The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1904-04-25
MORE PAY
FOR TERRY
Honolulu Admiral Wins
Case in Court of
Claims.

The Court OF Claims on Monday
March 2s. announced favorable deci.
sion on the claim of Rear Admiral Silas
w. Terry, U. S. Navy says the Army
& Navy journal. This decision affects
all the rear adnirals of the nine low
er numbers Of that grade. Admiral
ington Navy Yard for about two years
while among the nine lower numbers
of the grade Of rear admiral. He re-
ceived the Army pay of a brigadier
general. $500 less Is per cent for shore
duty, amounting to $4.675. He claimed
that the correct amount of his pay
while on shore duty was $1,000, as
provided by the old Navy pay table
contained in Section 1856 of the Re-
vised Statutes. for rear admiral on
shore duty. Messrs. George A. and
William B. King, in their elaborate
presentation of this case, both in their
briefs and oral arguments before the
Court of Claims, based this claim upon
the provision of the Navy Personnel
act as amended by the Naval Appro-
priation act of June q 1900, that moth
ing therein contained shall operate to
reduce the pay which, but for the pas
sage of said act, would have been re-
ceived by any commissioned officer at
the time of its passage or thereafter
A rear admiral doing duty as COM
mandant of the Washington Navy Yard
would have been entitled to $1,000 a
year, and therefore that rate OF pay
was saved to him by the provision just
quoted. The response made TO this
argument was that but for the pas
sages of the Personnel act increasing
the number of rear admirais, Admiral
Terry would have been only comn1o-
dore during that time.
The effect OF the ruling, of the court
is to hold that in constituting this pro-
viso the courts cannot consider what
grade an officer would have reached
were it not for the increase in the
numbers in each grade made by the
Personnel act and legislation subse-
quent thereto, but that only the grade
actually, reached by the officer can be
considered. The question thus in ev-
cry case reduces itself to the simple
one: In the actual grade held by an
duty he is performing, that fixed by
the Personnel act or that fixed by the
old Navy pay table2 The answer to
this question decides the case, and
whichever, of these two rates of pay
is the higher the officer is entitled to.
The Government will probably take
this case by appeal to the Supreme
Court of the United, States. If no ap-
peal is taken, or if the views OF the
Supreme Court should agree with those
of the Court OF Claims the effect will
be that rear admirals of the nine lower
numbers will hereafter, when on shore
duty, received $1,000 a year instead of
81. 675 and while on sea duty will re-
ceive $4,000 a year instead of $500.
Where, however, to the Army rate is
added an increase of ten per cent for
service beyond the limits of the States
the Union and the Terrific
ries of the United States contiguous
thereto,'' the Army pay will exceed the
Navy pay and hence the officer will
get no benefit from the decision as the
ten per cent increase being conferred
by an Army act can in no case he
upon old Navy pay. The full
ext of the opinion is not yet accessi-
Die and will not be for a week or two.
We shall probably give some extracts
rom 1t SO as to give our readers the
.xact views of the Court of Claims on
The interesting and important ques-
ion involved
AXAAAAAA AA AAAAAAAAA |