Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-03-17
Judge Hagner and the Chief Judgeship

10 the Eu1tor OF The Evening Star:
The statement was wrong which appeared
recently in your paper, expressed as the
view of many members Of the bar, to the
effect that Judge Hagner. one of the asso-
ciate justices of the Supreme Court Of the
District of Columbia, would, If he were
promoted to the position of chief justice of
that court in the event of the retirement of
the present chief justice, have to serve ten
years in that capacity before he could re-
tire under the provisions of section ia of
the Revised Statutes. This section reads
as follows:
when any judge OF any court Of the
United States resigns his Office, after hav-
ing held his commission as such for at least
ten years and having attained the age of
seventy years. he shall during the residue
of his natural life receive the same salary
which was by law payable to him at the
time of his resignation"
About seven years ago, when President
Cleveland was contemplating the promotion
of Judge Mott, who at that time was one
of the associate justices of the United States
Court of Claims, to the position of chief
justice of that court this question occurred
to him and he consulted the Attorney Gen
eral in reference to it. The President said:
Judge Charles c. Mott having served as
judge Of the Court of Claims for more than
thirty years. I am contemplating his pro-
motion to the chief justiceship of that
court. 1 am impressed with the belief that
the selection of Judge Mott for that place
would subserve the public interest and be
just recognition of long and valuable
service. I desire, however, before finally
determining upon my course In the matter
to have your opinion in answer to the fol-
lowing question. Would the retirement of
Mr.. Mott as chief justice of the Court of
Claims upon his attaining the age of seven
ty and before he had served ten years as
chief justice deprive him of the benefit Of
section ia Of the Revised Statutes, provid-
H. 80, 80 ;,,.1~
retiring at the age Of seventy, after having
held his commission as such at least ten
years." q
Mr. Judson Harmon, the Attorney Cen
eraI, in an opinion rendered November Is.
1885, in substance held that the expression
''any justice OF any court of the United
States in the statute providing for the re-
tirement Of judges on full pay applies to the
as to the other judges Of that court, and he
may retire at the age Of seventy, provided
he shall then have been ten years a duly
qualified judge of that court, although he
may have held his commission as chief JUS
tice thereof less than ten years. The ex-
preston latter having held his commission
as such at least ten years." in the same
statute, does not mean that the commission
under which the judge Is serving at the
time of his retirement must have been in
force ten years. but means being In COM
mission The reference to the commission
was not intended to make the paper title to
the Office, held at the time of the retire
ment. significant, but to make the legal
right to act federal judge for ten years
the test rather than the actual discharge
of his duties of that office.
E In consequence of this opinion Judge Mott
was appointed chief justice of the Court Of
Claims, with the full understanding that
he can retire under the provisions of sec
ton ia OF the Revised Statutes when he
reaches the age of seventy. regardless of
the length OF his services In that capacity.
The two cases are exactly similar. the
preme Court of the District of Columbia
are both federal courts and the judges
thereof are federal judges. The opinion OF
the Attorney General applies to one case
as much as to the other. Chief Justice
Mott at the time of his promotion. had
been on the Court of Claims for more than
thirty years. and his promotion was an
eminent and fitting one. Judge Hagner