$2.50 each. He is uncertain whether these fees should be treated as official or unofficial, and asks the determination of the Comptroller upon that point. The fee for an original landing certificate is provided for by clause 25 of paragraph 508 of the Consular Regulations of 1888. Paragraph 671 of the Consular Regulations provides: "Consular officers will, on request of the proper collectors, supply them, free of charge, with copies of any such documents on file in their offices as they may need in the discharge of their official duties. Copies prepared by other persons for their own use, will, on request, be certified on payment of $2. When, however, duplicates of originals are required, or the copy is prepared by the consul, the schedule fee will be exacted as for original service." * * Under this action certified copies of invoices are constantly made, and the fees therefor have always been treated as official. This paragraph being the paragraph of the Consular Regulations providing the fee which is to be charged for a certified copy of a landing certificate, the rule of construction of that paragraph heretofore adopted as to certified copies of invoices must, necessarily, be applied to certified copies of landing certificates, and the fee of $2.50 therefor will be treated as official and not unofficial. R. B. BOWLER, IN RE LEAVES OF ABSENCE TO EMPLOYEES OF GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. (Supplemental to decision of July 3, 1894, ante page 260.) TREASURY DEPATRMENT, FIRST COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE, July 18, 1894. SIR: I am in receipt of yours of the 18th instant, inclosing a copy of a letter addressed by you to me on the 12th instant, transmitting a receipted voucher of John T. Welch, covering sixty days' leave of absence, and requesting information whether you are authorized to pay the same under the act of Congress approved June 19, 1894. The original letter of July 12 never reached this office. That letter says: "I submit herewith leave-of-absence bill in favor of John T. Welch, late a clerk in this office, for your consideration." The bill inclosed reads: "For sixty days' accrued leave of absence as a clerk, less eight Sundays, at $6.40 per day, $332.80." You do not state when Mr. Welch left the service; but his bill being made out for sixty days, being thirty days earned for his service in the fiscal year 1893 and thirty days for the fiscal year 1894, I presume he left the service on or after June 30, 1894. You do not state whether he resigned or whether he was discharged, but, as it is evident from your use of the word "late," that he is out of the service, it is clear that he did not in fact receive the leave of absence, and that payment of the bill he presents will be, not for the time of the clerk while actually on leave of absence, but for such time in lieu of the leave of absence which he did not actually receive. So far as leave of absence accrued for service in the fiscal year 1894 was concerned, it was clearly within your power to have granted Mr. Welch a leave of absence, with pay, for thirty days during the fiscal year 1895, accepting his resignation to take effect at the end thereof or discharging him at that time; and, in view of the decision in the case of Harrison v. United States (26 C. Cls. R., 259), that is undoubtedly the proper way to grant any employee of the office of the Public Printer pay for time which he does not actually serve, in cases where his service in the Public Printing Office is to cease. The act of June 19, 1894, presents, however, the question whether you are authorized to pay the bill of Mr. Welch notwithstanding the fact that he did not have an actual leave of absence. I have very carefully considered the provisions of that act. The language is not perfectly clear and specific, but taken in connection with the circumstances which led to its enactment, to wit, the discharge of a large number of employees quite late in the fiscal year 1894, who, having received the leaves of absence to which they were entitled for their services in the fiscal year 1893, could not under then existing provisions of law be allowed additional leave of absence or be paid for the same as if they had enjoyed it, I am of the opinion that said act allowed pay only for leaves of absence on account of services rendered in the fiscal year 1894, as indicated by the opinion of July 3, of Mr. Foree, the Acting Comptroller. Congress evidently intended to allow to the employees in the Government Printing Office after July 1, 1893, and who had severed their connection with the printing office during the fiscal year 1894, pay for pro rata leaves of absence which they were entitled to receive during the fiscal year 1895 for the service of the fiscal year 1894, but which they had not actually received because of their ceasing to be employees of the Government Printing Office before the time when, under then existing laws, they could receive such leaves of absence; and by the insertion of the words "or now" between "heretofore" and "employed" in the act, Congress evidently intended to apply the same rule to the employees of the Government Printing Office then in service. This construction brings Mr. Welch's case within the provisions of the act, and would allow the pay for the thirty days' leave of absence earned by him during the fiscal year 1894, but which he did not receive. You are, therefore, authorized to pay Mr. Welch thirty days' leave of absence, but not for the sixty days which he claims. I have the honor to call your attention to what seems to me to be the spirit of the act of June 19, 1894, taken in connection with the case of Harrison v. United States (26 C. Cls. R., 259). The Harrison case decided that pay for leave of absence was not a gratuity or bonus to an employee who served the entire year in addition to pay for the full year, but was simply an allowance made to such employee for a period of thirty days. for time which he did not actually work during the year, so that the total pay of any employee could not exceed the maximum which he would be entitled to receive if he had in fact worked the full year, and that leave could not be held back from year to year and accumulated to be taken at one period of time. The act of June 19, 1894, does not change that principle. It provides, however, that a pro rata leave for any one fiscal year may be obtained during that fiscal year, notwithstanding a maximum of thirty days' leave has already been had during that year on account of a previous year, and authorizes that practice in the future as well as in the past; but so far as future cases are concerned, the act does not substitute pay for days a man works as if he had been on leave of absence, but simply authorizes more than thirty days' leave in any one fiscal year, to which, by the previous laws, the Public Printer had been restricted. I make these observations in order to avoid difficulties which I fear may otherwise arise in the settlement of your accounts. Respectfully, yours, Hon. TH. E. BENEDICT, R. B. BOWLER, Comptroller. Public Printer. IN RE APPEAL OF JOHN W. HUNTSMAN, LATE Under section 270, Revised Statutes, no appeal lies to the Comptroller until an account has been settled by the Auditor for the Postoffice Department. The method used in settling the postal account of a postmaster at a fourthclass office, who serves a fractional part of a quarter, stated. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, FIRST COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE, SIR: Yours of the 5th instant, appealing from the settlement of your accounts as postmaster for the period from July 1 to July 27, 1893, has been received. When, during one quarter, there are two or more postmasters at a fourth-class post-office, their accounts are settled in the manner set forth on Form No. 557, issued by the Auditor, a copy of which is inclosed herewith.* The total cancellations at your office for the quarter ended September 30, 1893, were *Auditor's Form No. 557: At offices of the fourth class the combined compensation of the two or more postmasters serving the fractional parts that constitute a whole quarter must not be in excess of an amount that would be due one postmaster serving the entire quarter. When the combined cancellations amount to less than $50, each postmaster will be allowed the entire amount of his individual cancellations at 100 per cent; but in no case will he be allowed commission on an amount in excess of his individual cancellations. When the total cancellations amount to more than $50 and less than $150 each postmaster will be entitled to his pro rata of $50 (determined by the number of days served for a numerator and the number of days in the quarter for a denominator) at 100 per cent, and the balance of his cancellations at 60 per cent. When the total cancellations amount to more than $150 and less than $350 each postmaster will be entitled to his pro rata of $50 at 100 per cent, his pro rata of $100 at 60 per cent, and the balance of his cancellations at 50 per cent. When the total cancellations amount to more than $350 each postmaster will be entitled to his pro rata of $50 at 100 per cent, his pro rata of $100 at 60 per cent, his pro rata of $200 at 50 per cent, and the balance of his cancellations at 40 per cent; unless the aggregate compensation amounts to more than $250, when each will be entitled to a pro rata of that amount, and the excess must be treated as is customary in such cases. Each postmaster must debit himself with the entire amount of box rents collected by him and credit himself with a pro rata of the entire amount collected at the office during a whole quarter. $181.67, of which you cancelled $56.17. You are therefore entitled to 27/92 of $50-$14.67 at 100 per cent...... $14.67 27/92 of $100-$29.35 at 60 per cent... 17.61 The balance of your cancellations (that is, deducting $14.67 and $29.35 from your total of $56.17)=$12.15 at 60 per cent... 6.07 38.35 You are also credited with 6 cents, being your proportion of 20 cents, box rents collected by your successor. Your account as rendered shows a balance due you of $8.36, while the Auditor shows a balance due from you of $6.93, a difference of $15.29. You claimed $53.70 as compensation; the computation above explained gave you (including 6 cents box rents) $38.41, the difference being $15.29. Your payment of the draft drawn on you for $6.93, balances the account. In reference to the amount due you for money-order business, I would say that that question can not be presented to this office on appeal until the account has been settled by the Auditor, as provided by section 270, Revised Statutes. The settlement of money-order accounts in the Auditor's Office has been very much delayed, but doubtless your account will be promptly acted upon as soon as it is reached: The action of the Auditor in the settlement of your postal account for the period from July 1 to July 27, 1893, is affirmed. Respectfully, yours, JOHN W. HUNTSMAN, Late Postmaster, Scottsville, Ky. R. B. BOWLER, Comptroller. IN RE PRINTING FOR THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS OF THE GOVERNMENT. The fact that the Public Printer can not furnish certain printing and binding in the form desired will not authorize a Department or establishment of the Government to have it done elsewhere. Section 3786, Revised Statutes, is mandatory, and by section 3790 some discretion as to forms and styles is vested in the Public Printer. TREASURY DEPARTMENT, July 25, 1894. SIR: I am in receipt of yours of the 24th instant, calling my attention to section 3786, Revised Statutes, and stating that |