
    WALTER S. CROSLEY v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [38 C. Cls. R., 82; 196 U. S. R., 327.]
    
      On the defendants'1 Appeal.
    
    The duties of aids to rear-admirals are the same as the duties of aids to major-generals. The question in the case is tvhether they are entitled to the same pay.
    
      The court below decides:
    1. The navy-personnel act 3d March, 1899 (30 Stat L., p. XOOT, § 13), provides that “ officers of the line of the THavy and of the Medical and Pay Corps shall receive the same pay and allowance, except forage” as “officers of corresponding raudo in the Army.” The Revised Statutes (§ 1098) provide that “each major-general shall have three aids,” and (§ 1201) an “ aid to major-general Uco hundred dollars a year in addition to pay of his rank.” The aid to a rear-admiral is entitled to this additional pay.
    2. The duties of aids, whether in the Army or Navy, are personal to commanding officers.
    3. The aids authorized by navy regulations 343, 345 are as much authorized by law as are the aids to generals by the statutes.
    4. The mounted pay given to some Army officers by the Revised Statutes (§ 1201) is not synonymous with mounted service, as there may bo mounted pay without actual mount.
   The decision of the court below is affirmed except as to the item allowing mounted pay to the aid of a rear-admiral.

Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court January 23, 1905.  