Court Opinion

ID: 9416440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 19:45:12.403982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:27.206110
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice McLEAN
dissented.
When the decision in this case was announced, I did not intend to file a written dissent§ but as the case is important to the plaintiff in error, beyond the damages reeovéred, and as the counsel der sire the views of all the members of the-court on the points ruled, I shall, in a very few words, state the ground of my dissent.
Many depositions were read in this case to show the usage of the government in regard to pay, in the military servir for extra.services performed ; and also as to what constituted we appropriate duties of the chief of the Engineer Department. A great variety of facts were thus proved, having a direct bearing upon the duties of the plaintiff and the services stated by him as extra, as not appertaining to his office, and for which he claimed a compensation. A number of instances were referred to where pay had been allowed for extra services under the decisions of this court, and a much greater number under the general usage of the government. . Among other instructions, General Gratiot’s counsel asked the court to instruct the jury, “ that if they find from the evidence, that the defendant, by the direction of the- President or Secretary at War, performed any of the services charged for in the last item of his account, being the said item attached to Fowler’s deposition, and that the services so rendered were, out of the limits of his official duties as chief engineer, he is entitled to compensation for such extra services as a set-off in this action.”
“ The court refused this instruction, because the whole evidence in the cause, without any exception, is written evidence, which the court is called on to construe and apply, and not the jury \ and from such evidence to ascertain, as matter of law,, what were the defendant’s duties and acts ; and taking all the evidence and construing it the most favorably for the defendant, none is adduced, showing or tending to show the defendant performed any service not appertaining to his duties a3 chief engineer; and for the proper instruction on the item referred to, the eighth instruction is to govern the jury.”
The eighth instruction need not be repeated,.as it asserts the same principles contained above, in which the court left nothing for the jury. When this case was before this court, 15 Peters, 371, the court, in referring to the act of 1802, which provided for the organization of. the Engineer Corps, cited the 27th section, which de*119clares, “ that the said corps when so organized shall be established at West Point, in the State of New York, and shall constitute a military academy; and the engineers, assistant engineers^and cadets of the said corps shall be subject, at all times, to do duty in such places, and on such service, as the President of the United States shall direct.” The court observe, — “ However broad this enactment is in its language, it never has been supposed to authorize the President to employ the Corps of Engineers upon any other duty, except such as belongs either to military engineering, or to civil engineering.” “ But assuming the President possessed the fullest power, under this enactment, from time to time to employ any officers of the corps in the business of civil engineering, still it must be obvious, that, as their pay and emoluments were or would be regulated with reference to their ordinary, military and other duties, the power of the President to detach them upon other civil services would not preclude him from contracting to allow such, detached officers a proper compensation for any extra services. Such a contract may not .only be established by proof of some positive regulation, but may also be inferred from the known practice and usage of the War Department.”
Gen. J. G. Swift, who was formerly at the head of the Engineer Corps, in his deposition, which was read as evidence, said,.— “ I have looked over the account hereto attached, amounting to $37,127-42, and am of opinion that the business or functions therein charged do not pertain to the functions of a civil engineer, nor do they pertain to the functions of a military engineer.” And he states, that while chief of the Engineer Corps he received additional compensation for extra services.
Major McNeil, á witness, and who is a civil engineer, states, on being requested “ to look at the account of Charles Gratiot, hereto annexed or appended, and state whether the services therein charged belong to civil engineering or military, engineering, or to either,” answered, — . “ I should say that they would be classed under neither. They do not belong to the duties of the engineer, either civil or military.”
Captain Talcott held a commission in the Enginéer Corps, from August, 1818, to September, 1836, and he states, that while in the corps for extra services he received extra allowances. And he also says, — “I have examined the account ” (of General Gratiot) “ appended, and am of opinion that the several items of services charged for do not appertain to either military or civil engineering.” And further, — “I do not consider them the appropriate duties of the-chief engineer, or of any other engineer.”
It is admitted, that so far as the duties of the chief of engineers were regulated by law, or by regulations of the War Department, they may be considered as mátfer of law for the court, but much parol evidence was heard as to the appropriate duties of that offi*120cer, and to ascertain what part of the services charged for came within such duties. Now these were matters of fact for the jury, and not for the court. The claim was to be allowed or rejected, according to the usage of the department, and that usage, like every other fact not established by judicial decision, is a subject of proof. .
The depositions above referred to were only a part of those which were read in evidence. Other witnesses differed with those I have cited, as to some of the material facts stated, and to determine this conflict was the peculiar province of the jury. But the whole evidence was ruled by the court, and not permitted to be weighed by the jury. On this ground, I think the judgment should be reversed.
This ruling is attempted to be sustained by the view of the court in the case in 15 Peters, above cited.
The third item charged by General Gratiot, in the account then relied on, was as follows: — “ For extra services, in conducting the affairs connected with the civil works of internal improvement carried on by the United States, and referred to the Engineer Department for execution, and which did not constitute any part of his duties as a military officer, from the 1st day of August, 1828, to the 6th day of December, 1838, inclusive, ten years and one hundred and twenty-eight days, at $ 3,600 per annum, ‡ 37,262-46.” And in their opinion in that case, the court did say, — “ As to the 3d item, constituting a charge of $ 37,262-46, for extra services, in conducting the affairs, connected with the civil works of internal improvement, very different considerations may apply. The court are of opinion, that this item has no just foundation in law ; and therefore, that the evidence which was offered in support .of it, if admitted, would'not have maintained it.’.’ The reason assigned by the court was* that the services specified came within the official and ordinary duties of the office.
Now, the account rendered at the last trial differed in amount, though the difference is small,«from the one charged in the first account, and . to which the above remarks of the court are applicable. But there is a much greater difference.
The items of service are specified in the last account, spreading over several pages, instead of the general charge cited. And the depositions which I have referred to, and others not named, “were taken in the cause subsequently to the delivery of the above opinion. The facts thus thrown into .the case gave it a new aspect. They particularized the service, and showed, by distinguished engineers, what did and what did not belong to the duties of General Gratiot, as chief of engineers.
In the opinion of the court, the service,, as generalized in the'first account, being connected with internal. improvements, came within the general regulations of - the War Department, and might, there*121fore, in their opinion, be decided as matter of law. However this may be, I hold that the new and numerous facts proved as to usage and the extra duties of General Gratiot were matters for the jury and not for the court; consequently, that there was error in withholding them from the jury.
In his account, General Gratiot charged the government for the disbursement of upwards of eighteen millions of dollars for ££ fortifications, internal improvement, light-houses and beacons, Military Academy, lithographic piers, north-west executive buildings, and northern boundary of Ohio.”
The transcript containing the above charge was regularly certified by the Treasury Department as having- been presented by General Gratiot, and disallowed, ££ as not admissible against the. treasury.” That the services charged for were rendered was not disputed,
Benjamin Fowler, a clerk in the Engineer Department, testified, that the services, as charged by. General Gratiot, had been performed..
In their second instruction, the court informed the jury that the defendant was not entitled to any credit for commissions on disbursements on account of appropriations for fortifications, as charged by him. Of this item, the only evidencé in the cause is that furnished by the transcript introduced by the United States, as the principal evidence on which the. defendant is charged, and the evidence thereby furnished, is-not sufficient to authorize the jury to allow the defendant the credit claimed. The same instruction was substantially given in regard to disbursements-for fortifications, and for other objects, as.charged.
Now it would seem that the transcript above stated, certified by. the Treasury as containing General Gratiot’s account disallowed, proved the services charged were, rendered ; andThey were also proved by Fowler, whose deposition was taken in 1842, since this case was before us on the former writ of error. And whatever part of those disbursements did not appropriately belong to the office of General Gratiot, under the usage of the War Department ánd the opinion of this court in the former case, would constitute a fair ground for compensation.
Some of the other .instructions might be commented on, in reference to the evidence,' but I deem it unnecessary to do so, as in my' opinion the judgment should be reversed on die" grounds already stated.