« AnteriorContinuar »
(197 U. S. 230) the jury could find that to have been the GEORGE A. BARTLETT, Appt., fact. While this is true, there is not a scintilla of testimony to show that Gordon
UNITED STATES. and Ridley were ever theretofore in a con
Officers-disbursing agent-right to compendition of peonage. That they were in debt,
sation. and that they had left Georgia and gone to Florida without paying that debt, does not 1. The right of a disbursing clerk of the show that they had been held in a condition
Treasury Department to compensation for
services performed by him under the direcof peonage, or were ever at work, willingly
tion of the Secretary of the Treasury, as or unwillingly, for their creditor. We have disbursing agent of the funds appropriated examined the testimony with great care to for a postoffice at Washington, depends solesee if there was anything which would jus
ly upon the congressional legislation on that
subject. tify a finding of the fact, and can find
2. The existence of a collector of customs, nothing. No matter how severe may be
under U. S. Rev. Stat. § 2550 (U. S. Comp. the condemnation which is due to the con
Stat. 1901, p. 1745), "for the Georgetown disduct of a party charged with a criminal trict, which is defined in § 2550 as comprising offense, it is the imperative duty of a court
“all the waters and shores of the Potomac to see that all the elements of his crime
river within tbe state of Maryland and the
District of Columbia, from Pomonkey creek are proved, or at least that testimony is to the head of the navigable waters of that offered which justifies a jury in finding river,” precludes the Secretary of the Treasthose elements. Only in the exact adminis- ury from appointing, with a right to comtration of the law will justice in the long
pensation, a disbursing agent for the funds
appropriated for a postoffice at Washington, run be done, and the confidence of the pub
under § 3658 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. lic in such administration be maintained.
2430), which authorizes such appointments We are constrained, therefore, to order a only where there is no collector at the place reversal of the judgment, and remand the
of location of a public work. case for a new trial.
1905. Decided Mr. Justice McKenna concurs in the Submitted February 27,
March 13, 1905. judgment.
PPEAL from the Court of Claims to reMr. Justice Harlan: I concur with my
view a judgment rejecting a claim of a brethren in holding that the statutes in disbursing clerk of the Treasury Departquestion relating to peonage are valid under ment to compensation for services performed the Constitution of the United States. 1 by him under the direction of the Secretary agree, also, that the record sufficiently shows of the Treasury as disbursing agent of the that it contains all the evidence introduced funds appropriated for a postoffice at Washat the trial.
ington. Affirmed. But I cannot agree in holding that the See same case below, 39 Ct. Cl. 338. trial court erred in not taking the case from The facts are stated in the opinion. the jury. Without going into the details
Mr. J. M. Vale for appellant. of the evidence, I care only to say that, in
Assistant Attorney General Pradt and my opinion, there was evidence tending to Mr. Frederick DeС. Faust for appellee. make a case within the statute. The opin- Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinioni ion of the court concedes that there was of the court: abundant testimony to show that the ac- This is an appeal from a judgment of the cused, with another, went from Georgia to court of claims rejecting the claim of the apFlorida to arrest the two negroes, Gordon pellant. 39 Ct. Cl. 338. The claimant, while a and Ridley, and take them, against their will, disbursing clerk of the Treasury Departback to Georgia to work out a debt. And ment, received a letter from the Secretary of they were taken to Georgia by force. It is the Treasury, as follows: "George A. Bartconceded that peonage is based upon the in- lett, disbursing clerk, Treasury Department, debtedness of the peon to the master. The Washington, D. C. Sir: You are hereby apaccused admitted to one of the witnesses pointed disbursing agent for such funds as that the negroes owed him. In any view, may be advanced to you from time to time there was no motion or request to direct a on account of the appropriation for postverdict for the defendant. The accused made office, Washington, D. C. You will be entitled no objection to the submission of the case to to such compensation for the services named the jury, and it is going very far to hold as is provided by law, and the same rate of in a case like this, disclosing barbarities of compensation will be allowed on all amounts. the worst kind against these negroes, that disbursed by you since October 15, 1891, on the trial court erred in sending the case to account of the appropriation named.” Di
rections followed. 25 S. C.-28.
The claimant gave no new bond and took the shores, as that word is used in § 2550; no additional oath of office. He proceeded and if Georgetown is within it, Washingto disburse nearly two and a half millions ton is in it also, on the same ground. The of dollars, and claims 38 of 1 per cent upon same form of expression and the same asthe sum disbursed.
sumption constantly recur in other sections. The claimant puts his right to compensa- To show still further that collection districts tion on two grounds: the general powers run inland, and are not limited to the matheof the Secretary of the Treasury, apart from matical line which bounds the water, it may statute, and Rev. Stat. § 3658 (U. S. Comp. be observed that, while "waters and shores" Stat. 1901, p. 2430). As to the former, it is the most common expression, a district is enough to say that whatever power the frequently is declared to include towns; e. Secretary might have in the absence of leg. g. § 2517, Seventh, Thirteenth; § 2522; § islation, Congress has dealt with the sub- 2531, First, Second ; $ 2533, First. It may ject so fully that it is plain that we must include lands ($ 2519), or embrace a counlook to the statutes alone. Rev. Stat. Sty ($ 2517, First, Sixth), or even a state ($ 1760–1765, 3657, 3658, 255 (U. S. Comp. 2522). If Washington is within the collecStat. 1901, pp. 1204-1207, 2430, 141); acttion-district, then there was a collector at of August 7, 1882 (22 Stat. at L. 306, chap. the place of location of the Washington 433; U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2428). postoffice (see 3657), and the authority Looking to the statutes, the claimant relies of the Secretary to appoint a disbursing on Rev. Stat. $ 3658: “Where there is no agent under $ 3658 was excluded by its very collector at the place of location of any pub- words. lic work specified in the preceding section
The claimant does not contend that his (which section specifies postoffices], the case gets any appreciable help from the act Secretary of the Treasury may appoint a of August 7, 1882 (22 Stat. at L. 306, chap. disbursing agent for the payment of all 433, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2428). That moneys appropriated for the construction gives the compensation allowed by law to of any such public work, with such compen-collectors of customs to disbursing agents sation as he may deem equitable and just.” appointed to disburse any appropriation for It is urged that there is no collector at any United States postoffice or other buildWashington, the place of location of the ings, “not located within the city of Washpublic work concerned.
ington.” No other statute is relied upon. The statutes as to the collector for Wash- No doubt the Secretary was under the imington are as follows: Rev. Stat. § 2550 (U. pression, when the letter was written, that S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1745): “There he was making an appointment which would shall be, in the District of Columbia, one entitle the claimant to distinct compensacollection-district, as follows: The district tion for new work and responsibility. He of Georgetown; to comprise all the waters did not regard the claimant as designated to and shores of the Potomac river within the be disbursing agent within the claimant's state of Maryland and the District of Co- district under Rev. Stat. § 255, and therelumbia, from Pomonkey creek to the head fore as not entitled to any additional of the navigable waters of that river; in pay. Rev. Stat. 88 1764, 1765 (U. S. which Georgetown shall be the port of en-Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 1206, 1207). But try.” § 2551 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. we do not see how the case can be put any 1745): “There shall be in the district of higher. It is agreed that the claimant was Georgetown a collector.” It appears from not appointed to a new office by•the Secre§ 2550 that the collection district of George-tary's letter. Therefore, no help is to be got town is more extensive than the city of from United States v. Saunders, 120 U. S. Georgetown. And this is not changed by 126, 129, 30 L. ed. 594, 595, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. the later statute making Georgetown a part | 467. The case is a hard one, but we are of of Washington. Act of February 11, 1895 opinion that the decision of the court of (28 Stat. at L. 650, chap. 79). We do not claims was right. perceive on what ground it is denied that Judgment affirmed. the Washington postoffice is within this district. The words, "shores of the Potomac
(197 U. S. 223) river," seem to us broad enough to include
UNITED STATES, Appt., the whole of a city on those shores and within the other limits named. “Waters
STEPHEN C. MILLS. and shores” is the usual phrase in Rev. Stat. Title 34, chap. 1, $$_2517–2607 (U. S. Army—increased pay for service in the Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 1711-1800). The
Philippines—"pay propers includes lon words "in which” assume that Georgetown gevity pay. is embraced within the district. If within the district, it is so simply because it is on 'The “pay proper" on which the percentage of
increased pay to an Army officer serving in | inspector general February 2, 1901, and still the Philippine Islands is to be computed, un- holds the last-named rank and office. der acts of May 26, 1900 (31 Stat. at L.
“The claimant was, by proper military 211, chap. 586), and March 2, 1901 (31 Stat. at L. 903, chap. 803, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, orders, on duty with the Army of the p. 896), includes the longevity pay to which United States in the Philippine Islands from he is entitled, under U. S. Rev. Stat. § 1262 a date prior to May 26, 1900, continuously (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 896), as well as until April 15, 1902, when, in accordance the minimum pay prescribed by $ 1261 (U. S. with orders, he arrived at San Francisco, Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 893) for his grade.
California, on his return from said Philip[No. 509.]
pine Islands. During all of that period he
was serving in the Philippine Islands, and Submitted February 20, 1905.
beyond the limits of the states comprising March 13, 1905.
the Union, and the territories of the United APPEAL from the Court of Claims to Statos contiguous thereto: review a judgment sustaining the claim
“During the entire period from May 26, of an Army officer that the percentage of in- 1900, to April 15, 1902, named in the next creased pay due him for his service in the preceding finding, the claimant, while holdPhilippine Islands should be computed on ing the rank of major, was paid at the the minimum pay of his grade, enlarged by rate of $2,500 a year, the minimum pay of the longevity pay to which he was entitled. the grade of major, established by 8 1261 of Affirmed.
the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. Stat.
1901, p. 893); $1,000 longevity increase; esStatement by Mr. Justice Peckham:
tablished by $ 1262 of the Revised Statutes This is an appeal from a judgment of the (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 896), and $250 court of claims in favor of the appellee. a year as the increase of 10 per cent upon The question relates to the amount of com- his pay proper, provided by the act of pensation payable to him under the acts of May 26, 1900 (31 Stat. at L. 211, chap. May 26, 1900, and March 2, 1901, making 586), but calculated only upon the miniappropriations for the Army. The particu- mum or grade pay fixed by said § 1261. lar provisions of these acts are set forth in
“While holding the rank of lieutenant the margin.t
colonel during said period the claimant was The court gave judgment in favor of ap- paid at the rate of $3,000 a year, the minipellee upon the authority of its opinion in mum pay of that grade, as provided by $ Irwin v. United States, 38 Ct. Cl. 87.
1261 of the Revised Statutes, $1,000 lonThe facts found by the court are as fol- gevity increase, provided by § 1262, and lows:
$300 a year as 10 per cent increase on his “The claimant, Stephen C. Mills, entered pay proper, as provided by the acts of May the military service of the United States 26, 1900, and March 2, 1901 (31 Stat. at as a cadet at the Military Academy, July L. 211, chap. 586, 31 Stat. at L. 903, chap. 1, 1873, was commissioned second lieuten- 803, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 896), but ant June 15, 1877, and by successive promo-computed only on the minimum pay of the tions became major and inspector general grade. July 25, 1888, and lieutenant colonel and "If said 10 per cent increase should be
calculated upon the total pay of $3,500 reŤAct of May 26, 1900 (31 Stat. at L. 211, chap. ceived by the claimant while in the rank of 586).
major, his increase would be at the rate of "That hereafter the pay proper of all offi- $350 a year instead of $250, and, if so cal.. cers and enlisted men serving in Porto Rico, culated while he was in the rank of Cuba, the Philippine Islands, Hawaii, and in lieutenant colonel, the increase would be at the territory of Alaska shall be increased ten per centum for officers, and twenty per centum the rate of $100 a year instead of $300, makfor enlisted men, over and above the rates of ing a difference of $100 a year for the pepay proper as fixed by law in time of peace.” riod covered by the claim, and aggregating
for the entire period $188.87." Act of March 2, 1901 (31 Stat. at L. 903, chap.
803, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 896). “That hereafter the pay proper of all offi- Mr. John Q. Thompson for appellant.
Assistant Attorney General Pradt and cers and enlisted men serving beyond the limits of the states comprising the Union, and the
Messrs. George A. King and William territories of the United States contiguous B. King for appellee. thereto, shall be increased ten per centum for officers, and twenty per centum for enlisted Mr. Justice Peckham, after making the men, over and above the rates of pay proper foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of as fixed by law for time of peace, and the
the court: time of such service shall be counted from the date of departure from said states to the date The question is, upon what principal sum of return thereto."
the 10 per cent increase of compensation, to which the government concedes the appel- | periods of five years of service. Thus,
the lee is entitled, is to be computed. The ap- increased pay derived from additional pepellee, as major, was entitled, by § 1261 of riods of five years' service was added to the the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, minimum pay of the grade, and 10 per p. 893) to the pay of $2,500 a year. Subse-centum of that total was held to be the quently, as lieutenant colonel, he was en proper compensation. titled, by the same section, to the pay of The government, however, contends that $3,000 per year. By the following section the term "current yearly pay,” mentioned (1262, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 896) it is in § 1262, has a different meaning from the provided that there shall be paid to the term “pay proper,” contained in the acts officers below the rank of brigadier general under discussion, and it insists that the "10 per centum of their current yearly pay latter term is not as comprehensive as the for each term of five years of service,” and former. We do not think that there is any by § 1263 (U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 897), such material difference between the two exthe total amount of such increase for length pressions as in this case to demand their of service cannot exceed, in any case, “40 different construction. “Current yearly per centum on the yearly pay of the grade pay” and “pay proper,” as used in the secas provided by law.” Under § 1262 the ap- tions, mean the regular, ordinary pay which pellee had become entitled to pay to the an officer may be entitled to under the facts amount of $1,000 a year in addition to the in his case; and if, by virtue of length of pay provided for in § 1261; thus, as major, service, he is entitled to receive the comhe was entitled to $2,500 per year, and un-pensation provided for in 1262, that comder § 1262, $1,000 more, or $3,500 under pensation is his "pay” or his “pay proper, these two sections; as lieutenant colonel as distinguished from possible other comhe was paid $3,000 per year under $pensation by any allowances or commuta1261 and $1,000 more under § 1262, ortion or otherwise. The method of compu$4,000 under these two sections. He con- tation adopted herein by the court of claims tended that the additional 10 per cent is the same as that adopted in United under the acts of 1900 and 1901 should States v. Tyler, 105 U. S. 244, 26 L. ed. 985; be computed on the respective sums of that method has therefore received the ap$3,500 and $4,000, the total compensation proval of this court, or, at least, it has been granted by the two sections, while the gov- held that the 10 per centum of the current ernment insists that the percentage must be yearly pay is to be calculated upon the computed upon the sums of $2,500 and aggregate pay provided for in the two sec$3,000, respectively, the minimum pay tions (1261 and 1262), and not merely upon granted to the grades of major and lieuten- the minimum pay granted by $ 1261. ant colonel.
In regard to retired officers, Congress subThe court of claims directed the computa- sequently provided otherwise. 22 Stat. at tion to be made on the total of the sums L. 118, chap. 254. given by the two sections, and, in our opin- The words, "pay proper,” we see no reason ion, that court was right in so doing. The to think are to be construed differently term “pay proper" used in the acts of May from the word "pay.” The term means com26, 1900, and March 2, 1901, includes, in our pensation, which may properly be described opinion, the longevity pay under $ 2162 as or designated as “pay,” as distinguished well as the sum named as pay under § 1261, from allowances, commutations for rations, the latter being the minimum sum for the or other methods of compensation, not spegrade. Every five years of service, under cifically described as pay. § 1262, up to a certain percentage of the
The government refers to the act of Conyearly pay of the grade, as provided by law
gress approved March 15, 1898 (Army ap($ 1263) entitles the officer to be paid 10 | propriation act, 30 Stat. at L. 318, chap. per centum of his yearly pay. The term | 69), as giving some ground for the conten"current yearly pay” (§ 1262) was the sub- tion it makes in this case, because, as is ject of examination as to its meaning in United States v. Tyler, 105 U. S. 244, 26 L. stated, Congress itself therein distinguishes ed. 985. That case related to the claim of between “pay proper,” and “additional pay a retired officer, and the question was
for length of service," and it is urged that whether he was entitled to the benefit of the pay proper does not include longevity pay in section (1262) after his retirement; and the opinion of Congress, as expressed in the also, if he were so entitled, how was the act. The provision of the act is as follows: computation to be made. The court held “For pay proper of enlisted men of all that he was entitled to the benefit of the grades, four million two hundred and ninety section, and that the percentage was to be thousand dollars. computed on the total amount of the pay “Additional pay for length of service, inof the officer, increased as it might be by the cluding hospital corps, six hundred and
seventy-one thousand, one hundred and sev- has not been called to any decision of this enty-two dollars."
court looking to the contrary principle. The act cited by the government, it will The judgment of the Court of Claims is be seen, refers to enlisted men, and not to right and must be affirmed. officers at all. In that same act of 1898 a
(197 U. S. 235) provision for the payment of officers is in the following language (30 Stat. at L. 318, GREER COUNTY, Oklahoma Territory, chap. 69 ):
Plf. in Err., "For pay of officers of the line, two million eight hundred sixty-five thousand dol
STATE OF TEXAS. lars.
"For pay of officers for length of service, Public lands—Texas school grant-succesto be paid with their current monthly pay,
sion in foreign corporation-rights of seven hundred and ninety thousand dol- Greer county, Oklahoma, under grant to lars.
Greer county as Texas corporation. And in the appropriation act of March 3,
The legal title to the Texas lands patented to 1899, the appropriation for enlisted men
Greer county, under the mistaken supposiwas changed so that it reads as follows (30
tion that this county was Texas territory, Stat. at L. 1065, chap. 423):
and was, therefore, entitled to share in the "Pay of enlisted men of all grades, includ- grant of lands for school purposes to each ing recruits, thirteen million, five hundred county in the state, made by Tex. Gen. Laws thousand dollars.
1883, chap. 55, did not pass to the corpora
tion subsequently organized out of the same "For additional pay for length of service,
territory as Greer county, Oklahoma, by the seven hundred and twenty-five thousand
act of Congress of May 4, 1896 (29 Stat. at dollars."
L. 113, chap. 155), but, upon the disapUnder the language of the act of March pearance of the de facto Texas county, such 15, 1898, the Comptroller of the United title vested in the state of Texas. * States had held that the language used in
(No. 160.] that act showed that the compensation of
Submitted March 6, 1905. Decided March enlisted men, upon which the per centum
20, 1905. provided for was to be computed, was the minimum pay, not enlarged by any longevity
N ERROR to the Court of Civil Appeals pay to which the person was entitled. At the very next session of Congress the form of the State of Texas, to review a judgment
for the Third Supreme Judicial District of the appropriation was changed, as we which affirmed a judgment of the District have seen. That change has been continued since. See acts of May 26, 1900 (31 favor of the state in an action to recover
Court of Travis County, in that state, in Stat. at L. 206, chap. 586), March 2, 1901 lands for which patents were issued to (31 Stat. at L. 896, chap. 803, U. S. Comp. Greer county, Texas, under the mistaken Stat. 1901, p. 919), June 30, 1902 (32 Stat.
supposition that this county was Texas at L. 508, chap. 1328), March 2, 1903, (32 territory, and as such entitled to share in Stat. at L. 929, chap. 975), and April 23, the grant of lands to each county in the 1904 (33 Stat. at L. 260).
state, for school purposes. Affirmed. The ground for arguing that the term
See same case below, 31 Tex. Civ. App. “pay proper” does not include the “addi- 223, 72 S. W. 104. tional pay for length of service” was thus
The facts are stated in the opinion. taken away by a change in the form of the
Messrs. George Clark, H. N. Atkinson, appropriation in all the acts subsequent to and D. C. Bolinger for plaintiff in error. that of 1898. As we have already stated,
Messrs. C. K. Bell, C. A. Culberson, R. however, that particular form in regard to V. Davidson, and T. S. Reese for defendant enlisted men in the act of 1898 was never in error. adopted providing for the pay of officers. Their regular compensation and their com- Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion pensation by reason of longevity services are of the court: both spoken of in that act as "pay.”
This is a suit brought by the state of We have no doubt that the pay of the Texas to recover certain lands in Hockley officer under the statutes of 1900 and 1901, and Cochran counties, Texas, for which patin connection with the Revised Statutes re-ents were issued to Greer county, Texas, on ferred to, consists of the amount granted July 18, 1887, under color of the general for longevity service as well as of the laws of the state granting four leagues of amount provided in § 1261, and that the land to each county of the state for school total is “pay proper," upon which total the purposes. Texas Gen. Laws, 1883, chap. 55. percentage is to be computed provided for Greer county, Texas, was created by an act in the acts of 1900 and 1901. Our attention' of February 8, 1860, and was organized as a
*Ed. Note.-For cases in point, see vol. 41, Cent. Dig. Public Lands, $$ 384, 386.