Case: WILLIAM J. BARNETTE v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Barnette v. United States
Decision Date: 1897-01-25
Docket Number: 
Citation: 32 Ct. Cl. 618
Volume: 32
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: WILLIAM J. BARNETTE v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 618–619

Head Matter:
WILLIAM J. BARNETTE v. THE UNITED STATES.
[30 C. Cls. R , 197; 165 U. S., 174.]
On the defendants’ Appeal.
A lieutenant in the Navy serves as executive officer on the Saint Marys, a United States vessel, but used for the nautical school of the city of New York. The question involved is whether he is entitled to sea pay.
The court below decides :
1. The Act SOtk June, 1874 (18 Stat. L., 121), authorizes the Secretary of the Navy to furnish a naval vessel upon the application of the governor of a State, to be used for the benefit of any nautical school.
2. A ship afloat, officered, manned, victualed, equipped, and capable of proceeding to sea, on which seagoing service, discipline, and duty are required, though in a harbor, is within the intent of the Revised Statutes, section 1571, “a ship at sea.”
3. A ship placed at the service of a State for the purpose of nautical instruction under the act 20th June, 1874, is a ship acting “under the orders of a Department,” and is a vessel “employed by authority of law” within the intent of the Revised Statutes, section 1571; and an officer ordered to service on hoard of her by the Secretary of the Navy is acting “under the orders of a Department,” and entitled to sea pay.
4. Where a school ship remains in the possession and under the control, discipline, and authority of the Government, the fact that the officers are ordered to carry out the directions of a board of edu- ■ cation does not change the character of the vessel. She is still a naval vessel under the orders of the Navy Department.
5. Payment to a naval officer l>y a State for acting as instructor in a nautical school does not in any way affect the rate of pay at which he should he paid hy the United States.
The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Geay
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, January 25, 1897.