Smith v. Jackson

• Court: U.S. Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WHITE
• Citation: Smith v. Jackson, 246 U.S. 388, 38 S.Ct. 353, 62 L.Ed. 788 (1918)
• Decision Date: 15 April 1918
• Docket Number: No. 457,457
• Parties: SMITH, Auditor, v. JACKSON

246 U.S. 388

38 S.Ct. 353

62 L.Ed. 788

SMITH, Auditor,

v JACKSON.

No. 457.

Argued March 6 and 7, 1918.

Decided April 15, 1918.

Messrs. B. F. Harrah and Walter W. Warwick, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Joseph W. Bailey, of Washington, D. C., for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

Congress provided for a district court of the Canal Zone, the appointment of a judge, and the salary attached to the office. Act of August 24, 1912, c. 390, 37 Stat. 565, § 8 (Comp. St. 1916, § 10044). In due course the salary fixed was definitely appropriated for. It is apparent that some controversy arose as to whether the Auditor of the Canal Zone had the power to refuse to give effect to the act of Congress fixing and appropriating the salary by withholding such sum as he might think was due from the judge as rent for quarters in property belonging to the United States in the Canal Zone. We say this is to be inferred, because in 1915 the Secretary of War submitted to the Attorney General two questions: First, whether the district judge was entitled to the same privilege as to quarters in the Canal Zone there enjoyed by other employes of the government; and second, if not, whether the Auditor had authority to deduct from the salary of the judge before paying it the sum which he considered due for rent of such quarters. Reversing the order in which the questions were asked, the Attorney General came first to reply to the second question and said:

'* * * Without specific authority no portion of the salary of an officer of the United States may be withheld. See 20 Ops. 626 (1893); Benedict v. United States, 176 U. S. 357, 20 Sup. Ct. 458, 44 L. Ed. 503 (1900). * * *'

While it is apparent that this ruling should have put the subject at rest, obviously the misconception of the Auditor as to the nature of his powers prevented that result from being accomplished and the Auditor refused to carry out the act of Congress and deducted from the salary of the judge, fixed by Congress, not only a charge for rent of quarters, but a sum which he considered due because of the absence of the judge from the Canal Zone during a certain period. The judge thereupon commenced the proceeding which is before us to compel the Auditor to perform his plain duty under the law and pay the salary without the deductions. As the result of the action of the Auditor and the necessity for bringing the suit, the expense was...