
    GEORGE C. REID v. THE UNITED STATES.
    No. 12346
    May 28, 1883.
    Held :
    I.An officer in the Marine Corps, attached to a sea-going vessel, is not entitled to the ration allowed by Rev. Stat., 5 1578, to a naval officer so attached.
    II.Such an officer in the Marine Corps is, by Rev. Stat., section 1612, subjected to the provisions of Rev. Stat., section 1269.
    III. The various statutes prior to the Revised Statutes, regulating allowances of rations to officers of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps considered and examined.
    IV. The rule of Rev. Stat-., § 5600, forbidding inferences from the classification of a subject under a title in the Revised Statutes does not apply to its classification under a chapter in a title.
    V. Where the court has.no doubt that a judgment should be rendered for the United States, it will not render a-pro forma judgment for a claimant in order to afford a right of appeal In such cases the responsibility of rendering judgment and of deciding points of law for the guidance of the Departments is placed by statute in the Court of Claims.
    The following are the facts found by the court:
    I. The claimant, George O. Reid, from February 7, A. D. 1877, to and including the 12th day of November, A. D. 1879, was a first lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps.
    II. On the 6th day of February, 1877, the following order was issued:
    Headquarters Marine Corps,
    Commandant’s Oottce,
    
      Washington, D. C., February 6th, 1877.
    Sir: You'are hereby detached from Marine Barracks, Washington, D. C., and will proceed to the navy-yard, N. Y., and report to the commandant of that station oil or before the 12th instant, for duty on board the U. S. S. “Trenton,” now preparing for sea at that station.
    I am, sir, respectfully, yours,
    Aug. S. Nicholson,
    
      Major, U. S. M. Cr., Adj’t and Inspector.
    
    1st Lieut. Geo. C. Reid,
    
      V. S. Marines, Washington, D. G.
    
    Approved:
    Geo. M. Robeson, Secretary of the Many.
    
    And on the 24th clay of November, 1877, the following order was issued:
    NAVY DEPARTMENT, 24 Noe., 1877.
    Sir : On the receipt of this order you will transfer First Lieutenant G. C. Reid, Marine Corps, from the Trenton to the Marion.
    Respectfully,
    R. W. THOMPSON, Secretary of the Navy.
    
    Rear-Admiral Wm. E. Le Roy',
    
      Coni’d’g TJ. S. Naval Force, European Station.
    
    III. In pursuance of said orders, the claimant was detached from the Marine Barracks at Washington, D. 0., and appointed for service as first lieutenant of marines, on board said vessel, e of section 1616 of the Revised Statutes, and so served, as said lieutenant of marines, on board the Trenton from February 14 to December 11, 1877, 301 days; and on board the Marion from December 13, 1877, to November 12, 1879, 700 days.
    IY. The claimant was borne on the list of officers on board the Trenton March 1, 1877, and on the list of officers on board the Marion December 31, 1877, as first lieutenant of marines. During all that time he did not receive a sea ration, nor has he been paid commutation therefor, and the accounting officers of the Treasury Department have refused to allow his claim for payment of commutation for one ration per diem whilst he was attached to said vessels.
    Y. After August 14, 1878, the following regulation was in force on all naval vessels:
    fU. S. Navy Regulation Circular No. 13.]
    Navy Department, Washington, August' 14, 1878.
    On board of all vessels of the Navy the marine officer in command of the marine guard will occupy the fourth room from forward on the port side of the wardroom. All other marine officers will be assigned quarters in accordance with their rank.
    R.' W. Thompson, Secretary of the Navy.
    
    
      YI. Marine officers attacked to sea-going vessels are under the command of the commanding and executive officers, and are paid by the ship’s paymaster, their names being entered! in the gvneral pay and receipt roll of the officers of the ship.
    YIL On board the steamship. Vandalia, one of the vessels of war of the United States, the marines attached to the vessel are divided into watches., and each has his duties assigned to him 'as sharpshooter, and at the call to fire quarters, abandon ship, man and arm boats, and general quarters; also in mooring and unmooring vessels, clearing ship for action, out and in boats, up and down top-gallant and royal yards, up and down top-gallant masts, loosing sails, furling sails, bending sails, housing topmasts, shifting topmasts, making sail and getting under way, setting courses, setting studding sails, tacking and wearing, reefing topsails, reefing courses and shortening sail. But it does not appear whether the same custom does or does not prevail on other vessels of war of the United States.
    YII1. The accounting officers of the Treasury Department have invariably construed section 1563 of the Revised Statutes as applying to marine officers, and have also uniformly credited them with prize-money in the same manner as naval officers.
    IX. Reports made on Forms Nos. 1, 5, 17, and 20, prescribed by the Naval Regulations of 1876, include marine officers and marines, but such officers and men are not included in the reports required in Forms numbered 9, 10, and 16. Form 6 is not now in use.
    required in Forms 9 and 10, in relation to seamen, are embraced in the muster-rolls and descriptive lists of marines, which are forwarded to the headquarters of the corps in conformity with paragraph 16, page 91, of the Regulations referred to. Form 16 does not apply to enlisted men of the Marine Corps. Marines to be discharged from the service must be transferred to a mariné b.arraeks for that purpose, in accordance with the provisions of General Order No. 239.
    X. The claimant was paid from time to time from January 1, 1877, to January 1,1880, and gave receipts in full without objection. Said payments were only made for his per annum or monthly pay, and included no amount for commuted ration. The vouchers contained the following language, which was signed by the claimant:
    We who sign "below as principals acknowledge the correctness of onr respective accounts as here stated.
    
      Mr. I. G. Kimball for the claimant:
    This claim has arisen since the passage of the Revised Statutes, and must therefore be decided according to the la.w as therein contained, and acts subsequent thereto.
    1. Title XV, “ The Navy,” is contained in ten chapters, and the legislation exclusively belonging to the Marine Corps is chapter 9 thereof, although legislation applying to both the naval officers and marine officers is included under other chapters of said Title XV, for examples of which see sections 1421, 1422, 1423, 1424, 1572, 1547, 1548, 1551, 1553, 1563, 1566, 1574, 1575,1576, 1580, 1581, 1582, 1583,1585, 1586, and 1587.
    The whole of chapter 10 applies to the Marine Corps, unless inapplicable.
    Claimant’s case arises under section 1578 of the Revised Statutes, which provides that “all officers shall be entitled to one ration, or to commutation therefor, while at sea or attached to* a sea-going vessel”;" and'section 1585, “thirty cents shall in all cases be deemed the commutation price of the Navy ration.”
    If there were no other provisions of the statute affecting the case, there would be no question about claimant’s right to re-■cóver as claimed, for he was an officer, and was, during the time for which we claim, attached to a sea-going vessel.
    By Revised Statutes, § 1612, it is-enacted that “officers of the Marine Corps shall be entitled to receive the same pay and allowances * * * as are or may be provided by or in pursuance of law for the officers * * * of like grades in the infantry of the Army.”
    And section 1269, with reference to the Army, provides that “ no allowances shall be made to officers in addition to their pay except as hereinafter provided,” .and rations are not named; and it is claimed by the Government that as by section 1612 . marine officers are to receive 'the same pay and allowances as do officers of like grades in the Army, therefore section 1269 prohibits them from receiving one ration while attached to a sea-going vessel.
    
      2. In the construction of the Revised Statutes the various sections must be construed together according to the same rules as though said Revised Statutes.were the first and only act ever passed upon the subject, and every section must be so construed as to give full force and effect to every other section. (15 O. Cls. R., 80, 453; 1 Brock. C. 0., 162.)
    Every part of an act is to be taken into view to discover the mind of the legislature. (Pennington v. Core, 2 Cranch, 33; United States v. Fisher, ibid., 386.)
    3. Congress, when it passed the Revised Statutes, and the Act of July 15, 1870 (16 Stat. L., 320), the twenty-fourth section of which is the basis for section 1269 of the Revised Statutes, had no intention of repealing or changing the law which then allowed the ration to officers at sea, for the very next act passed, Act ot July 15, 1870 (16 Stait. L., 321), appropriated for pay and subsistence of officers of the Marine Corps for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1871, and appropriations were made for the subsistence of the marine officers by name each year up to and including June 30, 1874. (16 Stat. L., 534; 17 ibid., 153. 555.) '
    4. Since the fiscal year ending June 30, 1874, the appropriations for the subsistence of marine officers have been made under the heading of “ Bureau of Provisions and Clothing,” the language used being “For provisions for the officers, seamen, and marines.” What officers? The-officers of the naval service. See the enacting clauses of the several acts. This necessarily includes marine officers in each act on and after the Act of June 6, 1874 (18 Stat. B., 56). There is also a separate item of appropriation for provisions under'the head of Marine Corps in each appropriation act.
    The Act of April 30, 1878 (20 Stat. L., 45), makes an appropriation for deficiency in the appropriation for provisions for the Marine Corps.
    
    5. Wherever in any act of Congress the words “naval service” áre used, they always are meant to include the marine officers, and in many acts of Congress marine officers are included where the words used are simply “officers,” without using the words “naval service.” A few examples of this among the many to be found in the statutes will be sufficient. Section 9,' Act of April 23,1800 (2 Stat. L., 53); Joint resolution of August 7, 1848, Joint resolution of February 22, 1862 (12 Stat. L., 613); 
      Joint resolution of July 11, 1862 (12 Stat. L., 621); Joint resolution of December 20, 1861 (13 Stat. L., 565).
    The appropriations year after year for the subsistence of marine officers after tlie passage of the Act of July 15, 1870, must be construed as showing- the legislative intent in the mind of Congress when said act was passed.
    6. As shown by the report of the Navy Department, the marine officer is one of the complement of officers on the ship, and the moment it is said that he is not entitled to the one ration provided for by section 1578, then it is said that, notwithstanding the law says all officers are so entitled, they are not all entitled, but only part are so entitled, and that section 1269 repeals by implication a later section, to wit, 1578.
    Courts are opposed to repeals by implication.
    If possible, two apparently conflicting acts must be construed so as to reconcile them, and that both may stand. (Harford- v. United States, 8 Cranch, 109.; Wood v. United States, 16 Pet., 342; The Distilled Spirits, 11 Wall., 356; United States v. Glaflin, 97 U. S. R., 546; McGool v. Smith, 1 Black, 459.)
    7. In the construction of statutes which fix tliecompensationof public officers, the rule of interpretation, as held by the courts, is that where the words of a statute admit of two meanings, they should be construed in favor of the officer. (Moore v. United States, 4 C. Cls. R., 139; United States v. Morse, 3 Story, 87.)
    While it is true that the original acts cannot change in any way the clear meaning of the Revised Statutes, yet the court, where it is in doubt as to the proper construction to be given to any part thereof, can refer to the original acts to learn what Congress intended when the acts were first passed, and for that purpose I desire to refer to the acts from which the several sections referred to were obtained.
    Sections 1578 and 1579 of theRevised Statutes taken together are the substance of three different acts of Congress on the subject. 1st, the Act of March 3, 1835 (4 Stat. L., 755): “One ration per day only shall be allowed to all officers when attached to vessels for sea service.” The first section of this act, with the exception of the clause quoted, legislates only for the officers designated therein; but in the portion quoted Congress enlarges the scope, and uses the words all “ officers.” • The second section of this act relates to •“ any officer in the naval service,” and without exception the use of the words “naval service” is intended by Congress'to cover all of its branches, including the Marine Corps.
    The second acton the subject is that of March 3,1851 (9 Stat. L., 621), which clearly covers marine officers, for if any doubt exists that the first part of the proviso covers them, the last part, using the word “persons,” must beheld, under the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Wilkes v. Dinsmore (7 Howi, 89), to include them; the court holding that the word person used in the second section of the Aet of March 2,1837 (5 Stat. L., 153) — “That when the time of service of any person enlisted for the Navy shall expire,” &c. — covers as well the marines as the seamen of the Navy.
    The third act is section 19 of the Act of July 16,1862 (12 Stat. L., 587) — “ That all officers while at sea, or attached to a sea-going vessel; shall be allowed one ration.” A careful examination of this act shows two things. First, that it legislates by name for both naval and marine officers (see section 9). And second, that wherever naval officers alone are meant, in said act, it uses either the words “ officers of the Navy” or it gives the official rank of the officers referred to; but when we come to section 19, the term is enlarged, and the words used are uall officers while at sea.” As both marine and naval officers had been named in previous sections, and as both were at times at sea, there can be properly but one construction placed upon this section, to wit: Congress intended- all officers, both naval and marine, who at any time were at sea, or attached to a seagoing vessel, to have the ration provided for by this act. ■ It is claimed that at the time of the passage of this Act of July 16, 1862, marine officers were receiving rations under the Army laws, and that officers of the Navy received no ration except when at sea. Even if this is true, it cannot affect the case, for tliei’e is no repeal of previous acts, and Congress had the power to give them any number of rations it' chose. The only question is, does the nineteenth section of the said act include marine officers! That it did, I think, is clearly shown, and if the decision of the present claim depended upon the proper construction of said act, the decision would be, I have no doubt, that while at sea he was given one ration, or commutation therefor, in addition to what he was entitled to receive while on land duty. But the decision of this claim must be made upon the law as it existed after the passage of tbe Bevised Statutes, when no rations were given to officers of the Army.
    8. All naval officers receive more pay while at sea than when on shore duty, and ih addition receive one ration per day. No one will deny that the duties of all officers, naval and marine, at sea are more arduous and full of discomforts than on shore duty. The marine officer receives no additional pay at sea, and his pay, either at sea or on shore, is much less than corresponding grades in the Navy.
    The reason, which is paramount, why the marine officers at sea should be entitled to a ration lies in the nature of the service and the inability to procure supplies. 'Congress, therefore, intended, when it passed sections 1578 and 1579 of the Bevised Statutes, to put every person, without any distinction of rank or position, upon precisely the same footing, so that in cases of emergency, when .the officer ran out of provisions, he could claim as a right his food. This is not pay; it is not an allowance; it is his daily food, provided for him by the humanity of Congress, when he is where he cannot supply himself. What reason is there for giving a ration to a naval officer at sea which does not equally apply to a marine officer?
    9. Section 1579, containing two negatives, can, according to grammatical construction, be read in the positive form, eliminating therefrom both negatives, and the section will then read, “Any person, or all persons attached to and doing duty on board a sea-going vessel * * * shall be allowed one ration.” And under the decision in case of Wilkes v. Dinsmore, above quoted, said section becomes a positive enactment, made in the Bevised Statutes, directing the allowance to be made to the marine officers-, and its provisions cannot be diminished by section 1269.
    10. The meaning of the word “persons,” used in the Act of March 3,1851, and in section 1579 of the Revised Statutes at the time of the passage of said acts, had become fixed by the decision of the Supreme Court, and Congress when it used that word must be held.to have intended it to cover the Marine Corps and all parts thereof. If they had not so intended, it would have been very easy for them to have used language about which there could have been no mistake in their intention to exclude the Marine Corps.
    For the moment, leaving out of view the points hereinbe-lore made, can section 1209 be construed to prohibit the ration to the marine officer when attached to a sea-going vessel? The language of section 1269 is, “No allowances shall be made to officers in addition to their pay, except as hereinafter provided.” Does the Word “ allowances” include a ration or the subsistence of the officer?
    11. Wherever in the Statutes at Large the word “ allowances” is used, Congress always uses some other word to apply to subsistence; the language usually is, “pay, subsistence, and allowances.” Sometimes the word “emoluments” is used in addition to the other words. (4 Stat. L. 20, 140, 207, 254, 311, 354, 461.) The fifth section of the Act of June 30, 1834 (4 Stat. L., 713), which is the basis of section 1612 of the Revised Statutes, shows this very clearly. The section is as follows:
    That the officers of the Marine Corps shall be entitled to and receive the same pay, emoluments, and allowances as are now, or may hereafter he, allowed to officers of similar grades in tl¡ie infantry of the Army, * .* * and the non-commissioned officers, musicians, and privates shall be entitled to the same pay, rations, clothing, and allowances as they now receive.
    If Congress intended when it,used, the word “allowances” that rations should be included by the term, why did they in the very same section use the same word in such a way as to •show' that it did" not include rations ?. This section was the ■only law on this subject until the passage of section 1612 of the Revised Statutes.
    The Act of March 3, 1835, sec. 1 (14 Stat. L., 757), enacts that one ration per day only shall be allowed to all officers when attached to vessels for sea service. The second section enacts—
    That no alio wan -e shall hereafter be made to any officer in the naval service of the United States for drawing bills '* * * nor shall he be al-
    lowed servants, or pay for servants, or clothing or rations for them, or pay for the same ; nor shall any allowance be made to him for rent of quarters, or to pay rent for furniture, or for lights, or fuel, or transporting baggage.
    It is hereby expressly declared that the yearly allowance provided in this act is all the pay, compensation, and allowance that shall be received under any circumstances whatever by any such officer or person, except for traveling expenses when under orders.
    It is clear from the above, and from the examination of the .act, that the one ration provided for in section 1 was not covered by the words “pay, compensation, and allowance” of section 2.
    The Army Act of July 15, 1870, sec. 24 (16 Stat. L., 330), which fixes the pay of the Army, enacts that “ these sums shall be in full of all commutation of quarters, fuel, forage, servants’ wages, clothing, longevity rations, and all allowances of every name and nature whatever.”
    If “allowances” covers rations, why use the word “rations”?
    Section 4 of the Act of July 15, 1870, making appropriations, for the naval service (16 Stat. L., 333), enacts—
    That the pay iirescribecl in the next preceding section shall he the full and entire compensation of the several officers therein named, and no additional allowance shall be made in favor of any of said officers on any account whatever, and all laws or parts of laws authorizing any such allowance, shall, on the first day of July, eighteen hundred and seventy, be repealed.
    Then, for fear that it might be claimed that the sweeping-words “no additional allowance shall be made * * * o» any account whatever” might be construed to cover rations, Congress adds a few words — not words of exception, but of construction — to show that Congress did not by said words-cover the allowance, of rations, and say: “ but this shall not be construed as repealing existing laws allowing ration's.”
    12. I therefore claim that there is nothing in the Revised Statutes which limits or affects the provisions of sections 1578 and 1579, allowing one ration, or commutation therefor to all persons attached to a sea-going vessel, and that the marine officer is as much entitled thereto as any other person attached to such a vessel. Said section 4, above referred to, also fixes the commutation price of the Navy ration, in all cases, at 30 cents. The Act of February 14, 1879 (20 Stat. L., 288), appropriates for “ commuted rations for officers, seamen, and marines.”
    The marines on board ship are not simply a guard; they are a part of the complement of men on the ship. (Naval Regs.,. 1870, par. 1304) They are assigned for duty with the seamen to the guns, the boats, furling and unfurling sails, and are-equally with the seamen divided into watches.
    The marine officers are under command of the captain and executive officer. (Naval Regs., 1870, par. 351, 372.)
    They are paid by the ship’s paymaster.
    They are entered in the General Muster Book (par. 1482).
    They are included in the quarterly return of the number and!, rating of the crew. (Naval Regs., 1870, p. 284.)
    It is true that they cannot command a ship or navy-yard y neither can an officer of the medical, pay, or engineer corps, or-the chaplain and various other officers of the Navy (Naval Regs., 1870, pars. 630, 631, 632, 633), but the marine officer may exercise command over others, not of his own corps, when authorized by the commander so to do. (Par. 45.)
    13. From a consideration of the foregoing facts, I think it clear that the marine officer is a part of the Navy; that Congress intended for him to have tliekme ration whilst at sea or attached to a sea-going vessel; that the law clearly allows it to him, and that the judgment in t^is case ought'to be given for the full amount we claim.
    
      Mr. A. D. Robinson (with whom was Mr. Thomas Simons, Assistant Attorney-General) for the defendants:
    Previous to the Act of March 3,, 1835 (4 Stat. L., 757), Army and Navy officers were entitled to "two or more rations over and above their monthly pay.
    By the act last cited all such rations and allowances to naval officers were abolished. Section 1 of that act provided, among other things, as follows: “One ration per day only shall be allowed to all officers when attached to vessels for sea service.”
    Claimant cannot recover said ration while serving on the United States steamships Trenton and Marion, because—
    1. This Act of March 5,1835, is entitled “An act to regulate the pay of the Navy of the United States,” and therefore it should not be held to refer to marine officers, unless there is something in the act showing such an intention, as there is none, and therefore it only applies to naval officers. Again, if Congress had intended to include marine officers, it would have, so indicated it, as they did in the statute of July 17,1862, which was an act with reference to the Army, and Congress intended that one provision in that act should apply to naval officers also, and it so provided — “no officer of the Army nr Navy,” &c.
    2. The first section of the Act of March 3,1835, provides not' only for the sea ration, but also for the annual pay of officers, according to the kind of service — pay when commanding, other duty pay, aiid waiting-orders pay. This pay is stated in the second section to be in full compensation, &c., of all tl such-officers,” referring, of course, to all the officers named in the first section.
    
      As the word “such” includes the word “all,” and as the compensation referred to in section 1 only applies to naval officers (because marine officers are not paid in that way, but like the Army), therefore the word “all” does not include marine officers.
    Almost the identical language with reference to the -sea ration above mentioned is used in all the subsequent statutes on that subject, and there is nothing in them indicating any different meaning or intent.
    3. Again, section 1578 of the Revised Statutes, which prescribes the sea ration, is contained in the chapter for “ pay, emoluments, and’allowances of the Navy.” The same reasoning applies here.
    4. Again, chapter 9 of the Revised Statutes, commencing at section 1596, is devoted exclusively to the Marine Corps, and there is nothing there indicating that marine officers were to have the sea ration.
    By Revised Statutes, section 1612, such officers are to have the same pay and allowances as are or may be provided for the Army. No such allowance is provided for an Army officer; on the contrary, section 1269 provides that “ no allowances shall be made to Army officers in addition to their pay,” &c.
    5. At the time of the passage of the Act of July 16, 1862 (12 Stat. L., 587), which, by section 19, again provided for the sea ration, and which also was an act with reference to the Navy, Army officers of the grade of claimant (and therefore claimant) were entitled to four rations a day.
    It cannot be presumed that Congress intended to give marine officers while at sea five rations a day, without some further indications in that direction.
    6. The long continued construction of that statute by the Navy Department and the accounting’ officers, in holding (ever since the Act of March 3, 1835),. that such statute does not include marine officers, is worthy of consideration in deciding this question. Such construction is entitled to the most respectful consideration, and ought not to be overruled without cogent reasons. (United States v. Moore, 95 U. S. R., 763,and cases cited.; United States v. Walker, 22 How., 311; Garfielde’s Case, 93 U. 'S. R., 246; Smythe v. Mske, 23 Wall., 380 )
   OPINION.

Davis, J.,

delivered tlie opinion of the court:

The claimant is a first lieutenant in the Marine Corps. In February, 1877, he was attached to the Trenton and sailed to join the European squadron. There he was detached from the Trenton and attached to the Marion. His sea service on both vessels amounted to 1,001 days. ■ The Claim is for commutation for one per diem sea ration during this period. The decision of the case rests entirely upon the construction of the Revised Statutes, and neither involves a general principle of law nor special considerations of equity towards the claimant. If the statute gives the claimant what he demands, it is our -duty to award it to him notwithstanding adyerse decisions at the Treasury and adverse practice at the Navy. Department. If it does, not clearly give it to him, there are no equitable reasons why we should strain a construction of the acts .favorable to his claims.

The Army of the United States is a body fixed in numbers, both as to its officers and its enlisted men. (Rev. Stat., § 1094.) No one not included in the list enumerated in the statute is a part of the Army, subject to its discipline, or entitled to be paid out of the ordinary appropriations for. it.

In like manner the Navy is a fixed body (Rev. Stat., § 1362), with its own discipline and its own annual appropriations.

The Marine Corps has an organization distinct from either. (Rev. Stat., §§ 1596-1623.) In arranging the Revised Statutes the sections relating to this corps stand in a separate chapter under Title XY, entitled “ The Navy”; but we are to draw no conclusion from this fact, for the Revised Statutes further say:

Sec. 5600. The arrangement and classification of the several sections of the revision have been made for the purpose of a more convenient and orderly-arrangement of the'same, and, therefore, no inference or presumption of a legislative construction is to he drawn by reason of the title under which any particular section is placed.

In its daily discipline the Marine Corps is subject to the laws and regulations established for the government of the Navy (Rev. Stat., § 1621); but the statutes also contemplate that it may be detached for service with the Army (ib.), as in fact it has frequently been, and it may be put on duty in forts and garrisons. (Rev. Stat., § 1619.) In such times it is to be subject to the rules and articles of war prescribed for the government of tlie Army (Rev. Stat., § 1021), and is 'to receive from Army officers quartermaster’s stores (Rev. Stat., § 1135) and subsistence (Rev. Stat., § 1143). When serving with the Navy it receives these supplies from naval officers. (Naval Regs., §§ 1304, 1320.) Marines serving with the Navy and borne upon the books of the ship share in prize-money (Rev. Stat., § 4630); all fund in the Treasury (Rev. Stat., § 4752), members of the corps may claim to participate in the prize and in the distribution of pensions they are classed with seamen (Rev. Stat., § '4728); but the officers of the corps are classed with the officers of the Army in that distribution. (Rev. Stat., § 4095.)

The pay of this corps is .regulated by the laws which govern the pay of the Army, and as changes are made in the Army pay, those changes take effect simultaneously in the pay-roll of the Marine Corps. This is the legal effect of section 1612 of the Revised Statutes, which reads as follows:

The officers of the Marine Corps shall be entitled to receive the same pay and allowances, and the enlisted men shall be entitled to receive the same pay and bounty for re-enlisting, as are, or may be, p>rovided by or in pursuance of law for the officers and enlisted men of like grades in the infantry of the Army.

Thus it appears that the Marine Corps is an independent-corps, officered like the Army; ordinarily placed by law under the Secretary of the Navy and ordinarily subject to Navy discipline; liable at the pleasure of the President to be put with the Army and made subject to Army discipline; when serving with the Navy a part of the naval force, or, as the Supreme Court say in Wilkes v. Dinsman (7 How., 124), ‘‘while employed on board public vessels, persons in the naval service, persons subject to the orders of naval officers, persons under the government of the Naval Code as to punishment, and persons amenable to the Navy Department”; and wherever serving to be paid according to the laws governing the pay of the Army, as those laws are or may become.

The pay of an Army officer of the rank of the claimant is thus fixed by the Revised Statutes:

Siso. 1261. The officers of the Army shall be entitled to the pay herein stated after their respective designations * * * First lieutenant, not mounted, fifteen hundred dollars a year.
Seo. 1269. No allowances shall be made to officers in addition to their pay as hereinafter provided.

'The allowances to officers referred to in section 1269 are set forth in sections 1270, 1271, 1272-, and. 1273, and relate to fuel, quarters, forage, and mileage. Commissioned officers of the Army are not allowed rations, although they are allowed to the non-commissioned officers and'enlisted men. (Rev. Stat., § 1293.) The only advantage which the commissioned officer has in this respect is the .right to purchase rations for his own use .at cost when serving in the field. (Rev. Stat., § 1145.)

These provisions are decisive of this controversy, unless the ■claimant’s further contention can be maintained, viz, that he is •one of the officers referred to in section 1578 of the Revised ■Statutes, which provides that—

All officers shall be entitled to one ration, or to commutation therefor, while at sea, or attached to a sea-going vessel.

Section 1578 is part of chapter 8 of title XY, and is entitled a Pay, emoluments, and- allowances.” Any conclusion which may be drawn from the arrangement and classification in this ■chapter of provisions regulating the payment of officers of the Navy and the arrangement and classification in another chapter in the same title of the provisions regulating the payment of officers in the Marine Corps is hot precluded by section 5600 above cited. That section is only aimed at conclusions drawn from an arrangement and classification under a particular title. The difference between the two cases is manifest, and there .are obvious reasons why the Legislature might wish to provide against conclusions in the one case and permit them to be drawn in the other. The only pay and emoluments which chapter 8 provides for are the pay and emoluments of "‘the comrnis•sioned officers and warrant officers'on the active list of the Navy of the United States, and the petty officers, seamen, ordinary seamen, firemen, coal-heavers, and employés in the Navy.” Such is the enumeration in section 1556, at the head of the chapter. That section, after thus enumerating the several classes ■of persons who are to be paid salaries, proceeds to provide how much each one in each class is to receive while at sea, while on shore duty, and while on leave or waiting orders. Section 1557 then provides for the rate of pay of officers on furlough; and then section 1558 enacts as follows:

The pay prescribed ia the two preceding sections shall be the full and entire compensation of the several officers therein named, and no additional .allowance shall be made in favor of any of said officers on any account ■■whatever, except as hereinafter provided.

Passing down and through the chapter to see what allowances to officers are thereinafter provided, we find in section 1560 a provision for mileage allowance to “officers in the naval service” on foreign stations and an allowance for transportation of baggage to “officers traveling in foreign countries under orders”; in section 1578 an allowance of one ration or the commutation therefor to “all officers * * * while at sea or attached to a sea-going vessel,” and no other allowance whatever.

By a sound grammatical construction, these allowances to-officers relate to the officers referred to in section 1558 — that is, to the officers of the Navy enumerated in section 1556 — and. are the additional allowances provided for in section 1558. In order to authorize their extension to officers not enumerated in section 1556, the intent of Congress to do so should be clear and unmistakable. But Congress, instead of indicating such a purpose, has, by placing in chapter 8 the enactment relating to the pay of naval officers, and in chapter 9 the enactments regulating the pay of officers of the Marine Corps, indirectly but unmistakably indicated its intent to confine to the-naval officers whose pay is fixed by the provisions of chapter 8 the allowances made by that chapter.

In order to counteract the effect of this, the claimant asked us to find, as we have found, that the accounting officers of the-Treasury have invariably construed section 1563 of the Revised Statutes as applying to marine officers. ¡ That section forms part of chapter 8, on pay, emoluments, and allowances, and authorized the President to direct advances to be made to persons in the naval service employed on distant stations.

It will be observed that a new term is here introduced. The-statute-no longer speaks of “ officers,” but of “persons employed in the naval service.” It makes the same distinction-which the Supreme Court made in Wilke v. Dinsman when it said:

Though marines are not, in some senses, “seamen,” and their duties are in some respects different, yet they are, while employed on board public vessels, persons in the naval service.

In view of this language of the Supreme Court, we think that Congress intended to give to marines the benefit of the legislation in section 1563; but whether this be so or not, the Executive construction of this section is entitled to no more. weight in this court than the contrary Executive construction of section 1558.

As the sections of the Revised Statutes in question are thus found tp be free from all reasonable doubt, we have no real occasion to follow the counsel in his ingenious examination of the statutes which preceded the codification. (Bowen v. United States, 100 U. S. R., 508.) Nevertheless we will briefly do so, in order to show that before the enactment of the Revised Statutes, as well as now, the allowances to a first lieutenant of marines were identical with the allowances to a first lieutenant of infantry, and had no relation whatever to allowances to officers of the Navy.

The allowances erf rations to officers of the Navy, prior to the Revised Statutes, were fixed by the “Act to regulate the pay of the Navy of the United States,” passed March 3, 1835 (4 Stat. L., 755), wherein it was provided that one ration per day only shall be allowed to all officers when attached to vessels for sea service; by the Act of March 3,1851 (9 Stat. L., 621), which enacted that no person, not actually attached to and doing duty on board a sea-going vessel, and the petty officers, ■ seamen, and ordinary seamen attached to the ordinary navy-yards, shall be allowed a ration; by the Act of July 28, 1866, giving a ration to midshipmen (14 Stat. L., 322), and by the Act of February 28, 1867, granting one to cadets (14 Stat. L., 416). These acts clearly related only to officers of the Navy, and did not relate to officers of the Marine Corps. The Act of July 15, 1870, which made new provisions as to the amounts of naval officers’ pay, expressly excepted rations from its operation (16 Stat. L., 332), leaving the old statutes still in force.

The Act of June 30, 1834 (4 Stat. L., -712), reorganized the Marine Corps. Section 5 provided—

That the officers of the Marine Corps shall be entitled to and receive the same pay, emoluments, and allowances as are now or may hereafter be allowed to officers in the infantry of the Army, except the adjutant and inspector, who shall be entitled to the same pay, emoluments, and allowances as are received by the paymaster of said corps.

The number of rations allowed to a lieutenant of infantry at that time was as follows: By the Act of 1802 (2 Stat. L., 133), two rations, and by the Act of March 2, 1827 (4 Stat. L., 227), one ration. The accounting officers seemed to have refused to allow to marine officers the additional ration granted in 1827, on June 30, 1834 (4 Stat. L., 718), Congress enacted tkat , should receive it.

This continued to be the law down to July 15, 1870, when Congress reorganized the pay-rolls of the Army, and enacted the sum allowed should be “in full of all commutations of quarters, fuel, forage, servants’ wages and clothing, longevity rations, and all allowances of every name and nature whatever.”

Thus it appears that Congress, in 1870, continued the previous allowance of rations to officers of the Navy, but took it away from officers of the Army and of the Marine Corps. Such of these previous provisions of law as were in force when Revised Statutes were enacted are to be found there almost the very language of the original acts. *

The provision of the Act of 1835, respecting a single ration naval officers at sea or attached to sea-going vessels, is found in section 1578. In the Act of 1835 it clearly relates only to officers of the Navy. In the Revised Statutes we have already held that it relates as clearly only to officers of the Navy.

The provision of the Act of 1834, that officers in the Marine Corps are to receive the same pay, emoluments, and allowances as are or may be allowed to infantry officers, is codified in section 1612 without change. Under its provisions a first- lieutenant of the Marine Corps, from 1834 to 1870, was entitled on a sea-going vessel to three rations, while a naval officer was entitled to but one. After the Act of 1870 he was entitled to no rations, while the right of naval officers to receive them continued.

The provisions of the Act of 1870 taking away the allowances are to be found in section 1269.

Thus, on the claimant’s own theory, it is demonstrated that he has no case for a recovery. An application of principles and a train of reasoning similar to that which governed the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of The United States v. Freeman (3 How., 556), must govern us now and lead us to hold that the claimant is upon the same footing as a first lieutenant of infantry as to rations, which is one form of allowances.

The claimant has called our attention to the fact that he has no right of appeal from an adverse judgment, and has urged this upon us in view, also, of the fact that this is a test case,, as a reason why, if we have any doubt, we should give him the to listen to this suggestion, as we liave already in similar oases, if we felt any doubt; but having entire confidence in our conclusions, it is our duty to take tlie responsibilities which the law puts upon us of deciding not only the claimant’s case, but the rule of law for the guidance ■of the Departments and accounting officers in similar cases.

claimant’s petition be dismissed.  