Case: JOHN W. BEAMAN v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Beaman v. United States
Decision Date: 1883-12-17
Docket Number: Department No. 6
Citation: 19 Ct. Cl. 5
Volume: 19
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: JOHN W. BEAMAN v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 5–11

Head Matter:
JOHN W. BEAMAN v. THE UNITED STATES.
[Department No. 6.
Decided December 17, 1883.]
On the Facts.
The Kevised Statutes create the offices of assistant Treasury agents at the seal fisheries in Alaska. The Act 31 July, 1876, provides that they be ‘ ‘ discontinued." Subsequent appropriation acts authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to appoint assistant agents there.
I.Where an appropriation act authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to appoint assistant agents at a designated place, the office will expire by its own limitation with the expenditure of the appropriation.
II.When the existence of an office depends entirely upon annual appropriations, the incumbent cannot prolong its existence by continuing to perform its duties.
III.If a statute provide that “the two assistant agents whose salaries, as fixed by law at ¡¡12,190 each per annum, shall be discontinued from and after the 1st day of October, 1876,” the office will be abolished, not suspended.
IV.If the traveling expenses of an officer be authorized by law “in going to mid returning from ” his post, the fact that he remained there until his office had expired does not lessen tbe obligation of the government to pay his “returning” expenses.
V.Where an ex-officer presents a claim for $185 traveling expenses to which he is legally entitled, and for $368 salary which is not a valid demand, and Congress appropriate $277 for both, it must be inferred that Congress intended to pay the valid claim in full, and apply the balance of the appropriation in settlement of the other.
VI.The form of judgment in department cases, referred under the Bowman Act, prescribed by the court.
The Reporters’ statement of the case:
This case was transmitted to the court by the Secretary of the Treasury, under section 2 of the Bowman Act. The following are the facts as found by the court:
I. Under the Act June 20,1878 (20 Stat. L., 218), the claimant was appointed an assistant agent of seal fisheries in Alaska by the Secretary of the Treasury, August 15,1878, at a compensation of $2,190 per annum, and necessary traveling expenses in going to and returning from Alaska, in the sum of $600 per annum.
II. Soon after his appointment as aforesaid the claimant entered upon the duties of his office, and, without other authority than said act and the further Aot March 3,1879 (20 Stat. L., 381), continued to perform said duties in Alaska until August 1,1880.
III. About August 1,1880, he set sail from Alaska for San Francisco, at which latter place he arrived about August 15, 1880. At San Francisco he received the following notice:
“Treasury Department,
“Oeeioe oe the Secretary,
“ Washington, I). O., July 1, 1880.
“ Mr. John W. Beaman,
“ Assistant Agent, Seal Islands, Alaska :
“ Sir : By reason of a reduction in the number of special agents at the seal fisheries in Alaska made by act of Congress approved June 15, 1880, your services as assistant agent, with compensation at the rate of twenty-one hundred and ninety dollars per annum, and necessary traveling expenses going to and returning from Alaska, not to exceed six hundred dollars per annum, ceased on the 30th ultimo.
“Yery respectfully,
“John Sherman,
“ Secretary
The time necessarily required for the claimant to reach his h ome after the receipt of this notice would be about two weeks.
IY. Claimant’s salary down to July 1, 1880, and his traveling expenses in going to Alaska were paid to him by the Treasury Department.
In addition to this he presented to the department a bill of his return traveling expenses, amounting to $185.24; also a claim for salary during the months of July and August, 1880, amounting to $368.96. These two items were not paid, but they were placed upon the list of “ deficiency estimates,” and transmitted to Congress January 17,1S81. Congress, by Act March 3,1881 (21 Stat. L, 417), appropriated “to pay J. W. Bea-man, late special agent at the seal fisheries in Alaska, salary and traveling expenses for 1880, $277.10.” This amount was then paid to the claimant by the Treasury Department.
Y. In addition to the bill of $185.24, the claimant incurred a liability of $100 to the “Alaska Commercial Company” for his passage on the steamer Saint Paul from Alaska to San Francisco, which he had not paid at the time his bill for traveling expenses was presented to the department. He subsequently paid this $100 and presented it as an additional item. It has never been paid.
YI. The whole amount of claimant’s traveling expenses for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1880, including the $100 in finding Y, did not exceed $600, but the unexpended balance of the appropriation for these expenses was covered into the Treasury June 30,1882.
And upon the foregoing findings of facts the court decided as conclusions of law:
1. Claimant’s office expired June 30,1880, by its own limitation. Any service rendered by him after that time was voluntary and without authority of law. No legal liability to pay therefor was incurred by the defendants. •
2. The defendants were legally liable to pay the claimant’s necessary traveling expenses in returning from Alaska, although the return trip was made after June 30,1880.
3. The traveling expenses paid from the special appropriation as shown in finding IY were a legal charge against the defendants, while the salary included therein was not. We must therefore infer that $185.24 was to apply upon traveling expenses, and the balance $91.86 upon the claim for services rendered after bis office expired. This would leave still due to tbe claimant tbe $100 for which tbe defendants are legally chargeable.
4. This indebtedness cannot now be paid by tbe Treasury De - partment, because there is no subsisting appropriation for that purpose.
Mr. J. T. Poioer for tbe claimant:
1. Tbe word used in tbe statute is “ discontinued.” “Left off; interrupted; broken off.” — Webster. (Davy v. Oxenham, 7 Meeson & Welsby, 131; Owen v. Beauvoir, 16 ib., 547.)
Congress evidently only iutended a temporary suspension of tbe office.
2. A special provision of a general character contained in an appropriation act will not be construed as a permanent regulation, unless clearly so intended. (Minis v. The United States, 15 Peters, 445; United States v. Jarvis, Dav., 274.)
3. If this office depended alone on tbe appropriation acts, it was revived and continued for tbe fiscal year 1881 by tbe Deficiency Act March 3,1881 (21 Stat. L., 417).
Mr. George L. Douglass (with whom was tbe Assistant Attorney-General) for tbe defendants:
Claimant’s employment being from year to year, be must be assumed to have accepted it with tbe knowledge that be would have to look to each animal appropriation act for tbe continu-auce'of bis employment and compensation. (Shipman v. The United States, 18 C. Ols. B., 147; 17 O. Ols. B., 103; 12 C. Ols. E., 157; 2 C. Ols. B., 144.) McOollum’s Oase (17 C. Ols. B., 103); Fisher’s Oase (15 C. Cls. B., 328).

Opinion:
Scoeield, J.,
delivered tbe opinion of the court:
By tbe Appropriation Act June 20, 1878 (20 Stat. L., 218), the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized to appoint two assistant Treasury agents at tbe seal fisheries in Alaska, with salaries of $2,190 each, and necessary traveling expenses in going to and returning from Alaska, $600 each.
By tbe Appropriation Act March 3, 1879 (20 Stat. L., 384, the same provision was made for tbe fiscal year ending June 30, 1880.
The claimant was duly appointed one of these agents and attended to the duties of the position until August 1, 1880.
June 30,1880, this office expired by its own limitation. Its existence depended entirely upon the annual appropriations, and when they were exhausted the office closed. The claimant could not prolong its existence by continuing to perform its duties. (McCollum's Case, 17 C. Cls. R., 92.)
In Shipman's Case (18 C. Cls. R., 147) this court said:
"When an alleged liability rests wholly upon the authority of an appropriation they must stand and fall together, so that when the latter is exhausted the former is at an end, to be revived, if at all, only by subsequent legislation by Congress."
It is contended by the claimant that the existence of his office did not depend solely upon the two appropriation acts above cited. Having been created by sections 1973 and 1974 of the Bevised Statutes it still subsisted. The failure of Congress to make appropriations for his salary did not take away his right to demand it.
The force of this argument is destroyed by the intervening-act of July 31, 1876, which provides:
"That the two assistant agents whose salaries as fixed by law at two thousand one hundred and ninety dollars each per annum, shall be discontinued from and after the first day of October, eighteen hundred and seventy-six." (1 Sup't R. S., p. 234.)
This language does not, as claimant argues, merely suspend the office; it abolishes it altogether; it is to continue no longer. The subsequent appropriations created the office anew, but for a specified period. Beyond that limit there was no office and no salary. If the claimant-chose to perform any duties pertaining to his late office after June 30, 1880, he performed them without authority of law, and thereby acquired no legal right to demand payment.
Although the claimant was entitled to no salary after June 30, 1880, he was entitled to his necessary traveling expenses in returning to his home. For these expenses the government was legally holden, and the Treasury Department was authorized to pay them from the appropriation made for that purpose. The fact that he remained at his post until his office expired and the expenses were thereby incurred after June 30, 1880, does not lessen the legal obligation of the government to pay them. (Pacific Mail Case, 18 C. Cls. R., 30.)
The claimant presented to the department a bill for traveling expenses amounting to $185.21; also a claim for salary-after the expiration of his office amounting to $368.96. These two bills were submitted to Congress in the "deficiency estimates " of January 17, 1881. Congress, in response thereto, March 3, 1881, appropriated $277.10. As the claim for traveling expenses was a legal charge, and the claim for salary was not, we must infer that Congress designed to pay the traveling expenses in full and apply the balance in settlement of the claim for salary.
At the time this deficiency estimate was submitted to Congress the claimant had not paid for his passage from Alaska to San Francisco, which amounted to $100. He subsequently paid it and thereby become entitled to be reimbursed. Had the claimant brought suit in this court by voluntary petition the court would have been authorized by the facts therein appearing to give judgment in his favor for the balance of his unpaid traveling expenses, to wit, $100. The case, however, is transmitted to the court under the second section of the act of March 3, 1883, which provides that—
"When the facts and conclusions of law shall have been found the court shall not enter judgment thereon, but shall report its findings and opinions to the department by which it was transmitted for its guidance and action."
Although the defendants are legally holden for the $100 the Treasury Department cannot pay it, because there is now no appropriation for that purpose.
The Chief Justice was not present at the trial of this case and took no part in the decision.
Weldon, J., had not taken his seat when this case was heard, and took no part in the decision.
The following form of judgment in this class of cases was prescribed by the court, the Chief Justice and Weldon, J., taking part:
John W. Beaman The United States.
In this case, transmitted to this court by the Secretary of the Treasury on the 21st of June, 1883, under section 2 of the act of March 3, 1883, entitled "An act to afford assistance and relief to Congress and the executive departments in the investigation of claims and demands against the government," the court files a finding of facts, together with conclusions of law and opinion of the court thereon; and it is thereupon
Ordered, That the clerk certify to the Treasury Department a copy of said findings, conclusions, and opinion.