
    JAMES D. CRENSHAW v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 16332.
    Decided January 7, 1889.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    This is t.he case of a naval cadet who finished his academic course in 1881, and was discharged after passing his final examination in 1883, there being no vacancy in the service.
    The case presents the points determined in the case of Sarmon (23 C. 01s. R., 40G), viz, that the Act August 5, 1882(22Stat. L., 385), directing the discharge of the naval cadets, if they are not required to fill vacancies, is constitutional; and that a cadet so discharged by the Secretary of the Navy’is no longer in the service.
    
      The Reporters statement of tbe case:
    The following are the facts as found by the court:
    I. The petitioner was appointed a cadet midshipman at the Naval Academy in September, 1887, the said appointment being as follows:
    “United States oe America,
    
      “ Navy Department:
    
    “ By the direction of the President of the United States you are appointed to the grade of cadet midshipman in the United States Navy, from the twenty-fourth day of June, 1877.
    “Given under my hand and seal of the Navy Department, at the city of Washington, this-day of July, one thou-
    sand eight hundred and seventy-seven.
    [seal.] “Geo. M. Robeson,
    “ Secretary of the NavyP
    
    He pursued the academic course of four years, passed a successful examination, and received a certificate from the Academic Board in the following words, to wit:
    “This certifies that Cadet Midshipman James D. Crenshaw has completed the prescribed course of study at the United States Naval Academy and has successfully passed the required examination before the Academic Board preparatory to the two years’ course afloat.
    “ June 10,1881.”
    
      II. On the 2d day of June, ] 881, he was detached from the Naval Academy by an order from the Navy Department as follows, to wit:
    “Navy Department,
    “Bureau oe Navigation and Oeeioe oe Detail,
    “ Washington, June 22,1881.
    “ Sib : You* are hereby detached from the Naval Academy. Proceed home and regard yourkelf as waiting orders.
    “By direction of the Secretary of Navy.
    “ Respectfully,
    “W. D. Whiting,
    “ Ohief of Bureau.
    
    “ Cadet Midshipman James D. Crenshaw,
    “ U. 8. Wavy.”
    
    III. On the 25th of August, 1881, he was ordered to sea by the Navy Department, which order is as follows, to wit:
    “ Navy Department,
    “Bureau oe Navigation and Oeeioe of Detail,
    “ Washington, August 25, 1881.
    “ Sir : Proceed to New York and take passage in the Pacific Mail steamer, which leaves on the 10th of September next, for Aspinwall, thence to Panama, and on your arrival report to Bear-Admiral Balch for duty on board the United States steamer Pensacola.
    “ Paymaster T. T. Caswell, No. 29 Broadway, New York, will secure your passage.
    “ By direction of the Secretary.
    “ Respectfully,
    “W. D. Whiting,
    “ Chief of Bureau.
    
    “ Cadet Midshipman James D. Crenshaw,
    “ U. 8. Navy, Mount Washington, Ohio.”
    
    IY. He served on uhe said Pensacola until the 14th day of March, 1883, when he was detached from said ship Pensacola by the following order :
    “U. S. F. S. Pensacola,
    “ Valparaiso, Chili, March 14, 1883.
    “ Sir : You are hereby detached from the U. S. F. S. Pensacola and will proceed to Annapolis, Md., and report to the Superintendent of the Naval Academy for examination.
    “ On your arrival you will report by letter to the Bureau of Navigation and inform it of the date of your detachment from the U. S. F. S. Pensacola. Pay Inspector Rufus Parks,. U. S. Navy, will furnish you transportation to New York. “Yeryrespectfully, your obedient servant,
    “A. K. Hughes, “Rear-Admiral, V. 8. Navy,
    “ Commander United States Naval Force Pacific Station?
    
    Y. He proceeded to the Naval Academy, passed sucess-fully his final examination, and, the 15th day of June, 1883, received the following certificate from the Academic Board, to wit:
    “ We, the Academic Board of the United States Naval Academy, having thoroughly examined Naval Cadet James D. Crenshaw on all subjects, theoretical and practical, taught at this institution, and having found him proficient in each, do hereby, in conformity with the law, grant to him this certificate of graduation.
    “ June 15,1883.”
    YI. On the 23d day of June, 1883, an order was issued detaching him from the Naval Academy, as follows:
    “Navy Department,
    “ Bureau oe Navigation and Oeeioe oe Detail,
    “ Washington, June 23, 1883.
    “ Sir : You are hereby detached from the Naval Academy. Proceed home and regard yourself awaiting orders.
    “By direction of the Secretary of the Navy.
    “ Respectfully,
    “J. E. Waller,
    “ Chief of Bureau?
    
    YII. On the 26th day of June, 1883, an order was issued purporting to discharge him from service, as follows :
    “Sir: Having successfully completed your six years’course at the United States Naval Academy, and having been given a certificate of graduation by the Academic Board, but not being required to fill any vacancy in the service happening during the year preceding your graduation, you are hereby discharged from the 30th of June, 1883, with one year’s sea pay, as prescribed by law for cadet midshipmen, in accordance with the provisions of the act approved August 5, 1882.
    “ Respectfully,
    “ W. E. Chandler,
    “ Secretary of the Navy.
    
    
      “ Naval Cadet James D. Crenshaw,
    
      UU. 8. Navy?
    
    
      VIII. Since the date of that order he has not been called upon to do duty, and has not received any pay except that credited on his claim.
    IX. The certificate given at the end of the academic course at the Academy, in June, 1881, to cadet midshipmen and cadet engineers was identical, with the exception that in the case of the former the certificate contained the words “ preparatory to the two years’ course afloat.” The claimant received one year’s pay credited on his claim.
    
      Mr. H. 0, Claughton for the claimant;
    
      Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Howard for the defendant.
   Weldon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant alleges that on the 10th of June, 1881, he completed the four years’ course of instruction at the United .States Naval Academy, graduated therefrom as a cadet midshipman, and entered into active service. That on the 30th of June, 1883, after two years’ active service at sea, he completed his graduation as a midshipman¡ from that time until June 26, 1883, he was entitled as midshipman on waiting orders to pay at the rate of $600 per annum, and from the 26th of June to compensation at $800 per annum and rations.

It is then alleged for the services thus rendered, on the 1st day of July, 1888, he was entitled to the sum of $4,733.66, that he has been paid the sum of $950, leaving a balance of $3,783.66, and for that amount this suit is prosecuted.

The findings show in substance the following state of facts : The petitioner was appointed cadet-midshipman in September, 1877, at the Naval Academy, pursued a course of study of four years, and received a certificate to that effect on the 10th of June, 1881.

On the 2d of June, 1881, he was detached from said Academy and ordered home on waiting orders. On the 25th of August, 1881, he was ordered to sea, served on the Pensacola until the 14th day of March, 1883, when he was detached from the same and ordered to report to Annapolis for examination. He passed his final examination under said order, and on the 23d of June, 1883, an order was issued detaching him from said Academy and ordering him home. On the 26th of June, 1883, an order was issued discharging him from the service, and since the date of said order he has not been required to perform any duty.

This case presents the same questions determined in the Harmon Case (23 C. Cls. E.., 406). In that case all the questions were most elaborately discussed, both in the trial and on a motion for a rehearing, and are examined at some considerable length in the opinion.

The case of Orambs (23 C. Cls. R., 420) may be cited to sustain the doctrine announced in Harmon’s Case.

The judgment of the court is that the petition be dismissed.  