Case Name: JOHN LOWE v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1904-04-25
Citations: 39 Ct. Cl. 552
Docket Number: 
Parties: JOHN LOWE v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 39
Pages: 552–553

Head Matter:
JOHN LOWE v. THE UNITED STATES.
[38 C. Cls. R., 170; 194 U. S. R., 193.]
On the claimant’s Appeal.
By the Navy personnel act the title of commodore is abolished and the rank of rear-admiral substituted.- The statute at the same time provides “that each rear-admiral embraced in the nine lower numbers of that grade shall receive the same pay and allowances as are now allowed a brigadier-general in the Army.” The relative rank of a rear-admiral in the Navy is that of major-general in the Army, and those above the nine lower numbers receive the pay of a major-general. The act also provides that an officer with a creditable record who served during the civil war shall be retired with the rank and retired pay ‘ ‘ of the next higher grade. ’ ’ The question in this case is whether such a captain shall receive the retired pay of a brigadier or of a major general.
The court below decides:
1. The Navy personnel act (sec. 13) makes no distinction in the rank of rear-admirals, but does of pay; and the provision (sec. 11) which authorizes the retirement of certain officers with the rank and retired pay “ of the next higher grade” must be interpreted with reference to that distinction.
2. When the words of a statute are unambiguous it is the duty of the court to apply the words of the statute, but when the subject-matter of the law is variable it is the duty of the court to interpret the words of the law as is most reasonable and just to such conditions, and thereby effectuate the intent of the legislature. In this case it is ' a question of pay and not of rank, and the lowest pay of the rank is the pay of a brigadier-general. • - '
3. Promotion, unless otherwise secured, is by regular gradation. Applying that rule to claimant his promotion would be into that grade having the lower rate of pay. Pay and not rank is the paramount purpose of the law, and the grades of pay must therefore be regarded as of paramount importance.

Opinion:
The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.
Mr. Justice Day
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, April 25, 1904.