Case ID: us-ct-cl_49/html/0684-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Chiee Justice White", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ALEXANDER C. M. PENNINGTON v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [48 C. Cls. R., 408 ; 231 U. S. R., 631.]
    
      On the plaintiff’s appeal.
    
    The Supreme Court decides that officers of the Army are entitled to have cadet service counted in the computation of their longevity pay; a second controller refuses to follow the decision of the Supreme Court; a later controller decides that the decision of the Supreme Court should be followed in future, but that eases once rejected can not be reopened. The question in this case is whether a proviso in a statute is in fact separate and independent legislation or whether it is a real proviso added for the purpose of explaining and restricting the enacting clause.
    The court below decides:
    I.The sundry civil appropriation act, 4th March, 1901, 34 Stat. L., p. 1356, appropriates $200,000 “for payments of amounts for arrears of pay of two and three year volunteers,” etc., etc., that may be certified to be due by the accounting officers of the Treasury during the fiscal year 1908: “Provided, That in all cases hereafter so certified the said accounting officers shall, in stating balances, follow the decisions of the United States Supreme Oourt or of the Court of Claims of the United Stales.” The proviso is not general legislation, but must be restricted to the various classes of claims enumerated in the enacting clause.
    II.A statutory proviso is generally intended to restrain the enacting clause; but the fact has been judicially recognized that the opposite is often sought to be accomplished by a proviso.
    III. Where a statute is presented for construction with a proviso attached, it is the duty of a court to construe them together as one enactment, if that is reasonably within their terms.
    IV. A proviso can not be interpreted as general legislation because of a few superfluous words. It would be dangerous to ascribe such an intent to Congress for such a reason where the legislation would be important and far-reaching.
    The decision of the court below is affirmed.
   Mr. Chiee Justice White

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court January 5, 1914.