United States v. Dickerson, No. 705

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMURPHY
Citation310 U.S. 554,84 L.Ed. 1356,60 S.Ct. 1034
PartiesUNITED STATES v. DICKERSON
Docket NumberNo. 705
Decision Date27 May 1940

310 U.S. 554
60 S.Ct. 1034
84 L.Ed. 1356
UNITED STATES

v.

DICKERSON.

No. 705.
Argued April 26, 1940.
Decided May 27, 1940.

Messrs. Robert H. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Francis M. Shea, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Mr. Herman J. Galloway, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice MURPHY delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question is whether respondent, Dickerson, may recover a judgment against the United States upon a cause of action founded upon Section 9 of the Act of June 10, 1922, c. 212, 42 Stat. 625, 629, 630, 10 U.S.C.A. § 633.

Section 9 provides that after the 1st of July, 1922, an enlistment allowance shall be paid 'to every honorably

Page 555

discharged enlisted man * * * who reenlists within a period of three months from the date of his discharge'. Respondent, who was honorably discharged upon the termination of an enlisted period ending on the 21st of July, 1938, reenlisted on the following day, the 22nd, for a period of three years, but was not paid an enlistment allowance. He thereupon brought this action in the Court of Claims. It is conceded that Section 9, if not repealed or suspended at the date of his reenlistment, would entitle him to the sum of seventy-five dollars.

The Government opposed the action before the Court of Claims on the ground that Section 402 of Public Resolution No. 122, June 21, 1938, c. 554, 52 Stat. 809, 818, 819, suspended the allowance for reenlistment during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1939. Section 402 contains a proviso, appended to an appropriation for the Rural Electrification Administration, that 'no part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1939, shall be available for the payment' of any enlistment allowance for 'reenlistments made during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1939, notwithstanding the applicable portions of sections 9 and 10' of the Act of June 10, 1922.

The Court of Claims entered judgment for respondent on the ground that Section 402, while it restricted the funds available for payment of the allowance, did not suspend or repeal Section 9. Because of the importance of the issue in the administration of the revenues, we granted certiorari. March 25, 1940, 309 U.S. 647, 60 S.Ct. 713, 84 L.Ed. —-.

There can be no doubt that Congress could suspend or repeal the authorization contained in Section 9; and it could accomplish its purpose by an amendment to an appropriation bill, or otherwise. United States v. Mitchell, 109 U.S. 146, 150, 3 S.Ct. 151, 153, 27 L.Ed. 887; Mathews v. United States, 123 U.S. 182, 8 S.Ct. 80, 31 L.Ed. 127; Dunwoody v. United States, 143 U.S. 578, 12 S.Ct. 465, 36 L.Ed. 269; Belknap

Page 556

v. United States, 150 U.S. 588, 593, 14 S.Ct. 183, 185, 37 L.Ed. 1191; United States v. Vulte, 233 U.S. 509, 513, 34 S.Ct. 664, 666, 58 L.Ed. 1071. See United States v. Langston, 118 U.S. 389, 6 S.Ct. 1185, 30 L.Ed. 164. The question remains whether it did so during the fiscal year ending on the 30th of June, 1939.

Section 9 remained in full force and effect during the eleven fiscal years ending on the 30th of June, 1923 to 1933, after which date it was suspended during the ensuing four fiscal years by a provision inserted in various appropriation acts. Section 18 of the Economy Act of March 3, 1933, c. 212, 47 Stat. 1489, 1519, 37 U.S.C.A. § 13 note, provided that: 'So much of sections 9 and 10 of the Act * * * approved June 10, 1922 * * * as provides for the payment of enlistment allowance to enlisted men for reenlistment within a period of three months from date of discharge is hereby suspended as to reenlistments made during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934.' This provision, which concededly suspended the authorization for the enlistment allowance, was continued in full force and effect for the fiscal years ending on the 30th of June, 1935, 1936 and 1937, by its insertion in the Economy Provisions of the Independent Office Appropriation Act for the fiscal year 1935 and in the Treasury-Post Office Appropriation Acts for the fiscal years 1936 and 1937.1

The Second Deficiency Appropriation Bill of May 28, 1937, c. 277, 50 Stat. 213, 232, also contained a provision affecting the enlistment allowance, but the form of words used was changed. That Act as passed by Congress provided that 'no part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1938, shall be available for the payment of enlistment allowance to enlisted men for reenlistment within a period of three months from date of discharge as to reenlistments

Page 557

made during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1938, notwithstanding the applicable provisions of sections 9 and 10 of the Act' approved June 10, 1922. The identical provision, with the exception of the dates, was appended as a proviso to Section 402 of Public Resolution 122, copied above, and was made applicable during the fiscal year ending on the 30th of June, 1939.

The provision inserted in the Second Deficiency Appropriation Bill for 1937 was introduced on the floor of the Senate as an amendment by Senator Byrnes. In response to questions concerning the amendment, the Senator stated (81 Cong.Rec. 4426): '* * * the language of the amendment has been carried ordinarily in the Treasury and Post Office Appropriation Bill, but was not carried in that appropriation bill this year, and is therefore proposed to be included in the bill now before us. * * * The effect of it is simply to carry the same limitation that has been carried for years in the appropriation bills. * * * Its purpose is to continue the appropriation situation that has existed for years, so that no bounty shall be paid for reenlistment in the military and other uniformed services.' The amendment was thereupon adopted in the Senate without recorded opposition, and was sent to conference. The House managers, in reporting the amendment to the House, described it as 'Continuing during the fiscal year 1938 the suspension of the reenlistment gratuity for enlisted personnel of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard.' 81 Cong.Rec. 5084. The course of the debate amply discloses that the House regarded the amendment as continuing during the fiscal year 1938 the same restriction on the enlistment allowance as the pro-

Page 558

vision inserted in earlier appropriation bills.2 It was then adopted by the House. 81 Cong.Rec. 5091.

The identical provision (except as to the dates), eventually appended to Section 402 of Public Resolution 122,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
196 practice notes
  • Association of Westinghouse Salaried Employees v. Westinghouse Electric Corp, No. 51
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 28, 1955
    ...prevailed. See Boston Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 278 U.S. 41, 48, 49 S.Ct. 52, 53, 54, 73 L.Ed. 170; United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 561, 60 S.Ct. 1034, 1038, 84 L.Ed. 1356. And so we proceed to an examination of the legislative history to see whether that raises such dou......
  • Adams v. United States, No. 16-1378C
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • January 18, 2019
    ...738 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 221-22 (1980) (quoting United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 555 (1940)). The Federal Circuit has also recognized that whether an appropriations bill impliedly suspends or repeals substantive law "'de......
  • Sierra Club v. Morton, No. C-71-500-CBR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • July 28, 1975
    ...explicit both on the face of the acts in question and in the accompanying legislative history. Similarly, in United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 555, 60 S.Ct. 1034, 84 L.Ed. 1356 (1940), the Court held that Congress could suspend certain provisions of a prior act (military re-enlistme......
  • U.S. v. Reid, Nos. 771
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • April 24, 1975
    ...which aid can be derived. United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch (6 U.S.) 358, 386, 2 L.Ed. 304 (1805). See also United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 561-62, 60 S.Ct. 1034, 84 L.Ed. 1356 (1940). Whatever is the appropriate weight to be given to the remarks of Representative Dobbins, see Uni......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
196 cases
  • Association of Westinghouse Salaried Employees v. Westinghouse Electric Corp, No. 51
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 28, 1955
    ...prevailed. See Boston Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 278 U.S. 41, 48, 49 S.Ct. 52, 53, 54, 73 L.Ed. 170; United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 561, 60 S.Ct. 1034, 1038, 84 L.Ed. 1356. And so we proceed to an examination of the legislative history to see whether that raises such dou......
  • Adams v. United States, No. 16-1378C
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • January 18, 2019
    ...738 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted); see also United States v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 221-22 (1980) (quoting United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 555 (1940)). The Federal Circuit has also recognized that whether an appropriations bill impliedly suspends or repeals substantive law "'de......
  • Sierra Club v. Morton, No. C-71-500-CBR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • July 28, 1975
    ...explicit both on the face of the acts in question and in the accompanying legislative history. Similarly, in United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 555, 60 S.Ct. 1034, 84 L.Ed. 1356 (1940), the Court held that Congress could suspend certain provisions of a prior act (military re-enlistme......
  • U.S. v. Reid, Nos. 771
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • April 24, 1975
    ...which aid can be derived. United States v. Fisher, 2 Cranch (6 U.S.) 358, 386, 2 L.Ed. 304 (1805). See also United States v. Dickerson, 310 U.S. 554, 561-62, 60 S.Ct. 1034, 84 L.Ed. 1356 (1940). Whatever is the appropriate weight to be given to the remarks of Representative Dobbins, see Uni......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT