Winslow Hart Reaves v. Frederick Ainsworth
| Decision Date | 09 January 1911 |
| Docket Number | No. 14,14 |
| Citation | 55 L.Ed. 225,31 S.Ct. 230,219 U.S. 296 |
| Parties | WINSLOW HART REAVES, Second Lieutenant, Artillery Corps, U. S. Army, Plff. in Err., v. FREDERICK C. AINSWORTH, Major General, Military Secretary, U. S. Army, and William H. Taft, Secretary of War |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Alexander S. Bacon for plaintiff in error.
Assistant Attorney General Harr for defendants in error.
Plaintiff in error filed a petition in the supreme court of the District of Columbia for a writ of certiorari to review the proceedings of a board of examination convened under the authority of the act of Congress of October 1, 1890, entitled, 'An Act to Provide for the Examination of Certain Officers of the Army, and to regulate Promotions Therein' (26 Stat. at L. 562, chap. 1241, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 849), and to annual an order made by the President, discharging plaintiff in error from the Army.
The basis of the petition is that, by a prior decision of the board, he became entitled, by virtue of the act of Congress, to be retired with three quarters pay for life.
A writ was issued, directed to General Frederick C. Ainsworth, Military Secretary.
He appeared and moved to quash the writ. The motion was granted and the petition dismissed. The order, however, was subsequently vacated, and, by leave of the court, the petition was amended by making William H. Taft, Secretary of War, one of the respondents.
An amended writ was issued, which the respondents moved to supersede upon the following grounds: The writ was granted improvidently, and upon an ex parte application; its allowance would be unjust and contrary to public policy; the petition does not set up any right of property, title, or interest in the alleged office; Congress has intrusted to the board of examination the decision of matters properly arising before it, and the court has no jurisdiction by certiorari to examine the proceedings of the board; the allowance of the writ would embarrass the operations of the military service of the United States and the proper administration of the manifold duties of the War Department, hindering the enforcement of its discipline and regulations, and the discharge of the legally ordained functions of that branch of the government; the record sought to be reviewed shows that the petitioner (plaintiff in error) 'is not entitled to the issuance of the writ, as it appears by a duly certified and true extract from said record.' The record was filed with the motion and will be given hereafter.
The motion to supersede was granted, the order reciting, 'it appearing to the court, without considering the question of discretion, that the writ of certiorari' had been 'improperly granted.' The petition was dismissed at the cost of the petitioner, which ruling was affirmed by the court of appeals.
The court of appeals expressed the opinion that the board of examination was military in character, and having had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the person, the courts were without jurisdiction to review its decision.
By § 3 of the act of October 1, 1890, the President is authorized to prescribe a system of examination for all officers below the rank of major, to determine their fitness for promotion, and it is provided 'that if any officer fails to pass a satisfactory examination and is reported unfit for promotion, the officer next below him in rank, having passed said examination, shall receive the promotion: And provided, That should the officer fail in his physical examination, and be found incapacitated for service by reason of physical disability contracted in line of duty, he shall be retired with the rank to which his seniority entitled him to be promoted; but if he should fail for any other reason, he shall be suspended from promotion for one year, when he shall be re-examined, and in case of failure of such re-examination he shall be honorably discharged with one year's pay from the Army; . . . and no act . . . shall be so construed as to limit or restrict the retirement of officers as herein provided for.'
This statute constitutes the law of the case. The material facts are these: Plaintiff in error was a second lieutenant of artillery on sick leave at Fort Hamilton on account of neurasthenia, resulting from overwork in the Philippine Islands. On August 16, 1904, he was ordered for promotion before a board of examination, constituted of five members, two of whom were surgeons. The surgeons found him physically fit for duty, but he was, on their recommendation, allowed to return to Fort Hamilton. On October 5, 1904, while still on sick leave, he was again ordered to Fort Monroe before the same board and forced to take a mental examination. He broke down completely and was found deficient. On May 22, 1905, he was again ordered before the board for re-examination, and appeared before it on the 23d. On the 24th the board made the following order, which was referred to above in connection with the motion to supersede the writ:
'His disability is due to severe cerebral and cardio-vascular neurasthenia, contracted in line of duty.'
Subsequently he was ordered to appear before the same examining board, convened by special order of the President, but changed as to a majority of its members. The board convened at Fort Monroe August 21, 1905, and he appeared before it pursuant to orders. He was found physically fit for duty. He failed, however, in his mental examination, and, we may assume, although it is not directly averred, that in consequence of the report of the board, the President made the order above set out, honorably discharging the plaintiff in error from the service of the United States. This order he attacks, and urges that of the 24th of May as the foundation of his rights and contentions. He maintains that the surgeons having reported as therein set out, and their report having been confirmed by a full board of five officers, and forwarded to the Secretary of War, it, under the express wording of the statute of October 1, 1890, had the finality of an acquittal of a court-martial, 'and that, by the operation of the statute,' plaintiff in error 'was thereupon retired and entitled to retired pay during life, instead of being dismissed from the service with one year's pay,' and that, as such right became absolute by the report of the surgeons and the action of the board thereon, the subsequent proceedings of the board were without jurisdiction and void, and that they and the President's order deprived him of his property without due process of law.
Plaintiff in error misunderstands the order of May 24. It is not a final order, but a provisional one. It was an indulgence to the afflicted officer, giving him a chance for recovery and promotion and assignment to the active list of his profession. And we have no doubt of the power of the board to make it and reserve jurisdiction for further proceedings.
It is next contended that, even if the board had jurisdiction, its proceedings subsequent to the order of May 24, 1905, were arbitrary and illegal, and that the relief prayed does not involve the 'question of interference with the discretion of the board; it is a question of the jurisdiction of the board and of the fact that discretion, if exercised, was abused.' On this contention, the averments of the petition have a more pertinent bearing than on the first contention. The petition described with much detail and quite vividly his disability. He alleges that for the last two years he has been suffering from an extremely acute case of cerebral neurasthenia, or nervous exhaustion, for which he has been almost continuously under the care of physicians, some of whom are the most famous in the world as specialists for nervous diseases. And, further, that he is to-day in as bad a condition as at any time during the last two years, and is wholly unable to exercise mental effort; his memory is at times a blank, and it is, and for two years has been, utterly impossible for him 'to study, read, or think consecutively, except for a few moments at a time, and 'his' sleep has not averaged more than about two and one-half hours per day.' This was his condition, it is alleged, when ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Webster v. Doe
...196 (1943); United States v. George S. Bush & Co., 310 U.S. 371, 379-380, 60 S.Ct. 944, 946-947, 84 L.Ed. 1259 (1940); Reaves v. Ainsworth, 219 U.S. 296, 306 (1911); Confiscation Cases, 7 Wall. 454, 457-459, 19 L.Ed. 196 (1869); Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19, 29-30 (1827). Only if all that "......
-
Burns v. Lovett
...Hiatt, 5 Cir., 1949, 174 F.2d 645, certiorari denied, 1949, 338 U.S. 874, 70 S.Ct. 135, 94 L.Ed. 536. 29 Reaves v. Ainsworth, 1911, 219 U.S. 296, 304, 31 S.Ct. 230, 55 L.Ed. 225, 228. See also United States ex rel. French v. Weeks, 1922, 259 U.S. 326, 335, 42 S.Ct. 505, 66 L.Ed. 965; United......
-
Crawford v. Cushman
...we commence with the premise that one does not have a constitutional right to remain in the armed services. Reeves v. Ainsworth,219 U.S. 296, 31 S.Ct. 230, 55 L.Ed. 225 (1911); Schustack v. Herren, 234 F.2d 134, 135 (2d Cir. 1956). But the Marine Corps, instead of taking an individualized a......
-
Cortright v. Resor
...66 L.Ed. 973 (1922); United States ex rel. French v. Weeks, 259 U.S. 326, 42 S.Ct. 505, 66 L.Ed. 965 (1922); Reaves v. Ainsworth, 219 U.S. 269, 31 S.Ct. 230, 55 L.Ed. 225 (1911); Arnheiter v. Chafee, 435 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1970); United States ex rel. Schonbrun v. Commanding Officer, 403 F.......
-
Naturalizing through military service: who decides?
...administration of the Army. 37 32. U.S. CONST. art 2, § 2, cl. 1. 33. U.S. CONST. art 1, § 8, cl. 12–14. 34. Reaves v. Ainsworth, 219 U.S. 296 (1911). See also Colonel Darrell L. Peck, The Justices and the Generals: The Supreme Court and Judicial Review of Military Activities , 70 MIL. L. R......
-
Maybe soldiers have rights after all!(Supreme Court Review)
...rules for the regulation of the armed forces is "not subject to revision by the independent judgment of the Court."); Reaves v. Ainsworth, 219 U.S. 296, 298, 306 (1911) (The discharge board "was military in character and having had jurisdiction of the subject-matter and of the person the ci......
-
A Hard Look at the Military Magistrate Pretrial Confinement Hearing: Gerstein and Courtney Revisited
...s to ieview the results of cows-martial. Nomeviewsbihry of mihtary administrative aetivifm B-BQ first established ~n Reaves V. Ainsworth, 219 U S. 296 (1911). An Army heufenant, discharged Ram the service by B board which met in secret, was denied due pmeerr relief by the Supreme Court. The......