« AnteriorContinuar »
Opinion of the Court.
Provided, That he shall receive no pay or emoluments except from the date of such reappointment."
In May, 1897, in accordance with the terms of the act, the President nominated claimant to the Senate to be a commander on the retired list of the Navy, and the nomination was confirmed. The claimant took the prescribed oath on May 26, 1897, since which last mentioned date he has been paid threequarters of the sea pay of a commander in the Navy on the active list. Claimant reached the age of sixty-two on May 31,
Mr. John Paul Jones and Mr. Richard R. Beall for appellant.
Mr. Assistant Attorney Walker for the United States. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Pradt was on his brief.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, after making the above statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
In Blake v. United States, 103 U. S. 227, it was held that the President has power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to displace an officer in the army or navy by the appointment of another person in his place, and that when that has been done he cannot again become an officer except upon a new appointment with like advice and consent. The ruling has been repeatedly affirmed and followed. Keyes v. United States, 109 U. S. 336; Mullan v. United States, 140 U. S. 240. And see Parsons v. United States, 167 U. S. 324.
When through mistake, or misapprehension, or for any other reason, injustice has been done, Congress has the power to accord relief, but the courts cannot of their own motion revise the grounds of action taken in the constitutional exercise of executive power.
Claimant is a commander in the United States Navy on the retired list by virtue of his appointment and retirement under the act of February 16, 1897. This suit was brought to recover pay as on leave or waiting orders from August 1, 1883, to June 1,
Opinion of the Court.
1895, when claimant reached the age of sixty-two years, and pay as a retired officer from June 1, 1895, to May 26, 1897, when he took the prescribed oath on his appointment; and if he is entitled to the amount sued for, it is by reason of the act and not otherwise.
The act described claimant in title and context as 'late a commander in the United States Navy;" suspended as to him. "the provisions of law regulating appointments in the Navy by promotion in the line, and limiting the number of commanders to be appointed in the United States Naval service;" and authorized the President to appoint him to the same grade and rank as of the date of August 1, 1883, and to place him on the retired list as of the date of June 1, 1895.
Congress thereby declared that claimant had been prior to August 1, 1883, but was not then, a commander, and that, in order to enable him to be appointed to that grade and rank, it was necessary to suspend the act of August 5, 1882, which limited the number of commanders on the active list, and also forbade promotion or increase of pay in the retired list. 22 Stat. 284, c. 391.
If the act had contained nothing more, the effect of the appointment would have been, in addition to fixing claimant's status as to grade and rank as of August 1, 1883, to entitle him to pay from that date, but not to pay prior thereto, as by the terms of the act he was not a commander until appointed thereunder. The act did not stop there, however, but a proviso was added which read: "Provided, That he shall receive no pay or emoluments except from the date of such reappointment."
Provisos are commonly used to limit, restrain or otherwise modify the language of the enacting clause, and that was the manifest purpose of this proviso. But it was not needed to limit the effect of the act prior to August 1, 1883, or to enlarge its effect after that date. Its only apparent office was to forbid the allowance of pay or emoluments from August 1, 1883, by limiting such allowance to "the date of such reappointment," which in that view must be regarded as the date of appointment under the act.
This result is in harmony with the language used. Claimant
Opinion of the Court.
had been a commander and had ceased to be such. He was again appointed, and that second appointment was a reappointment. The date of that reappointment was certainly when it was actually made, and to substitute the date to which the appointment related for the actual date would defeat the obvious object of the proviso, which was to narrow the effect of giving the reappointment a retroactive operation. It was allowed that effect as to grade and rank, but not as to current pay or emoluments between August 1, 1883, and the date of the reappointment. This fixed his relative position with reference to other officers in matters of privilege and precedence, and of command if detailed to active service in time of war. At the same time by referring the appointment to the prior date the retired pay was sensibly affected. If claimant had been appointed without any such reference and had been immediately retired, he would have been entitled to only one-half the sea pay of a commander under section 1588 of the Revised Statutes, for he would not have reached the age of sixty-two years while in the service; but as he was appointed as of August 1, 1883, he was put constructively in the service from that date and so, on being retired, became entitled to three-quarters of such sea pay; and this he is receiving.
Something was said in argument in respect of the commission, which is not set out in the findings, but whatever its terms, the conclusion remains unaffected. The appointment and the commission are distinct acts, and the terms of the commission cannot change the effect of the appointment as defined by the statute.
Assuming claimant to have been lawfully out of the service June, 1874, the Government preferred a counter-claim for the pay received by him from then to March 31, 1881. But the act of February 16, 1897, was remedial in its character, and although we cannot for that reason give to its terms any other than their obvious meaning, we think it should be construed as ratifying these prior payments.
Congress had all the facts before it and intended to award some measure of relief in view of the circumstances. It went so far and no farther, but it went far enough to enable us to
Statement of the Case.
hold that it would be inconsistent with the object of the act to sustain any recovery back.
In short we agree with the Court of Claims in its conclusions on both branches of the case.
WATERS-PIERCE OIL COMPANY v. TEXAS.
ERROR TO THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS FOR THE THIRD SUPREME JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS.
No. 97. Argued January 8, 9, 1900.- Decided March 19, 1900.
It is well settled that a State has the power to impose such conditions as it pleases upon foreign corporations seeking to do business within it. The statute of Texas of March 30, 1890, prohibiting foreign corporations, which violated the provisions of that act, from doing any business within the State imposed conditions which it was within the power of the State to impose; and this statute was not repealed by the act of April 30, 1895, c. 83.
THE Waters-Pierce Oil Company is a private corporation incorporated under the laws of Missouri, and its principal offices are situated in St. Louis.
It was incorporated to deal in naval stores, and to deal in and compound petroleum and other oils and their products, and to buy and sell the same in Missouri and other States. Its capital stock was originally one hundred thousand dollars, but was subsequently increased to four hundred thousand dollars.
On the 6th day of July, 1889, it filed in the office of the secretary of state of Texas, in accordance with the requirements of law, a certified copy of its articles of incorporation, and secured a permit to transact business in the State for the term of ten years.
By virtue of the permit the company engaged in business in the State, and while so engaged, it is claimed, violated the statutes of the State against illegal combinations in restraint of
Statement of the Case.
competition in trade, (copies of the statutes are inserted in the margin,) and thereby incurred a forfeiture of its permit to do business in the State.
1 SEC. 1. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas, That a trust is a combination of capital, skill or acts by two or more persons, firms, corporations or associations of persons, or of either two or more of them for either, any or all of the following purposes: First-To create or carry out restrictions in trade. Second-To limit or reduce the production, or increase or reduce the price of merchandise or commodities. ThirdTo prevent competition in manufacture, making, transportation, sale or purchase of merchandise, produce or commodities. Fourth-To fix at any standard or figure, whereby its price to the public shall be in any manner controlled or established, any article or commodity of merchandise, produce or commerce intended for sale, use or consumption in this State. Fifth-To make or enter into, or execute or carry out any contract, obligation or agreement of any kind or description by which they shall bind or have bound themselves not to sell, dispose of or transport any article or commodity, or article of trade, use, merchandise, commerce or consumption below a common standard figure, or by which they shall agree in any manner to keep the price of such article, commodity or transportation at a fixed or graduated figure, or by which they shall in any manner establish or settle the price of any article or commodity or transportation between them or themselves or others to preclude a free and unrestricted competition among themselves or others in the sale or transportation of any such article or commodity, or by which they shall agree to pool, combine or unite any interest they may have in connection with the sale or transportation of any such article or commodity that its price might in any manner be affected. SEC. 2. That any corporation holding a charter under the laws of the State of Texas which shall violate any of the provisions of this act shall thereby forfeit its charter and franchise, and its corporate existence shall cease and determine.
SEC. 3. For a violation of any of the provisions of this act by any corporation mentioned herein it shall be the duty of the attorney general or district or county attorney, or either of them, upon his own motion, and without leave or order of any court or judge, to institute suit or quo warranto proceedings in Travis County, at Austin, or at the county seat of any county in the State, where such corporation exists, does business or may have a domicile, for the forfeiture of its charter rights and franchise, and the dissolution of its corporate existence.
SEC. 4. Every foreign corporation violating any of the provisions of this act is hereby denied the right and prohibited from doing any business within this State, and it shall be the duty of the attorney general to enforce this provision by injunction or other proper proceedings in the district court of Travis County, in the name of the State of Texas.