The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-10-19
EXTRA PAY DIsALLoIfED.
Two Months salary Claimed while
on waiting Orders Denied.

Robert J. TracewelI, Comptroller Of the
treasury. this morning gave out his de-
cision on the appeal Of George H Hairless
then colonel First District Of Columbia
Infantry. from the action Of the Audi
tor OF the War Departu ent. Mr. Harries
claimed two months extra paw as colonel
First District Of Columbia Infantry.
which was disaIIowed by tine Auditor be-
cause the claimant did not show that he
was present fcr duty during the said
period MI TraceweU affirmed the ac-
ton Of The Auditor
Concluding his decision. Mr. TraceweU
said; IF the commanding officer Of a
regiment could place himself in duty
status by merely doing work OF mill
tary character. it follows that he could
return TO a status Of waiting orders by
cedslhE 10 DO such work. and in neither
case would the time or even the fact Of
the chang necessarily be known 10 any
other person. While recognize his au-
thoTlty under General Orders 100 70
change his own status under certain cir
cunStances. / cannot regard so loose q
procedure as effectuaI 10 accomplish sucb
a change
1t does not appear that Colonel FFarrfos
took any action 10 place himself on dlt,,
lie contends. however. that his orders re-
calling certain officers Of his rpzira-~t To
DUTY after having placed them on waiting
orders nave been recognized by this office
as valid and binding upon those officers
II is claimed. on thu authority Of the onin-
Ion Of the Judge Advocate General in .b.
case Of Captain LOCKER. that an ofI.~- NOT
IN duty status cannot issue orders which
his sUboTdinates are bound 10 obcy- and
th'tt the recognition Of the validity Of his
orders Is determination that he was
himself IN status Of duty
i is probably true. as n general rule
thaI an ofiicer on waiting orders Is re-
ueved or has command and has not the
nun authority Of his rank while not on
uuly- The position OF these rurIoughed
regiments, however. was exceptional In
general when an officer is relieved Of his
command he is succeeded by another. ana
the officer actually In command f- +ba
proper person 10 issue orders. VIII, d
regiment is furIoughed in a bod,- rbe-e
is no longer any necessity foru command
lng ofncer in the fun meaning OF The tern,
some one must be responsible for the
government property and for the uar-
I"Lihance OF such work as may De- re-
CURED, but II Is not ueceSSg r. fsrar ~
officer responsible should no .--r-if ~.
ouly. It has been held that a tprn0Cray1-
1'Scrce. not exceeding one mouth l7fE
--''N +'tlLft "a company com WgsfuEar g+ tho
increased pay formerly allowed COR -
-ponSlbillty for the arms and properly or
the company ~ VA
II Is possible for n comraudfue- oef7.--
I" exercise some supervision over Tho a.
lars or MS regiment during fTrT1r10b
period without interfering with mis- cfTiT
pursuits. and tn that ease the t-xerrfs.- ~
such supervision would not seem To- r-l-rr
MN IA "A duty status The power 10 as
sign additional officers TO duty during tbe
iuTlough period is Incidental 10 the now
rr expressly given TO make the oriafgaT
aSslgnEntut before granting the TurT9rrab
ana IS really nothing more than aU
amendment of the previous orders Tho
authority. whether eNUrg SIS or implied r1
l~Su" orders OF a certain kind does MOI
Of itself place an officer In "a DUTY stains
FOR all purposes. Neither the Issuance III
such orders nor the exercise of general
supervision over the officers and men on
duty Is sufficient 10 place him In "A dut,
status, though II he be properly assigned
70 duty. the performance Of those dfrffs.
might be regarded as a Sufficient c0rnDII-
aLce with his assignment
As II does not appear that the claim
ant actually retained OF placed himself
ON duty IN accordance with General or
der $50. OF that he was assigned 10 duty
10y any superior authority. I am Of me
opinion that ne is not entitled To- extra
pay.
The action OF the Auditor dis4II5wfng
the claim is affirmed T