Cadet engineers who had finished their four years' course at the
Naval Academy, had passed their final academic examinations, and
had received their diplomas before the passage of the Act of August
5, 1882, 22 Stat. 284, became graduates, and were not made naval
cadets by that act.
The provision in the Act of August 5, 1882, 22 Stat. 284, for
the discharge of surplus naval cadet graduates was prospective
only, and did not apply to the classes of 1881, and 1882.
The facts of the case brought here by this appeal, as found by
the Court of Claims, were in substance as follows:
In 1877, the appellee, who was the claimant below, entered the
Naval Academy as a cadet engineer, and on June 10, 1881, received a
certificate signed by its officers that he had completed the
prescribed course of study at the Academy and had successfully
passed the required examination before the academic board. He was
on the same date detached from the Academy and ordered to report
for duty on board the U.S. practice steamer
Mayflower. On
August 30, 1881, he was detached from the
Mayflower and
ordered to proceed home on waiting orders. On October 28, 1881, he
was ordered to proceed to the navy yard at League Island for duty
on board the United States Steamship
Essex. On April 16,
1883, he reported to the Superintendent of the Naval Academy in
pursuance of orders for examination which assumed that the Act of
Congress of August 5, 1882, operated upon him as a naval cadet,
requiring a six years' course before graduation and a final
examination at its conclusion. On June 23, 1883, he was detached
from the Naval Academy on waiting orders. On June 26, 1883, the
Secretary of the Navy addressed to him a letter in which it was
recited that he had successfully completed his six years' course at
the Naval Academy and had received a certificate of graduation by
the academic board, but
"not being required to fill any vacancy in the naval service
happening
Page 116 U. S. 475
during the year preceding your graduation, you are hereby
honorably discharged from the 30th of June, 1883, with one year's
sea pay, as prescribed by law for cadet midshipmen, in accordance
with the provisions of the Act of Congress approved August 5,
1882."
From August 5, 1882, to June 30, 1883, the claimant was paid
$769.86 for service in the navy during that period. If paid during
the same period as a graduated cadet engineer, he would have been
entitled to receive $796.71.
Since then, the claimant has received no pay, and has been held
by the Navy Department and the accounting officers of the Treasury
to be out of the naval service. After leaving the Academy, the
claimant and all his classmates were classified on the official
navy register issued in July, 1881, as having "graduated," and up
to August 5, 1882, they were regularly paid as such at the rates
prescribed by section 1556 of the Revised Statutes,
viz.,
$1,000 at sea, $800 on shore duty, and $600 on leave or waiting
orders. In the same manner, the cadet engineers who completed their
four-years course in 1878, 1879, and 1880 were all regularly
classified in the succeeding navy registers as having graduated in
those years, respectively, and prior to August 5, 1882, they were
all uniformly paid as such.
The regulations prescribing the qualifications for appointment
of cadet engineers fixed a higher average age by two years for
cadet engineers entering the Academy than was required by law for
cadet midshipmen so entering. After completing the four-years
course, cadet engineers were permanently detached from the Academy
and were never required to return to that institution. They
remained in active service at sea or upon other duty two or three
years or longer, until vacancies occurred in the grade of assistant
engineer, when they were ordered singly or in groups for
examination for promotion under the provisions of section 1392 of
the Revised Statutes before a board of engineer officers which held
its sessions at Philadelphia.
The last two years of the academic course of cadet midshipmen
were spent "at sea in other than practice ships." After
Page 116 U. S. 476
four years at the Academy, they were temporarily detached from
that institution by orders from the Navy Department, and were sent
to sea singly or in squads. On shipboard, they performed such
active duties as were assigned to them. At the end of the two
years, they were required to return and did return to the Naval
Academy, where they were subjected to a "final graduating
examination" before the academic board. If successful at such
examination, they received appointments as midshipmen, and were
thereafter classified in the navy register as having "graduated" at
that date, and they were never so designated either in the navy
register or elsewhere until after they had passed such examination
at the end of the six-years course.
The provisions of the Act of August 5, 1882, being the Naval
Appropriation Act, 22 Stat. 284, c. 391, which apply to the case,
are as follows:
"For the pay of the Navy, for the active list, namely: . . .
sixty-nine chief engineers, one hundred past assistant engineers,
thirty-five assistant engineers, seventy-three cadet engineers
(graduates), . . . one hundred and two cadet engineers, one hundred
and thirty cadet midshipmen (not graduates), in all four million
forty-eight thousand three hundred dollars,
provided that
hereafter there shall be no appointments of cadet midshipmen or
cadet engineers at the Naval Academy, but in lieu thereof naval
cadets shall be appointed from each congressional district and at
large, as now provided by law for cadet midshipmen, and all the
undergraduates at the Naval Academy shall hereafter be designated
and called 'Naval Cadets.' And from those who successfully complete
the six-years course, appointments shall hereafter be made as it is
necessary to fill vacancies in the lower grades of the line and
engineer corps of the Navy and of the Marine Corps,
and
provided further that no greater number of appointments into
these grades shall be made each year than shall equal the number of
vacancies which has occurred in the same grades during the
preceding year, and such appointments to be made from the graduates
of the year at the conclusion of their six-years course in the
order of merit, as determined by the
Page 116 U. S. 477
academic board of the Naval Academy, the assignment to the
various corps to be made by the Secretary of the Navy upon the
recommendation of the academic board. But nothing herein contained
shall reduce the number of appointments from such graduates below
ten in each year, nor deprive of such appointment any graduate who
may complete the six-years course during the year eighteen hundred
and eighty-two. And if there be a surplus of graduates, those who
do not receive such appointment shall be given a certificate of
graduation, an honorable discharge, and one year's sea pay, as now
provided by law for cadet midshipmen. . . ."
"That the pay of naval cadets shall be that now allowed by law
to cadet midshipmen, and as much of the money hereby appropriated
as may be necessary during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883,
shall be expended for that purpose. . . ."
"That no officer now in the service shall be reduced in rank or
deprived of his commission by reason of any provision of this act
reducing the number of officers in the several staff corps,
provided that no further appointments of cadet engineers
shall be made by the Secretary of the Navy under section three of
the act of eighteen hundred and seventy-four."
The Court of Claims, following its previous decision in the case
of
Leopold v. United States, 18 Ct.Cl. 546, affirmed the
following propositions of law:
"1st. Cadet engineers who had finished their four-years course
at the Naval Academy, passed their final academic examinations, and
received their diplomas before the passage of the Act of August 5,
1882, 22 Stat. 285, became graduates, and are not made naval cadets
by that act. They are therefore entitled to pay provided by the
Revised Statutes, section 1556, page 268."
"2d. The provision in the Act of August 5, 1882, for the
discharge of surplus naval cadet graduates is prospective only, and
does not apply to the classes of 1881 and 1882."
Judgment was accordingly rendered in favor of the claimant, from
which this appeal is prosecuted by the United States.
Page 116 U. S. 478
MR. JUSTICE MATTHEWS delivered the opinion of the Court.
In order to understand the operation of the Act of August 5,
1882, upon the status of cadet engineers at the time it took
effect, it will be necessary to consider what that was according to
laws then in force. That class or grade in the naval service owes
its origin to provisions of law now contained in the Revised
Statutes, as follows:
"SEC. 1522. The Secretary of the Navy is authorized to make
provision, by regulations issued by him, for educating at the Naval
Academy, as naval constructors or steam engineers, such midshipmen
and others as may show a peculiar aptitude therefor. He may for
this purpose form a separate class at the Academy, to be styled
'Cadet Engineers,' or otherwise afford to such persons all proper
facilities for such a scientific mechanical education as will fit
them for said professions."
"SEC. 1523. Cadet engineers shall be appointed by the Secretary
of the Navy. They shall not at any time exceed fifty in number
[reduced to 25 by Act of June 22, 1874, § 3, Supp.Rev.Stat. 83],
and no person other than midshipmen shall be eligible for
appointment unless they shall first produce satisfactory evidence
of mechanical skill and proficiency, and shall have passed an
examination as to their mental and physical qualifications."
"SEC. 1524. The course for cadet engineers shall be four years,
including two years of service on naval steamers. [By the Act of
February 24, 1874, Supp.Rev.Stat. 6, this provision was changed so
as to require the course of instruction at the Naval Academy for
cadet engineers to be four years instead of two, but not dispensing
with the additional two years' service on naval steamers.]"
"SEC. 1525. Cadet engineers shall be examined from time to time
according to regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy,
and if found deficient at any examination or if dismissed for
misconduct, they shall not be continued in the Academy or
Page 116 U. S. 479
in the service except upon the recommendation of the academic
board."
By § 1394 Rev.Stat., it was provided that
"Cadet engineers who are graduated with credit in the scientific
and mechanical class of the Naval Academy may, upon the
recommendation of the academic board, be appointed by the President
and confirmed by the Senate as second assistant engineers,"
but by § 1392, no person could be so appointed until after he
had been found qualified by a board of competent engineers and
medical officers designated by the Secretary of the Navy. By § 1556
Rev.Stat., the pay of cadet engineers was
"before final academic examination, five hundred dollars; after
final academic examination until warranted as assistant engineers
when on duty at sea, one thousand dollars; on shore duty, eight
hundred dollars; on leave or waiting orders, six hundred
dollars."
At the same time that students at the Naval Academy styled
"Cadet Midshipmen" were required to take an academic course of six
years, § 1520 Rev.Stat., when, having passed successfully the
graduating examination at the Academy, they were entitled to
receive appointments as midshipmen. Section 1521 Rev.Stat. The pay
of cadet midshipmen was $500; for midshipmen, after graduation,
when at sea, $1,000; on shore duty, $800; on leave or waiting
orders, $600. Section 1556 Rev.Stat. By the Act of March 3, 1877,
Supp.Rev.Stat. 294, cadet midshipmen,
"during such period of their course of instruction as they shall
be at sea in other than practice ships, are entitled to receive, as
annual pay, nine hundred and fifty dollars."
It is contended on the part of the government in opposition to
the conclusions of the Court of Claims that the Act of August 5,
1882, when it took effect, converted all cadet engineers who and
not completed their six-years course during that year into naval
cadets, all other cadet engineers being regarded as graduates, and
that those who were not at that time graduates in that sense were
subject to the provisions of the act in regard to pay and
discharge.
Page 116 U. S. 480
The controversy would seem to turn on the meaning to be given to
the word "graduates" as used in this act of Congress.
It is certain that the act divides all who at the date when it
took effect were known as "Cadet Engineers" into two classes --
graduates and not graduates. Prior to that date, a cadet engineer
might be pursuing the four-years course of study at the Academy, or
the two additional years of service on board a naval steamer, or,
having successfully passed both periods, might be waiting promotion
to the grade of assistant engineer.
It is found as a fact by the Court of Claims that before the
passage of the act, cadet engineers who had successfully passed
their examination at the end of the four-years course of study at
the Academy were called and considered graduates. The seventy-three
cadet engineers, styled "Graduates," for whose pay the Act of
August 5, 1882, makes appropriation include all of that
description, and, among them, the appellee in this case, while the
one hundred and two cadet engineers, styled in the same act "Not
Graduates," are those who at that date were still at the Academy
pursuing their four-years course. This classification was followed
by the Navy Department in the Navy register. The Naval
Appropriation Act of March 3, 1883, 22 Stat. 472, c. 97, provides
for the pay of sixty-two cadet engineers, which it is not denied is
the exact number of cadet engineers who had graduated at the
Academy, but were not yet eligible to promotion, or whose promotion
had been delayed, and includes the classes who completed their
four-years course in 1880, 1881, and 1882. The same act
appropriates for the pay of three hundred and thirty-five naval
cadets, being presumably the whole number of the "under graduates"
referred to in the Act of August 5, 1882.
This would seem to settle the meaning of the words according to
the sense adjudged by the Court of Claims unless some other meaning
is required to be attached to them by other and controlling
provisions of the same act. It is argued by the assistant attorney
general that a consistent reading of the entire context does in
fact require such other meaning to be given to the words
"graduates" and "not graduates." In support of this conclusion, our
attention is called to the
Page 116 U. S. 481
provisos of the act whereby it is enacted that appointments to
fill vacancies in the lower grades of the line and the Engineer
Corps and of the Marine Corps shall be thereafter made only from
those who successfully complete a six-years course as naval cadets;
that no appointments into these grades shall be made each year
except to fill vacancies therein which occurred during the
preceding year; that such appointments are to be made only from the
graduates of the year at the conclusion of their six-years course;
that the exception made, that a graduate who completed his
six-years course during the year 1882 shall not be deprived of his
appointment, carries with it the implication that those who had not
completed a six-years course at that time were included in the rule
of exclusion, and that the surplus of graduates, not receiving such
appointment, are therefore subject to discharge from the service,
on graduation, with one year's sea pay, in the language of the act
"as now provided by law for cadet midshipmen." No similar provision
of law then in force relating to cadet midshipmen, however,
appears, and the reference is without application. Such a provision
did exist in reference to the appointment of graduates of the
Military Academy as second lieutenants of the Army, and the
discharge of supernumeraries after July 1, 1882, by virtue of § 3
of the act making appropriations for the support of the Military
Academy, approved June 11, 1878, Supp.Rev.Stat. 346, but no such
legislation in regard to cadet midshipmen is to be found in force
at the date of the Act of August 5, 1882. This, however, is not
important, as nothing depends on the accuracy of this
reference.
The general purpose of this act is quite apparent. One main
object was to abolish the distinctions previously made by law
between cadet engineers and cadet midshipmen, and for the future to
merge both classes in the new designation of naval cadets. The
previous differences between them grew out of separate provisions
as to their number, their manner of appointment, their course and
term of study, and their pay after their four-years course at the
Academy. Another principal purpose of the act was to prevent the
increase of the number of officers in the Navy by providing for the
annual discharge from the
Page 116 U. S. 482
service of all graduates of the year not needed to fill
vacancies, in the grade to which they were eligible for promotion,
actually existing at the time of their graduation. But this was to
be accomplished consistently with the declaration of the act
"that no officer now in the service shall be reduced in rank or
deprived of his commission by reason of any provision of this act
reducing the number of officers in the several staff corps."
And to this end, the whole scheme of reform embodied in the
legislation was made prospective. Its express language is that no
appointments of cadet midshipmen or cadet engineers shall be made
hereafter; that all the under graduates at the Naval Academy shall
hereafter be designated and called "Naval Cadets;" that from those
-- that is, those now called "Naval Cadets" -- who successfully
complete their six-years course, appointments shall hereafter be
made as it is necessary to fill vacancies in the lower grades of
the line, and engineer corps of the Navy, and of the Marine Corps.
But none of these provisions touches the case of the cadet engineer
who has already graduated at the date of the act -- that is, who
had at that time successfully completed his four-years course of
study at the Academy, and was serving on board a naval steamer. And
the further provisions limiting the number of appointments to the
number of vacancies occurring during the preceding year, and
providing for the discharge of the surplus graduates, equally refer
to those who become graduates after the year 1882, under this act,
which now requires for graduation a full course of six years for
all naval cadets, including the two years of service on board a
naval steamer, which before had constituted the service of a cadet
engineer after graduation. This leaves the state and condition of
cadet engineers who at the date of the passage of the act were
already graduates according to the law as it then stood unchanged,
and to this class the appellee belonged. He is therefore entitled
to the pay claimed and withheld, and the judgment of the Court of
Claims in his favor is therefore
Affirmed.
