Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Page.

27 Comp. Dec, 987 481

27 Comp. Dec., 1010 160

27 Comp. Dec., 1017 258,642

27 Comp. Dec., 1036 368

27 Comp. Dec., 1063 716

27 Comp. Dec., 1068 356

Page.

27 Comp. Dec., 1072 243

27 Comp. Dec., 1073 247

27 Comp. Dec., 1074 514

27 Comp. Dec., 1078 259,267

27 Comp. Dec., 1084 106

SECOND COMPTROLLER'S DECISIONS.

Page.

1 Digest, sec. 331 3 3 Digest, sees. 341-344

I Digest, sees. 1370-1379 215

[blocks in formation]

Page.

Acherllnd t>. United States, 240 U. S., 531.... 191

Alexander v. Alexander, 5 Cranch, 1,7-8 374

Astoria Marine Iron Works ». Fleet Corporation, 270 Fed. Rep., 635 279

Bank ». Daniel, 12 Peters, 32 192

Bannister v. Soldiers' Bonus Board, 112

Atlantic Reporter, 422 379

Barry v. United States, 229 U. S., 47 606

Behr v. Hurwiti, 105 A., 4S6 627

Beley v. Naphtaly, 73 Fed. Rep., 120 548

Bigby ». United States, 188 U. S., 400 179

Blake t>. United States, 103 U. S., 227 49

Bourne v. Maybin, 3 Fed. Cas., No. 1700 204

Brawley v. United States, 96 U. S., 168,171.. 150

Brewer t>. Blougher, 14 Pet., 178 374

Bristow v. United States, 47 Ct. Cls., 46 417

Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's

Palace Car Co., 139 U. S., 24 769

Chase v. United States, 155 U. S., 489 12

Cramp ». United States, 239 U. S., 221 191

Cramp & Sons Co. ». United States, 216 U. S.,

494 351,484

Clark f. United States, 95 U. S., 539 36

Du Bosec. United States, 19 Ct. Cls., 514.... 717

Edwards c. Davis, 16 Johns, 281 204

Elliott Machine Co. t>. United States, 44

Ct. Cls., 127 191

Bmbry v. United States, 100 U. S., 685 539

Fisher v. City Dairy Co., 113 Atl. Rep., 95... 615

Fonder Co. v. United States, 48 Ct. Cls., 198. 332

Page.

Galm ». United States, 39 Ct. Cls., 67 72o

Geddes v. United States, 38 Ct. Cls., 428 219

Gearing v. United States, 48 Ct. Cls., 187 308

Giacchettl t>. United States, 39 Ct. Cls., 381.. 317

Gibbons v. United States, 8 Wall., 2C9 179

Glavey v. United States, 182 U. S., 595 220

Greer v. United States, 3 Ct. Cls., 182 48

Grimley, In re, 137 U. S., 147 611

Hamblin v. Bishop, 41 Fed. Rep., 45 192

Hart v. United States, 95 U. S., 316 36,179

Hayden v. United States, 38 Ct. Cls., 39 219

Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat., 1 258

Hutchins v. United States, 27 Ct. Cls., 137... 718

Hutchins v. United States, 151 U. 8., 542 718

Houston East & West Texas Railway Co. ».

United States, 234 U. S., 342 46

Howe v. Howe and Owen B. B. Co., 154 Fed.

Rep., 820 696

Humphreys v. United States, 38 Ct. Cls., 6S9,

692 39,514

Irwin ». United States, 38 Ct. Cls., 88 816

Jaegle r. United States, 28 Ct. Cls., 133 770

Johnson v. Maryland, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep., 16... 161

Kauflman t>. Reader, 108 Fed. Rep., 171 698

Kelley v. Multonomah County, 18 Oreg., 356. 769

Kilmer v. United States, 48 Ct. Cls., 193 323

Knerr v. Bradley, 105 Pa. St., 190 627

Lellman v. United States, 37 Ct. Cls., 128 43

Louisville & Nashville Railroad Co. t>. United

States (U. 8. Supreme Ct., Apr. 15, 1922).. 658

015

......

[ocr errors]

12

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Page.

Page. L. & N. R. R. Co. 0. United States, 46 Ct.

The Baltimore, 8 Wall., 377..... Cls., 268...............

............ 322

Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. United States, Luskey's case (Ct. Cls., Nov. 7, 1921)........

52 Ct. Cls., 226........... McCullen v. McCullen, 147 N. Y.S., 10 9..... €20 United States v. Allred, 155 U. S., 591........ 712 McCullough o. Maryland, 17 U. S., 316..... 151, 229 United States v. Andrews, 240 U. S., 90...... 221 McCollum v. United States, 17 Ct. Cls., 92. ... United States v. Ansonia Brass & Copper Co., McKee v. United States, 164 U. 8., 287, 293... 374 218 U. S., 452...........

146 Merchants Exchange Co. v. United States, United States v. Babbitt, 1 Black, 55........ 374 i Ct. Cls., 132.............

United States v. Bank of Metropolis, 15 Peters, Montgomery 1. United States, 19 Ct. Cls., 370

401 ........................................ Morrisey, In re, 137 U.S., 157.... 511 United States v. Brindle, 110 U.S., 688......

219 Neil o. Johnson, 65 L. R. A., 245........... 204 United States 0. Cerecedo Hermanos y Cia., New Orleans u. Paine, 147 U.S., 266........ 548 209 U. S., 337............

115 Noble v. Union River Logging Railroad Co.

United States v. Converse, 21 Howard, 463... 219 147 U. S., 165

548 United States v. Dempsey, 104 Fed. Rep., 197. 316 Norrington v. Wright, 115 U. S., 188........ 150 United States v. Finnell, 185 U. S., 236, 244.. Norton o. Shelby County, 118 U.S., 425.....

United States v. Germaine, 99 U. S., 508..... Oscar Barnett Foundry Co.v. Crowe, 219 Fed. United States v. Harsha, 172 U. S., 567 ....... Rep., 450.....

696 United States v. Hartwell, 6 Wall., 385....... Pembroke Iron Co. o. Parsons, 71 Mass. (5 United States v. Hosmer, 9 Wallace, 432.....

Gray), 589................................. 150 United States v. Landers, 92 U. S., 77, 79... 21, 525
Perrimond v. United States, 19 Ct. Cls., 509.. 720 United States v. Mason, 218 U.S., 517.......
Petri o. Commercial National Bank, 142 U.S., United States v. Mitchell, 205 U.S., 161..... 39,514
644.....

374 United States v. Moust, 124 U. S., 307....... 183 Platt o. Union Pacific R. R., 99 U.S., 48, 64..

719

United States o. Murray, 100 U. S., 536...... 42 Pollard v. Bailey, 20 Wall., 520............... 374 United States v. Phisterer, 94 U. S., 219...... 364 Pollard v. Saltonstall, 56 Fed. Rep., 861...... 150 United States v. Saunders, 120 U.S., 126, 129. 374 Reed, ex parte, 100 U. S., 22................. 105 United States v. Smith, 124 U.S., 525... 183 Preston v. United States, 37 Ct. Cls., 39..... 649 United States v. Smith, 158 U, S., 350...... 182, 719 Reed Smoot o. United States, 38 Ct. Cls., 418. United States v. Smith, 197 U. S., 386, 393... 719 Reiche o. Smythe, 13 Wall., 162.............. United States v. Stone, 2 Wall., 525, 537...... 548 Rib River Lumber Co. v. Ogilvie, 113 Wis., United States v. Sweet, 189 U. S., 471....... 17, 363 482...........

United States v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., Robertson o. Bradbury, 132 U. S., 493...... 199 249 U.S., 354........ ............ 234, 243, 288 Robinson o. Noble, 8 Peters, 181, 196........ 150 | Upton v. Tribilcock, 91 U. S., 45............. 192 Ruggles v. United States, 45 Ct. Cls., 86, 88.. 43 Van Brocklin v. State of Tennessee, 117 U.S., Rutherford v. United States, 18 Ct. Cls., 339.. 692 151........................................ Shuenfeldt v. Junkermann, 20 Fed. Rep., 357. 43 Wade v. So. Penn. Oil Co., 45 W. Va., 380... Sloan Shipyards Corporation v. Fleet Corpora

Wertz v. United States, 40 Ct. Cls., 357....... tion, 268 Fed. Rep., 624; 272 Fed. Rep., 132.

White v. Fitler, 2 Pa. Law J., 302............ Smith's case, 26 Ct. Cls., 568................. 720 Williams v. United States, 47 Ct. Cls., 186, 188. Smith v. Gibson, 25 Nebr., 511............... 627 Wisconsin Railroad Co. v. Price Co., 133 U.S., Southern Bridge Co. v. Fleet Corporation, 266

504........................................ Fed. Rep., 747........

279 Wood v. United States, 224 U.S., 132........ Stillings v. United States, 41 Ct. Cls., 61...... 42 Works Lelman v. United States, 37 Ct. Cls., Texas & Pacific Railway v. United States, 234

128.............. U.S., 342.........

46 | Yates v. United States, 25 Ct. Cls., 296....... 7920°-22—Vol. 1- 2

.....

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

:

DECISIONS

OF THE

COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES.

ENLISTMENT ALLOWANCE—ARMY, ENLISTED MEN.

The provision in the act of June 30, 1921, 42 Stat., 74, repealing the provision in the act of June 4, 1920, 41 Stat., 775, authorizing payment of an enlistment allowance of $90 to enlisted men of the Army who enlist or reenllst for a period of three years, is operative only with respect to men who enlist or reenllst on or after June 30, 1921, and does not preclude payment of the enlistment allowance to men lawfully enlisted or reenlisted in the period from June 4, 1920, to June 29, 1921, inclusive, for a term of three years and who have been or hereafter will be honorably discharged and have not yet been paid such allowance.

Comptroller General McCarl to the Secretary of War, July 5, 1921:

I have your letter of June 28,1921, worded, in part, as follows:

The Army Appropriation Bill for the fiscal year 1922 as passed by Congress contains a provision reading:

"The provisions of Section 27 of the Army Reorganization Act, approved June 4, 1920, providing an enlistment allowance, are hereby repealed."

Your decision is requested whether the foregoing provision in the Army Appropriation Bill will preclude payment of the enlistment allowance to men who may have enlisted or reenlisted prior to the date when the provision may become a law and who have not yet been paid the enlistment allowance, or whether it operates only with respect to men who may enlist or reenllst on or after the date on which the provision may become a law.

I would thank you for an early decision in this case so that instructions may be sent to disbursing officers of the Army.

The provision quoted became a law on June 30, 1921, 42 Stat., 74.

In section 27 of the Army reorganization act of June 4, 1920, 41

Stat., 775, are the following provisions:

Hereafter original enlistments in the Regular Army shall be for a period of one or three years at the option of the soldier, and reenlistments shall be for a period of three years. Existing laws providing for the payment of three months' pay to certain soldiers upon reenlistment are hereby repealed, and hereafter an enlistment allowance equal to three times the monthly pay of a soldier of the seventh grade shall be paid to every soldier who enlists or reenllsts for a period of three years, payment of the enlistment allowance for original enlistment to be deferred until honorable discharge.

This statute repealed the provisions in the act of May 11, 1908, 35 Stat., 110, authorizing payment of three months' pay to certain soldiers upon reenlistment, but it did not disturb the rights of such soldiers whose reenlistment dated prior to June 4, 1920.

This statute of June 4, 1920, provided for the payment of an enlistment allowance of $90, being three times the monthly pay of »

l

i

soldier of the seventh grade, to every soldier who thereafter enlisted or reenlisted for a period of three years, payment of the enlistment allowance for original enlistment to be deferred until honorable discharge. The only conditions named in the law for the payment of such allowance in the case of an original enlistment are an enlistment for a period of three years and an honorable discharge. The words "honorable discharge" are not limited or modified by any other word. If the enlistment was lawfully made, payment of the allowance is authorized when the enlisted man is honorably discharged regardless of the length of the period he actually served. For the legal requirements as to enlistments see 27 Comp. Dec, 626.

This view of the law accords with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of United States v. Hosmer, 9 Wallace, 432. Hosmer was enlisted on July 15, 1861, for a period of three years under the President's proclamation of May 3, 1861, 12 Stat., 1260, and War Department General Orders, No. 15, of May 4, 1861, legalized by section 3 of the act of August 6, 1861, 12 Stat., 326, and was honorably discharged January 5, 1863. Said legalized order No. 15 provided that the men enlisted in the volunteer force under that plan for a period of three years and honorably discharged should be paid, in addition to their pay, travel allowances, etc., " the sum of one hundred dollars." The Supreme Court decided (quoting _yllabus) that the enlisted man " is entitled to the bounty whenever honorably discharged; though he may have served less than six months."

The Army appropriation act of June 30, 1921, 42 Stat., 74, provides:

The Secretary of War shall discharge from the military service with pay and with the form of discharge certificate to which the service of each, after enlistment, shall entitle him, all enlisted men under the age of eighteen on the application of either of their parents or legal guardian, and shall also furnish to each transportation in kind from the place of discharge to the railroad station at or nearest to the place of acceptance for enlistment, or to his home if the distance thereto is no greater than from the place of discharge to the place of acceptance for enlistment, but if the distance be greater he may be furnished with transportation in kind for a distance equal to that from place of discharge to place of acceptance for enlistment; and the Secretary of War is directed under such reasonable regulations as he may prescribe to grant applications for discharge of enlisted men serving in the continental United States without regard to the provisions of existing law respecting discharges until the number in the Army has been reduced to 150,000 enlisted men, not including the Philippine Scouts. The provisions of this paragraph shall take effect Immediately upon the approval of this Act.

The provisions of section 27 of the Army Reorganization Act, approved Junu 4, 1920, providing an enlistment allowance, are hereby repealed.

• ••••••

That the Army shall be reduced by the Secretary of War so that the sum herein appropriated shall defray the entire cost of the pay of the officers and enlisted men of the line and staff during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1922.

The form of enlistment contract, which is duly sworn to and signed

by each recruit on enlistment, is found in paragraph 855, Army

« ForrigeFortsett »