United States v. Morrow

• Decision Date: 05 January 1925
• Docket Number: No. 98,98
• Citation: 69 L.Ed. 425,45 S.Ct. 173,266 U.S. 531
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. MORROW
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

266 U.S. 531

45 S.Ct. 173

69 L.Ed. 425

UNITED STATES

v MORROW.

No. 98.

Argued Oct. 21, 1924.

Decided Jan. 5, 1925.

The Attorney General and Mr. Merrill E. Otis, of St. Joseph, Mo., for the United States.

Mr. George A. King, of Washington, D. C., for appellee.

Mr. Justice SANFORD delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case involves the construction of a proviso in the Army Appropriation Acts of 1914 and 1915, relating to an increase in the pay of clerks and messengers at headquarters of territorial departments. 38 Stat. 351, 355, c. 72; 38 Stat. 1062, 1067, c. 143.

This proviso follows a special appropriation made—in substantially identical language—in the two Acts. In the Act of 1915 this provision reads:

'Pay to Clerks, Messengers, and Laborers at Headquarters of the Several Territorial Departments, Territorial Districts, Tactical Divisions and Brigardes, Service Schools and Office of the Chief of Staff.

'One chief clerk, at the office of the Chief of Staff, $2,000 per annum. Fifteen clerks, at $1,800 each per annum. Fifteen clerks, at $1,600 each per annum. Thirty-eight clerks, at $1,400 each per annum. Seventy clerks, at $1,200 each per annum. Sixty-five clerks, at $1,000 each per annum. * * * Two messengers, at $840 each per annum. Fifty-nine messengers, at $720 each per annum. * * * One laborer, at $660 per annum. Two laborers, at $600 each per annum. One laborer, at $480 per annum. * * * In all, $312,320.

'Additional pay while on foreign service, $9,000.

'Provided, That on and after July first, nineteen hundred and fourteen, the pay of clerks and messengers at headquarters of territorial departments, tactical divisions, brigades, and service schools, who are citizens of the United States, shall be increased $200 each per annum while serving in the Philippine Islands, such service to be computed from the date of departure from the continental limits of the United States to the date of return. * * *

'And said clerks, messengers, and laborers shall be employed and assigned by the Secretary of War to the offices and positions in which they are to serve. * * *'

By a separate provision in the Act a lump sum appropriation of $1,833,127 was made for incidental expenses of the quartermaster corps, including the 'hire of laborers' and 'compensation of clerks and other employees to the officers' (page 363.)¹

Morrow, a citizen of the United States, went to the Philippine Islands in 1899. From May 15, 1914, to January 17, 1917, he served as chief clerk of the depot quartermaster's office, at the headquarters of the Philippine Department of the Army, in Manila. He received a salary of $2,000 a year, which was fixed by the War Department and paid out of the lump sum appropriations for the quartermaster corps. Later he submitted to the Auditor a claim for additional pay at the rate of $200 a year for the period of his service after July 1, 1914, under the proviso in the acts increasing the pay of clerks and messengers at headquarters of territorial departments while serving in the Philippine Islands. This was allowed and paid; but was thereafter charged against him as having been erroneously paid, and deducted from the pay then accruing to him as a captain in the quartermaster's corps. Thereupon he brought this action to recover the amount claimed, and was awarded judgment. 58 Ct. Cl. 20.

It is conceded that Morrow was a clerk in the quartermaster corps, and not one of the headquarters² clerks included within the first paragraph of the appropriation.

The contention of the United States³ is that the proviso applied only to the headquarters clerks and messengers employed at the statutory salaries fixed by the appropriation, and did not include clerks in the quartermaster corps employed at salaries fixed by the War Department; that is, that it merely increased the statutory salaries of the clerks and messengers provided for by the specific appropriation when they should serve in the Philippine Islands.

This we think is its plain meaning. The general office of a proviso is to except something from the enacting clause, or to qualify and restrain its generality and prevent misinterpretation. Minis v. United States, 15 Pet. 423, 445, 10 L. Ed. 791; Georgia Banking Co. v. Smith, 128 U. S. 174, 181, 9 S. Ct. 47, 32 L. Ed. 377; White v. United States, 191 U. S. 545, 551, 24 S. Ct. 171, 48 L. Ed. 295; Cox v. Hart, 260 U. S. 427, 435, 43 S. Ct. 154, 67 L. Ed. 332. Its grammatical and logical scope is confined to the subject-matter of the principal clause. United States v. Whitridge, 197 U. S. 135, 143, 25 S. Ct. 406, 49 L. Ed. 696. And although sometimes used to introduce independent legislation, the presumption is that, in accordance with its primary purpose, it refers only to the provision to which it is attached. United States v. Falk, 204 U. S. 143, 149, 27 S. Ct. 191, 51 L. Ed. 411. Here it clearly appears that the proviso was employed in its primary sense. The entire context shows that it was...