
    GEORGE A. BARTLETT v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [30 C. Cls., 338; 197 U. S. R., 230.]
    
      On the claimant's Affedl.
    
    A disbursing clerk in the Treasury Department, who has given bond and taken the oath of office, is “appointed disbursing agent for such, funds as may be advanced on account of the appropriation for post-office, Washington, D. G.” The appointment notifies him that he “icill be entitled to such compensation for the services named as -is provided by law.” lie is not required to give an additional bond or take another oatli of office. lie disburses in the course .of nine years $2,450,710, and seeks a commission of three-eighths of 1 per cent of the amount, disbursed.
    The court below decides:
    1. By Revised Statutes,, section 3657, collectors of customs are required to act as disbursing agents for the payment of moneys for the construction of public buildings within their respective districts; by section 3658 the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized, where there is no collector at the place, to appoint a disbursing agent for the payment of the moneys.
    2. Section 3658 above cited is modified by the Act 7th August, 1882' (22 Stat. L., 306), which provides that “any disbursing agent who has been or may be appointed to disburse any appropriation for any United States court-house and post-office, or other building or grounds, not located within the city of Washington, shall be entitled to the compensation allowed by law to collectors of customs.” Therefore, where the building is in the city of Washington the Secretary is without authority to appoint a disbursing agent for that purpose.
    3. The duty of disbursing money for a public building in the city of Washington is germane to the regular duties of a disbursing clerk in the Treasury Department, and the two can not be considered as two distinct offices or employments.- The new duties are merely additional to those of disbursing clerk of the Department.
    4. A disbursing agent appointed under section 3658, the statutes imply, _ must give bond as an officer and take the "required oath of office, as prescribed by section 1756.
    5. The Revised Statutes, section 255, provide that the Secretary of' the Treasury may designate any officer who has given bond to be a disbursing agent of pirblic buildings “ within the district 
      
      of such officer.” Where the building is not within the district of the officer such an appointment is not authorized.
    6. In November, 1891, the city of Washington was, by Revised Statutes, section 2550, within the customs district of Georgetown; hence the Secretary of the Treasury was not authorized under section 8058 (supra) to appoint a disbursing agent for a public building in Washington.
    7. Where an officer does not hold two distinct offices or places of employment, each with its own duties and compensation, he does not come within the rule of the Supreme Court in United States v. Saunders (120 TJ. S., 120), but comes withiu the prohibitions of the Revised Statutes, sections 1703, 1701, and 1705, that no officer shall receive additional pay “ unless the same is authorized Toy law, and the appropriation therefor explicitly states that it is for such additional pay.”
    
   The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court March 13, 1905.  