Case ID: us-ct-cl_26/html/0626-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Harlan Mr. Justice Field", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WARD McALLISTER, Jr., v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [22 C. Cls. R., 318; 141 U. S. R.]
    
      On the claimants Appeal.
    
    Tho judgo of the District Court of Alaska is suspended during a recess of tho Senate, and another person commissioned to perform the duties of the office ad interim. Subsequently, and before the next session, he is removed, and a third person appointed, who is ultimately confirmed by the Senate. The salary of the office is not drawn by the first substitute, but remains in the Treasury. Alaska at the time has no Territorial government, and is termed, in the act authorizing the appointment, a “district," and the claimant is commissioned as “ United States district judge for the District of AiasJta.”
    
    The court below decides:
    (1) The “ district judge” of Alaska has no legal rights different from those of other Territorial judges. Though termed in his commission ‘‘ United States district judge.” he is a civil officer, subject to suspension and removal at the xdeasure of the appointing power, and not a United States judge, holding “ during good behavior,” within the intent of the Constitution (Art. HI, § 1).
    (2) The organic act establishing a judicial system for the Territory of Alaska, Act of May 17, 1884 (23 Stat. L., 2l), is peculiar because of the peculiar circumstances which existed; but so far as the power and jurisdiction of its court are concerned, does not differ materially from the organic acts of the other Territories.
    The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds, and the power of the President to remove Territorial judges is fully considered.
   Mr. Justice Harlan

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 25, 1891.

Mr. Justice Field

delivered a dissenting opinion in which Gray and Brown, JJ., concurred. See Justice Field’s dissenting opinion in the Wingard Case (141 U. S. R.).