
    LYMAN B. PERKINS v. THE UNITED STATES.
    (20 C. Cls. R., 438; 116 U. S. R., 483.)
    
      On the defendants’ Appeal.
    
    The Secretary of the Navy, in 1883, assumes to discharge, under the aot 5th August, 1882, a naval cadet who graduated in 1881 as cadet-engineer. The cadet declines the one year’s sea pay tendered by the discharge, and maintains that the Secretary acted without authority of law.
    The court below decides—
    (1.) The general power of removal from office, as incident to the power of appointment, is curtailed by the Revised Statutes, section 1229, which declares that “ no officer in the military or naval service shall, in time of peace, be dismissed from service except upon and in pursuance of the sentence of a eourt-martial,” &e.
    
      (2.) A naval cadet-engineer was an officer entitled to the benefit of the * Revised Statutes, section 1229.
    (3.) The constitutional authority in Congress to vest the appointment of inferior officers in the heads of Departments implies authority to limit, restrict, and regulate their removal.
    (4,) The heads of Departments have ho constitutional prerogative of appointment, and, their power being derived from legislation, must be governed thereby.
    (5.) The discharge of a cadet-engineer by the Secretary of the Navy in 1883, under a mistaken construction of the Aot 5th August, 1882 (22 Stat. L., 284), and contrary to the Revised Statutes, section 1229, was void. 'The officer, not having accepted the discharge, remains , in office and may recover the pay thereof.
    The judgment of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds. This sustains also the opinions of the Court of Claims in Le opold’s Case (18 C. CIs. R., 546) and Redgrave’s Case (20 id., 226).
   Mr. Justice Matthews,

January 25, 1886, delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, which, after quoting the exact language of the court below, concludes: “We adopt their views, and affirm the judgment of the Court of Claims.”  