ceeding in rem, and is therefore one as to which all the world is charged with notice. And that the law of California conforms to this general and elementary rule is beyond question. Wm. Hill Co. v. Lawler, 116 California, 359. The distribution of the estate of Williams was but an incident of the proceeding prescribed by the laws of California in respect to the administration of an estate in the custody of one of its probate courts. Under such circumstances, therefore, and putting aside the question of whether or not the State of California did or did not possess arbitrary power in respect to the character and length of notice to be given of the various steps in the administration of an estate in the custody of one of its courts, we hold that the claim that ten days' statutory notice of the time appointed for the settlement of the final account of the executor and for action upon the petition for final distribution of the Williams estate was so unreasonable as to be wanting in due process of law, was clearly unsubstantial and devoid of merit, and furnished no support for the contention that rights under the Constitution of the United States had been violated. As held in Bellingham Bay Co. v. New Whatcom, 172 U. S. 314, 318, even although the power of a state legislature to prescribe length of notice is not absolute, yet it is certain "that only in a clear case will a notice authorized by the legislature be set aside as wholly ineffectual on account of the shortness of the time."

The jurisdiction to determine this appeal upon the merits being dependent upon the existence of a constitutional question in the record, and the mere averment that such a question was raised below not being sufficient where the alleged Federal question is so wanting in merit as to cause it to be frivolous or without any support whatever in reason, it follows that the appeal must be and it is

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA took no part in the decision of this

case.

VOL. CCXIV-6

Opinion of the Court.

WOODWELL v. UNITED STATES.

214 U.S.

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

No. 143. Argued April 8, 12, 1909.—Decided May 17, 1909.

Where there is no specific provision in the appropriation for government work and there is no intention of the department in which a Government employé is employed to call upon him to fill another separate and distinct office, his designation by the head of his department to do certain work for another department does not entitle him to extra compensation; and, under § 1765, Rev. Stat., he cannot be allowed extra compensation therefor, even though the services be of value to the Government, are rendered out of hours, and are in addition to the full performance of his regular employment. 41 C. Cl. 357, affirmed.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. William H. Robeson for appellant.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General John Q. Thompson, with whom Mr. Clark McKercher was on the brief, for The United States.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court.

This appeal is from a judgment of the Court of Claims, dismissing a petition filed by the appellant to recover from the United States the sum of $3,675. 41 Ct. Cl. 357. From the findings of the court below the facts upon which the claim was based are substantially as follows: Woodwell, the appellant,. is by profession a mechanical and electrical engineer. From a date prior to March 3, 1901, up to the time of the bringing of this suit, he was an inspector of electric light plants under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, receiving a salary of $2,000 per annum. In the sundry civil

act, approved March 3, 1901, the following appropriation was made (31 Stat. 1156):

"For the establishment of electric lighting plants for the buildings occupied by the offices of the Department of the Interior, the Patent Office building, the old Post Office building, now occupied by the General Land and Indian Bureaus, and the Pension Office building, and for improvements in the heating of the Patent Office building, including necessary conduits, the laying and construction of which is hereby authorized, $74,000."

On March 11, 1901, the Secretary of the Interior sent to the Secretary of the Treasury a communication, in which, after reciting the terms of the appropriation act above referred to, he said:

"When this item was under consideration the Committee on Appropriation of the House of Representatives secured, through the Assistant Superintendent of the Treasury, the itemized estimate of cost of the proposed work upon which the amount of appropriation is based, and, at the hearing before the committee, it was also indicated by members thereof that it would be expected that the projected work should conform to the estimate and the general plan outlined therein.

"I have, therefore, to request that, if practicable, some competent person connected with the Treasury Department, expert in such matters, may be authorized to prepare detailed plans and specifications, upon which proposals for the work contemplated in the appropriation may be called for at an early date."

On March 14, 1901, the Secretary of the Treasury, acknowledging the receipt of this letter, said:

"In reply you are informed that the work incident to the preparation of the plans and specifications can be performed under the supervision of a qualified employé of this office, who is familiar with the requirements, but as the work will involve the employment of draftsmen and other persons who cannot be supplied from the regular force of this department

without detriment to its business, it is assumed that such service can be paid for from the appropriation provided for the installation of the plant. Such expense will not exceed $500, including the expense incident to a general inspection of the work during the period of the installation.

"It is the judgment of this department that the installation can be completed in all its details in the most satisfactory manner without exceeding the limits of the appropriation provided therefor-namely, $74,000."

In answering this letter the Secretary of the Interior said: "Referring to your letter of March 14, 1901, in which you state that in compliance with the request of this department a competent person connected with the Treasury Department will be authorized to prepare necessary plans and specifications covering the installation of the electric lighting plant for the buildings of this department, and to your suggestion that the work will involve the employment of draftsmen and other persons who cannot be supplied from the regular force of the Treasury Department, and which would involve an expense not to exceed $500, which would include the expense incident to the general inspection of the work during the period of installation, I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy of the decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury, to whom the matter was submitted by this department, in which the conclusion is reached that prior to July 1, 1901, the preliminary expenses necessary to carry into effect the appropriation for the electric lighting plant may be incurred, although payment therefor cannot be made previous to that date.

"The department would be glad to have the preliminary work commenced at the earliest practical date, and would be pleased to consider any recommendations as to the employment of the services of draftsmen, etc., referred to in your letter. If such services cannot be procured upon the terms named by the Comptroller, it is believed that it can, in the meantime, be furnished by detail from some branch of this department."

And on May 10, 1901, the Secretary of the Treasury notified the Secretary of the Interior as follows:

"Referring to your letter of May 8, 1901, you are informed that Mr. J. E. Woodwell, inspector of electric light plants, has been directed to confer with E. M. Dawson, chief clerk, Department of the Interior, relative to the installation of an electric light, heat and power plant in the old Post Office Department building in this city."

Subsequently, the Secretary of the Interior made the following order, an official copy of which was sent to Mr. Woodwell through the Secretary of the Treasury:

"Order.

'Department of the Interior,
"Washington, June 21, 1901.

"A board to consist of Mr. Edward M. Dawson, chief clerk of the department; Mr. J. E. Woodwell, inspector of electric light plants, Treasury Department, and Mr. Joseph S. Hill, engineer, etc., 'General Post Office,' is hereby constituted to, from time to time, open bids and recommend awards of contracts for the work embraced in the installation of the electric lighting plant for the buildings of the Interior Department, and in the improvement of the heating of the Patent Office building.

"The board will meet at the office of the chief clerk of the department at such time as may be designated by advertisements for opening proposals for the work."

On November 23, 1901, the Acting Secretary of the Treasury sent the following communication:

Referring to your letter of November 21, 1901, requesting that Mr. J. E. Woodwell, inspector of electric light plants, Treasury Department, be instructed to conduct a test of the engines and dynamos being manufactured by the Ridgeway Dynamo and Engine Company, Ridgeway, Pa., for the Interior Department, I have the honor to state that, owing to prior and important instructions, it will be impractical for