
    JOSEPH McDONALD v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 14460.
    Decided February 6, 1888.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    A naval officer is ordered to proceed from Callao to 'Wasliingten. Apart of tlie journey is made while the law allows actual traveling expenses ; the remainder of the journey while the law allows mileage. The accounting officers allow traveling exxjeuses for the entire distance.
    Where a statute (Act 16th June, 1874, IS.Stat. L., p. 72, § 1) provides that “only actual traveling expenses” he allowed, anda subsequent one that “ the sum of eight cents per mile he allowed such officers in lieu of their actual traveling expenses ” (Act 30th June, 1876,19 Stat. L., p. 65), and a journey was begun under the former and completed under the latter, the re-imbursement of the officer must be apportioned under both, so that he shall be reimbursed for each portion of his journey at the rate prescribed by the then existing law.
    
      The Reporters’ statement of the case:
    The following are the facts as found by the court:
    I. The claimant, a boatswain in the Navy, on the 21st June, 1876, was ordered by Rear-Admiral Worden, commanding at Callao, Peru,' “ to proceed to your home in the United States, and, upon your arrival, report to the honorable the Secretary of the Navy.”
    II. The claimant, pursuant to the foregoing order, traveled from Callao to Washington and reported as directed. His journey from Callao*to Panama was made prior to the 30th of June, 1876; Ms journey from Panama to Washington subsequent to tbe 30tb June, 1876. He was paid bis actual traveling expenses for tbe entire journey, amounting to $256.60.
    III. If tbe claimant was entitled to mileage from Callao to Washington, tbe excess of such mileage over and above tbe amount paid to bim for actual expenses is $111.40. If tbe claimant was entitled to mileage from Panama to Washington, the excess of such mileage over and above tbe amount paid to bim for actual expenses is $74.
    
      Mr. Robert B. Lines for the claimant.
    
      Mr. F. P. JDeicees (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Howard) for tbe defendants.
   Nott, J.,

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court:

By tbe Act 10th June, 1874 (18 Stat. L., p. 72, §1), 11 only actual traveling expenses” were “allowed to any person bolding employment or appointment under tbe United States.” By tbe Act 30th June, 1876 (19 Stat. L., p. 65), so much of tbe preceding act as was “ applicable to officers of tbe Navy ” was “ repealed,” “ and the sum of 8 cents per mile” was “allowedrsuch officers ” “ in lieu of their actual expenses.” In the present case, where a naval officer was ordered to proceed from Callao to Washington, a pqrt of tbe journey was made under tbe one statute and tbe remainder under tbe other; and tbe question presented by the case is whether tbe officer should be re-imbursed according to tbe law as it existed when the order to travel was given, or according to tbe law as it existed when tbe service of travel was completed, or whether tbe expenses should bo re-imbursed according to tbe law actually existing at tbe time that each portion of tbe journey was made.

The court acknowledges that this question, though trivial, is not free from doubt 5 that there is neither precedent nor analogy which can be deferred to as authority; and that tbe question is one as to which different minds will reach different conclusions. Butthecourtisof theopiniontliatthere-imbursement of an officer in such a case should be apportioned under both statutes, so that be shall receive mileage for that portion of bis journey which was performed uuder the mileage act, and bis actual expenses for that portion which was performed under the other statute. In the present casetbe difference between the amount of the mileage from Callao to Washington and the actual expenses already refunded to the officer is $111.40; and the court, for want of more minute data, will apportion this balance so that the officer shall recover such proportion of it as the distance from Panama to Washington bears to the whole distance from Callao.

The judgment of the court is that the claimant recover $74.  