Case ID: us-ct-cl_37/html/0552-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Brower", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FREDERICK RODGERS v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [36 C. Cls. R., 266; 185 U. S. R., 83.]
    
      On the claimant's Appeal.
    
    At the time of the passage of the act of 1899 to reorganize the personnel of the Navy there were 6 rear-admirals having the relative rank and pay of major-generals in the Army and 10 commodores having the relative rank and pay of brigadier-generals. Section 7 of the statute substitutes for these 18 rear-admirals, 9 having the rank and pay of major-generals and 9 the rank and pay of brigadier-generals, and drops the title or rank of commodore. Section 13 provides 
      u that after June 30, 1899f1 “ officers of the line shall receive the same pay and allowance ” provided by law for officers of corresponding rank in the Army, with a proviso that when on shore duty they shall receive 15 per cent less pay than when on sea duty.
    The court below decides:
    1. Under section 7 of the act 3d March, 1899 ( 30 Stat. L., 1004), the 9 rear-admirals of the lower grade were not entitled to sea pay while on shore duty from the 3d March to the 30th June, and were not entitled to the pay of a major-general after the 30th June.
    2. Where the purpose of Congress is plain the several provisions of a statute must be interpreted accordingly.
    3. A special provision in one section will not be treated as having been altered or annulled by a subsequent section.
    4. Where there are two provisions in an act, the one special and the other general, apparently conflicting, the special must be taken as intended to be an exception to the general. The legislature can not be supposed to have intended a conflict.
    The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.
   Mr. Justice Brower

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court April 7, 1902.