
    GEORGE W. EVANS v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [44 C. Cls. R., 649 ; 45 C. Cls. R., 169; 226 U. S. R., 567.]
    
      On the elaimMvPs appeal.
    
    The Secretary of the Interior appoints the disbursing officer of that department “ a special disbursing agent to disburse the appropriation for the construction ■ of additional buildings in the extension of the Government Hospital for the Insane,” ■and allows “ the maximum compensation prescribed by the act March S, 1815, not exceeding three-eighths of one per cent." The officer is required to give an additional distinct bond and is again required to increase his bond from $75,000 to $100,000. The appointment of a special agent to make these disbursements was, in the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior, a necessity. The Officer was treated by the accounting officers of the Treasury as a special disbursing agent, and his accounts were adjusted under his special bonds without reference to his bond given as the disbursing clerk of the department.
    The court below decides:
    I.The Revised Statutes, §§ 1763, 1764, 1765, relating to the additional compensation of public officers, have been repeatedly construed both by this and the Supreme Court. The cases reviewed.
    II.The duties of the superintendent of the Government Hospital for the Insane are prescribed by the Revised Statutes, § 4839), and by them it is provided that “ he shall he the responsible disbursing agent of the institution;” but those sections refer only to disbursements for the support of administrative expenses of the hospital and not to disbursements for new buildings.
    III.Where the disbursing officer of the Interior Department was required of the Secretary to act as “ special Msbursing agent to disburse appropriations for the construction of buildings in the extension of the Government Hospital for the Insane,” and to give bonds as such special disbursing agent, he is not, under the decision of the Supreme Court in Woodioell’s Gase (214 IT. S. R., 82), entitled to recover the compensation fixed by the Secretary at the time of his appointment.
    The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.
    January 6, 1913.
   Mr. Justice Pitney

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court

Mr. Justice McKenna and Mr. Justice Hughes dissented.  