Mates are petty officers, and as such are entitled to rations or
commutation therefor.
This was a petition for a commutation of rations alleged to be
due to claimant as a mate in the Navy.
The petitioner alleged his appointment as mate on March 4, 1870,
and that from March 20, 1888, until August 12, 1891, he was
attached to the receiving ship
Vermont at the Navy Yard in
Brooklyn; that, under sections 1579 and 1585 of the Revised
Statutes, he was entitled to rations while so serving, or to the
commutation price thereof, but that the same had been refused him,
and he therefore prayed judgment in the sum of $380.
The Court of Claims found the following facts:
1. The claimant, a mate in the United States Navy, was attached
to and served on the United States receiving ship
Vermont
from March 20, 1888, to August 14, 1891.
2.During his said service he was not allowed a ration, nor
commutation therefor.
3. Mates have not been regarded as petty officers by the
Treasury Department, nor by the Navy Department, prior to the
adoption of the Navy regulations of 1893.
4. From the year 1799, master's mates in the United States Navy
were warrant officers, except when acting under temporary and
probationary appointments. Warrants were issued to them after at
least one year's sea service under a probationary appointment. No
such warrants were, however, issued after 1843, and in 1847 a
regulation of the Navy Department forbade commanding officers to
make such probationary appointments.
On October 7, 1863, the Secretary of the Navy issued the
following circular:
Page 160 U. S. 594
"Seamen enlisted in the naval service may hereafter, as
formerly, be advanced to the rating of master's mate, and such
rating may be bestowed by the commander of a squadron, subject to
the approval of the department, or by the commander of a vessel,
with the previous sanction of the department."
"Seamen so rated will be entitled to the same pay, rank, and
privileges as appointed or warranted master's mates, but will not
be released by their rating from the obligations of their
enlistment, and may be disrated by the order or with the sanction
of the department. They will not, while rated as master's mates, be
considered as subject to trial by a summary court-martial, nor be
disrated by transfer, as in the case of petty officers."
"Seamen rated as master's mates will not be discharged with that
rating, and will be considered as disrated to seamen upon the
expiration of their enlistment, but upon their immediate
reenlistment, the rating of master's mate may be considered as
renewed. The acceptance of such renewed rating will be considered
as a renunciation of any claim to additional pay for reenlistment.
All ratings of master's mates made by order of the commander of a
squadron, and all such ratings renewed by reenlistment, will be
reported to the department as early as practicable."
Upon these facts, the court held as a conclusion of law that the
claimant was entitled to recover the sum of $372.60, for which
judgment was entered, and the government appealed.
MR. JUSTICE BROWN, after stating the facts in the foregoing
language, delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner's claim is based upon the exception contained in
Rev.Stat. § 1579, which reads as follows:
"No person not
Page 160 U. S. 595
actually attached to and doing duty on board a seagoing vessel,
except the petty officers, seamen, and ordinary seamen
attached to receiving ships, or to the ordinary of a Navy yard, and
midshipmen, shall be allowed a ration,"
which, by § 1585, for the purposes of commutation, is fixed
at thirty cents.
The personnel of the Navy is divided generally into commissioned
officers, noncommissioned or warrant officers, petty officers, and
seamen of various grades and denominations. That a mate is not a
commissioned officer is entirely clear, and is not disputed by
either party. It is equally clear that he is above the grade of
seaman, and the real question is whether he is a noncommissioned or
warrant officer, a person "temporarily appointed to the duties of a
commissioned or warrant officer," or a "petty officer."
We think little is to be gained in the solution of this question
by a detailed examination of the several acts of Congress and Navy
regulations which antedate the Revised Statutes. Prior to 1843,
"master's mates" were recognized by the law as warrant officers, or
as "warranted master's mates," and appear to have been sometimes
appointed by the President and sometimes rated (that is, promoted
form lower grades) by commanding officers. But shortly after this
time, they seem to have fallen into disuse, and no further
appointments were made, although the grade was not formally
abolished, and those who had been previously appointed continued to
hold their offices and receive their pay.
At the outbreak of the Civil War, however, a great increase in
all the naval forces became necessary, and the Secretary of the
Navy made temporary appointments of "acting masters and master's
mates," which were confirmed by Act of Congress of July 24, 1861,
c. 13, 12 Stat. 272. By Act of March 3, 1865, c. 124, 13 Stat. 539,
their names were changed to that of "mates," and the Secretary of
the Navy was authorized to increase their pay, and to rate them
from seamen and ordinary seamen who had enlisted in the naval
service for not less than two years. By Act of July 15, 1870. c.
294, 16 Stat. 321, 330, they were formally recognized as a part of
the naval forces, and their pay was fixed at $900 when at sea, $700
on shore
Page 160 U. S. 596
duty, and $500 on leave or waiting orders. These amounts were
raised in 1894. 28 Stat. 212. Act of August 1, c. 176.
By the Revised Statutes, which were intended to consolidate and
codify all the prior enactments upon the subject, the President was
authorized to appoint (§ 1405) "as many boatswains, gunners,
sailmakers, and carpenters as may, in his opinion, be necessary and
proper," who (§ 1406) "shall be known and shall be entered
upon the naval register as warrant officers in the naval service of
the United States," and whose pay was specified in a separate
paragraph of § 1556, fixing the pay of the naval forces.
By § 1408,
"mates may be rated, under authority of the Secretary of the
Navy, from seamen and ordinary seamen who have enlisted in the
naval service for not less than two years."
By § 1556, their pay was fixed at the rates provided by the
Acts of July 15, 1870, and by § 1410,
"all officers not holding commissions or warrants, or who are
not entitled to them, except such as are temporarily appointed to
the duties of a commissioned or warrant officer, and except
secretaries and clerks, shall be deemed
petty officers,
and shall be entitled to obedience, in the execution of their
offices, from persons of inferior ratings."
By § 1569 "the pay to be allowed to petty officers,
excepting mates" (whose pay was fixed by § 1556),
"and the pay and bounty upon enlistment of seamen, ordinary
seamen, firemen, and coalheavers in the naval service, shall be
fixed by the President,"
with the further provision (§ 1579) that
"no person not actually attached to and doing duty on board a
seagoing vessel,
except the petty officers, seamen, and
ordinary seamen attached to receiving ships, or to the ordinary of
a Navy yard, and midshipmen, shall be allowed a ration."
From this summary of the Revised Statutes it appears reasonably
clear:
1. That boatswains, gunners, sailmakers, and carpenters are
warrant officers to be appointed by the President, and that they
are the only ones specifically mentioned as such.
2. That mates are officers not holding commissioners or
warrants, and not entitled to them, but are petty officers,
promoted
Page 160 U. S. 597
by the Secretary of the Navy from seamen of inferior grades, who
have enlisted for not less than two years, and that they are
distinguished from other petty officers only in the fact that their
pay is fixed by statute instead of by the President. From this it
would seem to follow that although their pay is fixed by law,
instead of by the President, they are in other respects entitled to
the emoluments of petty officers, among which are rations.
The exception of mates from § 1569 merely indicates that,
Congress having already fixed their pay, such pay need not be fixed
by the President. But they are still within the exception of "petty
officers, seamen, and ordinary seamen attached to receiving ships,"
who are inferentially allowed a ration by § 1579. The
exception of mates from other petty officers in § 1569
indicates that they are petty officers, and the exception of petty
officers from those who are not entitled to rations under §
1579 indicates that as such they are entitled to a ration.
We think there is no authority for saying that they are
temporarily appointed to the duties of a warrant officer. While the
words "acting master's mates," sometimes employed prior to the
Revised Statutes, might indicate, by the use of the word "acting,"
a person temporarily appointed to the duties of a master's mate,
officers who are recognized by law, and whose pay is fixed by a
permanent statute, cannot be said to be temporarily appointed. The
argument that a "warrant" is defined to be "an instrument
conferring authority upon persons, inferior to a commission," and
that mates must therefore be warrant officers, because they are
appointed by the Secretary of the Navy, proves too much, since all
petty officers hold by some sort of designation from a superior
authority, and if a warrant be an instrument inferior to a
commission, this would make all petty officers warrant officers. On
the other hand, as, by § 1405, warrant officers are appointed
by the President, it would seem to follow that if they held their
appointments from an inferior authority, they were not to be
considered as warrant officers. There is also an implication to the
same effect from the Act of August
Page 160 U. S. 598
1, 1894, c. 176, 28 Stat. 212, raising the pay of mates and
providing that "the law regulating the retirement of warrant
officers in the Navy shall be construed to apply to the
twenty-eight officers now serving seamates." This provision would
be quite unnecessary if, under the general provisions of law, they
fell within the designation of warrant officers.
After some hesitation and apparent confusion of opinion on the
part of the Navy Department, this was the construction of the
Revised Statutes finally settled upon by the Navy regulations of
1893, Art. 28, and we think it is correct. The only difficulty in
the case seems to have arisen from certain acts prior to the
Revised Statutes -- notably the act of 1813, which dealt with
warranted "master's mates," under which mates continued to be
classified by the Navy Department as warrant officers, until the
Revised Statutes were adopted.
The judgment of the Court of Claims in therefore
Affirmed.
