Title: Horst v. Guy

State: north-dakota

Issuer: North Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

219 N.W.2d 153 (1974) Elmer L. HORST, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. Hon. William L. GUY, as Governor of the State of North Dakota and as Commander-in-Chief of the Military and Naval Forces of the State of North Dakota; and Major General LaClair A. Melhouse, as the Adjutant General in and for the State of North Dakota, Defendants/Appellants. Civ. No. 9008. Supreme Court of North Dakota. June 4, 1974. *154 Paul M. Sand, Asst. Atty. Gen., Bismarck, for defendants/appellants. Maurice R. Hunke, Dickinson, for plaintiff/appellee. TEIGEN, Judge. This is the sequel to Horst v. Guy, 211 N.W.2d 723 (N.D.1973), and involves the construction and validity of the Vietnam Conflict Veterans' Adjusted Compensation Act (Chapter 37-25, N.D.C.C.). This is an action which Horst, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, has brought against the Governor and the Adjutant General of the State of North Dakota for the purpose of securing payment of adjusted compensation (veteran's bonus) under the Act. In our former opinion we held: (1) that the action was maintainable as a class action; (2) that Section 37-25-02(8)(d), N.D.C.C., limiting payments of adjusted compensation, is constitutional and is not violative of Sections 11 and 20 of the North Dakota Constitution or Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and (3) that the trial court's order allowing the payment of attorney fees from adjusted compensation, payable to those persons who may become entitled thereto as a result of this action, was proper. However, we remanded the case to the district court for the determination of two issues left undecided by that court in its first opinion. These issues have now been resolved by that court on remand and it is from this ruling that this appeal is taken. One issue involves the validity of a regulation promulgated by the adjutant general, and the other involves interpretation of the statute. As background for the discussion to follow, we think it well to quote from the salient *155 parts of the Act. Section 37-25-01, N.D.C.C., provides: And Section 37-25-02, N.D.C.C., provides, in part: * * * * * * * * * * * * Section 37-25-08, N.D.C.C., provides: The rule and regulation in issue adopted by the adjutant general provides: It is agreed that the office of the adjutant general is an administrative agency under our law, and that the rules and regulations were promulgated in compliance with the requirements of the statutes. The plaintiff Horst has served in the Navy for more than twenty-five years. He was a North Dakota resident when he entered the Navy and returned to North Dakota as a Navy recruiter on July 22, 1969, and continues in that capacity. Upon return to North Dakota, he rented living quarters, first an apartment and then a house, in which he resides with his family. He has voted in North Dakota in recent years and it appears that he has not established residence in any other state. He is a career Navy man. Horst was denied adjusted compensation under the Act, by the adjutant general, on two grounds: (1) that he is not separated from the service; and (2) that under subsection 8(d), which provides that "[n]o person shall be considered a resident of North Dakota for the purpose of receiving any benefits under this act if he was on continuous active duty in the armed forces for a period of fifteen years or more, immediately prior to August 5, 1964, and has not established actual abode in North Dakota prior to the effective date of this chapter," he is not a resident within the terms of the adjusted compensation Act. The two issues for determination here are whether the regulation issued by the adjutant general requiring that veterans be separated from service is valid, and whether that portion of Section 37-25-02(8)(d), N.D.C.C., quoted above, is applicable to define a resident under subdivisions a, b and c of said subsection 8 of Section 37-25-02, N.D.C.C. *157 The trial court held, as to Issue 1, that the regulation issued by the adjutant general was unreasonable, arbitrary and beyond the scope of the legislation, and was, therefore, void; and that, as to Issue 2, it was the opinion of the trial court that the fifteen-year limitation, referred to in Section 37-25-02(8)(d), N.D.C.C., is not applicable to subdivisions a, b and c of that section. It therefore entered a judgment on remand, decreeing that Horst, and all others similarly situated, are eligible for adjusted compensation under Chapter 37-25, N.D.C.C., designated as the Vietnam Conflict Veterans' Adjusted Compensation Act. We disagree with the trial court. First, we find that the eligibility requirement that an applicant for adjusted compensation be separated from the service is reasonable and in compliance with the Act; and, second, that the fifteen-year limitation contained as a part of subdivision d, subsection 8, of Section 37-25-02, N.D.C. C., is also applicable to subdivisions a, b and c. Therefore we sustain the decision of the adjutant general and reverse the trial court. The ten sections of Chapter 37-25, N.D. C.C., which comprise the "Vietnam Conflict Veterans' Adjusted Compensation Act" are a complete and independent statutory enactment authorized by Article 87 of the Constitution and, for the purpose of interpretation and application, these ten sections must be read together in the light of the authorizing constitutional provision which prompted the enactment. Hjelle v. Sornsin Construction Company, 173 N.W.2d 431 (N.D.1970); State v. Miller, 129 N.W.2d 356 (N.D.1964). Article 87 of the Constitution provides, in part: A statute must be construed as a whole, with the view of arriving at the intent of the Legislature. Beck v. Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 141 N.W.2d 784 (N.D.1966); Northwestern Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Baumgartner, 136 N.W.2d 640 (N.D.1965); State v. Sheridan County, 72 N.D. 254, 6 N.W.2d 51 (1942). In construing statutes the courts must take judicial notice of the history of the terms employed and, where statutes have been in existence for a long period of time, it must be presumed that the Legislature has at all times been aware of the meaning originally attaching to those terms. Monson v. Nelson, 145 N.W.2d 892, 899 (N.D.1966); Eddy v. Krekow, 54 N.D. 220, 209 N.W. 225 (1926). The people of this State, from 1948 to 1970, approved three constitutional amendments authorizing the Legislature to enact laws to provide for the payment of adjusted compensation (bonus) to the veterans of World War II (Constitution, Article 59, approved June 29, 1948), the Korean conflict (Constitution, Article 65, approved June 26, 1956), and the Vietnam conflict (Constitution, Article 87, approved September 1, 1970), which resulted in the enactment of legislation providing for the payment of adjustment compensation to North Dakota veterans of World War II (Session Laws 1949, Chapter 236), North Dakota veterans of the Korean Conflict (Session Laws 1957, Chapter 242), and North Dakota veterans of the Vietnam conflict (Session Laws 1971, Chapter 346, codified as Chapter 37-25 of the North Dakota Century Code). These three legislative Acts are almost identical except as to the conflict to which each has reference. In each of the two earlier Acts, the definitions of a "veteran," "honorable and faithful service," and "resident" are identical with Section 37-25-02, N.D.C.C. (subsection 2, defining a "veteran"; subsection 4, defining "honorable and faithful"; and subsection 8, defining a "resident"), except for the date and period of service referred *158 to in subdivision d, of subsection 8 of said Section 37-25-02, N.D.C.C. Following the enactment of the World War II Adjusted Compensation Act, the adjutant general adopted rules and regulations governing the administration of the provisions of that Act. These rules and regulations were approved by the attorney general. The same procedure was followed upon the adoption of the Korean Conflict Veterans' Adjusted Compensation Act, and again following the enactment of the Vietnam Conflict Veterans' Adjusted Compensation Act. In each case the same rules and regulations, with modifications to fit the particular Act, were approved by the attorney general. Under date of June 4, 1952, the attorney general approved the rules and regulations of the adjutant general, determining, among other things, that in order to be eligible a veteran must be completely separated from continuous active duty. Under the Vietnam Conflict Veterans' Adjusted Compensation Act the attorney general, under date of June 22, 1971, concurred in his opinion of June 4, 1952, stating: Through these rules and regulations the term "separated or separation" is defined as follows: And, in defining "honorably and faithfully," the rules and regulations state: The Vietnam Conflict Veterans' Adjusted Compensation Act, as did the Korean and World War II Acts, provides for payment to the beneficiary of the veteran who died in active service. It states as follows: In order for a beneficiary to make claim in the case of a veteran who died in active service, the Act makes it necessary that the claimant furnish proof "that his service was honorable and faithful," as provided in subdivision c, of subsection 4, of Section 37-25-02, N.D.C.C., which is quoted above. On the basis of our analysis of these Acts, the rules and regulations of the adjutant general, and Article 87 of the Constitution, we find that the attorney general's opinion, and consequently the adjutant general's rules and regulations requiring that a veteran must have completely separated from continuous active duty, is a correct one. The Act, so construed, does not make available adjusted compensation to a person who is still in continuous active duty of the armed forces of the United States. The next issue for consideration is: Does that portion of Section 37-25-02(8)(d), N.D.C.C., which states "[n]o person shall be considered a resident of North Dakota for the purpose of receiving any benefits under this act if he was on continuous active duty in the armed forces for a period of fifteen years or more, immediately prior to August 5, 1964, and has not established actual abode in North Dakota prior to the effective date of this chapter" apply to subdivisions a, b and c of *159 subsection 8 of said Section 37-25-02, N. D.C.C. Horst argues that the last sentence in said subdivision (d) is applicable only to the special residency determinations made under that subdivision and has no application to the definition of a resident contained in subdivisions a, b and c. The attorney general argues that this sentence has an overriding application on all questions or matters pertaining to residents; that if it were not given such application it would be meaningless. The adjutant general, in the rules and regulations approved by the attorney general, applied this sentence generally to all qualifications for residency. The rule states: No rule or regulation was promulgated by the adjutant general defining a resident except as provided in subdivisions a, b and c. It is clear from the rules and regulations adopted by the adjutant general that the sentence in question was applied to all of the subdivisions of subsection 8 of Section 37-25-02, N.D.C.C., as well as in the denial of Horst's application for adjusted compensation in this case. Every reasonable presumption is in favor of the constitutionality of any law and said presumption is conclusive in the absence of clear proof to the contrary. Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. v. Johanneson, 153 N.W.2d 414 (N.D.1967); State v. Gamble Skogmo, Inc., 144 N.W.2d 749 (N. D.1966); Menz v. Coyle, 117 N.W.2d 290 (N.D.1962); International Printing Pressmen & Assist. U. v. Meier, 115 N.W.2d 18 (N.D.1962). We find the language of the statute is clear, certain and unambiguous and the only duty of the courts is to give effect to the legislative intent expressed therein and if the statute does not violate some provisions of our constitution, the court must give effect to the law. Asbury Hospital v. Cass County, 72 N.D. 359, 7 N.W.2d 438 (1943). Although we see no ambiguity in this statute, Horst argues alternatively that if the provision is ambiguous the rule of ejusdem generis restricts the general fifteen-year limitation to those residents specially enumerated in subdivision (d). However, subdivision (d) is identical, except for the term of years, to each of the adjusted compensation Acts (World War II, Korean conflict and Vietnam conflict) referred to above. Further, the rules and regulations promulgated by the adjutant general and approved by the attorney general are also the same and are based on a proper construction of the statute as we have interpreted it in this opinion. We have often held that in construing a statute of doubtful meaning the court will give weight to the long-continued, practical construction placed thereon by the officers charged with the duty of executing and applying the statute. Giese v. Engelhardt, 175 N.W.2d 578 (N.D.1970); Blair v. City of Fargo, 171 N.W.2d 236 (N.D.1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 990, 90 S. Ct. 1123, 25 L. Ed. 2d 397 (1970); Walker v. Weilenman, 143 N.W.2d 689 (N.D.1966); State Tax Commissioner v. Tuchscherer, 130 N.W.2d 608 (N.D.1964). Furthermore, the Legislature, in enacting the Vietnam Conflict Veterans' Adjusted Compensation Act must be presumed to have known the construction placed upon the same language contained in the World War II and Korean conflict Acts. State v. Horne, 98 N.W.2d 150 (N. D.1959); Kiner v. Well, 71 N.W.2d 743 (N.D.1955). If the practical construction of the prior Acts by the adjutant general and the attorney general was erroneous, *160 the Legislature could have corrected it in the enactment of the later Act. It made no changes and, therefore, under the circumstances, we think that the construction placed upon this section by the attorney general and the adjutant general is entitled to great weight in resolving the question of construction now before us, and would be determinative were we in doubt. The same rule would also be applicable to the rules and regulations promulgated by the adjutant general, based on the opinion of the attorney general which provides that a claimant for adjusted compensation must be separated from continuous active duty, were we in doubt as to its being in conformity with the scope of the legislation. For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment of the trial court is reversed. ERICKSTAD, C.J., and VOGEL, PAULSON and KNUDSON, JJ., concur.