# United States v. Redgrave

* related portals: Supreme Court of the United States.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
United States Supreme Court
116 U.S. 474
United States v. Redgrave
Argued: January 25, 1886. --- Decided: the Naval Academy as a cadet engineer, and on June 10, 1881, received a certificate signed by its officers that he had completed the prescribed course of study at the academy, and had successfully passed the required examination before the academic board He was on the same date detached from the academy, and ordered to report for duty on board the United States practice steamer Mayflower On August 30, 1881, he was detached from the Mayflower and ordered to proceed home on waiting orders On October 28, 1881, he was ordered to proceed to the navy-yard at League island for duty on board the United States steamer Essex On April 16, 1883, he reported to the superintendent of the Naval Academy, in pursuance of orders, for examination, which assumed that the act of congress of August 5, 1882, operated upon him as a naval cadet, requiring a six-years course before graduation, and a final examination at its conclusion On June 23, 1883, he was detached from the Naval Academy on waiting orders On June 26, 1883, the secretary of the navy addressed to him a letter, in which it is recited that he had successfully completed his six-years course at the Naval Academy, and had received a certificate of graduation by the academic board, but 'not being required to fill any vacancy in the naval service happening during the year preceding your graduation, you are hereby honorably discharged from the thirtieth of June, 1883, with one year's sea pay, as prescribed by law for cadet midshipmen, in accordance with the provisions of the act of congress approved August 5, 1882' From August 5, 1882, to June 30, 1883, the claimant was paid $76986 for service in the navy during that period If paid during the same period as a graduated cadet engineer he would have been entitled to receive $79671 Since then the claimant has received no pay, and has been held by the navy department and the accounting officers of the treasury to be out of the naval service After leaving the academy the claimant and all his classmates were classified on the official navy register issued in July, 1881, as having 'graduated;' and up to August 5, 1882, they were regularly paid as such at the rates prescribed by section 1556 of the Revised Statutes, viz, $1,000 at sea, $800 on shore duty, and $600 on leave or waiting orders In the same manner the cadet engineers who completed their four-years course in 1878, 1879, and 1880 were all regularly classified in the succeeding navy registers as having graduated in those years, respectively; and prior to August 5, 1882, they were all uniformly paid as such
The regulations prescribing the qualifications for appointment of cadet engineers fixed a higher average age by two years for cadet engineers entering the academy than was required by law for cadet midshipmen so entering. After completing the four-years course, cadet engineers were permanently detached from the academy, and were never required to return to that institution. They remained in active service at sea, or upon other duty, two or three years or longer, until vacancies occurred in the grade of assistant engineer, when they were ordered singly or in groups for examination for promotion, under the provisions of section 1392 of the Revised Statutes, before a board of engineer officers, which held its sessions at Philadelphia. The last two years of the academic course of cadet midshipmen were spent 'at sea in other than practice ships.' After four years at the academy they were temporarily detached from that institution by orders from the navy department, and were sent to sea singly or in squads. On shipboard they performed such active duties as were assigned to them. At the end of the two years, they were required to return and did return to the Naval Academy, where they were subjected to a 'final graduating examination' before the academic board. If successful at such examination, they received appointments as midshipmen, and were thereafter classified in the navy register as having 'graduated' at that date, and they were never so designated either in the navy register or elsewhere until after they had passed such examination at the end of the six-years course.
The provisions of the act of August 5, 1882, being the naval appropriation act, (22 St. 284, c. 391,) which apply to the case, are as follows: 'For the pay of the navy, for the active list, namely: * * * Sixty-nine chief engineers, one hundred past assistant engineers, thirty-five assistant engineers, seventy-three cadet engineers, (graduates,) * * * one hundred and two cadet engineers, one hundred and thirty cadet midshipmen, (not graduates;) in all four million forty-eight thousand three hundred dollars: provided, that hereafter there shall be no appointments of cadet midshipmen or cadet engineers at the Naval Academy, but in lieu thereof naval cadets shall be appointed from each congressional district and at large, as now provided by law for cadet midshipmen, and all the undergraduates at the Naval Academy shall hereafter be designated and called 'Naval Cadets.' And from those who successfully complete the six-years course, appointments shall hereafter be made as it is necessary to fill vacancies in the lower grades of the line and engineer corps of the navy and of the marine corps: And provided, further, that no greater number of appointments into these grades shall be made each year than shall equal the number of vacancies which has occurred in the same grades during the preceding year; and such appointments to be made from the graduates of the year, at the conclusion of their six-years course in the order of merit, as determined by the academic board of the Naval Academy, the assignment to the various corps to be made by the secretary of the navy upon the recommendation of the academic board. But nothing herein contained shall reduce the number of appointments from such graduates below ten in each year, nor deprive of such appointment any graduate who may complete the six-years course during the year eighteen hundred and eighty-two. And if there be a surplus of graduates, those who do not receive such appointment shall be given a certificate of graduation, an honorable discharge, and one year's sea pay, as now provided by law for cadet midshipmen. * * * That the pay of naval cadets shall be that now allowed by law to cadet midshipmen, and as much of the money hereby appropriated as may be necessary during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883, shall be expended for that purpose. * * * That no officer now in the service shall be reduced in rank or deprived of his commission by reason of any provision of this act reducing the number of officers in the several staff corps: provided, that no further appointments of cadet engineers shall be made by the secretary of the navy under section three of the act of 1874.'
The court of claims, following its previous decision in the case of Leopold v. U.S., 18 Ct. Cl. 546, affirmed the following propositions of law: '(1) Cadet engineers who had finished their four-years course at the Naval Academy, passed their final academic examinations, and received their diplomas before the passage of the act of August 5, 1882, (22 St. 285,) became graduates, and are not made naval cadets by that act. They are therefore entitled to pay provided by the Revised Statutes, section 1556, page 268. (2) The provision in the act of August 5, 1882, for the discharge of surplus naval cadet graduates is prospective only, and does not apply to the classes of 1881 and 1882.' Judgment was accordingly rendered in favor of the claimant, from which this appeal is prosecuted by the United States.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Maury, for appellant.
J. N. Douglass, for appellee.
MATTHEWS, J.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse