The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1914-05-22
'RutIfe 0F COURT
! on AHNlF sAlAR|Es
Attorneys for ofiesrs Serving in
Porto Rico ana Hawdsi Pro-
pose Further Litigation.
.F+444ll w@A

Under the caption 'Pay for Porto
Riep and Hawaii" the last issue Of
the Army and Navy Register publishes
the following: NJ ~
"The supreme Court On May 4 de-
eided . question which mas been pend
Ing before the courts for several years.
In 1909 congress enacted that officers
and enlisted men should have an in
crease Of pay sor service beyond the
liRita Of the States and Territories Of
ths Union, III 1905 and again IN 1907
The appropriation for these services en-
eepted Porto Rico and Iawaii from the
benefit Of the appropriation, In 1905
congress, in passing the new pay law,
provided that increase Of pay for such
4 services rshall be a. aow provided by
law Capt, Nelson P. Yulte, Y. S. Al.
e. as heretofore noty,t through -hi9
attorneys, King AID King, sued in the
court Of claims for a ten per cent Ia.
crease ~ Porto Rico ia 1905 and 1909,
The court Of claims decided 10 his "a.
] yor. The case came on for argument
in the supreme Court, on the appeal OF
the government, March 10, and was ar.
gued by Mr.. George A. King FOR the
officer and Assistant Attorney General
Huston Thompson for the government.
! The court ordered reayeument, which
! was held on April q and %, and the
Baprehie Court now afIirlas the decision
Of the court Of elaims. ~, esi n
HHMr Justice McISehna, delivering
the opinion of the court, says: frThe
short point in the case Is to what the
woods tshhn be as now lpFovided by law :
in the iAet 81 May III, 1905, refer -
whether to the Acts of 1906 and 1907,
or more hnitedly we may say, to the
exceptions of Porto Rico and Iiawaii in
those acts, or to the proviso of Porto
Rico and Hawaii lin those acts or to
the proviso in the Act of June 80, 1909,
In other words, whether the exceptions
of those years Of those special places
shall prevail over the substantive pro-
vision Of the Act Of 80, 1909,
which Is explicit, OF enduring effect, and
is besides comprehensive of all foreign
stations, Its language being - That
hereafter the pay proper Of all commits
stoned officers serving beyond
the limits of the States . /. shall be
increased ten per cent. !. !. -.'}.a2,fs
"The GOVERNMENT contends for the
exceptions as constituting new law, not
as q temporary condition. ander an old
one The claimants contends for the,
provise of the Act Of ae02, aud counssl,
in quite elaborate arguments, have sup
ported their respective contentious. We
shall not follow the details Of their ar,
guments The question presented, we
think, is in brief ! compass, Congress
manfestly did not think that by the
first instance of the exception that in
the Act of 1905, ID had done more than
Temporarily, suspend as to Porte Rico,
and Hawaii the Act of June 80, 1902.
The exception was repeated in 1907 If
the first exception was not intended to
affect permanently the Act Of 1909,
why should such intention be aseribea
to the second excepti6nor to, both;
neither having words of prospective ex.
tension, aud, without sucn words, natu-
rally having only temporary operationf
1t would be extreme to say that by max
ing thep congress considered that it
had established q policy which could
be confidently referred 90 as having
the status and effect of permanent law.
-'The exceptions il is 10 be remem,,
bered, were in appropriation acts and
no words were used to indicate any 9th.
er purpose than the disbursement of a
sum of money for the particular fiscal
years. This court has had occasion to
deal with snch instances of legislation
and their intended effect on existing
llaw. In United States vs.; Langston,
Ills U. s. $3.50, 1894, it was decided that
la statute which fixed the annual salary
Of a public officer at a designated sum
without limitation as to time Is not
abrogated or suspended by subsequent
enactments which merely appropriate a
less amount for that officer for partic.
ular years, and which contained no
words that expressly or by clear impli-
eatibnhodifed or repealed the previous
Law. See also Minis VS. United States,
~ Pet. 42$ 445, where it is safd. 'lt
wonld be someWhat unusual TO find en-
grated upon an act making special and
temporery appropriation amy provision
which was 20 have aigeneral and per-
msnent application to ell future appIoi
lpriations. Nor ought such an intention
on the part Of the legislature to be pre-
sumed, unless it is expressed in the
most clear and positive terms, and
who're the language, admits Of no other
reasonable Interpretation. This follows
natarally from the nature Of appFopfia-
ton bills, and the presumption hence
arising is fortified by the rules of the
senate and house of representatives. -
Messrs. King and King, who have had
charge Of this litigation, state that this
decision clearly gives to all officers and
Ienlisted men of both the Army and Ma
rine Corps their statutory increase Of
pay for all service in Hawaii and Porto
Rico from May IL, 1898, 10 August "a,
1912, when the right to such increase in
those Islands was taken away by ex.
Iplieit provision of legislation. 1t would
seem also to sustain In principle the
right Of officers and enlisted men Of the
Array and Navy Corps, as well as OIL
GERS Of the Navy to this increase for
such service between June, 1906, and
May, zoos. II is possible, however, that
a test case as to these years will have
to be argued before the Comptroller or