U S v. ALLEN(1923)
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Seymour, for the United States.
Mr. George A. King, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Mr. Justice McKENNA delivered the opinion of the Court.
Action for $600, based on the claim of Allen, who was a yeoman in the Coast Guard, for pay at the rate fixed by law for a chief yeoman in the Navy from April 6, 1917, [261 U.S. 317, 318] to May 28, 1919, under the following provisions of the Act of May 22, 1917 ( 40 Stat. 84):
Section 15: '... That during the continuance of the present war, warrant officers, petty officers and enlisted men of the United States Coast Guard shall receive the same rates of pay as are or may hereafter be prescribed for corresponding grades or ratings and length of service in the Navy.' Comp. St. 1918, Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, 2856a.
Section 13: 'Nothing contained in this act shall operate to reduce the rank, pay or allowances that would have been received by any person in the Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard except for the passage of this act.' Section 2483n.
Judgment was rendered for $486.32, to review which this appeal is prosecuted.
The question presented is not the absolute rank of Allen, but the correspondence of his duties and his emolument to those of chief yeoman in the Navy.
The Commandant of the Coast Guard submitted, June 5, 1917, to the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation of the Navy Department a tabular statement showing the several grades or ratings in the Navy to which the Coast Guard grades or ratings corresponded. This tabular statement was arranged on the basis of the duties and responsibilities of the several ratings.
In this table a ship's writer was put down as corresponding to a yeoman, first class, in the Navy, and a yeoman in the Coast Guard to a chief yeoman in the Navy. October 10, 1917, the Secretary of the Navy issued a general order giving the corresponding grades in which both ship's writers and yeomen in the Coast Guard were tabulated as corresponding to yeoman, first-class, in the Navy, instead of chief yeoman in the Navy. The tabulated statement by the Commandant of the Coast Guard was in many other respects changed by the Navy Department. [261 U.S. 317, 319] The action of the Navy Department was carried out by a circular letter from the Coast Guard headquarters, and, according to it, pay of all petty officers and nearly all enlisted men in the Coast Guard was higher than the pay in the Navy, thus giving to such officers no benefit of section 15 of the Act of May 22, 1917
Allen, during the time covered by his claim, was paid as a yeoman in the Coast Guard, $1,783.80; as chief yeoman in the Navy, he would have received $2,270.12, a difference of $486.32.
The finding of the court was that he was entitled to recover the sum of $486.32 more than that which he did receive, and it awarded him judgment for that amount, rejecting the contention of the government that:
The finding and judgment of the court are in accordance with a table of grades and ratings submitted by the Commandant of the Coast Guard, pursuant to section 15 of the Act of May 22, 1917, above referred to. To this table of ratings, and the action of the Commandant, the United States opposes the order of the Secretary of the Navy, No. 329, and maintains that it was the duty of the latter, under the Act of May 22, 1917, in order to standardize the pay of the Coast Guard and Navy, to determine what were the corresponding grades or ratings. 'That preliminary question was required to be settled before any pay could be fixed or allowed.' And further:
To these contentions the court gave attentive and elaborate consideration, and determined that they were contrary [261 U.S. 317, 320] to the purpose of the Act of May 22, 1917, fixing the pay of petty officers and enlisted men during the continuance of the war with Germany so that they should receive the same pay prescribed for corresponding grades and ratings in the Navy. It held that the test of correspondence or equality was the duties and responsibilities of yeomen in the Coast Guard and yeomen in the Navy. In other words, it was the judgment of the court, that as the duties and qualifications of the officers were of duties is a question of fact, not a matter of deference to the judgment of of duties is a question of fact, the Secretary of the Navy.
The court said:
The conclusion was that the purpose of the act was 'to establish uniformity in the pay of like officers in the Coast Guard and Navy,' and that it could not be defeated by an administrative order of the Secretary of the Navy. Hence, the further conclusion was that Allen was entitled to recover the sum of $486.32, and it was so ordered.
We concur, and affirm the judgment.