
    CHARLES M. THOMAS v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [38 C. Cls. R., 113, 719; 195 U. S. R., 478.]
    
      On the cross Apfeats of the parties.
    
    An officer commanding a véssel is detached at Barbados and ordered to report at the Navy Department. He travels from Barbados by sailing vessel and is allowed only his actual expenses and shore-duty pay. 1-Ie is immediately ordered “ to Hongkong for duty on the Asiatic Station,” and on arriving there is assigned to the command of the Baltimore. He is allowed only shore-duty pay and his actual expenses or commutation therefor given by Revised Statutes, sections 1578, 1585.
    The court below decides:
    1. A naval officer detached from his vessel at a port of a foreign country and ordered to report at the Navy Department is on shore duty while traveling to Washington, and is not entitled to the full pay of his rank.
    2. An officer detached from his vessel at Barbados and ordered to report to the Navy Department at Washington and thence ordered to Hongkong “ for duty on the Asiatic Station,” and on his arrival assigned to the command of a vessel, is entitled only to shore-duty pay while traveling from Washington to his vessel on the Asiatic Station.
    3. A naval officer is not entitled to the increase of 10 per cent in pay for service in the Philippine Islands or in China or for “ serving beyond the limits of the United States” given to army officers by the Acts 26th May, 1900, and 2d March, 1901 (31 Stat. L., 211, 903), unless he was “detailed for shore duty" as provided by the Navy personnel act. But on motion for a new trial this ruling is reversed.
    
      4. Since tlie enactment of the Navy personnel act a naval officer is not entitled to the sea ration given by the Revised Statutes, sections 157S, 1585.
    5. The proviso in the Navy personnel act declaring that “ no provision of this act shall operate to rechice the present pay of any commissioned officer” and the Act 7th June, 1900 (31 Stat. L., 084, 007), providing “that nothing therein contained shall . operate to reduce the pay ” do not extend to allowances.
    Later in the term the court, oil a motion for a new trial, decides:
    1. A naval officer performing sea service in Asiatic waters is entitled to the “ increased tan per centum ” of pay given to officers of the Army by the Act 2(ith May, 1900. (31 Stat. L., p. 211.) Reversing the former decision of the court in this case, p. 113, ' ante.
    2. A naval officer performing sea service in Asiatic waters is entitled to the “ increased ten per centum ” of pay given to officers of the Army by the Act 2d March, 1901 (31 Stat. L., p. 903), “ from the date of departure from, the United States to the date of return thereto.” Reversing the former decision of the court in this case, p. 113, ante.
   The decision of the court below is reversed on the ground that Congress may increase the pay of army officers at particular places and under special circumstances without intending it to apply to the naval officer, and that in the present case it did not apply.

Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court December 5, 1904.  