).

"As subsequent statutes relating to the compensation of railroads for carrying mails on land grant railroad routes provide that only 80% of the rates authorized to be paid non-aided railroads shall be paid to aided railroads, the Postmaster General, in a letter dated July 17, 1911, submitted to the Comptroller of the Treasury the question as to whether the Department should deduct 20% of the compensation for transporting periodical matter over land aided mileage. The Comptroller held that if the contract is made at a net cash rate within the limitation of cost authorized by law for said route, no further deduction on account of land grant is required to be made (18 Comp. Dec., 38).

"It is stated in the Second Assistant Postmaster General's annual report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1916, that 5,167 carloads of periodical matter were transported in fast freight trains during that year, carrying 138,130,147 pounds; that the cost of the freight transportation, with cartage and incidental charges, was $713,367.55, and