Under the Act of Congress of 23d of February, 1853, granting to
widows of Revolutionary soldiers who were married subsequently to
January, A. D. 1800, "a pension in the same manner as those who
were married before that date," the widows do not take, like these
last, from the date of the act which gives them a pension (the Act,
namely, of 29 July, 1848), but take only from the date of the said
Act of 23 February, 1853. The terms "in the same manner" refer to
the mode in which the pension was to be obtained and to the rules,
regulations, and prescriptions provided by law for the payment of
the same.
On the 29th July, 1848, Congress enacted
"That the widows of all officers, noncommissioned officers,
musicians, soldiers, mariners, or marines, and Indian spies who
shall have served in the Continental line, state troops,
volunteers, militia, or in the naval service in the Revolutionary
War with Great Britain shall be entitled to a pension, during such
widowhood, of an equal amount per annum that their husbands would
be entitled to, if living, under existing pension laws, to commence
on the 4th day of March, 1848, and to be paid in the same manner
that other pensions are paid to widows. . . ."
The act proceeded, however, further to declare that "no widow
married after the 1st day of January, 1800, should be
entitled to receive a pension under the act."
A subsequent section enacted that the same rules of evidence,
regulations, and prescriptions should apply and govern the
Commissioner of Pensions and pension agents as then prevailed under
existing pension laws which related to widows of Revolutionary
officers and soldiers.
On the 23d of February, 1853, Congress passed another act,
thus:
"And be it further enacted, that the widows of all officers,
noncommissioned officers, musicians, and privates of the
Revolutionary army
who were married subsequently to January,
A.D.
Page 79 U. S. 178
1800, shall be entitled to a pension in the same manner
as those who were married before that date."
In this state of the statutes, Mrs. Alexander, widow of a
soldier in the Revolutionary War, who was married to him
subsequently to the year 1800 and who had received a pension from
the date of this Act of February 3, 1853, filed a petition in the
Court of Claims to recover what her counsel called "the arrears of
her pension" -- that is to say, to have it declared that her
pension took effect from the passage of the act of 1848. The
argument of the claimant's counsel was that the act of 1853 was
substantially an amendment of the act of 1848, and intended to
repeal the provision it contains that widows married after January
l, 1800, should not be entitled to its benefits; that hence the two
acts must be read together, and all widows be entitled to a pension
commencing on the 4th of March, 1848. This was inferred from the
assumption that the act of 1848 must be referred to in order to fix
the rate or amount of the pension granted by the act of 1853, as
well as its duration, and that if there be an implied reference for
those purposes, there must he for the purpose of fixing the
commencement of the pension.
Of this view was the Court of Claims, and it accordingly gave a
decree for the amount claimed as arrears. The United States
appealed
MR. JUSTICE STRONG delivered the opinion of the Court.
Whether or not the Court of Claims has jurisdiction in a case
such as the present is a question which we do not propose
Page 79 U. S. 179
now to determine, for we are of opinion that if that court had
jurisdiction, it erred in giving judgment for the plaintiff.
Passing, then, to the merits of the case, it is clear that if the
act of 1853 stood alone, no widow could be entitled to a pension
under it commencing anterior to its passage. All statutes are to be
construed as operating prospectively unless a contrary intent
appears beyond doubt. But it is said the act is to be construed
with reference to the prior act of 1848. The argument in support of
this view is not without weight, but we think it insufficient to
overbalance the reasons there are for holding that the act of 1853
is intended to grant pensions only from the time of its enactment.
It does not profess to be an amendment of any former act, and there
is no necessary reference to the act of 1848, even for the purpose
of fixing the rate or duration of the pensions granted by it. Laws
prior to the act of 1848 had determined the rate of pensions
granted to widows of Revolutionary soldiers as equal to the pay of
the husband, and the pension was, of course, during widowhood
unless restricted by the statute. Nor was reference to any former
act necessary to ascertain when the pension was to commence, for it
commenced, of course, with the passage of the act unless a
different intention was either expressed or plainly implied. True,
the act of 1853 declared that widows married after January, 1800,
shall be entitled to a pension in the same manner as those who were
married before that date, but the manner may well refer to the mode
in which the pension must be obtained by the adjudication of the
Commissioner of Pensions and to the rules, regulations, and
prescriptions provided by law long before 1848 for the government
of the commissioner and pension agents, and for the payment of
pensions. Certainly such a direction is not inconsistent with our
holding that the act of 1853 was not intended to have a retroactive
effect or to confer a right to a pension commencing prior to its
passage.
But, without pursuing this line of remark farther, whatever
might be our opinions respecting the construction of the statute
were the matter
res nova, we cannot regard the
Page 79 U. S. 180
question as an open one. Immediately after the passage of the
act, it was construed by the Commissioner of Pensions as granting
pensions commencing only from and after its passage, and such
construction has ever since been given to it by that bureau. That
such was its meaning seems also to have been the understanding of
the next succeeding Congress after it was enacted. The act of 1848
gave pensions to widows of soldiers and mariners when they had been
married before the first day of January, 1800. The act of 1853 gave
pensions to widows of soldiers, but not to widows of mariners. This
was followed by an act passed February 28, 1855, giving pensions to
widows of mariners and marines who served in the navy during the
Revolutionary War, "in the same manner and to the same extent" as
the widows of soldiers of the army, "under the second section of
the act of February 3, 1853." Here not only the manner but the
extent of the pension was directed, and widows of mariners were put
upon the same footing with widows of soldiers married after
January, 1800. Had it been understood that soldiers' widows,
married after January, 1800, were entitled to pensions commencing
March 4, 1848, it would have been unnecessary to declare that
mariners' widows should have pensions "to the same extent" as under
the act of 1853. But measuring the extent by the grant made in
1853, and not by that of 1848, tends to show that Congress regarded
the extent or commencement of the pension under the act of 1853 as
different from that of those granted by the act of 1848. And this
is made quite certain by the history of the legislation. The act of
1855, when first proposed, contained the following provision: "And
the pensions granted by this act, and those under the said section
of the Act of February 3, 1853, shall commence on the fourth day of
March, 1848." This provision was intended to change the
construction which the Commissioner of Pensions bad given to the
act of 1853,
* but it was
stricken out, and the statute was enacted as it now stands. The
intention
Page 79 U. S. 181
of Congress was thus clearly manifested to adopt the
construction of the act of 1853, which had been given to it by the
Pension Bureau, and we are hardly at liberty now to interpret it
differently.
In view of this action of Congress and the longstanding
construction of the act given by the department whose duty it was
to act under it, we are of opinion that the plaintiff's intestate
was not entitled to a pension commencing anterior to February 3,
1853. The judgment of the Court of Claims was, therefore,
erroneous.
Judgment reversed and the record remanded with instruction
to dismiss the plaintiff's suit.
* 30 Congressional Globe 92.
