United States v. Mouat

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation8 S.Ct. 505,124 U.S. 303,23 Ct.Cl. 490,31 L.Ed. 463
PartiesUNITED STATES v. MOUAT
Decision Date23 January 1888

[Statement of Case from pages 303-305 intentionally omitted] Atty. Gen. Garland, Asst. Atty. Gen. Howard, and F. P. Dewees, for appellant.

Linden Kent, for appellee.

MILLER, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the court of claims, in favor of David Mouat, for the sum of $83.28. The question arises as to the compensation to be paid to Mouat for traveling expenses while acting as a pay-master's clerk. The act of congress of June 16, 1874, making appropriations for the support of the army for the next fiscal year, has appended to the clause providing for the transportation of officers and baggage, and for their traveling expenses, the following: 'Provided, that only actual traveling expenses shall be allowed to any person holding employment or appointment under the United States, and all allowances for mileages and transportation in excess of the amount actually paid are hereby declared illegal; and no credit shall be allowed to any of the disbursing officers of the United States for payment or allowances in violation of this provision.' 18 U. S. St. at Large, 72. This proviso in its terms is applicable to every person holding employment or appointment under the United States, and seems to be one of those frequent cases in which congress in a general appropriation bill has intentionally enacted some law reaching far beyond the grneral scope of the bill itself. Its obvious purpose was to abolish all payments for traveling expenses in which a specific allowance per mile was made by law, and to establish the more equitable principle of paying the actual expenses of persons traveling in the service of the government. And it is to be observed that the universality of this principle is secured by the use of the two words 'employment or appointment' in reference to persons serving under the government of the United States. Two years later, when congress was making appropriations for the naval service by the act of June 30, 1876, the attention of that body seemed to be directed to the fact that it included officers of the navy, as well as all other officers of the government. That act contains the following provision: 'And so much of the act of June 16, 1874, making appropriations for the support of the army for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1875, and for other purposes, as provides that only actual traveling expenses shall be allowed to any person holding employment or appointment under the United States while engaged on public business, as is applicable to officers of the navy so engaged, is hereby repealed; and the sum of eight cents per mile shall be allowed such officers while so engaged, in lieu of their actual expenses.' 19 St. at Large, 65.

By this declaration congress did not repeal the whole of that statute. It did not even repeal it as applicable to the entire navy, but it selected a certain class of persons in the navy to whom it should no longer apply, and who should thereafter by relieved from keeping an account of their actual expenses while traveling for the government, and should be allowed eight cents per mile in lieu thereof. The class of persons thus relieved from the effect of the act of 1874 is designated as 'officers of the navy.' No other person holding an employment or appointment under the United States,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
108 cases
  • Melcher v. Federal Open Market Committee, Civ. A. No. 84-1335.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • September 25, 1986
    ...Constitution. United States v. Smith, 124 U.S. 525, 532, 8 S.Ct. 595, 597, 31 L.Ed. 534 (1888) (relying on United States v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303, 8 S.Ct. 505, 31 L.Ed. 463 (1888), and United States v. Germaine, 9 Otto 508, 99 U.S. 508, 25 L.Ed. 482 (1878)). Upon a review of the governing sta......
  • Freytag v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1991
    ...... . Decided June 27, 1991. . Syllabus .           The chief judge of the United States Tax Court, an Article I court composed of 19 judges appointed by the President, is ...Mouat, 124 . Page 903 . U.S. 303, 307, 8 S.Ct. 505, 506, 31 L.Ed. 463 (1888) ("courts of justice") ......
  • US ex rel. Stillwell v. Hughes Helicopters, Inc., CV 87-1840-WDK.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Central District of California
    • June 1, 1989
    ...one of the ways enunciated in the clause, he is not, strictly speaking, an officer of the United States. United States v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303, 308, 8 S.Ct. 505, 507, 31 L.Ed. 463 (1888); United States v. Smith, 124 U.S. 525, 529-30, 8 S.Ct. 595, 596-97, 31 L.Ed. 534 Analytically, relators e......
  • Allison v. United States, 507-69.
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • October 15, 1971
    ...can obtain a government job. See United States v. Smith, 124 U. S. 525, 8 S.Ct. 595, 31 L.Ed. 534 (1888); United States v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303, 8 S.Ct. 505, 31 L.Ed. 463 (1888); and Thomason v. United States, 85 F.Supp. 742 (N.D.Cal.1948), aff'd, 184 F.2d 105 (9th Cir. 1950). Government emp......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Towards Nondelegation Doctrines.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 86 No. 4, September 2021
    • September 22, 2021
    ...subject to his superintendence.'") (quoting Federalist No. 72, p. 487 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton); United States v. Mouat, 124 U.S. 303, 307 (1888) ("Unless a person in the service of the government, therefore, holds his place by virtue of an appointment by the president, or of one of......

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