in court martial trials such copies would be admissible notwithstanding the objection of the accused.' Card 8471, June, 1900. 1313. The Morning Report Book is an original writing. To properly admit extracts in evidence, the book should be first identified by the proper custodian, and the extracts then not merely read to the court by the witness, but copied and the copies, properly verified, attached as exhibits to the record of the court. 61, 218, August, 1893. 1314. A descriptive list is but secondary evidence and not admissible to prove the facts recited therein. It is not a record of original entries, made by an officer under a duty imposed upon him by law or the custom of the service, but is simply a compilation of facts taken from other records. 61, 218, August, 1893. 1315. Copies of pay accounts (charged to have been duplicated) are admissible in evidence where the accused has by his own act placed the originals beyond the reach of process, and fails to produce them in court on proper notice. XLVII, 269, August, 1883. Similarly held, where the originals were in the hands of a person who had left the United States so that they could not be reached, on notice to the accused to produce them or otherwise. LVI, 604, September, 1888. 1316. To the admission in evidence of a letter written and signed by the accused (of which the introduction is contested), proof of his handwriting is necessary. 61, 218, August, 1893. Evidence of handwriting by comparison is not admissible at common law except where the standard of comparison is an acknowledged or proved genuine writing already in evidence in the case. A writing not in evidence. and simply offered to be used as a standard is not admissible. XLIX, 566, December, 1885. 1317. At the trial, in 1894, of an officer charged with a disorder and breach of discipline which involved the killing by him of another officer, there was offered in evidence, on the part of the accused, to exhibit the character and disposition of the officer killed, a copy of a general court-martial order of 1872, setting forth certain charges alleging dishonest and unbecoming conduct, upon which the latter officer was then tried and convicted, and the findings of the court thereon. Held that such evidence was wholly inadmissible for the purpose designed. 65, 270, June, 1894. 1 In accordance with these views, the following regulation by the Secretary of War was published in G. O. 91, A. G. Ó., 1900: "Copies of any records or papers in the War Department or any of its bureaus, if authenticated by the impressed stamp of the bureau or office having custody of the originals (e. g., 'Adjutant General's Office, Official Copy'), may be admitted in evidence equally with the originals thereof before any court martial, court of inquiry, or in any administrative matter under the War Department." See Court-Mar. Manual (1901), p. 42, note 3. EXAMINATION. 1318. Held that assistant surgeons of the rank of lieutenant were subject to examination under the act of October 1, 1890, c. 1241, "to provide for the examination of certain officers of the army and to regulate promotion therein." 44, 374, December, 1890. 1319. Held that Secs. 1206 and 1208, Rev. Sts., relating to the examination of officers of the engineer and ordnance corps, were not repealed by the act of October 1, 1890, c. 1241, but remained fully in force.' 44, 88, November, 1890. 1320. Where an officer was sentenced "to retain his number on the lineal list of second lieutenants of infantry for three years," held that the sentence, while operative, rendered him ineligible for promotion under the act of October 1, 1890, and that his promotion pending the execution of the sentence would operate as a pardon. 47, 293, May. 1891. 1321. An enlisted man who has failed to pass a departmental board convened under G. O. 79, A. G. O., 1892, is not eligible for the final competitive examination authorized by the same order. Card 2422, July, 1896. 1322. Ield that the construction given by General Orders 128, A. G. O., 1890, to the act of October 1, 1890, was correct. Card 3670, November, 1897. 1323. After the Secretary of War has approved the findings of an examining board and his action thereon has been communicated to the party examined, it is no longer revocable. Card 6671, June, 1899. EXTRADITION. 1324. By Art. II of the extradition treaty with Mexico of Dec. 11, 1861, it is stipulated that: "In the case of crimes committed in the frontier States or Territories of the two contracting parties, requisitions may be made through their respective diplomatic agents, or through the chief civil authority of said States or Territories, or through such chief civil or judicial authority of the districts or counties bordering on the frontier as may for this purpose be duly authorized by the said chief civil authority of the said frontier States or Territories, or when, from any cause, the civil authority of such State or Territory shall be suspended, through the chief military officer in command of such State or Territory." So where a United States soldier charged with having committed a crime against the laws of Mexico was held in military custody within the State of Texas, advised, that as a 1See act of July 27, 1892 (27 Stats., 276). 2 See G. O. 128 of 1890, par. VIII. requisition by the Mexican government directly upon the military commander in Texas would not be authorized, such commander would not be justified in taking action upon an application for such surrender, and that any application made through him would properly be transmitted to the Secretary of War to be referred to the State Department. XXXVIII, 118, July, 1876. 1325. The extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico provides that "when from any cause the civil authority" of a frontier State, &c., of either nation "shall be suspended," the requisition shall be made through the chief military officer in command of such State," &c. A criminal having escaped into Mexico from Texas at a time when the civil authority of that State was suspended as a result of the civil war, a requisition for him was issued not by the officer commanding in the State but by a subordinate of inferior rank. Held that as such action was clearly unauthorized, the Mexican government was justified in refusing to comply with the requisition, and that a new one should accordingly be made by the proper commander. XXIX, 4, June, 1869. 1326. Fugitives from justice are not surrendered by one government to another under extradition treaties, except on account of offences committed within the jurisdiction of the government demanding their extradition. So where a U. S. soldier deserted and went to Canada and there forged a check on the Assistant Treasurer, New York, which was paid, held that he could not be extradited for the forgery thus committed outside the jurisdiction of the United States. 53, 446, May, 1892. 1327. A soldier of the United States who has deserted to a place under the jurisdiction of Great Britain cannot be extradited on account of a military offence; such offences not being provided for in the extradition treaties between that country and the United States. 53, 446, May, 1892. 1328. The arrest and delivery of a soldier serving in the Philippine Islands or Cuba to the authorities of one of the United States is not, during the military occupancy of such places by the United States, a matter of international extradition. If a soldier so serving has been indicted in one of the States, the War Department may legally direct his surrender to such civil officer as may be sent, supplied with the proper papers, to receive him. Cards 5955, 6055, March, 1899. EXTRA DUTY PAY. 1329. The act of July 13, 1866, c. 176, s. 7 (now Sec. 1287, Rev. Sts.) authorizes the payment to soldiers "working as artificers" of thirty-five cents "per day," in addition to their regular pay. The “day,” in a legal sense, consists of twenty-four hours, and it is not practicable to make two working days out of this period of time, so as to justify a double payment under the act. So held that a soldier, who did extra duty as an artificer at the U. S. Military Academy both night and day, was not entitled to a double compensation therefor. XXVI, 276, December, 1867. 1330. Held that enlisted men of the Signal Service, while employed in constructing and working telegraph lines, and in observing and reporting storms and making reports for the benefit of agriculture and commerce might properly be classed as "artificers" within the meaning of the act of 1866, and paid accordingly. XXXVIII, 184, July, 1876. 1331. Held that enlisted men detailed as "packers" or "chief packers" could scarcely be regarded as entitled to the extra allowance of thirty five cents per day as "artificers," but might legally be paid the allowance of twenty cents per day as "laborers," in addition to their regular pay as soldiers. XXXVI, 530, June, 1875. 1332. In view of the interpretation by successive Attorneys General,3 of the term "other constant labor," employed in the act of March 2, 1819 (the original of the provision of July 13, 1866), as including clerical service, and of the continued practice of the Government in accord with such interpretation, held that enlisted men detailed as clerks might properly be regarded as entitled, for constant labor as such "of not less than ten days' duration," to the extra duty pay of twenty cents per diem. XXXVII, 297, January, 1876. But held, in view of the positive prohibition of Sec. 1765, Rev. Sts., that a soldier could not legally be allowed any additional compensation for such service further or other than such laborer's pay; and this although at the time of acting as clerk he was on leave of absence. XLII, 564, March, 1880. 1333. Held that an arsenal was a post within the meaning of Sec. 1231, Rev. Sts., relating to the establishing of schools at posts, &c., and that an enlisted man detailed as a school teacher at ah arsenal was therefore entitled to the extra duty pay specified in the act of March 3, 1885, amending Sec. 1287, Rev. Sts. LV, 30, September, 1886. 1334. The provision as to extra duty pay of Sec. 1287, Rev. Sts., is evidently intended to cover only such labor as may legitimately be performed in the military service by soldiers as such. So held that an enlisted man could not legally be paid extra duty pay for services 1 But see now A. R. 171 (189 of 1901). 2 Under the subsequent act, however, of June 20, 1878, reposing in the Secretary of War a special discretion on the subject, the right to the extra-duty pay has been restricted to a certain portion of this class of soldiers. See G. O. 54, Hdqrs. of Army, 1878. See also the Army Regulations and the annual army appropriation acts. 32 Opins. At. Gen., 706; 3 id., 116; 4 id., 325. And see also 10 id., 472. proposed to be rendered as a telegraph operator to a private telegraph company, the same being an employment for which he could not legally be detached from his legitimate duties as a soldier. LI, 281, December, 1886. 1335. The act of June 20, 1890, provides for the muster-out of the men of the Artillery Detachment at West Point and their immediate re-enlistment as "Army Service men in the Quartermaster Department." Held that this specific provision confined this particular detachment to the former artillerymen, but that it did not preclude the detail, under the general power of detail and assignment, of other enlisted men of the army for duty under the quartermaster at West Point, and that such men, when so detailed, would be entitled to the usual extra-duty pay allowed by law and regulations. 56, 327, November, 1892. 1336. The extra-duty pay is payable only for "constant labor for a period of not less than ten days." Thus held that a non-commissioned officer who acted, during a single day, as auctioneer at a sale of condemned quartermaster stores was not legally entitled to the payment of a ten per cent commission on the proceeds of the sale or to any other compensation whatever,' and that the post quartermaster, in paying him the said commission, was chargeable with a misapplication of public funds. 60, 363, July, 1893; 62, 95, October, 1893. 1337. The Army Appropriation Act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1896, provided for extra duty pay to enlisted men in the Subsistence and Quartermaster Departments, but made no provision for payment to enlisted men detailed on extra duty outside of those departments; Held, therefore, that there was no appropriation from which an enlisted man detailed on extra duty as messenger and typewriter at the United States Infantry and Cavalry School, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, could be paid. Card 2036, February, 1896. 1338. The Army Appropriation Act of 1885-6 (23 Stats., 359), provided that thereafter extra duty pay of enlisted men on extra duty at constant labor of not less than ten days would "be paid at the rate of fifty cents per day for mechanics, artisans, school teachers and clerks, at army, division and department headquarters, and thirty five cents per day for other clerks, teamsters, laborers and other enlisted men on extra duty." Held that this would authorize the payment of extra duty pay to enlisted men detailed as clerks at post and regimental headquarters whenever there is money available for such payment; but remarked that the current army appropriation act contained This view was concurred in by the Second Comptroller of the Treasury, in a decision published in Circ. No. 3, Á. G. O., 1894, overruling prior decision of May 22, |