The Hawaiian gazette., 1904-04-26
MORE PAY
FOR TERRY
Honolulu Admiral Wins
Case in Court Of
Claims.

The Court OF Claims on Monday.
March 2S, announced a favorable deci-
sion on the claim of Rear Admiral Silas
w. Terry. U. 8. Navy says the Army
II Navy Journal. This decision affects
all the rear admirals of the nine low
er numbers of that grade. Admiral
Terry was commandant of the Wash
inSton 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 brigadier
general, $500 less 15 per cent for shore
duty, amounting to s4,675. 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 n rear admiral on
shore duty Messrs. George A. and
| William h. 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-
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 $4,000 n
year, and therefore that rate of pay
vaI 10, ht 1,,rt l,s
quoted. The response made to this
argument was that but for the pas
sages of the Personnel act increasing
the number of rear admirals. Admiral
Terry would have been only a commo-
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 1t 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
officer which pay is the higher for the
""'S h' Is lHdt HNeu ny
the Personnel act or that fixed by the
old Navy pay table? The answer to
this question decides the case, and
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
1f the Court of Claims the effect will
De that rear admirals of the nine lower
numbers will hereafter, when on shore
luty, received $1,000 q year instead of
1853, and while on sea duty will re-
'eive $4,000 year instead of $5,5OO
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
lies of the United States contiguous
hereto" the Army pay will exceed the
Navy pay and hence the officer will
,et no benefit from the decision as the
en- per cent increase being conferred
~ an Army act can In no case he
omputed upon old Navy pay. The full
ext of the opinion Is not yet accessi-
lie 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
he interesting and important ques-
ion involved.