Daily Kennebec journal., 1904-10-17
PAY OF NAVAL OFFICERS
An Interesting Case Before the su.
preme Court.

S'''S was "isocu peIOre the Supreme
Court on Tuesday, involving the nav
of naval officers. If decided in thair
favor it Will make a difference of about
100000 year to the Government ba.
sides stablishing a principle which vii,
have q bearing upon much futura lari,
jat.on. The accumulated accounts IN
vo!ved in this decision, IL is estimate,
amount to a half million dollars ~
question in brief is whether the evtrs
ten per cent of existing salaries whrch
the act of 1900 allows to army o4+icar,
when in service outside of the J-nitad
States. applies under the Same oo,,
dition to officers of the navy, by tha
terms of the personnel act Of 1900
which prescribeS that commissioners
officers of the line of the navy and ~
the medical and pay corps shall receive
the same pay and allowances that ora
OF MAY be. prescribed for officers op
corresD sDorGing rank in the army.
In 1860 Congress decided that army
officers serving in the Philippines
Cuba, Porto Rico, Hawaii and ALASKA
should receive & ten per cent increa sa
in their pay while in those places. Tha
enlisted men receive an inorease of
twenty per cent. In 1901 Congress
broadened the scope OF this act by ex-
tending the benefit Of the ten per cent.
Increase to all service beyond the limit
o. the States comprising the Union and
their Contiguous territory. The time
was s1eyiiiCaily defined as to date from
the Ge-rarture oe the officer from the
States ot the Union until his return
thereto. The officers of the navy ac
cordingiy expected. under the person.
mel law to receive the same addition
for their service outside OF the terri
tories OF the United States. It was
shown that tWo-thirds, and ut one tiIl-
three-fourths. of the officers of tn
army We're in receipt of this Increase
pay, while not more than forty per
cent Of the navy had been outside o.
! the limits of the United States or it,
territorial waters at any time since thy
enactment of this law.
The auditing officers of the Treasury.
however, decided that as tht. ordinary
service performed by army officers out-
, side the United States is service on
land, the officer Of the navy can get no
benefit OF this increase urless he serves
! on land too. From this decision rhn
navy officers appealed in a test case
brought before the Court of Claims by
/ Captain Charles NJ. Thomas. who com
ma!ded the Brooklyn. and afterwAr'i
! the Oregon. in the combined military
| and naval operations for the relief u
| the Legation. at Peking. and afterwaI.':;
f, in Philippine waters. The court on tn
| first hearing decided Jan. 5, 1HDa
! against him. hasing its decision uJsu
practically the same grounds as tho
! taken by the accounting officers Of n
| Treasury. His attorneys moved for &:
| re-hcaring. which after a stubborn re-
siatance was granted, and the court o.
! June !, 1903 retracted its former aa-
vcrse decision. 1t had stood three t.,
one against Captain Thomas on tn
first hearing, but was unanimously in
his favor on the last, with five judges
sitting.
The Government promptely appealed to
the Supreme Court. and a motion was
made at the last term to advance the cas-
: for hearing, which was granted and with
I the opening of the Court this week il
was promptly presented. The argument
: was opened by George A. King, Captain
IGoEas's attorney, who passed briefly III
c.'actInent CT the personnel law, and
amcrg other things quoted the report of
the House Committee on Naval Affairs
lie also produced a letter from TheodOr.
kunsAyet. then Assistant Secretary of tho
, Navy, setting forth the great injustice
3 S,,lilred by our naval officers under pasi
laws. by comparison with the army. The
neHvy expenses which they are under
while in foreign ports. particularly In Ell
igr'aining. adds to the propriety of plac
i'll. them on an equality with the army
stno Tnd hI. II ,E.-OI
Leading to the laws of 1900 and 1901 which
give increased pay to army officers show
| ing that the Increased expenses of main
| tairing their families in the dependencies
! made this addition to their compensa ton
! necessary He argued that conditions in
. the navy were almost identical in this
! respect. He cited a decision of the CourS
at its last term in the case of Rear-Ad-
! riIai Gibson. in which it was held that
! officers of the navy could no longer gvt
| the thirty cents a day Communication OF
| ratiOns, paid prior to 1893 to all naval Of
frerS attached to Sea-SOing vessels for
the reason that officers OF the amy re
i ceived no such lowance. II was argued
that the converse should hold good and
| where an increase OF lay. was allowed to
the officer of the army TIE officer of the
navy was likewise entitled to 1t
! Assistant Attorney General Louis a
, Pradt responded for the Government lie
pointed out tha. the service Of tii" army
| for which the ten per cent. Increase was
| granted IS theoretically IF an evtra haz-
ditions practically Unknown to our army
before the Spanish War TIL. officers of
N" navy on the other hand. whom in his
ship ut sea Is performing nothing more
tbs his; usual AID customary duty re-
gariad from time immemOrial as the
regular service of the navy 1t was fur
ther arguei that an act like this. which
affects only a par; OF the army. Cannot
extend to III" navy. since the personnel
law cortennlates that only laws which
apply to the army as a whole @halt he
dnd -
was asked whether all of our navy on
GERS who had attended the Christmas
| manoeuvres in the Caribbean So wGuld
be entitled. according to he contention OF
! the claimant. to an increase ot t"n ?er
! cent in their pay for thr v'c"- II vas
also asked whether. if Congress should
! grant an increase of pay 70 officers Of the
/ army when in service on board tiovCrH-
| ment vessels, officers of the navy would
he increased bv the same terms.
i Mr.. William II. King, 1tsO an attorney
! for the claimant. in closing accepted the
challenge and answere! both these ques-
tons in the affirmative. lie argned thai
the officers at ti,e Caribbean manoedvree
bv the laws in question would he entitled
TO this ten FER cent. increase. and. taking
IN .hc ,lypathe tical case asserted that
naval officers are Ell tied to whatever thu
In% grants army officers. and that until
TN. .nersCnrel act is repealed Congress-
rrust icgiSlate with this understanding Of
-T1,,