Case Name: JOHN N. QUACKENBUSH v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1900-03-19
Citations: 35 Ct. Cl. 627
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHN N. QUACKENBUSH v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 627–628

Head Matter:
JOHN N. QUACKENBUSH v. THE UNITED STATES.
[33 C. Cls. R., 335; 177 U. S. R., 20.]
On the elaima/nts Appeal.
The claimant, a commander in the Navy, is tried by court-martial, sentenced to be dismissed, and the sentence is approved by the President June 5, 1874; notice thereof is mailed to his address by the Secretary of the Navy June 9, and received by him June 12. The day after the notice is mailed the President nominates W. S. Schley to be commander, “vice Quackenbush, dismissed." Two days later Schley is confirmed and commissioned. On the same day on which he is confirmed, the Secretary addresses a communication to the claimant requesting him to “return to the Department the order dismissing him." On the 8th December following the Secretary addresses a letter to the claimant informing him that his “sentence was, on the 9th day of June, 1874, mitigated to suspension from rank and duty on furlough pay for six years, the suspension to date from that day." The claimant remains under suspension and is paid furlough pay for six years. On March 31,1881, he is taken on the paymaster rolls and paid as on “waiting orders." On August 1, 1883, his name is dropped from the official Navy Register then published. In December, 1883, the President nominates D. W. Mullen to be commander, “vice John N Quackenbush, no longer in the service,” which nomination is confirmed and Mullen commissioned, filling the quota of commanders. A private act is passed authorizing the President “to appoint” the claimant “to the same grade and rank as of the date of August 1, 1888.”
The court below decides:
1. Where Congress authorize the President to appoint one “late a commander in the United States Navy to the same grade and rank * * * as of the date of August 1, 1888, and to place him on the retired list of the Navy as of date June 1, 1895,”. with a proviso “that he shall receive no pay or emoluments except from the date of such reappoint-yient,” the appointment fixes the status as to grade and rank, but not as to pay or emoluments. They begin with the date of reappointment.
2. A proviso must be construed so as to give an effect to a statute different from that which would exist without it.
3. A statute must be construed as a whole and effect be given to every part. Hence, when a statute provides that no pay or emoluments shall accrue “ except from the date of such reappointment," “such date” being May 26, 1897, the act limits his right to pay to that date, though for the purpose of fixing his status as to grade and rank he was appointed “as of the date of August 1, 1883.”

Opinion:
The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court March 19, 1900.