In accordance with this order appellant was not paid any extraduty pay after June 30, 1913. On October 1, 1914, appellant filed claim with the auditor for extra-duty pay from July 1, 1913, to September 12, 1914, and was allowed by the auditor extra-duty pay from July 1 to August 31, 1913, and his claim for extra-duty pay after August 31 was disallowed for the reason "that he was detailed on special duty for which no extra-duty pay is due." The following indorsements appear on the claim: [Fourth indorsement.] "Watervliet Arsenal, N. Y., Nov. 6, 1914. To the Adjutant General, Eastern Department, Governors Island, New York City. "1. Private Duby was employed on extra duty at this post as stated by him, and was paid extra-duty pay at 35 c. per day up to and including June 30, 1913. "2. The quartermaster at post under date of July 8, 1913, made application to the chief, Quartermaster Corps, for L/A for the payment of extra-duty services of enlisted men and was informed by 2d indorsement, O. C. Q. M. C., July 12, 1913, that there were no funds available for this purpose. "3. The quartermaster at post under date of April 4, 1914, made estimate for services of enlisted men employed on extra duty in Quartermaster Corps at this post during fiscal year 1915, and the estimate was returned from O. C. Q. M. C., April 28, 1914, disapproved for the reason that no funds were included in the estimate for the fiscal year 1915 for this purpose. "4. This enlisted man did not receive extra-duty pay for the period from July 1, 1913, to Sept. 12, 1914, for the reason that there were no funds available, as stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 above. "(Sgd.) W. W. GIBSON, "Colonel, Ord. Dept., Comdg." [Fifth indorsement.] "H. Q. Eastern Dept., Nov. 16, 1914. To C. O. Watervliet Arsenal, N. Y., for information as to whether Private Duby was continued under 'extra' or 'special' duty at the arsenal after receipt of the information referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of 4th indorsement hereon. By command of Major General Wood. "Watervliet Arsenal, N. Y., Nov. 17, 1914. "To the Adjutant General, Eastern Department, Governors Island, New York City. "1. On the receipt of information referred to in par. 2 of the 4th indorsement, Private Duby was relieved from extra duty and placed on special duty to take effect July 1st, 1913, per S. O. 39, Watervliet Arsenal, N. Y., August 30th, 1913. "(Sgd.) [Seventh indorsement.] "O. Q. M. E. D., Dec. 7, 1914. "To the Quartermaster General of the Army. "1. Attention is invited to 6th indorsement hereon. "2. It is recommended that Private Duby be allowed extra-duty pay, at the rate of 35 cents per day, for the period from July 1, 1913, to August 30, 1913, both dates inclusive, less Sundays and holidays, and that steps be taken to furnish the necessary funds. "(Sgd.) J. B. BELLINGER, "Colonel, Q. M. Corps, Q. M." [Eighth indorsement.] "Q. M. G. O., December 14, 1914. "To the Auditor for the War Department, for adjudication and settlement. "No funds were estimated for this purpose for the fiscal year 1915. 66 By direction of the Quartermaster General: "(Sgd.) T. A. BALDWIN, Jr., From paragraph 4 of the fourth indorsement, it is apparent that this man was continued on the same duty after the designation of his detail was changed from extra duty to special duty, and that the only reason he was not paid extra-duty pay was because there were no funds available. The sixth indorsement is undoubtedly predicated upon paragraph 169, Army Regulations, 1913, which provides: "Enlisted men detailed to perform specific services which remove them temporarily from the ordinary duty roster of the organization to which they belong will be reported on extra duty if receiving increased compensation therefor, otherwise on special duty." The appropriation "Incidental expenses, Quartermaster Corps, for the years 1914 and 1915 (37 Stat., 713, and 38 Stat., 362), contains the following provision for the payment of extra-duty pay: extra pay to soldiers employed on extra duty under the direction of the Quartermaster Corps * and as clerks for post quartermasters at military posts 66* * * The rate of extra-duty pay is fixed by section 1287, Revised Statutes, as amended by the acts of July 5, 1884 (23 Stat., 110), and March 3, 1885 (23 Stat., 359), as 35 cents per day for clerks other than those at department headquarters. The appropriation "Incidental expenses," above quoted contains a specific appropriation for the payment of extra-duty pay to clerks for post quartermasters, and when a soldier is employed as a clerk to a post quartermaster the law authorizes him to be paid for this duty at the rate specified in section 1287, Revised Statutes, as amended (22 Comp. Dec., 606 and 662). The fact that the Quartermaster General does not set aside any part of the appropriation for the payment of a particular soldier or soldiers who are performing the duty of clerk for post quartermasters can not deprive such soldier or soldier of their right to extra-duty-pay as provided by law. The fact that the Special Order No. 39 of August 30, 1913, changed the designation of this duty from extra duty to special duty cannot change the fact that appellant performed the duty as clerk for the post quartermaster during the period in question, as specifically shown by paragraph 4 in the fourth indorsement of the commanding officer of the post where he was employed. The only reason given for the issuance of this order is that no funds were available. This does not seem to me to be a valid reason, as Congress has specifically appropriated funds for the payment of this particular duty. Where the law specifically provides compensation for a certain duty, performance of that duty under proper orders carries with it the right to receive the compensation, and if this right is denied by the administrative officers the accounting officers are required to see that the proper compensation is allowed. Appellant will now be allowed extra-duty pay at 35 cents per day for 285 days actually employed as clerk for post quartermaster from September 1, 1913, to September 12, 1914. The action of the auditor is reversed, * LONGEVITY PAY, ARMY-ADMINISTRATORS. Payment of longevity pay due the estate of a deceased Army officer may lawfully be made only to his widow or his heirs, and not to the heirs of his widow. Payment of pay or allowances will not be made to the administrator of the estate of a deceased officer or enlisted man of the Army when such administrator is neither an heir nor a creditor of the decedent nor representing such heirs or creditors. Decision by Comptroller Warwick, August 11, 1916: Anne Page Anderson applied June 3, 1916, for a revision of the action of the Auditor for the War Department in settlement No. 528374, dated May 18, 1916, wherein her claim for pay and allowances, including longevity allowance, as administratrix of the estate of William Duncan Smith, formerly second lieutenant, first lieutenant, and captain in the Second Dragoons, United States Army, was disallowed, because "As the evidence filed in the case fails to show letters of administration to have been taken out in the interest of any heir of said officer, no allowance can be made to claimant." The military records show that William Duncan Smith was a cadet at the United States Military Academy July 1, 1842, to July 1, 1846, when he was graduated and appointed brevet second lieutenant, Second Dragoons, promoted to second lieutenant August 18, 1847, first lieutenant August 8, 1851, captain June 4, 1858, and was discharged from the service January 28, 1861, upon tender of resignation while he was on sick leave at Milledgeville, Ga. By letter from the War Department, dated January 28, 1861, sent to said address, the officer was informed that his resignation had been accepted to date January 28, 1861. The records further show that said officer was appointed March 15, 1861, as major, First Georgia Regulars, Confederate States Army, and it appears that he continued in the Confederate service until October 4, 1862, when he died. In a memorandum statement with the papers of the case the auditor figures out that there is due the officer's estate for arrears of pay and allowances, including longevity allowance, the sum of $990.71. (See sec. 15, act of July 5, 1838, 5 Stat., 256, and the act of July 6, 1914, 38 Stat., 454.) It is stated by appellant's counsel that William D. Smith was married in 1860 to Georgia Page King, and that he died October 4, 1862, domiciled at the time in the State of Georgia. There were no children born of this marriage. His widow, Georgia Page Smith, was remarried in 1873, to Joseph J. Wilder, by whom she had one child, a daughter, now married, Anne Page Anderson, who is the claimant. The officer's former widow died August 12, 1914. It is stated that both the officer and his widow died intestate. The officer left surviving him no lineal descendants. Appellant is of no blood relation to the officer, either directly or collaterally. It is stated that there are collateral heirs of the officer but their names and whereabouts are unknown. In order to entitle a person to inherit the pay and allowances in this case it must be as the heir of the officer and not of his widow. Appellant is not the heir of the officer. The letters of administration were granted to appellant upon her petition therefor. Assent to the granting of said letters has been given by one A. L. Miller, who states that he is a nephew of the deceased officer, but his assent alone is not sufficient, as it appears that there are other collateral heirs of the officer who should likewise give their assent if the letters to appellant are to be recognized as warranting payment to her of whatever pay and allowances are due the officer's estate. The rule has long obtained in the accounting offices that money due from the United States will not be paid to an administrator who has no interest, either as heir or creditor, or representing heirs or creditors, in the estate of the deceased officer or enlisted man. (See 20 Comp. Dec., 740, and decisions therein cited.) Said decisions are applicable here. If appellant is to be recognized for the purpose of payment to her as administratrix of any balance due the officer's estate she must obtain the assent to her appointment of the officer's collateral heirs. The persons entitled to the officer's estate are his heirs now living and not the heirs of the widow who did not in her lifetime reduce these particular assets to possession. The act of June 30, 1906 (34 Stat., 750), provides that when the amount due the estate of a deceased officer or enlisted man of the Army is less than $500 the accounting officers may allow the amount to the widow or legal heirs in the order of precedence stated in the act. This was also conditioned on there being no legally appointed representative of the estate. This law was enacted for the purpose of legalizing what had been the practice of the accounting officers in making payments of small amounts to widows and other heirs without administration in order to save expense. This statute was a permissive and not a mandatory one. It did not require that payment should be made to anyone who might qualify as administrator. It was not intended by said statute to change the practice by which, even in the case of administration, payment would be made to heirs and not to administrators who were strangers to the estate. The action of the auditor is affirmed * * * COMPENSATION FOR PERSONAL INJURIES. Compensation paid, under the act of May 30, 1908, to an injured employee of the Government must be at the same rate received by such employee at the date of the injury, and may not lawfully be increased or diminished during the injury period. Comptroller Warwick to the Secretary of the Interior, August 11, 1916: I have your request of August 3, 1916, for decision upon the question presented by the Director of the United States Reclamation Service whether the rate of pay during the injury period in all cases of injury under the act of May 30, 1908 (35 Stat., 556), remains the same as the rate of pay at the date of injury, regardless of whether there has been an increase or decrease in such rate of pay for employees doing the same class of work since the date of injury. In decision of June 28, 1916 (77 MS. Comp. Dec., 1174), it was held that "no increase in the rate of pay from that which the employee was receiving at the time of the injury is authorized (15 Comp. Dec., 461)." It appears that the Reclamation Service has adopted and is operating under a regulation which is apparently not in harmony with the 6110°-VOL 23—17———7 |