United States v. Mills (197 U.S. 223)

This is an appeal from a judgment of the court of claims in favor of the appellee. The question relates to the amount of compensation payable to him under the acts of May 26, 1900, and March 2, 1901, making appropriations for the Army. The particular provisions of these acts are set forth in the margin.

The court gave judgment in favor of appellee upon the authority of its opinion in Irwin v. United States, 38 Ct. Cl. 87.

The facts found by the court are as follows:

'The claimant, Stephen C. Mills, entered the military service of the United States as a cadet at the Military Academy, July 1, 1873, was commissioned second lieutenant June 15, 1877, and by successive promotions became major and inspector general July 25, 1888, and lieutenant colonel and inspector general February 2, 1901, and still holds the last-named rank and office.

'The claimant was, by proper military orders, on duty with the Army of the United States in the Philippine Islands from a date prior to May 26, 1900, continuously until April 15, 1902, when, in accordance with orders, he arrived at San Francisco, California, on his return from said Philippine Islands. During all of that period he was serving in the Philippine Islands, and beyond the limits of the states comprising the Union, and the territories of the United States contiguous thereto.

'During the entire period from May 26, 1900, to April 15, 1902, named in the next preceding finding, the claimant, while

Act of May 26, 1900 (31 Stat. at L. 211, chap. 586).

'That hereafter the pay proper of all officers and enlisted men serving in Porto Rico, Cuba, the Philippine Islands, Hawaii, and in the territory of Alaska shall be increased ten per centum for officers, and twenty per centum for enlisted men, over and above the rates of pay proper as fixed by law in time of peace.'

Act of March 2, 1901 (31 Stat. at L. 903, chap. 803, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 896).

'That hereafter the pay proper of all officers and enlisted men serving beyond the limits of the states comprising the Union, and the territories of the United States contiguous thereto, shall be increased ten per centum for officers, and twenty per centum for enlisted men, over and above the rates of pay proper as fixed by law for time of peace, and the time of such service shall be counted from the date of departure from said states to the date of return thereto.' holding the rank of major, was paid at the rate of $2,500 a year, the minimum pay of the grade of major, established by § 1261 of the Revised Statutes (U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 893); $1,000 longevity increase; established by § 1262 of the Revised Statutes (U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 896), and $250 a year as the increase of 10 per cent upon his pay proper, provided by the act of May 26, 1900 (31 Stat. at L. 211, chap. 586), but calculated only upon the minimum or grade pay fixed by said § 1261.

'While holding the rank of lieutenant colonel during said period the claimant was paid at the rate of $3,000 a year, the minimum pay of that grade, as provided by § 1261 of the Revised Statutes, $1,000 longevity increase, provided by § 1262, and $300 a year as 10 per cent increase on his pay proper, as provided by the acts of May 26, 1900, and March 2, 1901 (31 Stat. at L. 211, chap. 586, 31 Stat. at L. 903, chap. 803, U.S.C.omp. Stat. 1901, p. 896), but computed only on the minimum pay of the grade.

'If said 10 per cent increase should be calculated upon the total pay of $3,500 received by the claimant while in the rank of major, his increase would be at the rate of $350 a year instead of $250, and, if so calculated while he was in the rank of lieutenant colonel, the increase would be at the rate of $400 a year instead of $300, making a difference of $100 a year for the period covered by the claim, and aggregating for the entire period $188.87.'

Assistant Attorney General Pradt and Mr. John Q. Thompson for appellant.

Messrs. George A. King and William B. King for appellee.

Mr. Justice Peckham, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court: