Opinion of the Court. regulations as would have been enforced had she been put in order and used for purposes of cruising, or as a practice ship at sea. Within the meaning of the law, Symonds, when performing his duties as executive officer of the New Hampshire, was "at sea." Judgment affirmed. UNITED STATES v. BISHOP. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. Submitted December 6, 1886. - Decided January 10, 1887. This case is affirmed on the authority of United States v. Symonds, just decided (ante, 46). THE case is stated in the opinion of the court. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. F. P. Dewees for appellant. Mr. John Paul Jones and Mr. Robert B. Lines for appellee. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court. This case does not differ in principle from that of United States v. Symonds, just decided. Bishop is now, and has been for more than four years, a lieutenant-commander in the navy. By direction of the Secretary of the Navy, he assumed the duties of executive officer of the training-ship Minnesota, on the 18th of April, 1884. During the period of such service that vessel was stationed in New York harbor, cruising and moving about under her own power. Her machinery and equipment were kept in order, and she was perfectly seaworthy, capable, upon short notice, of being used in a protracted cruise. The duties of Bishop, while such executive officer, were more arduous and confining than those of officers of similar grade upon vessels in foreign waters. Syllabus. For the reasons given in United States v. Symonds, we are of opinion that the services of appellee were, within the meaning of § 1556 of the Revised Statutes, performed "at sea," and, consequently, it was rightly adjudged in the court below that he was entitled to sea-pay, as established for officers of his grade, during the period of his service on the Minnesota. Judgment affirmed. UNITED STATES v. PHILBRICK. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. Submitted December 6, 1886. — Decided January 10, 1887. Prior to the enactment in the act of February 25, 1871, 16 Stat. 431, now Rev. Stat. § 12, that "whenever an act is repealed, which repealed a former act, such former act shall not thereby be revived unless it shall be expressly so provided," it was the general rule of law that the repeal of a repealing act restored the law as it was before the passage of the latter act without formal words for that purpose, unless otherwise provided either in the repealing act or by some general statute. Before the passage of the act of March 3, 1835, forbidding it, 4 Stat. 757, it was lawful for the Secretary of the Navy to make allowances out of appropriations in gross to officers of the Navy beyond their regular pay, for quarters, furniture, lights, fuel, &c., and the repeal of that act by the act of April 17, 1866, 14 Stat. 33, restored the right to make such allowances; and such as were made by him and were settled at the Treasury Department, between the date when the latter act went into effect and the passage of the act of February 25, 1871, 16 Stat. 431, were made in accordance with the executive construction of the statutes respecting the navy and the Navy Department prior to 1835, and this court will not at this late day question their validity. The contemporaneous construction of a statute by the Executive Department charged with its execution is entitled to great weight, and ought not to be overturned unless clearly erroneous. It is not decided (1) whether after settlement of an account at the Treasury it can be reopened by the accounting officers on the ground of error arising only from mistake of law; nor (2) whether errors in accounts with the United States, stated closed and settled by payment, can be corrected otherwise than by regular judicial proceedings instituted by the United States. Opinion of the Court. THE case is stated in the opinion of the court. Mr. Attorney General and Mr. F. P. Dewees for appellant. Mr. John Paul Jones and Mr. Robert B. Lines for appellee. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court. The appellee, Philbrick, having served as a carpenter in the navy from July 8, 1861, to March 14, 1866, and again continuously after November 12, 1869, filed with the Fourth Auditor of the Treasury his claim for the benefits of the act of Congress of March 3, 1883, providing, among other things, that "all officers of the navy shall be credited with the actual time they may have served as officers or enlisted men in the regular or volunteer army or navy, or both, and shall receive all the benefits of such actual service in all respects in the same manner as if all said service had been continuous, and in the regular navy, in the lowest grade having graduated pay held by such officer since last entering the service." 22 Stat. 473. The claim having been passed by the Fourth Auditor, was forwarded to the Second Comptroller of the Treasury, who is the reviewing officer charged with the examination of all accounts of this class. The latter officer, while recognizing that the appellee had a valid claim under the act of 1883, deducted from the amount which the Fourth Auditor had ascertained to be due the sum of $214.88. That amount was made up of two items, $169.50 and $45.38. In respect to the item of $169.50 which is the only one disputed on this appeal the Second Comptroller held that that sum had, by mistake of law, been improperly allowed and paid to appellee for commutation of quarters, furniture, lights, and fuel from November 12, 1869, to July 1, 1870, although such payment was in conformity with a general order, issued by the Secretary of the Navy on the 12th of May, 1866, in reference to allowances to officers in that branch of the public service. It is, however, insisted, on behalf of the United States, that Opinion of the Court. that order was unauthorized by law and void; and, consequently, that the amount allowed under it to appellee was properly chargeable against his claim for pay under the act of 1883. So far as we are aware, the first act of Congress providing for special allowances or compensation to officers, seamen, and marines beyond their regular pay, was that of April 18, 1814. The second section of that act authorized the President "to make an addition, not exceeding twenty-five per cent., to the pay of the officers, midshipmen, seamen, and marines, engaged in any service, the hardships or disadvantages of which shall, in his judgment, render such addition necessary." 3 Stat. 136, c. 83. That section was, however, repealed by the act of February 22, 1817. 3 Stat. 345, c. 13. The reasons which led to the withdrawal of this power from the President are not disclosed in any public document to which our attention has been called. The practice which prevailed in the Navy Department for many years after the passage of the act of 1817, in reference to special allowances to or for the benefit of naval officers beyond their regular pay-of which practice Congress was fully informed -- tends to show that the repeal of the act of 1814 was not intended as a prohibition of allowances of every kind. In the Rules, Regulations, and Instructions prepared by the Board of Navy Commissioners, with the consent of the Secretary of the Navy, and published in 1818,--a copy of which was transmitted to Congress by President Monroe on the 20th of April of that year, American State Papers, Class VI, Naval Affairs, p. 510,- will be found provisions for certain allowances, graduated according to the character of the vessel or the rank of the officer in charge. In the "Rules of the Navy Department regulating the Civil Administration of the Navy Department," prepared under the supervision of Secretary Woodbury, and by him published in 1832 in what is known as the "Red Book," are provisions in reference to allowances for cabin furniture, chamber money, furniture of officers' houses at yards, fuel, lights, servants, &c. Chapter 10. Besides, the naval appropriation acts, for many years before and after 1832, contained items in gross for all the objects Opinion of the Court. covered by these allowances; but none of them contained directions as to the manner in which the sums appropriated should be apportioned. The absence of such directions was no doubt due to the fact, known to Congress, that the amounts annually appropriated were used or apportioned by the Navy Department as indicated in the rules prescribed by the Secretary. That these allowances were habitually made, and that Congress was aware of this practice, appears from a report to President Monroe by the Secretary of the Navy, transmitted to Congress on the 4th of March, 1822. That report was accompanied by a statement showing the number and grade of the officers attached to each navy yard or station, with the amount allowed each for pay, subsistence, emoluments, or extra compensation. The Secretary in his report says: "The allowances to officers attached to the navy yards have, I understand, been made to them since the commencement of these establishments, and vary in some instances according to the expense of living, house rent, &c., in the different places at which they are located. The pay and rations, authorized by law to officers, are understood to be for their maintenance on board ship, in which they are accommodated with rooms, fuel, candles, &c.; but when placed on shore at naval stations they have not such accommodations. The allowances . now made are regulated by a table, making them all equal, or as nearly so as practicable. The allowances have, in most instances, been made by the Auditor in the settlement of accounts without any reference to this Department, he considering himself authorized so to do by the usage of the service, from the commencement of the naval establishment, with the approbation and sanction of the Secretary of the Navy." American State Papers, Class VI, Naval Affairs, Vol. 1, p. 797. The subject was subsequently brought to the attention of Congress by the report of the Secretary of the Navy to the Senate, January 1, 1825, American State Papers, Naval Affairs, Vol. 2, p. 40; by the letter of the Secretary to the chairman of the House Committee on Naval Affairs, February 2, 1826, Ib., p. 626; by the communication of the Fourth |