Opinion of the Court.

any ship or vessel belonging to the United States of equal or inferior force, the same to be divided among the officers and crew in the same manner as prize-money."

The fourth section of the act for the better government of the navy, approved July 17, 1862, 12 Stat. 600, 606, c. 204, § 4, contained this provision: "That a bounty shall be paid by the United States for each person on board any ship or vessel of war belonging to an enemy at the commencement of an engagement which shall be sunk or otherwise destroyed in such engagement, by any ship or vessel belonging to the United States, or which it may be necessary to destroy in consequence of injuries sustained in action, of one hundred dollars, if the enemy's vessel was of inferior force; and of two hundred dollars, if of equal or superior force; to be divided among the officers and crew in the same manner as prize-money; and when the actual number of men on board any such vessel cannot be satisfactorily ascertained, it shall be estimated according to the complement allowed to vessels of their class in the navy of the United States; and there shall be paid as bounty to the captors of any vessel of war captured from an enemy, which they may be instructed to destroy, or which shall be immediately destroyed for the public interest, but not in consequence of injuries received in action, fifty dollars for every person who shall be on board at the time of such capture."

Then came the act of June 30, 1864, 13 Stat. 306, 310, c. 174, § 11, regulating prize proceedings and the distribution of prize-money. The eleventh section of that act is substantially the same as the fourth section of the act of 1862, and is reproduced in § 4635 of the Revised Statutes on which the claimant bases his action against the United States.

It thus appears that Congress, in providing for bounty to be paid by the United States on account of enemy vessels sunk or otherwise destroyed by any ship or vessel belonging to the United States, has never prescribed any other rule than to give the smaller amount when the enemy's vessel was of inferior force, and the larger amount when the enemy's vessel was of equal or superior force. We are asked to construe the words in the present statute "one hundred dollars, if the enemy's

Opinion of the Court.

vessel is of inferior force, and two hundred dollars if of equal or superior force," to mean just what it would mean if the question of the inferiority or superiority of the enemy's vessel was made, by express words, to depend upon the inquiry whether it was or was not supported in the naval engagement by land batteries, mines and torpedoes under the charge of others than those having the management of the enemy's vessel. We cannot do that without going far beyond the obvious import of the words employed by Congress. Of course, our duty is to give effect to the will of Congress touching this matter. But we must ascertain that will from the words Congress has chosen to employ, interpreting such words according to their ordinary meaning as well as in the light of all the circumstances that may fairly be regarded as having been within the knowledge of the legislative branch of the Government at the time it acted on the subject. There is undoubtedly force in the suggestion that in rewarding officers and sailors who have sunk or destroyed the enemy's vessels in a naval engagement it is not unreasonable that all the difficulties, of every kind, with which they were actually confronted when engaging the enemy should be taken into consideration. But that was a matter which we cannot suppose was overlooked by Congress; and we are not at liberty to hold that it proceeded upon the broad basis suggested, when it expressly declared that the amount of its bounty shall depend upon the question whether "the enemy's vessel" -not the enemy's vessel and the land batteries, mines and torpedoes, by which it was supported-was of inferior or of equal or superior force.

In our examination of this case we have not forgotten the skill and heroism displayed by the distinguished commander of our fleet in the battle of Manila, as well as by the officers and sailors acting under his orders. All genuine Americans recall with delight and pride the marvelous achievements of our navy in that memorable engagement. But this court cannot permit considerations of that character to control its determination of a judicial question or induce it to depart from the established rules for the interpretation of statutes. Nor can we allow our judgment to be influenced by the circumstance that Congress

Opinion of the Court.

has recently repealed all statutes giving bounty to officers and soldiers of the navy for the sinking or destruction hereafter, in time of war, of an enemy's vessels-thereby, it may be assumed, indicating that in the judgment of the legislative branch of the Government the policy of giving bounties to the navy was not founded in wisdom and should be abandoned. This court has nothing to do with questions of mere policy that may be supposed to underlie the action of Congress. What is termed the policy of the Government in reference to any particular subject of legislation, this court has said, "is generally a very uncertain thing, upon which all sorts of opinions, each variant from the other, may be formed by different persons. It is a ground much too unstable upon which to rest the judgment of the court in the interpretation of statutes." Hadden v. The Collector, 5 Wall. 107, 111. Our province is to declare what the law is, and not, under the guise of interpretation or under the influence of what may be surmised to be the policy of the Government, so to depart from sound rules of construction as in effect to adjudge that to be law which Congress has not enacted as such. Here, the language used by Congress is unambiguous. It is so clear that the mind at once recognizes the intent of Congress. Interpreted according to the natural import of the words used, the statute involves no absurdity or contradiction, and there is consequently no room for construction. Our duty is to give effect to the will of Congress, as thus plainly expressed. United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch, 358, 399; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U. S. 662, 670.

In our opinion, the Court of Claims did not err in holding that in determining whether the Spanish vessels sunk or destroyed at Manila were of inferior or superior force to the American vessels engaged in that battle, the land batteries, mines and torpedoes not controlled by those in charge of the Spanish vessels but which supported those vessels, were to be excluded altogether from consideration, and that the size and armaments of the vessels sunk or destroyed, together with the number of men upon them, were alone to be regarded in determining the amount of the bounty to be awarded. In that view the decree below was right, and it is

Affirmed.

FULLER, C. J., WHITE and MCKENNA, JJ., dissenting.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, with whom concurred MR. JusTICE WHITE and MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA, dissenting.

Claimant in prosecuting this case, in effect, represents the claims of all the officers and men engaged in the battle of Manila Bay, May 1, 1898. The question is not whether there was a grant of bounty, for that is not disputed. It is simply as to the amount of bounty, and the correct result turns upon the construction of the statute. There being no controversy in respect of the existence of the grant, I am of opinion that the rule of strict construction does not apply, and that the statute, in view of its object, should be construed liberally in favor of the beneficiaries. If so construed, the judgment ought to be reversed.

The applicable statutory provision is as follows:

"A bounty shall be paid by the United States for each person on board any ship or vessel of war belonging to an enemy at the commencement of an engagement, which is sunk or otherwise destroyed in such engagement by any ship or vessel belonging to the United States, or which it may be necessary to destroy in consequence of injuries sustained in action, of one hundred dollars, if the enemy's vessel was of inferior force, and of two hundred dollars, if of equal or superior force, to be divided among the officers and crew in the same manner as prize money;

The obvious object of the law was to encourage personal gallantry and enterprise. If the hostile force was equal or superior then the bounty was to be double what it would be if the enemy's force was inferior, because the hazards to be run were so much the greater. But the bounty was limited in total amount by the number of persons on board the vessels of the enemy, which appears to have been considered to be a practica

ble restriction.

The chief distinction, as a military achievement, of the victory of Manila Bay, is that the American fleet, unaided by an army, attacked a force composed of ships supported by powerful shore defences, together with submarine mines and torpedoes; and, in defiance of these open and hidden dangers, in ad

FULLER, C. J., WHITE and MCKENNÅ, JJ., dissenting.

dition to the power of the enemy's fleet, sailed in, and not only destroyed or captured all the opposing vessels, but captured or silenced the shore batteries. To omit consideration of these circumstances in determining pecuniary reward under the stat ute seems to me to be altogether unreasonable, and yet it is held that in comparing the opposing forces, the shore batteries and submarine mines and torpedoes, which our fleet was compelled to encounter, should not be taken into account, though the bounty could not rise above the number of persons on the enemy's ships.

It is my judgment that the intent plainly was that the entire opposing forces should be compared, and that the shore batteries, mines and torpedoes, protecting and defending the vessels of the enemy, should be included in estimating the rate of bounty, although they were, of course, not armaments or means of attack or defence, directly located on the enemy vessels themselves. Indeed, the words of the statute, if literally construed, might be limited to engagements of single vessels on each side, yet as to this the principal opinion correctly applies a liberal construction, and any other would be preposterous. But if a liberal construction be proper at all, why not altogether?

The action of the Government in respect of the taking of vessels by Admiral Farragut in the capture of New Orleans, has great significance. That case involved an award made by a distinguished board of arbitrators, Henry W. Paine, of Massachusetts; Thomas J. Durant, of the District of Columbia, and Gustavus V. Fox, then late Assistant Secretary of the Navy, one of whose findings was: "That in the engagement which resulted in the capture of those ships, the entire force of the enemy was superior to the force of the United States ships and vessels so engaged." This finding was conceded to have included the forts and batteries on shore, but that was not definitely stated. The executive department acquiesced in the

award of the arbitrators on this branch of the case without demanding a more specific finding, and this court was not called upon to determine the precise question. 22 Wall. 406.

The Siren, 13 Wall. 389, is not to the contrary, inasmuch as that was a case of joint capture by the army and navy, and