
    The United States, Plaintiffs, v. William H. Freeman.
    Statutes in pari materia should be taken into consideration in construing a law. If a thing contained in a subsequent statute be .within'the reason of a former statute, it.sha!l be taken to be within the meani¿g of that statute.
    And if -it can be gathered'from a subsequent statute in pari.materia what meaning the legislature attached to the words of a former statute, this will amount to a legislative declaration of its meaning, ánd will govern the construction of the first statute.
    The meaning of the legislature may be extended beyond the precise words Used in the law, from the reason or motive upon which the legislature proceeded,' from the end in view, or the purpose which was ■ designed; the limitation of the rule being, that to extend the meaning to any case, not included within the words, the case must be shown to come within the same reason upon which the law-maker proceeded, and not a like reason.
    A breyet field-officer of the marine corps is not entitled by law'to brevet pay and rations, by reason of his commanding a separate post or station; if the force under his command would not entitle a brevet field-officer of infantry of a similar grade to brevet pay and rations.
    
      The- act of 1834, chap. 133, does not repeal the 1st section of the act of 1818, regulating the pay -and- emoluments of brevet officers.
    The 5th section of the act of 30tti Junejtl-834, is a repeal of the joint resolution of the two houses of Congress of the 25th May,- Í832, respecting the pay and emoluments of the marine corps.
    By force of the" army regulation'No. 1125, authorizing the issues of double rations to officers commanding departments, posts, and arsenals, a brevet field-officer. of marines is entitled to double rations. But the fact must be shown ' that he had such a command of a post or.arsenal at which double rations' had been allowed according to the army regulation^.
    The fact of appropriations having been made by Cdigress for double rations does not determine wEat officers are-entitled to them..
    A brevet field-officer of the marine corps, commanding a separate post, without a command equal to his brevet rank, is not entitled to brevet pay and. emoluments. 'But if such brevet officer is a captain in the line of his corps, and in the actual command of a Company, whether he is in'the command of a post or not, he is entitled to the compensation given-by the 2d section of the act of the 2d March, 1837.
    This case canie up, on a certificate of diviáon, from the Circuit Court of the United States, for the district of Massachusetts.. It was to test the right of the defendant in error who was also the. defendant below, to certain pay, allowances, and emolumentsj which he claimed as being an officer of the marine corps. The questions which were certified to this court-were the following:—
    “1. Whether a brevet field-officer of the marine corps is bylaw entitled to receive the pay and -rations of his brevet rank by reason of 'his commanding a- separate post or station, although the force under ;his command should not be such as would bylaw, or by such regulations as have in this respect and for the time the force of law, entitle a breve field-officer of infantry of ,a similar grade to brevet pay and ra ns ?
    “ 2, Whether the provision respecting brevet pay and rations in the 3d section of the act of 1818, chap. 117, is repealed by the act of1834, chap. 132?
    “ 3. Whether by force of the act of 1834, chap. 132, the joint resolution of the two'houses of Congress of the 25th of May,. 1832, respecting' the pay and emoluments of the marine corps, is repealed ?
    
      “4. Whether by.force of the army regulation, numbered'1125, authorizing the issues of double rations to officers commanding departments, posts, and arsenals, a brevet field-officer of marines, commanding a seDarate post or- station, is entitled to double rations ?
    
      “ 5. Whether the additional fact of appropriations having been made by Congress for such double rations, entitles'such marine officer -to receive the same for the years for which such appropriations are made ?
    
      “ ti.' Whether a brevet field-officer of the marine corps, commanding a separate post, and- -receiving his brevet pay and emoluments, but being a captain in the line, is entitled to the ten dollars a month additional compensation, for responsibility of clothing, &c., under the act of 1834, chap. -, applying to the matine corps -.the •act of 1827, chap. 199 ?”
    There was a statement of facts agreed upon in the court below, the only parts of which that bear upon the certified questions are the following-:-— •. "
    “It is further- agreed that Colonel Freeman was commissioned a captain in the line of the marine corps on the 17th of July, 1821, and on that lineal .rank he was commissioned a lieutenant-colonel by brevet on the 17th of July, 1831, and on the 30th of June, .1834, he'was commissioned a major .in the line of the marine corps.
    . “ Colonel Freeman files an account,, in Set-off against the United States,'off $1013 93,.for brevet' pay and rations.while in command on the Boston station, the samé being a separate station or detachment, under the provision- of the' 3d section of an act of Congress of 16th April, 1814, for the augmentation of the marine corps. Said amount extends from the. 30th of June, 1834, to the, 1st of April, 1842, and has been presented to and disallowed by the fourth auditor.
    “ Said Freeman files art'account also of $1669-for double rations while in command-on be Boston station, between the 30th of June, 1834, and'the 1st of April, 1842, under a joint resolution of Congress of 25th May, ’ 1832, which account has also befen presented.to and disallowed by the fomth auditor.
    “ Said Freeman files also an account of $354 69 for the responsibilities of clothing, See., while a captain in .the line of- the marine , corps, and in command of the marines on the Boston station, from . the 17th of July,T831, to the 30th of June, 1834, under an act of 'Congress of 30th June, 1834, making certain allowances, &c.,,to the. captains and subalterns of the marine corps, as to officers of similar grades in the army, under an. act of 2d March, 1827.; which account has likewise been presentedvto and disallowed by the fourth auditor of the Treasury, on the ground .that the defendant received the pay of a grade higher than that of captain. • ..
    “ It is further agreed that double rations have been paid heretofore and up to the 30th of June, 1834, to the officers of the marine corps, in the manner, and aS stated in the letter of the fourth auditor of date 27th of April; 1842, and marked B, and annexed; also, that estimates and appropriations were made, as stated -in said letter^. since 1834.
    “Upon the foregoing facts, the case is submitted to the court; the accounts of the' said several claims of the said Freeman to be adjusted hereafter by the officers of the Treasury, if. the same, or any portion of them, are found by the court to be legally due.
    Franrxin Dextee, U. S. Dist. Att’y.
    W. H. FREEMAN.” ■
    
      The laws will.be stated which bear upon each of the three items into which the account is divided, viz.: 1, Pay; 2, Rations; 3,- Clothing.
    1. As to pay.
    On the 6th of July, 1812, (2 Story,. 1278,) Congress passed an “ Act entitled an act -making further provision for the army of the United States, and for other purposes,” the 4th section of which was .as follows:—
    “That the President is hereby authorized to confer brevet rank on'such officers of the army as shall distinguish themselves by gallant actions, or meritorious - conduct, or who shall.have served ten .years in any one grade: Provided, That nothing herein contained ,shall be so construed as to entitle officers so breveted to any additional pay or emoluments, except when commanding separate posts, districts, or detachments, when they shall be entitled to and receive the same pay and emoluments to which officers of the same grade are- now, or hereafter may be, allowed by law.”
    . On the 16th of April, 1814, Congress passed an act (2 Story, 1414) “ authorizing-an augmentation of;the marine corps and for other purposes,” the 3d section of which was exactly similar to the above, except that“ officers of the marine corps” were substituted for “officers.of the army,” and that in .the proviso' the-words “ commanding separate stations or detachments” were substituted for “ commanding separate posts, districts, or detachments.”
    On the 16th of April, 1818, an act was passed (3 Story, 1672) “regulating the pay and emoluments of brevet officers,” the 1st section of which was as follows:
    “Be it enacted, &c., That the officers of the army who have brevet commissions shall be entitled to, and receive, the pay and emoluments of their brevet rank when on duty and having a command according to their brevet rank, and at no other time.’,’
    In 1825, regulations for the-army were issued; .the 1124th section was as follows:
    “ Brevet officers shall receive the pay and emoluments of their brevet commissions, when they exercise command equal to their brevet rank; for example — a brevet captairi must command a company; a brevet .major and abrevet lieutenant-colonel,-abattalion; a brevet colonel, a regiment; a brevet brigadier-general, a brigade; a brevet major-general, a division.”
    On the 30th of June, 1834, Congress passed an act “ for the better organization of theÚnited States marine corps,” (4 Story, 2383.) After increasing the number of officers and privates, the -5th section enacted:
    “ That the officers of the' marme corps shall be entitled to, and receive, the same pay, emoluments, and allowances, as are now, or hereafter may bé, allowed to officers of similar, grades in the infantry of the army, except the adjutant and inspector, who shall,” &c.. &c*>
    
      The 7th section provided that “the commissions .of the officers now in the marine cerps shall not be vacated by :this'act,” &c. •
    The 9th section repealed so much of the 4th section of the act of-fhe.6th.ef July .as authorized the President to-confer brevet rank on such officers ,óf the army or of the marine corps as shall have served ten years in any one grade.
    The 10th section; repealed all acts or parts of acts inconsistent therewith. ....
    .... In. 1836, another set of army regulations was. issued, the forty-1 eighth article of which contained the following:
    ■ “ Officers who have brevet commissions shall be entitled tó receive their brevet pay and emoluments, when on duty, under the following circumstances:.
    “A brevet captain, when commanding a company.
    “A brevet major, when commanding two companies,i or when acting as major'of the regiment.
    “A brevet lieutenant-cqlonel,.when commanding at least four companies, Or. when acting as'lieutenant-colonel of the regiment.
    '‘‘A brevet colonelj. when commanding nine companies’of artillery, pr ten of infantry or dragoons, or a mixed corps of ten cóm- . panics, or when commanding a regiment.
    “ A brevet brigadier-general, when commanding a brigade of-not - less than two. regiments or twenty companies. ■
    “A brevet major-general, when commanding a division of four regiments or' at least- forty companies. •
    ' “A brevet officer, when assigned by the special order of the secretary-of war to a particular duty and command, according, to his. brevet rank, although.such command be not in the line, .provided. his brevet allowances are reedgnised-in the order of assignment )
    “ To entitle officers -to brevet allowances while .acting as field-officers of regiments according to their brevets,, they must be recog-nised at general heád-quarters. as being on such "duty, and the fact announced'accordingly in general order.s.”
    The laws relating to rations are the foEowihg;
    2. Rations.' ....
    On the 3d-of March, 1797, (1 Story-, 460,) Congress'passed an ' act to. amend and repeal, in part; the-act entitled “An act to ascer- . tain, and fix the military' establishment of the United States,” the' 4th .section of which declared that “ to each-officer, while commanding a separate post, there shall be. .allowed twice .the number of ranons to which.they would otherwise he entitled;”
    On the 16th of March, I802j (2 Story, 831,) an acf was passed “ fixing the military peace establishment of the bJnited States,”bhe 5th section, of which designated the .number of rations to which each officer .should be entitled, and themaddedas follows ,'viz.: “to -.the commanding officers of each separate post, such additional, num- . her-of rations as the -President of the United States shall, from time to time, direct, having respect 'to thé special circumstances of. each post.”
    On the 25th of May; 1832, (4 Story,. 2333,) Congress passed a joint resolution as follows :■ “ Resolved, &c:, That the pay, subsistence, emoluments, and allowances of officers, non-coinmissioned officers, musicians,, and privates of the United States marine corps, shall be the sainé as they were previously-to the 1st of April, 1829, and shall so continue until they shall be altered by law.”
    In 1834, the act was passed which has. already been mentioned under the head of “ Pay.”
    3. Clothing.
    On the 2d of March, 1827, Congress passed an act, (3 Story, 2057,) the 2d section of which was as follows: That every officer, in the actual command of a company in the army of the United Statés shall be entitled to receive $10 per month, additional pay, ' as “compensation for his duties and responsibilities, with respect to the-,clothing, arms, and accoutrements of the company, whilst Re. shall be in the actual command thereof”
    
      Nelson, (attorney-general,) for the United States.
    Colonel Freeman, (in a printed argument,)'the defendant in the court below, for himself.
    
      Nelson made the, following points:
    1st. That a brevet field-officer of the marine corps is not by law entitled to receive the pay and rations of his brevet rank, under the circumstances stated in this case.
    . 2d. That the provision respecting brevet pay and rations, in the 3d section of the act of 1818, chap. 117, is repealed by the act of 1834, chap. 132.
    • 3d. .That the joint resolution of the two houses of Congress, of the 25th of May*, 1832,' is repealed by the act of 1834, chap. 132.
    4th. That a brevet -field-officer of marines, commanding a separate post or .station, .is not entitled to double rations by force of Army Regulation, numbered 1125.
    5th. That tiie additional fact of appropriations having been made by Congress for double rations, does not entitle such marine officer to receive the same, if otherwise not entitled thereto by law.
    6th. That a brevet field-officer of marines is not entitled to the $10 a month, under the act of 1834, chap. 132, under the circumstances stated in the sixth question,, certified;in .the record.
    He examined the subjects in the order mentioned above, of Pay, Rations, and Clothing.
    !• Pay.
    He admitted .that if.the act of 1814 is still in force, the defendant is entitled to.brevet pay; but it is not in force. The act of 1834 has changed the law; the 5th • section puts the marine corps on the same footing with the infantry. What, then, were the infantry entitled to ? To answer this question, we must look at the laws of 1812 and 1814, (the same in substance upon this point,) and also the law of the 16th April, 1818, which expressly declares that officers of the army shall receive brevet pay when they have a command according to their brevet rank, and at no other time. Before they can .claim the pay, the condition must be shown to be complied with; but here it is admitted that Col. Freeman had not such a command.
    The Army Regulations of 1825, reg. 1124, say that brevet officers, are to receive pay only when the command is equal to the rank; and those of 1836 say the same. Freeman was a lieutenant-colonel by brevet, and had not the command appropriate to that rank.
    Does the act of 1834 repeal that of 1814? We say it does. It purports to re-organize the marine corps; it makes great changes as to the officers and their rate of.pay; and the 7th section provides that the commissions of the officers shall not be vacated. Why put in such a clause, unless there was a design to put the corps upon a new footing altogether? The 5th section changes the pay, emoluments, arid' allowances, and' puts them on the footing of infantry; and the 10th section repeals all laws inconsistent with the act. The acts of 1818 and 1834 repealed all former laws, both as to infantry and marines.
    2. Rations.
    By the act of 1797, double rations were given to a commander of a separate post; but the act of 1802 changed this rule, and siibsti-tutéd another. Instead' of giving them to every commander,, the President was to designate the number of rations' for each post, according to circumstances. This was a repeal of the act of 1797. They- cannot both stand.
    But it is said that the joint résolution.of 1832 changed the rule, as to officers of marines, and rendered lawful the same pay, rations, &c., which they had,, in- fact, received before 1829. Suppose we admit this. That resolution looked' to a future change,, which was made by the act of 1834, which, referred not only to pay, but allowances and emoluments. Infantry are not entitled to these allowances, and therefore the marines cannot be.
    These considerations furnish answers to the three first certified questions.
    With regard to the fourth, it maybe said that the army regulations give double rations to such posts as the War Department shall authorize; but the act of 1802 says'that the President is the person who is to give the authority; and supposing that the War Departrrient represents the special authority of the President, then we say, that the Department never gave such authority for this post. The defendant must show that it did.
    Besides, the regulation was not intended to apply to the marine^. They were under the Navy Department.
    
      The 5th question is easily answered. If the defendant was not entitled to the allowance's by law, he cannot claim them because Congress placed money in the hands of the executive,' in case it should be. wanted. The service might have' been performed or it might not, and the money was ready in case it should be performed.
    ' .But here'it was not.
    3. Clothing.
    . Ten dollars per month were to be given to commanders of companies. But Freeman was .a major by commission, and lieutenant-colonel by brevet. The law only includes captains;. and, moreover, the record does. not show that there was a company of marines at Boston, and the 'fact, I believe, was not so.
   Mr. Justice WAYNE

delivered the opinion of the court.

Several questions occurred upon the trial of this cause in the court below, upon which the opinions of the judges were opposed, and' they were certified to this .court for decision.

From a careful examination of all.the acts of Congress relating to the. pay and emoluments of brevet officers, and those acts establishing and. organizing the marine corps, we are of the'opinion, whatever may have been a different practice, that the brevet officers of the marine corps have always been by law. upon the same footing with other officers of the military establishment of the United States,- ‘ in respect.toAe circumstances which entitle them to pay and emoluments, and that they continue to be so. Brevet pay and emoluments were originally given by the act of 1812, (2 Story’s Laws, 1278,) and by the act of 1814, (2 Story’s Laws, 1414,) when breveted officers commanded separate posts, districts, stations, or detachments. But an act was passed in 1818, (3 Story’s Laws, 1672,) regulating the pay- and emoluments of brevet officers, the 1st section of which is, that “the officers of the army who have brevet commissions, shall be entitled to and shall receive the pay and emoluments of their brevet rank, when on duty and having a command according to their brevet rank, and at no other time.” The 2d section is, “ that no brevet commission shall hereafter be conferred, but by and with the advice' of the Senate.” By the acts of 1812 and 1814, .they were conferred by the President alone. By the 1st section of the act of 1818, it will be perfceived that pay and emoluments were attached to command, and not, as they had. been, to the command of separate posts, stations,, districts, or detachments. That the act of 1818 repealed the 4th section of the act of 1812, no one doubts. But it is said, it is not á repeal of the 3d section of the act of 1814, because the act, in terms, speaks of the officers of the army who have brevet commissions, and not of such officers of the mariné corps. It may be well to state, that the 3d section of the act of 1814 js a transcript of the 4th section of the act of 1812, except that it has in it the words “ officers of. the marine corps,” instead of “officers of the army;” and that the words “stations or detachments” were substituted for “posts, districts, or detachments.” The first point for consideration is, was the act of 1818 a repeal of the 4th section of the act of 1812, and of the 3d section of the act of 1814, as to .the condition upon which brevet officers were to have additional pay and emoluments? It is conceded that it repealed, the 4th section in the act of 1812. We are of opinion that it repealed also the 3d section of the act of 1814. It cannot be denied that the marine corps is an addition to the “ military establishment of the United States.” It is declared to be so in the act by which it was organized. Now, though neither that fact, nor the wprds “ military establishment,” as they are used in the acts of Congress, will of themselves authorize the inclusion of officers of the marine'corps, within the words “officers of the army,” yet considering-the subject-matter of the act of 1818; the application of the 2d Section of the act to all breveted officers; and the assimilation of the • marine, corps, by the act of 1814, to the army, to give to its officers bre'vet commissions, and pay, exactly, too, in the same way as they . were given fo the officers of the' army, by the act of 1812; we do not see how, consistently with a correct judicial interpretation, the Conclusion can be resisted, that Congress did intend, in passing the act of 1818,' to place the officers of the marine, corps and the officers of .the army upon the same footing, in respect to brevet pay and emoluments. Though what has-been differently done is binding upon the government, and cannot be recalledj to. the pecuniary disadvantage of' any officer, who may have recéived brevet pay and emoluments, not according to the act of 1818, no erroneous practice under it, of however long standing, can justify the allowance of a claim, contested by the government, in a suit, contrary to what is the true meaning and intent of that act. The error of the accounting officers of the Treasury, and of, the officers of the marine .corps, in the construction of the act of 1818, arose from that act having been considered by itself, without any reference to other, statutes relating to brevet commissions and pay,’ and without any examination whether the words “ officers of the army,” as used in the lst'section of the. act of 1818, though they are descriptive of a particular class, .were hot intended, from their connection with the subject-matter of the act, to comprehend all officers of the military-establishment of the United States, who, when the act was passed, were only under like circumstances entitled to brevet pay and emoluments.

The correct rule of interpretation 'is, that if divers statutes relate to the same, thing, they ought' all to bó taken into consideration in construing any one of them, and it is an established rule, of law, that all acts in pan materia are to be taken together, as if they were' one law. Doug. 30; 2 Term Rep. 387, 586; 4 Maule & Selw. 210. If a thing contained in a subsequent statute, be within the reason •of a former statute, it shall be taken, to be within the meaning of. that statute; Lord Raym. 1028; and if it can be gathered from: a subsequent statute in pari materia, what meaning the legislature attached to-the words of a former statute, they will amount-to, a ^legislative declaration of its meaning, and will govern the construction of die first statute. Morris v. Mellin, 6 Barn. & Cress. 464; 7 Barn. & Cress. 99. Wherever, any words of a statute are doubtful or-obscure, the- intention óf the legislature is to. be resorted to, in order to find the-meaning of the words. Wimbish v Tailbois, Plowd. 57: "A-thing. -which is within the intention of the makers of -the ■ Statute, is as much, within the statute, as if it- were within the . letter. Zouch v. Stowell, Plowd. 366. These citations aré but - different illustrations of the rule, that the meaning of the legislature may be extended;beyond, the precise words used in the law, frofia the reason or motive upon which the legislature proceeded.; from the end in view, or the purpose which was designed — the limitation of the rule being, that to -extend the meaning to any cáse not included in the words, the case must be shown to come within thé same reason upon which the lawmaker proceeded, and not only, within a like - reason. This court has repeatedly, in effect, acted upon the rule, -and there may be found, in the reports of its'decisions, cases under it, like the cases which have, been cited from the reports of the English courts^ In 4 Dall. 14,“ The intention of the legislature, when discovered, must prevail, .any. rule.of construction declaredly previous acts to the contrary notwithstanding.” In’ 2 Cranch, 33, A law is the best expositor of itself — that every part of an act is to be taken into, view for the purpose of discovering the mind of the legislature,” See'. &c. In the case of the United States v. Fisher et al., Assignees of Blight, in the same book, the court said, •“ it is undoubtedly a well-established principle in the exposition of statutes, that every part is to be considered, and the intention of the legislature to be extracted from the whole,” &c. In 2 Peters, 662, A legislative act is to be interpreted according to the intention of the legislature,, apparent upon its face. Every technical rule, as to the construction or force of particular terms, must yield to the clear expression of the paramount will-of the legislature.” In Paine’s C. C. Rep. 11, “In doubtful -cases, a court should compare all the parts of a statute, and-different statutes in pari maferia, to ascertain the intention of-the legislature.” So in 1 Brockenb. C. C. Rep. 162. In the construction of statutes, one part must be construed by another. In order to test the legislative, intention, the whole statute must be inspected. ' No one of the cases cited will justify; nor have they been cited to sanction an equitable construction of-statutes beyond the just application of adjudicated cases. They have been brought together upon this’ occasion, for the-purpose of showing'KoW many-authorities there' are, to sustain, the conclusion, 'that the act of'1818, regulating the pay/and, emoluments of brevet officers, repealed the act of 1814, upon' which the defendant relies to support his claim to brevet pay.. Our answer to the first question then is, that a brevet field-officer of the marine corps is not entitled, by law, to brevet pay and rations, by reason of his commanding a separate post or station, if the force'under his command would not/ entitle a brevet field-officer of infantry, of a similar grade, to brevet pay and rations.' We will add to our exposition of the law upon this point, that brevet officers of the marine corps, in respect to pay and emoluments, were included under the Army Regulation 1124, sanctioned on the 1st March, 1825; were included also, in the regulation upon the subject of brevet pay, sanctioned by the President December 1, 1836, and that, they may claim brevet pay and emoluments under the regulations of 1841, when they exercise a command, according to the provisions regulating brevet pay, in page-344, Army Regulations of 1841. This right to brevet pay results from the marine corps having been subjected, by the' act of 1-798, (1 Story’s Laws, 542,) and by other acts of Congress, to the same rules and articles of war “ as aré prescribed for the military establishment of the United States,’? and from the exceptioii, in the 2d section of the act of 30th June, 1834, taking them out.of- the regulations whieh might be established for the navy, when detached for service with the army, by order of the President of the United States.

To the second - question we reply, that the act of 1834, chv 132, does not repeal the first section of the act of 1818, regulating the pay and emoluments of brevet officers. That section of the act is still in force, and upon it rests the army regulations, in relation to brevet pay and emoluments.- The act of 1834 only repeals those sfectionsin the acts of 1812 and 1814, and in the act of 1818; by whieh the President wás authorized to confer, and the Senate was permitted to confirm, brevet commissions conferred upon officers of thé :army, or officers of the marine - corps, for ten years’ service in any one grade, excepting such officers as- had, before the passage .of the act, acquired the right to have brevet rank conferred by ten years’ service in any one grade, if the' President should think fit to nominate them to the senate for brevet commissions.

To the third question we reply, that the 5th section of the act of the 30th June, 1834, is a repeal of the joint resolution of the two houses of Congress of the 26th May, 1832, respecting the pay and emoluments of the marine corps.

The fourth question involves the charge made by the defendant for double rations. Additional rations are provided for by the 5th section of the' act of 1802, (2 Story’s Laws, 831.) “ To the commanding officer of each separate post, such additional number of rations as the President, of Ihe United States shall, from time to time, direct, having respect to thé special circumstances of each post,” is the language of a part of the section. It is the authority for the 1125th paragraph in the Army Regulations of 1825. The President sanctioned those regulations, and by doing so, delegated his authority, as he had a right to do, to the secretary at war. The Army Regulations, when sanctioned by the President, have the force of law, because it is doné by him by the authority of law. The Regulations of 1825, then,-were as conclusive upon the accounting officer of the Treasury, whilst they continued in force, as those of 1836 afterwards were, and as those of 1841 now are. When, then, an .officer presents, with his account, an authentic document or certifi-. cate of his having commanded a post or arsenal, for which ah order has been issued from the War Department, in conformity with the provisions of the Army Regulations, allowing double rations, his right to them is established, nor can they be withheld, without doing him a wrong, for which the law gives him .a remedy.,. But as the question in this case must be decided upon the agreed statement of facts in the record, between Colonel Freeman and the District Attorney of the United States, we have no hesitation in answering it adversely from the claim of the defendant, for double rations, as the fact does not appear in the record, that he had such a command of a post or arsenal, at which double rations had been allowed; according to the Army Regulations, which were in force, from the time his account begins, or according to those subsequently sanctioned by the President. To the fifth question, we reply, that the feet of. appropriations having been made by Congress for double'rations, does not determine what officers in command are entitled to them. • The sixth question relates to the charge of .the defendant for compensation for his duties and responsibilities, with respect to clothing, arms, and accoutrements,” while he was a captain in the line of the marine corps, and in. command of the marines on the Boston station. The question, as it is put, makes it necessary for us to repeat whafhas been already said in a previous part of this opinion, that a brevet'field-officer of the marine corps, commanding a separate post, without a.command equal to bis brevet rank, is not entitled to. brevet pay and emoluments. But if such brevet officer is a captain in the line of his corps, and in the actual command of a company, whether he is in command of a post or not, he is entitled to the compensation given by the 2d section of the act of the 2d March, 1827,.(3 Story’s Laws, 2057.) We cannot give any other answer to this question, because the first part of it attaches brevet pay and emoluments to the command of a separate post, for which it is not allowed by law, and cannot therefore influence any right to compensation which may have accrued to a captain in the line under the 2d section of the act of the 2d March, 1827. That act is in full force, unrepeáled in any way by the act of 1834, for the better organization Of the marine corps. 4 Story, 2383. And captains and subalterns, of that corps are as much entitled to its provisions, as any other captains or subalterns in the military establishment of . tiie .United States. If there was any doubt of this, before the act of 1834 was passed, tbe 5th section of that act must be considered as having put an end to it. It is, “ 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 similar grades in the infantry of the army,’.’ subjefct to the exception' in the section .following the words just cited.

We shall direct the foregoing answers to the questions, upon which the judges in the court below were opposed in opinion, to be certified to that court.  