
    JOHN M. HITE v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [41 C. Cls. R., 256; 204 U. S. R., 343.]
    
      On the defendants’ Appeal.
    
    The act 4th May, 1898, authorizes the President, in case of an exigency, to appoint officers from civil life to serve “ only during the continuance of the exigency under which their services are required in the existing ioar." The President appoints the claimant as assistant engineer in the Navy. He serves at sea during the war with Spain beyond the limits of the United States. After the war ends by the signature of the treaty of Paris he is detached from his vessel and ordered to his home, and in five days is discharged. The question in the ease is whether he was entitled to his two months’ extra pay as sea pay or as waiting-orders pay.
    The court below decides :
    1. An engineer in the Navy appointed to serve only during the exigency of the war with Spain under the Act J/th May, 1S9S (30 Stat. U., p. 369), who was detached from his vessel after the treaty of Paris and ordered to his home preparatory to his discharge was entitled to two months’ extra sea pay.-
    
      2. To hold that an officer detached from his vessel and ordered to . his home to be discharged five days later was only entitled to waiting-orders pay would be too narrow a construction of the Act 2(1 March, 1899 (30 Stat. L., p. 1228), to carry out and effect the intent of Congress.
    3. As the two months’ extra pay was given because of creditable service beyond the limits.of the United States during the war with'Spain, officers so serving became entitled upon discharge to the same pay which they were receiving when their services ceased.
    The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.
    February 25, 1907.
   Mr. Chief Justice Fuller

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court  