Construing the Act of March 3, 1883, c. 119, 22 Stat. 487, and
the Act of June 12, 1886, 14 Stat. 69, both relating to the
salaries of postmasters, as their terms require, the judgment of
the Court of Claims in this case is erroneous; but the charges of
misconduct, maladministration, and fraud against the officers of
the Post Office Department, so freely scattered through the briefs
of counsel for appellee, are entirely unwarranted by anything
contained in the record.
The government appeals from a judgment of the Court of Claims
awarding to the petitioner the sum of $1,264.83 upon a readjustment
of salary for his services as postmaster at Gadsden, in the State
of Alabama, between July 1, 1866, and June 30, 1874. The original
petition was filed in October, 1888, in consequence of the passage
of the Act of March 3, 1883, c. 119, 22 Stat. 487, which reads as
follows:
"That the Postmaster General be, and he is hereby, authorized
and directed to readjust the salaries of all postmasters and late
postmasters of the third, fourth, and fifth classes, under the
Page 184 U. S. 141
classification provided for in the Act of July 1, eighteen
hundred and sixty-four, whose salaries have not heretofore been
readjusted under the terms of section eight of the Act of June 12,
eighteen hundred and sixty-six, who made sworn returns of receipts
and business for readjustment of salary to the Postmaster General,
the First Assistant Postmaster General, or the Third Assistant
Postmaster General, or who made quarterly returns in conformity to
the then existing laws and regulations, showing that the salary
allowed was ten percentum less than it would have been upon the
basis of commissions under the act of eighteen hundred and
fifty-four; such readjustments to be made in accordance with the
mode presented in section eight of the Act of June 12, eighteen
hundred and sixty-six, and to date from the beginning of the
quarter succeeding that in which such sworn returns of receipts and
business, or quarterly returns were made:
Provided, That
every readjustment of salary under this act shall be upon a written
application signed by the postmaster or late postmaster or legal
representative entitled to said readjustment, and that each payment
made shall be by warrant or check on the Treasurer or some
assistant treasurer of the United States, made payable to the order
of said applicant, and forwarded by mail to him at the post office
within whose delivery he resides, and which address shall be set
forth in the application above provided for."
The petitioner claimed that, by a readjustment of his salary
under that act he was entitled to be paid a difference of $1,264.83
between the salary actually paid him and the amount to which he was
entitled by reason of such act.
By the Act of June 22, 1854, 10 Stat. 298, Congress provided for
the compensation of postmasters by allowing them commissions on one
postage collected at their respective offices in each quarter of
the year, and in due proportion for any period less than a quarter.
The compensation awarded was as follows:
On any sum not exceeding $100, 60 percent;
On any sum over and above $100, and not exceeding $400, 50
percent;
On any sum over and above $400, and not exceeding $2,400, 40
percent;
Page 184 U. S. 142
On all sums over $2,400, 15 percent
This method of compensation was changed by Congress by the
passage of the Act of July 1, 1864, 13 Stat. 335. By that act, it
was provided that the annual compensation of postmasters should be
at a fixed salary in lieu of commissions, the postmasters to be
divided into five classes, with compensation respectively as
follows:
First class to receive not more than $4,000, nor less than
$3,000;
Second class to receive less than $3,000, and not less than
$2,000;
Third class to receive less than $2,000, and not less than
$1,000;
Fourth class to receive less than $1,000, and not less than
$100;
Fifth class to receive less than $100.
The first section of the act then proceeds as follows:
"Whenever the compensation of postmasters of the several offices
(except the office of New York) for the two consecutive years next
preceding the first day of July, 1864, shall have amounted to an
average annual sum not less than $3,000, such offices shall be
assigned to the first class; whenever it shall have amounted to
less than $3,000, but not less than $2,000, such offices shall be
assigned to the second class; whenever it shall have amounted to
less than $2,000, but not less than $1,000, such offices shall be
assigned to the third class; whenever it shall have amounted to
less than $1,000, but not less than $100, such offices shall be
assigned to the fourth class, and whenever it shall have amounted
to less than $100, such offices shall be assigned to the fifth
class. To offices of the first, second, and third classes shall be
severally assigned salaries, in even hundreds of dollars, as nearly
as practicable in amount the same as, but not exceeding, the
average compensation of the postmasters thereof for the two years
next preceding, and to offices of the fourth class shall be
assigned severally salaries, in even tens of dollars, as nearly as
practicable in amount the same as, but not exceeding, such average
compensation for the two years next preceding, and to offices of
the fifth class shall be severally assigned
Page 184 U. S. 143
salaries, in even dollars, as nearly as practicable in amount
the same as, but not exceeding, such average compensation for the
two years next preceding. Wherever returns showing the average of
annual compensation of postmasters for the two years next preceding
the first day of July, 1864, shall not have been received at the
Post Office Department at the time of adjustment, the same may be
estimated by the Postmaster General for the purpose of adjusting
the salaries of postmasters herein provided for. And it shall be
the duty of the Auditor of the Treasury for the Post Office
Department to obtain from postmasters their quarterly accounts with
the vouchers necessary to a correct adjustment thereof, and to
report to the Postmaster General all failures of postmasters to
render such returns within a proper period after the close of each
quarter."
"SEC. 2.
And be it further enacted, That the Postmaster
General shall review once in two years, and in special cases, upon
satisfactory representation, as much oftener as he may deem
expedient, and readjust, on the basis of the preceding section, the
salary assigned by him to any office; but any change made in such
salary shall not take effect until the first day of the quarter
next following such order, and all orders made assigning or
changing salaries shall be made in writing and recorded in his
journal, and notified to the Auditor for the Post Office
Department."
Subsequently, by section 8 of the Act of June 12, 1866, 14 Stat.
59, 60, section 2 of the act of 1864 was amended by adding the
following:
"
Provided, That when the quarterly returns of any
postmaster of the third, fourth, or the fifth class show that the
salary allowed is ten percentum less than it would be on the basis
of commissions under the act of 1854, fixing compensation, then the
Postmaster General shall review and readjust under the provisions
of said section."
The Court of Claims finds that the petitioner was, as postmaster
of Gadsden, Alabama, paid:
For his services between July 1, 1866, and June 30,
1868, $73 per year, or for two years . . . . . . . . $
146.00
Page 184 U. S. 144
For his services between July 1, 1868, and June 30,
1870 at $220 per year, or for two years. . . . . . . 440.00
For his services between July 1, 1870, and June 30,
1872 at $460 per year, or for two years. . . . . . . 920.00
For his services between July 1,1872, and June 30,
1874 at $540 per year, or for two years. . . . . . .
1,080.00
In addition thereto since said service for the two
years between July 1, 1868, and June 30, 1870,
$45.95 per year, amounting for the two years to. . . 91.90
And for the two years between July 1, 1870, and
June 30, 1872, $47.50 per year, amounting for
the two years to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.00
---------
Amounting in all to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,772.90
"During his first biennial term his adjusted salary was less
than $100."
"During his second, third, and fourth biennial terms his
adjusted salary was more than $100 and less than $1,000 per
annum."
"III. He made application in writing to the Postmaster General
for readjustment and payment of salary (under chapter 119 of the
Laws of 1883) for service as postmaster, in accordance with chapter
61 of the Laws of 1854 and section 8 of chapter 114 of the Laws of
1866. This he did prior to January 1, 1887. The Postmaster General
thereupon stated plaintiff's account, as shown later in these
findings. This statement shows that (if plaintiff be correct in his
contention as to the law) his salary for the four biennial terms
between July 1, 1866, and June 30, 1874, should have been
$4,037.73, whereas he has been paid in all for said terms but
$2,772.90; so (if he be correct) there is still due him as
readjusted salary $1,264.83."
The court also sets out certain correspondence between its clerk
(under its direction) and the Postmaster General in regard
Page 184 U. S. 145
to papers in the Post Office Department, showing or tending to
show what action, if any, had been taken by the department on
request of petitioner for readjustment of salary under the act of
1883. It does not clearly appear therefrom that Postmaster General
Wanamaker, to whom the clerk addressed his communication, had
readjusted the salary, but subsequently to the correspondence the
Court of Claims finds, in its fifth finding, that, on November 19,
1897, Postmaster General Gary certified and returned to the Court
of Claims a readjustment of the petitioner's salary and documents
relating to the action of the Post Office Department in this and
similar cases, and the court in such fifth finding concludes
thus:
"If the foregoing readjustment of Postmaster General Wanamaker
is the readjustment prescribed and intended by the statutes therein
referred to, there is no balance of salary remaining due the
plaintiff. If the readjustment hereinafter set forth of Postmaster
General Gary is the readjustment prescribed and intended by the
said statutes, there remains due to the plaintiff the sum of
$1,264.83."
But the court, by its conclusion of law, finds that no legal
readjustment of salary was made by Postmaster General Wanamaker,
and that the readjustment made by Postmaster General Gary was valid
under the statute, and therefore ordered judgment for
$1,264.83.
MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM, after stating the above facts, delivered
the opinion of the Court.
The question at issue between the parties is as to the proper
construction of the Act of Congress approved March 3, 1883, and
which is set forth in the foregoing statement of facts. It is
contended on the part of the petitioner that, when application is
made to the Postmaster General for a readjustment of salary between
the period from 1864 to 1874, that it is his duty,
Page 184 U. S. 146
under the statute of 1883, to compare the salary which the
petitioner received in each biennial period with what he would have
received in commissions on the receipts of his office, as shown by
the sworn returns of the receipts and business of such office,
under the statute of 1854 during the same term, and if on such
comparison it should appear that the salary thus allowed was ten
percent, or more, less than such commissions, then to readjust the
salary for the biennial term by allowing the petitioner the
difference between the salary and the commission for that
particular term. This has been done by the Court of Claims in its
judgment in this case.
The government, on the other hand, contends that to do so would
be a plain violation of the statute, which provides that the
readjustments shall be made in accordance with the mode prescribed
in section 8 of the Act of June 12, 1866, and that they shall date
from the beginning of the quarter succeeding that in which such
sworn returns of receipts and business or quarterly returns were
made. In other words, the petitioner claims that, upon a comparison
of the actual salary paid him in a two-year period with what he
would have received for the same period upon the basis of
commissions on the sum of the quarterly returns for that period, if
the salary paid him were ten percent less than the commissions, he
was entitled to be paid the difference for that particular biennial
term, whereas the government contends that, by virtue of the
statute the readjustment is to date from the immediately succeeding
quarter.
Going back to the statute of 1854, providing for compensation by
commission, we find the act authorized the Postmaster General to
allow the commissions to postmasters at the rates named therein and
to be based on the postage collected at their respective offices in
each quarter of the year. Then came the Act of July 1, 1864,
providing for payment to postmasters by salary, and classifying
them according to the salary received. There were five classes thus
made, and they were arranged at the commencement by reference to
the compensation paid to the office for the two years next
preceding July 1, 1864. The second section of the act provides for
a review by the Postmaster General once in two years, and a
readjustment of the salaries
Page 184 U. S. 147
on the basis of the preceding section, but any change made in
the salary, the statute provided, should not take effect until the
first of the quarter next following such order. In special cases,
upon satisfactory representation, the Postmaster General might also
review and readjust the salary assigned to any office as much
oftener than once in two years as he might deem expedient.
Prior to this act of 1864, it will be seen that postmasters
received their compensation by commission based upon each quarterly
return of the amount of sales made at the particular office, but
under the act of 1864, instead of compensation by commission,
postmasters were to be paid under that act salaries for two years
based upon the average amount of the receipts at their offices, as
shown by their quarterly returns for the two years preceding the
first day of July, 1864, as provided for in the Act of June 22,
1854, and this salary was to be reviewed every two years.
Thus, at the end of a biennial period, the amount of receipts,
as shown by the quarterly returns for the past two years, was
taken, and upon that amount the salary for the coming two years was
fixed, so that, assuming from 1864 to 1866 the amount of the
quarterly receipts made a total of $2,000, that sum would be fixed
upon as the salary for the two years from 1866 to 1868. It was
obviously an effort to make the compensation by salary equivalent
to the compensation by commissions, and this was the way in which
it was to be done. It is equally obvious that a failure to attain
this result would frequently occur in the practical operation of
the act. The amount of the compensation by salary from 1866 to
1868, for instance, fixed by a resort to the quarterly returns for
the two years preceding, would, in rapidly growing communities,
fail to reach the amount of compensation which the postmasters
would have received had it been fixed by commissions for those
years, 1866 to 1868.
The amount of the sales of stamps might have quadrupled in those
years over the amount of such sales for the period from 1864 to
1866, and yet, as the compensation for the years from 1866 to 1868
was measured by the sales from 1864 to 1866, there was no relief to
be had, and the postmaster in such case
Page 184 U. S. 148
would have received less salary than the amount of the
compensation he would have received had he been paid by commissions
on sales of stamps as under the act of 1854. Such being the obvious
result of the act of 1864, the second section was amended in 1866,
which amendment provided that, when the salary allowed as fixed,
pursuant to the provisions of the act of 1864, proved to be ten
percent less than it would have been on the basis of commissions,
under the act of 1854, fixing the compensation, then in that event
the Postmaster General was directed to review and readjust the
salaries under the provisions of that act. And even then, the
readjustment would not take effect until the first day of the
quarter next following the order for the same, as that is the
condition of the act of 1864, which is not altered in that respect
by the act of 1866. It has been held that, under this statute of
1866, no action could be maintained in the Court of Claims until
there had been a readjustment of the salary of the petitioner for
the period for which he claimed to recover.
United States v.
McLean, 95 U. S. 750.
The quarterly returns mentioned in the act of 1866 do not refer
to any one quarterly return during the biennial term. The question
arose in
McLean v. Vilas, 124 U. S.
86, when, referring to the amendment of 1866 to the act
of 1864, the Court, through Mr. Justice Miller, said:
"What quarterly returns are here meant, as showing that the
salary is ten percent less than the commissions under the act of
1854? The argument of counsel is that when any one quarterly return
shall show this condition of affairs, the Postmaster General, on
the request of the postmaster, must make a readjustment; but such
is not the language of the statute. The expression used is 'when
the quarterly returns' shall show this, and inasmuch as the law had
already established that readjustments must be made on the basis of
the quarterly returns for two years, it is reasonable to suppose
that that was the meaning of Congress in this proviso."
Under such a construction, the readjustment could not be had
until eight quarterly returns of the biennial period had been made,
so that it would appear therefrom that the salary allowed during
that term was at least ten percent less than
Page 184 U. S. 149
it would have been if fixed on the basis of commissions under
the act of 1854, in which case the Postmaster General was directed
to review and readjust salaries under the provisions of said
section, but the change was not to take effect until the first day
of the quarter next following such order of the Postmaster General.
Then comes the act of of 1883, which also provides for a case for
readjustment of salary where sworn returns of receipts and business
have been made, or where quarterly returns, in conformity to the
then existing regulations, have been made, showing that the salary
allowed was ten percent less than it would have been upon on the
basis of commissions under the act. In such case, the Postmaster
General was authorized and directed to readjust those salaries in
accordance with the mode prescribed in section 8 of the Act of June
12, 1866, already referred to.
The sworn quarterly returns referred to in the act of 1883 are
those contained in the biennial period, and the act does not refer
to one return alone, any more than did the act of 1866. Having
stated the circumstances in which a readjustment could be had, the
act of 1883 proceeded to state from what period such readjustment
should take effect, and it stated that it was "to date from the
beginning of the quarter succeeding that in which such sworn
returns of receipts and business or quarterly returns were made."
This language is plain and unambiguous, and the Court is bound by
its terms. The readjustment cannot take effect in the same term for
which the sworn returns were reviewed. It is postponed to the
beginning of the next quarter.
It is said that, as thus construed, the statute leads in many
cases to great injustice, and hence such construction should not be
adopted. The difficulty is that any other construction violates the
clear directions of the law, and although the result may be to
withhold its benefits from some who might be regarded as otherwise
entitled to it, yet we cannot for that reason alter its terms so as
to include them, and thus ourselves enact, instead of construing,
the law.
In
United States v. Verdier, 164 U.
S. 213,
164 U. S. 219,
it was held that the act of 1883 created an indebtedness
voluntarily assumed
Page 184 U. S. 150
by the government in regard to those who claimed under its
provisions. It rested entirely with Congress to say who should have
its benefits and how the same should be arrived at, and from what
date the readjustment should take effect, and as Congress has
plainly stated the date, there is nothing for the Court to do but
follow the clear direction of the statute. If Congress had intended
to provide for the readjustment taking effect at the commencement
of a biennial term subsequent to that in which the quarterly
returns were made upon which the compensation was fixed, we are at
a loss to think of what language it could use which would more
certainly and specifically prove that intention than does the
language actually used in this statute.
The method of reviewing and readjusting the salaries of
postmasters under the act of 1883 with reference to the acts of
1864 and 1866, pursued by the Post Office Department, by which the
readjustments based upon the quarterly returns have been made
prospectively for the next biennial term thereafter, was approved
by Congress as a correct administration of the Act of March 3,
1883, and the readjustments which had been made under that act and
in that method by the department were ratified as a correct
disposition of the claims which had been considered and disposed
of, and Congress enacted that in considering all claims not yet
readjusted, the same method thus approved by it should be pursued,
and it directed that any and every different method of readjustment
of salaries during the period between 1864 and 1874 should be
prohibited. 24 Stat. 256, 307, sec. 8, Act approved August 4, 1886.
When this act was passed, the salary of the petitioner had not been
readjusted.
While the declaration of Congress in the act of 1886, approving
the construction which had been put upon the act of 1883 by the
Post Office Department and ratifying its method of reviewing and
readjusting salaries under that act, could have no binding force
upon the courts as to the proper construction of that act in cases
of salaries already readjusted, yet its direction
"that, in considering all claims not yet readjusted, the same
method shall be pursued which is hereby approved, and any and every
different method of readjustment of salaries of
Page 184 U. S. 151
such postmasters and late postmasters during the period between
July 1, 1864, and July 1, 1874, than is herein approved, is hereby
prohibited,"
is a valid legislative enactment, and must be followed by the
courts. The readjustment of the salary of petitioner has not been
according to this direction.
Construing the acts of 1883 and 1886 as we think their terms
require, the judgment of the Court of Claims is erroneous, and must
be reversed and the case remanded to that court with instructions
to enter a judgment in conformity to the directions of those
statutes and the opinion of this Court.
We feel called upon to say that the charges of misconduct,
maladministration, and fraud against the officers of the Post
Office Department, so freely scattered through the pages of the
briefs of counsel for appellee, are entirely unwarranted by
anything contained in the record before us, and ought not to have
been made.
Reversed.
MR. JUSTICE McKENNA did not sit in this case, and took no part
in its decision.
