Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-05-28
Supreme Court Decision on Claim
for Bounty.
OPINION GIVEN BY JUSTICE HARLAN
Those Dissenting Favor Liberal
Construction of the Law.
QUESTION OF SUPERIORITY

| The United States Supreme Court today
decided Admiral Deweys bounty claim
| against the admirars contention that the
Spanish force at Manila bay was superior
| to his own. including in the enemy's force
the sunken mines and the land fortif1ca-
| tions.
| The original claim of Admiral Dewey and
| his sailors was about 100000 The Court
| of Claims reduced it to sat0000 That de-
| cison is sustained by today's decision.
| The admiral's personal claim is reduced
| from about $4,000 to about 100000.
The effect is to deprive the admiral and
| the men engaged with him at Manila of
| half the amount claimed by them.
Chief Justice Fuller delivered dissenting
| opinion.
The opinion in the was handed down
| by Justice Harlan, who reviewed the legis-
| lation under which the bounty was claimed.
| The decision turned entirely upon the point
| that the statute specified only the vessels
| of the enemy without reference to other
| obstacles to be overcome. Justice Harlan
said that while all loyal Americans were
duly mindful of the service rendered by
| the admiral and his force at Manila, still
there could be no getting away from the
| language of the law. and there could be no
| doubt that Congress had in mind When the
laws were enacted the possibility OF just
such condition as was encountered at
Manila
The chief justice contended for liberal
| construction Of the statute. Justices w mite
and McKenna Joined in the dissenting opin-
| ion.
Question of Superiority.
Justice Harlan. in the course of his opin-
ion said that the court asked to con-
strue the words in the present statute to
mean whether the words 'superiority' or
'inferiority' in the statute had reference
to support of the enemy's vessels by land
batteries, mines and torpedoes. we can
not do that" he continued, without going
far beyond the obvious import of the words
employed by Congress.
There is undoubtedly some force in the
suggestion thai in rewardlng oificers ana
sailors who have sunk or destroyed the
enemy's vessels in a naval engagement 1t
IL not unrea sonable that all the difficulties
of every kind with which they were actual
" confronted should be taken into consider
alton But that is a matter which We cam
not suppose was overlooked by Congress;
and we are not at liberty to hold that 1t
proceeded upon the broad basis suggested
when It is expressly declared that the
amount of it's bounty shall depend upon the
question whether the enemys vessel-not
the enemy's vessel and the land batteries,
etc. by which 1t was supported-was of in
ferior or equal or superior force"
question Oh fOllcy
Upon the question of policy the court
said: 1--WE have not forgotten the words
Of commentator bestowed by counsel upon
the skill and heroism displayed by the dis
tinguished commander of our fleet and by
his officers and sailors IN the battle of Ma
Mia. All genuine Americans recall with de-
light and pride the marvellous achievements
of our navy in that memorable engagement.
But this court cannot permit considerations
of that character to control its determina
depart from the established rules for the
Interpretation of statutes.
Nor can we allow our judgment to be In
fluenced by the circumstance that Congress
has recently repealed all statutes giving
bounty to officers and sailors of the navy
for the sinking destruction hereafter in
time of of an enemy's vessels, thereby,
ii may be assumed, indicating that in the
judgment of the legislative -Brancn of the
government the policy of giving bountes to
the navy not founded in wisdom and
should be abandoned This court has Moth
ing to do with questions of mere policy
that may be supposed to underlie the
action Of Congress. What is termed the
policy of the government in reference to
any particular subject of legislation this
court has said IS generally a very unstable
thing upon which all sorts Of opinions each
variant from the other, may be found by
different persons 1t is a ground much too
unstable upon which to rest the judgment
OF the court in the Interpretation of stat
utes.