
    IN THE MATTER OF LIEUT. C. W. HARROLD.
    [Departmental
    33.
    Decided April 23, 1888. ]
    On the Proofs.
    
    This matter is transmitted to tlie court at the same time and in the same manner as that of Major Billings {ante). The only question of law involved is whether an officer belonging to a battery designated by the President to be mounted and equipped as an “ additional light battery ” under Revised Statutes, § 1101,1s entitled to payas a mounted officer from the time of designation and actual service, or from the time when the battery is fully equipped.
    
      I. An officer of a battery designated by the President as a “ light battery (in which officers are required to he mounted), and immediately organized as such, is entitled to mounted pay from the day of such designation or assignment, though the battery be not fully equipped till a later date.
    II. A mounted officer,-within the meaning of Revised Statutes, § 1261, is one who, by statute, regulations or army organization, is “required ” to be mounted at his own expense.
    
      The Reporters’ statement of the case:
    The matter' above designated was transmitted to the court under the Bowman Act by the Secretary of War on the 5th April, 1888. The following are the facts as found by the court:
    I. First Lieut. O. W. Harrold belonged to Battery F, Third United States Artillery, when it was designated by the President, under Revised Statutes, section 1101, as an additional battery to be mounted and equipped as a “ light battery ” of that regiment, to take effect August 15, 1882, and he actually served therewith, and was so employed on such duty, from that date continuously to and after May 1, 1883.
    II. Said battery was immediately organized as a “ light battery,” was moved, drilled, and recognized as such by the War Department from the date of such designation. The procuring of equipments appears to have commenced at once and to have proceeded as fast as practicable, but the battery was not fully equipped until May 1, 1883. Harrold does not appear to have been the cause of any delay in the completion of the equipment.
    III. Said Harrold was paid by a paymaster of the Army mounted pay from August 15, 1882, the date at which his battery became a light battery under said designation. The Second Comptroller disallowed the sum of $84.77 .of the amount paid him as the difference between mounted pay and unmounted-pay from August 15, 1882, to May 1, 1883, and communicated the fact of such disallowance to the Paymaster-General as showing that Lieutenant Harrold was in arrears to the Government. Said Harrold was notified by the latter officer, and requested to refund the amount thus received by him, which he declined to do, and appealed to the Secretary of War as prescribed by Army Regulations, article 2445. The Secretary of W ar transmitted the matter to this court under the provisions of the Bowman Act (1883, March 3, U6y 22 Stat. L., 485)»
    
      And tbe court at the same time reported the folio wing Conclusions of lato:
    
    “Upon the foregoing findings of fact the court decides as a conclusion of law that Lieutenant Harrold was entitled to mounted pay from the date his battery became a “ light battery ” under the President’s order, and that he was not overpaid, and was not in arrears on account of having received mounted pay from the paymaster from August 15,1882, to May 1, 1883.”
    
      Major Asa Bird Gardiner, Assistant'Judge-Advocate-Gem eral, for the claimant and the Secretary of War.
    
      Mr. Heder J. May (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney- General Howard) opposed. ’
   Richardson, Ch. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The matter involved in this case was transmitted to the court by the Secretary of War, under like circumstances as was the matter of the travel pay of Major Billings, recently decided (23 O. Cls. B., 166).

Some of the questions involved are the same as in that case, and our views in relation to them, having been fully expressed, we shall not now repeat.

The only question to be decided is whether or not an officer belonging to a battery designated by the President to be mounted and equipped as an “ additional light battery,” under-section 1101 of the Bevised Statutes, is entitled to pay as a mounted officer from the time of such designation and organization and his actual service therein, and before the battery is-fully equipped.

General Order No. 18 of March 12,1880, requires that— ’

“ Other [additional] light batteries of artillery which may be designated by the President, under section 110Í, Bevised Statutes, and equipped as such, will have the organization of a light battery, except the additional second lieutenant, and the-officers thereof actually serving with the light batteries will be mounted.”

By the Act of February 12, 1877, chapter 19 (Supplement to Bev. Stats., 268), section 1270 is amended by adding this proviso :

“ Officers of the Army and of volunteers, assigned to duty which requires them to be mounted, shall, during the time they are so employed on such duty, receive the pay, emoluments, and allowances of cavalry officers of the same grade, respectively.”

In our opinion, when an officer belongs to a battery which is designated by the Presidentas a “ light battery,” in which the •officers are required to be mounted, and actually serves with ■such battery, or is assigned to duty which requires him to be mounted, he is entitled to mounted pay during the time he is so employed on such duty, from the day of such designation or assignment, whether or not the battery be fully equipped, or he be actually mounted till a later date.

A mounted officer within the meaning of the pay statute (Rev. Stat., § 1261) is one who by statute, regulations, or army organization is required to be mounted at his own expense, whether he or his company be fully equipped or not.

The salary pay of officers of the Army is given for services -required, as is, ordinarily, that of all other salaried officers of the Government; to be forfeited only in cases where so prescribed by law (Rev. Stat., §§ 1265,1266; Williamson’s Case, 23 Wall., 411, 416).

There are so many circumstances connected with the exigencies of the service or the conveniences of the War Department which may cause delay in the full equipment of a company or battery, and so many accidents for which the officers are not responsible, by which they may temporarily be deprived of their horses when required to have them, that the pay of officers is not made dependent upon the mere fact of their being all the time actually mounted, nor upon their company being fully equipped.

On the other hand, officers may sometimes be mounted under such circumstances that they are not, in military organization, regarded as mounted officers, and are not entitled to pay as such. This court held in Forbes’s Case (17 O.' Cls. R., 132), reaffirmed in Carter’s Case (22 O. Cls. R., 74), that officers of infantry, mounted by permission of the War Department, with captured horses, with no expense to themselves for horses or equipments, were not entitled to pay as mounted officers.

First Lieutenant Harrold was serving with his battery when he was required to be mounted, and he was entitled to mounted pay from the date of such requirement. He received from the paymaster no more than he was entitled to, and is not in arrears on account of the $84.77 stated in the findings.

The clerk will certify a copy of these findings of fact, conclusions of law, and opinion to the Secretary of War for his guidance and action.  