Case: COVINGTON G. BELKNAP v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Belknap v. United States
Decision Date: 1893-10
Docket Number: 
Citation: 29 Ct. Cl. 557
Volume: 29
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: COVINGTON G. BELKNAP v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 557–557

Head Matter:
COVINGTON G. BELKNAP v. THE UNITED STATES.
[24 C. Cls. R., 433; 150 U. S. R., 588.]
On the claimants Appeal.
The Revised Statutes authorize the President to appoint forty-two Indian agents at specified salaries, four of which are “ for the tribes in California.” All subsequent appropriation acts provide for a greater number at smaller salaries. The claimant is appointed while the appropriation acts are in force and for an agency designated as the Tule River Agency. He seeks the salary prescribed by the Revised Statutes for agencies in California.
The court below decides:
1. The Revised Statutes, 2052, authorized the President to appoint forty-two Indian agents at specified salaries, but every subsequent appropriation act has disregarded those provisions, both as to number and salary.
2. The intention of Congress must govern when there is a conflict between the Revised Statutes and subsequent appropriation acts.
3. The course of legislation since 1874 shows a settled legislative purpose to regulate the Indian agency service according to the exigencies of each year without reference to the general provisions of the Revised Statutes.
4. An Indian agent commissioned in February, 1876, “ to be agent for the Indians of the Tule River Agency in California,” is entitled to ' .the salary of $1,500 appropriated for that agency by the Act Jime 39, t874 (18 Stat. L., 146), and subsequent appropriation acts, and is not entitled to the salary of $1,800 prescribed by the Revised Statutes for four agents “ for the tribes in California.”
The decision of the court below is affirmed on the sanie grounds.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Brewer
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, December 11,1893.