
    WINSLOW ALLDERDICE v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 13783.
    Decided May 12, 1884.]
    
      On the Facts.
    
    An officer at a foreign station receives an order stating that his resignation is accepted to take effect on his “ arrival in the United States," and directing him to proceed to New York, and report by letter the date of his arrival. The officer travels by another route, entering the United States at San Francisco. He reports the reasons for so doing, and the Secretary approves his action and orders that his resignation take effect the day of his arrival in New-York.
    I.It has been the policy of the government to restore an officer to his residence before discharging him from its service; and a journey for that purpose by authority of the Secretary of the Navy is a matter of public obligation “ and on public business " within the meaning of the Act 30th June, 1876 (19 Stat. L., p. 65, ch. 157).
    II.Where a naval officer satisfies the Secretary of the Navy that a route traveled by him was proper amid the circumstances, ratification was as effective as antecedent authority.
    III.Where the manifest intent of an order is that a resignation shall take effect when the officer, traveling from a foreign station, arrives in the port of New York, that effect should be given to it.
    
      The Reporters'1 statemeut of the case:
    This action the claimant brought by the voluntary filing of Ms petition. The following are the facts as found by the court:
    I. The claimant, being then an officer in the Navy, attached to the Wachusett, was'directed by the following order from the Navy Department to proceed to New York, he being at the receipt thereof at Valparaiso, Chili:
    “ Navy Department,
    
      u Washington, 8 March, 1880.
    “ Sir : Your letter of the 21 J anuary last, tendering your resignation as an ensign in the Navy, has been received, and your resignation is hereby accepted, to take effect on your arrival in the United States.
    “ On the receipt hereof, or as soon thereafter as it may be convenient for you to take passage in the mail steamer to New York, you will consider yourself as detached from the Wachu-sett, and will proceed to New York, reporting by letter to the Department the date of your arrival, and also the date of your detachment from the Wachusett.
    “ The fleet paymaster, or the paymaster of the Wachusett, is authorized to furnish you transportation under these orders.
    “ Respectfully,
    “R. W. Thompson,
    
      “Secretary of the Navy.
    
    “ Ensign Winslow Allderdice,
    
      UU. S. Str. Wachusett, South Atlantic Station,”
    II. The claimant proceeded to New York via Panama and San Francisco, and his traveling by said route the Secretary of the Navy approved by the following order:
    “Navy Department,
    “ Washington, December 17,1880.
    “ Sir : Your letter of the 25 th of October last, with inclosures, claiming transportation or mileage from San Francisco to your home, and reciting the circumstances under which you deviated from the course prescribed in the Department’s order to you of the 8th of March last, for your return to the United States, is received.
    “In accepting your resignation abroad, it was the intention of the department that you should reach your home without expense to yourself, and upon consideration of the difficulties and dangers which might have been encountered by strictly following the route prescribed in your orders, it is of opinion that your action in returning via San Francisco was justifiable, and it therefore meets with the approval of the department.
    “ The inclosures contained in your letter are herewith returned.
    “ Ver.y respectfully,
    “R. W. Thompson,
    “ Secretary of the Navy.
    
    “Mr. Winslow Allderdice.”
    
      III. The distance so traveled was 10,757 miles. For his traveling expenses via Panama and San Francisco, the claimant received $507.80, leaving, at 8 cents a mile for the distance actually traveled, a balance of $352.76.
    IY. The claimant had arrived in-New York via San Francisco, August 31, 1880. The Secretary of the Navy thereupon modified the terms of his previous order accepting the claimant’s resignation so that the acceptance should take effect August 31, 1880, the day of his arrival in New York.
    
      Mr. John P. Jones and Mr. Robert B. Bines for the claimant.
    
      Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Siihons for the defendants.
   Nott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Although the purpose of the claimant’s journey was to resign and leave the service, yet, nevertheless, it was the duty, as it-was the intention, of the Secretary of the Navy to restore the officer to his residence before the' resignation should take effect. Such has been the policy of the government with regard to soldiers and sailors. The journey, therefore, was a matter of public obligation, and to that extent on public business, and for such journeys mileage was allowed to naval officers.

The claim, however, was rejected at the Treasury upon the grounds, first, that the claimant' had not returned by the shortest route, and, second, that his resignation had been accepted to take effect upon his arrival in this country, and hence that it took effect when he reached San Francisco.

As to the first objection it is answered by the Secretary’s ratification of the course which the claimant pursued. The claimant satisfied the Secretary that the route chosen by him was proper amid the circumstances, and ratification was as effective as antecedent authority.

As to the second objection it is, we think, Manifest that the Secretary’s order prescribed this in form rather than in effect. It indeed said that the resignation would take effect when the claimant should arrive in the United States, but it forthwith proceeded to direct him to arrive in the United States at the port of New York. If the claimant’s vessel had been driven ashore on the coast of Alaska it could not well be said that that was an arrival within the United States within the true intent of the Secretary’s order. And the claimant’s arrival at another point on the Pacific coast was hardly less involuntary. The subsequent order of the Secretary changed the terms of the first, but left its manifest intent the same, and gave to it the effect originally intended.

The judgment of the court is that the claimant recover of the defendants the sum of $352.76.  