Sec. 17 of the Economy Act of March 20, 1933, declared that
"All public laws granting medical or hospital treatment,
domiciliary care, compensation, and other allowances, pension,
disability allowance, or retirement pay to veterans and the
dependents of veterans of . . . the World War, . . . are hereby
repealed, and all laws granting or pertaining to yearly renewable
term insurance are hereby repealed. . . ."
Held that it was not intended thereby to
Page 302 U. S. 629
repeal "automatic insurance" granted by § 401 of the War
Risk Insurance Act, as amended, in the case of soldiers of the
World War who died or became permanently disabled without having
applied for insurance within 120 days after entrance into or
employment in active service. P.
302 U. S.
631.
89 F.2d 572 affirmed.
Certiorari,
post, p. 673, to review the affirmance of a
recovery of "automatic insurance" in a suit in behalf of an infant
whose father had been drafted into the military service in April,
1918, and had died two weeks later without having applied for War
Risk insurance.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question is whether the Economy Act [
Footnote 1] repealed section 401 of the War Risk
Insurance Act, [
Footnote 2] and
thereby deprived veterans and their beneficiaries of "automatic
insurance."
Page 302 U. S. 630
In this suit, brought by the son of a soldier who died in
service, both the District Court [
Footnote 3] and the Circuit Court of Appeals [
Footnote 4] were of the opinion that
the Economy Act did not terminate the rights of a beneficiary of
automatic insurance. We granted certiorari limiting consideration
to the question of the repeal of the law providing automatic
insurance. [
Footnote 5]
During the World War, it was the policy of the government to
allow soldiers one hundred and twenty days after enlistment or
drafting within which to apply for and purchase insurance. For this
period, it was intended that they be protected as though they had
bought government insurance. In furtherance of this policy,
Congress provided that all veterans who died or became totally and
permanently disabled within one hundred and twenty days after their
entrance into active service should be automatically "deemed to
have applied for and to have been granted insurance."
It is here contended that the words of the Economy Act repealing
"other allowances" and "laws . . . pertaining to yearly renewable
term insurance" are broad enough to include a repeal of automatic
insurance. With this contention we cannot agree.
Page 302 U. S. 631
Repeals by implication are not favored. A law is not to be
construed as impliedly repealing a prior law unless no other
reasonable construction can be applied. [
Footnote 6]
While the Economy Act explicitly repealed all laws which
granted
"medical or hospital treatment, domiciliary care, compensation
and other allowances, pension, disability allowance, . . .
retirement pay . . . and all laws granting or pertaining to yearly
renewable term insurance,"
Congress did not include "automatic insurance" in this detailed
list of benefits repealed.
The words "other allowances" have a well settled meaning.
"Allowances," in veterans' legislation, in the Veterans' Bureau,
and in Army terminology, [
Footnote
7] has never been considered synonymous with, or inclusive of,
automatic insurance; this word ordinarily refers to extra and
special items (in addition to regular compensation) such as nurse
hire, training pay, and "travel pay and allowances." [
Footnote 8]
The words "all laws granting or pertaining to yearly renewable
term insurance" refer only to laws which are enactments upon the
subject of yearly renewable term insurance. Section 401 did not
grant yearly renewable term insurance, nor is it an enactment upon
that subject. It provided for those soldiers who died in service
before they had an opportunity to purchase yearly renewable term
insurance or any other type of insurance. This law therefore did
not pertain to yearly renewable term insurance
Page 302 U. S. 632
but to protection for soldiers who never had and never could
obtain yearly renewable term insurance.
It is to be remembered that automatic insurance applied to that
particular group of American soldiers who either were killed, died,
or became wholly or permanently incapacitated before they had a
reasonable opportunity to obtain insurance of any kind. It may be
that Congress did not believe it proper to economize at the expense
of those veterans who came out of the army with health completely
destroyed or to the detriment of the beneficiaries of soldiers who
lost their lives in service without a reasonable opportunity to
apply for insurance.
Certainly the reason which prompted the passage of the express
provisions of § 401 is such that, in the absence of subsequent
legislation equally express, they are not overthrown by mere
inference or implication. [
Footnote
9] Only clear and unequivocal language would justify a
conclusion that benefits, provided by a grateful government because
of death and permanent incapacity of its soldiers are to be wholly
withdrawn for reasons of economy. Special provisions benefiting
either soldiers who became incurably helpless in the army or the
dependents of soldiers who died or were killed in the service of
their country cannot justifiably be repealed by implication.
[
Footnote 10] There is no
irreconcilable conflict between § 401 and the Economy Act and
effect can reasonably be given to both. [
Footnote 11]
The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is therefore
Affirmed.
MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO took no part in the consideration or
decision of this case.
[
Footnote 1]
Section 17, Act of March 20, 1933, c. 3, 48 Stat. 11:
"All public laws granting medical or hospital treatment,
domiciliary care, compensation and
other allowances,
pension, disability allowance, or retirement pay to veterans and
the dependents of veterans of . . . the World War . . . are hereby
repealed, and all laws granting or
pertaining to yearly
renewable term insurance are hereby repealed, but payments in
accordance with such laws shall continue to the 1st day of the
third calendar month following the month during which this Act is
enacted."
(Italics added.)
[
Footnote 2]
Section 401 of the War Risk Insurance Act, as amended Dec. 24,
1919, c. 16, § 12, 41 Stat. 371, 375:
"Any person in the active service on or after the 6th day of
April, 1917, and before the 11th day of November, 1918, who, while
in such service, and before the expiration of one hundred and
twenty days after October 15, 1917, or one hundred and twenty days
after entrance into or employment in the active service, becomes or
has become totally and permanently disabled, or dies or has died,
without having applied for insurance shall be deemed to have
applied for and to have been granted insurance, payable to such
person during his life in monthly installments of $25 each. . . .
If he shall die either before he shall have received any of such
monthly installments or before he shall have received two hundred
and forty of such monthly installments, then $25 per month shall be
paid to . . . his child . . .
Provided, however, That no
more than two hundred and forty of such monthly installments . . .
shall be so paid."
[
Footnote 3]
14 F. Supp. 132.
[
Footnote 4]
89 F.2d 572.
[
Footnote 5]
302 U.S. 673.
[
Footnote 6]
United States v. Yuginovich, 256 U.
S. 450;
United States v. Noce, 268 U.
S. 613;
see Cope v. Cope, 137 U.
S. 682.
[
Footnote 7]
See, as to meaning of "allowances,"
Jones v. United
States, 60 Ct.Cls. 552, 567;
United States v.
Landers, 92 U. S. 77.
[
Footnote 8]
An illustration of the meaning of "allowances" appears in that
Section (17) of the Economy Act which is relied upon as the repeal,
to-wit:
"That, subject to such regulations as the President may
prescribe,
allowances may be granted for burial and funeral
expenses and transportation of the bodies (including preparation of
the bodies) of deceased veterans of any war to the places of burial
thereof in a sum not to exceed $107 in any one case."
[
Footnote 9]
Rosencrans v. United States, 165 U.
S. 257.
[
Footnote 10]
Cf. United States v. Greathouse, 166 U.
S. 601.
[
Footnote 11]
Cf. Washington v. Miller, 235 U.
S. 422,
235 U. S. 428;
see also Posadas v. National City Bank, 296 U.
S. 497,
296 U. S. 503
et seq.