Statutes
in pari materia should be taken into
consideration in construing a law. If a thing contained in a
subsequent statute be within the reason of a former statute, it
shall be taken to be within the meaning of that statute.
And if it can be gathered from a subsequent statute
in pari
materia what meaning the legislature attached to the words of
a former statute, this will amount to a legislative declaration of
its meaning, and will govern the construction of the first
statute.
The meaning of the legislature may be extended beyond the
precise words used in the law from the reason or motive upon which
the legislature proceeded, from the end in view, or the purpose
which was designed; the limitation of the rule being that to extend
the meaning to any case, not included within the words, the case
must be shown to come within the same reason upon which the
lawmaker proceeded, and not a like reason.
A brevet field officer of the marine corps is not entitled by
law to brevet pay and rations, by reason of his commanding a
separate post or station, if the force under his command would not
entitle a brevet field officer of infantry of a similar grade to
brevet pay and rations.
Page 44 U. S. 557
The act of 1834, chap. 132, does not repeal the 1st section of
the act of 1818, regulating the pay and emoluments of brevet
officers.
The 5th section of the Act of 30 June, 1834, is a repeal of the
joint resolution of the two houses of Congress of 25 May, 1832,
respecting the pay and emoluments of the marine corps.
By force of the army regulation No. 1125, authorizing the issues
of double rations to officers commanding departments, posts, and
arsenals, a brevet field officer of marines is entitled to double
rations. But the fact must be shown that he had such a command of a
post or arsenal at which double rations had been allowed according
to the army regulations.
The fact of appropriations having been made by Congress for
double rations does not determine what officers are entitled to
them.
A brevet field officer of the marine corps, commanding a
separate post, without a command equal to his brevet rank, is not
entitled to brevet pay and emoluments. But if such brevet officer
is a captain in the line of his corps and in the actual command of
a company, whether he is in the command of a post or not, he is
entitled to the compensation given by the 2d section of the act of
2 March, 1827.
This case was to test the right of the defendant in error, who
was also the defendant below, to certain pay, allowances, and
emoluments which he claimed as being an officer of the marine
corps. The questions which were certified to this Court were the
following:
"1. Whether a brevet field officer of the marine corps is by law
entitled to receive the pay and rations of his brevet rank by
reason of his commanding a separate post or station, although the
force under his command should not be such as would by law, or by
such regulations as have in this respect and for the time the force
of law, entitle a brevet field officer of infantry of a similar
grade to brevet pay and rations."
"2. Whether the provision respecting brevet pay and rations in
the third section of the Act of 1818, chap. 117, is repealed by the
act of 1834, chap. 132."
"3. Whether by force of the act of 1834, chap. 132, the joint
resolution of the two houses of Congress of 25 May, 1832,
respecting the pay and emoluments of the marine corps, is
repealed."
"4. Whether by force of the army regulation numbered 1125,
authorizing the issues of double rations to officers commanding
departments, posts, and arsenals, a brevet field officer of
marines, commanding a separate post or station, is entitled to
double rations."
"5. Whether the additional fact of appropriations having been
made by Congress for such double rations, entitles such marine
officer to receive the same for the years for which such
appropriations are made."
"6. Whether a brevet field officer of the marine corps,
commanding a separate post, and receiving his brevet pay and
emoluments, but being a captain in the line, is entitled to the ten
dollars
Page 44 U. S. 558
a month additional compensation for responsibility of clothing
&c., under the act of 1834, chap. ___, applying to the marine
corps the act of 1827, chap. 199?"
There was a statement of facts agreed upon in the court below,
the only parts of which that bear upon the certified questions are
the following:
"It is further agreed that Colonel Freeman was commissioned a
captain in the line of the marine corps on 17 July, 1821, and on
that lineal rank he was commissioned a lieutenant-colonel by brevet
on 17 July, 1831, and on 30 June, 1834, he was commissioned a major
in the line of the marine corps."
"Colonel Freeman files an account, in setoff against the United
States, of $1,013.93, for brevet pay and rations while in command
on the Boston station, the same being a separate station or
detachment, under the provision of the 3d section of an Act of
Congress of 16 April, 1814, for the augmentation of the marine
corps. Said amount extends from 30 June, 1834, to 1 April, 1842,
and has been presented to and disallowed by the fourth
auditor."
"Said Freeman files an account also of $1,669 for double rations
while in command on the Boston station, between 30 June, 1834, and
1 April, 1842, under a joint resolution of Congress of 25 May,
1832; which account has also been presented to and disallowed by
the fourth auditor."
"Said Freeman files also an account of $354.69 for the
responsibilities of clothing &c., while a captain in the line
of the marine corps, and in command of the marines on the Boston
station, from 17 July, 1831, to 30 June, 1834, under an act of
Congress of 30 June, 1834, making certain allowances &c., to
the captains and subalterns of the marine corps, as to officers of
similar grades in the army, under an act of 2 March, 1827; which
account has likewise been presented to and disallowed by the fourth
auditor of the Treasury, on the ground that the defendant received
the pay of a grade higher than that of captain."
"It is further agreed that double rations have been paid
heretofore and up to 30 June, 1834, to the officers of the marine
corps, in the manner and as stated in the letter of the fourth
auditor of date 27 April, 1842, and marked B, and annexed; also
that estimates and appropriations were made, as stated in said
letter, since 1834."
"Upon the foregoing facts, the case is submitted to the court;
the accounts of the said several claims of the said Freeman to be
adjusted hereafter by the officers of the Treasury, if the same, or
any portion of them, are found by the court to be legally due."
"FRANKLIN DEXTER, U.S. Dis. Att'y"
"W. H. FREEMAN"
Page 44 U. S. 559
The laws will be stated which bear upon each of the three items
into which the account is divided,
viz., 1, Pay; 2,
Rations; 3, Clothing.
1. As to pay.
On 6 July, 1812, 2 Story 1278, Congress passed an "act entitled
an act making further provision for the army of the United States,
and for other purposes," the 4th section of which was as
follows:
"That the President is hereby authorized to confer brevet rank
on such officers of the army as shall distinguish themselves by
gallant actions, or meritorious conduct, or who shall have served
ten years in anyone grade, provided that nothing herein contained
shall be so construed as to entitle officers so breveted to any
additional pay or emoluments except when commanding separate posts,
districts, or detachments, when they shall be entitled to and
receive the same pay and emoluments to which officers of the same
grade are now, or hereafter may be, allowed by law."
On 16 April, 1814, Congress passed an act, 2 Story 1414,
"authorizing an augmentation of the marine corps and for other
purposes," the 3d section of which was exactly similar to the
above, except that "officers of the marine corps" were substituted
for "officers of the army," and that in the proviso the words
"commanding separate stations or detachments" were substituted for
"commanding separate posts, districts, or detachments."
On 16 April, 1818, an act was passed, 3 Story 1672, "regulating
the pay and emoluments of brevet officers," the 1st section of
which was as follows:
"Be it enacted &c., that the officers of the army who have
brevet commissions shall be entitled to, and receive, the pay and
emoluments of their brevet rank when on duty and having a command
according to their brevet rank, and at no other time."
In 1825, regulations for the army were issued; the 1124th
section was as follows:
"Brevet officers shall receive the pay and emoluments of their
brevet commissions, when they exercise command equal to their
brevet rank; for example, a brevet captain must command a company;
a brevet major and a brevet lieutenant-colonel, a battalion; a
brevet colonel, a regiment; a brevet brigadier-general, a brigade;
a brevet major-general, a division."
On 30 June, 1834, Congress passed an act "for the better
organization of the United States marine corps," 4 Story 2383.
After increasing the number of officers and privates, the 5th
section enacted:
"That the officers of the marine corps shall be entitled to, and
receive, the same pay, emoluments, and allowances, as are now, or
hereafter may be, allowed to officers of similar grades in the
infantry of the army, except the adjutant and inspector, who
shall,"
&c.
Page 44 U. S. 560
The 7th section provided that "the commissions of the officers
now in the marine corps shall not be vacated by this act,"
&c.
The 9th section repealed so much of the 4th section of the act
of the 6th of July as authorized the President to confer brevet
rank on such officers of the army or of the marine corps as shall
have served ten years in anyone grade.
The 10th section repealed all acts or parts of acts inconsistent
therewith.
In 1836, another set of army regulations was issued, the
forty-eighth article of which contained the following:
"Officers who have brevet commissions shall be entitled to
receive their brevet pay and emoluments, when on duty, under the
following circumstances: "
"A brevet captain, when commanding a company."
"A brevet major, when commanding two companies, or when acting
as major of the regiment."
"A brevet lieutenant-colonel, when commanding at least four
companies, or when acting as lieutenant-colonel of the
regiment."
"A brevet colonel, when commanding nine companies of artillery,
or ten of infantry or dragoons, or a mixed corps of ten companies,
or when commanding a regiment."
"A brevet brigadier-general, when commanding a brigade of not
less than two regiments or twenty companies."
"A brevet major-general, when commanding a division of four
regiments or at least forty companies."
"A brevet officer, when assigned by the special order of the
Secretary of War to a particular duty and command, according to his
brevet rank, although such command be not in the line, provided his
brevet allowances are recognized in the order of assignment."
"To entitle officers to brevet allowances while acting as field
officers of regiments according to their brevets, they must be
recognized at general headquarters as being on such duty, and the
fact announced accordingly in general orders."
The laws relating to rations are the following:
2. Rations.
On 3 March, 1797, 1 Story 460, Congress passed an act to amend
and repeal, in part, the act entitled "An act to ascertain and fix
the military establishment of the United States," the 4th section
of which declared that "to each officer, while commanding a
separate post, there shall be allowed twice the number of rations
to which they would otherwise be entitled."
On 16 March, 1802, 2 Story 831, an act was passed "fixing the
military peace establishment of the United States," the 5th section
of which designated the number of rations to which each officer
should be entitled, and then added as follows,
viz.:
"to the commanding officers of each separate post, such
additional number of rations as the President of the United States
shall, from time
Page 44 U. S. 561
to time, direct, having respect to the special circumstances of
each post."
On 25 May, 1832, 4 Story 2333, Congress passed a joint
resolution as follows:
"Resolved &c., that the pay, subsistence, emoluments, and
allowances of officers, noncommissioned officers, musicians, and
privates of the United States marine corps, shall be the same as
they were previously to the 1st of April, 1829, and shall so
continue until they shall be altered by law."
In 1834, the act was passed which has already been mentioned
under the head of "Pay."
3. Clothing.
On 2 March, 1827, Congress passed an act, 3 Story 2057, the 2d
section of which was as follows:
"That every officer in the actual command of a company if the
army of the United States shall be entitled to receive $10 per
month, additional pay, as compensation for his duties and
responsibilities, with respect to the clothing, arms, and
accoutrements of the company, whilst he shall be in the actual
command thereof. "
Page 44 U. S. 563
MR. JUSTICE WAYNE delivered the opinion of the Court.
Several questions occurred upon the trial of this cause in the
court below, upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed,
and they were certified to this Court for decision.
From a careful examination of all the acts of Congress relating
to the pay and emoluments of brevet officers, and those acts
establishing and organizing the marine corps, we are of the
opinion, whatever may have been a different practice, that the
brevet officers of the marine corps have always been by law upon
the same footing with other officers of the military establishment
of the United States in respect to the circumstances which entitle
them to pay and emoluments, and that they continue to be so. Brevet
pay and emoluments were originally given by the act of 1812, 2
Story Laws 1278, and by the act of 1814, 2 Story Laws 1414, when
breveted officers commanded separate posts, districts, stations, or
detachments. But an act was passed in 1818, 3 Story Laws 1672,
regulating the pay and emoluments of brevet officers, the 1st
section of which is that
"The officers of the army who have brevet commissions, shall be
entitled to and shall receive the pay and emoluments of their
brevet rank when on duty and having a command according to their
brevet rank, and at no other time."
The 2d section is "that no brevet commission shall hereafter be
conferred, but by and with the advice of the Senate." By the acts
of 1812 and 1814, they were conferred by the President alone. By
the 1st section of the act of 1818, it will be perceived that pay
and emoluments were attached to command, and not, as they had been,
to the command of separate posts, stations, districts, or
detachments. That the act of 1818 repealed the 4th section of the
act of 1812 no one doubts. But it is said it is not a repeal of the
3d section of the act of 1814, because the act, in terms, speaks of
the officers of the army who have brevet commissions, and not of
such officers of the marine corps. It may be well to state that the
3d section of the act of 1814 is a transcript of the 4th section of
the act of 1812, except that it has in it the words "officers of
the marine corps," instead of "officers of the army," and that
the
Page 44 U. S. 564
words "stations or detachments" were substituted for "posts,
districts, or detachments." The first point for consideration is
was the act of 1818 a repeal of the 4th section of the act of 1812,
and of the 3d section of the act of 1814, as to the condition upon
which brevet officers were to have additional pay and emoluments?
It is conceded that it repealed the 4th section in the act of 1812.
We are of opinion that it repealed also the 3d section of the act
of 1814. It cannot be denied that the marine corps is an addition
to the "military establishment of the United States." It is
declared to be so in the act by which it was organized. Now though
neither that fact nor the words "military establishment," as they
are used in the acts of Congress, will of themselves authorize the
inclusion of officers of the marine corps, within the words
"officers of the army," yet considering the subject matter of the
act of 1818; the application of the 2d section of the act to all
breveted officers, and the assimilation of the marine corps, by the
act of 1814, to the army, to give to its officers brevet
commissions, and pay, exactly, too, in the same way as they were
given to the officers of the army, by the act of 1812; we do not
see how, consistently with a correct judicial interpretation, the
conclusion can be resisted that Congress did intend, in passing the
act of 1818, to place the officers of the marine corps and the
officers of the army upon the same footing in respect to brevet pay
and emoluments. Though what has been differently done is binding
upon the government, and cannot be recalled, to the pecuniary
disadvantage of any officer, who may have received brevet pay and
emoluments, not according to the act of 1818, no erroneous practice
under it, of however longstanding, can justify the allowance of a
claim, contested by the government, in a suit contrary to what is
the true meaning and intent of that act. The error of the
accounting officers of the Treasury, and of the officers of the
marine corps, in the construction of the act of 1818 arose from
that act's having been considered by itself, without any reference
to other statutes relating to brevet commissions and pay and
without any examination whether the words "officers of the army,"
as used in the 1st section of the act of 1818, though they are
descriptive of a particular class, were not intended, from their
connection with the subject matter of the act, to comprehend all
officers of the military establishment of the United States who,
when the act was passed, were only under like circumstances
entitled to brevet pay and emoluments.
The correct rule of interpretation is that if divers statutes
relate to the same thing, they ought all to be taken into
consideration in construing anyone of them, and it is an
established rule of law that all acts
in pari materia are
to be taken together, as if they were one law. Doug. 30; 2 T.R.
387, 586; 4 Mau. & Sel. 210. If a thing contained in a
subsequent statute be within the reason of a former statute, it
shall be taken to be within the meaning of that statute; Ld.Raym.
1028; and if it can be gathered from a
Page 44 U. S. 565
subsequent statute
in pari materia, what meaning the
legislature attached to the words of a former statute, they will
amount to a legislative declaration of its meaning, and will govern
the construction of the first statute.
Morris v. Mellin, 6
Barn. & C. 454; 7
id. 99. Wherever any words of a
statute are doubtful or obscure, the intention of the legislature
is to be resorted to, in order to find the meaning of the words.
Wimbish v. Tailbois, Plowd. 57. A thing which is within
the intention of the makers of the statute, is as much within the
statute, as if it were within the letter.
Zouch v.
Stowell, Plowd. 366. These citations are but different
illustrations of the rule, that the meaning of the legislature may
be extended beyond the precise words used in the law, from the
reason or motive upon which the legislature proceeded, from the end
in view, or the purpose which was designed -- the limitation of the
rule being, that to extend the meaning to any case not included in
the words, the case must be shown to come within the same reason
upon which the lawmaker proceeded, and not only within a like
reason.
This Court has repeatedly, in effect, acted upon the rule, and
there may be found, in the reports of its decisions, cases under
it, like the cases which have been cited from the reports of the
English courts. In
4 U. S. 4 Dall. 14,
"The intention of the legislature, when discovered, must prevail,
any rule of construction declared by previous acts to the contrary
notwithstanding." In
6 U. S. 2 Cranch 33,
"A law is the best expositor of itself -- that every part of an act
is to be taken into view for the purpose of discovering the mind of
the legislature," &c. In the case of the
United States v.
Fisher, Assignees of Blight, in the same book, the Court
said,
"It is undoubtedly a well established principle in the
exposition of statutes, that every part is to be considered, and
the intention of the legislature to be extracted from the
whole,"
&c. In
27 U. S. 2 Pet.
662,
"A legislative act is to be interpreted according to the
intention of the legislature, apparent upon its face. Every
technical rule, as to the construction or force of particular
terms, must yield to the clear expression of the paramount will of
the legislature."
In Paine 11,
"In doubtful cases, a court should compare all the parts of a
statute, and different statutes
in pari materia, to
ascertain the intention of the legislature."
So in 1 Brock. 162. In the construction of statutes, one part
must be construed by another. In order to test the legislative
intention, the whole statute must be inspected. No one of the cases
cited will justify, nor have they been cited to sanction an
equitable construction of statutes beyond the just application of
adjudicated cases. They have been brought together upon this
occasion, for the purpose of showing how many authorities there are
to sustain the conclusion, that the act of 1818, regulating the pay
and emoluments of brevet officers, repealed the act of 1814, upon
which the defendant relies to support his claim to brevet pay. Our
answer to the first question
Page 44 U. S. 566
then is that a brevet field officer of the marine corps is not
entitled by law to brevet pay and rations by reason of his
commanding a separate post or station if the force under his
command would not entitle a brevet field officer of infantry, of a
similar grade, to brevet pay and rations. We will add to our
exposition of the law upon this point that brevet officers of the
marine corps, in respect to pay and emoluments, were included under
the Army Regulation 1124, sanctioned on 1 March, 1825; were
included also in the regulation upon the subject of brevet pay
sanctioned by the President December 1, 1836, and that they may
claim brevet pay and emoluments under the regulations of 1841, when
they exercise a command, according to the provisions regulating
brevet pay, in page 344, Army Regulations of 1841. This right to
brevet pay results from the marine corps having been subjected, by
the act of 1798, 1 Story Laws 542, and by other acts of Congress,
to the same rules and articles of war "as are prescribed for the
military establishment of the United States," and from the
exception in the 2d section of the Act of 30 June, 1834, taking
them out of the regulations which might be established for the
navy, when detached for service with the army, by order of the
President of the United States.
To the second question we reply, that the act of 1834, ch. 132,
does not repeal the first section of the act of 1818, regulating
the pay and emoluments of brevet officers. That section of the act
is still in force, and upon it rests the army regulations, in
relation to brevet pay and emoluments. The act of 1834 only repeals
those sections in the acts of 1812 and 1814, and in the act of
1818, by which the President was authorized to confer, and the
Senate was permitted to confirm, brevet commissions conferred upon
officers of the army, or officers of the marine corps, for ten
years' service in anyone grade, excepting such officers as had,
before the passage of the act, acquired the right to have brevet
rank conferred by ten years' service in anyone grade, if the
President should think fit to nominate them to the Senate for
brevet commissions.
To the third question we reply that the 5th section of the Act
of the 30 June, 1834, is a repeal of the joint resolution of the
two houses of Congress of 25 May, 1832, respecting the pay and
emoluments of the marine corps.
The fourth question involves the charge made by the defendant
for double rations. Additional rations are provided for by the 5th
section of the act of 1802, 2 Story Laws 831,
"To the commanding officer of each separate post, such
additional number of rations as the President of the United States
shall, from time to time, direct, having respect to the special
circumstances of each post,"
is the language of a part of the section. It is the authority
for the 1125th paragraph in the Army Regulations of 1825. The
President sanctioned those regulations, and by doing so delegated
his authority,
Page 44 U. S. 567
as he had a right to do, to the Secretary of War. The Army
Regulations, when sanctioned by the President, have the force of
law, because it is done by him by the authority of law. The
Regulations of 1825, then, were as conclusive upon the accounting
officer of the Treasury, whilst they continued in force, as those
of 1836 afterwards were, and as those of 1841 now are.
When, then, an officer presents, with his account, an authentic
document or certificate of his having commanded a post or arsenal,
for which an order has been issued from the War Department, in
conformity with the provisions of the Army Regulations, allowing
double rations, his right to them is established, nor can they be
withheld, without doing him a wrong, for which the law gives him a
remedy. But as the question in this case must be decided upon the
agreed statement of facts in the record, between Colonel Freeman
and the district attorney of the United States, we have no
hesitation in answering it adversely from the claim of the
defendant, for double rations, as the fact does not appear in the
record that he had such a command of a post or arsenal, at which
double rations had been allowed, according to the Army Regulations
which were in force, from the time his account begins, or according
to those subsequently sanctioned by the President. To the fifth
question, we reply, that the fact of appropriations having been
made by Congress for double rations, does not determine what
officers in command are entitled to them. The sixth question
relates to the charge of the defendant for compensation for his
duties and responsibilities, "with respect to clothing, arms, and
accoutrements," while he was a captain in the line of the marine
corps, and in command of the marines on the Boston station. The
question, as it is put, makes it necessary for us to repeat what
has been already said in a previous part of this opinion, that a
brevet field officer of the marine corps, commanding a separate
post, without a command equal to his brevet rank, is not entitled
to brevet pay and emoluments. But if such brevet officer is a
captain in the line of his corps, and in the actual command of a
company, whether he is in command of a post or not, he is entitled
to the compensation given by the 2d section of the act of 2 March,
1827, 3 Story Laws 2057. We cannot give any other answer to this
question, because the first part of it attaches brevet pay and
emoluments to the command of a separate post, for which it is not
allowed by law, and cannot therefore influence any right to
compensation which may have accrued to a captain in the line under
the 2d section of the act of 2 March, 1827. That act is in full
force, unrepealed in any way by the act of 1834, for the better
organization of the marine corps. 4 Story 2383. And captains and
subalterns of that corps are as much entitled to its provisions, as
any other captains or subalterns in the military establishment of
the United States. If there was any doubt of this, before the act
of 1834 was passed, the 5th section of that act must be
considered
Page 44 U. S. 568
as having put an end to it. It is
"that the officers of the marine corps shall be entitled to, and
receive the same pay, emoluments, and allowances, as are now, or
may hereafter be allowed to similar grades in the infantry of the
army,"
subject to the exception in the section following the words just
cited.
We shall direct the foregoing answers to the questions, upon
which the judges in the court below were opposed in opinion, to be
certified to that court.
