Case ID: us-ct-cl_39/html/0300-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Wright, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ROBERT STOCKER v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 22878.
    Decided March 7, 1904.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    The War Department charters a vessel to be used as an army transport. Desiring its inspection before and after its service, the Department requests the Secretary of the Navy to detail an officer to assist in making such inspection. The claimant, a naval constructor, is so detailed. After the two inspections he applies to the Secretary for permission to accept compensation for such services. The Secretary replies that he “ perceives no objection ” provided the War Department finds itself possessed of an appropriation from which payment can be made. The claimant presents an account for $1,000. The Navy Department regards the charge as reasonable. The depot quartermaster at Washington approves the account for payment, but the Comptroller of the Treasury holds it to be illegal.
    
      I. Naval constructors are appointed by the President and have rank and pay ns officers ot' the Navy, and may be required to perform duty at any navy-yard or other station. (Itev. Stat., § 1402, 1404.
    IX. Where a naval constructor is detailed by the Secretary of the Navy to inspect a vessel, the fact that she is chartered by the War Department as an army transport does not burden the officer with service not incident to his office. Additional compensation for such inspection service is prohibited by Revised Statutes, § 1765.
    III. The Army and Navy constitute the military force of the Gov-'ernmeut, and their duties are to cooperate; and for this purpose they are a unit, under the authority of one commander in chief.
    IV. The statute creating the office of naval constructor is broad enough to include the requirement of service on yessels in the employment of the War Department, and gives the Government the right to demand such services when required, and at such times and places as may seem expedient. (Rev. Stat., § 1402, 1404.)
    
      The Reporters’ statement of the case:
    The following are the facts of the case as found, by the court:
    I. The claimant, Robert Stocker, was at the time of the occurrence of the matters hereinafter set forth, and still is, a naval constructor in the Navj’' .
    II. On the 5th of Juty, 1898, a charter party was entered into between the Plant Investment Company and the Quartermaster-General of the Army, representing the United States, whereby said Plant Investment Company, as owners of the steamship La Grande Duchesse, chartered her to the United States for the use of the War Department as an army transport.
    Said charter party, among other things, provided as follows :
    “ It is further agreed that an inspection shall be made of the vessel before she leaves Newport News by three disinterested persons, one to be selected by the Government, one by the owners, and they to select the third man; and upon return of the vessel to Newport News they shall again inspect her and decide what, if any, damage the vessel has sustained for which the Government is held liable»under the terms of this charter, and which is not excepted in Article VII hereof.”
    On the 6th 'day of July, 1898,. the vessel being then about to sail from Newport News, Va., the Secretary of War, at the instance of the Quartermaster-General of the Army, requested the Secretary of the Navy to detail an officer of that Department to represent the Government under the provisions of the charter party. Thereupon the Secretary of the Navy wrote to the claimant as follows:
    “ The War Department has requested that an officer of this Department be detailed to represent the Government on such board. You are detailed in accordance with that request.”
    The claimant, in connection with the two other persons provided for by the charter party, made the inspection of the vessel preparatory to her departure and reported thereon. The report, as made by the claimant as chairman to the Quartermaster-General of the Army, contained the following statement:
    “ The commission desires to call attention to the fact that there is no provision as regards compensation for the services of members, or as regards other expenses, and respectfully requests that this matter may receive the consideration of both parties.”
    The Quartermaster-General thereupon made the following response, July 19, 1898:
    
      “ In reply, you are respectfully informed, by direction of the Quartermaster-General, that if you will submit to this Office a statement of the expenses incurred by the commission and a bill for compensation of its members, with your recommendation as to what amount is properly payable by the Quartermaster’s Department, the matter will be promptly considered and acted upon.”
    Upon the return of the steamship the claimant, with the other members of the board, made the second inspection provided for by the charter party and reported thereon.
    The findings contained in the report were approved by the letter of the Quartermaster-General’s Office, dated September 20,1898, set forth in the petition.
    
      III. On the 5th of September, 1898, the claimant addressed a letter to the Secretary of the Navy, in which he said:
    I have the honor to request the Department’s permission to accept compensation for my services in connection with the above-mentioned inspections of the steamship La Grande Duchesse.”
    After some inquiry by the Secretary of the Navy of the claimant for explanation and his response thereto, the Secretary of the Navy, September 28, 1898, wrote him the following letter:
    “ Navy DepartmeNt,
    “ Washington, September £8,1898.
    
    “ Sir : Referring to your communication of the 5th instant, requesting permission to accept' compensation for your services in connection with the inspection of the steamer La Grande Duchesse, you are informed that this Department perceives no objection to your accepting compensation for such services, provided the War Department finds itself possessed of an appropriation from which payment could be made.
    “ Very respectfully,
    JohN D. LoNG, Secretary.
    
    “ Naval Constructor Robert Stocker, U. S. Navy,
    
      “Newport News, Va.”
    
    On the 20th of October, 1898, the claimant addressed a letter to the Quartermaster-General of the Army, which is correctly set forth in the petition.
    The reasonable value of the claimant’s services was one thousand dollars ($1,000), as shown by the following facts:
    The Quartermaster-General submitted the question of the reasonableness of the charge of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for the services of the claimant to the Secretary of War, by whom it was submitted to the Secretary of the Navy, by whom it was submitted to the Bufeau of Construction and Repair, the Chief of which Bureau reported November 14, 1898, as follows: ’
    
      “ The Bureau is of opinion that the charge of Naval Constructor Robert Stocker, U. S. N., for the within-mentioned service is reasonable.”
    On the 18th of November, 1898, the Secretary of the Navy returned the bill to the Secretary of War, inviting attention to the opinion of the Chief Constructor of the Navy that the charge of the claimant is reasonable.
    On the 28th of November, 1898, the Quartermaster-General referred the bill for the services of the claimant to the depot quartermaster at Washington, approved for payment of one thousand dollars ($1,000), as charged, from the appropriation of fifty million dollars entitled “ national defense,” made by the act of March 9, 1898 (30 Stat.- L., 274). Said depot quartermaster thereupon referred the matter, through the Quartermaster-General of the Army, to the Comptroller of the Treasury for a ruling upon the legality of the payment.
    The Comptroller of the Treasury held, December 27, 1898, that the claimant could not receive payment for his services, and no payment has ever been made. (Op., pp. 28-32.)
    The first inspection of the steamship La Grande Duchesse previous to her entry into the United States service was made between the hours of 2 p. m. and 5.15 p. m., July 8, 1898. The second inspection to ascertain the amount of damages to said steamship appears to have been made September 8, 1898.
    The bill for the work and expenses of the commission, so far as ascertained, is as follows:
    Robert Stocker:
    For expert services as chairman of the commission_$1, 000. 00
    W. N. Cooksey_$200.00
    One-lialf to be paid by owners and one-half by Government ■_ 100. 00
    Also expense, viz, one telegram- $0. 90
    Services of stenographer and typewriter- S.-75
    Total _i_ 4. 05
    One-lialf to be borne by the Government and one-half by the owners_-,- 2. 33
    Total _ 1,102.33
    
      Mr. George A. King for the claimant. Messrs. George A. and William B. King were on the brief.
    
      Mr. George M. Anderson (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Pradt) for the defendants.
   Wright, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The facts, briefly summarized, are that claimant was, July 6, 1898, a naval constructor on duty at Newport News, Ya. The Government before that time having chartered a ship for use as an army transport required its inspection before and after its use as such transport. Claimant,' on request of the War Department for the detail of an officer of the Navy to assist others in making such inspection, was detailed by the Navy Department for such purpose. He performed the service required of him, during which ho applied to-the Secretary of the Navy for permission to accept compensation for such services, which was given. Claimant then demanded of the defendant $1,000 for the services so rendered, which was approved for payment in the Quartermaster-General’s Office, out of the appropriation of $50,000,000 for the national defense, of March 9,1898, after which, the claim having been referred to him, the Comptroller of the Treasury decided that the claimant could not properly receive such payment.

Naval constructors are appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and have rank and pay as officers of the Navy, and may be required to perform duty at any navy-yard or other station. (Secs. 1402-1404, Rev. Stat.) Their duties, in general, are to have general superintendence and charge of the construction and repair of all ships, and to cause thorough examination at least once a month of all ships in reserve, to see that they are carefully guarded against deterioration or decay.

While claimant was an officer of the Navy, yet the duties required of him by the special detail to inspect the steamship La Grande Duchesse were of the general nature performed by him in The Navy. The mere fact that the ship was designed for the' use of the Army to transport the soldiers of the United States did not necessarily or justly burden the claimant with service not incident to his office or employment. The Army has no officer corresponding to a naval constructor, and when it becomes necessary to use ships at sea to transport the troops of the Army it becomes and is the duty of the Navy with all its equipment and forces, when properly directed, to give necessary assistance and protection to such transportation.

There can not reasonably be such line of demarcation between the duties of officers of the Navy and of the Army as the argument in the present case would imply. The Army and Navy constitute the military forces of the Government, and their duties are to cooperate when necessity or emergency demands it; and for this purpose they are a unit, under the authority of one commander in chief. The services performed by the claimant, for which he seeks extra or special compensation, were but the duties required of him by his office. He Avas • specially detailed by his superior officer to perform them. It is not material that the detail was made at the request of the War Department, for both War and Navy Departments represent the common authority of each. The statute creating the office of naval constructor is broad enough to include the requirement to perform the services for which compensation is herein sought, and the omission of the Navy Department to specially include them in the regulations ought not, and, as we think, does not deprive the Government of the right to demand such services as occasion may require and at such times and places as the necessities of the service seem expedient. The services performed for which extra compensation is sought being, as we believe, identical with such as pertained to the office held by claimant, it is clear that, by the provision of section 1765, Revised Statutes, he is prohibited from receiving such compensation. That section is:

“No officer in any branch of the public service, or any other person whose salary, pay, or emoluments are fixed by laAV or regulations, shall- receive any additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation, in any form whatever, for the disbursement of public money, or for any other service or duty Avhatever, unless the same is authorized by laAV, and the appropriation therefor explicitly states that it is for such additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation.”

There is no pretense that the act of March 9,1898 (30 Stat. L., 274), from which appropriation the extra compensation must be paid, if at all, explicitly states that any part of such appropriation is for additional pay, extra allowance, or compensation to naval constructors. The language of that act is w< for the national defense and for each and every purpose connected therewith, to be expended at the discretion of the President and to remain available until January first, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, fifty million dollars.” From this general language it would be unreasonable to infer that the Congress intended to, or that the President would give to an officer of the Navy, extra pay for the performance of duties called for by the exigencies in preparation for actual war, such duties being then already due from the general obligation of the same officer.

It follows from the views we have expressed that the claimant is not entitled to recover, and his petition will be dismissed.