While the question is not free from difficulty, we cannot escape the conclusion that had Congress intended that this credit should be given not only for the purpose of computing future pay, but with a view to readjusting past compensation, and giving gratuities for years past, it would have declared its purpose in more distinct terms.

The construction here given is consistent with the declared purpose of the act; it gives to the law a future, not a retrospective operation, and, in our judgment, carries out the expressed purpose of Congress in passing the law.

Judgment of the Court of Claims affirmed.

NORTHERN SECURITIES COMPANY v. UNITED

STATES.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA.

No. 277. Submitted November 16, 1903.-Decided November 30, 1903.

Motion for leave to file brief as amicus curia denied.

Mr. A. A. Hoehling, Jr., for Mr. Charles Fisk Beach, applicant.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: In support of this motion certain letters were presented showing that request was made of counsel. for the respective parties for their consent to the application, and that they withheld direct consent, leaving the matter entirely to the court to determine. When the motion was submitted objection to the granting of leave was made by counsel for appellees.

Where in a pending case application to file briefs is made by counsel not employed therein, but interested in some other

pending case involving similar questions, and consent is given, the court has always exercised great liberality in permitting this to be done. And doubtless it is within our discretion to allow it in any case when justified by the circumstances. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1, 17; Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478, 491; The Gray Jacket, 5 Wall. 370. It does not appear that applicant is interested in any other case which will be affected by the decision of this case; as the parties are represented by competent counsel, the need of assistance cannot be assumed; and consent has not been given.

Leave to file must, therefore, be

Denied.

191 U. S.

Opinions Per Curiam, Etc.

OPINIONS PER CURIAM, ETC., FROM OCTOBER 12, 1903, TO JANUARY 3, 1904.

No. 10. DOUGLAS COMPANY, APPELLANT, v. A. F. STONE, LATE TREASURER, ETC. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Virginia. Argued October 13, 1903. Decided October 19, 1903. Per Curiam. Decree affirmed with costs, on the authority of Holt v. Indiana Manufacturing Company, 176 U. S. 68; Fishback v. Western Union Telegraph Company, 161 U. S. 96, and cases cited. Mr. Daniel Trigg and Mr. J. H. Gilmore for appellant. Mr. William A. Anderson for appellee.

No. 11. JAMES U. HUGHES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. R. B. KEPLEY ET AL. In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. Submitted October 13, 1903. Decided October 19, 1903. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction, on the authority of Turner v. Richardson, 180 U. S. 87; Erie Railroad Company v. Purdy, 185 U. S. 148; Mutual Life Insurance Company v. McGrew, 188 U. S. 291, and cases cited. Mr. T. F. Garver for plaintiff in error. Mr. N. H. Loomis for defendants in error.

No. 37. JAMES L. GATES, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. SAMUEL P. PARMLY ET AL., EXECUTORS, ETC. In error to the Circuit Court of Clark County, State of Wisconsin. Argued October 22, 1903. Decided October 26, 1903. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Knox v. Exchange Bank, 12 Wall. 379; Central Land Company v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 103; New Orleans Water Works Co. v. Louisiana, 185 U. S. 336; California Powder Works v. Davis, 151 U. S. 389; Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company v. Louisville, 166 U. S. 709; Morley v. Lake Shore &c. Railway Company, 146 U. S. 162; Bacon

Opinions Per Curiam, Etc.

191 U. S.

v. Texas, 163 U. S. 207. Mr. Rublee A. Cole for plaintiff in error. Mr. A. B. Browne and Mr. Alexander Britton for defendants in error.

No. -. Original. Ex parte. IN THE MATTER OF CITY OF PALATKA, PETITIONER. November 2, 1903. Motion for leave to file petition for writ of certiorari denied. Mr. H. Bisbee and Mr. George C. Bedell for petitioner in support of motion. Mr. Charles T. Cates, Jr., Mr. Henry Strunz and Mr. R. E. L. Mountcastle opposing.

No. 226. THE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN AND HARTFORD RAILROAD COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. BENJAMIN WEISBERG. In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Rhode Island. Motion to dismiss submitted October 26, 1903. Decided November 2, 1903. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Maynard v. Hecht, 151 U. S. 324; The Bayonne, 159 U. S. 687, 692; Chappell v. United States, 160 U. S. 499, 507. Mr. David S. Baker for plaintiff in error. Mr. Donald G. Perkins for defendant in error.

No. 52. WOEY HO, APPELLANT, v. UNITED STATES. Appeal from the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Argued November 3, 1903. Decided November 9, 1903. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Lau Ow Bew v. United States, 144 U. S. 47, 58; Cross v. Burke, 146 U. S. 82, 88; In re Lennon, 150 U. S. 393; Perrine v. Slack, 164 U. S. 452; The Paquete Habana, 175 U. S. 677, 683. Mr. Franklin H. Mackey for appellant. The Attorney General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General McReynolds for appellee.

No. 55. CLEMENS HEROLD ET AL., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. JOSEPH FRANK ET AL. In error to the Court of Errors and

191 U. S.

Opinions Per Curiam, Etc.

Appeals of the State of New Jersey. Argued and submitted November 4, 1903. Decided November 9, 1903. Per Curiam. Dismissed for the want of jurisdiction. Oxley Stave Company v. Butler County, 166 U. S. 648; Chapin v. Fye, 179 U. S. 127; Capital City Dairy Company v. Ohio, 183 U. S. 238, 248; Mutual Life Insurance Company v. McGrew, 188 U. S. 291; McKane v. Durston, 153 U. S. 684. Mr. James G. Blauvelt for plaintiffs in error. Mr. John W. Harding for defendants in

error.

No. 72. MOLLIE S. BATTLE, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. ROBERT G. ATKINSON. In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Argued for plaintiff in error November 11, 1903. Decided November 16, 1903. Per Curiam. Decree affirmed with costs. Willis v. Eastern Trust and Banking Company, 167 U. S. 76; Harris v. Barber, 129 U. S. 366; McClung v. Penny, 189 U. S. 143. Mr. John M. Taylor for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.

No. Original. Ex parte. IN THE MATTER OF THE JOHNSTOWN MINING COMPANY, PETITIONER. December 7, 1903. Motion for leave to file petition for a writ of certiorari denied. Mr. Robert B. Smith, Mr. Frederick W. Whitridge, Mr. Willard Parker Butler, Mr. Edwin T. Rice and Mr. Sanford Robinson for petitioner in support of motion. Mr. James M. Beck and Mr. John A. Garver opposing.

No. 14. CZARNIKOW, MACDOUGALL & CO. (LIMITED), PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. GEORGE R. BIDWELL, COLLECTOR, ETC. In error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Submitted December 4, 1903. Decided December 14, 1903. Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed with costs, on the authority of Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, 287. (The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice