Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
for subsistence and lodging constitutes an improper increase in their compensation.” Id. at 225, 178 P.2d at 438. Noting that we had stated, in Olmsted & Gillelen v. Hesla, 24 Ariz. 546, 553, 211 P. 589, 591 (1922), that “[i]n the Constitution compensation is employed to designate salary,” we rejected the petitioners’ argument that legislators could not recover the per diem payments. We concluded that “[w]hen the State repays the legislators and their employees for personal expenses, this does not constitute additional compensation but is merely a reimbursement for actual cash outlays necessarily incurred for subsistence while away from home and in the performance of duty.” Earhart at 226, 178 P.2d at 438; see also Geyso v. City of Cudahy, 34 Wis.2d 476, 149 N.W.2d 611, 614-15 (1967) . B. ¶ 9 Although petitioners seek to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where a prior agreement fixed the salary of the plaintiff plaintiff could not seek to recover for his services on a theory of unjust enrichment
B. holding that the words amount and compensation in the regulation referred to cash or salary rather than to all forms of compensation
C. holding that an attorneys cause for services rendered over a period of time accrued when his services had been completely performed
D. holding that employees vacation benefits are form of compensation for services rendered and are not gratuity
E. holding that the words salary and expense are separate and distinct terms which connote entirely different concepts salary is a fixed periodical compensation paid for services rendered whereas an expense is a charge incurred in performing those services
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.